[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC

Fri May 9 19:16:38 EDT 2008

Dominik and all,

  VERY nicely articulated here Dominik.  I fully agree with
your arguments and their obvious correct conclusion.

  But let's be VERY clear, the members are, and in the
majority decided that the AGP must go.  Although there
are other means by which Domain Name Tasting can be
eradicated in short order, one of which I have outlined
as a proposal, that proposal did not or has not yet gained
sufficient support.  Frankly and disgustingly it is clear
that the ICANN Bod is very interested in getting this
problem decided as Roberto has already several times
mentioned or otherwise eluded to.  It is also clear that
changing the RAA was in his opinion not currently supported
by the majority of the ICANN Bod at this time, which confirms
your argument significantly.

  I for the life of me cannot understand how any public 
interest corporation can act or even consider acting in
complete or nearly complete disagreement with the public
interests over and over again.  To do so without impunity
is devoid of proper and ethical leadership...  This
also seems to be the case with the ALAC in regards to
Domain Name Tasting.  What you Dominik are seemingly 
articulating comes very close if not precisely to what
is legally known as "Collusion" for financial gain, which 
is a form of Fraud and should be addressed as such. I would
not at all be surprised at some point that IF the motion
that the ALAC falsely represented in the name of the
ALAC members is adopted that a RICO case or cases ensue.

  I for one, along with our members, are saddened and disgusted
to read much of Evans remarks, which appear to be far less than
courageous or reflect good and ethical leadership.  
Very unfortunate!  >:(

-----Original Message-----
>From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk>
>Sent: May 9, 2008 10:42 AM
>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
>Cc: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC
>
>Hello Evan,
>
>Please read my comments interspersed below
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan at telly.org] 
>Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 2:37 PM
>To: Dominik Filipp
>Cc: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC
>
>>Hello Dominik,
>>   
>>The way it was put to us -- those of us who
>>strongly advanced abolishing the AGP --
>>was essentially this:
>>
>>"Our primary goal is getting rid of tasting, which
>>will likely happen by widely mandating the partial
>>measures already initiated by two registries. Total
>>AGP elimination will be strenuously opposed by the
>>financial interests, so there's no way that will happen.
>>Why back a position that has no chance of succeeding?
>>We should be seen as going along with a
>>broadly-supported measure that directly addresses
>>tasting and has a chance to be implemented."
>
>The ALAC is committed to the public to express, reflect and advocate the
>best solutions for the public it recognizes and considers as being such.
>The ALAC is primarily not obligated to respect any financial interests
>but only the bylaws, the ICANN core values and the original mission
>goals the ALAC was established on. Accepting the financial logic would
>mean that the ALAC would definitely give in to unfair and fraudulent
>practices and as such would be rightly accused of suspect collaboration
>based on pursuing non-public interests.
>
>In case of domain tasting the situation is clear. For the public the AGP
>elimination is by far the best solution. The ALAC should hold it and
>pronounce it explicitly and loudly. This is the only honest solution
>towards the community the ALAC advocates and should always advocate.
>Keep in mind that so far there has not been any single common
>constituency/wider-public discussion organized addressing the AGP
>elimination properly whatsoever. Upon what then the ALAC should have to
>consider a possible compromise when none argument-base has ever been
>collected and considered? Upon financial and political bargaining? Is
>this the way the ALAC wants to follow? If so then we all should quickly
>forget all the pro-public mission goals and honestly admit: Yes, the
>ALAC is definitely part of the sham and we all are fraudsters misusing
>public money just helping pretend the service to the public. Even worse,
>the far biggest guilt would lay on ALAC's shoulders because it is the
>only body, neither registrars nor registries nor any other constituency,
>that is primarily responsible for defending wide public interests. There
>is no any third way to follow; either we are part of the sham or we act
>as a self-confident independent body with full sense of the
>accountability delegated. I believe the latter choice is the case.
>
>There is nothing difficult here. The ALAC will express the statement it
>stands for and the board will vote. It is that simple. And if this
>motion will eventually be refused and domain tasting will again be
>reinstated then it will be clear whose responsibility it is. This is
>extremely important to know for the record and for history that the ALAC
>acted accountably and warned the board about possible persisting abuse.
>I do not see any single reason why the ALAC should help carry that
>burden on its shoulders for a decision it has never stood for. Take
>hands away from it.
>
>
>>My analysis of this is twofold:
>>
>>- ALAC does not yet have the maturity nor the
>>confidence to advance a position that it perceives
>>to be extremely unpopular with other constituencies,
>>even if that position accurately reflects the
>>public sentiment.
>
>Then, indeed, it is the right time for the ALAC to get matured. Once it
>happens the other constituencies will start taking the ALAC seriously.
>As it really deserves.
>
>
>>- It's always easier to attack the symptom than
>>the cause, even though leaving the cause intact
>>will likely lead to future problems. Tasting is
>>the symptom, AGP is the cause. While the currently
>>proposed partial measures will indeed reduce much
>>tasting, leaving the AGP untouched appears to be
>>a clear invitation to bad agents to invent new
>>forms of abuse.
>
>Exactly right.
>
>
>>I have personally come to the conclusion that ALAC,
>>in its current form, will do whatever it can to
>>avoid confrontation with other constituencies.
>
>This, however, is sort of childish behavior resembling a child
>compulsively addicted to their parents or elder siblings. No wonder such
>a child is not taken seriously.
>
>
>>Some of this sentiment is understandable, given
>>the limitations imposed on it by the nature of
>>its constitution. After all, even GNSO is only
>>now coming to realize the detrimental effects
>>of having voting members who are unaccountable
>>to anyone. Indeed, one can easily argue that
>>ICANN as a whole is scared of confronting the
>>registries and registrars, given the problems
>>to date in even enforcing existing policy.
>
>You are absolutely right here and I am happy you have recognized this.
>ICANN as a whole is scared of those who claim themselves as being
>powerful and influential. They are not only registrars and registries
>but also the servile officers helping cover their activities. They are
>spreading out all the fear among people. But open your eyes and look at
>them without fear, you'll find narrow-minded people addicted to their
>benefits, or exploiting the ICANN mission on purpose, some not
>interested in nearly anything just peacefully lost in golden slumbers.
>But there is also a number of honest people that are trying to do
>something meaningful themselves being scared by the rest though. Do you
>still think we should scare of such people? Some of them at high
>positions do not follow the ICANN mission as an organization
>representing multi-stakeholder community and should therefore be
>recognized and treated accordingly. Either they will come around or they
>will have to go.
>
>
>>Other factors arise from the broad internal
>>diversity of ALAC, within which the desire
>>to achieve consensus will usually lead to
>>compromise positions.
>
>This is a legitimate question/problem and needs to be addressed. In
>general, making compromise positions is a normal thing, there is nothing
>wrong with it. Just, we should not mistake compromise for backdown.
>
>
>>As a result, I can accept advancing the current
>>partial answer to tasting with the understanding
>>that this is a transitional action. AGP elimination
>>remains the ultimate goal -- at least within NARALO
>>-- though I am unsure if ALAC in its current form
>>is even capable of advancing that position as
>>forcefully as will be necessary to succeed.
>
>Well, I see a problem here. In my opinion, there is no any transactional
>action intended in mind. Once the tasting will be approved this way or
>another it will be kept as is for a very long time. Have a brief look at
>the current final statement and you'll find how tricky it is formulated.
>If during the next two years of (dysfunctional) ICANN oversight a public
>outrage appears again it will be consolidated (put out) by waking up the
>oversight committee that will try to curb it by (this time functional)
>oversight to calm the outrage. And this might be going on and on in such
>waves during the upcoming two years. Indeed, a weak concept.
>
>
>>That, Dominik, is my personal answer regarding why
>>I have not been pushing this issue harder. ALAC has
>>enough other things on its plate. :-)
>>
>>- Evan
>
>Oh, come on. Have a rest for a while and things will be getting better.
>There is not that much to do.
>If we fail in this the plate will soon be full of leftovers :-)
>
>
>Have a nice weekend
>
>Dominik
>
>_______________________________________________
>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,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827