hi Sivas, On 27 November 2010 09:44, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote: *As more and more at Large leadership positions are filled by people from

...

the business constituency, It is becoming very important for ALAC and at Large to preserve at Large as a user's constituency to TRULY balance the business stakeholder group. Any leadership position within ALAC and at Large should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user.*

I must say that I'm perplexed by the nature of this question, and I take it personally even though I am not a candidate for Director. My own record within At-Large is now fairly well known. I don't think that I have ever promoted an agenda that goes against user interests. Yet I am also a 50% partner in "Webwrote", a startup company making ebooks and related services. That is a business and I am most certainly intending to operate it on a for-profit basis. And since 1985 I have owned and operated my own IT consultancy. Do these activities make me a "business interest"? How has my involvement in multiple for-profit companies adversely affected my approach to ICANN policy, such as my extensive involvement in the Morality and Public Order issue, the WG creating policy on support for applicants in developing economies, etc.? I must strongly object to the inference that "business", in and of itself, is a dirty word and I take offense that merely being in business taints one's approach to ICANN's effect on end-users of the Internet. The fact is that far more adult Internet end-users run and/or work for businesses than non-profits. If At-Large did not have participants actively involved in businesses we would not reflect the reality of the end-user public for whom we claim to speak. The core business interest within ICANN that we need to confront and address is that of companies that have (and want to have) contractual relationships with ICANN who use that relationship as their business -- Registrars, registries and their resellers. Part of my own personal agenda in ALAC is to stop having ICANN operate as a trade association for these vested interests. It is an abomination that such vested interests control -- by design -- half of GNSO, ICANN's primary policy-creation vehicle. On one hand, they are in contractual arrangements with ICANN, on the other, they have substantial control over ICANN policy, therefore affecting the way the contracts with them are done. This is a core injustice that needs addressing. To me VI stands for "vested interests", and is an internal issue between them. I'm less concerned about cross-ownership than I am about the effect on end-users. which can (and should) be regulated regardless of who owns who. To that extent I supported the free-trade model, that has ICANN meddling as little as possible in that aspect so it can focus its oversight on the end-result to users. *My impression of your participation in the Post Expiry Domain Name working

...

group and the Vertical Integration working group is that you [Alan] are soft on the Domain Industry and muted and weak on the real issues of concerns to users.

I disagree strongly. Both Alan and Sébastien have solid credentials in advancing user interests. One could easily argue that the entire movement within ICANN to stop "domain tasting" was in large part thanks to Alan's personal initiative and his understanding of how to move that initiative through the ICANN processes. Indeed that constituted the first time ever that an At-Large initiated policy initiative was adopted by ICANN. And now PEDNR, another of Alan's policy initiatives, is following the same path.

...

If elected to represent at Large to take the only available seat for at Large representation in the Board, wouldn't you be equally soft on broader issues of greater importance? You have a rich experience and an impressive background, but wouldn't it be apt for you seek to be elected to the ICANN Board as a Business nominee rather than as a user's nominee? *

"Soft" is in the eye of the beholder. IMO that approach indicates a wisdom that that we won't get everything that we want immediately in huge chunks, and will need to advance our agenda within ICANN in measured, incremental stages. The Voltaire quote, *"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" -- *the perfect being the enemy of the good -- would seem to apply here. Whoever is in the Director will at times have to be more diplomat than advocate. Remember, it's just one seat in 15, and our goal is to affect policy rather than just "take stands" that are ignored.

The Business of Business is to do business. A representative from Business is fully entitled to argue for policies favorable to the survival and growth of business. But a balance will prevail only if the users have their own representative whose interests are fully aligned to the users.

See above. "Business" is how I feed and shelter my family so I can do all this fun ICANN volunteerism -- and I am as much an end-user as anyone here. My business, like that of most of the world's business, has nothing to do with the creation or selling of Internet domains. The business interests that matter in an ICANN context are those that deal with ICANN vested interests -- registrars, registries, resellers and those who are waiting in line to join those constituencies. To that extent, I would happily argue that, within the ICANN context, Internet end-user interests are more aligned with those of Coca Cola than with the smallest registrar's agent. How many relationships does Alan have with existing registries, registrars, or TLD applicants? None that I'm aware of. *THAT* is perhaps more reasonable yardstick than simply referring to "business" as something bad -- or against user interests -- in and of itself. - Evan

Evan, you said: "One could easily argue that the entire movement within ICANN to stop "domain tasting" was in large part thanks to Alan's personal initiative and his understanding of how to move that initiative through the ICANN processes. Indeed that constituted the first time ever that an At-Large initiated policy initiative was adopted by ICANN. And now PEDNR, another of Alan's policy initiatives, is following the same path." I was there at the time, and there is no argument, and it wasn't in "large part" it was in ALL parts Alan. It was Alan's idea, his initiative. He did the work, brought the idea of the issues report to ALAC and basically the ALAC said - great idea, we should do this - what do we do now? And he led us in the rest. He does the work. He gets buy-in. He gets things done in ICANN policy arenas. Just thinking about how much work he does gets me tired. :) And I agree with u, it's one of the differences between At Large and Civil Society -end users (the At Large people) include people who are in business, in academia, in non-profits, in schools, in everything. So At Large must be broader and more inclusive. Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann )

Dear Sivas: Both Jacqueline and Evan has answered to the substantive issues you raised so I won't bounce the rubble. Suffice to say, I wholly endorse the views expressed. As you would know, when matters of substance are raised that demands that your intellect, experience and socialization provide answers, sometimes one finds oneself in unusual company. I acknowledge we both have been on the same side of the VI issue, albeit getting to the same place likely from different perspectives. But you would be wrong in thinking I acted under a misapprehension. Anyone in the ICANN environment who would try to glean a philosophical perspective from what I say or write would easily find this; I tend to the libertarian view. It is summed up thusly: there is only one rule - you must exercise the rule of reason. In regard the VI matter, my entry point was on the matter of harms; 'first, do no harm'. When the state or the regulator or any power cannot ascribe harm to individual actors, then there is no basis for punitive measures; the wholesale rejection of that notion of a priori collective punishment again. The proposal you crafted in the VI discussions happen to largely embrace the principles I espouse all along so for me, it was a no-brainer to sign on to this defined set of principles. Now, I am yet certain that in other areas of operation, you hold to principles and to notions to which I would be unalterably opposed. It was the same with the VI issue; good people all, with different experiences and socialization, took another view from you and me. But from what I saw, every view tended to thoughtful contemplation. This is all for the good and I am for all that. So it is with me and Alan. Over the last 3 years, I acknowledge several differences in approach to policy development with Alan. But at no time would I be willing to think or say his were anti-user. He has my deepest respect because quite frankly, nobody I know in the At-Large, myself included, works harder more consistently on the user/consumer agenda as they see them. Nobody I know in the At-Large is more consistent about the need to understand other ICANN constituencies and the desirability to forge partnerships with them if the At-large is to have influence in moving policy ideas forward. Nobody I know in the At-Large is more willing to share what he knows, readily and with good grace. And nobody I know in the At-Large is more willing to accept disagreement, agreeably. These, my friend, are the attributes that makes for success in any environment when you are in the minority, as would be the Director that sits in Board seat #15. For these reasons, I support Alan. And I am unanimous on that. Kind regards, Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com>wrote:

Dear Carlton,

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:28 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A < carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:

...

I have been asked about my views by colleagues outside of LACRALO. FWIW, these are my views.....and I continue to hold them.

Carlton

-----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of SAMUELS,Carlton A Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:13 AM To: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Our choice for the ICANN Board

We support Alan Greenberg. That said, we shall not support a directed LACRALO vote.

It really comes down to how effective you would wish the At-Large appointed director to be. We would have missed the critical points totally if you were to think it's about how much we like a person or how lockstep they agree with our every idea. In context, it would be useful to remind yourself that what we call the At-Large is very diverse.

So all other qualifications being equal, effectiveness at the Board level rests on the personal dynamics of our choice with the people on the board.

...

[I still recall witnessing my first ICANN board meeting where I saw a very

...

attractive and bright woman being marginalized. The "Interests" simply shut her down!].

The bright, attractive woman whom you saw was not the only one marginalized and shut down by the "interests".

I am drawn to dissenters. But in this case user interests is way too

...

important just to dissent; having influence is much better. We must encourage our representative to have influence. And then to use that influence to mediate the more flagrant disavowal of user or consumer interests that could arise at Board level.

ICANN's Board is consistently peopled by persons representing the "Interests". If you're going to have influence from a position of one, we believe there are three things that apply 1) To be better prepared 2) To be more broadly knowledgeable across the various ICANN constituencies 3) Have the ability to use 1 and 2 as tools for driving consensus along a path consistently more favourable to user and/or consumer interests. This is the process of triangulation. It is the strategic model most utilized to succeed in the majority group when you are a minority. This is what we know, almost as birthright.

We do not always agree with Alan. But to say he doesn't understand user or consumer interests cannot be supported on fact. For example, on the cross-ownership and related issues surrounding new gTLDs, we, as At-Large representatives, were diametrically opposed; he was for a priori regulation and I was for 'free trade'.

It is misleading to say Alan's opposition to the 'Free Trade" proposal is out of his concern for user's interests. The free trade proposal wasn't a free for all proposal, it was a proposal that argued that restrictions on cross ownerships and / or a complex set of accompanying rules will NOT solve the various 'harms' prevailing in the domain name industry. So I proposed that "The focus needs to be on the list of harms and how a Registrar or Registry may be restrained in the event that it is detected that a certain Registry or Registrar is engaged in harmful practices. *The measures can vary from relaxing Registrar accreditation fees and rules to increase the number of Registrars to foster better competition, issuing directives to a* *Registry to treat all Registrars on par, to withdrawal of accreditation of a Registrar to even directing a Registry to stop registering any more names*." That is the essence of the free trade proposal https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?siva_free_trade_model (attached as a PDF)

Alan supported a proposal developed by Affilias, GoDaddy and others. I have no specific comments on this proposal.

Not only in the Vertical Integration group, but in the Post Expiry Domain Names Recovery Group, my impression of his participation is that he is more aligned to the status quo than inclined to cause positive changes:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00538.html

This forms part of the background that prompted me to post the following question to Alan:

(The question and Alan's response is at page

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Community+Call+on+At-Large+Board... but today I noticed that the page is inaccessible due to some reason)

*Question to Alan Greenberg from Sivasubramanian M, from APRALO, but

...

question posed as an individual*

*As more and more at Large leadership positions are filled by people from

...

the business constituency, It is becoming very important for ALAC and at Large to preserve at Large as a user's constituency to TRULY balance the business stakeholder group. Any leadership position within ALAC and at Large should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user.*

* *

*My impression of your participation in the Post Expiry Domain Name working

...

group and the Vertical Integration working group is that you are soft on the Domain Industry and muted and weak on the real issues of concerns to users. If elected to represent at Large to take the only available seat for at Large representation in the Board, wouldn't you be equally soft on broader issues of greater importance? You have a rich experience and an impressive background, but wouldn't it be apt for you seek to be elected to the ICANN Board as a Business nominee rather than as a user's nominee? *

* *

*If I am wrong in my impression, would you be be kind enough to clarify on

...

your choice of seeking this position as from at Large? In other words, would you list arguments as to why ALAC members and leaders should back you formally and informally as a candidate?*

The Business of Business is to do business. A representative from Business is fully entitled to argue for policies favorable to the survival and growth of business. But a balance will prevail only if the users have their own representative whose interests are fully aligned to the users. I did not have this impression about Alan.

Sivasubramanian M

...

In fact, some would have looked at this and concluded that he's more on the user side than I was on this issue. And while I deeply respect his views, I tend to loathe any indication of collective punishment. You do not penalize until and unless you have a case. Maybe the Board came to their conclusion by another meandering route. But in the end, they voted my perspective.

...

Goes to show.

Carlton Samuels _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ 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