hi Sivas, On 27 November 2010 09:44, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote: *As more and more at Large leadership positions are filled by people from
the business constituency, It is becoming very important for ALAC and at Large to preserve at Large as a user's constituency to TRULY balance the business stakeholder group. Any leadership position within ALAC and at Large should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user.*
I must say that I'm perplexed by the nature of this question, and I take it personally even though I am not a candidate for Director. My own record within At-Large is now fairly well known. I don't think that I have ever promoted an agenda that goes against user interests. Yet I am also a 50% partner in "Webwrote", a startup company making ebooks and related services. That is a business and I am most certainly intending to operate it on a for-profit basis. And since 1985 I have owned and operated my own IT consultancy. Do these activities make me a "business interest"? How has my involvement in multiple for-profit companies adversely affected my approach to ICANN policy, such as my extensive involvement in the Morality and Public Order issue, the WG creating policy on support for applicants in developing economies, etc.? I must strongly object to the inference that "business", in and of itself, is a dirty word and I take offense that merely being in business taints one's approach to ICANN's effect on end-users of the Internet. The fact is that far more adult Internet end-users run and/or work for businesses than non-profits. If At-Large did not have participants actively involved in businesses we would not reflect the reality of the end-user public for whom we claim to speak. The core business interest within ICANN that we need to confront and address is that of companies that have (and want to have) contractual relationships with ICANN who use that relationship as their business -- Registrars, registries and their resellers. Part of my own personal agenda in ALAC is to stop having ICANN operate as a trade association for these vested interests. It is an abomination that such vested interests control -- by design -- half of GNSO, ICANN's primary policy-creation vehicle. On one hand, they are in contractual arrangements with ICANN, on the other, they have substantial control over ICANN policy, therefore affecting the way the contracts with them are done. This is a core injustice that needs addressing. To me VI stands for "vested interests", and is an internal issue between them. I'm less concerned about cross-ownership than I am about the effect on end-users. which can (and should) be regulated regardless of who owns who. To that extent I supported the free-trade model, that has ICANN meddling as little as possible in that aspect so it can focus its oversight on the end-result to users. *My impression of your participation in the Post Expiry Domain Name working
group and the Vertical Integration working group is that you [Alan] are soft on the Domain Industry and muted and weak on the real issues of concerns to users.
I disagree strongly. Both Alan and Sébastien have solid credentials in advancing user interests. One could easily argue that the entire movement within ICANN to stop "domain tasting" was in large part thanks to Alan's personal initiative and his understanding of how to move that initiative through the ICANN processes. Indeed that constituted the first time ever that an At-Large initiated policy initiative was adopted by ICANN. And now PEDNR, another of Alan's policy initiatives, is following the same path.
If elected to represent at Large to take the only available seat for at Large representation in the Board, wouldn't you be equally soft on broader issues of greater importance? You have a rich experience and an impressive background, but wouldn't it be apt for you seek to be elected to the ICANN Board as a Business nominee rather than as a user's nominee? *
"Soft" is in the eye of the beholder. IMO that approach indicates a wisdom that that we won't get everything that we want immediately in huge chunks, and will need to advance our agenda within ICANN in measured, incremental stages. The Voltaire quote, *"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" -- *the perfect being the enemy of the good -- would seem to apply here. Whoever is in the Director will at times have to be more diplomat than advocate. Remember, it's just one seat in 15, and our goal is to affect policy rather than just "take stands" that are ignored.
The Business of Business is to do business. A representative from Business is fully entitled to argue for policies favorable to the survival and growth of business. But a balance will prevail only if the users have their own representative whose interests are fully aligned to the users.
See above. "Business" is how I feed and shelter my family so I can do all this fun ICANN volunteerism -- and I am as much an end-user as anyone here. My business, like that of most of the world's business, has nothing to do with the creation or selling of Internet domains. The business interests that matter in an ICANN context are those that deal with ICANN vested interests -- registrars, registries, resellers and those who are waiting in line to join those constituencies. To that extent, I would happily argue that, within the ICANN context, Internet end-user interests are more aligned with those of Coca Cola than with the smallest registrar's agent. How many relationships does Alan have with existing registries, registrars, or TLD applicants? None that I'm aware of. *THAT* is perhaps more reasonable yardstick than simply referring to "business" as something bad -- or against user interests -- in and of itself. - Evan