[At-Large] ICANN oversight

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Oct 10 16:01:27 UTC 2015


I am even more surprised by your email - although there is completely
honestly written all over it, and that from gbruen at knujon.com that
followed yours.

I am not sure what and whim exactly  you are so completely disgruntled
with . I am sure you are aware ofthis statement from ALAC
on the ICANN oversight issue which says

"The ALAC is generally supportive of the overall proposal. Although the
ALAC preference was to have less “enforceability” and a lighter-weight
proposal than preferred by some other groups in ICANN,......"

which represents a position whose status quo-ism is beaten only by the
Board's own position.

So, when you criticise the Board for not listening to you/ ALAC I am not
how to square that with this status quoist statement of ALAC, which
refuses to make any structural changes to the current power configuration.

I am really even more puzzled. Will the real ALAC stand up!

More later, but the above has further confused me.


On Saturday 10 October 2015 08:08 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> Speaking for myself only...
> The ALAC has a number of people on the CCWG itself, so in that that
> sense At-Large has been central to that very confrontation with the
> Board which you note.
> But beyond that, what are your expectations? Fiery protest? An
> avalanche of advice statements? Caustic op-ed pieces in DomainIncite?
> Speaking for nobody but myself ... an example of the complacency that
> bothers you ... I think there's some war-weariness settling in.
> On the ground, very little that ALAC does seems to policy-wise have
> much real consequence. On an issue that (by name!) impacted our
> community the most in the TLD expansion -- Public Interest Commitments
> -- we were ignored before it was invented, and rebuffed after we
> complained that it did not serve its claimed purpose. This was serious
> enough that we called for a freeze of new gTLD deliveries, which led
> to a series of high-level discussions that .... burned a lot of
> volunteer time before being shut down with no change.
> In essence we were powerless to affect even the facet of ICANN that
> most directly impacted end-users. What chance does it have elsewhere?
> (In other words, from the PoV of end-user influence in ICANN policy,
> you can't get worse than powerless and we're already there.)
> Compound this with the time demanded to understand the complex CCWG
> issues. But At-Large, almost by definition, is not comprised of policy
> wonks, but rather of casual participants to whom ICANN is just one
> small corridor inside the Internet Governance labyrinth. Very few
> At-Largers would call Internet Governance a profession, and have the
> time to completely follow a really archaic process such as the IANA
> handoff.
> Meanwhile, there are other components of the labyrinth -- traffic
> blocking, site takedowns, zero-rating, RTBF -- that can make the
> fussing over domain names look trivial by comparison. ICANN attracts
> its level of attention because of the money floating around, not
> because its issues are the most critical to Internet users.
> So... combine a sense that the public interest will continue to be
> ignored regardless of who oversees ICANN, together with these other
> factors, and perhaps the result is the seeming complacency that
> appears to irritate.
> - Evan
> On 10 October 2015 at 13:13, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>     I cannot but note with considerable surprise and disappoinment
>     that when
>     everyone with any thing ever to do with ICANN is currently hotly
>     debating the issue of the stand off between the ICANN board and
>     CCWG on
>     ICANN accountability, ALAC remains so aloof from the issue....
>     When this
>     should prima facie be the one part of the ICANN structure, as
>     representing the peripheries, that should be most bothered by
>     efforts at
>     concentration of power, or of holding on it,  vis a vis the rights of
>     the public.
>     I have not been able to follow the process closely, but if I am right
>     -and please correct me if I am not - even in the earlier discussions
>     ALAC has been most lukewarm to any kind of structural changes that
>     could
>     indeed place an effective oversight of the 'community' over the ICANN
>     board, when as said ALAC is the one group that should be most keen on
>     institutionalising such checks over centralisation of power with the
>     ICANN board. Can anyone explain me why it is so. It really
>     intrigues me,
>     and I am sure I am missing something here.
>     Thanks, parminder
>     _______________________________________________
>     At-Large mailing list
>     At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>     <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>     https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>     At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> -- 
> Evan Leibovitch
> Geneva, CH
>     Em: evan at telly dot org
>     Sk: evanleibovitch
>     Tw: el56

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20151010/a691ca13/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list