[At-Large] Say Whut!
bzs at theworld.com
bzs at theworld.com
Sun Dec 16 21:29:48 UTC 2018
First...
> Un abrazo a todos, felices fiestas y próspero año nuevo.
Y tu Javier, gracias!
I like your summary, it's short and to the point and covers the
general issue.
But it still leaves open the question of "how"?
At its core ICANN is a complex network of contracts, other than a few
MoUs and similar that's pretty much the source of their "jurisdiction"
in a phrase.
Those contracts are basically business contracts not treaties or
anything like treaties.
So the core question is what is it about ICANN which could even
address something more than a network of business contracts, short of
just inventing something within it out of almost whole cloth?
OTOH as I often say (content regulation/mediation/mitigation also) the
choice is either something is done within their structure or they
(ICANN) can watch as someone else does it for/to them.
On December 16, 2018 at 12:29 javrua at gmail.com (Javier Rua) wrote:
> 2 cents on ICANN 3.0:
>
> We all know, of course, that there’s no public international governmental
> organization nor international treaty, that regulates the global Internet. This
> governance occurs within the constant conversation between multiple players,
> the diversity of interest groups, individuals and countless parties deeply
> interested in the operation of and access to the Internet. We agree, I think,
> that this is a good thing.
>
> We also know there are always important forces objecting to the fundamentally
> nongovernmental and private character of Internet governance, and they argue
> that the only logical and legitimate place for these functions should be the
> United Nations (UN), or one of its specialized agencies, such as the
> International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
>
> ICANN is a dance, a ritual, to keep these to forces in balance to maintain a
> non-fragmented Internet, as free as possible from purely regional or national
> considerations, but also duly respecting these.
>
> Aware of these complexities and tensions, I think we should aspire to a
> strengthening of the current model: an at-least apparently “transnational”, but
> fundamentally non-governmental structure with a very specific and widely
> accepted mandate. It has to be an entity whose credibility is borne of the
> expert work it performs and the confidence generated by its policies;
> confidence that must be the result of the transparent and balanced
> consideration of the diversity of public, commercial and private interests
> involved, but without being captured by them.
>
> To further strengthen ICANN’s model and stability, all I would do is nudge it a
> bit to resemble the International Committee of the Red Cross: a private
> institution founded in generally understood neutral soil, but with some unique
> recognition or perhaps authority under public international law, that
> specifically recognizes and builds upon all of the above stated principles.
>
> Among these, I think the idea of the “individual Internet-end user” as having
> standing and voice in an international/supranational policy context is one of
> the great innovations and contributions of multistakeholderism, and as such,
> one that must be a founding principle of any ICANN 3.0. In my view, this is on
> a par with the rise of the individual person as a subject of public
> international law, an unthinkable idea less than century ago as it is derived
> from Universal Human Rights treaties and institutions and part of the necessary
> weakening of the State-centered Westphalian model. In this sense, ALAC or
> ALAC-like structures that exist to give non-state-bound Individuals a seat at
> the policy table must be safeguarded and strengthened in any future ICANN.
>
> Un abrazo a todos, felices fiestas y próspero año nuevo.
>
> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>
> +1-787-396-6511
> twitter: @javrua
> skype: javier.rua1
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2018, at 10:35 AM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> What would ICANN 3.0 look like?
>
> What compelling forces would drive through the changes to move ICANN 2.0
> to ICANN 3.0? Bearing in mind that ICANN 2.0 was created because of very
> strong interest in commercial exploitation of DNS resources.
>
> With a nod to how At Large is positioned to participate in such a change
>
> C
> Carlton Samuels wrote:
>
> What is clear from reading these conversations is that most understand
>
> that ICANN is configured to at least give a nod to something we
>
> characterise as the "public interest" but resolved not to have too
>
> much of that.
>
>
>
> The tent is accommodating only to certain tolerable limits. And the
>
> institutional tendency then tilts relentlessly towards containment.
>
>
>
> We are severally agreed that we believe an ICANN 3.0 is good and
>
> necessary for institutionalising what we perceive as the public
> interest.
>
>
>
> We are severally agreed that the ALAC must become more strategic in
>
> aiding the birth of ICANN 3.0. This is shorthand for the institutional
>
> framework we deem appropriate to conserve the public interest and
>
> thereafter in advocating and defending the public interest as we
>
> conceive that to be.
>
>
>
> We are severally agreed that in these endeavours, there are natural
>
> allies and by the purely happy fortune of a shared objective. Our
>
> permanent interests demand that we, time to time, have friends for
>
> show and make common cause to advance our agenda.
>
>
>
> Money shalp always be an issue; we will never have an assured supply
>
> or enough of it. So tactical choices might require some concessions
>
> to contra forces.
>
>
>
> Seems to me there is enough there there to make a move.
>
>
>
> -Carlton.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, 2:24 pm Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com
>
> <mailto:ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Evan,
>
>
>
> thank you for your kind answer to my comments. Please be so kind
>
> to find my comments inline:
>
>
>
> On 11/12/2018 04:06, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> Hi Olivier,
>
>
>
> Before I answer your question, I want to remind others in this
>
> thread that I do not consider ALSs a joke. I consider the
>
> structure of ALAC that depends on ALSs to be wasteful,
> needlessly
>
> cumbersome, and a practical obstacle to ALAC's ability to
>
> credibly fulfill its bylaw mandate.
>
>
>
>
>
> You make several allegations. Please clarify:
>
>
>
>
>
> One person's observations are another's allegations :-)
>
>
>
> To be honest, I am pleasantly surprised at the level of
>
> engagement in this thread and the interest in the subject
> matter.
>
> The exercise of exposing my views such that may be suitably
>
> evaluated -- even if ultimately rejected -- is a source of hope.
>
>
>
> Everyone is free to expose their views - in fact I would say,
>
> encouraged to expose their view. I do not think that anyone has
>
> been stopped doing this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I did not expect the thread to go long enough to require me to
>
> provide a detailed rationale or plan based on my high-level
>
> comments. I will offer brief answers below which I expect will
>
> not satisfy. Should interest exist, I would be happy to produce
> a
>
> paper -- a manifesto, if you would -- providing further detail.
> I
>
> would be even happier if others of like mind would like to
>
> collaborate.
>
>
>
> The opportunity to raise my issues and those of others at the
>
> Montreal mini-Summit sounds intriguing. However, I find it quite
>
> ironic -- and supporting my position -- that ICANN will not fund
>
> every ALS to attend, and that At-Large volunteers are expected
>
> sit in judgment of which fraction of At-Large is worthy to
>
> attend. I also would not want to wait until then to start this
>
> engagement. I would propose a series of webinars at which
> various
>
> views can be aired and discussed in open chat or email.
>
>
>
> I do not think that any of us actually like the fact that we won't
>
> be able to invite all interested participants to Montréal, but
>
> that's what is currently on the table. In the current cost-cutting
>
> climate of ICANN, given the stagnation in income and growing
>
> operations costs, it was either this restricted summit or nothing.
>
> I know that some have argued that we should go back to ICANN and
>
> ask for more, so be able to bring more people to ATLAS III - yet I
>
> can assure you that there are parts of ICANN that have significant
>
> influence and that would oppose this - if only because the ICANN
>
> budget now has to be ratified by the community (a "great" idea
>
> that came from the community at CCWG IANA), which means that
>
> whilst the Board could have exercised its executive powers in the
>
> past to support At-Large, it now has its hands and feet tied,
>
> risking a budget veto. So the summit is "this or nothing".
>
> On the preparation towards ATLAS III, there are plans that a
>
> programme of e-learning plus some Webinars and conference calls,
>
> designed by the community, will pave the way to the Summit,
>
> starting from January 2019.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - overtly politicized
>
>
>
>
>
> As a democratic process, it has been my observation that a
>
> notable proportion of ALAC members achieve their position
> because
>
> they are good campaigners or are well-liked, not because they
> are
>
> best suited to serve ALAC's obligation to ICANN. I will not give
>
> specifics beyond that in a public forum and others are welcome
> to
>
> disagree. I will simply state at this point that when I first
>
> came into ALAC I detested the idea that the NomComm would choose
>
> one-third of ALAC; I have fully changed my mind on that, though
> I
>
> would make some changes to that process.
>
>
>
> Welcome to democracy. You either run a (s)election process within
>
> the community for it to appoints its representatives, or you get
>
> an outside body to do this for you. Doing things internally might
>
> indeed end up as a beauty contest. The risk of the outside body is
>
> that their appointments are a hit and miss: we've had some
>
> excellent appointments made through NomCom, just like we've also
>
> had some where the candidate's expectations were completely
>
> different than the reality of their tasks on the ALAC - which has
>
> led to disappointment on all sides.
>
>
>
>
>
> - appears to superficial airs of importance
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyone who has read my writings or heard me speak, knows that I
>
> feel ALAC is far far too wrapped up in its processes and
>
> structures. How many iterations and rebirths and renames and
>
> wasted person-hours have been attributed to (re-)forming ALAC's
>
> policy working group. (I believe the most recent edition is the
>
> "CPWG".)
>
>
>
> People come and go and processes remain. In my opinion, it is the
>
> processes that we have developed over years of trial and error,
>
> that make-up the fabric of the multistakeholder model both within
>
> At-Large but also within ICANN. Improving these processes
>
> unfortunately takes time.
>
>
>
>
>
> It is IMO an embarrassment that ALAC even has a separate policy
>
> committee, ALAC should *be* the policy committee and anyone who
>
> is not interested in policy activity shouldn't be on ALAC.
>
>
>
> The fact is that not all volunteers participating in At-Large are
>
> interested in, or good at, or have the knowledge to participate
>
> effectively in Policy. The ALAC's two roles are policy & outreach
>
> and some people both have the skills, the interest and the energy
>
> to exclusively do outreach - and I do not see this as being a
>
> problem at all. In fact, I find it derogatory that the only "ROI"
>
> that is applied towards ALAC often is "how much policy work have
>
> you done? How have you been influential in At-Large?" Many of the
>
> people doing outreach on behalf of At-Large have done an amazing
>
> job at demonstrating to their community that ICANN is a viable
>
> multi-stakeholder system that can assume its missions and should
>
> not be replaced by a UN-led initiative. So we all have our place.
>
> I just wish that other parts of ICANN stopped their condescending
>
> view that At-Large should only be judged on policy only. This
>
> opens the door to failure on all counts, as ICANN's work is shared
>
> between its technical mandate, policy definition mandate and
>
> diplomatic efforts to keep the Internet ecosystem being run in a
>
> multistakeholder way.
>
>
>
>
>
> Then there's ALAC's traditional utter terror of being assertive
>
> with an opinion contrary to the rest of the ICANN momentum:
>
> If we rock the boat, will they cut travel funding?
>
> If we rock the boat, will they enable an At-Large-elected Board
>
> member?
>
> If we rock the boat, will they refuse to fund ATLAS ?
>
> If we rock the boat, will they refuse to fund ATLAS2?
>
> If we rock the boat, will they refuse to fund ATLAS3?
>
>
>
> I cannot think of one point of time since I joined At-Large 11
>
> years ago where there was not one form or another of this fear,
>
> and its associated chilling effect on ALAC's ability to truly
>
> assert the public interest.y path.
>
>
>
> To assert that we never rocked the boat is incorrect - but there
>
> are ways to rock the boat. If it means blocking things by
>
> obstructing processes in a non diplomatic way, the only thing that
>
> will happen is that we'll be completely ignored altogether.
>
> Nothing in the ICANN bylaws says that anyone has to listen to us.
>
> In the second accountability and transparency review (ATRT2) we
>
> fought to at least receive an acknowledgement from the Board for
>
> our advice - something which we seldom had in the past and which
>
> is now in the ICANN bylaws. If you are unhappy with the level of
>
> influence the ALAC has in ICANN then complain about the ICANN
>
> structure, where the GNSO makes policy and the ALAC produces
>
> non-binding advice. In the past, ICANN went from ICANN 1.0 to
>
> ICANN 2.0 when the open election process showed its limits. That
>
> was triggered by very strong external forces across and outside
>
> ICANN, including a number of senior people and organisations.
>
> Perhaps is it time to look at ICANN again and turn the tables
>
> around again, recognising the limited of the current SOAC
>
> structure and designing something new where the end user, the
>
> community, is again at the centre of ICANN and the decisions are
>
> not made by parties that are deeply conflicted in that they have a
>
> direct financial benefit from some of the policies they are
>
> developing themselves.
>
> But that sort of exercise would require the support of more than
>
> just our ALAC or a sprinkling of Board members. The shift from
>
> ICANN 1.0 to ICANN 2.0 was triggered by a feeling that ICANN was
>
> unstable and needed some stability - and had the support of the
>
> then CEO, some Board members, and some significant governments and
>
> organisations that had significant influence. Today the situation
>
> is different: most of the influential parties would say that they
>
> are satisfied with the current structure and that it is stable -
>
> never mind the lack of public interest, which some allege is
>
> actually just a perception since there is no such thing as the
>
> public interest in their eyes - it's just a set of tick-box
>
> scenarios. So if you want to do this, then may I suggest that you
>
> go out there campaigning with the right people, the right
>
> governments, the right contracted parties, the right private
>
> sector, the right technical community and the right civil society
>
> that will accompany you in this cause. I am not saying it is
>
> impossible - all I am saying is that this road is challenging to
>
> follow and requires a lot of work and a lot of allies.
>
>
>
>
>
> Would I sacrifice ATLAS3 if ALAC could honestly and vocally
>
> change ICANN to follow the public interest? In a heartbeat. But
> I
>
> suspect that is a very unpopular PoV; boy do we we love our
>
> U-shaped tables and "for the transcript record" assertions and
>
> the Board actually sharing a room with us for an hour of
>
> uselessness at each ICANN meeting.
>
>
>
> (As if anyone gives a damn about the transcripts, wherever they
>
> are...)
>
>
>
> C'mon Evan - some meetings of the ALAC with the Board have indeed
>
> been terrible, and I have probably led several of these back in
>
> the day, whereas I might have to take some blame about the
>
> failures. But since then, the relationship with the Board has
>
> improved a lot. However, there is this systemic hurdle which I
>
> allude to in the above paragraphs, which means that since Board
>
> members cannot push for things now, for fear of having a budget
>
> rejected, or worse still, being kicked out of the Board by the
>
> community. Wonderful community powers.
>
>
>
>
>
> I would disagree with the first two of your allegations and
>
> when it comes to the third point, I would say that you are
>
> missing the actual target: it is not the ALAC that is
>
> impotent in regard to service its bylaw mandate, it is the
>
> ICANN structure that puts the ALAC in a weak position as an
>
> advisory role that the ICANN Board can completely disregard
>
> and with no power whatsoever over policy processes, except
>
> taking part in discussions as individuals and coordinating
>
> the sending out of comments.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am specifically addressing what I call the "who the hell are
>
> you" phenomenon that occurs any time that ALAC expresses an
>
> opinion that goes against the corporate inertia. "You don't
> speak
>
> for anyone but yourselves, why should we listen to you?". This
>
> objection successfully stymies what little activist ALAC
>
> commentary actually gets produced.
>
>
>
> This is by design of ICANN with the acquiescence of ALAC. We
>
> *could* should we choose actually ask the whole world what it
>
> thinks is important about the DNS; instead we play futile
>
> diversity games that gloss over the fact that the 25 At-Largers
>
> in the room at ICANN meets (well, the ones that engage in
> policy)
>
> are only doing their collective best guess at the public
> interest.
>
>
>
> If you want to kill your dog, declare that it has rabies. The "who
>
> the hell are you" argument is a cheap way, used to weaken our
>
> arguments and is a blow below the belt. Who the hell are they to
>
> point the finger?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Have you read the At-Large review? I see from your point
>
> above that you have not. I am sorry but you are just
>
> repeating the very words of the At-Large review. And these
>
> were rejected by the community, an alternative wording was
>
> proposed and this was accepted by the Board and now going
>
> into implementation.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't see the current ALAC acknowledging the weakness of the
>
> ALS infrastructure, the lack of emphasis on public education, or
>
> any attempt to take ALAC beyond continuing to guess at the
> public
>
> interest.
>
>
>
> As others have said, the outside reviewers were ham-handed and
>
> ignorant of what ALAC really is or needs to be. That doesn't
> mean
>
> they couldn't accidentally be right on occasion. I don't know
> the
>
> rationale behind what they proposed but am happy to make mine.
>
>
>
> The At-Large Review implementation document has recognised that
>
> the reviewers were right and solutions have been proposed for
>
> implementation - and approved by the ICANN Board.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Second, I am utterly flabbergasted to read the point you
> make
>
> about reducing travel and investing more into virtual
> meeting
>
> technologies. You are the first person to know how terrible
>
> and expensive Internet connectivity is in many developing
>
> countries and your point is basically to promote the voice
> of
>
> developed countries at the expense of the rest of the world.
>
>
>
>
>
> Hardly. Tech has advanced by leaps and bounds, yet ICANN
>
> continues to saddle us with generations-old crap like Adobe
>
> Connect and Adigo. Let ALAC have more control over its choice of
>
> tools; give the TTF a budget to pick the best tools and have
>
> ICANN implement them based on the criteria we need.
>
>
>
> (In my own org, new generations of tools such as WebRTC and Zoom
>
> are particularly good with nodes of poor connectivity. Don't
>
> knock it till you've tried it... I have. We have other proofs of
>
> concept such as the ISOC InterConnect teleconference that seem
>
> pretty inclusive to me. And I note that at least one RALO has
>
> abandoned Skype in favour of WhatsApp for its internal chats.)
>
>
>
> Judith has responded to this and she is 100% right. We now have
>
> operational experience that the current tools used are better
>
> suited for our purpose than alternative tools.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I would also concentrate ALAC activity in ONLY three
> areas:
>
>
>
> Again, exact wordings given in the At-Large review,
> basically
>
> transforming the ALAC into a free, volunteer marketing
> agency
>
> for ICANN.
>
>
>
>
>
> Doing public education on the dangers of DNS abuse, or the
>
> differences between gTLDs and ccTLDs, whether to buy defensive
>
> domains, or the ways to address phishing or report abuse to law
>
> enforcement ... constitutes marketing for ICANN?
>
>
>
> The main issue that ALAC needs total independence in the content
>
> of the education campaigns (so long as it's in scope), the
>
> crafting of questions on the surveys and R&D, and the analysis
> of
>
> the results of said research.
>
>
>
> Without such total independence you are right, it's a propaganda
>
> machine. But properly used it can alert the public to dangers
> and
>
> problems that ICANN might want hidden.
>
>
>
> OK - thanks for the explanation. How do you propose this is
>
> funded? ICANN has slashed the Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE)
>
> budgets. Our own additional budget request envelope has been
>
> slashed. CROP has been slashed. Where do you propose we find the
>
> money to do this properly?
>
>
>
>
>
> Evan, have your expectations of the multistakeholder system
>
> in ICANN fallen so low that you are giving up bringing the
>
> input of end users into the ICANN processes? This is the
>
> primary role of At-Large!
>
>
>
>
>
> Domain names subtract value from the Internet, speculation and
>
> abuse and shakedowns are rampant, the Board has claimed
>
> unilateral rights to the auction proceeds (the issue that
> started
>
> this tread), gaming of every process is rampant, ICANN refuses
> to
>
> play regulator, and we're headed inevitably for a new round
>
> before we know if the last one served the public interest.
>
>
>
> So actually, yeah my expectations are that low. To me these
> days,
>
> ICANN's approach to multi-stakeholderism is best described as
>
> "there's no such thing as conflict of interest so long as you
>
> declare". The inmates are running the asylum and only money
>
> talks. ALAC is usually too timid to assert real change, and when
>
> we do we get shut down for not being able to prove we speak for
>
> the public.
>
>
>
> My proposals offer an alternative path to fulfilling ICANN's
>
> bylaw mandate, with which I am quite familiar.
>
>
>
> See above - I am glad to see we are starting to agree that what we
>
> need to focus on is ICANN, not At-Large or ALAC.
>
>
>
>
>
> Now if you are looking at having a group that is there to
>
> correct fake news about ICANN, end users and the
>
> multistakeholder model, then why not join the At-Large
> Social
>
> Media working group?
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/
> At-Large+Social+Media+Working+Group
>
> I see you are listed, but have not confirmed your
> membership.
>
>
>
>
>
> That's because someone may have volunteered me for the job but
>
> obviously I haven't taken it. And as I have indicated about, I
>
> would not participate in any communications activity that could
>
> not truthfully and independently protect the public against the
>
> consequences of ICANN policies. This WELL beyond countering fake
>
> news.
>
>
>
> Welcome back, Evan! I hope you and others who are lurking on the
>
> At-Large mailing list, including influential old timers that used
>
> to be very active and now feel jaded... and who post every now and
>
> then, will fully take part in the social media working group and
>
> the consolidate policy working group - where some real work takes
>
> place to improve our influence and defend the interests of end
>
> users. As for ICANN 3.0 - it's only by speaking about it that we
>
> can gain the buy-in from all parties.
>
>
>
> It's a constant struggle to make something out of mud at the
>
> grassroots.
>
>
>
> Kindest regards,
>
>
>
> Olivier
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> Christian de Larrinaga
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
More information about the At-Large
mailing list