<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large">Parminder:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large">See my reponses inline.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large"></div><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><br>==============================<br>Carlton A Samuels<br>Mobile: 876-818-1799<br><i><font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i><br>=============================</div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 2:57 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Thanks to all who have engaged with this
discussion.<br>
<br>
I will try and pull together my response in a single email.<br>
<br>
I see two kinds of responses. One, from what I understand are
people who seem to be close to leadership positions in ALAC, which
centre on the argument that a membership model as currently
proposed by the CCWG is likely to (further?) put ICANN processes
in control of powerful commercial interests, especially of the DN
industry. The second set of responses are from those who are
relatively on the periphery of the ALAC power structure, or at
least seem to like to identify themselves as so. The main
proposition here is: they are outraged but feel helpless, and have
sort of given up. In any case, for them, the matter may not be of
that great an importance. <br>
<br>
Before I respond to these two kinds of responses, which appear
rather opposed to one another and strange to be coming from the
same group which fact itself suggests some level of
dysfunctionality of the group,</font></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large">The At-Large has never been a single position community and as long as I have caucused here, plurality has always been encouraged. The idea that the ALAC - as the representative body of the At-Large to the ICANN community - should always be in lockstep is even for me, way too bolshevik a contemplation.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana"> I may summarily observe that one
thing that is common to the two is that they both represent a
rather problematic abdication of responsibility by a group that is
officially the representative of the users and the 'real Internet
community' in the ICANN system. </font></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">I think this mischaracterises the situation. I think it is barely fair to say the At-Large represents the interest of 'ordinary internet users' the <a href="http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm">1.563B</a> in Asia, for example. I say this to say none of the mechanisms developed over time to take the temperature of the internet user community works all that well. There is very little real participation by the mass of users so we tend to follow our instincts on what matters. The IANA transition is one issue that has VERY little traction in the internet user community. I hesitate to accept the mantle of designated martyr; way too religion-tinged. And I personally do not believe in fighting unwinnable wars. In the end, most users want to get to the Internet for a small fee...or free of charge. And, for each of us to use it to connect and reach all of us.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline"><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">If one is abdicating, one should
do it properly by declaring so and vacating the space. This
abdication however proceeds without vacating the space. And for
people and groups to both keep occupying the 'representative
spaces' and abdicating responsibility at the same time is a double
whammy that I find very worrisome.</font></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">Yessir. So, step up and represent. And by represent I mean study the issues, develop a position and advocate that position to others in At-Large and the wider ICANN community for adoption. Even better, get a few more like you to engage. I can say the ALAC and those near to it - have tried with decidedly mixed success to date.</div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline"> Any additional firepower you can bring would be enormously helpful.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana"> More about that later, but let
me first respond separately to the two kinds of arguments.<br>
<br>
First about the argument that a membership based model as
currently proposed is such that it will lead to capture of ICANN
processes by DN industry related commercial interests. Very
interesting! And I wholly agree with the spirit behind it.... But
my question to Olivier and Alan, and others who support thier
contention, is simple and straightforward; how do you then accept
the fact that the most important policy work - as the most
political pubic function - that ICANN does, which is GTLD related
policy development, is done by the same group which you now say is
captured by commercial interests.</font></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">The policy development process is mischaracterised here. The support organisations - xxNSO - advance policy strictures to the Board that the Board can accept wholly or in part. They may also choose to ask for advice from the advisory organisations like the ALAC or SSAC. It is more the case that the advisory organisations provide unsolicited advice to the Board. Here's the principle that is usually missing. The Board is not obliged to implement every advice or policy stricture proposed. By law, regulation and practice they have an obligation to make up their own minds in furtherance of the corporation. And so long as ICANN remain a California corporation that is the way it will be. The fundamental issue to understand is that domicile and the legal environment in which ICANN exist imposes certain fealties.</div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline"> That is the big change that will not likely happen.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana"> I havent ever heard you opposing
that fundamental pillar of ICANN - but please do correct me if I
am wrong. (In fact, the biggest screw up under the influence of
commercial interests that the GNSO ever did which was about
allowing 'closed generics' which was never appropriately opposed
by ALAC.)<br></font></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">It is easy to support generics and I do. I am yet to hear a compelling contra argument for closed generics, especially as they are configured within the current domain name ecosystem. Matter of fact I thought it would have been a great opportunity to disrupt the registry/registrar/ICANN tandem...and perhaps drive some unforeseen market innovations.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">
<br>
Can you please explain how are you fine with the same group
(commercial interests captured, as per you, and I agree) can
undertake domain name policy development, but it is not ok for
that group, in association with ALAC and GAC (two groups which,
whatever their other faults, certainly serve to balance against
commercial interests), to undertake oversight over the board,
which is supposed to be a role that gets activated only in
exceptional circumstances, and by design is supposed to just keep
people with executive power on their toes rather than be acting
often. Preferably, they never need to act, as US did not, I mean
mostly, which does not mean that the oversight hang was not there,
and not doing its work. <br>
<br>
Making the question shorter to be clear: How are you ok with
commercial capture of a/the policy making function in iCANN, but
not of the same groups (esp GNSO) associating with others in an
oversight role? <br></font></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">See above. The policy-making ecosystem is a little more complex than that. And if you've ever worked a chartered working group where the policies are defined, you would see significant opportunities to influence. </div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the working group is the place to put limited At-Large resources if this community truly want to influence policy. This is where the voluntary At-Large is disadvantaged. Because we are working generally with folks who are paid to be there. And, too few of us are there at the ground floor working hard while others hardly work.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">We could use a man versed in argument and bringing the perspectives that you could to the chartered working groups.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">
<br>
In any case, if indeed you do think the Board needs oversight, and
it should be by a group that is as closely representative as
possible of the global public or the Internet community, rather
than commercial interest dominated, lets first agree on these
principles. Do we agree? And then from there arrive at what we
want, and what the ALAC should seek. Since a membership based
model is so much more public (and thus closer to ownership by the
internet community - I mean the real one)</font></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">I actually believe that the membership model as proposed will marginalize those of us already at the edge of empire even more so.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana"> than a board-centric
corporate model, we should certainly be asking for a membership
based structure, but seek a different way of populating that
membership. Let ALAC develop a position on that, and it is indeed
the responsibility of the people in ALAC's leadership positions to
guide ALAC towards such a position. Representing those who are
outside the relevant power configuration, in this case ordinary
Internet users, is almost a sacred responsibility, and it does not
get fulfilled by opposing proposals that cause at least some
dispersal of power citing obscure, unsubstantiated, reasons, which
simply do not square. <br></font></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">Yeah. But reality check. The United States government says we want to transition. And they gave a red-lined pre-requisite as the only acceptable endgame. Surely you're politically astute enough to understand how that works!</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">
<br>
I myself want a membership structure for ICANN oversight that goes
towards new innovations that can include ordinary Internet users
in some way, as much as practically possible. </font></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">Oh yes, what is 'practically possible' is indeed the thing. See above.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">The ALAC structure
if properly developed seem the best candidate for it. Lets be bold
and propose what we want to propose, rather than getting caught in
power shenanigans.</font></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">I should be obliged to know how the ALAC could accrete some powere while escaping the existing 'power shenanigans', even while standing aloof above them.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana"> I am ready to work with you on this. Let the
ALAC community assert itself. It may look powerless but that is
because it has made itself so... It is in my view the most
powerful part of ICANN if we really look towards and connect to
where its power and legitimacy comes from - the people, rather
than getting bogging down in high power games, and manipulative
handling of those who exercise power, and repeatedly keep
expressing powerlessness</font></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">Without the leverage recognized by Chairman Mao, I would be obliged to know how you would approach the entities now with power to cede power to a relatively powerless ALAC</div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">... And if not upto this challenge, vacate
the space, say ALAC is structurally not working - ALAC cannot keep
giving the ICANN system the legitimacy that it professes vis a vis
the global Internet community. <br>
<br>
This already brings me to my reply to the other kind of responses
that my provocation evoked - of helplessness, desperation and
dis-interest. But dear sirs, you are ocuppying the ALAC space and
providing the ICANN system its most important source of
legitimacy.</font></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">I agree somewhat with you here. The fig leaf of the global public interest could always be removed but that has a very short halflife. So expect a little short-lived impact. I have always thought one reason the ICANN community comes built with the tension of who are the representatives - the ALAC or GAC? - of the 'global public interest' is to make this outcome so much less likely.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana"> You have the power, you just do not exercise it. Do
you think civil society groups fighting climate injustice, trade
and intellectual property injustice, disability and gender
injustice, and so on, have a less challanging job than yours. But
I never hear them say things that I hear from you - we have given
up, and even, now mostly see it all as a some kind of
entertainment. This last is almost blasphemous to say - you are in
this on the behalf of the most powerless in the world, and the
work that you are abdicating involves power dis-balances and the
opportunity to correct them. </font></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">To be entertained even as you go to the gallows is not an unknown response to adversity. Especially if you know what the end game is.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana"> <br>
<br>
Lastly, those who most surprisingly claim that these issues are
simply not important enough should then tell others why do they
spend time on this area at all... By default they are legitimising
a system, why then they are doing it. Let people do work they
think is important, and they can usefully contribute to, and leave
the space of representation of the interests of ordinary Internet
users in global Internet governance regimes to those who consider
work in this area as important from a public interest point of
view, and are ready to take up the needed struggle.<br>
<br>
No personal offence to anyone please, I am making an entirely
general political argument, for reasons that I consider important
enough to devote some of my time to pursing them.</font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">None taken, my friend. Hope you reciprocate in good humor.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana"> <br><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></font><div><div class="h5"><br>
<div>On Sunday 11 October 2015 04:17 AM,
Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Parminder,
<br>
<br>
I have been otherwise occupied most of today, and so others have
already replied and given a number of perspectives.
<br>
<br>
Although I am the ALAC Chair, what follows is being said purely on
my own behalf.
<br>
<br>
At-Large has been far from aloof in this debate. You are correct
that we have not contributed hundreds of posts to the mailing list
over the last few days, but I think that speaks more to our
self-control than anything else. We have been very clear in our
formal comments, and we have been very active in the sub-groups
refining the CCWG proposal.
<br>
<br>
You are also correct that we have not been among the "firebrands"
who have been advocating more radical community control over the
ICANN Board. This is not accidental, and there are several reasons
for this.
<br>
<br>
1. The position we have taken is not that of a single person.
There has been a large and active At-Large community involved. The
positions we have arrived at have been hotly debated and refined
over the months. This does not necessarily make them better than
some other position, but I feel strongly that they do represent
the vast majority of those in our community who have chosen to be
involved in this process.
<br>
<br>
2. It is easy to identify specific cases where ICANN Boards have
made what I believe to be poor decisions. In at lease some cases,
they have later agreed that perhaps some other path should have
been followed, so this is clearly a learning process. The Board
can also be cited for being less diverse and representative of the
entire world or Internet users than it might be. But from my
perspective, thanks partly to the good work of recent Nominating
Committees, it is far more diverse that some of the constituent
bodies of ICANN. And it is the ONLY body in ICANN that is charged
with protecting the core mission and values of ICANN as documented
in its Bylaws. As such many of us in At-Large feel that it SHOULD
have the ultimate decision on many issues, weighing the
perspectives of the various other stakeholders within ICANN. It is
an essential component that adds balance to the multistakeholder
model.
<br>
<br>
3. If you look at the people and groups that have been advocating
for complete community control over the Board, it is illuminating.
The vast majority of those voices are from the US and, in one form
or another, represent powerful commercial stakeholders who have
much at stake related in the Internet Domain Name System. Is it
any surprise that they want power and control. That does not make
them evil, and many of these people are colleagues and friends.
But it is natural that they will strive to do what is best for
their own communities. Within At-Large, we have regularly taken
the position that, to paraphrase an old (mis)quote, what is best
for General Motors is not necessarily best for Internet users.
<br>
<br>
Alan
<br>
<br>
At 10/10/2015 07:13 AM, parminder wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I cannot but note with considerable
surprise and disappoinment that when
<br>
everyone with any thing ever to do with ICANN is currently hotly
<br>
debating the issue of the stand off between the ICANN board and
CCWG on
<br>
ICANN accountability, ALAC remains so aloof from the issue....
When this
<br>
should prima facie be the one part of the ICANN structure, as
<br>
representing the peripheries, that should be most bothered by
efforts at
<br>
concentration of power, or of holding on it, vis a vis the
rights of
<br>
the public.
<br>
<br>
I have not been able to follow the process closely, but if I am
right
<br>
-and please correct me if I am not - even in the earlier
discussions
<br>
ALAC has been most lukewarm to any kind of structural changes
that could
<br>
indeed place an effective oversight of the 'community' over the
ICANN
<br>
board, when as said ALAC is the one group that should be most
keen on
<br>
institutionalising such checks over centralisation of power with
the
<br>
ICANN board. Can anyone explain me why it is so. It really
intrigues me,
<br>
and I am sure I am missing something here.
<br>
<br>
Thanks, parminder
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
At-Large mailing list
<br>
<a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a>
<br>
<br>
At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
At-Large mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>