Hi I got mine and i responded and completed my complicated trip multi city trips. I am paying the two hops myself outside of ICANN activities. Waiting for travel to get back to me on the intinery . I assume those coming from the west they would be provided with extra travel days for stipend G Glenn McKnight, MA Virtual School of Internet Governance Chief Information Officer www.virtualsig.org *YOUR SOURCE FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE EDUCATION * *Mobile 437-237-4655* On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 at 17:35, Maureen Hilyard via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

HI Roberto I was rather surprised at their haste in having our registration forms returned. I read the waiver and passed on some concerns to Alan and Greg hopefully to get some clarity and hope that all is well for signing. Leon did say that our issues had been addressed in this new version but it would be helpful to get reassurance from others. M

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:07 AM Roberto Gaetano via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear all

I would like to draw your attention to the message below.

Earlier today I have received it in my capacity of NextGen Mentor, and I assume that the NextGen Mentees have received the same. For the NextGen Mentees this is likely to be one of the first contacts with ICANN.org, so they will be shaping their opinion on the organization on this.

The message arrived a few hours ago, but I am reading it only now, at the end of the business day, when I am looking at tasks that I am doing a volunteer - I imagine that for a few Mentees this would be the same.

I am asked to complete my registration by tomorrow. The registration process includes several actions, that I do not repeat here because you can read them below, highlighted in red - with apologies to the folks that have emails in plain text only. I assume that people are expected to read docs like standards of behaviour, anti-harassment policy, etc. before signing them - and also reflect on what that means for them. Remember what happened at ICANN74 with the waiver - I, for one, will read the (hopefully updated) waiver before signing, and this will take time. But this needs to be done in 24h.

On the other hand, I can expect an approval only after 2-3 business days - being today a Thursday, this means 4-5 calendar days.

Being committed to the ICANN standards of behaviour, I will not add any comments to this note.

Cheers, Roberto

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *ICANN Travel Support <travelsupport@icann.org> *Subject: **ICANN75: Mandatory Funded Traveler Registration for Roberto Gaetano* *Date: *21. July 2022 at 07:51:45 CEST *To: *roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com *Reply-To: *travelsupport@icann.org

Hello Roberto Gaetano,,

We are looking forward to your in-person participation in ICANN75 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Before we can start your travel booking for the upcoming meeting, you are required to register. *As part of the registration process, you will be asked to confirm your agreement to all terms and conditions for travel, including agreement to follow the Community Travel Guidelines, Expected Standards of Behavior, the Community Anti-Harassment Policy and Procedure, and the travel waiver and acknowledgement, which includes a commitment to follow ICANN’s health and safety measures during ICANN75. Your agreement is required prior to ICANN funding your travel.* TRAVEL PROCESS ACTION ITEMS

STEP 1: REGISTER and AGREE to ICANN Org Acknowledgement and Waiver by clicking on the link below: Link has been redacted

DO NOT SHARE THIS LINK

By registering, you can also request your ICANN Sponsored Invitation Letter and Local Host Letter. NEED HELP REGISTERING?

Please click on this link here for more information: https://account.icann.org/help <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ueAmqHSXvqXfZusP_awI3hSOmH4SvH6vCMK1Z0-bO3Li...> STEP 2: COMPLETE registration by Friday, 22 July NEXT STEPS

WAIT...

After you register, ICANN Travel Support will receive and validate your registration.

Please allow 2-3 business days for validation.

Once validated, you will receive your "Travel Funding Confirmation Email." We look forward to working with you.

Thank you very much!

Best wishes,

ICANN Travel Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Fax (Private): +1.424.832.1074 www.icann.org Please note that all personal data provided to ICANN org in for purposes of providing travel support for participants related to ICANN events will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ueAmqHSXvqXfZusP_awI3hSOmH4SvH6vCMK1Z0-bO3Li...> .

Should you have any questions or concerns about this Privacy Policy and our privacy practices, you may contact us at privacy@icann.org. ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=0017n2jcdVfrZyHA-3eplbang%3D&c...> Update Profile <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&m=0017n2jcdVfrZyHA-3eplbang%3D&c...> | Constant Contact Data Notice <http://www.constantcontact.com/legal/about-constant-contact> Sent by travelsupport@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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Serious ! Good job, guys ! So, what is the Ombudsman position in such a concern ? Thanks for your clairvoyance. Warm regards Olévié Le ven. 22 juil. 2022 à 15:19, Marita Moll via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> a écrit :

Hi folks. Let me add the following to this discussion. The waiver has certainly been revamped. ICANN no longer absolves itself of responsibility if it can be shown that they are truly at fault for whatever event occurred. But it still circles around to a similiar hard line in which we assume all of the risks associated with attending the meeting in return for ICANN granting us the privilege and permission to attend the meeting in order to do the work of fulfilling their mandate. It is an upside down model. But in the world of waivers, this is probably close to a template. Our minor rebellion last time did have an impact.

My concerns about attending this meeting are now centering more to the very real risk of catching co-vid en route and spending the entire time in a hotel room attending the meeting virtually (total of 50 hours unnecessary flying time). ICANN is not taking a risk on me -- so I wonder why I would take such a risk.

Michele Neylon of Blacknight has written a blog on the current and previous versions of the waiver -- with generous mention of our efforts back in June.

ICANN Still Insisting Their Waiver is "Normal" (internetnews.me) <https://www.internetnews.me/2022/07/22/icann-still-insisting-their-waiver-is...>

Marita On 2022-07-21 6:49 p.m., Glenn McKnight via At-Large wrote:

Hi I got mine and i responded and completed my complicated trip multi city trips. I am paying the two hops myself outside of ICANN activities. Waiting for travel to get back to me on the intinery . I assume those coming from the west they would be provided with extra travel days for stipend G

Glenn McKnight, MA Virtual School of Internet Governance Chief Information Officer www.virtualsig.org *YOUR SOURCE FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE EDUCATION * *Mobile 437-237-4655*

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 at 17:35, Maureen Hilyard via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

...

HI Roberto I was rather surprised at their haste in having our registration forms returned. I read the waiver and passed on some concerns to Alan and Greg hopefully to get some clarity and hope that all is well for signing. Leon did say that our issues had been addressed in this new version but it would be helpful to get reassurance from others. M

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:07 AM Roberto Gaetano via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear all

I would like to draw your attention to the message below.

Earlier today I have received it in my capacity of NextGen Mentor, and I assume that the NextGen Mentees have received the same. For the NextGen Mentees this is likely to be one of the first contacts with ICANN.org, so they will be shaping their opinion on the organization on this.

The message arrived a few hours ago, but I am reading it only now, at the end of the business day, when I am looking at tasks that I am doing a volunteer - I imagine that for a few Mentees this would be the same.

I am asked to complete my registration by tomorrow. The registration process includes several actions, that I do not repeat here because you can read them below, highlighted in red - with apologies to the folks that have emails in plain text only. I assume that people are expected to read docs like standards of behaviour, anti-harassment policy, etc. before signing them - and also reflect on what that means for them. Remember what happened at ICANN74 with the waiver - I, for one, will read the (hopefully updated) waiver before signing, and this will take time. But this needs to be done in 24h.

On the other hand, I can expect an approval only after 2-3 business days - being today a Thursday, this means 4-5 calendar days.

Being committed to the ICANN standards of behaviour, I will not add any comments to this note.

Cheers, Roberto

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *ICANN Travel Support <travelsupport@icann.org> *Subject: **ICANN75: Mandatory Funded Traveler Registration for Roberto Gaetano* *Date: *21. July 2022 at 07:51:45 CEST *To: *roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com *Reply-To: *travelsupport@icann.org

Hello Roberto Gaetano,,

We are looking forward to your in-person participation in ICANN75 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Before we can start your travel booking for the upcoming meeting, you are required to register. *As part of the registration process, you will be asked to confirm your agreement to all terms and conditions for travel, including agreement to follow the Community Travel Guidelines, Expected Standards of Behavior, the Community Anti-Harassment Policy and Procedure, and the travel waiver and acknowledgement, which includes a commitment to follow ICANN’s health and safety measures during ICANN75. Your agreement is required prior to ICANN funding your travel.* TRAVEL PROCESS ACTION ITEMS

STEP 1: REGISTER and AGREE to ICANN Org Acknowledgement and Waiver by clicking on the link below: Link has been redacted

DO NOT SHARE THIS LINK

By registering, you can also request your ICANN Sponsored Invitation Letter and Local Host Letter. NEED HELP REGISTERING?

Please click on this link here for more information: https://account.icann.org/help <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ueAmqHSXvqXfZusP_awI3hSOmH4SvH6vCMK1Z0-bO3Li...> STEP 2: COMPLETE registration by Friday, 22 July NEXT STEPS

WAIT...

After you register, ICANN Travel Support will receive and validate your registration.

Please allow 2-3 business days for validation.

Once validated, you will receive your "Travel Funding Confirmation Email." We look forward to working with you.

Thank you very much!

Best wishes,

ICANN Travel Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Fax (Private): +1.424.832.1074 www.icann.org Please note that all personal data provided to ICANN org in for purposes of providing travel support for participants related to ICANN events will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ueAmqHSXvqXfZusP_awI3hSOmH4SvH6vCMK1Z0-bO3Li...> .

Should you have any questions or concerns about this Privacy Policy and our privacy practices, you may contact us at privacy@icann.org. ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=0017n2jcdVfrZyHA-3eplbang%3D&c...> Update Profile <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&m=0017n2jcdVfrZyHA-3eplbang%3D&c...> | Constant Contact Data Notice <http://www.constantcontact.com/legal/about-constant-contact> Sent by travelsupport@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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing listAt-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hi Bill Not radical, but with some imaginative clauses that sound weird to the ears of somebody that is not a lawyer and does not live in a country that is particularly inclined to solve matters in courts. Here is an example that, if taken seriously, would oblige me to ask some questions: This Liability Waiver and Release is specifically binding upon my heirs and assigns and is knowingly given. Do I need to ask my (hopefully future) heirs to also sign the waiver? And if they don’t want, or even produce an official document, signed in the hands of a notary or other official authority, that they specifically do not acknowledge the obligation of being obliged to comply with this clause - maybe saying that they formally recommended that I take this trip, what would happen? How can ICANN enforce this clause in my jurisdiction - actually, in the jurisdiction of my heirs - in front of a formal statement of them prior to the fact? And if I attach this document of my heirs to my application, what would ICANN do? Reject my registration because one of the clauses of the waiver is not enforceable? This is one more reason for loving the ICANN community, never a dull moment and a lot of fun :-) Cheers, Roberto On 22.07.2022, at 18:18, Bill Jouris via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: As such things go, this isn't a particularly radical waiver. A bit wordier than average, but nothing novel in substance. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 8:20 AM, Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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<http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Bill, I fully understand that this is a legitimate lawyer’s attitude - but I still get an odd feeling reading it. For the record, I have signed the waiver without any problems, as I sign all the agreement notes that I get from Google and the like before doing just about anything on the internet. Karl, And where is the text of this waiver, a few simple web searches have not revealed it (yet)? It appears during the process of registration for on-site participation to ICANN 75, I have attached a copy below. Cheers, Roberto On 22.07.2022, at 21:32, Bill Jouris via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: Hi Roberto, I think it's more a matter of, not only if something happens to us we cannot sue ICANN. But if whatever happens is fatal (so we are not around to sue), our estate/heis can't sue either. Lawyers get paid to think up worst case scenarios, and then write clauses to preempt them. And in a country where there is a whole class of lawyers who will offer to bring a suit for you, with no charge unless they win (in which case, they get a cut of the take), there's a lot of essentially frivolous law suits filed by people for the same reason people buy lottery tickets: small cost to them and an outside chance of a big payday. But ICANN still has to spend money defending those cases -- unless they can get the case dismissed out of hand via a clause like this. Cheers, Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:35 AM, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com<mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>> wrote: Hi Bill Not radical, but with some imaginative clauses that sound weird to the ears of somebody that is not a lawyer and does not live in a country that is particularly inclined to solve matters in courts. Here is an example that, if taken seriously, would oblige me to ask some questions: This Liability Waiver and Release is specifically binding upon my heirs and assigns and is knowingly given. Do I need to ask my (hopefully future) heirs to also sign the waiver? And if they don’t want, or even produce an official document, signed in the hands of a notary or other official authority, that they specifically do not acknowledge the obligation of being obliged to comply with this clause - maybe saying that they formally recommended that I take this trip, what would happen? How can ICANN enforce this clause in my jurisdiction - actually, in the jurisdiction of my heirs - in front of a formal statement of them prior to the fact? And if I attach this document of my heirs to my application, what would ICANN do? Reject my registration because one of the clauses of the waiver is not enforceable? This is one more reason for loving the ICANN community, never a dull moment and a lot of fun :-) Cheers, Roberto On 22.07.2022, at 18:18, Bill Jouris via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: As such things go, this isn't a particularly radical waiver. A bit wordier than average, but nothing novel in substance. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 8:20 AM, Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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<http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hello Marita, Not unintended consequences. The relationship between ICANN as a whole, the role of the pay staff, the role of the Board since 2011 compensated and the role of all the other participants supported for travel or not are under discussion since at least the selection of « first » At-Large Board member. After the Board compensation other steeps were put on the table. But nothing happened. The covid put it back with more forces in front of us. MSM and Holistic review could be good places to involve the whole community into that debate. All the best SeB Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 sebicann@bachollet.fr <mailto:sebicann@bachollet.fr> @SebBach EURALO Chair

Le 25 juil. 2022 à 18:03, Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> a écrit :

Yes, Roberto. We have been signing Google and other platform waivers for some time. When we do this, we agree to give up our right to our information in return for using their services. Always made me uncomfortable but I needed to use these services. When I sign the ICANN waiver, I am giving up my right to sue them in return for the permission to attend the meeting. Trouble is, I would be attending this meeting as part of their voluntary workforce. Something lopsided about that. Does ICANN need us there, or not?

Sorry to be so provocative. The current version of the waiver is much improved. The whole issue has, however, opened a whole new box of questions about the relationship between ICANN and its volunteers. Unintended consequences?

Marita

On 2022-07-25 11:21 a.m., Roberto Gaetano via At-Large wrote:

...

Bill,

I fully understand that this is a legitimate lawyer’s attitude - but I still get an odd feeling reading it. For the record, I have signed the waiver without any problems, as I sign all the agreement notes that I get from Google and the like before doing just about anything on the internet.

Karl, And where is the text of this waiver, a few simple web searches have not revealed it (yet)?

It appears during the process of registration for on-site participation to ICANN 75, I have attached a copy below.

Cheers, Roberto

...

On 22.07.2022, at 21:32, Bill Jouris via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:

Hi Roberto,

I think it's more a matter of, not only if something happens to us we cannot sue ICANN. But if whatever happens is fatal (so we are not around to sue), our estate/heis can't sue either.

Lawyers get paid to think up worst case scenarios, and then write clauses to preempt them. And in a country where there is a whole class of lawyers who will offer to bring a suit for you, with no charge unless they win (in which case, they get a cut of the take), there's a lot of essentially frivolous law suits filed by people for the same reason people buy lottery tickets: small cost to them and an outside chance of a big payday. But ICANN still has to spend money defending those cases -- unless they can get the case dismissed out of hand via a clause like this.

Cheers,

Bill Jouris

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:35 AM, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com <mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>> wrote: Hi Bill

Not radical, but with some imaginative clauses that sound weird to the ears of somebody that is not a lawyer and does not live in a country that is particularly inclined to solve matters in courts.

Here is an example that, if taken seriously, would oblige me to ask some questions: This Liability Waiver and Release is specifically binding upon my heirs and assigns and is knowingly given.

Do I need to ask my (hopefully future) heirs to also sign the waiver? And if they don’t want, or even produce an official document, signed in the hands of a notary or other official authority, that they specifically do not acknowledge the obligation of being obliged to comply with this clause - maybe saying that they formally recommended that I take this trip, what would happen? How can ICANN enforce this clause in my jurisdiction - actually, in the jurisdiction of my heirs - in front of a formal statement of them prior to the fact? And if I attach this document of my heirs to my application, what would ICANN do? Reject my registration because one of the clauses of the waiver is not enforceable?

This is one more reason for loving the ICANN community, never a dull moment and a lot of fun :-)

Cheers, Roberto

...

On 22.07.2022, at 18:18, Bill Jouris via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:

As such things go, this isn't a particularly radical waiver. A bit wordier than average, but nothing novel in substance.

Bill Jouris

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 8:20 AM, Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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 <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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 <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

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

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

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

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

---

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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Evan, I have spent many years tilting at windmills, working for change that I thought was worth my effort. Did it ever make a difference? Sometimes, a little bit. But never a lot and never quickly. My expectations are low. My hero, the late Canadian feminist and peace activist Ursula Franklin, had a theory that it took many years of preparing the ground before real change happens. We may actually no longer even be there when it actually happens. And so it is with ICANN. It exists -- a unique multistakeholder governance system. Lots of things wrong with it. But it exists. So, for those who want to, they can keep working at it, keep looking for improvement, keep challenging the system. There is no question that it is at the center of a piece of worldwide infrastructure (the internet) which has, in a few sort years, become essential. And there actually is an enduser stakeholder group here. I still find that amazing. To me, at the moment, ICANN seems a valuable experiment and I want it to evolve, to get better at being what it claims to be -- a multistakeholder governance system. All this idealism but I still hate the waiver. May the force be with you (with us) 😁 Marita On 2022-07-25 3:01 p.m., Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Hi Marita,

Does ICANN need us there, or not?

This 'box of questions'  has been laying open in plain sight for a very long time. It's just that nobody seeks it until it becomes relevant -- like now -- only for it to be forgotten again as time passes. Inertia is strong.

At my first ICANN meeting a former Board member took me aside and asked if I was out of my mind. That person accused me of helping give oxygen to what they considered a public relations facade (ALAC), a poor substitute for public Board elections which had been eliminated because it was discovered that the "wrong people" might get elected. (The circumstances surrounding that chain of events can be much better explained by Karl than by me.)

I had originally scoffed at that former Board member, believing that ALAC could be a true force for good within ICANN, so here I was. Well, during my decade or so of intense service to both NARALO and ALAC I discovered that box of questions. The answers I found led me to withdraw to my current status of occasionally launching spitballs from the back of the virtual meeting room.

I'll try to summarize my thoughts, which will be difficult because brevity must reduce context. But in my observation ICANN hosts three very distinct sets of volunteers, and its level of need/want for each of them varies greatly:

1. The technical volunteers, those who fill the RSAC and SSAC and give other feedback on the actual operations of the DNS. They are cherished and ICANN cannot do without them. Whether they are treated accordingly is another matter.

2. The self-interested volunteers. These folks are paid by their employers, or they might be self-employed, because things that ICANN does affects their profitability, clients' rights, desirability as a consultant, or some other regulatory-ish issue important to them. They tend to be self-supporting, and because of the nature of their work they are very well-versed on ICANN's culture and both its written and unwritten rules. ICANN may not like all of these parties but also cannot do without them, because they collectively make up the engine that provides both ICANN's revenue and its authority. CcTLDs are a special subset; ICANN doesn't _need_ them but they've really good to have onboard as they may provide revenue and technical expertise.

3. Everyone else: GAC, ALAC, the shreds of the GNSO that aren't self-interested, etc. ICANN does not want them; collectively they are a nuisance that gets in the way of what staff and the self-interested want to do. When they demand travel funding in order to engage in such disruption they also become an expense to be minimized. ICANN needs them only to the extent that they publicly legitimize the cult of multistakeholderism. ICANN indulges their little outreach and inclusion activities, and it lets them make adjustments to the detailed minutiae of policy, so long as they serve the cult, but  don't actually engage in anything that challenges the authority or direction of ICANN senior staff and the self-interested entities that finance them. If everyone in this group disappeared tomorrow, ICANN would take a credibility hit but functionally it wouldn't be disrupted at all; that can't be said of the two other volunteer groups.

The current iteration of impositions and restrictions on volunteers in that third group is nothing new, ALAC and others have forever been treated as a nuisance, forever having to beg for the ability to be treated with basic dignity. Threat of withholding of (and restrictions on) funding has long had a chilling effect on ALAC's ability to advance any grand user-focused ideas that confront the Way Things Are. It could not be more clear that the consequences are very much intended. And it's not just travel. So ... Marita, welcome to the box. It's definitely not new, the questions really haven't changed since I last saw them, and maybe not even since that former Board member revealed them. But just be sure that you really want to know the answers, many here don't.

- Evan

Karl, "Stakeholderism grew out of the desire to be 'fair'." Agreed it didn't conceivably take the most perfect direction that it could have taken; Agreed that there are imbalances, but your argument is flawed to the extent that Democracy is balanced, that actors in a democracy don't revisit ballot rooms with puppets on their gloves. If in NewCo some actors have two or three votes in place of one, many (actually many, many) "Democracies" don't have a need for glove puppets in ballot rooms, for a great majority of eligible voters take the places of sock puppets as if on strings. And those elected to represent often do not represent, but obey directives to vote for or against any major decision that the heads of parties take. NewCo is new. Very, very new. The powerful actors, despite how the world might perceive them, aren't always, aren't all of them, self-serving. The multistakeholder process, despite all its gaps, does not totally silence your voice. There is a definite sense of purpose and direction combined with a remarkable degree of maturity among many of them which actually inspires many in the process to raise questions, hold them accountable (for more good) in a manner that is both elevated and nuanced, which wouldn't be tolerated or even understood in most democracies that work like how they work today in most geographies (many, many geographies). The way forward is to begin with the suspicion that NewCo is a good company of many good actors and to constructively work to fix the imbalances one after another to help the NewCo achieve what it inherently desires. If you own domain names, trademarks, if you are also an internet techie and own corporations, and if you have a 10x voice, it is still fair to me, as long as your voice isn't always about your own interests. In NewCo there is a greater propensity for these voices, and increasingly more voices, to be in global public interest. Sivasubramanian M On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 1:46 AM Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

I'm going to be somewhat diverging from the main topic....

On 7/26/22 8:14 AM, Marita Moll wrote:

And so it is with ICANN. It exists -- a unique multistakeholder governance system. Lots of things wrong with it. But it exists. So, for those who want to, they can keep working at it, keep looking for improvement, keep challenging the system.

I've long been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance. I was horrified when I first saw it just after Jon Postel died, and became more horrified watching Joe Sims of Jones Day ramming it down our collective throats. In the Boston Working Group proposal for "NewCo" we tried to mitigate some of the worst aspects.

See https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ for the Boston Working Group proposals.

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors and moving some ICANN powers into the Articles of Incorporation and requiring exercise of those powers to be approved by more than merely the board (in those days that larger body could have been "the members" but ICANN sank that ship long ago - but it can be, and ought to be, re-floated.)

My most recent piece in opposition to stakeholder based systems may be found here:

Democracy Versus Stakeholderism - https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/

--karl--

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

[Renaming the thread…] "Multi-stakeholder” is a euphemism for a form of governance otherwise known as functional constituency politics. As practiced at ICANN, it is a plan, articulated to me by ICANN staffers in the very early days when it was all being put together, to put each group into a “sandbox” so that they could argue among themselves while ICANN the organization does what it wants while maintaining the appearance of inclusiveness and fairness. Functional constituency politics has an inglorious history. Its main contribution over time has been to convince observers that existing rulers with vested interests are never going to implement fair rules on their own. That it why they are hardly ever used today except in settings where the ruled are too ignorant / naive / corrupted to complain effectively and there is no supervisory authority to restrain abuses. The most recent well-known example of constituency politics is Hong Kong under the British. (I’m not saying rule by the CCP I better, it’s just that the previous system also really sucked.) Earlier examples include the Republic of Venice, where “The republic was ruled by the doge, who was elected by members of the Great Council of Venice, the city-state's parliament, and ruled for life. The ruling class was an oligarchy of merchants and aristocrats.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice). In Hong Kong under the Empire, constituency politics was liked by no-one except the apparatchiks who managed it, the ruling class that made money under it, and the British Government’s Executive Council, which ignored it but liked the democratic optics. It was neither responsive, democratic, or workable. Effectively it meant that the power in Hong Kong, to the extent that it was devolved at all from the Executive Council, was highly centralized in the hands of the bankers and industrial magnates. See if you can recognize the similarities: "The Executive Council determined administrative policy changes and considered primary legislation before passing it to the Legislative Council for approval. This advisory body also itself issued secondary legislation under a limited set of colonial ordinances. The Legislative Council debated proposed legislation…. Indirectly elected functional constituency seats were introduced in 1985. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong#Government) These functional constituencies were completely undemocratic, as well as being largely powerless: (1) 12 geographical constituencies were based on population, with 500,000 people for each geographical constituency. Note that even these “normal” democratic seats were given out by “indirect” election. (Can anyone say NomCom?) (2) 12 functional constituencies were based on… well… established power, and were balanced so that the wrong sort of people who might threaten the status quo were never given any positions of power. They were: - First commercial seat (Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce) - Second commercial seat (Chinese General Chamber of Commerce) - First industrial seat (Federation of Hong Kong Industries) - Second industrial seat (Chinese Manufacturers’ Association of Hong Kong) - Financial seat (Hong Kong Association of Banks) - Labour (2 seats) - recognized trade unions of Hong Kong - Social Services - Hong Kong Council of Social Services - Medical - Hong Kong Medical Association - Teaching - Legal - Engineering, Architectural, Surveying, Planning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Hong_Kong_legislative_election) ICANN Board = Executive Council Functional Constituencies = the acronym salad of all the powerless groups within ICANN Geographical Constituencies by indirect election = NomCom Vested-interest power blocs, such as exist in ICANN today — the advisory committees, the supporting organization, and the subgroups within them — were not created to come up with solutions, even if they are convinced that they do. Functionally, they exist to prevent people with a common agenda from coming together as a single bloc to challenge ICANN the corporation. The tell-tale characteristics of such systems are readily apparent within ICANN - Low turnover of officials within the groups (just look around to see this at ICANN) - Decline, obsolescense, and fossilization of certain constituencies, which nonetheless retain their status (see: ISP grouping within GNSO) - Turf wars and takeover plots to “own” certain constituencies (e.g., the attempt by not-for-profit intellectual property interests (e.g., Red Cross) to take over the NCUC) - A large bureaucracy dedicated to preserving the power of the executive (the Board), while tying all other groups in knots with arcane and time-consuming rules and procedures. - Hostility to democratic reforms, typically justified by concerns about “fraud” (rejection of direct elections to the Board). I support diversity of opinion, which is what the multi-stakeholder model promises. In fact, however, it delivers the opposite, because that’s the way it’s set up to operate. Antony P.S. To those that note that the GAC is not powerless, this is true only because it has external levers to make ICANN pay attention. If it were limited to its delineated powers within ICANN, it would be as powerless as the other groups.

On Jul 27, 2022, at 12:55 AM, Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 4:17 PM Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: I've long been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance.

I'm not sure that I have a problem with the pure concept of stakeholders. What is missing is a sense of balance as you note in your papers, that the end-users of the Internet have more of a stake in its direction than its service providers and profiteers, but the latter get themselves more representation because they have a financial interest to study and exploit any gaps in well-intentioned rules.

In ICANN the inequality isn't even subtle; it's hard-coded. The self-interested have the ability to compel the Board to do their bidding while governments and the public interest (ie, those outside the domain-buying food chain) sit on the sidelines giving easily-ignored advice.

Were the script flipped -- public and state interests in policy-making roles with the self-interested participating as advisors -- the DNS would look very different than it does now. But that genie ain't going back in the bottle. (in those days that larger body could have been "the members" but ICANN sank that ship long ago - but it can be, and ought to be, re-floated.)

We'lll have to disagree on the hope. IMO there is absolutely zero incentive for the status quo to relinquish its power and impose accountability on itself. Given a golden opportunity to do so, we got that cruel joke of an "empowered community" which doubled down on the imbalance.

It's my belief at this time, based on how ICANN has used previous opportunities to improve itself, that meaningful reform from within is not possible. The stimulus for change will have to be external -- maybe the EU, maybe the California AG, maybe some chaotic event or action so publicly unpalatable that the non-treaty-bound trust that countries have in ICANN disintegrates. To me that scenario is far more plausible than progress from within. The .ORG debacle was a wake-up call, the next such episode may push the boundary of acceptability too far. When it comes, the threat will not arise from the usual ITU bugaboo, but from some yet-unimagined source.

Cheers,

- Evan _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

If you disagree, it would be good to hear why. In this case, Wikipedia is absolutely accurate and if you can show me where it is not accurate I will adjust accordingly. I used it because it is easy to access and read and in this case it is accurate. All you have said so far is that you do not agree, and while that is a data point, it does not advance discussion.

On Jul 27, 2022, at 11:55 AM, Alberto Soto Roldan <alberto@soto.net.ar> wrote:

I do not agree with the consideration on the multi-stakeholder model. And Wikipedia is not a reliable source to be used. Best Alberto Soto

...

El 27 jul. 2022, a las 15:08, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> escribió:

[Renaming the thread…]

"Multi-stakeholder” is a euphemism for a form of governance otherwise known as functional constituency politics. As practiced at ICANN, it is a plan, articulated to me by ICANN staffers in the very early days when it was all being put together, to put each group into a “sandbox” so that they could argue among themselves while ICANN the organization does what it wants while maintaining the appearance of inclusiveness and fairness.

Functional constituency politics has an inglorious history. Its main contribution over time has been to convince observers that existing rulers with vested interests are never going to implement fair rules on their own. That it why they are hardly ever used today except in settings where the ruled are too ignorant / naive / corrupted to complain effectively and there is no supervisory authority to restrain abuses.

The most recent well-known example of constituency politics is Hong Kong under the British. (I’m not saying rule by the CCP I better, it’s just that the previous system also really sucked.) Earlier examples include the Republic of Venice, where “The republic was ruled by the doge, who was elected by members of the Great Council of Venice, the city-state's parliament, and ruled for life. The ruling class was an oligarchy of merchants and aristocrats.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice>).

In Hong Kong under the Empire, constituency politics was liked by no-one except the apparatchiks who managed it, the ruling class that made money under it, and the British Government’s Executive Council, which ignored it but liked the democratic optics. It was neither responsive, democratic, or workable. Effectively it meant that the power in Hong Kong, to the extent that it was devolved at all from the Executive Council, was highly centralized in the hands of the bankers and industrial magnates.

See if you can recognize the similarities:

"The Executive Council determined administrative policy changes and considered primary legislation before passing it to the Legislative Council for approval. This advisory body also itself issued secondary legislation under a limited set of colonial ordinances. The Legislative Council debated proposed legislation…. Indirectly elected functional constituency seats were introduced in 1985. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong#Government <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong#Government>)

These functional constituencies were completely undemocratic, as well as being largely powerless:

(1) 12 geographical constituencies were based on population, with 500,000 people for each geographical constituency. Note that even these “normal” democratic seats were given out by “indirect” election. (Can anyone say NomCom?)

(2) 12 functional constituencies were based on… well… established power, and were balanced so that the wrong sort of people who might threaten the status quo were never given any positions of power. They were:

- First commercial seat (Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce) - Second commercial seat (Chinese General Chamber of Commerce) - First industrial seat (Federation of Hong Kong Industries) - Second industrial seat (Chinese Manufacturers’ Association of Hong Kong) - Financial seat (Hong Kong Association of Banks) - Labour (2 seats) - recognized trade unions of Hong Kong - Social Services - Hong Kong Council of Social Services - Medical - Hong Kong Medical Association - Teaching - Legal - Engineering, Architectural, Surveying, Planning

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Hong_Kong_legislative_election <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Hong_Kong_legislative_election>)

ICANN Board = Executive Council Functional Constituencies = the acronym salad of all the powerless groups within ICANN Geographical Constituencies by indirect election = NomCom

Vested-interest power blocs, such as exist in ICANN today — the advisory committees, the supporting organization, and the subgroups within them — were not created to come up with solutions, even if they are convinced that they do. Functionally, they exist to prevent people with a common agenda from coming together as a single bloc to challenge ICANN the corporation.

The tell-tale characteristics of such systems are readily apparent within ICANN

- Low turnover of officials within the groups (just look around to see this at ICANN) - Decline, obsolescense, and fossilization of certain constituencies, which nonetheless retain their status (see: ISP grouping within GNSO) - Turf wars and takeover plots to “own” certain constituencies (e.g., the attempt by not-for-profit intellectual property interests (e.g., Red Cross) to take over the NCUC) - A large bureaucracy dedicated to preserving the power of the executive (the Board), while tying all other groups in knots with arcane and time-consuming rules and procedures. - Hostility to democratic reforms, typically justified by concerns about “fraud” (rejection of direct elections to the Board).

I support diversity of opinion, which is what the multi-stakeholder model promises. In fact, however, it delivers the opposite, because that’s the way it’s set up to operate.

Antony

P.S. To those that note that the GAC is not powerless, this is true only because it has external levers to make ICANN pay attention. If it were limited to its delineated powers within ICANN, it would be as powerless as the other groups.

...

On Jul 27, 2022, at 12:55 AM, Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 4:17 PM Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: I've long been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance.

I'm not sure that I have a problem with the pure concept of stakeholders. What is missing is a sense of balance as you note in your papers, that the end-users of the Internet have more of a stake in its direction than its service providers and profiteers, but the latter get themselves more representation because they have a financial interest to study and exploit any gaps in well-intentioned rules.

In ICANN the inequality isn't even subtle; it's hard-coded. The self-interested have the ability to compel the Board to do their bidding while governments and the public interest (ie, those outside the domain-buying food chain) sit on the sidelines giving easily-ignored advice.

Were the script flipped -- public and state interests in policy-making roles with the self-interested participating as advisors -- the DNS would look very different than it does now. But that genie ain't going back in the bottle. (in those days that larger body could have been "the members" but ICANN sank that ship long ago - but it can be, and ought to be, re-floated.)

We'lll have to disagree on the hope. IMO there is absolutely zero incentive for the status quo to relinquish its power and impose accountability on itself. Given a golden opportunity to do so, we got that cruel joke of an "empowered community" which doubled down on the imbalance.

It's my belief at this time, based on how ICANN has used previous opportunities to improve itself, that meaningful reform from within is not possible. The stimulus for change will have to be external -- maybe the EU, maybe the California AG, maybe some chaotic event or action so publicly unpalatable that the non-treaty-bound trust that countries have in ICANN disintegrates. To me that scenario is far more plausible than progress from within. The .ORG debacle was a wake-up call, the next such episode may push the boundary of acceptability too far. When it comes, the threat will not arise from the usual ITU bugaboo, but from some yet-unimagined source.

Cheers,

- Evan _______________________________________________ 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 <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Alberto, My comments were intended to provoke a discussion about the form of governance that ICANN uses, not as a forum to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia. Most sources have errors, therefore it is wise to use more than one and compare them to gauge their reliability. My sources are my own experiences at ICANN, discussions with ICANN staffers, and a general knowledge of different political systems, along with references to public sources as references for my quotations. Your dislike of Wikipedia, absent any actual showing of error, is beside the point. If you are interested in the discussion of ICANN governance, I invite you to respond substantively to the arguments I have presented. If you have other sources of information that inform the discussion, I invite you to present them to buttress your arguments. If you would like to discuss the reliability of Wikipedia, I invite you to start a new thread. If you dislike the argument I presented but you have no thoughts or evidence to refute or modify it other than by changing the subject, then perhaps you should sit this one out. Something is either true or not true, regardless of who said it. Please respond to the substance. Antony

On Jul 27, 2022, at 12:24 PM, Alberto Soto Roldan <alberto@soto.net.ar> wrote:

Wikipedia fails in its conception. There have been many "orientations" of ideas, concepts, only based on particular interests. Who guarantees that what is published is correct?

Some examples:

https://www.opengovpartnership.org/es/multistakeholder-forums/ <https://www.opengovpartnership.org/es/multistakeholder-forums/>

https://o11.me/imcsl <https://o11.me/imcsl>

https://o11.me/9MIjb <https://o11.me/9MIjb>

https://o11.me/VDznt <https://o11.me/VDznt>

...

El 27 jul. 2022, a las 16:13, Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc <mailto:avc@avc.vc>> escribió:

If you disagree, it would be good to hear why. In this case, Wikipedia is absolutely accurate and if you can show me where it is not accurate I will adjust accordingly. I used it because it is easy to access and read and in this case it is accurate.

All you have said so far is that you do not agree, and while that is a data point, it does not advance discussion.

The Criticism section for the wikipedia page on Multistakeholder_governance: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance Was removed on 5 March 2017 due to lack of sources and other complaints. What it said was (from the 22 November 2016 version): Criticism Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.[citation needed], who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system. The important thought can be summed up (by me) as: In a multistakeholder system you dispense with legislators as targets for influence by interested lobbyists and just let the lobbyists be the legislators. I think there are uses for multistakeholderism*. I'm not convinced it was a good idea for ICANN. My impression is it was a popular buzzword at the time and it afforded, as above, governance primarily by interested parties. That said, I am not an expert in governance models. I've chatted about this with people who are and have come to respect that it's an area of expertise. It would be interesting to hear from such experts vis a vis ICANN. It's not that interesting to hear from people who aren't experts other than their subsequent reaction to the advice of such experts which would be important since they would become the governed. How might this change? The problem, if it is a problem, is that those with the power to force change (e.g., govts or similar) are probably pretty happy that someone else (i.e., ICANN) worries about this remit. The net runs pretty well even if there are complaints, scandals have been relatively minor and have been handled internally, so why upend their system? The devil you know versus the devil you don't. Put another way I think one needs something more than "it doesn't seem fair or democratic" or "some decisions I would have done differently". * Perhaps for example some public relations council for the dairy industry so interested parties can decide how the budget is spent. Or a medical licensing organization where decisions to remove a doctor's license can only be fairly made by a group of MDs who understand the issues. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Wolfgang + 1 Kuo Wu Wolfgang Kleinwächter via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>於 2022年7月28日 週四，18:17寫道：

Hi,

good discussion. The concept of "Multistakeholderism" has many dimensions, different sources and can be seen primarily as a political experiment in new social territories to promote the concept of "sharing" in policy development and decision making which goes beyond the concept of the "representative democarcy" (and far beyond the concept of "autocracy").

One practical (political) source for the multistakeholder approach in the governance of the Internet was the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), 2002 - 2005. During the first WSIS phase (2002 - 2003) there was a political US-China conflict around Internet Governance. The US wanted to have "private sector leadership", China "governmental leadership". China argued, that "self-regulation (and private sector leadership) was good for one million Internet user. But for one billion users governments have to step in. US argued, if it isn´t broken, don´t fix it. There was no agreement among the two governments, Kofi Annan established the (multistakeholder) UN Working Group of Internet Governance (WGIG) and the WGIG concluded (after two years of intensive discussions) that the Internet doesn´t need a leader, but the collaboration of all stakeholders, which included "sharing of decision making procedures". The WGIG-definition included, that stakeholders has to be involved "in their respective roles", but the idea, to add "on equal footing" did not get enough support among the WGIG members. The proposed "WGIG Definition" made its way into the Tunis Agenda (November 2005). Governments in Tunis didn´t have any better idea. But it was a compromise, embedded into other paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda, including the recognition of "national sovereignty" for ccTLDs and the leading role of governments with regard to "Internet related public policy issues". Technical community got the lead in the "day-to-day-operations", but it was unclear, what the borderline between "Internet related public policy issues" and "day-to-day operations" was. The WGIG-definition differentiated also between the "development" and the "use" of the Internet. This differentiation produced the concept of "governance OF the Internet" and "governance ON the Internet". It was expected that the IGF will help to deepen the understanding about the multistakeholder approach. The IGF was helpful indeed, but it is neither a decision making body nor a think tank. Also the related process of "enhanced cooperation", which was aimed to clarify some of the open issues, didn´t produce anything, regardless of the work of two UNCTD Working Groups (WGEC I & II) in the 2010s. The best description of what the multistakeholder approach is (or should be) can be found in the "Net Mundial Declaration" from Sao Paulo (April 2014), which "defines" clear criteria as bottom up policy development, inclusivity, equality, access, transparency, accountability, openess, agility, decentralization etc. This is a good list of you want to "measure" the temparature of a multistakeholder process,

Theoretically, the multistakeholder approach was interpreted as an advanced model for a "participatory democracy" (or "liquid democracy"), where the "people themselves", that is the concerned and affected groups, participate on equal footing in policy development and decision making. This was inspired to a high degree by the RFC processes, established by the IETF already in the 1980s and 1990s, long before ICANN was established. Remember David Clark (1992): “We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: *rough consensus* and *running code."* It was "rough conesnsus", not conseus. The ability to compromise and the will to share ressorces and decision making - based on trusted relationships among stakeholders - was the basis of such a concept. "Participatory Democracy" in this understanding was not aimed to substitute the "Representative Democracy". It was seen as an enhancement of the established procedures to solve problems in areas, where the "representative democracy" has its limits and restrictions. MultistakehoIderism was seen also as different from "public-private partnership", which excludes to a high degree civil society (and the technical community) from policy development and decision making. The argument was, if "big government" and "big business" will go together, this will lead to "tyranny" of the powerful". Civil society is needed to balance the conflicting interests and to block the misuse of political and economic power against citizens and users. With other words, the multistakeholder approach does only work with a strong civil society.

This was the theory. Illusion? Utopia? What we see today is, that the concept is used/misused intentionally by groups (including governments) to promote their own interests."Balancing" or "Sharing" is not the main driving force, if new legislation or new services are introduced. The Chinese government supports the multistakehooder approach, but it is "multistakehoderism" under the leadership of the Communist Party. The EU supports multistakeholderism, but it is MS under the leadership of the EU Commission. Even in the US there is a lot of lip service. The "Declaration of the Future of the Internet" (April 2022) supports the Multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance, but the text was produced by the "White House" in consultation with some (mainly European) governments alone. No multistakeholder discussioon and no public comment period. Civil society was sidelined.

With other words, the 2020s see the "back-swinging of the pendelum". Is the US "Council of Foreign Rerlations" right, if it states that "the era of the global Internet is over" (July 2022)? What next? Do we have "re-invent" the wheel for the "Post Internet Era"? Do we need MS for AI Governance, Blockchain Governance, W3 Governance?

I would recommend to be prepared for WSIS+20.It will start soon. Be engaged in the drafting of the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Comments are welcome by the UN until September 30, 2022.

Wolfgang

Barry Shein via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> hat am 28.07.2022 08:02 CEST geschrieben:

The Criticism section for the wikipedia page on Multistakeholder_governance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance

Was removed on 5 March 2017 due to lack of sources and other complaints.

What it said was (from the 22 November 2016 version):

Criticism

Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.[citation needed], who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system.

The important thought can be summed up (by me) as:

In a multistakeholder system you dispense with legislators as targets for influence by interested lobbyists and just let the lobbyists be the legislators.

I think there are uses for multistakeholderism*.

I'm not convinced it was a good idea for ICANN.

My impression is it was a popular buzzword at the time and it afforded, as above, governance primarily by interested parties.

That said, I am not an expert in governance models.

I've chatted about this with people who are and have come to respect that it's an area of expertise.

It would be interesting to hear from such experts vis a vis ICANN.

It's not that interesting to hear from people who aren't experts other than their subsequent reaction to the advice of such experts which would be important since they would become the governed.

How might this change?

The problem, if it is a problem, is that those with the power to force change (e.g., govts or similar) are probably pretty happy that someone else (i.e., ICANN) worries about this remit.

The net runs pretty well even if there are complaints, scandals have been relatively minor and have been handled internally, so why upend their system? The devil you know versus the devil you don't.

Put another way I think one needs something more than "it doesn't seem fair or democratic" or "some decisions I would have done differently".

* Perhaps for example some public relations council for the dairy industry so interested parties can decide how the budget is spent. Or a medical licensing organization where decisions to remove a doctor's license can only be fairly made by a group of MDs who understand the issues.

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

+++ @Evan Fully agree. Olévié Le lun. 1 août 2022 à 21:22, Evan Leibovitch via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> a écrit :

Hi Wolfgang,

I was at the WSIS conference in Geneva -- in fact I led a 21-person delegation (page 155 of the list of participants <https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/summit_participants.pdf>) -- and we were involved in some of the prepcoms.

I saw first-hand how that process SHAFTED the public interest and bestow on it zero trust.

My community was advancing the use of open source software in infrastructure, the benefits of which were self-evident -- especially on projects funded by the public sector. Indeed it was exhilarating to see governments advance this in advance. However, relentless pressure from industry groups led to what I had learned later was called "death by the square brackets". Original text promoting open source was reduced to "[promoting open source]" in later drafts, to "[use open source]", to "[consider open source]" and eventually to the point where any references to "open source" were COMPLETELY removed from later texts <https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispc3/c/S03-WSISPC3-C-0172!!PDF-E....>. We didn't even bother going to Tunis, we'd seen the whole process as a sham by then.

As Antony's description describes, in-group politics worked to the benefit of the vested interests. In our case, the Civil Society delegation screwed itself <https://web.archive.org/web/20170205194713/https://cyber.harvard.edu/wsis/Le...> -- my group dissented from its communique -- but it's not a stretch to assert that the dysfunction was by design.

Now, here we are in 2022 and both governments and large corporations are creating Open Source Program Offices <https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/ec-ospo>. But WSIS actually retarded this process by nearly two decades, never even suggesting consideration of a technology model that some now call essential.

So ... from my corner of the world ... screw WSIS. Regardless of the rhetoric, it provided few practical steps forward and some steps back. (Our silver lining was the adjacent ICT4D show where we gave away more than 10,000 Linux CDs to attendees regardless of what WSiS told them to ignore.)

I'll happily agree with you that the closest that MSM has ever come to actually serving the public interest was at Netmundial -- a shining moment of clarity and maybe even mutual goodwill. So how has THAT model progressed or been adopted in its eight years of life? Multiple experiences have demonstrated that the greed and entitlement of the vested interests would never let real benefits of theoretical MSM happen, and they have been willing to risk the entire experiment just to keep the status quo in place.

Have they bet correctly?

- Evan

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 6:17 AM Wolfgang Kleinwächter via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

good discussion. The concept of "Multistakeholderism" has many dimensions, different sources and can be seen primarily as a political experiment in new social territories to promote the concept of "sharing" in policy development and decision making which goes beyond the concept of the "representative democarcy" (and far beyond the concept of "autocracy").

One practical (political) source for the multistakeholder approach in the governance of the Internet was the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), 2002 - 2005. During the first WSIS phase (2002 - 2003) there was a political US-China conflict around Internet Governance. The US wanted to have "private sector leadership", China "governmental leadership". China argued, that "self-regulation (and private sector leadership) was good for one million Internet user. But for one billion users governments have to step in. US argued, if it isn´t broken, don´t fix it. There was no agreement among the two governments, Kofi Annan established the (multistakeholder) UN Working Group of Internet Governance (WGIG) and the WGIG concluded (after two years of intensive discussions) that the Internet doesn´t need a leader, but the collaboration of all stakeholders, which included "sharing of decision making procedures". The WGIG-definition included, that stakeholders has to be involved "in their respective roles", but the idea, to add "on equal footing" did not get enough support among the WGIG members. The proposed "WGIG Definition" made its way into the Tunis Agenda (November 2005). Governments in Tunis didn´t have any better idea. But it was a compromise, embedded into other paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda, including the recognition of "national sovereignty" for ccTLDs and the leading role of governments with regard to "Internet related public policy issues". Technical community got the lead in the "day-to-day-operations", but it was unclear, what the borderline between "Internet related public policy issues" and "day-to-day operations" was. The WGIG-definition differentiated also between the "development" and the "use" of the Internet. This differentiation produced the concept of "governance OF the Internet" and "governance ON the Internet". It was expected that the IGF will help to deepen the understanding about the multistakeholder approach. The IGF was helpful indeed, but it is neither a decision making body nor a think tank. Also the related process of "enhanced cooperation", which was aimed to clarify some of the open issues, didn´t produce anything, regardless of the work of two UNCTD Working Groups (WGEC I & II) in the 2010s. The best description of what the multistakeholder approach is (or should be) can be found in the "Net Mundial Declaration" from Sao Paulo (April 2014), which "defines" clear criteria as bottom up policy development, inclusivity, equality, access, transparency, accountability, openess, agility, decentralization etc. This is a good list of you want to "measure" the temparature of a multistakeholder process,

Theoretically, the multistakeholder approach was interpreted as an advanced model for a "participatory democracy" (or "liquid democracy"), where the "people themselves", that is the concerned and affected groups, participate on equal footing in policy development and decision making. This was inspired to a high degree by the RFC processes, established by the IETF already in the 1980s and 1990s, long before ICANN was established. Remember David Clark (1992): “We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: *rough consensus* and *running code."* It was "rough conesnsus", not conseus. The ability to compromise and the will to share ressorces and decision making - based on trusted relationships among stakeholders - was the basis of such a concept. "Participatory Democracy" in this understanding was not aimed to substitute the "Representative Democracy". It was seen as an enhancement of the established procedures to solve problems in areas, where the "representative democracy" has its limits and restrictions. MultistakehoIderism was seen also as different from "public-private partnership", which excludes to a high degree civil society (and the technical community) from policy development and decision making. The argument was, if "big government" and "big business" will go together, this will lead to "tyranny" of the powerful". Civil society is needed to balance the conflicting interests and to block the misuse of political and economic power against citizens and users. With other words, the multistakeholder approach does only work with a strong civil society.

This was the theory. Illusion? Utopia? What we see today is, that the concept is used/misused intentionally by groups (including governments) to promote their own interests."Balancing" or "Sharing" is not the main driving force, if new legislation or new services are introduced. The Chinese government supports the multistakehooder approach, but it is "multistakehoderism" under the leadership of the Communist Party. The EU supports multistakeholderism, but it is MS under the leadership of the EU Commission. Even in the US there is a lot of lip service. The "Declaration of the Future of the Internet" (April 2022) supports the Multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance, but the text was produced by the "White House" in consultation with some (mainly European) governments alone. No multistakeholder discussioon and no public comment period. Civil society was sidelined.

With other words, the 2020s see the "back-swinging of the pendelum". Is the US "Council of Foreign Rerlations" right, if it states that "the era of the global Internet is over" (July 2022)? What next? Do we have "re-invent" the wheel for the "Post Internet Era"? Do we need MS for AI Governance, Blockchain Governance, W3 Governance?

I would recommend to be prepared for WSIS+20.It will start soon. Be engaged in the drafting of the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Comments are welcome by the UN until September 30, 2022.

Wolfgang

Barry Shein via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> hat am 28.07.2022 08:02 CEST geschrieben:

The Criticism section for the wikipedia page on Multistakeholder_governance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance

Was removed on 5 March 2017 due to lack of sources and other complaints.

What it said was (from the 22 November 2016 version):

Criticism

Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.[citation needed], who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system.

The important thought can be summed up (by me) as:

In a multistakeholder system you dispense with legislators as targets for influence by interested lobbyists and just let the lobbyists be the legislators.

I think there are uses for multistakeholderism*.

I'm not convinced it was a good idea for ICANN.

My impression is it was a popular buzzword at the time and it afforded, as above, governance primarily by interested parties.

That said, I am not an expert in governance models.

I've chatted about this with people who are and have come to respect that it's an area of expertise.

It would be interesting to hear from such experts vis a vis ICANN.

It's not that interesting to hear from people who aren't experts other than their subsequent reaction to the advice of such experts which would be important since they would become the governed.

How might this change?

The problem, if it is a problem, is that those with the power to force change (e.g., govts or similar) are probably pretty happy that someone else (i.e., ICANN) worries about this remit.

The net runs pretty well even if there are complaints, scandals have been relatively minor and have been handled internally, so why upend their system? The devil you know versus the devil you don't.

Put another way I think one needs something more than "it doesn't seem fair or democratic" or "some decisions I would have done differently".

* Perhaps for example some public relations council for the dairy industry so interested parties can decide how the budget is spent. Or a medical licensing organization where decisions to remove a doctor's license can only be fairly made by a group of MDs who understand the issues.

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hi Evan, As an advisory committee, ALAC could be a power bloc if it spoke forcefully and with one voice about the issues that pertain to power. I agree however that this seems a distant prospect. Frankly I am surprised that there hasn’t been a concerted effort to take it over, which probably just means that there are easier ways to achieve desired results. I can tell you from years of experience as head of a registry and registrar that it never seemed as if we got our way. I found that most common-sense reforms or policies that I proposed were met with stony-faced indifference, not to say hostility, by ICANN staff. ICANN the organization is marching to its own beat and they ignore or sidetrack everyone, not just ALAC, unless they see their own power-building agenda furthered. When they don’t like something, they demand unanimity; and when they want something done they just do it. Even if not originally designed to do so, the procedures for creating policy function primarily to get everyone into the weeds where disagreement between groups are inevitable. Antony

On Aug 1, 2022, at 13:22, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:



Hi Antony,

I have little issue with your comments, and I certainly agree with their conclusion that the reality of MSM is the opposite of what it promises in theory. The main difference I see between your generalism of MSM and ICANN's particular implementation -- which makes ICANN's even worse -- is the ability for one group of stakeholders (the compact of domain sellers and buyers that is the GNSO) to compel the Board on policy, regardless of objections from all other inputs.

I must admit that I had a laugh at the description of ALAC as a power bloc.

Thanks for the contribution.

- Evan

...

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:09 PM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: [Renaming the thread…]

"Multi-stakeholder” is a euphemism for a form of governance otherwise known as functional constituency politics. As practiced at ICANN, it is a plan, articulated to me by ICANN staffers in the very early days when it was all being put together, to put each group into a “sandbox” so that they could argue among themselves while ICANN the organization does what it wants while maintaining the appearance of inclusiveness and fairness.

Functional constituency politics has an inglorious history. Its main contribution over time has been to convince observers that existing rulers with vested interests are never going to implement fair rules on their own. That it why they are hardly ever used today except in settings where the ruled are too ignorant / naive / corrupted to complain effectively and there is no supervisory authority to restrain abuses.

The most recent well-known example of constituency politics is Hong Kong under the British. (I’m not saying rule by the CCP I better, it’s just that the previous system also really sucked.) Earlier examples include the Republic of Venice, where “The republic was ruled by the doge, who was elected by members of the Great Council of Venice, the city-state's parliament, and ruled for life. The ruling class was an oligarchy of merchants and aristocrats.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice).

In Hong Kong under the Empire, constituency politics was liked by no-one except the apparatchiks who managed it, the ruling class that made money under it, and the British Government’s Executive Council, which ignored it but liked the democratic optics. It was neither responsive, democratic, or workable. Effectively it meant that the power in Hong Kong, to the extent that it was devolved at all from the Executive Council, was highly centralized in the hands of the bankers and industrial magnates.

See if you can recognize the similarities:

"The Executive Council determined administrative policy changes and considered primary legislation before passing it to the Legislative Council for approval. This advisory body also itself issued secondary legislation under a limited set of colonial ordinances. The Legislative Council debated proposed legislation…. Indirectly elected functional constituency seats were introduced in 1985. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong#Government)

These functional constituencies were completely undemocratic, as well as being largely powerless:

(1) 12 geographical constituencies were based on population, with 500,000 people for each geographical constituency. Note that even these “normal” democratic seats were given out by “indirect” election. (Can anyone say NomCom?)

(2) 12 functional constituencies were based on… well… established power, and were balanced so that the wrong sort of people who might threaten the status quo were never given any positions of power. They were:

- First commercial seat (Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce) - Second commercial seat (Chinese General Chamber of Commerce) - First industrial seat (Federation of Hong Kong Industries) - Second industrial seat (Chinese Manufacturers’ Association of Hong Kong) - Financial seat (Hong Kong Association of Banks) - Labour (2 seats) - recognized trade unions of Hong Kong - Social Services - Hong Kong Council of Social Services - Medical - Hong Kong Medical Association - Teaching - Legal - Engineering, Architectural, Surveying, Planning

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Hong_Kong_legislative_election)

ICANN Board = Executive Council Functional Constituencies = the acronym salad of all the powerless groups within ICANN Geographical Constituencies by indirect election = NomCom

Vested-interest power blocs, such as exist in ICANN today — the advisory committees, the supporting organization, and the subgroups within them — were not created to come up with solutions, even if they are convinced that they do. Functionally, they exist to prevent people with a common agenda from coming together as a single bloc to challenge ICANN the corporation.

The tell-tale characteristics of such systems are readily apparent within ICANN

- Low turnover of officials within the groups (just look around to see this at ICANN) - Decline, obsolescense, and fossilization of certain constituencies, which nonetheless retain their status (see: ISP grouping within GNSO) - Turf wars and takeover plots to “own” certain constituencies (e.g., the attempt by not-for-profit intellectual property interests (e.g., Red Cross) to take over the NCUC) - A large bureaucracy dedicated to preserving the power of the executive (the Board), while tying all other groups in knots with arcane and time-consuming rules and procedures. - Hostility to democratic reforms, typically justified by concerns about “fraud” (rejection of direct elections to the Board).

I support diversity of opinion, which is what the multi-stakeholder model promises. In fact, however, it delivers the opposite, because that’s the way it’s set up to operate.

Antony

P.S. To those that note that the GAC is not powerless, this is true only because it has external levers to make ICANN pay attention. If it were limited to its delineated powers within ICANN, it would be as powerless as the other groups.

Please consider that we speak about global democracy, with 8 billion people. Multistakeholderism is one of the many ways of finding a - still crippled - solution. Better ideas are needed, no question, but bear in mind that getting sufficient participation in online voting seems still illusory. In the world of international law, trying to include all stakeholders, is a strong improvement to one state, one vote - that is still dominates but does not produce much results anymore, moving to the liberum veto of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Engaged groups (parties, trade unions, lobbies etc.) dominate democracy nowadays, and the BWG is one of them. Let's focus on then and improved the dialogue with these engaged groups, e.g. lobbyismus with transparency and also a strong say of groups representing at-large (trying to do a better job than now). Erich SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. (Uni Wien, Legal Informatics, European Law, Multistakeholder Law) MBA Dr. (law) Dr. (informatics) "pre-MAIS" (International Studies) (on leave for the European Commission, Rue de la Loi 130, 1040 Brussel BE, erich.schweighofer@ec.europa.eu, Tel. +32 2 29 52283) Legal Informatics at Vienna University chair: ARI Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik, Juridicum, Universität Wien chair: iris-conferences.eu President: RI@ LII-Austria CEILI RARI SLib WZRI Department for European, International and Comparative Law, Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, Zi. 546, 1010 Wien AT, Tel. +43 1 4277 35305 https://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at, https://rechtsinformatik.ACADEMY, https://iris-conferences.eu, https://wzri.eu office@rechtsinformatik.ACADEMY; office@iris-conferences.eu; Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at --- Bitte um Teilnahme und Beiträge / Call for contributions and participation: IRI§23 Internationales Rechtsinformatik Symposion 2023, 22.-25.02.23, Salzburg, https://iris-conferences.eu/iris23 Papers bis 31.10.2022 Jusletter IT http://jusletter-it.eu Schriftenreihe Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik, rechtsinformatik.ACADEMY & IRIS-Journal: https://irisj.eu PHAIDRA ________________________________________ Von: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] im Auftrag von Karl Auerbach via At-Large [at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. August 2022 03:02 An: Antony Van Couvering; Evan Leibovitch Cc: At Large Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Multistakeholderism Explained (was Re: ICANN75: Mandatory Funded Traveler Registration for Roberto Gaetano) First, I agree with Evan L. that one physical meeting a year would be a good thing. DNS names are slowly fading from popular view; consequently ICANN's footprint is diminishing (despite attempts by the corporation to expand into new areas.) And in this era of viral risks, bouncing economics, miserable travel ('cept for those with their own G6 or 400' yacht), and brinkmanship politics people are worn out and their purses are getting light. However, it does seem that those of like mind (or better yet, of compromising/inventive mind) ought to gather of their own accord and means; there is no need to wait for Mother ICANN to call people to meet. For decades, ever since before ICANN came into being, a small group of us, the Boston Working Group (BWG), have chatted and sometimes have physically met, to express and perhaps work out differences, share ideas. There is no reason why arbitrary groups interested in ICANN matters can not do that and afterwords present the results of their work, which would be all the more compelling because of the weight of their distillation of thoughtful discourse. Second, regarding Antony V.C.'s comment about the ALAC - and the ICANN interested public in general - speaking with one voice. It could. And that voice ought to carry the weight of a steel driving sledge in the hands of John Henry. But it does not. And why not? Because ICANN has drowned that public voice under the diluting force of stakeholderism (multi or not). ICANN's non-public "stakeholders" are pre-formed, much like a MacDonald's "chicken" MacNugget is forged out of similar parts into a single entity. In the case of MacNuggets, the pieces are arguably all from chickens. In ICANN the pieces are put into pigeonholes on the basis of economic interest or type of business - trademark owners go here, domain name registries go there - And each of those "stakeholder" groups, in the ICANN universe, gets a voice that paraphrase Bob Dylan's words, does not merely talk, it swears, it screams, at volume level 11. It's no wonder that the voice of the public is drowned out and not heard. One piece of the theory of democracy is that every person is a cauldron of competing interests that seethe, fight, and blend. Only each person can speak as to the result of that process. That is why each person gets one vote. Stakeholderism, however, follows another track, a track that, to my mind, that is unstable and that ultimately degrades into governance by most affluent. To my mind stakerholderism based decision making is like asking me what I'd like to do next Saturday night. My left leg might respond "we should go the the Ibis on Lake Como" while my right leg might say "there's a beach party at Cabo, let's go!" and my arms might say "but we have great tickets for Twelfth Night in Santa Cruz!"  That's not going to lead to good decisions or a peaceful acceptance of whatever does burble out of that chaos. Ultimately all of ICANN's commercial "stakeholders" are composed of people - corporations are composed of people, bodies of lawyers are composed of people. Those people are totally free to join ALAC (or the public voice of those interested in ICANN) and express their points of view - the sum of their interests - as their one individual and single vote. Commercial interests need no encouragement from ICANN to form aggregates - they will do so of their own accord and interest. There is no need for ICANN to help or to pre-recognize and award those aggregates with a voice in addition to that of their individual human members. --karl-- _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Karl, Following on your “off-topic” (I changed the subject line) I wold like to add a bit of history. You wrote: A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors …. When I was chairing the Board Review WG, I argued against having the CEO as a voting member rather than ex-officio observer. Besides any governance model, having to vote on issues that he would have been called to execute could put the CEO in an embarrassing position: what if he voted against, and the motion passed? This was, IMHO, not just a theoretical exercise, but something that could really happen on politically sensitive issues, like the .xxx delegation (in that case, Paul abstained, and the application was rejected by one or two votes). My approach was considered, but the Chair argued that for the current CEO the provision was built in the contract, and could not be changed, but this would have been taken into account for the next CEO. Then I left the Board, and lost track of the later events, but it looks that the situation still remains unchanged. Cheers, Roberto On 26.07.2022, at 21:39, Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: I'm going to be somewhat diverging from the main topic.... On 7/26/22 8:14 AM, Marita Moll wrote: And so it is with ICANN. It exists -- a unique multistakeholder governance system. Lots of things wrong with it. But it exists. So, for those who want to, they can keep working at it, keep looking for improvement, keep challenging the system. I've long been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance. I was horrified when I first saw it just after Jon Postel died, and became more horrified watching Joe Sims of Jones Day ramming it down our collective throats. In the Boston Working Group proposal for "NewCo" we tried to mitigate some of the worst aspects. See https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ for the Boston Working Group proposals. A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors and moving some ICANN powers into the Articles of Incorporation and requiring exercise of those powers to be approved by more than merely the board (in those days that larger body could have been "the members" but ICANN sank that ship long ago - but it can be, and ought to be, re-floated.) My most recent piece in opposition to stakeholder based systems may be found here: Democracy Versus Stakeholderism - https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/ --karl-- _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Roberto, the excuse of it being in the CEO contract is twaddle! If that was accepted by Board members, it is shameful. If the change is warranted (and good) - as I believe it was and is, even if the contract was inviolate, the Bylaws could be written with a transition clause saying it applied to future CEOs. Alan At 2022-07-27 05:41 AM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large wrote:

Karl,

Following on your “off-topic” (I changed the subject line) I wold like to add a bit of history.

You wrote:

...

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors ….>

When I was chairing the Board Review WG, I argued against having the CEO as a voting member rather than ex-officio observer. Besides any governance model, having to vote on issues that he would have been called to execute could put the CEO in an embarrassing position: what if he voted against, and the motion passed? This was, IMHO, not just a theoretical exercise, but something that could really happen on politically sensitive issues, like the .xxx delegation (in that case, Paul abstained, and the application was rejected by one or two votes).

My approach was considered, but the Chair argued that for the current CEO the provision was built in the contract, and could not be changed, but this would have been taken into account for the next CEO. Then I left the Board, and lost track of the later events, but it looks that the situation still remains unchanged.

Cheers, Roberto

...

On 26.07.2022, at 21:39, Karl Auerbach via At-Large <<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

I'm going to be somewhat diverging from the main topic.... On 7/26/22 8:14 AM, Marita Moll wrote:

...

And so it is with ICANN. It exists -- a unique multistakeholder governance system. Lots of things wrong with it. But it exists. So, for those who want to, they can keep working at it, keep looking for improvement, keep challenging the system.

I've long been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance. I was horrified when I first saw it just after Jon Postel died, and became more horrified watching Joe Sims of Jones Day ramming it down our collective throats. In the Boston Working Group proposal for "NewCo" we tried to mitigate some of the worst aspects.

See <https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/>https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ for the Boston Working Group proposals.

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors and moving some ICANN powers into the Articles of Incorporation and requiring exercise of those powers to be approved by more than merely the board (in those days that larger body could have been "the members" but ICANN sank that ship long ago - but it can be, and ought to be, re-floated.)

My most recent piece in opposition to stakeholder based systems may be found here:

Democracy Versus Stakeholderism - <https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/>https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/

--karl--

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

I am with Vanda on this one. I was on the board of CIRA, which manages the .ca domain name. CEO advises the board, attends all meetings, but does not vote. I think it would be a governance improvement if this was corrected at ICANN when the next contract comes around. This has nothing to do with Goran or his tenure. I think it is just a better model. As Vanda says, he might even agree. What is being gained here from the potential conflict of interest? Marita On 2022-07-28 8:50 a.m., Vanda Scartezini via At-Large wrote:

Hi all, I am in several not for profit boards and In none of them the CEO is a vote member. The CEO participate ex oficio � but not vote, as Karl said, some times the CEO can be put in an embarrassing situation which is not a good governance at all. See no reason to change this even in the contract. I do not believe Goran will be against it.

This is just good governance �( good practice)

*From: *At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, 27 July 2022 15:07 *To: *Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> *Cc: *At Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [At-Large] Voting seat for CEO Was: Re: ICANN75: Mandatory Funded Traveler Registration for Roberto Gaetano

Roberto, the excuse of it being in the CEO contract is twaddle! If that was accepted by Board members, it is shameful. If the change is warranted (and good) - as I believe it was and is, even if the contract was inviolate, the Bylaws could be written with a transition clause saying it applied to future CEOs.

Alan

At 2022-07-27 05:41 AM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large wrote:

Karl,

Following on your “off-topic” (I changed the subject line) I wold like to add a bit of history.

You wrote:

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors �.>

When I was chairing the Board Review WG, I argued against having the CEO as a voting member rather than ex-officio observer. Besides any governance model, having to vote on issues that he would have been called to execute could put the CEO in an embarrassing position: what if he voted against, and the motion passed? This was, IMHO, not just a theoretical exercise, but something that could really happen on politically sensitive issues, like the .xxx delegation (in that case, Paul abstained, and the application was rejected by one or two votes).

My approach was considered, but the Chair argued that for the current CEO the provision was built in the contract, and could not be changed, but this would have been taken into account for the next CEO. Then I left the Board, and lost track of the later events, but it looks that the situation still remains unchanged.

Cheers, Roberto

On 26.07.2022, at 21:39, Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:

I'm going to be somewhat diverging from the main topic.... On 7/26/22 8:14 AM, Marita Moll wrote:

And so it is with ICANN. It exists -- a unique multistakeholder governance system. Lots of things wrong with it. But it exists. So, for those who want to, they can keep working at it, keep looking for improvement, keep challenging the system.

I've long been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance.� I was horrified when I first saw it just after Jon Postel died, and became more horrified watching Joe Sims of Jones Day ramming it down our collective throats.� In the Boston Working Group proposal for "NewCo" we tried to mitigate some of the worst aspects.

See https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ <https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/> for the Boston Working Group proposals.

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors and moving some ICANN powers into the Articles of Incorporation and requiring exercise of those powers to be approved by more than merely the board (in those days that larger body could have been "the members" but ICANN sank that ship long ago - but it can be, and ought to be, re-floated.)

My most recent piece in opposition to stakeholder based systems may be found here:

Democracy Versus Stakeholderism - https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/ <https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/>

��� �� ���� --karl--

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

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hello Roberto, Just as you've noted instances where the CEO may be embarrassed if an issue he voted went a different direction, there are instances that I believe the CEO will be glad he contributed his voice through voting. The CEO's vote is just 1 out of the other votes to be cast hence if his vote made a difference then you know it's a really contentious matter. In an organisation as ICANN it's not good practice to put the face of the organisation (i.e the CEO in an observer role - non voting). That said, most reasonable CEOs don't actively use their voting right towards a direction, they largely abstain but I think the CEO should have the opportunity to exercise his opinion through voting when he considers it necessary. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos Every word has consequences. Every silence does too! On Wed, 27 Jul 2022, 10:42 Roberto Gaetano via At-Large, < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

Karl,

Following on your “off-topic” (I changed the subject line) I wold like to add a bit of history.

You wrote:

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors ….

When I was chairing the Board Review WG, I argued against having the CEO as a voting member rather than ex-officio observer. Besides any governance model, having to vote on issues that he would have been called to execute could put the CEO in an embarrassing position: what if he voted against, and the motion passed? This was, IMHO, not just a theoretical exercise, but something that could really happen on politically sensitive issues, like the .xxx delegation (in that case, Paul abstained, and the application was rejected by one or two votes).

My approach was considered, but the Chair argued that for the current CEO the provision was built in the contract, and could not be changed, but this would have been taken into account for the next CEO. Then I left the Board, and lost track of the later events, but it looks that the situation still remains unchanged.

Cheers, Roberto

On 26.07.2022, at 21:39, Karl Auerbach via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

I'm going to be somewhat diverging from the main topic.... On 7/26/22 8:14 AM, Marita Moll wrote:

And so it is with ICANN. It exists -- a unique multistakeholder governance system. Lots of things wrong with it. But it exists. So, for those who want to, they can keep working at it, keep looking for improvement, keep challenging the system.

I've long been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance. I was horrified when I first saw it just after Jon Postel died, and became more horrified watching Joe Sims of Jones Day ramming it down our collective throats. In the Boston Working Group proposal for "NewCo" we tried to mitigate some of the worst aspects.

See https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ for the Boston Working Group proposals.

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors and moving some ICANN powers into the Articles of Incorporation and requiring exercise of those powers to be approved by more than merely the board (in those days that larger body could have been "the members" but ICANN sank that ship long ago - but it can be, and ought to be, re-floated.)

My most recent piece in opposition to stakeholder based systems may be found here:

Democracy Versus Stakeholderism - https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/

--karl--

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hello Karl, I hear you but the last I checked ICANN Board membership is filled by the community in part and indirectly filled by the community(through nomcom) for the rest of the board members. It therefore seem that ICANN profile fits that of an organisation whose CEO should be a voting member. I really don't think the CEO power is derived from that single vote; if the CEO is already acting powerful and beyond control of the Board, that single vote won't be the breaker IMO the power must have been wielded elsewhere and perhaps with support of the Board majority Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos Every word has consequences. Every silence does too! On Wed, 27 Jul 2022, 20:42 Karl Auerbach, <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:

I agree with you that the voice of the President of a corporation is often a voice that ought to be heard and considered by the board of directors.

However, a President that is allowed to sit at, hear, and contribute to meetings of the board is not not the same as a President who can do those things *and* vote.

Many, but not all, corporations do find it useful to allow a President/CEO to be a voting board member.

ICANN, however, has long had an imbalance with a weak board facing a powerful executive staff.

In such a situation a staff vote, i.e. the President's vote, on the board, merely increases that imbalance by weakening the chosen board and strengthening the executive staff.

Were ICANN to have a stronger board - a likely result were the board picked by the public through direct elective processes - then perhaps the President could have a vote. But given the present institutional board selection process it is unwise to increase the staff/executive dominance.

--karl--

On 7/27/22 11:19 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

Hello Roberto,

Just as you've noted instances where the CEO may be embarrassed if an issue he voted went a different direction, there are instances that I believe the CEO will be glad he contributed his voice through voting.

The CEO's vote is just 1 out of the other votes to be cast hence if his vote made a difference then you know it's a really contentious matter. In an organisation as ICANN it's not good practice to put the face of the organisation (i.e the CEO in an observer role - non voting).

That said, most reasonable CEOs don't actively use their voting right towards a direction, they largely abstain but I think the CEO should have the opportunity to exercise his opinion through voting when he considers it necessary.

Regards

Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos Every word has consequences. Every silence does too!

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022, 10:42 Roberto Gaetano via At-Large, < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

...

Karl,

Following on your “off-topic” (I changed the subject line) I wold like to add a bit of history.

You wrote:

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors ….

When I was chairing the Board Review WG, I argued against having the CEO as a voting member rather than ex-officio observer. Besides any governance model, having to vote on issues that he would have been called to execute could put the CEO in an embarrassing position: what if he voted against, and the motion passed? This was, IMHO, not just a theoretical exercise, but something that could really happen on politically sensitive issues, like the .xxx delegation (in that case, Paul abstained, and the application was rejected by one or two votes).

My approach was considered, but the Chair argued that for the current CEO the provision was built in the contract, and could not be changed, but this would have been taken into account for the next CEO. Then I left the Board, and lost track of the later events, but it looks that the situation still remains unchanged.

Cheers, Roberto

On 26.07.2022, at 21:39, Karl Auerbach via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

I'm going to be somewhat diverging from the main topic.... On 7/26/22 8:14 AM, Marita Moll wrote:

And so it is with ICANN. It exists -- a unique multistakeholder governance system. Lots of things wrong with it. But it exists. So, for those who want to, they can keep working at it, keep looking for improvement, keep challenging the system.

I've long been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance. I was horrified when I first saw it just after Jon Postel died, and became more horrified watching Joe Sims of Jones Day ramming it down our collective throats. In the Boston Working Group proposal for "NewCo" we tried to mitigate some of the worst aspects.

See https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ for the Boston Working Group proposals.

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors and moving some ICANN powers into the Articles of Incorporation and requiring exercise of those powers to be approved by more than merely the board (in those days that larger body could have been "the members" but ICANN sank that ship long ago - but it can be, and ought to be, re-floated.)

My most recent piece in opposition to stakeholder based systems may be found here:

Democracy Versus Stakeholderism - https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/

--karl--

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

It is common in the discourse at ICANN to look at various existing power blocs and see how they can be improved. The discussion whether the CEO should vote or not is an example. Unfortunately, this is just one tree, and the improvements ICANN needs are more structural in nature and require a view of the forest. I can see the point of having technical supporting organizations, who do after all have some expertise to offer decision makers. The other groupings at ICANN are not providing expert advice, they are providing lobbying. But instead of lobbying ICANN with a common voice, they fight with each other. This is what happens when people are divided into groups. I’m not making this up, there are numerous studies showing that simply dividing a group of people into two groups will cause them to quite quickly become hostile toward each other other. The best-known psychological study of this phenomenon is called The Robbers Cave, see https://www.thoughtco.com/robbers-cave-experiment-4774987 <https://www.thoughtco.com/robbers-cave-experiment-4774987>. In it, two randomly selected groups of boys were sent to a summer camp to see if they would co-operate or fight or something in between. The hypothesis for the study was "when two [or more] groups have conflicting aims… their members will become hostile to each other even though the groups are composed of normal well-adjusted individuals.” The study showed this to be so. It also showed that when the two groups were asked to work toward a common goal, hostility decreased substantially. ICANN is basically this study on steroids. Everyone wants to reform ICANN, everyone dislikes the lack of transparency, that secret hallway discussions do more to advance causes than open debate, that public input is clearly an onerous duty that the staff would much rather avoid, the half-truths and prevarications, and on and on. I haven’t met anyone who doesn’t like these and other characteristics of ICANN the organization. And yet nothing changes. The reason nothing changes is that these groups are more interested in their turf wars with one another than in tackling the issues with the now-entrenched paranoia and secrecy that characterizes staff interactions with participants. If you want to reform ICANN, it has very little to do with who gets a vote on the Board. If you want to reform it, you have to do away with these groupings and have everyone who is not staff in one big group who can speak with one voice. This would discourage distrust and hostility, and encourage participants to form common interest with those who feel the same way they do, without worrying about the official position of the intellectual property people, or the registrars, or ALAC, or whoever. Until the participants feel free to speak with one voice, they won’t, and staff will go on doing whatever they want because there is no will to hold them to account. Unless you encourage democracy through structural change that encourages its formation and practice, you’ll never have it, or its attendant virtues such as transparency, co-operation, and the ability to mobilize against a common threat. Until that is done, ICANN will continue to be the best governance that money can buy.

On Jul 28, 2022, at 10:58 AM, Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:

I do agree with you that the question whether the President CEO gets a *voting* seat on the board of directors is a relatively small matter. (And I believe that a CEO/President does need to usually sit among the board of directors and speak on matters - his/her input is very important and ought to carry a lot of weight.)

The road to an improved ICANN is not a short road. Removing the President/CEO's ex-officio voting power on the board is but one, small step.

But it is a step. And it is an easy step. And it is a step that can be decided now but can put into practice later, perhaps at the next re-making of the employment contract.

There are harder, bigger steps. For example, elimination of the nominating committee process, which itself my require as a pre-condition establishment of ICANN as the kind of member based organization described by the California public-benefit/non-profit law that gives legal existence to ICANN and that ICANN so desperately tried to evade in the 1997-2000 time frame.

The Internet is facing some big issues, issues larger than ICANN itself but for which ICANN may indicate paths best to avoid. Just as ICANN seems excessively influenced by commercial actors the Internet as a whole is being increasingly influenced by commercial and national actors who care little whether the Internet (capital 'I') becomes a collection of "internets" (lower case 'i'), or whether we continue to use IPv4/6 or something else like 5G or Huawei's new IP protocol designs. As we push harder for more security we will increasingly need to face the question of maintenance and repair and whether we will need to establish some means, some body of people, who have special authorities and powers to penetrate security to reach in, examine, and manipulate the net. Such a "priesthood" of privileged actors might not bother large commercial or national interests, but it ought to be of great concern to individuals. And if our future bodies of i/Internet governance are structured, as is ICANN, to enervate the public voice, or to dilute it under layers of organizations and procedures, then our voice in such decisions will be muted or lost.

--karl--

On 7/28/22 4:54 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

...

Hello Karl,

I hear you but the last I checked ICANN Board membership is filled by the community in part and indirectly filled by the community(through nomcom) for the rest of the board members. It therefore seem that ICANN profile fits that of an organisation whose CEO should be a voting member.

I really don't think the CEO power is derived from that single vote; if the CEO is already acting powerful and beyond control of the Board, that single vote won't be the breaker IMO the power must have been wielded elsewhere and perhaps with support of the Board majority

Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos Every word has consequences. Every silence does too!

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022, 20:42 Karl Auerbach, <karl@cavebear.com <mailto:karl@cavebear.com>> wrote: I agree with you that the voice of the President of a corporation is often a voice that ought to be heard and considered by the board of directors.

However, a President that is allowed to sit at, hear, and contribute to meetings of the board is not not the same as a President who can do those things *and* vote.

Many, but not all, corporations do find it useful to allow a President/CEO to be a voting board member.

ICANN, however, has long had an imbalance with a weak board facing a powerful executive staff.

In such a situation a staff vote, i.e. the President's vote, on the board, merely increases that imbalance by weakening the chosen board and strengthening the executive staff.

Were ICANN to have a stronger board - a likely result were the board picked by the public through direct elective processes - then perhaps the President could have a vote. But given the present institutional board selection process it is unwise to increase the staff/executive dominance.

--karl--

On 7/27/22 11:19 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

...

Hello Roberto,

Just as you've noted instances where the CEO may be embarrassed if an issue he voted went a different direction, there are instances that I believe the CEO will be glad he contributed his voice through voting.

The CEO's vote is just 1 out of the other votes to be cast hence if his vote made a difference then you know it's a really contentious matter. In an organisation as ICANN it's not good practice to put the face of the organisation (i.e the CEO in an observer role - non voting).

That said, most reasonable CEOs don't actively use their voting right towards a direction, they largely abstain but I think the CEO should have the opportunity to exercise his opinion through voting when he considers it necessary.

Regards

Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos Every word has consequences. Every silence does too!

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022, 10:42 Roberto Gaetano via At-Large, <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: Karl,

Following on your “off-topic” (I changed the subject line) I wold like to add a bit of history.

You wrote:

...

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors ….

When I was chairing the Board Review WG, I argued against having the CEO as a voting member rather than ex-officio observer. Besides any governance model, having to vote on issues that he would have been called to execute could put the CEO in an embarrassing position: what if he voted against, and the motion passed? This was, IMHO, not just a theoretical exercise, but something that could really happen on politically sensitive issues, like the .xxx delegation (in that case, Paul abstained, and the application was rejected by one or two votes).

My approach was considered, but the Chair argued that for the current CEO the provision was built in the contract, and could not be changed, but this would have been taken into account for the next CEO. Then I left the Board, and lost track of the later events, but it looks that the situation still remains unchanged.

Cheers, Roberto

...

On 26.07.2022, at 21:39, Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:

I'm going to be somewhat diverging from the main topic....

On 7/26/22 8:14 AM, Marita Moll wrote:

...

And so it is with ICANN. It exists -- a unique multistakeholder governance system. Lots of things wrong with it. But it exists. So, for those who want to, they can keep working at it, keep looking for improvement, keep challenging the system.

I've long been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance. I was horrified when I first saw it just after Jon Postel died, and became more horrified watching Joe Sims of Jones Day ramming it down our collective throats. In the Boston Working Group proposal for "NewCo" we tried to mitigate some of the worst aspects.

See https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ <https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/> for the Boston Working Group proposals.

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors and moving some ICANN powers into the Articles of Incorporation and requiring exercise of those powers to be approved by more than merely the board (in those days that larger body could have been "the members" but ICANN sank that ship long ago - but it can be, and ought to be, re-floated.)

My most recent piece in opposition to stakeholder based systems may be found here:

Democracy Versus Stakeholderism - https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/ <https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/> --karl--

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

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

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

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

---

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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Yes, it’s oversimplified, but not as much as you might think. I did that on purpose to make the point clear. And I have been on good working groups as well, with good results. But they were limited in scope and were never about the elephant in the room, and they were never successful when one group involved had already decided between themselves what the result should be, thereby considerably reducing their capacity for compromise or honest dealing. I urge you to read the summary of the study I sent, where it shown what will increase hostility between groups and what will reduce it. Antony

On Jul 28, 2022, at 3:37 PM, Bill Jouris via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

I think that this is a bit oversimplified. I have been involved in ICANN working groups where people from diverse stakeholder groups were involved. And (with one individual exception) everybody worked together just fine. We had disagreements, of course. But (with the aforementioned exception) everybody was focused on the task at hand rather than turf wars.

So, various groups don't necessarily fall into conflict, even at ICANN. Perhaps we should try working on ways to increase that kind of common effort, and on ways to discourage the turf wars behavior. It won't be easy. But it seems to have a greater chance of success, or even partial success, than other restructuring avenues.

Bill Jouris

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 3:25 PM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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 <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

One of the things that has long concerned me about ICANN is that the method of filling board seats tends to create a board of directors that is more a board of passive worthies who may not fully understand their duties and who tend to not fully understand their powers.  The result is, as we have seen, an imbalance in which the board of directors largely sits and watches while the hired executives and an ever expanding staff run roughshod and unrestrained. I am not aware of the current arrangement, but many of ICANN's Presidents (that is the word used in the bylaws, "president" of which CEO is merely one of his/her tasks) is not hired directly but, rather is linked to ICANN by a contract with a professional services corporation that markets the person to ICANN via a contract with that corporation, that in turn, is the employer of that person.  This is a really weird arrangement because it substantially muddies the legal relationship between ICANN, that professional services corporation, and the person with the title "President".  I always thought that this was an ill advised practice that ought to have been avoided in the past and ought not be used in the future. ICANN's President is a hireling, not a king. ICANN's board *does* have the ability and power and right to remove any officer, including the President, at any time.  That means plucking that person out of his/her box on the org chart or redefining the duties and title of any box on that org chart. Now, that does mean that the employment contract is voided and that ICANN and the former officer simply part ways. One of the definitions of a contract is that it is an agreement over how much it will cost to *not* do what you promised to do. And a principal of American law (and the law of many other places) is that civil matters can usually be compensated with the payment of money.  (Note that I used the word "compensated".  Punitive remedies not related to actual harms and losses are usually frowned upon.) So if ICANN's board says "bye bye" to a President, or substantially changes his/her duties (such as eliminating the ex-officio seat on the board) then that President can claim that the employment contract was breached and that he/she is owned compensation.  That compensation is usually established by the contract as liquidated damages (i.e. money) or is computed and converted into a monetary amount.  (California law generally frowns on "penalty" amounts that are not tied to actual loss of contractual benefits.)  Only rarely are breached contract provisions remedied through what is called "specific performance", such as an order to transfer a specific house or a specific painting rather than paying money damages.  It is likely that changing ICANN's President's employment status or duties would be insufficient grounds for a court to order specific performance to keep the President in the prior status and role. So, if ICANN removes its President or changes his/her duties, ICANN may have a lingering obligation to pay salary and benefits to that person.  Or a severance fee or liquidated damages may have to be paid.  ICANN could soften the blow and make the event look prettier to the public by retaining the person with some poo-bah title that carries no authority. The point I'm making here is that the person who argued that ICANN is not able to change its bylaws and not have the President as an ex-officio, voting member of the board of directors is not adequately informed. Yes, such a change could have a transient cost that runs through the end of the employment contract and could lead to some minor litigation over things like titles and other poo-bah mooing by a President who objects to being removed from the board of directors, but still retains the job of President/CEO, including the salary and benefits. So the cleaner approach is to make that change to the bylaws but have it take effect upon the end of the present term of the employment agreement.         --karl-- On 7/27/22 2:41 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

Karl,

Following on your “off-topic” (I changed the subject line) I wold like to add a bit of history.

You wrote:

...

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors ….

When I was chairing the Board Review WG, I argued against having the CEO as a voting member rather than ex-officio observer. Besides any governance model, having to vote on issues that he would have been called to execute could put the CEO in an embarrassing position: what if he voted against, and the motion passed? This was, IMHO, not just a theoretical exercise, but something that could really happen on politically sensitive issues, like the .xxx delegation (in that case, Paul abstained, and the application was rejected by one or two votes).

My approach was considered, but the Chair argued that for the current CEO the provision was built in the contract, and could not be changed, but this would have been taken into account for the next CEO. Then I left the Board, and lost track of the later events, but it looks that the situation still remains unchanged.

Cheers, Roberto

...

On 26.07.2022, at 21:39, Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

I'm going to be somewhat diverging from the main topic....

On 7/26/22 8:14 AM, Marita Moll wrote:

...

And so it is with ICANN. It exists -- a unique multistakeholder governance system. Lots of things wrong with it. But it exists. So, for those who want to, they can keep working at it, keep looking for improvement, keep challenging the system.

I've long been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance.  I was horrified when I first saw it just after Jon Postel died, and became more horrified watching Joe Sims of Jones Day ramming it down our collective throats.  In the Boston Working Group proposal for "NewCo" we tried to mitigate some of the worst aspects.

See https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ for the Boston Working Group proposals.

A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors and moving some ICANN powers into the Articles of Incorporation and requiring exercise of those powers to be approved by more than merely the board (in those days that larger body could have been "the members" but ICANN sank that ship long ago - but it can be, and ought to be, re-floated.)

My most recent piece in opposition to stakeholder based systems may be found here:

Democracy Versus Stakeholderism - https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/

            --karl--

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Karl, it sounds like you are describing waiver v.1.0. I thought v.2.0 (the current version), was a lot more digestible. Clearly, the part about heirs, etc. still exists in both. Without a test case, we don't know if a certain waiver is going to survive a court challenge, but they are intimidating. That's the whole point. I have said I would probably bow down and sign the current version of the waiver if I felt my physical attendance at the meeting was important. It is not a choice. And I wonder if this waiver signing will be part of any ICANN related meeting -- e.g. RALO meetings, AGMs, etc. As you say at the end, it is sad "that, ICANN, an organization whose legal purpose is "to lessen the burdens of government" and that obtains its legal existence as a "public benefit" corporation, feels that it must protect itself by the Procrustean technique of chopping the rights off of those who wish to attend its open and public meetings" I will say, again, in my lengthy career as a writer, speaker, policy analyst, etc. who attended and organized hundreds of meetings, I never once signed a waiver or asked anyone else to do so. Welcome to the post-pandemic world, I guess. Marita On 2022-07-25 3:59 p.m., Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote:

Wow, that's some "waiver"!   The California lawyer neurons in my head, upon reading this thing, are screaming "California Civil Code section 1670.5!!!!!"  This provision can effectively remove "unconscionable" terms from contracts (such as this ICANN "waiver") or even void the entire agreement.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionN...

There are other similar California provisions, such as 1770(a)(19) (which is probably inapplicable because this waiver is not a sale or lease to a consumer.)

A couple of indicia of "unconscionable"ness are things like denial of damages and limitations on the right to seek court relief, both of which are in the ICANN "waiver".  Now, an indicator of unconcionable-ness is not the same as being unconscionable.  But such indications are the kind of yellow bricks that paved the road that led Dorothy to Oz.  So ICANN has, via this overreaching "waiver" has at the least started down the road to being subject to these California laws.

I am, of course, presuming (perhaps incorrectly) that this agreement is made under, interpreted under, and enforced under the laws of California - but the agreement sloppily forgets to mention these rather important aspects.

The waiver, to my highly opinionated and jaded eyes, appears drafted by someone who has not yet begun a career in law and who, if they have started, is unlikely to finish well.  (More likely perhaps is that this is the work of some low level associate has followed the practice of medieval Scholastic monks who, when copying manuscripts, copied and merged text without actually thinking about the meaning of what they were copying and merging - the most famous example being the fable of Noah and the Ark where, after ages of copying and merging, there are now divergent counts of how many animals of each kind.)

There is an old, and very bad joke:

  An airplane crashes directly onto the border line between California and Nevada.  Where are the survivors buried?

The joke is that one does not bury the survivors who, presumably, are quite alive.

Well, ICANN's "waiver" makes promises on behalf of parties who do not yet exist, like heirs and assigns.  There are much better ways to draft an agreement to limit the propagation of obligations and duties to third parties.  I was also amused by the sloppy drafting that left "personal representatives" and "executors" dangling in a limbo of ambiguity between two inconsistent sentences in the "waiver".

And, of course, whenever an agreement uses words like "forever" my mind says "remember the rule against perpetuities" - but that's something so arcane that probably nobody understands what it means.

I do hope ICANN was not billed by its law firm for the drafting of this thing.  And I find it sad that, ICANN, an organization whose legal purpose is "to lessen the burdens of government" and that obtains its legal existence as a "public benefit" corporation, feels that it must protect itself by the Procrustean technique of chopping the rights off of those who wish to attend its open and public meetings.

    --karl--

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

We have many things to do, we need insist with the neccesaries changes, to make a multistakeholder model better for the future. Regards Carlos Dionisio Aguirre Obtener Outlook para Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Olivier Kouami via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 12:30:14 PM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: At Large <At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN75: Mandatory Funded Traveler Registration for Roberto Gaetano Greetings from Sénégal Please, again, what is the role of the Ombudsman in this case. He is for what ? Warm regards Olévié Le mar. 26 juil. 2022 à 15:18, Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> a écrit : Karl, it sounds like you are describing waiver v.1.0. I thought v.2.0 (the current version), was a lot more digestible. Clearly, the part about heirs, etc. still exists in both. Without a test case, we don't know if a certain waiver is going to survive a court challenge, but they are intimidating. That's the whole point. I have said I would probably bow down and sign the current version of the waiver if I felt my physical attendance at the meeting was important. It is not a choice. And I wonder if this waiver signing will be part of any ICANN related meeting -- e.g. RALO meetings, AGMs, etc. As you say at the end, it is sad "that, ICANN, an organization whose legal purpose is "to lessen the burdens of government" and that obtains its legal existence as a "public benefit" corporation, feels that it must protect itself by the Procrustean technique of chopping the rights off of those who wish to attend its open and public meetings" I will say, again, in my lengthy career as a writer, speaker, policy analyst, etc. who attended and organized hundreds of meetings, I never once signed a waiver or asked anyone else to do so. Welcome to the post-pandemic world, I guess. Marita On 2022-07-25 3:59 p.m., Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote: Wow, that's some "waiver"! The California lawyer neurons in my head, upon reading this thing, are screaming "California Civil Code section 1670.5!!!!!" This provision can effectively remove "unconscionable" terms from contracts (such as this ICANN "waiver") or even void the entire agreement. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionN... There are other similar California provisions, such as 1770(a)(19) (which is probably inapplicable because this waiver is not a sale or lease to a consumer.) A couple of indicia of "unconscionable"ness are things like denial of damages and limitations on the right to seek court relief, both of which are in the ICANN "waiver". Now, an indicator of unconcionable-ness is not the same as being unconscionable. But such indications are the kind of yellow bricks that paved the road that led Dorothy to Oz. So ICANN has, via this overreaching "waiver" has at the least started down the road to being subject to these California laws. I am, of course, presuming (perhaps incorrectly) that this agreement is made under, interpreted under, and enforced under the laws of California - but the agreement sloppily forgets to mention these rather important aspects. The waiver, to my highly opinionated and jaded eyes, appears drafted by someone who has not yet begun a career in law and who, if they have started, is unlikely to finish well. (More likely perhaps is that this is the work of some low level associate has followed the practice of medieval Scholastic monks who, when copying manuscripts, copied and merged text without actually thinking about the meaning of what they were copying and merging - the most famous example being the fable of Noah and the Ark where, after ages of copying and merging, there are now divergent counts of how many animals of each kind.) There is an old, and very bad joke: An airplane crashes directly onto the border line between California and Nevada. Where are the survivors buried? The joke is that one does not bury the survivors who, presumably, are quite alive. Well, ICANN's "waiver" makes promises on behalf of parties who do not yet exist, like heirs and assigns. There are much better ways to draft an agreement to limit the propagation of obligations and duties to third parties. I was also amused by the sloppy drafting that left "personal representatives" and "executors" dangling in a limbo of ambiguity between two inconsistent sentences in the "waiver". And, of course, whenever an agreement uses words like "forever" my mind says "remember the rule against perpetuities" - but that's something so arcane that probably nobody understands what it means. I do hope ICANN was not billed by its law firm for the drafting of this thing. And I find it sad that, ICANN, an organization whose legal purpose is "to lessen the burdens of government" and that obtains its legal existence as a "public benefit" corporation, feels that it must protect itself by the Procrustean technique of chopping the rights off of those who wish to attend its open and public meetings. --karl-- _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Thanks you @Marita. It'll be nice from the Ombuds. Please, Is it nice and fair like this ? Warm regards Olévié Le mar. 26 juil. 2022 à 16:54, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> a écrit :

Hi Olivier. It's an interesting question. Here is the web description of what the ombuds office does:

"The ICANN Ombudsman's job is to make sure that ICANN community members are treated fairly. Acting as an impartial mediator, the Ombudsman helps resolve disputes on issues involving the ICANN Board, staff and supporting organizations."

I don't know where the Ombudsman would fit in. That office tends to work on individual grievances. We are having some success in getting the waiver adjusted, amended, toned down and we have just had a commitment from Leon Sanchez, board vice-chair and holder of seat 15 and an ALAC appointee, that the board will continue to work on that waiver so that it does not operate as a deterrent/ demotivator for volunteers.

So we need to keep up the pressure and keep paying attention. The waiver is already part of the requirement for all travelers funded by ICANN. The next item that really needs to be questioned is that part about heirs and relatives also giving up their rights. Is that even enforceable?

Marita On 2022-07-26 11:30 a.m., Olivier Kouami wrote:

Greetings from Sénégal

Please, again, what is the role of the Ombudsman in this case. He is for what ? Warm regards Olévié

Le mar. 26 juil. 2022 à 15:18, Marita Moll via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> a écrit :

...

Karl, it sounds like you are describing waiver v.1.0. I thought v.2.0 (the current version), was a lot more digestible. Clearly, the part about heirs, etc. still exists in both. Without a test case, we don't know if a certain waiver is going to survive a court challenge, but they are intimidating. That's the whole point.

I have said I would probably bow down and sign the current version of the waiver if I felt my physical attendance at the meeting was important. It is not a choice. And I wonder if this waiver signing will be part of any ICANN related meeting -- e.g. RALO meetings, AGMs, etc. As you say at the end, it is sad "that, ICANN, an organization whose legal purpose is "to lessen the burdens of government" and that obtains its legal existence as a "public benefit" corporation, feels that it must protect itself by the Procrustean technique of chopping the rights off of those who wish to attend its open and public meetings"

I will say, again, in my lengthy career as a writer, speaker, policy analyst, etc. who attended and organized hundreds of meetings, I never once signed a waiver or asked anyone else to do so. Welcome to the post-pandemic world, I guess.

Marita

On 2022-07-25 3:59 p.m., Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote:

Wow, that's some "waiver"! The California lawyer neurons in my head, upon reading this thing, are screaming "California Civil Code section 1670.5!!!!!" This provision can effectively remove "unconscionable" terms from contracts (such as this ICANN "waiver") or even void the entire agreement.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionN...

There are other similar California provisions, such as 1770(a)(19) (which is probably inapplicable because this waiver is not a sale or lease to a consumer.)

A couple of indicia of "unconscionable"ness are things like denial of damages and limitations on the right to seek court relief, both of which are in the ICANN "waiver". Now, an indicator of unconcionable-ness is not the same as being unconscionable. But such indications are the kind of yellow bricks that paved the road that led Dorothy to Oz. So ICANN has, via this overreaching "waiver" has at the least started down the road to being subject to these California laws.

I am, of course, presuming (perhaps incorrectly) that this agreement is made under, interpreted under, and enforced under the laws of California - but the agreement sloppily forgets to mention these rather important aspects.

The waiver, to my highly opinionated and jaded eyes, appears drafted by someone who has not yet begun a career in law and who, if they have started, is unlikely to finish well. (More likely perhaps is that this is the work of some low level associate has followed the practice of medieval Scholastic monks who, when copying manuscripts, copied and merged text without actually thinking about the meaning of what they were copying and merging - the most famous example being the fable of Noah and the Ark where, after ages of copying and merging, there are now divergent counts of how many animals of each kind.)

There is an old, and very bad joke:

An airplane crashes directly onto the border line between California and Nevada. Where are the survivors buried?

The joke is that one does not bury the survivors who, presumably, are quite alive.

Well, ICANN's "waiver" makes promises on behalf of parties who do not yet exist, like heirs and assigns. There are much better ways to draft an agreement to limit the propagation of obligations and duties to third parties. I was also amused by the sloppy drafting that left "personal representatives" and "executors" dangling in a limbo of ambiguity between two inconsistent sentences in the "waiver".

And, of course, whenever an agreement uses words like "forever" my mind says "remember the rule against perpetuities" - but that's something so arcane that probably nobody understands what it means.

I do hope ICANN was not billed by its law firm for the drafting of this thing. And I find it sad that, ICANN, an organization whose legal purpose is "to lessen the burdens of government" and that obtains its legal existence as a "public benefit" corporation, feels that it must protect itself by the Procrustean technique of chopping the rights off of those who wish to attend its open and public meetings.

--karl--

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

On 22/07/2022 20:35, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large wrote: I think you should all be grateful that you can attend ICANN 75.  To quote from: https://www.icann.org/diversity-en "To live up to this responsibility, ICANN is committed to promoting greater diversity and supporting broad, inclusive participation in its processes." The upcoming ICANN 75 meeting takes place in Kuala Lumpur .  Quoting from the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Malaysia_relations "Malaysian passports bear the inscription: "This passport is valid for all countries except Israel". Israeli passport holders are forbidden to enter Malaysia without written permission from the Malaysian Ministry of Home Affairs." One can of course claim that travel restrictions have been eased recently as per: https://visalist.io/malaysia/visa-requirements/israel which requires 9 documents and an appearance at the Malaysian embassy - closest of which is in Jordan. How does ICANN live up to its commitment to "inclusiveness" if it selects a country that forbids the participation of Israel (or makes it close to impossible to get a visa)? Regards, Hank Nussbacher Caveat: The views expressed above are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer

Hi Bill

Not radical, but with some imaginative clauses that sound weird to the ears of somebody that is not a lawyer and does not live in a country that is particularly inclined to solve matters in courts.

Here is an example that, if taken seriously, would oblige me to ask some questions:

/This Liability Waiver and Release is specifically binding upon my heirs and assigns and is knowingly given./

Do I need to ask my (hopefully future) heirs to also sign the waiver? And if they don’t want, or even produce an official document, signed in the hands of a notary or other official authority, that they specifically do not acknowledge the obligation of being obliged to comply with this clause - maybe saying that they formally recommended that I take this trip, what would happen? How can ICANN enforce this clause in my jurisdiction - actually, in the jurisdiction of my heirs - in front of a formal statement of them prior to the fact? And if I attach this document of my heirs to my application, what would ICANN do? Reject my registration because one of the clauses of the waiver is not enforceable?

This is one more reason for loving the ICANN community, never a dull moment and a lot of fun :-)

Cheers, Roberto

...

On 22.07.2022, at 18:18, Bill Jouris via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

As such things go, this isn't a particularly radical waiver.  A bit wordier than average, but nothing novel in substance.

Bill Jouris

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 8:20 AM, Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Inclusion has two faces - accept local jurisdiction (even if it does not fully comply with human rights) and allow all to participate. Thus, this very complex procedure for Israeli citizens should have been strongly improved before giving the mandate to Kuala Lumpur. Both sites have to show some flexibility, otherwise one world, one internet does not survive. Erich SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. (Uni Wien, Legal Informatics, European Law, Multistakeholder Law) MBA Dr. (law) Dr. (informatics) "pre-MAIS" (International Studies) (on leave for the European Commission, Rue de la Loi 130, 1040 Brussel BE, erich.schweighofer@ec.europa.eu, Tel. +32 2 29 52283) Legal Informatics at Vienna University chair: ARI Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik, Juridicum, Universität Wien chair: iris-conferences.eu President: RI@ LII-Austria CEILI RARI SLib WZRI Department for European, International and Comparative Law, Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, Zi. 546, 1010 Wien AT, Tel. +43 1 4277 35305 https://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at, https://rechtsinformatik.ACADEMY, https://iris-conferences.eu, https://wzri.eu office@rechtsinformatik.ACADEMY; office@iris-conferences.eu; Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at --- Bitte um Teilnahme und Beiträge / Call for contributions and participation: IRI§23 Internationales Rechtsinformatik Symposion 2023, 22.-25.02.23, Salzburg, https://iris-conferences.eu/iris23 Papers bis 31.10.2022 Jusletter IT http://jusletter-it.eu Schriftenreihe Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik, rechtsinformatik.ACADEMY & IRIS-Journal: https://irisj.eu PHAIDRA ________________________________________ Von: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] im Auftrag von Glenn McKnight via At-Large [at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Gesendet: Sonntag, 31. Juli 2022 16:12 An: Hank Nussbacher Cc: At Large Betreff: Re: [At-Large] ICANN75: Selecting Malaysia and inclusiveness Interesting point made by Hank on the fact ICANN selected Malaysia. The selection process for ICANN meetings clearly needs to be assessed. This is also a country with anti-homosexual policies See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Malaysia Glenn McKnight, MA Virtual School of Internet Governance Chief Information Officer www.virtualsig.org<http://www.virtualsig.org> YOUR SOURCE FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE EDUCATION Mobile 437-237-4655 On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 at 03:03, Hank Nussbacher via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: On 22/07/2022 20:35, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large wrote: I think you should all be grateful that you can attend ICANN 75. To quote from: https://www.icann.org/diversity-en "To live up to this responsibility, ICANN is committed to promoting greater diversity and supporting broad, inclusive participation in its processes." The upcoming ICANN 75 meeting takes place in Kuala Lumpur . Quoting from the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Malaysia_relations "Malaysian passports bear the inscription: "This passport is valid for all countries except Israel". Israeli passport holders are forbidden to enter Malaysia without written permission from the Malaysian Ministry of Home Affairs." One can of course claim that travel restrictions have been eased recently as per: https://visalist.io/malaysia/visa-requirements/israel which requires 9 documents and an appearance at the Malaysian embassy - closest of which is in Jordan. How does ICANN live up to its commitment to "inclusiveness" if it selects a country that forbids the participation of Israel (or makes it close to impossible to get a visa)? Regards, Hank Nussbacher Caveat: The views expressed above are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer

Hi Bill

Not radical, but with some imaginative clauses that sound weird to the ears of somebody that is not a lawyer and does not live in a country that is particularly inclined to solve matters in courts.

Here is an example that, if taken seriously, would oblige me to ask some questions:

/This Liability Waiver and Release is specifically binding upon my heirs and assigns and is knowingly given./

Do I need to ask my (hopefully future) heirs to also sign the waiver? And if they don’t want, or even produce an official document, signed in the hands of a notary or other official authority, that they specifically do not acknowledge the obligation of being obliged to comply with this clause - maybe saying that they formally recommended that I take this trip, what would happen? How can ICANN enforce this clause in my jurisdiction - actually, in the jurisdiction of my heirs - in front of a formal statement of them prior to the fact? And if I attach this document of my heirs to my application, what would ICANN do? Reject my registration because one of the clauses of the waiver is not enforceable?

This is one more reason for loving the ICANN community, never a dull moment and a lot of fun :-)

Cheers, Roberto

...

On 22.07.2022, at 18:18, Bill Jouris via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:

As such things go, this isn't a particularly radical waiver. A bit wordier than average, but nothing novel in substance.

Bill Jouris

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 8:20 AM, Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

True Laura, Absolutely true. Not only Montreal, The Hague also, the Chair of AFRALO couldn’t make it because of visa issue. In London, we had an At-Large Summit, and a lot of our ALS representatives were absent also because of visa issue. In the ICANN Meeting Strategy Working Group, the visa problem was my main focus: I proposed that ICANN shouldn’t hold a meeting in a country that doesn’t give visa to all our participants. I was told that if ICANN apply this rule, we won’t be able to hold meeting because each country has its restrictions and there is no country without access restrictions. Tijani De : At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> au nom de Laura Margolis via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Répondre à : Laura Margolis <margolisl@gmail.com> Date : dimanche 31 juillet 2022 à 18:28 À : Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> Cc : At Large <At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Objet : Re: [At-Large] ICANN75: Selecting Malaysia and inclusiveness Yes, true about locations, not always easy for everyone. I remember last meeting in Montreal many people had lots of issues with visas and couldn't finally arrive. Best, Laura Margolis El dom, 31 jul 2022 a las 11:13, Glenn McKnight via At-Large (<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>) escribió: Interesting point made by Hank on the fact ICANN selected Malaysia. The selection process for ICANN meetings clearly needs to be assessed. This is also a country with anti-homosexual policies See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Malaysia Glenn McKnight, MA Virtual School of Internet Governance Chief Information Officer www.virtualsig.org YOUR SOURCE FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE EDUCATION Mobile 437-237-4655 On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 at 03:03, Hank Nussbacher via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: On 22/07/2022 20:35, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large wrote: I think you should all be grateful that you can attend ICANN 75. To quote from: https://www.icann.org/diversity-en "To live up to this responsibility, ICANN is committed to promoting greater diversity and supporting broad, inclusive participation in its processes." The upcoming ICANN 75 meeting takes place in Kuala Lumpur . Quoting from the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Malaysia_relations "Malaysian passports bear the inscription: "This passport is valid for all countries except Israel". Israeli passport holders are forbidden to enter Malaysia without written permission from the Malaysian Ministry of Home Affairs." One can of course claim that travel restrictions have been eased recently as per: https://visalist.io/malaysia/visa-requirements/israel which requires 9 documents and an appearance at the Malaysian embassy - closest of which is in Jordan. How does ICANN live up to its commitment to "inclusiveness" if it selects a country that forbids the participation of Israel (or makes it close to impossible to get a visa)? Regards, Hank Nussbacher Caveat: The views expressed above are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer

Hi Bill

Not radical, but with some imaginative clauses that sound weird to the ears of somebody that is not a lawyer and does not live in a country that is particularly inclined to solve matters in courts.

Here is an example that, if taken seriously, would oblige me to ask some questions:

/This Liability Waiver and Release is specifically binding upon my heirs and assigns and is knowingly given./

Do I need to ask my (hopefully future) heirs to also sign the waiver? And if they don’t want, or even produce an official document, signed in the hands of a notary or other official authority, that they specifically do not acknowledge the obligation of being obliged to comply with this clause - maybe saying that they formally recommended that I take this trip, what would happen? How can ICANN enforce this clause in my jurisdiction - actually, in the jurisdiction of my heirs - in front of a formal statement of them prior to the fact? And if I attach this document of my heirs to my application, what would ICANN do? Reject my registration because one of the clauses of the waiver is not enforceable?

This is one more reason for loving the ICANN community, never a dull moment and a lot of fun :-)

Cheers, Roberto

...

On 22.07.2022, at 18:18, Bill Jouris via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

As such things go, this isn't a particularly radical waiver. A bit wordier than average, but nothing novel in substance.

Bill Jouris

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 8:20 AM, Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Laura Margolis +598 99690992 skype: lauri.margolis _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Another 2cents: As discussed already quite often, the lack of privileges and immunities is apparent a lacunae in the present system, shown in the visa requirements that - if immunities exist - could be much better solved with a host-state treaty of the ICANN Meeting. The main argument against it - the lack of control by courts of international organisations - that is still valid. An impasse ... should be solved step by step, maybe with some steps to immunities. Erich SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. (Uni Wien, Legal Informatics, European Law, Multistakeholder Law) MBA Dr. (law) Dr. (informatics) "pre-MAIS" (International Studies) (on leave for the European Commission, Rue de la Loi 130, 1040 Brussel BE, erich.schweighofer@ec.europa.eu, Tel. +32 2 29 52283) Legal Informatics at Vienna University chair: ARI Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik, Juridicum, Universität Wien chair: iris-conferences.eu President: RI@ LII-Austria CEILI RARI SLib WZRI Department for European, International and Comparative Law, Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, Zi. 546, 1010 Wien AT, Tel. +43 1 4277 35305 https://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at, https://rechtsinformatik.ACADEMY, https://iris-conferences.eu, https://wzri.eu office@rechtsinformatik.ACADEMY; office@iris-conferences.eu; Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at --- Bitte um Teilnahme und Beiträge / Call for contributions and participation: IRI§23 Internationales Rechtsinformatik Symposion 2023, 22.-25.02.23, Salzburg, https://iris-conferences.eu/iris23 Papers bis 31.10.2022 Jusletter IT http://jusletter-it.eu Schriftenreihe Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik, rechtsinformatik.ACADEMY & IRIS-Journal: https://irisj.eu PHAIDRA ________________________________________ Von: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] im Auftrag von Bill Jouris via At-Large [at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 1. August 2022 05:22 An: Glenn McKnight; Glenn McKnight via At-Large; Hank Nussbacher Cc: At Large Betreff: Re: [At-Large] ICANN75: Selecting Malaysia and inclusiveness The problem is, the number of countries which don't fail on one or more possible criteria, including restricting entry from some other countries, or based on any of a variety of other reasons from religion to sexual orientation to vaccination status, is microscopic. My country fails (unless you are a UN delegate). Most other possible host countries also fail. Certainly some countries do better than others. But if we demand perfection, we're pretty much doomed to going back to all virtual meetings. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 8:13 PM, Glenn McKnight via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Count me as advocating for the use of more virtual and fewer F2F meetings. IMO ICANN should have no more than one global F2F for its annual meeting and Nothing Else. All other global meetings should be virtual (with a few exceptions, see below). NOTE: I am not advocating for the use of endless Zoom. That is amateur hour, if ICANN were serious about doing most of its meetings virtually there are better vendors to service this need. The visa issue is just one of many reasons to prefer virtual F2F for ICANN meetings: - Transcription and real-time interpretation can be automated (and sub-titles become an option) - Less opportunity for backroom/hallway off-the-record arm-twisting (it won't be eliminated, but it won't be encouraged either) - Far less expense, allowing ALAC to concentrate funds on R&D and education - Less need for ALAC's consistent begging to be humanely treated in travel - Better access -- in a system *designed* for remote participation, remote participants are not second-class compared to in-person - People still need to designate time off for ICANN meetings, but at least two days LESS time is needed for travel - Less "this is blahblahblah for the transcript record" time-wasting BS since the meeting recording already shows who's talking - Easier for the meeting Chair to mute (or kick!) unruly participants - In-meeting polls and votes are easy to do As one of the lesser-powered groups within ICANN, it's in ALAC's interest to have virtual meetings as they level the playing field compared to F2F, even if just a bit. Those on expense accounts, those accepting ICANN's travel charity and those paying their own way all access the meetings the same way. It's the best solution to real inclusion. I suggest doing regional and constituency meetings (like RALO assemblies) occasionally by F2F, but going virtual for the global meetings has been a net plus to us politically. That we have not exploited that reduced disadvantage is a different issue. - Evan On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 3:03 AM Hank Nussbacher via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

On 22/07/2022 20:35, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large wrote:

I think you should all be grateful that you can attend ICANN 75. To quote from: https://www.icann.org/diversity-en "To live up to this responsibility, ICANN is committed to promoting greater diversity and supporting broad, inclusive participation in its processes."

The upcoming ICANN 75 meeting takes place in Kuala Lumpur . Quoting from the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Malaysia_relations "Malaysian passports bear the inscription: "This passport is valid for all countries except Israel". Israeli passport holders are forbidden to enter Malaysia without written permission from the Malaysian Ministry of Home Affairs."

One can of course claim that travel restrictions have been eased recently as per: https://visalist.io/malaysia/visa-requirements/israel which requires 9 documents and an appearance at the Malaysian embassy - closest of which is in Jordan.

How does ICANN live up to its commitment to "inclusiveness" if it selects a country that forbids the participation of Israel (or makes it close to impossible to get a visa)?

Regards, Hank Nussbacher

Caveat: The views expressed above are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer

...

Hi Bill

Not radical, but with some imaginative clauses that sound weird to the ears of somebody that is not a lawyer and does not live in a country that is particularly inclined to solve matters in courts.

Here is an example that, if taken seriously, would oblige me to ask some questions:

/This Liability Waiver and Release is specifically binding upon my heirs and assigns and is knowingly given./

Do I need to ask my (hopefully future) heirs to also sign the waiver? And if they don’t want, or even produce an official document, signed in the hands of a notary or other official authority, that they specifically do not acknowledge the obligation of being obliged to comply with this clause - maybe saying that they formally recommended that I take this trip, what would happen? How can ICANN enforce this clause in my jurisdiction - actually, in the jurisdiction of my heirs - in front of a formal statement of them prior to the fact? And if I attach this document of my heirs to my application, what would ICANN do? Reject my registration because one of the clauses of the waiver is not enforceable?

This is one more reason for loving the ICANN community, never a dull moment and a lot of fun :-)

Cheers, Roberto

...

On 22.07.2022, at 18:18, Bill Jouris via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

As such things go, this isn't a particularly radical waiver. A bit wordier than average, but nothing novel in substance.

Bill Jouris

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android < https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...

...

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 8:20 AM, Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hi Bill, On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 7:41 PM Bill Jouris via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: the casual, serendipitous chats, which are what create and cement

effective group efforts, simply don't happen.

I have multiple counter-examples against that assertion. I am not saying that going more-virtual is not without downsides and challenges. On the balance, however, the benefits of inclusiveness and accessibility and reduced costs outweigh the downsides many times over.

With serious negative impacts all around.

I challenge that assertion -- ESPECIALLY if the virtual meetings are augmented by occasional regional and constituency-specific F2F meetings. Including on various efforts near and dear to your heart. There is precious little in ICANN that I would claim near or dear. Given that my tenure in ALAC's face-to-face meetings witnessed a great many failures and few successes (applicant support for newGTLDs, a transparent compliance efforts, public-interest commitments, getting a second At-Large Board member, and total dismissal of two ALAC white papers among the more notable failures I can recall) it will be very hard to convince that going more-virtual can further depress that track record. I invite you to name a single ALAC policy win -- in which ALAC activity steered or overturned an existing ICANN path -- that could not have happened without face-to-face meetings.

I certainly noticed the impact on my own efforts these past two years without in-person meetings.

ICANN's implementation of virtual meetings sucks and is obsessed with staff control. If it actually did virtual right, you might not feel so disadvantaged. Cheers - Evan