Re: [ALAC] Red Cross and IOC Protection under the new gTLD process
At 24/02/2012 04:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 24 February 2012 16:41, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I have made it clear that to the extent that there have been comments on the issue within At-Large and ALAC, the tone has been that special exemptions for these bodies should not be granted. That view is shared by some other participants in the DT. However, it was also generally accepted that an exemption has already been granted and there is little opportunity for the GNSO to change the basic concept.
It is absolutely necessary to make clear the position that "the exemption has already been granted" is a grotesque subversion of the multi-stakeholder model that diminishes public respect for ICANN. This example makes clear that the MSM can be easily dispensed when politically difficult.
I also object to the substance of the proposal, but what is truly odious is this method of decision making in which bad decisions are make in secret and then stakeholders are left to determine the best way to "polish the turd".
Personally, I disagree with our accepting a "best that we can get" fallback position because it validates (and encourages more use of) this top-down, opaque process. I would rather boycott this exercise in futility, but explain why.
Or opposition to both the substance and the process of this should be clear and unambiguous, IMO.
- Evan
Evan, that is a position that the ALAC may well choose to take. On a personal basis, I had the choice of whether to join the DT and work to make the end-result as palatable as I could, or to simply ignore it (or boycott is as you phrase it). I chose the former, but that was a personal decision and not one on behalf of ALAC or At-Large. If I had been given a directive from ALAC not to participate, that might have altered the situation. But there were many months during which this could have happened, and it did not. I look forward to seeing what collective action ALAC takes on this now. On a philosophical level, I am not nearly as upset as you are. My reasoning goes as follows: - This is NOT what the original GNSO recommendation on new gTLDs said to do. - However, the GAC is one component of the MSM, albeit (to paraphrase George Orwell), a part that is perhaps more equal than other parts. - To not factor in such GAC advice, even if delivered at the last moment, is to pretend that the processes and decisions that preceded it are infallible and by definition cannot be changed. I find the last conclusion to be a "stick your head in the sand" position that ignores that the world changes and we must always be in a position to reconsider past decisions when alerted to problems with them. That being said, hopefully this round of last-minute GAC input has been troubling to all parties, including (I think) the GAC, and perhaps we are on a path to doing things in a more rational way in the future. Or not... Alan
On 24 February 2012 17:17, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 24/02/2012 04:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On a personal basis, I had the choice of whether to join the DT and work to
make the end-result as palatable as I could, or to simply ignore it (or boycott is as you phrase it). I chose the former, but that was a personal decision and not one on behalf of ALAC or At-Large. If I had been given a directive from ALAC not to participate, that might have altered the situation. But there were many months during which this could have happened, and it did not. I look forward to seeing what collective action ALAC takes on this now.
On the contrary, I applaud your initiative and participation. My suggestion of a "boycott" is to not endorse the results of this action, but to do so properly requires informed action, and your involvement has offered that information. It's also my understanding that one of the options offered to the drafting team was to insist on no exceptions, but that was rejected because the decision had already been made (opaquely and without consulting stakeholders) to "do *something". - However, the GAC is one component of the MSM, albeit (to paraphrase
George Orwell), a part that is perhaps more equal than other parts.
In order for the MSM to work there still needs to be consultation (before decisions are made) with other stakeholders. If the GAC is to always get its way without the ability to challenge what it wants, why bother with ICANN anyway?
- To not factor in such GAC advice, even if delivered at the last moment, is to pretend that the processes and decisions that preceded it are infallible and by definition cannot be changed.
"Factor in" is not the same thing as "the decision's already been made by them, opposition is fultile" As you well know, I would be the last one here to claim that the processes and decisions are infallable. But they have far more evidence of deliberation and transparency than the current overriding process cooked up by the Board and GAC, which is indeed being presented to the GNSO (and even more indirectly, ALAC) as something that "by definition cannot be changed".
I find the last conclusion to be a "stick your head in the sand" position that ignores that the world changes and we must always be in a position to reconsider past decisions when alerted to problems with them.
Reconsider? Sure. There are plenty of things about ICANN -- and specifically the gTLD program -- that I consider badly flawed and would love to have reconsidered. And any process of reconsideration cannot be as opaque as the one inflicted on the GNSO. But, as you say, some stakeholders are more equal than others, and ALAC is the least equal of all. Just don't expect us to legitimize it. That being said, hopefully this round of last-minute GAC input has been
troubling to all parties, including (I think) the GAC, and perhaps we are on a path to doing things in a more rational way in the future.
"But, nonetheless, regardless of how troubling THIS is, let's ram it through anyway.....?" Obviously they can't be THAT visibly troubled... But we can be. - Evan
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch