Evan,

Is the challenge one of structure and representation institutionally or
has the changes to empower an industry dependent on intermediation at
ICANN and Internet as a whole over the last few years squeezed out the
user stake in the DNS?

Perhaps the place to start is to ask if the growth of Internet users
since 1995 to today (16 million to c.4.1billion) is also reflected in
those users having a domain name. I don't get that impression. But it is
hard to get reliable data from ICANN or anywhere.

As to the health of the current domain registration market as a system
one could start by asking what is the proportion of registered domain
names that are actually being used and required for personal or
business, rather than for defensive reputational and brand purposes?

What would happen to the registries and registrars industry model
fostered by ICANN if users abandoned their defensive DNS registrations
as (local) regulators take up the slack?

Christian

Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Hi Christian,

Given my experiences and observations... While I have totally stayed

away from the last At-Large review, I did one myself as a personal

mental exercise.

The conclusion I came to is that the current structure underneath ALAC

is overly politicized, appeals to superficial airs of importance, and

is at its core designed to be utterly impotent in regard to serving

its bylaw mandate.

Were I to be engaged in a real exercise to enable ALAC to serve its

bylaw mandate, I would wish to eliminate ALSs and move to fully

individual membership in RALOs. I would reduce travel and invest more

in vitual meeting technologies. I would also concentrate ALAC activity

in ONLY three areas:

- Creation and distribution of plain language public education on the

DNS and how it affects public use of the internet (written

independently of ICANN itself)

- surveys and R&D into public needs and opinions about domain names

and the DNS

- analysis of the result of such research, and development of ICANN

input based on that (both in original policy initiatives and response

to existing activity)

Any takers? I'm happy to engage if any interest exists. My rationale

behind this is quite deep and I'm happy to expand if interest exists.

___________________

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto

@evanleibovitch/@el56

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 11:45 AM Christian de Larrinaga

<cdel@firsthand.net <mailto:cdel@firsthand.net> wrote:

Given the clarity of these two comments. Maybe it is time to

consider a

straw poll over what future role and activity At Large

participants feel

is viable? Given the experience of the continuous perilous undermining

of the Internet edge by every digital miner with a pickaxe, shovel or

stick of dynamite?

Christian

Carlton Samuels wrote:

Yessir, I can recall your exact words to me so long ago; waste of

time, decision already made. The reasoning you offered was bold,

too.

I was interested at one point. Then when it was too clearly a bridge

too far, I retired to the shadows.

A congressman from Texas once told a writer I truly loved that in

politics you have no right to call yourself a politician if you cant

drink their whiskey, take their women and money and still vote

against

them. Theres a lesson there somewhere.

The arguments you hear on this or that are stimulating for a policy

wonk. But quite frankly at this point much of what the At-Large does

is margin-gathering.

Someone has to. And we live in hope.

-Carlton

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, 1:07 am Evan Leibovitch

<evanleibovitch@gmail.com <mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>

<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com

<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> wrote:

So... Do all of you who sank your valuable time into that

where-do-the-auction-funds-go sham of a process feel a little

betrayed now?

How many more times will we continue to play this futile game?

The fix is always in. Let the "community" thrash about with

well-meaning but big-picture-pointless debate, then swoop in at

the end to remind where the ultimate decision lies. It lies with

the money.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I got fooled enough with the Applicant Support process, the CCT

and a few others. Yeah, it's more than one but at least I

can say

I know the experience intimately. But the aftermath of these

efforts (or lack thereof) is why you don't see me wasting my

time

on subsequent ones. (Cue the theme music from "CSI:Miami".)

Countless of my colleagues continue the good-faith attempt to

disprove Einstein's definition of insanity(*), unsuccessfully. I

love my ALAC friends (I've literally invited you to my home) and

it pains me to watch the story repeat so often.

But sooner or later the collective massochism and denial has to

end. Turnover in ALAC is low enough to have plenty of veterans

around who should know better.

Stop playing the game. Challenge the rules instead. Perfect

example: why is ALAC involved in the minutiae of "subsequent

procedures" for new rounds of gTLDs without having even

challenged

the rationale for new rounds at all? Also, I've previously

spoken

at length about ALAC's sad longtime choice to respond to the

agendas of others rather than even try to set its own.

Monied interests overpower us politically by orders of

magnitude,

and without a regulatory role ICANN has no incentive to push

against the money. This needs to be changed, or others will

change

it from the outside.

I remind that we are now living through a period of time in

which

awful political choices are being made, all over the world, in

desperate moves to disrupt deaf and corrupt status quo.

ICANN and

ALAC ignore this trend at their danger.

___________________

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto

@evanleibovitch/@el56

(*) that may not have ever actually been said by Einstein, but

it's a useful phrase regardless of source.

On Dec 9, 2018 12:34 AM, "Carlton Samuels"

<carlton.samuels@gmail.com

<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>

<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com

<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>>> wrote:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/07/dot_web_review/

_______________________________________________

At-Large mailing list

At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org

<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

--

Christian de Larrinaga

@ FirstHand

-------------------------

+44 7989 386778

cdel@firsthand.net <mailto:cdel@firsthand.net>

--
Christian de Larrinaga
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
cdel@firsthand.net

_______________________________________________
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