Dear Olivier, none of my comments or questions were answered. I think most of all comments have not been answered, even before the first draft. Kind regards Alberto De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Enviado el: Sunday, February 5, 2017 6:39 PM Para: ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: [At-Large] Fwd: Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters role and future Dear all, FYI -- a response from me, to a thread that came up on the ISOC Chapter leaders mailing list. The topic is specifically the downgrading of At-Large Structures by equalling them to individual membership. With many chapters as At-Large Structures, the Internet Society Chapters would be affected. BTW -- as part of the At-Large Review working group, I submitted over 100 comments on the original document that was presented by the consultants to the Review working group. It appears that most of my comments were ignored. I plan to comment further - when I find the time to do so - and would be happy to contribute to an ALAC comment. Kindest regards, Olivier ps. I admit that I am one of the "big-mouthed" people. :-) -------- Forwarded Message -------- 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 <mailto:ocl@gih.com> <ocl@gih.com> To: Alejandro Pisanty <mailto:apisanty@gmail.com> <apisanty@gmail.com>, Richard Hill <mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch> <rhill@hill-a.ch> CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates <mailto:chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org> <chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org> 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