[At-Large] FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board

Sivasubramanian M isolatedn at gmail.com
Sat Nov 27 14:44:08 UTC 2010

Dear Carlton,

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:28 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A <
carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:

> I have been asked about my views by colleagues outside of LACRALO. FWIW,
> these are my views.....and I continue to hold them.
> Carlton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:
> lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
> SAMUELS,Carlton A
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:13 AM
> To: lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Our choice for the ICANN Board
> We support Alan Greenberg.  That said, we shall not support a directed
> LACRALO vote.
> It really comes down to how effective you would wish the At-Large appointed
> director to be.  We would have missed the critical points totally if you
> were to think it's about how much we like a person or how lockstep they
> agree with our every idea. In context, it would be useful to remind yourself
> that what we call the At-Large is very diverse.
> So all other qualifications being equal, effectiveness at the Board level
> rests on the personal dynamics of our choice with the people on the board.


 [I still recall witnessing my first ICANN board meeting where I saw a very
> attractive and bright woman being marginalized. The "Interests" simply shut
> her down!].

The bright, attractive woman whom you saw was not the only one marginalized
and shut down by the "interests".

I am drawn to dissenters.  But in this case user interests is way too
> important just to dissent; having influence is much better.  We must
> encourage our representative to have influence.  And then to use that
> influence to mediate the more flagrant disavowal of user or consumer
> interests that could arise at Board level.
> ICANN's Board is consistently peopled by persons representing the
> "Interests".   If you're going to have influence from a position of  one, we
> believe there are three things that apply 1) To be better prepared 2) To be
> more broadly knowledgeable across the various ICANN constituencies 3) Have
> the ability to use 1 and 2 as tools for driving consensus along a path
> consistently more favourable to user and/or consumer interests.  This is the
> process of triangulation.  It is the strategic model most utilized to
> succeed in the majority group when you are a minority.   This is what we
> know, almost as birthright.
> We do not always agree with Alan.  But to say he doesn't understand user or
> consumer interests cannot be supported on fact. For example, on the
> cross-ownership and related issues surrounding new gTLDs, we, as At-Large
>  representatives, were diametrically opposed; he was for a priori regulation
> and I was for 'free trade'.

It is misleading to say Alan's opposition to the 'Free Trade" proposal is
out of his concern for user's interests. The free trade proposal wasn't a
free for all proposal, it was a proposal that argued that restrictions on
cross ownerships and / or a complex set of accompanying rules will NOT solve
the various 'harms' prevailing in the domain name industry. So I proposed
that "The focus needs to be on the list of harms and how a Registrar or
Registry may be restrained in the event that it is detected that a certain
Registry or Registrar is engaged in harmful
practices. *The measures can vary from relaxing Registrar accreditation fees
and rules to increase the number of Registrars to foster better competition,
issuing directives to a*
*Registry to treat all Registrars on par, to withdrawal of accreditation of
a Registrar to even directing a Registry to stop registering any more names*."
That is the essence of the free trade proposal
as a PDF)

Alan supported a proposal developed by Affilias, GoDaddy and others. I have
no specific comments on this proposal.

Not only in the Vertical Integration group, but in the Post Expiry Domain
Names Recovery Group, my impression of his participation is that he is more
aligned to the status quo than inclined to cause positive changes:


This forms part of the background that prompted me to post the following
question to Alan:

(The question and Alan's response is at page
today I noticed that the page is inaccessible due to some reason)

 *Question to Alan Greenberg from Sivasubramanian M, from APRALO, but
> question posed as an individual*

*As more and more at Large leadership positions are filled by people from
> the business constituency, It is becoming very important for ALAC and at
> Large to preserve at Large as a user's constituency to TRULY balance the
> business stakeholder group. Any leadership position within ALAC and at Large
> should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user.*

 * *

*My impression of your participation in the Post Expiry Domain Name working
> group and the Vertical Integration working group is that you are soft on the
> Domain Industry and muted and weak on the real issues of concerns to users.
> If elected to represent at Large to take the only available seat for at
> Large representation in the Board, wouldn't you be equally soft on broader
> issues of greater importance? You have a rich experience and an impressive
> background, but wouldn't it be apt for you seek to be elected to the ICANN
> Board as a Business nominee rather than as a user's nominee? *

 * *

*If I am wrong in my impression, would you be be kind enough to clarify on
> your choice of seeking this position as from at Large? In other words, would
> you list arguments as to why ALAC members and leaders should back you
> formally and informally as a candidate?*

The Business of Business is to do business. A representative from Business
is fully entitled to argue for policies favorable to the survival and growth
of business. But a balance will prevail only if the users have their own
representative whose interests are fully aligned to the users. I did not
have this impression about Alan.

Sivasubramanian M

>  In fact, some would have looked at this and concluded that he's more on
> the user side than I was on this issue.  And while I deeply respect his
> views, I tend to loathe any indication of collective punishment.  You do not
> penalize until and unless you have a case.  Maybe the Board came to their
> conclusion by another meandering route.  But in the end, they voted my
> perspective.

> Goes to show.
> Carlton Samuels
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
> _______________________________________________
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Vertical Integration - Free Trade Model 2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 18996 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20101127/ac91bf80/VerticalIntegration-FreeTradeModel2.pdf>

More information about the At-Large mailing list