[At-Large] Say Whut!

alberto at soto.net.ar alberto at soto.net.ar
Mon Dec 10 18:15:37 UTC 2018

I agree with the participation of the individual members. We have many 
excellent examples.
But I do not agree that ALSs are a joke.
We have ALSs very, very active. Only that they are not participating in 
the meetings of their RALO or in webinars or working groups and for that 
reason we think that they are not doing anything.
For example, in LACRALO I have researched their activities, and they 
have reached hundreds of thousands of end users in a year (I 
investigated it in a period of 5 years with only 15 ALSs).
That arrival to the end user of the internet, which must be the leitre 
of ALAC, can not be achieved by individual members.

Kind regards

Alberto Soto

El 2018-12-10 14:42, John More via At-Large escribió:
> Evan
> I agree with your direction. The ALS are somewhat of a joke.  Mostly
> just vehicles for individual involvement (not itself bad).  Part of
> their being somewhat of a “joke" is that most of what put forth for
> comment is of a technical character that is best worked on by those
> with the specific background needed.
> A good measure of the ALS problem is the amount of energy that is
> devoted to trying to make certain that ALSs (=their representatives
> and “members?”) are minimally engaged.
> There would be a benefit for an internal review of whether the ALAC
> can fulfill its bylaw purposes with its current structure and
> activities (as opposed to the broader ones you suggest).
> Could start with a survey, as suggested by Christian.  DO NOT HIRE
> outside experts and consultants — major waste of money ALWAYS. More
> than enough talented and thoughtful people in the ALAC world.
> John More
>> On Dec 10, 2018, at 7:28 AM, Evan Leibovitch
>> <evanleibovitch at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Christian,
>> Given my experiences and observations... While I have totally stayed
>> away from the last At-Large review, I did one myself as a personal
>> mental exercise.
>> The conclusion I came to is that the current structure underneath
>> ALAC is overly politicized, appeals to superficial airs of
>> importance, and is at its core designed to be utterly impotent in
>> regard to serving its bylaw mandate.
>> Were I to be engaged in a real exercise to enable ALAC to serve its
>> bylaw mandate, I would wish to eliminate ALSs and move to fully
>> individual membership in RALOs. I would reduce travel and invest
>> more in virtual meeting technologies. I would also concentrate ALAC
>> activity in ONLY three areas:
>> - Creation and distribution of plain language public education on
>> the DNS and how it affects public use of the internet (written
>> independently of ICANN itself)
>> - surveys and R&D into public needs and opinions about domain names
>> and the DNS
>> - analysis of the result of such research, and development of ICANN
>> input based on that (both in original policy initiatives and
>> response to existing activity)
>> Any takers? I'm happy to engage if any interest exists. My rationale
>> behind this is quite deep and I'm happy to expand if interest
>> exists.
>> ___________________
>> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
>> @evanleibovitch/@el56
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 11:45 AM Christian de Larrinaga
>> <cdel at firsthand.net wrote:
>>> Given the clarity of these two comments. Maybe it is time to
>>> consider a
>>> straw poll over what future role and activity At Large
>>> participants feel
>>> is viable? Given the experience of the continuous perilous
>>> undermining
>>> of the Internet edge by every digital miner with a pickaxe, shovel
>>> or
>>> stick of dynamite?
>>> Christian
>>> Carlton Samuels wrote:
>>>> Yessir, I can recall your exact words to me so long ago; waste
>>> of
>>>> time, decision already made. The reasoning you offered was bold,
>>> too.
>>>> I was interested at one point. Then when it was too clearly a
>>> bridge
>>>> too far, I retired to the shadows.
>>>> A congressman from Texas once told a writer I truly loved that
>>> in
>>>> politics you have no right to call yourself a politician if you
>>> cant
>>>> drink their whiskey, take their women and money and still vote
>>> against
>>>> them. Theres a lesson there somewhere.
>>>> The arguments you hear on this or that are stimulating for a
>>> policy
>>>> wonk. But quite frankly at this point much of what the At-Large
>>> does
>>>> is margin-gathering.
>>>> Someone has to. And we live in hope.
>>>> -Carlton
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, 1:07 am Evan Leibovitch
>>> <evanleibovitch at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So... Do all of you who sank your valuable time into that
>>>> where-do-the-auction-funds-go sham of a process feel a
>>> little
>>>> betrayed now?
>>>> How many more times will we continue to play this futile
>>> game?
>>>> The fix is always in. Let the "community" thrash about with
>>>> well-meaning but big-picture-pointless debate, then swoop in
>>> at
>>>> the end to remind where the ultimate decision lies. It lies
>>> with
>>>> the money.
>>>> "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
>>>> I got fooled enough with the Applicant Support process, the
>>> CCT
>>>> and a few others. Yeah, it's more than one but at least I
>>> can say
>>>> I know the experience intimately. But the aftermath of these
>>>> efforts (or lack thereof) is why you don't see me wasting my
>>> time
>>>> on subsequent ones. (Cue the theme music from "CSI:Miami".)
>>>> Countless of my colleagues continue the good-faith attempt
>>> to
>>>> disprove Einstein's definition of insanity(*),
>>> unsuccessfully. I
>>>> love my ALAC friends (I've literally invited you to my home)
>>> and
>>>> it pains me to watch the story repeat so often.
>>>> But sooner or later the collective massochism and denial has
>>> to
>>>> end. Turnover in ALAC is low enough to have plenty of
>>> veterans
>>>> around who should know better.
>>>> Stop playing the game. Challenge the rules instead. Perfect
>>>> example: why is ALAC involved in the minutiae of "subsequent
>>>> procedures" for new rounds of gTLDs without having even
>>> challenged
>>>> the rationale for new rounds at all? Also, I've previously
>>> spoken
>>>> at length about ALAC's sad longtime choice to respond to the
>>>> agendas of others rather than even try to set its own.
>>>> Monied interests overpower us politically by orders of
>>> magnitude,
>>>> and without a regulatory role ICANN has no incentive to push
>>>> against the money. This needs to be changed, or others will
>>> change
>>>> it from the outside.
>>>> I remind that we are now living through a period of time in
>>> which
>>>> awful political choices are being made, all over the world,
>>> in
>>>> desperate moves to disrupt deaf and corrupt status quo.
>>> ICANN and
>>>> ALAC ignore this trend at their danger.
>>>> ___________________
>>>> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
>>>> @evanleibovitch/@el56
>>>> (*) that may not have ever actually been said by Einstein,
>>> but
>>>> it's a useful phrase regardless of source.
>>>> On Dec 9, 2018 12:34 AM, "Carlton Samuels"
>>>> <carlton.samuels at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/07/dot_web_review/
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 [1]
>>> --
>>> Christian de Larrinaga
>>> @ FirstHand
>>> -------------------------
>>> +44 7989 386778
>>> cdel at firsthand.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://atlarge.icann.org/
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the At-Large mailing list