<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">2 cents on ICANN 3.0:<div><br></div><div>We all know, of course, that there’s no public international governmental organization nor international treaty, that regulates the global Internet. This governance occurs within the constant conversation between multiple players, the diversity of interest groups, individuals and countless parties deeply interested in the operation of and access to the Internet. We agree, I think, that this is a good thing.<div><br></div><div>We also know there are always important forces objecting to the fundamentally nongovernmental and private character of Internet governance, and they argue that the only logical and legitimate place for these functions should be the United Nations (UN), or one of its specialized agencies, such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). </div><div><br></div><div>ICANN is a dance, a ritual, to keep these to forces in balance to maintain a non-fragmented Internet, as free as possible from purely regional or national considerations, but also duly respecting these. </div><div><br></div><div>Aware of these complexities and tensions, I think we should aspire to a strengthening of the current model: an at-least apparently “transnational”, but fundamentally non-governmental structure with a very specific and widely accepted mandate. It has to be an entity whose credibility is borne of the expert work it performs and the confidence generated by its policies; confidence that must be the result of the transparent and balanced consideration of the diversity of public, commercial and private interests involved, but without being captured by them.</div><div><br></div><div>To further strengthen ICANN’s model and stability, all I would do is nudge it a bit to resemble the International Committee of the Red Cross: a <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit;">private institution founded in generally understood neutral soil, but with some unique</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit;"> recognition or perhaps authority under</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit;"> public international law, that specifically recognizes and builds upon all of the above stated principles. </span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit;"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit;">Among these, I think the idea of the “individual Internet-end user” as having standing and voice in an international/supranational policy context is one of the great innovations and contributions of multistakeholderism, and as such, one that must be a founding principle of any ICANN 3.0. In my view, this is on a par with the rise of the individual person as a subject of public international law, an unthinkable idea less than century ago as it is derived from Universal Human Rights treaties and institutions and part of the necessary weakening of the State-centered Westphalian model. In this sense, ALAC or ALAC-like structures that exist to give non-state-bound Individuals a seat at the policy table must be safeguarded and strengthened in any future ICANN.</span></div><div><br></div><div>Un abrazo a todos, felices fiestas y próspero año nuevo.</div><div><br></div><div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Javier Rúa-Jovet<div><br></div><div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">+1-787-396-6511</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">twitter: @javrua</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">skype: javier.rua1</span></div><div><font color="#000000" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua</a> </font></div><div><br></div></div></div><div><br>On Dec 16, 2018, at 10:35 AM, Christian de Larrinaga <<a href="mailto:cdel@firsthand.net">cdel@firsthand.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>What would ICANN 3.0 look like?</span><br><span></span><br><span>What compelling forces would drive through the changes to move ICANN 2.0</span><br><span>to ICANN 3.0? Bearing in mind that ICANN 2.0 was created because of very</span><br><span>strong interest in commercial exploitation of DNS resources.</span><br><span></span><br><span>With a nod to how At Large is positioned to participate in such a change</span><br><span></span><br><span>C</span><br><span>Carlton Samuels wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>What is clear from reading these conversations is that most understand</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>that ICANN is configured to at least give a nod to something we</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>characterise as the "public interest" but resolved not to have too</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>much of that. </span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>The tent is accommodating only to certain tolerable limits. And the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>institutional tendency then tilts relentlessly towards containment.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>We are severally agreed that we believe an ICANN 3.0 is good and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>necessary for institutionalising what we perceive as the public interest.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>We are severally agreed that the ALAC must become more strategic in</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>aiding the birth of ICANN 3.0. This is shorthand for the institutional</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>framework we deem appropriate to conserve the public interest and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>thereafter in advocating and defending the public interest as we</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>conceive that to be.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>We are severally agreed that in these endeavours, there are natural</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>allies and by the purely happy fortune of a shared objective. Our</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>permanent interests demand that we, time to time, have friends for</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>show and make common cause to advance our agenda. </span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Money shalp always be an issue; we will never have an assured supply</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>or enough of it. So tactical choices might require some concessions</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>to contra forces.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Seems to me there is enough there there to make a move.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>-Carlton.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, 2:24 pm Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">mailto:ocl@gih.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> Dear Evan,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> thank you for your kind answer to my comments. Please be so kind</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> to find my comments inline:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> On 11/12/2018 04:06, Evan Leibovitch wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Hi Olivier,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Before I answer your question, I want to remind others in this</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> thread that I do not consider ALSs a joke. I consider the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> structure of ALAC that depends on ALSs to be wasteful, needlessly</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> cumbersome, and a practical obstacle to ALAC's ability to</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> credibly fulfill its bylaw mandate.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> You make several allegations. Please clarify:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> One person's observations are another's allegations :-)</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> To be honest, I am pleasantly surprised at the level of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> engagement in this thread and the interest in the subject matter.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> The exercise of exposing my views such that may be suitably</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> evaluated -- even if ultimately rejected -- is a source of hope.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> Everyone is free to expose their views - in fact I would say,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> encouraged to expose their view. I do not think that anyone has</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> been stopped doing this.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> I did not expect the thread to go long enough to require me to</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> provide a detailed rationale or plan based on my high-level</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> comments. I will offer brief answers below which I expect will</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> not satisfy. Should interest exist, I would be happy to produce a</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> paper -- a manifesto, if you would -- providing further detail. I</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> would be even happier if others of like mind would like to</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> collaborate.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> The opportunity to raise my issues and those of others at the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Montreal mini-Summit sounds intriguing. However, I find it quite</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> ironic -- and supporting my position -- that ICANN will not fund</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> every ALS to attend, and that At-Large volunteers are expected</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> sit in judgment of which fraction of At-Large is worthy to</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> attend. I also would not want to wait until then to start this</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> engagement. I would propose a series of webinars at which various</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> views can be aired and discussed in open chat or email.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> I do not think that any of us actually like the fact that we won't</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> be able to invite all interested participants to Montréal, but</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> that's what is currently on the table. In the current cost-cutting</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> climate of ICANN, given the stagnation in income and growing</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> operations costs, it was either this restricted summit or nothing.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> I know that some have argued that we should go back to ICANN and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> ask for more, so be able to bring more people to ATLAS III - yet I</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> can assure you that there are parts of ICANN that have significant</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> influence and that would oppose this - if only because the ICANN</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> budget now has to be ratified by the community (a "great" idea</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> that came from the community at CCWG IANA), which means that</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> whilst the Board could have exercised its executive powers in the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> past to support At-Large, it now has its hands and feet tied,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> risking a budget veto. So the summit is "this or nothing".</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> On the preparation towards ATLAS III, there are plans that a</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> programme of e-learning plus some Webinars and conference calls,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> designed by the community, will pave the way to the Summit,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> starting from January 2019.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> - overtly politicized</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> As a democratic process, it has been my observation that a</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> notable proportion of ALAC members achieve their position because</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> they are good campaigners or are well-liked, not because they are</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> best suited to serve ALAC's obligation to ICANN. I will not give</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> specifics beyond that in a public forum and others are welcome to</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> disagree. I will simply state at this point that when I first</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> came into ALAC I detested the idea that the NomComm would choose</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> one-third of ALAC; I have fully changed my mind on that, though I</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> would make some changes to that process.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> Welcome to democracy. You either run a (s)election process within</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> the community for it to appoints its representatives, or you get</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> an outside body to do this for you. Doing things internally might</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> indeed end up as a beauty contest. The risk of the outside body is</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> that their appointments are a hit and miss: we've had some</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> excellent appointments made through NomCom, just like we've also</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> had some where the candidate's expectations were completely</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> different than the reality of their tasks on the ALAC - which has</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> led to disappointment on all sides.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> - appears to superficial airs of importance</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Anyone who has read my writings or heard me speak, knows that I</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> feel ALAC is far far too wrapped up in its processes and</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> structures. How many iterations and rebirths and renames and</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> wasted person-hours have been attributed to (re-)forming ALAC's</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> policy working group. (I believe the most recent edition is the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> "CPWG".)</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> People come and go and processes remain. In my opinion, it is the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> processes that we have developed over years of trial and error,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> that make-up the fabric of the multistakeholder model both within</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> At-Large but also within ICANN. Improving these processes</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> unfortunately takes time.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> It is IMO an embarrassment that ALAC even has a separate policy</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> committee, ALAC should *be* the policy committee and anyone who</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> is not interested in policy activity shouldn't be on ALAC.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> The fact is that not all volunteers participating in At-Large are</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> interested in, or good at, or have the knowledge to participate</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> effectively in Policy. The ALAC's two roles are policy & outreach</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> and some people both have the skills, the interest and the energy</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> to exclusively do outreach - and I do not see this as being a</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> problem at all. In fact, I find it derogatory that the only "ROI"</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> that is applied towards ALAC often is "how much policy work have</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> you done? How have you been influential in At-Large?" Many of the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> people doing outreach on behalf of At-Large have done an amazing</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> job at demonstrating to their community that ICANN is a viable</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> multi-stakeholder system that can assume its missions and should</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> not be replaced by a UN-led initiative. So we all have our place.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> I just wish that other parts of ICANN stopped their condescending</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> view that At-Large should only be judged on policy only. This</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> opens the door to failure on all counts, as ICANN's work is shared</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> between its technical mandate, policy definition mandate and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> diplomatic efforts to keep the Internet ecosystem being run in a</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> multistakeholder way.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Then there's ALAC's traditional utter terror of being assertive</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> with an opinion contrary to the rest of the ICANN momentum:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> If we rock the boat, will they cut travel funding?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> If we rock the boat, will they enable an At-Large-elected Board</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> member?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> If we rock the boat, will they refuse to fund ATLAS ?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> If we rock the boat, will they refuse to fund ATLAS2?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> If we rock the boat, will they refuse to fund ATLAS3?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> I cannot think of one point of time since I joined At-Large 11</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> years ago where there was not one form or another of this fear,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> and its associated chilling effect on ALAC's ability to truly</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> assert the public interest.y path.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> To assert that we never rocked the boat is incorrect - but there</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> are ways to rock the boat. If it means blocking things by</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> obstructing processes in a non diplomatic way, the only thing that</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> will happen is that we'll be completely ignored altogether.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> Nothing in the ICANN bylaws says that anyone has to listen to us.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> In the second accountability and transparency review (ATRT2) we</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> fought to at least receive an acknowledgement from the Board for</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> our advice - something which we seldom had in the past and which</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> is now in the ICANN bylaws. If you are unhappy with the level of</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> influence the ALAC has in ICANN then complain about the ICANN</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> structure, where the GNSO makes policy and the ALAC produces</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> non-binding advice. In the past, ICANN went from ICANN 1.0 to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> ICANN 2.0 when the open election process showed its limits. That</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> was triggered by very strong external forces across and outside</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> ICANN, including a number of senior people and organisations.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> Perhaps is it time to look at ICANN again and turn the tables</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> around again, recognising the limited of the current SOAC</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> structure and designing something new where the end user, the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> community, is again at the centre of ICANN and the decisions are</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> not made by parties that are deeply conflicted in that they have a</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> direct financial benefit from some of the policies they are</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> developing themselves.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> But that sort of exercise would require the support of more than</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> just our ALAC or a sprinkling of Board members. The shift from</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> ICANN 1.0 to ICANN 2.0 was triggered by a feeling that ICANN was</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> unstable and needed some stability - and had the support of the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> then CEO, some Board members, and some significant governments and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> organisations that had significant influence. Today the situation</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> is different: most of the influential parties would say that they</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> are satisfied with the current structure and that it is stable -</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> never mind the lack of public interest, which some allege is</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> actually just a perception since there is no such thing as the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> public interest in their eyes - it's just a set of tick-box</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> scenarios. So if you want to do this, then may I suggest that you</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> go out there campaigning with the right people, the right</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> governments, the right contracted parties, the right private</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> sector, the right technical community and the right civil society</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> that will accompany you in this cause. I am not saying it is</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> impossible - all I am saying is that this road is challenging to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> follow and requires a lot of work and a lot of allies.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Would I sacrifice ATLAS3 if ALAC could honestly and vocally</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> change ICANN to follow the public interest? In a heartbeat. But I</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> suspect that is a very unpopular PoV; boy do we we love our</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> U-shaped tables and "for the transcript record" assertions and</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> the Board actually sharing a room with us for an hour of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> uselessness at each ICANN meeting.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> (As if anyone gives a damn about the transcripts, wherever they</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> are...)</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> C'mon Evan - some meetings of the ALAC with the Board have indeed</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> been terrible, and I have probably led several of these back in</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> the day, whereas I might have to take some blame about the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> failures. But since then, the relationship with the Board has</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> improved a lot. However, there is this systemic hurdle which I</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> allude to in the above paragraphs, which means that since Board</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> members cannot push for things now, for fear of having a budget</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> rejected, or worse still, being kicked out of the Board by the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> community. Wonderful community powers.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> I would disagree with the first two of your allegations and</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> when it comes to the third point, I would say that you are</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> missing the actual target: it is not the ALAC that is</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> impotent in regard to service its bylaw mandate, it is the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> ICANN structure that puts the ALAC in a weak position as an</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> advisory role that the ICANN Board can completely disregard</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> and with no power whatsoever over policy processes, except</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> taking part in discussions as individuals and coordinating</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> the sending out of comments.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> I am specifically addressing what I call the "who the hell are</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> you" phenomenon that occurs any time that ALAC expresses an</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> opinion that goes against the corporate inertia. "You don't speak</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> for anyone but yourselves, why should we listen to you?". This</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> objection successfully stymies what little activist ALAC</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> commentary actually gets produced.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> This is by design of ICANN with the acquiescence of ALAC. We</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> *could* should we choose actually ask the whole world what it</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> thinks is important about the DNS; instead we play futile</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> diversity games that gloss over the fact that the 25 At-Largers</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> in the room at ICANN meets (well, the ones that engage in policy)</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> are only doing their collective best guess at the public interest.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> If you want to kill your dog, declare that it has rabies. The "who</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> the hell are you" argument is a cheap way, used to weaken our</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> arguments and is a blow below the belt. Who the hell are they to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> point the finger?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Have you read the At-Large review? I see from your point</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> above that you have not. I am sorry but you are just</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> repeating the very words of the At-Large review. And these</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> were rejected by the community, an alternative wording was</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> proposed and this was accepted by the Board and now going</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> into implementation.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> I don't see the current ALAC acknowledging the weakness of the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> ALS infrastructure, the lack of emphasis on public education, or</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> any attempt to take ALAC beyond continuing to guess at the public</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> interest.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> As others have said, the outside reviewers were ham-handed and</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> ignorant of what ALAC really is or needs to be. That doesn't mean</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> they couldn't accidentally be right on occasion. I don't know the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> rationale behind what they proposed but am happy to make mine.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> The At-Large Review implementation document has recognised that</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> the reviewers were right and solutions have been proposed for</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> implementation - and approved by the ICANN Board.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Second, I am utterly flabbergasted to read the point you make</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> about reducing travel and investing more into virtual meeting</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> technologies. You are the first person to know how terrible</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> and expensive Internet connectivity is in many developing</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> countries and your point is basically to promote the voice of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> developed countries at the expense of the rest of the world.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Hardly. Tech has advanced by leaps and bounds, yet ICANN</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> continues to saddle us with generations-old crap like Adobe</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Connect and Adigo. Let ALAC have more control over its choice of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> tools; give the TTF a budget to pick the best tools and have</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> ICANN implement them based on the criteria we need.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> (In my own org, new generations of tools such as WebRTC and Zoom</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> are particularly good with nodes of poor connectivity. Don't</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> knock it till you've tried it... I have. We have other proofs of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> concept such as the ISOC InterConnect teleconference that seem</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> pretty inclusive to me. And I note that at least one RALO has</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> abandoned Skype in favour of WhatsApp for its internal chats.)</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> Judith has responded to this and she is 100% right. We now have</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> operational experience that the current tools used are better</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> suited for our purpose than alternative tools.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> I would also concentrate ALAC activity in ONLY three areas:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Again, exact wordings given in the At-Large review, basically</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> transforming the ALAC into a free, volunteer marketing agency</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> for ICANN.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Doing public education on the dangers of DNS abuse, or the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> differences between gTLDs and ccTLDs, whether to buy defensive</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> domains, or the ways to address phishing or report abuse to law</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> enforcement ... constitutes marketing for ICANN?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> The main issue that ALAC needs total independence in the content</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> of the education campaigns (so long as it's in scope), the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> crafting of questions on the surveys and R&D, and the analysis of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> the results of said research.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Without such total independence you are right, it's a propaganda</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> machine. But properly used it can alert the public to dangers and</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> problems that ICANN might want hidden.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> OK - thanks for the explanation. How do you propose this is</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> funded? ICANN has slashed the Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE)</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> budgets. Our own additional budget request envelope has been</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> slashed. CROP has been slashed. Where do you propose we find the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> money to do this properly?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Evan, have your expectations of the multistakeholder system</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> in ICANN fallen so low that you are giving up bringing the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> input of end users into the ICANN processes? This is the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> primary role of At-Large!</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Domain names subtract value from the Internet, speculation and</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> abuse and shakedowns are rampant, the Board has claimed</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> unilateral rights to the auction proceeds (the issue that started</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> this tread), gaming of every process is rampant, ICANN refuses to</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> play regulator, and we're headed inevitably for a new round</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> before we know if the last one served the public interest.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> So actually, yeah my expectations are that low. To me these days,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> ICANN's approach to multi-stakeholderism is best described as</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> "there's no such thing as conflict of interest so long as you</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> declare". The inmates are running the asylum and only money</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> talks. ALAC is usually too timid to assert real change, and when</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> we do we get shut down for not being able to prove we speak for</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> the public.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> My proposals offer an alternative path to fulfilling ICANN's</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> bylaw mandate, with which I am quite familiar.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> See above - I am glad to see we are starting to agree that what we</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> need to focus on is ICANN, not At-Large or ALAC.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Now if you are looking at having a group that is there to</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> correct fake news about ICANN, end users and the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> multistakeholder model, then why not join the At-Large Social</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Media working group?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Social+Media+Working+Group">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Social+Media+Working+Group</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> I see you are listed, but have not confirmed your membership.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> That's because someone may have volunteered me for the job but</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> obviously I haven't taken it. And as I have indicated about, I</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> would not participate in any communications activity that could</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> not truthfully and independently protect the public against the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> consequences of ICANN policies. This WELL beyond countering fake</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> news.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> Welcome back, Evan! I hope you and others who are lurking on the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> At-Large mailing list, including influential old timers that used</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> to be very active and now feel jaded... and who post every now and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> then, will fully take part in the social media working group and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> the consolidate policy working group - where some real work takes</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> place to improve our influence and defend the interests of end</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> users. As for ICANN 3.0 - it's only by speaking about it that we</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> can gain the buy-in from all parties.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> It's a constant struggle to make something out of mud at the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> grassroots.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> Kindest regards,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> Olivier</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> _______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> At-Large mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> <a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> <<a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>At-Large mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>-- </span><br><span>Christian de Larrinaga</span><br><span></span><br><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>At-Large mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a></span></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>