[At-Large] Say Whut!

Tue Dec 11 01:20:46 UTC 2018

All these are healthy and timely conversations that must be had.  No doubt
that one hears and sometimes agrees with some of these lines of thinking.
Yet after following this thread, I basically have to concur with Olivier.
The Community came together to responsibly respond to an At Large Review
that was riddled with half-truths and a good measure of ignorance, via a
reply that was thorough and very very balanced, objective and fair. The
Board saw no other way but to sign on.

We do have a tough road ahead in implementing changes.  Maureen has set up
the ARIWG and progress is being made. And surely ATLASIII will be quite
important in the birthing process of a new At-Large that better reflects
our collective aspirations.

Step by step we are self-evaluating, self-reforming and self-governing.  We
won’t change by-law realities in the foreseeable future, but we can build a
better At-Large within our constraints and realities.

All points of view are important. I deeply respect the points of view of
all my good friends and colleagues from this thread. I’m an absolute
beginner compared to many of you. If anything is evident is that there is
plenty of collective acumen in our Community.  That makes me very proud of
being here among all of you.

I think good things are and will continue happening in this process. Let’s
stay engaged and keep these healthy convos going.

 Best,

Javier

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:37 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

> Dear John,
>
> I do not agree with your assessment that the ALS are somewhat of joke:
> whilst some might well be a joke, others are quite active on many points,
> so please let's not generalise. That said, I am urging again RALOs to clean
> up any ineffective, inactive ALSes and this is happening in several
> regions, with this potential decrease possibly replaced by a rise in the
> number of individual members, which is already happening.
>
> On your point regarding a survey, why don't you all work it out in the
> ALAC Sub-Committee on Outreach and Engagement?
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Subcommittee+on+Outreach+and+Engagement
> That's where the work takes place.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 10/12/2018 18:42, John More via At-Large wrote:
>
> Evan
>
> I agree with your direction. The ALS are somewhat of a joke.  Mostly just
> vehicles for individual involvement (not itself bad).  Part of their being
> somewhat of a “joke" is that most of what put forth for comment is of a
> technical character that is best worked on by those with the specific
> background needed.
>
> A good measure of the ALS problem is the amount of energy that is devoted
> to trying to make certain that ALSs (=their representatives and “members?”)
> are minimally engaged.
>
> There would be a benefit for an internal review of whether the ALAC can
> fulfill its bylaw purposes with its current structure and activities (as
> opposed to the broader ones you suggest).
>
> Could start with a survey, as suggested by Christian.  DO NOT HIRE outside
> experts and consultants — major waste of money ALWAYS. More than enough
> talented and thoughtful people in the ALAC world.
>
> John More
>
> On Dec 10, 2018, at 7:28 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Given my experiences and observations... While I have totally stayed away
> from the last At-Large review, I did one myself as a personal mental
> exercise.
>
> The conclusion I came to is that the current structure underneath ALAC is
> overly politicized, appeals to superficial airs of importance, and is at
> its core designed to be utterly impotent in regard to serving its bylaw
> mandate.
>
> Were I to be engaged in a real exercise to enable ALAC to serve its bylaw
> mandate, I would wish to eliminate ALSs and move to fully individual
> membership in RALOs. I would reduce travel and invest more in virtual
> meeting technologies. I would also concentrate ALAC activity in ONLY three
> areas:
>
> - Creation and distribution of plain language public education on the DNS
> and how it affects public use of the internet (written independently of
> ICANN itself)
>
> - surveys and R&D into public needs and opinions about domain names and
> the DNS
>
> - analysis of the result of such research, and development of ICANN input
> based on that (both in original policy initiatives and response to existing
> activity)
>
> Any takers? I'm happy to engage if any interest exists. My rationale
> behind this is quite deep and I'm happy to expand if interest exists.
> ___________________
> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
> @evanleibovitch/@el56
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 11:45 AM Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net
> wrote:
>
>> Given the clarity of these two comments. Maybe it is time to consider a
>> straw poll over what future role and activity At Large participants feel
>> is viable? Given the experience of the continuous perilous undermining
>> of the Internet edge by every digital miner with a pickaxe, shovel or
>> stick of dynamite?
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>
>> Carlton Samuels wrote:
>> > Yessir, I can recall your exact words to me so long ago; waste of
>> > time, decision already made. The reasoning you offered was bold, too.
>> >
>> > I was interested at one point. Then when it was too clearly a bridge
>> > too far, I retired to the shadows.
>> >
>> > A congressman from Texas once told a writer I truly loved that in
>> > politics you have no right to call yourself a politician if you cant
>> > drink their whiskey, take their women and money and still vote against
>> > them. Theres a lesson there somewhere.
>> >
>> > The arguments you hear on this or that are stimulating for a policy
>> > wonk. But quite frankly at this point much of what the At-Large does
>> > is margin-gathering.
>> >
>> > Someone has to. And we live in hope.
>> >
>> > -Carlton
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, 1:07 am Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com
>> > <mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >     So... Do all of you who sank your valuable time into that
>> >     where-do-the-auction-funds-go sham of a process feel a little
>> >     betrayed now?
>> >
>> >     How many more times will we continue to play this futile game?
>> >
>> >     The fix is always in. Let the "community" thrash about with
>> >     well-meaning but big-picture-pointless debate, then swoop in at
>> >     the end to remind where the ultimate decision lies. It lies with
>> >     the money.
>> >
>> >     "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
>> >
>> >     I got fooled enough with the Applicant Support process, the CCT
>> >     and a few others. Yeah, it's more than one but at least I can say
>> >     I know the experience intimately. But the aftermath of these
>> >     efforts (or lack thereof) is why you don't see me wasting my time
>> >     on subsequent ones. (Cue the theme music from "CSI:Miami".)
>> >
>> >     Countless of my colleagues continue the good-faith attempt to
>> >     disprove Einstein's definition of insanity(*), unsuccessfully. I
>> >     love my ALAC friends (I've literally invited you to my home) and
>> >     it pains me to watch the story repeat so often.
>> >
>> >     But sooner or later the collective massochism and denial has to
>> >     end. Turnover in ALAC is low enough to have plenty of veterans
>> >     around who should know better.
>> >
>> >     Stop playing the game. Challenge the rules instead. Perfect
>> >     example: why is ALAC involved in the minutiae of "subsequent
>> >     procedures" for new rounds of gTLDs without having even challenged
>> >     the rationale for new rounds at all? Also, I've previously spoken
>> >     at length about ALAC's sad longtime choice to respond to the
>> >     agendas of others rather than even try to set its own.
>> >
>> >     Monied interests overpower us politically by orders of magnitude,
>> >     and without a regulatory role ICANN has no incentive to push
>> >     against the money. This needs to be changed, or others will change
>> >     it from the outside.
>> >
>> >     I remind that we are now living through a period of time in which
>> >     awful political choices are being made, all over the world, in
>> >     desperate moves to disrupt deaf and corrupt status quo. ICANN and
>> >     ALAC ignore this trend at their danger.
>> >
>> >     ___________________
>> >     Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
>> >     @evanleibovitch/@el56
>> >
>> >     (*) that may not have ever actually been said by Einstein, but
>> >     it's a useful phrase regardless of source.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     On Dec 9, 2018 12:34 AM, "Carlton Samuels"
>> >     <carlton.samuels at gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >         https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/07/dot_web_review/
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > At-Large mailing list
>> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> >
>> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>
>> --
>> Christian de Larrinaga
>> @ FirstHand
>> -------------------------
>> +44 7989 386778
>> cdel at firsthand.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing listAt-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20181210/6dfe84de/attachment-0001.html>