<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/12/18 9:59 PM, Javier Rua wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59B09F4C-7681-4026-BD48-8CC6D2FD6637@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
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. <br>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Does ALAC leadership really want to do so? Sorry for the
cynicism, but it is not very useful to discuss and propose things
when the opportune time for them has passed, in fact just passed,
like the IANA transition process....</p>
<p>No, ICANN as it is today and ICANN with UN are not the only tw
option, and you yourself speak of Red Cross like option. So, let
me ask this group this simple question: When some of us were
fighting in the jurisdiction sub group to just get ICANN immunity
from US jurisdiction under US's own International Organisations
Immunity Act, what was ALAC doing? Why did it not support such a
proposal, or even discuss it here (can you believe it!!!)... That
was just the - Red Cross like institution proposal, that you now
mention... And indeed the US has given jurisdictional immunities
to international organisational as mundane as the International
Fertilizer Development Centre, and this option actually figures
in a study commissioned by ICANN itself... <br>
</p>
<p>Can ALAC leadership, or at least those engaged in this current
debate, explain why ALAC/they took no stand at that time, when
many of us were fighting for it, and made to look like
disruptionist extremists, for merely seeking that US gives ICANN
immunity under its own law, as Red Cross has from Switzerland
state? <br>
</p>
<p>In the circumstances, such navel gazing as being done in this
thread, in these private times and spaces, when nothing real is
done, or perhaps meant to be done, does not at all seem serious to
me -- with apology again for the cynicism ...</p>
<p>The problem with ALAC is, it simply does not understand what is
it to represent the 'outsider' to an institutional structure...
Which is what civil society formations do... ALAC does it by first
asserting that it is not civil society, but somehow represents
'individual users' (Like Thatcher said: "there is no society",
meaning there are only individuals)... This is a funny, and
certainly a politically disingenuous distinction ... What does
farmer organisations, or traders or women's organisations do --
they also represent individuals, right, not some special
different kind of aggregate organisms..... <br>
</p>
<p>Being civil society is to clearly put itself out of power
structures, as being subject to the power of these structures and
not exercising them in any meaningful way, and certainly not as is
their legitimate right to do. Once a formation places itself in
such a position, it then brings to bear a set of tools and
weapons, which are special ones that those denied due power use
against those who exercise it. This is the ideal type -- of course
any instances of it vary, even varying for the sme formation
across time and space. <br>
</p>
<p>But ALAC likes work within a narrow penumbra of space and
freedoms that it almost fearfully allocates to itself, constantly
second guessing ICANN Board's, and behind it the US government's,
comfort zones . And why it did not even discuss the proposal for
jurisdictional immunity under the said US law (with ICANN staying
exactly as it is, and only saved from undue US interferences which
would just given us non USians a little feel of freedom and
democracy) was that it would havr made ICANN board and the US
government angry and unhappy with it... If someone has a better
reason I am all ears..</p>
<p>parminder</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59B09F4C-7681-4026-BD48-8CC6D2FD6637@gmail.com">
<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 style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255,
0);" color="#000000"><a
href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua"
style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">ocl@gih.com</a></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span><<a
href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span> <<a
href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a></span><br>
<span><a
href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">http://atlarge.icann.org</a></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a>
At-Large Official Site: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>