[lac-discuss-en] [ALAC] ICANN, the JPA and Draft Cybersecurity Act 2009

[Evan Leibovitch]

Carlton Samuels wrote:

> Some member constituencies actually dismiss the intent of the USG in
> ICANN simply because they cannot embrace the subtle multilayered
> strategic operation that is involved here. For they tend to confuse
> the accents at the top with a disinterested American future. More's
> the pity.

Indeed.

> It became very much clearer to me that the USG/DOC might be the
> At-Large's greatest strategic ally in defining our relationship with
> ICANN when I read the letter of December 2008 on USG/DOC's unease with
> the introduction of new gTLDs.
>
> This is not to say there is congruence between USG/DOC and At-Large
> policy perspectives. Far from it so don't go conflating agendas here.
> But it is entirely useful to recognize that you could follow the
> tracks of the elephant thru the high grass and find the waterhole.

Agreed, providing that you don't fall into the elephant dung.


My own analogy-du-jour likens the situation to "tag team" professional
wrestling.

Right now At-Large and the USG have common opponents (in those who would
use gTLD process to stifle expression, minimize access, and give ICANN
mandates that it neither deserves nor is able to manage). For argument's
sake, I will call the opposing team "GAC Attack and the Terrible
Trademark", while we are "Mission Accomplished and Large-at-Large".

Together we have the ability to triumph, given our international finesse
and our teammate's sheer strength and capacity for brutality.

However, after this particular match is over -- win or lose -- we could
well find the next flying kick to our head coming from our "partner", as
a bloodied Terrible Trademark pleads that it's more loyal to Mission
Accomplished than we are.

I think I've had too much coffee today. Have a good weekend.

- Evan