Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP
Hear, hear, Holly. I'd say there are at least 3 deliverables in that intervention: 1. An ALAC statement on the overall sorry state of new gTLD program - let's draft one, I'm ready to work on it. Any other volunteers? 2. A Public Forum intervention on the same. 3. A discussion in Buenos Aires (if not at a MS roundtable, then at least at an ALAC policy discussion session). The fight over time slots seems intense - you wouldn't believe how many sessions the IDN WG session overlaps with (as an example of a struggle for time and people). As I recalled, it clashes with capacity building, Atlas II and some other things, and that is just within the community, not even factoring external activities. Rinalia On Oct 4, 2013 7:24 AM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I guess it is my turn.
One of my real objections to the proposed and Sally led meeting Monday afternoon is that we were planning a third multi stakeholder forum - this time on the new gTLDs - to have a hard look at the many many issues that we have raised and finally ask is there anything that can be done. That includes PICS, it includes the metrics, it includes the totally nonsensical rulings on con/can and the singular plural issue, and the IP issues, and the issues of applicant support. In the end, it is a litany of quick fixes that have not fixed. So maybe time to say so, rather than object to each issue individually.
That said, yes, the PICS were an add on, largely at the GAC request that, if people say they are going to do something, then they should do it. But enforcing it after the fact has proved - not surprisingly - very problematic. Another issue with the gTLDs gone bad.
Maybe the multi stakeholder forum - if it is held - could be titled what is right with the new gTLDs. It would be a very short session.
Holly
On 04/10/2013, at 7:29 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Now it is my turn to ++1 Carlton :-)
The process is stacked to the advantage of registries, to the disadvantage of registrants who much pay for the system, and heavily against non-registrant end-users who see the promises coming undone.
Most unnerving is the explicit references to "repeat offenders", which IMO is deliberately targeting potential watchdog groups that would object on public interest grounds.
The process for creating PICs was shaky enough. The process for enforcing them is a sham, designed for public relations value without actually providing significant public benefit. Like Applicantg Support and the public (ALAC/Ombudsman) Objection process, they are complex in design and will see next to no use.
The problems are embedded and cultural, no amount of tweaking will fix this.
Does the ALAC have the courage to point out this program's utter failure to the Board?
- Evan
On 3 October 2013 12:14, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
So, the PICDRP is revised. Yawn.
For sure, it is a poster child for what lawyers call - often times with tongue firmly rooted in cheek - 'due process'. Regrettably and in IMMHO, it yet remains a creature that is all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'. Yes, in the end, it is still not worth a warm bucket of spit.
The fundamental problem remains; it is a high bar we raise to deny companies the right to change a business model - or approach to implementing a model - in process. That is a flightless buzzard of a bird.
The notion of 'to report is to offend' remains. Now, I freely admit that as a free thinker, all orthodoxies remain suspect absent they are forced thru the crucible of reason. But this position as a conceptual framework is and remains so injurious to perceptions of good governance it is practically indecent!
I have excerpted and highlighted a part of the revised procedure below. It frames what follows better than I could; it is as if ICANN had engaged a circular firing squad to execute PIC enforcement:
*"1.3 .....ICANN will conduct a preliminary review of the PIC report to ensure that it is complete and states a claim of non-compliance with one or more PICs. ICANN also will make a determination as to* *PICDRP- 2* *whether the Reporter is in good standing and is not a Repeat Offender as set forth below in Section 5. * * * *ICANN’s preliminary review is not intended to evaluate the merits of the allegations, but whether the Reporter has completed all of the reporting obligations.* * * *In particular, ICANN will review whether the Reporter has: (i) identified the proper parties; (ii) identified at least one PIC with which the Registry Operator failed to comply, (iii) alleged how the Reporter has been harmed; and (iv) set forth the grounds of the claim and submitted appropriate documentation to support the report of non-compliance.* * * *1.4** If the PIC report fails the preliminary review, ICANN will notify the Reporter and the Registry Operator, and **the PIC report will be closed. * * * *2. Initial Review of the PIC Report and Conference* *2.1 If the PIC report passes ICANN’s preliminary review, ICANN will forward the report to the Registry Operator (through its Abuse Point of Contact) and notify the Reporter that the PIC report has been forwarded to the Registry Operator.*"
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ Registrants-rights mailing list Registrants-rights@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights
WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vo4i
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ Registrants-rights mailing list Registrants-rights@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights
WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vo4i
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Thanks Rinalia I'm happy to do something now, but I think the time and place for a statement is when we are all at the table (or pub or whatever) and can pool ideas/frustrations into the final list of what is wrong. And Yes, please, something public - Forum or whatever - on the issue. And the timetable - we should all develop a list (within the next couple of weeks) of the top issues for us - and then those are what will be in the ALAC policy discussion. My picks for topics: - new gTLDs - IDNs - - The whole RAA/Whois set of issues. That includes where we are up to with Compliance with existing RAA requirements, what are the outstanding issues and where are we up to with the EWG. Others are welcome to list their top items, but let's concentrate on the main issues for us - and work towards having the Multi-stkaeholder forum as well Holly On 04/10/2013, at 9:56 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Hear, hear, Holly.
I'd say there are at least 3 deliverables in that intervention:
1. An ALAC statement on the overall sorry state of new gTLD program - let's draft one, I'm ready to work on it. Any other volunteers?
2. A Public Forum intervention on the same.
3. A discussion in Buenos Aires (if not at a MS roundtable, then at least at an ALAC policy discussion session). The fight over time slots seems intense - you wouldn't believe how many sessions the IDN WG session overlaps with (as an example of a struggle for time and people). As I recalled, it clashes with capacity building, Atlas II and some other things, and that is just within the community, not even factoring external activities.
Rinalia On Oct 4, 2013 7:24 AM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I guess it is my turn.
One of my real objections to the proposed and Sally led meeting Monday afternoon is that we were planning a third multi stakeholder forum - this time on the new gTLDs - to have a hard look at the many many issues that we have raised and finally ask is there anything that can be done. That includes PICS, it includes the metrics, it includes the totally nonsensical rulings on con/can and the singular plural issue, and the IP issues, and the issues of applicant support. In the end, it is a litany of quick fixes that have not fixed. So maybe time to say so, rather than object to each issue individually.
That said, yes, the PICS were an add on, largely at the GAC request that, if people say they are going to do something, then they should do it. But enforcing it after the fact has proved - not surprisingly - very problematic. Another issue with the gTLDs gone bad.
Maybe the multi stakeholder forum - if it is held - could be titled what is right with the new gTLDs. It would be a very short session.
Holly
On 04/10/2013, at 7:29 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Now it is my turn to ++1 Carlton :-)
The process is stacked to the advantage of registries, to the disadvantage of registrants who much pay for the system, and heavily against non-registrant end-users who see the promises coming undone.
Most unnerving is the explicit references to "repeat offenders", which IMO is deliberately targeting potential watchdog groups that would object on public interest grounds.
The process for creating PICs was shaky enough. The process for enforcing them is a sham, designed for public relations value without actually providing significant public benefit. Like Applicantg Support and the public (ALAC/Ombudsman) Objection process, they are complex in design and will see next to no use.
The problems are embedded and cultural, no amount of tweaking will fix this.
Does the ALAC have the courage to point out this program's utter failure to the Board?
- Evan
On 3 October 2013 12:14, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
So, the PICDRP is revised. Yawn.
For sure, it is a poster child for what lawyers call - often times with tongue firmly rooted in cheek - 'due process'. Regrettably and in IMMHO, it yet remains a creature that is all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'. Yes, in the end, it is still not worth a warm bucket of spit.
The fundamental problem remains; it is a high bar we raise to deny companies the right to change a business model - or approach to implementing a model - in process. That is a flightless buzzard of a bird.
The notion of 'to report is to offend' remains. Now, I freely admit that as a free thinker, all orthodoxies remain suspect absent they are forced thru the crucible of reason. But this position as a conceptual framework is and remains so injurious to perceptions of good governance it is practically indecent!
I have excerpted and highlighted a part of the revised procedure below. It frames what follows better than I could; it is as if ICANN had engaged a circular firing squad to execute PIC enforcement:
*"1.3 .....ICANN will conduct a preliminary review of the PIC report to ensure that it is complete and states a claim of non-compliance with one or more PICs. ICANN also will make a determination as to* *PICDRP- 2* *whether the Reporter is in good standing and is not a Repeat Offender as set forth below in Section 5. * * * *ICANN’s preliminary review is not intended to evaluate the merits of the allegations, but whether the Reporter has completed all of the reporting obligations.* * * *In particular, ICANN will review whether the Reporter has: (i) identified the proper parties; (ii) identified at least one PIC with which the Registry Operator failed to comply, (iii) alleged how the Reporter has been harmed; and (iv) set forth the grounds of the claim and submitted appropriate documentation to support the report of non-compliance.* * * *1.4** If the PIC report fails the preliminary review, ICANN will notify the Reporter and the Registry Operator, and **the PIC report will be closed. * * * *2. Initial Review of the PIC Report and Conference* *2.1 If the PIC report passes ICANN’s preliminary review, ICANN will forward the report to the Registry Operator (through its Abuse Point of Contact) and notify the Reporter that the PIC report has been forwarded to the Registry Operator.*"
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ Registrants-rights mailing list Registrants-rights@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights
WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vo4i
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ Registrants-rights mailing list Registrants-rights@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights
WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vo4i
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
On 3 October 2013 19:56, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>wrote:
I'd say there are at least 3 deliverables in that intervention:
1. An ALAC statement on the overall sorry state of new gTLD program - let's draft one, I'm ready to work on it. Any other volunteers?
2. A Public Forum intervention on the same.
3. A discussion in Buenos Aires (if not at a MS roundtable, then at least at an ALAC policy discussion session).
I guess my main response to this is one of weariness. So we make a statement on the sorry state of the expansion program. Heaven knows there is a MASSIVE list of errors, unintended consequences, implementations that don't follow the spirit of policy. Worst of all is continuation of a compliance atmosphere that treats complaints from the public as hostile confrontations to be rebuffed and minimized -- not by making the system better for end-users, but by making it harder to complain. The PICDRP is just the latest. But what, right now, would a statement say? What would it ask for? If it's just a matter of going on the record with our issues ... so what? Nobody's listening. The gTLD locomotive is running at top speed, generally pilotless, the brakes have been sabotaged, and the industry is just hoping it gets as far as the bank before it derails. Dare we ask for a delay to deal with all these ugly public-interest issues? And have the rest of the ICANN community despise us ... while it ignores us? A statement, a Forum speech and a round table are tactics; what is the objective? Let everyone know we're unhappy? Again? They know. They don't care, at least not enough to act on what we recommend. Even Applicant Support would not have happened without GAC intervention, and even then the resulting program turned out to be wholly inaccessible. Anyone remember this? *We believe that "public benefit" declarations within TLD applications will be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to substantial modification (and difficulty of enforcement) post-delegation.* That was part of a early 2011 submission from the ALAC that responded to both the GAC Scorecard on the gTLD program and the Board response to the Scorecard<https://community.icann.org/display/alacdocs/ALAC+Statement+on+the+GAC+New+g...>. Little that we asked for came about; the trademark over-jealousness requested by the GAC to which we objected has snuck in anyway, yet our support of the GAC for more categories, and most of our other concerns (such as dot-brands not having been sufficiently thought out) went largely unheeded. That was more than two years ago, when there was still an opportunity to nudge things if not steer them differently. Now opportunity for real change is smaller yet. The lack of substantive change in the PICDRP reveals that the corporate mindset and cultural end-user hostility of ICANN hasn't really budged, the rules are still all stacked in favour of the domain industry and against public interest complaints. The problems are fundamental in the resolution process and beyond minor refinements; but once the gTLD staff has gone in a process -- no matter how loopy -- it rarely backtracks. Not for us, at least. Problems we saw in the early years are manifesting now in nasty ways. And while we sometimes get heard in some of the smaller details on putting out these fires, the big cultural problems of ICANN -- of industry entitlement and end-user hostility -- refuse to wane. So what, exactly, do we want to tell the Board as Advice, or the rest of the community in a workshop or Forum comment? What outcome do we want? I'll help write something, but I've lost the interest in penning One More Expression of Mildly Cloaked Disgust. - Evan
While agreeing with Rinalia about the need for some form of intervention, I also share Evan's analysis. Over the past 2+ years, some of the more successful contributions of the ALAC have been either through a personal contact with the Board Chair (thanks to the personality of our Chair), or a letter from Chair to Chair. Other forms of intervention have at best been received graciously, but more usually in a perfunctory way (reply about the way in which EIU was selected). As Evan reminds us, formal Advice does now bring a response, but simply because Legal Counsel's Office considers it as an insurance against possible future trouble. In the case under consideration, we may wish to consider combining several approaches: - seek to create an issue-based (and therefore temporary) alliance with any segment of ICANN willing to defend the same idea (in this case, GAC + non-commercial + ccNSO?); - a letter to the Board Chair, not just setting out the problem, but suggesting corrective measures. Ideally, such a letter would be signed by the Chairs of the temporary alliance. - Going public in ICANN (Public Forum, roundtable if available) and outside (CircleID and other sites). Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> À: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> Cc: "ALAC Working List" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé: Samedi 5 Octobre 2013 12:21:13 Objet: Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP On 3 October 2013 19:56, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>wrote:
I'd say there are at least 3 deliverables in that intervention:
1. An ALAC statement on the overall sorry state of new gTLD program - let's draft one, I'm ready to work on it. Any other volunteers?
2. A Public Forum intervention on the same.
3. A discussion in Buenos Aires (if not at a MS roundtable, then at least at an ALAC policy discussion session).
I guess my main response to this is one of weariness. So we make a statement on the sorry state of the expansion program. Heaven knows there is a MASSIVE list of errors, unintended consequences, implementations that don't follow the spirit of policy. Worst of all is continuation of a compliance atmosphere that treats complaints from the public as hostile confrontations to be rebuffed and minimized -- not by making the system better for end-users, but by making it harder to complain. The PICDRP is just the latest. But what, right now, would a statement say? What would it ask for? If it's just a matter of going on the record with our issues ... so what? Nobody's listening. The gTLD locomotive is running at top speed, generally pilotless, the brakes have been sabotaged, and the industry is just hoping it gets as far as the bank before it derails. Dare we ask for a delay to deal with all these ugly public-interest issues? And have the rest of the ICANN community despise us ... while it ignores us? A statement, a Forum speech and a round table are tactics; what is the objective? Let everyone know we're unhappy? Again? They know. They don't care, at least not enough to act on what we recommend. Even Applicant Support would not have happened without GAC intervention, and even then the resulting program turned out to be wholly inaccessible. Anyone remember this? *We believe that "public benefit" declarations within TLD applications will be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to substantial modification (and difficulty of enforcement) post-delegation.* That was part of a early 2011 submission from the ALAC that responded to both the GAC Scorecard on the gTLD program and the Board response to the Scorecard<https://community.icann.org/display/alacdocs/ALAC+Statement+on+the+GAC+New+g...>. Little that we asked for came about; the trademark over-jealousness requested by the GAC to which we objected has snuck in anyway, yet our support of the GAC for more categories, and most of our other concerns (such as dot-brands not having been sufficiently thought out) went largely unheeded. That was more than two years ago, when there was still an opportunity to nudge things if not steer them differently. Now opportunity for real change is smaller yet. The lack of substantive change in the PICDRP reveals that the corporate mindset and cultural end-user hostility of ICANN hasn't really budged, the rules are still all stacked in favour of the domain industry and against public interest complaints. The problems are fundamental in the resolution process and beyond minor refinements; but once the gTLD staff has gone in a process -- no matter how loopy -- it rarely backtracks. Not for us, at least. Problems we saw in the early years are manifesting now in nasty ways. And while we sometimes get heard in some of the smaller details on putting out these fires, the big cultural problems of ICANN -- of industry entitlement and end-user hostility -- refuse to wane. So what, exactly, do we want to tell the Board as Advice, or the rest of the community in a workshop or Forum comment? What outcome do we want? I'll help write something, but I've lost the interest in penning One More Expression of Mildly Cloaked Disgust. - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs@fastmail.fm>wrote:
In the case under consideration, we may wish to consider combining several approaches: - seek to create an issue-based (and therefore temporary) alliance with any segment of ICANN willing to defend the same idea (in this case, GAC + non-commercial + ccNSO?); - a letter to the Board Chair, not just setting out the problem, but suggesting corrective measures. Ideally, such a letter would be signed by the Chairs of the temporary alliance. - Going public in ICANN (Public Forum, roundtable if available) and outside (CircleID and other sites).
Here's some sage advice. We ramp up and attack from many angles. +1 -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
Just an observer comment, someone mentioned crowd source, that is actually your strategic advantage as Carlton has rightly put, crowd sourcing and going inward to outward is from various different angles. In the ICANN community world, CircleID, various domain news sites, even the bbc matter to create that noise that matters. One thing I've always felt over the years is ALAC could have had was a Policy Communication Dissemination WG that could focus on creating inward outward and outward inward crowd-sourced campaigns to let the ICANN community and rest of the possibly interested news and media world know that what the users voice and soul thinks. This is ALACs version of a user intellect and intelligence team, with non-alac but ralo members, not,concerned with managing RALOs and alac but rather making it more strategic. Such would only make ALAC's presence and existence more strong beyond its present remit. In the 'other' real world public policy world, we have extensive strategizing and dissemination of something called communicating policy and we go about using it to counter lobby groups, policy forums, creating diplomatic noise before all the G 8s,77s etc happen, creating public opinion. It helps us take our public policy issues beyond personal interest issues turning them into everyone's problem. I thought we could learn from GAC and the corporate lobbyists, they both come out of the traditional public policy space but are redefined in their roles in society and economy to have different titles and roles in the governance universe, and are sometimes strategic in new ways. The closest advice I have ever read is sometimes in Rinalia's comments, she has policy experience beyond the remit of ICANN from the 'real policy world interactions' and maybe she might help ALAC understand what I am trying to get at here. Communicating policy is both about being experienced and strategic and knowing how to communication with the public beyond using traditional mediums. If the challenge is that one exists in the closed universe of various policy and governance activities but is unable to successfully communicate all the work and concerns creates a thought provoking problem, there are other challenges to this environment but what if there was a lobbyist style policy communication group in ALAC, then, I'd be really scared of you in other parts of ICANN because the more noisy you are, the more my ICANN is in trouble. Strengthening institutes isn't a bad idea even if it happens in ALAC alone. By the way, this is a non-geek way of communication that I refer to. Countries use it to convince their citizens that their good ol tax money is being used to kick the right bums, do we think those citizens are down right dumb, no, it's that group of intelligentsia that coaxes them to believe so and does it with a lot of noise, I hope you understand my undertones, think and act in a more strategic manner will help reduce your frustrations. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Oct 6, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs@fastmail.fm>wrote:
In the case under consideration, we may wish to consider combining several approaches: - seek to create an issue-based (and therefore temporary) alliance with any segment of ICANN willing to defend the same idea (in this case, GAC + non-commercial + ccNSO?); - a letter to the Board Chair, not just setting out the problem, but suggesting corrective measures. Ideally, such a letter would be signed by the Chairs of the temporary alliance. - Going public in ICANN (Public Forum, roundtable if available) and outside (CircleID and other sites).
Here's some sage advice. We ramp up and attack from many angles.
+1
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Hello Fouad, you make a good case for having and implementing a communication policy in ALAC. I agree. How can we go about this? The dilemma, and sometimes the challenge for ALAC, is that it was created to keep the kids warm and happy. They were invited to comment on ongoing discussions happening elsewhere. Failing that first step, there was no prospect of ALAC ever becoming a serious interlocutor. Thanks to the progress achieved over the past few years (kudos to the successive Chairs and members), ALAC has earned the respect of the community, and on occasion is even heeded by the Board. As we know, the turning point came at the end of the Review of ALAC by the Board, with the recommendation that one Board seat, with voting rights, be offered to our community. This status has provided visibility and respectability. But the work is still, to a large extent, about reacting to discussions going on elsewhere. Without a fundamental -and at this stage, unlikely- reform of ICANN, ALAC's role will remain advisory. But even with that statutory limitation, it is within our own power, and ability, to shift part of our effort from reacting to initiating, from sharing someone else's agenda to defending the global public interest on our own, or with a set of issues-based alliances. This is where a communication policy becomes necessary. Fouad, you suggest a WG: why not. Other approaches are possible: a) ALAC's Executive Committe could be asked to include in its agenda, say 4 times a year, a serious discussion on communication policy and implementation; b) alternatively, a person within the ExeCom, or simply a member of ALAC, could be asked to be the focal point for such a task; c) or, as you suggest Fouad, a WG could be created to include people from a wider circle, capable of providing professional advice and carry out actual work in this respect; d) and, or course, we could combine the above b + c.
From experience, I'd say that in this instance the structure is not the crucial part. The policy is. And the implementation.
I'm willing to help. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> À: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@fastmail.fm>, "ALAC Working List" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé: Dimanche 6 Octobre 2013 07:12:05 Objet: Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP Just an observer comment, someone mentioned crowd source, that is actually your strategic advantage as Carlton has rightly put, crowd sourcing and going inward to outward is from various different angles. In the ICANN community world, CircleID, various domain news sites, even the bbc matter to create that noise that matters. One thing I've always felt over the years is ALAC could have had was a Policy Communication Dissemination WG that could focus on creating inward outward and outward inward crowd-sourced campaigns to let the ICANN community and rest of the possibly interested news and media world know that what the users voice and soul thinks. This is ALACs version of a user intellect and intelligence team, with non-alac but ralo members, not,concerned with managing RALOs and alac but rather making it more strategic. Such would only make ALAC's presence and existence more strong beyond its present remit. In the 'other' real world public policy world, we have extensive strategizing and dissemination of something called communicating policy and we go about using it to counter lobby groups, policy forums, creating diplomatic noise before all the G 8s,77s etc happen, creating public opinion. It helps us take our public policy issues beyond personal interest issues turning them into everyone's problem. I thought we could learn from GAC and the corporate lobbyists, they both come out of the traditional public policy space but are redefined in their roles in society and economy to have different titles and roles in the governance universe, and are sometimes strategic in new ways. The closest advice I have ever read is sometimes in Rinalia's comments, she has policy experience beyond the remit of ICANN from the 'real policy world interactions' and maybe she might help ALAC understand what I am trying to get at here. Communicating policy is both about being experienced and strategic and knowing how to communication with the public beyond using traditional mediums. If the challenge is that one exists in the closed universe of various policy and governance activities but is unable to successfully communicate all the work and concerns creates a thought provoking problem, there are other challenges to this environment but what if there was a lobbyist style policy communication group in ALAC, then, I'd be really scared of you in other parts of ICANN because the more noisy you are, the more my ICANN is in trouble. Strengthening institutes isn't a bad idea even if it happens in ALAC alone. By the way, this is a non-geek way of communication that I refer to. Countries use it to convince their citizens that their good ol tax money is being used to kick the right bums, do we think those citizens are down right dumb, no, it's that group of intelligentsia that coaxes them to believe so and does it with a lot of noise, I hope you understand my undertones, think and act in a more strategic manner will help reduce your frustrations. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Oct 6, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs@fastmail.fm>wrote:
In the case under consideration, we may wish to consider combining several approaches: - seek to create an issue-based (and therefore temporary) alliance with any segment of ICANN willing to defend the same idea (in this case, GAC + non-commercial + ccNSO?); - a letter to the Board Chair, not just setting out the problem, but suggesting corrective measures. Ideally, such a letter would be signed by the Chairs of the temporary alliance. - Going public in ICANN (Public Forum, roundtable if available) and outside (CircleID and other sites).
Here's some sage advice. We ramp up and attack from many angles.
+1
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
What Fouad has outlined here is the baseline requirement if the ALAC intends to set and pursue its defined agenda as Rinalia, Holly and JJS have promoted in this thread. Holly has suggested a formula and JJS refined and gave it a framework. So on the balance of these facts, its a +1. This needs a team that can distill our arguments into bite size chunks that can attract wide attention in the various channels proposed so we gain some traction. Evan and Fouad are natural for this given their background. I'm not sure if we call it a WG but no matter what, expect a vicious pushback. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
Just an observer comment, someone mentioned crowd source, that is actually your strategic advantage as Carlton has rightly put, crowd sourcing and going inward to outward is from various different angles. In the ICANN community world, CircleID, various domain news sites, even the bbc matter to create that noise that matters.
One thing I've always felt over the years is ALAC could have had was a Policy Communication Dissemination WG that could focus on creating inward outward and outward inward crowd-sourced campaigns to let the ICANN community and rest of the possibly interested news and media world know that what the users voice and soul thinks. This is ALACs version of a user intellect and intelligence team, with non-alac but ralo members, not,concerned with managing RALOs and alac but rather making it more strategic.
Such would only make ALAC's presence and existence more strong beyond its present remit. In the 'other' real world public policy world, we have extensive strategizing and dissemination of something called communicating policy and we go about using it to counter lobby groups, policy forums, creating diplomatic noise before all the G 8s,77s etc happen, creating public opinion. It helps us take our public policy issues beyond personal interest issues turning them into everyone's problem. I thought we could learn from GAC and the corporate lobbyists, they both come out of the traditional public policy space but are redefined in their roles in society and economy to have different titles and roles in the governance universe, and are sometimes strategic in new ways.
The closest advice I have ever read is sometimes in Rinalia's comments, she has policy experience beyond the remit of ICANN from the 'real policy world interactions' and maybe she might help ALAC understand what I am trying to get at here.
Communicating policy is both about being experienced and strategic and knowing how to communication with the public beyond using traditional mediums. If the challenge is that one exists in the closed universe of various policy and governance activities but is unable to successfully communicate all the work and concerns creates a thought provoking problem, there are other challenges to this environment but what if there was a lobbyist style policy communication group in ALAC, then, I'd be really scared of you in other parts of ICANN because the more noisy you are, the more my ICANN is in trouble. Strengthening institutes isn't a bad idea even if it happens in ALAC alone.
By the way, this is a non-geek way of communication that I refer to. Countries use it to convince their citizens that their good ol tax money is being used to kick the right bums, do we think those citizens are down right dumb, no, it's that group of intelligentsia that coaxes them to believe so and does it with a lot of noise, I hope you understand my undertones, think and act in a more strategic manner will help reduce your frustrations.
Best Regards Fouad Bajwa
Sent from my mobile device
On Oct 6, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
non-commercial + ccNSO?); - a letter to the Board Chair, not just setting out the problem, but suggesting corrective measures. Ideally, such a letter would be signed by the Chairs of the temporary alliance. - Going public in ICANN (Public Forum, roundtable if available) and outside (CircleID and other sites).
Here's some sage advice. We ramp up and attack from many angles.
+1
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs@fastmail.fm wrote:
In the case under consideration, we may wish to consider combining several approaches: - seek to create an issue-based (and therefore temporary) alliance with any segment of ICANN willing to defend the same idea (in this case, GAC
Time - again - to speak up Evan is, of course, correct- and depressingly so. However, as Carlton says, ALAC represents the voices that aren't heard - and should be. So tempting as it is to give up, I prefer JJ and Carlton's suggested actions - a combination of strategies that includes alliances (I know the Oz bit of GAC is 'up to the eyeballs' - or more with the unutterably flawed gTLD processes) and letters. So Please - a long session - and let's make it a strategy session - everyone around the table (including those in the GNSO who have issues with the gTLDs) for not only what has gone wrong (too easy to say and too long to spell out) but can we identify what can be saved? Otherwise, we'd have to do nothing - and I don't like that response. And another question to us all: What are the other few big issues that we should focus on - and campaign on. Holly
Following on Holly's remark ("what are the other few big issues that we should focus on - and campaign on?"), I would like to develop my own previous suggestion. - SCOPE. The narrower the issue we choose, the more there is a risk of divergent positions between ACs and SOs. The following may sound too wide, but all along I've been thinking about a list of issues under a single heading, e.g. "New gTLDs: taking stock and looking forward from the user perspective". In fact, a couple of weeks ago I suggested to Evan, as co-chair of the FCWG, that we make this our next piece of work in the WG. Evan accepted the idea, which will be fielded soon in the ALAC. But we could already initiate this in time for Buenos Aires. - ALLIANCE. We should determine those aspects of the new gTLD programme on which the ALAC stands a fair chance of gaining support from other entities in ICANN, and build up from there. In the end, we may not have agreement from everyone on every aspect, but such an exercise would provide a platform wide enough to warrant a joint letter, and a public debate, involving the signatories. - WHY THIS, WHY NOW? Like others in our community, I sense an impending crisis. A technical crisis, for sure, because the contradictory mechanisms chosen thus far will bring about a major clash. But also a crisis of confidence, because trust had been placed in the leadership of ICANN to navigate these complicated waters: there is now the widespread realization that the most important aspects have been gamed, and patched over not with real solutions, but with legal phrasing intended only to preserve the hind part of the Board. The crisis of confidence is also heightened by the revelations about the way the Internet has been misused for meta-surveillance. You may think that cannot damage ICANN. I think it may. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net> À: "ALAC Working List" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé: Dimanche 6 Octobre 2013 08:07:21 Objet: Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP Time - again - to speak up Evan is, of course, correct- and depressingly so. However, as Carlton says, ALAC represents the voices that aren't heard - and should be. So tempting as it is to give up, I prefer JJ and Carlton's suggested actions - a combination of strategies that includes alliances (I know the Oz bit of GAC is 'up to the eyeballs' - or more with the unutterably flawed gTLD processes) and letters. So Please - a long session - and let's make it a strategy session - everyone around the table (including those in the GNSO who have issues with the gTLDs) for not only what has gone wrong (too easy to say and too long to spell out) but can we identify what can be saved? Otherwise, we'd have to do nothing - and I don't like that response. And another question to us all: What are the other few big issues that we should focus on - and campaign on. Holly _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Speaking truth to power can be such a lonely task. For it is beginning to look as if Evan has been on this solo for ever. He's right in his analysis. Ain't even a whole helluva lot of nothing to show for our interventions. So, what do we do? In some ways being in the ICANN At-Large is like unrequited love. You know you will not get the prize but you soldier on, at least convinced that what you feel is real. And you hope, sometimes against hope itself, that your day to hear "I love you" will come. This enterprise is too important to people who have no voice and need one for us to cede the field. With all the passion you see, this is what you hear from Evan. That's a +1. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 3 October 2013 19:56, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>wrote:
I'd say there are at least 3 deliverables in that intervention:
1. An ALAC statement on the overall sorry state of new gTLD program - let's draft one, I'm ready to work on it. Any other volunteers?
2. A Public Forum intervention on the same.
3. A discussion in Buenos Aires (if not at a MS roundtable, then at least at an ALAC policy discussion session).
I guess my main response to this is one of weariness.
So we make a statement on the sorry state of the expansion program. Heaven knows there is a MASSIVE list of errors, unintended consequences, implementations that don't follow the spirit of policy. Worst of all is continuation of a compliance atmosphere that treats complaints from the public as hostile confrontations to be rebuffed and minimized -- not by making the system better for end-users, but by making it harder to complain. The PICDRP is just the latest.
But what, right now, would a statement say? What would it ask for?
If it's just a matter of going on the record with our issues ... so what? Nobody's listening. The gTLD locomotive is running at top speed, generally pilotless, the brakes have been sabotaged, and the industry is just hoping it gets as far as the bank before it derails.
Dare we ask for a delay to deal with all these ugly public-interest issues? And have the rest of the ICANN community despise us ... while it ignores us?
A statement, a Forum speech and a round table are tactics; what is the objective? Let everyone know we're unhappy? Again?
They know. They don't care, at least not enough to act on what we recommend. Even Applicant Support would not have happened without GAC intervention, and even then the resulting program turned out to be wholly inaccessible.
Anyone remember this?
*We believe that "public benefit" declarations within TLD applications will be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to substantial modification (and difficulty of enforcement) post-delegation.*
That was part of a early 2011 submission from the ALAC that responded to both the GAC Scorecard on the gTLD program and the Board response to the Scorecard< https://community.icann.org/display/alacdocs/ALAC+Statement+on+the+GAC+New+g...
. Little that we asked for came about; the trademark over-jealousness requested by the GAC to which we objected has snuck in anyway, yet our support of the GAC for more categories, and most of our other concerns (such as dot-brands not having been sufficiently thought out) went largely unheeded.
That was more than two years ago, when there was still an opportunity to nudge things if not steer them differently. Now opportunity for real change is smaller yet.
The lack of substantive change in the PICDRP reveals that the corporate mindset and cultural end-user hostility of ICANN hasn't really budged, the rules are still all stacked in favour of the domain industry and against public interest complaints. The problems are fundamental in the resolution process and beyond minor refinements; but once the gTLD staff has gone in a process -- no matter how loopy -- it rarely backtracks. Not for us, at least. Problems we saw in the early years are manifesting now in nasty ways. And while we sometimes get heard in some of the smaller details on putting out these fires, the big cultural problems of ICANN -- of industry entitlement and end-user hostility -- refuse to wane.
So what, exactly, do we want to tell the Board as Advice, or the rest of the community in a workshop or Forum comment? What outcome do we want?
I'll help write something, but I've lost the interest in penning One More Expression of Mildly Cloaked Disgust.
- Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (6)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Fouad Bajwa -
Holly Raiche -
Jean-Jacques Subrenat -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim