[At-Large] Auerbach: "It is my view that ICANN ought to scrap the ALAC in its entirety"

[Karl Auerbach]

In response to Evan Leibovitch:

I hadn't considered the possibility of excising the ALS layer and 
keeping the RALO layer.  Since my sense is that we need to remove a 
layer or two, I guess that way would serve my goal.  I do see your point 
about the desirability of one big regional group as opposed to lots of 
small ones in a region - what I mean by this is that I consider it 
desirable that people be able to form and reform coalitions based on 
their perceived common interests at any particular point in time.  And I 
see that a big organization, one that is mainly a nose counter (my word 
to avoid saying the ticklish words "elections" or "consensus"), could be 
a reasonable way to go.

Regarding ICANN backing of participation - I realize that most people 
weren't as lucky as I was to have been a principal in a startup that got 
sold to Cisco.  I know firsthand that being involved in ICANN can cost 
tremendous amount of money in direct and indirect costs.

But I worry very much about what happens when an organization (in our 
case that would be ICANN) pays a person's expenses rather than those 
expenses coming from his/her supporters.  The former method risks, if 
not coercion, then at least a sense that one ought not to bite the hand 
that feeds.  The latter method creates a kind of ongoing vote of 
confidence by the public.

I do want, and perhaps our report did not express the idea as forcefully 
as some of us on the working group felt, that ICANN should make 
resources available to the ALAC and its components so that those 
resources would be available for use according to the discretion of the 
people out there at the edges.  I personally would have felt comfortable 
with a mechanism that created funds of money that would be available to 
be spent, even to hire people, by at-large groups right there at the 
very edges.  Of course, having caused at least one business to fail 
because I did not have adequate cost tracking and cost control 
procedures, I do have an elevated concern that such a mechanism be well 
protected against errors or, worse, abuse.  (I must also say that I was 
very concerned with the legal issues that could come about when 
employer-employee relationships are created in jurisdictions around the 
world.)

As for an executive committee - I haven't been watching that debate. 
However, I agree with your concern that this creates yet another layer 
of insulation.  I saw this happening on ICANN's board of directors and 
felt that we unprivileged board members were often left in the dark by 
the executive committee.  At least at the ICANN  board level I got a 
commitment that all committee processes would be open to be observed by 
those members of the board who weren't on the committee.  But because of 
my fight over access to ICANN's financial records I never really had an 
opportunity to walk that path.

Committees can be good tools when used as institutional eyes and ears to 
watch for events or to do first-cut analysis of issues - but when they 
have their own powers to act without the informed consent of the full 
body then my neurons start to tingle with concern.

Perhaps this is reaching to the emotional core of my concern - that the 
ALAC of today acts more as a body that tries to give wisdom to ICANN 
rather than one that drives ICANN to act in the public benefit with that 
benefit being defined and measured by the community of internet users.

Wisdom is good.  But the power to control and require ICANN to serve the 
public interest is better.

Regarding cultural differences about the desirability and undesirability 
of confrontational tactics - I'm not sure what to do about that.  But I 
would suggest that moving to the level that is least offensive is an 
invitation to be run over by the industrial interests within ICANN.

But we do need to find a solution to the e-rage that happens when we 
communicate by email.  Even the best of us tend to lapse into 
non-respectful dialog.  And the fact that no one, even if we are skilled 
in the chosen language (usually English), is able to communicate without 
ambiguity leads us to misinterpret one another's words, often to impute 
disagreement or hostility when none was meant.

My own sense is that we need to find a way to interact face to face, 
early on, so that we can put faces and voices to our electronic 		exchanges.

And finally, when I used the phrase "accountable unto itself" I was 
thinking of the near impossibility of that happening at a practical 
level - that we humans rarely create institutions that can be launched 
and that will remain on track, doing their job and only their job, for 
an indefinite time.  To my mind, "accountable unto itself" is a chimera. 
  And instead of presuming that we can create a perfect organization, we 
should strive to construct means for the public at large to exert 
corrective pressure.

Are you going to be in Mexico City?

		--karl--