Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> · Sun, 5 Feb 2017 01:37:05 +0100

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,

Olivier
(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

Subject:	Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters role and future
Date:	Sun, 5 Feb 2017 01:37:05 +0100
From:	Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
To:	Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com>, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
CC:	ISOC Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org>