[At-Large] Paris debrief

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

Dear All:

It may be useful for you to know that actually I have heard quite a lot of positive comments about At-Large's work in Paris. There seems to be a widespread view that the community is working harder than in the past and that it is more engaged and constructive with each passing meeting.

For what it is worth, I can say that with respect to the review, I have seen no evidence that there is anything deliberate about the timing of the release of the report from the perspective that you are wondering about below, Evan. What I can say is that there is a larger question, which a number of you discussed in Paris, about the number of simultaneous public consultations that start (and sometimes end) in close proximity to ICANN meetings, making it difficult for anyone to respond in the time allowed. Some steps have been taken to deal with this in respect of some consultations - you will see that at least one of them doesn't end until August.

With respect to the travel policy, you will no doubt recall the statement on the first draft put forward by ALAC with community input. I can tell you that Doug absolutely did read this carefully and he spoke highly to me of the contents and the thoughtfulness it held. I do not know what Board members thought of it - perhaps Wendy will know more.

On the point of reacting very late on the GTLD issue: We discussed this in Paris and everyone acknowledges that more needs to be done earlier to help ensure that all At-Large - and other stakeholder groups - are briefed earlier on issues and that the briefings take formats that are most useful for different groups. We have started to make some progress here I think - the two June briefings for example - and the policy briefs which have started to come out. I know of at least two additional briefings from Dave Piscitello of SSAC which he has said he'd like to arrange and you'll hear more soon.

In summary I guess I would say that to me this seemed like the most effective meeting for the community that I've been a part of. You touched a nerve with your comments on morality and public order and it seemed to me that more than a few people agreed with you and that your statement did change the debate on the subject. I know that there will be many more opportunities for comment on the new GTLD issue as the implementation plans move forward and we will do all we can to ensure that you have the information that you need to decide what you want to say.


On 03/07/2008 18:44, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org> wrote:

Hello everyone,

On behalf of ALSs who didn't go to Paris, and indeed at least some of
those who did, I would like to find out from the various At-Large
attendees how you perceived At-Large's strategies and accomplishments.

We were involved in a number of issues; the Summit, GNSO review, gTLD
creation policy, and of course the ALAC Review. There were first (and in
most cases very productive) meetings with GAC, NCUC, SSAC, GNSO and the
registrar constituency. There was effectively no time to play tourist,
though I do recall driving past the Louvre once or twice.

Smokers will remember Paris as their dream venue, where you could light
up without dirty looks, at least some of the people rolling their own
cigarettes in the street were actually using tobacco. And Sebastien was
as perfect a host as anyone could ask for, right up until the final
evening at "Jimmy the Frog's" (or whatever the French name for it is...).

Yet I cannot come away from the Paris without having felt At-Large to be
the object of some kind of manipulation. I can't tell by how, or quite
how, but it was definitely there. We had zero response on a travel
policy that will certainly negatively affect At-Large's ability to
accomplish its role over the coming years. And while I stand behind the
positions taken on the issues, from a distance I can see how we came
across as shrill and obstructionist.

I am frankly tired of lurching from one panic-based ALAC reaction to
another. It is distressing to see so few members of ALAC shouldering all
the group's policy work. And I would really like, for once, enough
opportunity to understand issues early enough to be able to take
positions that are part of the solution rather than just trying to fix
problems.

Some of this is of ICANN staff's doing, through a pile of trivial little
things that while not technically incorrect _seemed_ designed to keep us
off balance. The timing of the release of the Westlake report seemed
almost deliberately timed to force hasty response during Paris. The
consultants themselves were clearly uncomfortable with the way that
timing played out, and I seem to recall one of them indicating privately
that they would have preferred to consult during Paris and release the
draft docs afterwards. I am especially and thoroughly disgusted with the
manipulation of the public forum, which was stage-managed to the point
of being considerably even more useless than usual. And ICANN's
translation strategy, while having made some improvements is still far
behind what it needs to be for ICANN to go beyond the anglophone world.

Of course At-Large is not without blame as well. The thing Westlake
recommended with which I most agree was for the need of a strategic plan
-- a prioritized list of issues and policies that require our focused
attention and resources, set out enough in advance to give us the
ability to be constructive participants. There are far too few ALAC
members doing work that should be spread around to 15 people. On issues
such as the RAA, my instinct says we should preparing ourselves for work
on this yet I don't even know where to start. And if the involved
people  here don't know the basics upon which to discuss policy, I know
it will be even harder getting ALSs aware (let alone involved). I have
this sneaking suspicion that, sometime in the future, we will be in a
panic situation rush-releasing a response on this too.

Is this just me? Or does At-Large really need to seriously take stock of
its strategies, priorities, and the allocation of our eager-to-help
staff resources? In advance of the Summit I'd really like to see us with
our collective act together better than it is now. Just PLEASE don't
tell me that the response requires a return to obsession with process.

And finally, getting back to the stuff still on the table.

1) It is now up to At-Large to propose _constructive_ reaction to the
ALAC review, that builds upon whatever slivers of it that are agreeable
and offers something of substance to the governance committee.

2) Given that the gTLD thing is a done deal and Twomey is busy
contracting teams of mercenary Solomons ... what can we do to keep the
objection procedure narrow enough to serve its obvious intended purposes
(keep off TLDs that are of widespread revulsion) without using it to
stifle communities that are large and benign but objected to by some
cultures (ie, .gay)?

3) Are we ever going to have an internal debate on the travel policy? Is
there a way to craft input that doesn't sound totally self-serving?

Please keep some of this in mind when planning for the ALAC call next week.

- Evan



_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org


--

Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart
Director for At-Large
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88
USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637
Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68
email: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart
Online Bio:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart