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> 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>> wrote:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/07/dot_web_review/
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Christian de Larrinaga @ FirstHand ------------------------- +44 7989 386778 cdel@firsthand.net