[At-Large] - Price caps - was: The Case for Regulatory Capture at ICANN | Review Signal Blog

[Evan Leibovitch]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 21:51, <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:


> Reforms are possible also.
>

This is worth exploring, because I'm currentky of the position that ICANN
is too far down its path to entitlement to consider any meaningful reform.
While the org constantly nags its constituencies to spend person-hours
considering tiny tweaks (most of which are rejected), I really wonder if
the org is too far gone, whether its core culture can do the kind of
180-degree turn necessary. And by 180 degrees I mean an environment in
which governments and technicians and public interest bodies are the policy
makers and industry are the advisory committees.


> As are mixed systems which I believe ICANN claimed to be working towards
> for at least a while. Isn't that why At Large was formed?


When I first got involved in At-Large Wendy Seltzer, at the time ALAC
liaison to the Board, told me that I was wasting my time, that At-Large was
a facade created by ICANN to create an illusion of public interest. After a
decade-plus of involvement I have a hard time coming to a different
conclusion. Our achievements have been non-zero but have done nothing to
change the culture of corruption and entitlement.


> It just never itself much evolved into an "at large" organization


That has resulted from a lack of focus which I've described in other
threads (registrars are end-users too!), a confusion actively fed by ICANN
At-Large staff pressing ALAC to comment on issues that have nothing to do
with end-users.

Governance structures per se are a complicated topic and it would be
> irresponsible for me or anyone else to just off-the-cuff suggest other
> structures in a discussion like this.
>

My longtime favourite model is the one used at the 2014 Netmundial
conference, unfortunately a one-off.

There must be some middle ground but it would take a lot of thought.
>

Thought isn't enough. The IGF has expended countless hours of thought and
talk. Other think tanks have probably matched the IGF in volume of thought
produced. To what end?

More important than thought is any shred of willingness of the ICANN status
quo to be moderated. I see no signs that it has any interest to budge.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20190701/42cc6b0c/attachment.html>