<div dir="auto">What is clear from reading these conversations is that most understand that ICANN is configured to at least give a nod to something we characterise as the "public interest" but resolved not to have too much of that. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The tent is accommodating only to certain tolerable limits. And the institutional tendency then tilts relentlessly towards containment.</div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We are severally agreed that we believe an ICANN 3.0 is good and necessary for institutionalising what we perceive as the public interest.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We are severally agreed that the ALAC must become more strategic in aiding the birth of ICANN 3.0. This is shorthand for the institutional framework we deem appropriate to conserve the public interest and thereafter in advocating and defending the public interest as we conceive that to be.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We are severally agreed that in these endeavours, there are natural allies and by the purely happy fortune of a shared objective. Our permanent interests demand that we, time to time, have friends for show and make common cause to advance our agenda. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Money shalp always be an issue; we will never have an assured supply or enough of it. So tactical choices might require some concessions to contra forces.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Seems to me there is enough there there to make a move.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">-Carlton.</div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, 2:24 pm Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Evan,<br>
<br>
thank you for your kind answer to my comments. Please be so kind to
find my comments inline:<br>
<br>
<div class="m_5751634866689518250moz-cite-prefix">On 11/12/2018 04:06, Evan Leibovitch
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Hi
Olivier,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Before I
answer your question, I want to remind others in this thread
that I do not consider ALSs a joke. I consider the structure
of ALAC that depends on ALSs to be wasteful, needlessly
cumbersome, and a practical obstacle to ALAC's ability to
credibly fulfill its bylaw mandate.<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> You make several
allegations. Please clarify:<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">One person's observations are
another's allegations :-)</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">To be honest, I am pleasantly
surprised at the level of engagement in this thread and
the interest in the subject matter. The exercise of
exposing my views such that may be suitably evaluated --
even if ultimately rejected -- is a source of hope.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Everyone is free to expose their views - in fact I would say,
encouraged to expose their view. I do not think that anyone has been
stopped doing this.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">I did not expect the thread to go
long enough to require me to provide a detailed rationale
or plan based on my high-level comments. I will offer
brief answers below which I expect will not satisfy.
Should interest exist, I would be happy to produce a paper
-- a manifesto, if you would -- providing further detail.
I would be even happier if others of like mind would like
to collaborate.<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">The opportunity to raise my issues
and those of others at the Montreal mini-Summit sounds
intriguing. However, I find it quite ironic -- and
supporting my position -- that ICANN will not fund every
ALS to attend, and that At-Large volunteers are expected
sit in judgment of which fraction of At-Large is worthy to
attend. I also would not want to wait until then to start
this engagement. I would propose a series of webinars at
which various views can be aired and discussed in open
chat or email.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I do not think that any of us actually like the fact that we won't
be able to invite all interested participants to Montréal, but
that's what is currently on the table. In the current cost-cutting
climate of ICANN, given the stagnation in income and growing
operations costs, it was either this restricted summit or nothing. I
know that some have argued that we should go back to ICANN and ask
for more, so be able to bring more people to ATLAS III - yet I can
assure you that there are parts of ICANN that have significant
influence and that would oppose this - if only because the ICANN
budget now has to be ratified by the community (a "great" idea that
came from the community at CCWG IANA), which means that whilst the
Board could have exercised its executive powers in the past to
support At-Large, it now has its hands and feet tied, risking a
budget veto. So the summit is "this or nothing". <br>
On the preparation towards ATLAS III, there are plans that a
programme of e-learning plus some Webinars and conference calls,
designed by the community, will pave the way to the Summit, starting
from January 2019. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> - overtly politicized<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">As a democratic process, it has been
my observation that a notable proportion of ALAC members
achieve their position because they are good campaigners
or are well-liked, not because they are best suited to
serve ALAC's obligation to ICANN. I will not give
specifics beyond that in a public forum and others are
welcome to disagree. I will simply state at this point
that when I first came into ALAC I detested the idea that
the NomComm would choose one-third of ALAC; I have fully
changed my mind on that, though I would make some changes
to that process.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Welcome to democracy. You either run a (s)election process within
the community for it to appoints its representatives, or you get an
outside body to do this for you. Doing things internally might
indeed end up as a beauty contest. The risk of the outside body is
that their appointments are a hit and miss: we've had some excellent
appointments made through NomCom, just like we've also had some
where the candidate's expectations were completely different than
the reality of their tasks on the ALAC - which has led to
disappointment on all sides.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> - appears to
superficial airs of importance<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Anyone who has read my writings or
heard me speak, knows that I feel ALAC is far far too
wrapped up in its processes and structures. How many
iterations and rebirths and renames and wasted
person-hours have been attributed to (re-)forming ALAC's
policy working group. (I believe the most recent edition
is the "CPWG".)<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
People come and go and processes remain. In my opinion, it is the
processes that we have developed over years of trial and error, that
make-up the fabric of the multistakeholder model both within
At-Large but also within ICANN. Improving these processes
unfortunately takes time.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">It is IMO an embarrassment that ALAC
even has a separate policy committee, ALAC should *be* the
policy committee and anyone who is not interested in
policy activity shouldn't be on ALAC.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The fact is that not all volunteers participating in At-Large are
interested in, or good at, or have the knowledge to participate
effectively in Policy. The ALAC's two roles are policy &
outreach and some people both have the skills, the interest and the
energy to exclusively do outreach - and I do not see this as being a
problem at all. In fact, I find it derogatory that the only "ROI"
that is applied towards ALAC often is "how much policy work have you
done? How have you been influential in At-Large?" Many of the people
doing outreach on behalf of At-Large have done an amazing job at
demonstrating to their community that ICANN is a viable
multi-stakeholder system that can assume its missions and should not
be replaced by a UN-led initiative. So we all have our place. I just
wish that other parts of ICANN stopped their condescending view that
At-Large should only be judged on policy only. This opens the door
to failure on all counts, as ICANN's work is shared between its
technical mandate, policy definition mandate and diplomatic efforts
to keep the Internet ecosystem being run in a multistakeholder way.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Then there's ALAC's traditional utter
terror of being assertive with an opinion contrary to the
rest of the ICANN momentum:</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">If we rock the boat, will they cut
travel funding?</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">If we rock the boat, will they enable
an At-Large-elected Board member?<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">If we rock the boat, will they refuse
to fund ATLAS ?<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">If we rock the boat, will they refuse
to fund ATLAS2?</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">If we rock the boat, will they refuse
to fund ATLAS3?</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">I cannot think of one point of time
since I joined At-Large 11 years ago where there was not one
form or another of this fear, and its associated chilling
effect on ALAC's ability to truly assert the public
interest.y path.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
To assert that we never rocked the boat is incorrect - but there are
ways to rock the boat. If it means blocking things by obstructing
processes in a non diplomatic way, the only thing that will happen
is that we'll be completely ignored altogether. Nothing in the ICANN
bylaws says that anyone has to listen to us. In the second
accountability and transparency review (ATRT2) we fought to at least
receive an acknowledgement from the Board for our advice - something
which we seldom had in the past and which is now in the ICANN
bylaws. If you are unhappy with the level of influence the ALAC has
in ICANN then complain about the ICANN structure, where the GNSO
makes policy and the ALAC produces non-binding advice. In the past,
ICANN went from ICANN 1.0 to ICANN 2.0 when the open election
process showed its limits. That was triggered by very strong
external forces across and outside ICANN, including a number of
senior people and organisations. Perhaps is it time to look at ICANN
again and turn the tables around again, recognising the limited of
the current SOAC structure and designing something new where the end
user, the community, is again at the centre of ICANN and the
decisions are not made by parties that are deeply conflicted in that
they have a direct financial benefit from some of the policies they
are developing themselves.<br>
But that sort of exercise would require the support of more than
just our ALAC or a sprinkling of Board members. The shift from ICANN
1.0 to ICANN 2.0 was triggered by a feeling that ICANN was unstable
and needed some stability - and had the support of the then CEO,
some Board members, and some significant governments and
organisations that had significant influence. Today the situation is
different: most of the influential parties would say that they are
satisfied with the current structure and that it is stable - never
mind the lack of public interest, which some allege is actually just
a perception since there is no such thing as the public interest in
their eyes - it's just a set of tick-box scenarios. So if you want
to do this, then may I suggest that you go out there campaigning
with the right people, the right governments, the right contracted
parties, the right private sector, the right technical community and
the right civil society that will accompany you in this cause. I am
not saying it is impossible - all I am saying is that this road is
challenging to follow and requires a lot of work and a lot of
allies.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Would I sacrifice ATLAS3 if ALAC could
honestly and vocally change ICANN to follow the public
interest? In a heartbeat. But I suspect that is a very
unpopular PoV; boy do we we love our U-shaped tables and
"for the transcript record" assertions and the Board
actually sharing a room with us for an hour of uselessness
at each ICANN meeting.</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">(As if anyone gives a damn about the
transcripts, wherever they are...)<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
C'mon Evan - some meetings of the ALAC with the Board have indeed
been terrible, and I have probably led several of these back in the
day, whereas I might have to take some blame about the failures. But
since then, the relationship with the Board has improved a lot.
However, there is this systemic hurdle which I allude to in the
above paragraphs, which means that since Board members cannot push
for things now, for fear of having a budget rejected, or worse
still, being kicked out of the Board by the community. Wonderful
community powers.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">I would disagree with
the first two of your allegations and when it comes to the
third point, I would say that you are missing the actual
target: it is not the ALAC that is impotent in regard to
service its bylaw mandate, it is the ICANN structure that
puts the ALAC in a weak position as an advisory role that
the ICANN Board can completely disregard and with no power
whatsoever over policy processes, except taking part in
discussions as individuals and coordinating the sending
out of comments.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">I am specifically addressing what I
call the "who the hell are you" phenomenon that occurs any
time that ALAC expresses an opinion that goes against the
corporate inertia. "You don't speak for anyone but
yourselves, why should we listen to you?". This objection
successfully stymies what little activist ALAC commentary
actually gets produced.<br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">This is by design of ICANN with the
acquiescence of ALAC. We *could* should we choose actually
ask the whole world what it thinks is important about the
DNS; instead we play futile diversity games that gloss
over the fact that the 25 At-Largers in the room at ICANN
meets (well, the ones that engage in policy) are only
doing their collective best guess at the public interest.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If you want to kill your dog, declare that it has rabies. The "who
the hell are you" argument is a cheap way, used to weaken our
arguments and is a blow below the belt. Who the hell are they to
point the finger? <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Have you read the
At-Large review? I see from your point above that you have
not. I am sorry but you are just repeating the very words
of the At-Large review. And these were rejected by the
community, an alternative wording was proposed and this
was accepted by the Board and now going into
implementation.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">I don't see the current ALAC
acknowledging the weakness of the ALS infrastructure, the
lack of emphasis on public education, or any attempt to
take ALAC beyond continuing to guess at the public
interest.</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">As others have said, the outside
reviewers were ham-handed and ignorant of what ALAC really
is or needs to be. That doesn't mean they couldn't
accidentally be right on occasion. I don't know the
rationale behind what they proposed but am happy to make
mine.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The At-Large Review implementation document has recognised that the
reviewers were right and solutions have been proposed for
implementation - and approved by the ICANN Board.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Second, I am utterly
flabbergasted to read the point you make about reducing
travel and investing more into virtual meeting
technologies. You are the first person to know how
terrible and expensive Internet connectivity is in many
developing countries and your point is basically to
promote the voice of developed countries at the expense of
the rest of the world. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Hardly. Tech has advanced by leaps
and bounds, yet ICANN continues to saddle us with
generations-old crap like Adobe Connect and Adigo. Let
ALAC have more control over its choice of tools; give the
TTF a budget to pick the best tools and have ICANN
implement them based on the criteria we need.</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">(In my own org, new generations of
tools such as WebRTC and Zoom are particularly good with
nodes of poor connectivity. Don't knock it till you've
tried it... I have. We have other proofs of concept such
as the ISOC InterConnect teleconference that seem pretty
inclusive to me. And I note that at least one RALO has
abandoned Skype in favour of WhatsApp for its internal
chats.)<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Judith has responded to this and she is 100% right. We now have
operational experience that the current tools used are better suited
for our purpose than alternative tools.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">I would also concentrate ALAC activity
in ONLY three areas:<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"></span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again, exact wordings given in the At-Large review,
basically transforming the ALAC into a free, volunteer
marketing agency for ICANN.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Doing public education on the
dangers of DNS abuse, or the differences between gTLDs and
ccTLDs, whether to buy defensive domains, or the ways to
address phishing or report abuse to law enforcement ...
constitutes marketing for ICANN?</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">The main issue that ALAC needs total
independence in the content of the education campaigns (so
long as it's in scope), the crafting of questions on the
surveys and R&D, and the analysis of the results of
said research.</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Without such total independence you
are right, it's a propaganda machine. But properly used it
can alert the public to dangers and problems that ICANN
might want hidden.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
OK - thanks for the explanation. How do you propose this is funded?
ICANN has slashed the Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) budgets.
Our own additional budget request envelope has been slashed. CROP
has been slashed. Where do you propose we find the money to do this
properly?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Evan, have your
expectations of the multistakeholder system in ICANN
fallen so low that you are giving up bringing the input of
end users into the ICANN processes? This is the primary
role of At-Large! <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Domain names subtract value from the
Internet, speculation and abuse and shakedowns are
rampant, the Board has claimed unilateral rights to the
auction proceeds (the issue that started this tread),
gaming of every process is rampant, ICANN refuses to play
regulator, and we're headed inevitably for a new round
before we know if the last one served the public interest.</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">So actually, yeah my expectations
are that low. To me these days, ICANN's approach to
multi-stakeholderism is best described as "there's no such
thing as conflict of interest so long as you declare". The
inmates are running the asylum and only money talks. ALAC
is usually too timid to assert real change, and when we do
we get shut down for not being able to prove we speak for
the public.</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">My proposals offer an alternative
path to fulfilling ICANN's bylaw mandate, with which I am
quite familiar.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
See above - I am glad to see we are starting to agree that what we
need to focus on is ICANN, not At-Large or ALAC.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Now if you are
looking at having a group that is there to correct fake
news about ICANN, end users and the multistakeholder
model, then why not join the At-Large Social Media working
group?
<a class="m_5751634866689518250m_-5080716954959520502moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Social+Media+Working+Group" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Social+Media+Working+Group</a><br>
I see you are listed, but have not confirmed your
membership.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">That's because someone may have
volunteered me for the job but obviously I haven't taken it.
And as I have indicated about, I would not participate in
any communications activity that could not truthfully and
independently protect the public against the consequences of
ICANN policies. This WELL beyond countering fake news.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Welcome back, Evan! I hope you and others who are lurking on the
At-Large mailing list, including influential old timers that used to
be very active and now feel jaded... and who post every now and
then, will fully take part in the social media working group and the
consolidate policy working group - where some real work takes place
to improve our influence and defend the interests of end users. As
for ICANN 3.0 - it's only by speaking about it that we can gain the
buy-in from all parties.<br>
<br>
It's a constant struggle to make something out of mud at the
grassroots.<br>
<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
At-Large mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" rel="noreferrer 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 noreferrer" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a></blockquote></div>