[At-Large] Fwd: Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters role and future

Alberto Soto asoto at ibero-americano.org
Mon Feb 6 00:57:35 UTC 2017

Dear Olivier, none of my comments or questions were answered. I think most
of all comments have not been answered, even before the first draft.


Kind regards




De: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Olivier MJ
Enviado el: Sunday, February 5, 2017 6:39 PM
Para: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; At-Large Worldwide
<at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Asunto: [At-Large] Fwd: Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN
At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters role and future


Dear all,

FYI -- a response from me, to a thread that came up on the ISOC Chapter
leaders mailing list.
The topic is specifically the downgrading of At-Large Structures by
equalling them to individual membership. With many chapters as At-Large
Structures, the Internet Society Chapters would be affected.

BTW -- as part of the At-Large Review working group, I submitted over 100
comments on the original document that was presented by the consultants to
the Review working group. It appears that most of my comments were ignored.
I plan to comment further - when I find the time to do so - and would be
happy to contribute to an ALAC comment.

Kindest regards,


ps. I admit that I am one of the "big-mouthed" people. :-)

-------- Forwarded Message -------- 


Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters
role and future


Sun, 5 Feb 2017 01:37:05 +0100


Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond  <mailto:ocl at gih.com> <ocl at gih.com>


Alejandro Pisanty  <mailto:apisanty at gmail.com> <apisanty at gmail.com>, Richard
Hill  <mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch> <rhill at hill-a.ch>


ISOC Chapter Delegates  <mailto:chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
<chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>


On 04/02/2017 21:01, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> Problems like capture by a few individuals will not be solved and in
> fact most likely will be aggravated by the "enhanced membership model."
The Review carries anonymous quotes from people who dislike the fact
that At-Large and the ALAC are standing in their way to turn ICANN into
a domain name business association. Bringing the input of Internet end
users to ICANN's technically and legally super-complex processes is a
very hard task indeed. I know - I chaired that process for 4 years and
to say that it was challenging is an understatement. But the current
structure of At-Large which has several tiers for hierarchy of "control"
but an entirely open bottom-up model where everybody is allowed to
attend any meeting or call and to participate and to voice their
opinion, actually provides for a stable environment with stable
processes which can actually help in reaching consensus and getting the
ALAC to act. That is exactly the thing that bothers other parts of
ICANN: that the ALAC is slowly but surely, over time, surmounting the
largest hurdle to a multi-stakeholder system which is to get the input
of the real end users out there - and that it is doing so with renewed
harmony and proven bottom-up processes.
Instead, as Alejandro mentions, the Review asks for a return to an
unstable, free for all, system based only on individual members speaking
for themselves only, a system that was shown to fail miserably as it
generates conflict with no safeguards whatsoever and favours those with
a bigger mouth than anyone else. The ICANN version 1 experiment failed
noticeably in the early 2000s, with ballot stuffing in wide practice and
mailing lists that were filled with flame wars fuelled by socio-paths. I
remember that so well: having been subscribed to the early DNSO (Domain
Name Support Association) mailing list, I quickly got sick of the daily
dose of venom from psychos that should have been interned, un-subscribed
myself and, after the failed At-Large elections which I predicted were
going to fail, removed myself completely from having anything to do with
ICANN until it had a meeting in Paris in 2008.
The Review is deeply flawed in that it is not an analysis of At-Large
and the ALAC. On the contrary, it is a collection of opinions, many of
them deeply flawed or factually wrong, and recommendations derived from
these flawed opinions. Good opinions of At-Large were ditched and only
criticism was kept, whether warranted or unwarranted. It is a lynching
of reality and I give it as much truth as the flawed populist campaigns
the world has recently seen, thus predicting an equally gruesome future
for At-Large.
By following the mantra "Let's make At-Large great again", the reviewers
are actually proposing to kill it.
Kindest regards,
(own opinions)
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20170205/99f18a35/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list