Some interesting points, and I will address them one by one. At 13/01/2017 12:12 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

On 13 January 2017 at 11:02, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Although I clearly understand the connection between PIR:ISOC:ISOC Chapters, I am curious as to exactly what you see as the potential conflict?

At a meta level, this:

PIR does a great many objectively-good things in supporting user-centric and progressive Internet Governance, not only in its support of ISOC (though that is its most high-profile benefactor). But to do that, PIR must still maximize revenue from domain sales, which presents a potential conflict with At-Large approaches to domain policy.

I think that this is an issue that does require some thought and which is why from my perspective I had to think about it. But not an awful lot. I have a pretty good knowledge of PIR. I was the one of those on the ISOC Board who strongly pushed for ISOC to bid on .org (against some strong opposition), and I personally know most of the senior people in PIR. Of all of the entities in the domain business, I feel that they are more closely aligned with what we stand for than anyone else I can think of. And should .NGO one day do something that we are against, this representative will potentially (factoring in the potential need for confidentiality) give use advance notice of more insight into it. And I cannot imagine us not making a negative comment on such an issue just because we have a rep on the advisory council.

I'm also concerned about the optics.

As are we all. But optics are PERCEIVED conflicts and they are, to some extent, a fact of life. They must be addressed and where possible managed, but cannot be eliminated. The many patently false statements about us in the quotes in the draft review document are great examples of this.

As I said in an earlier mail, the At-Large Review seems overly interested by the ALAC/ISOC connections, and this would be a good opportunity -- if we can so avail -- to bring forward those in the community outside that alleged influence. That's all.

The report is curious in this area. It implies too much focus on ISOC Chapters, then goes on to say we should work more closely with ISOC.

If the talent pool is sufficiently small that the best rep is indeed an ISOC Chapter member, and PIR is OK with that, then OK by me too. I just suggest making an explicit effort looking outside ISOC-affiliated ALSs.

I will make sure the selection committee factors this in. Hopefully we will have a rich enough candidate pool that this is even relevant. To the extent that those on this list can reach out to appropriate ALSes, the more likely this will be to happen (the Call will be going out in a few minutes). Alan