Dear Christian: As chair of participation and engagement in ICANN WG, I want to say that we will have very present your words when we will have a next meeting in Nairobi. You are true, is so complicated and difficult for AT large community understand the million acronyms in this matter, and this make impossible to read any document and obviously, to participate after with some useful comments . thank's for your contribution Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org

From: cdel@firsthand.net Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:53:26 +0000 To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org CC: marco.lorenzoni@icann.org; lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org; lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org; euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org; afri-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ; alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org; apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Director White Paper - Request for Comments

A lot of work has gone into this document but I could not get through even the executive summary which is impenetrable due to an exceptionally deep sprinkling of acronyms. It is obvious that there is a hardening of the veins of who is involved at ICANN and where these terms are presumably obvious.

Some are clearly new even to the authors as they do get explained in the text. But the bulk are left to the Glossary (which is excellent). But a Glossary is a poor excuse for an over exuberance of new building of stuffing in ICANN over recent years whose purposes is not clear nor unambiguous.

One important role At LARGE should have is to keep policies over unique Internet resources accessible to users. This means pruning the profusion of committees, structures, boards and complexity of interactions and politics between them across ICANN by demanding that only entities that have a clear unambiguous and practical role following the Internet model are continued and all such activities have a limited lifespan.

I am very worried by the way users are increasingly isolated by the growing over complexity in structure, language and difficulty to judge relevance and usefulness. How are users who have deep stake in the ultimate outcomes at ICANN to get meaningfully involved when they can spend only a small amount of time and resource on keeping 'au fait'?

At Large must focus on keeping ICANN down to size and can start doing this on itself.

Christian

On 12 Jan 2010, at 02:53, At Large Staff wrote:

...

* La version française est ci-dessous

*La versión española está abajo

Dear All,

At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group with the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for the selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for wide-spread comment early in January 2010.

Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days.

The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. The ‘portal page’ is available at:

https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper.

All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle will be sent shortly).

Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make your comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button.

It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward this message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on the Director White Paper as widely as possible.

Regards,

**

Cher tous,

À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe de la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010.

Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et franc pour la revue. Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours.

Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire aux pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper.

Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter leurs observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel de la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu).

Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de l'ONU. Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki utilisant le " ; comment" ; bouton.

On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre à ce message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme possible.

Cordialment,

**

Estimado todos,

En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN que se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010.

Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y el franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los próximos días.

El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en las páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper.

Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto al director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en el proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero de 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto).

Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando el " comment" botón.

Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a este mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea posible.

Respetos,

Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff

email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

<ABS White Paper_FINAL_11012011_EN.pdf><Call for community Comment on ABS White Paper_FR_final.pdf>_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...

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

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...

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

_________________________________________________________________ ¿Querés chatear en todos lados con tu celu? ¡Registrate a SMS Messenger! http://www.somosmessengersiempre.com/?ocid=TWLH

Evan Firstly my comment Is not a criticism of those who wrote the AT large board documents but rather an observation that even somebody like myself who was involved in the pre and post ICANN era taking a look at recent developments is having a hard time working out what is going on and why. Your note increases the concern. ICANN is NOT a trade association. ICANN is NOT technical body. ICANN is NOT an international treaty organisation. ICANN is chartered to co-ordinate the management of a few of the Internet's unique resources. Above all ICANN does not own any of these resources. So it operates through rough consensus of the community at hand. When ICANN was mooted the primary concern was to maintain the user as the centre of Internet evolution because this promotes innovation through continuity of what was and remains regarded as the highly successful bottom up Internet model. Anything that detracts from that vision is a distraction. If the user interest is to be kept at the forefront of ICANN's concerns then it is vitally important that ICANN remains accessible and addressable by people who do not have full time jobs voluntary or paid, involved in or around ICANN. best regards Christian On 12 Jan 2010, at 15:43, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Hello Christian,

2010/1/12 Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>

...

A lot of work has gone into this document but I could not get through even the executive summary which is impenetrable due to an exceptionally deep sprinkling of acronyms. It is obvious that there is a hardening of the veins of who is involved at ICANN and where these terms are presumably obvious.

Some are clearly new even to the authors as they do get explained in the text. But the bulk are left to the Glossary (which is excellent). But a Glossary is a poor excuse for an over exuberance of new building of stuffing in ICANN over recent years whose purposes is not clear nor unambiguous.

Your message is heard loud and clear (by me at least).

In my (relatively short) time working within ICANN as a volunteer I have found its processes to be extremely complex to navigate. At times, ICANN presents the facade of a purely technical body, or a trade association, or an international treaty organization, or bits and pieces of all three. This fact has produced in ICANN an extremely unusual corporate culture that takes considerable effort to penetrate. And given the various competing interests of governments, business users, sellers of Internet services, community groups, would-be registries, domainers and others, it's unlikely that the structure is easily simplified. One need go no further than the attempted re-organization of the non-commercial constituencies within the powerful GNSO to see how -- even within the end-user community -- change is difficult and simplification doubly so.

...

One important role At LARGE should have is to keep policies over unique Internet resources accessible to users. This means pruning the profusion of committees, structures, boards and complexity of interactions and politics between them across ICANN by demanding that only entities that have a clear unambiguous and practical role following the Internet model are continued and all such activities have a limited lifespan.

Half the trick is knowing what needs to be dismantled. Indeed most of the committees within ICANN have fixed mandates and dissolve after their work is done; however for each one that has completed its task, another one rises up to address a new issue. Part of the purpose of At-Large (ie, the formally defined infrastructure) is to try to offer a gateway between the complexity of ICANN and the simplicity required by the global community of Internet users.

...

I am very worried by the way users are increasingly isolated by the growing over complexity in structure, language and difficulty to judge relevance and usefulness. How are users who have deep stake in the ultimate outcomes at ICANN to get meaningfully involved when they can spend only a small amount of time and resource on keeping 'au fait'?

At Large must focus on keeping ICANN down to size and can start doing this on itself.

The ALAC (and overall At-Large infrastructure) recently went through a formal review that involved third-party consultants, members of the ICANN board and a global public consultation process. The report and recommendations of that Review are, in part, why we are here -- because it is that review that recommended that At-Large be able to appoint directors to the ICANN board. (That report is referenced in the Background section of the White Paper, which provides a link to it.)

In other words, At-Large has already (and very recently) been involved in an extensive process of evaluation by itself and the rest of ICANN. Given that we are fairly stressed for human resources (and most of those are volunteers with day jobs), it has been a choice by most of us to spend our energies observing and trying to affect ICANN policy that effects end-users.

I personally believe that having ICANN do the Right Thing (from the public point of view) is more important than the size of the organization. But you're welcome to disagree, and to get involved to advocate the change you want to see.

As with any group of volunteers, At-Large is driven by the efforts of people who do the work, (in our case, guided by the ALSs and regional participants that get involved). Talk is cheap. If you're interested in streamlining ICANN and At-Large, you are invited to get involved and help to do that.

- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...

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

Evan:

With the expiration of the JPA and its replacement by the "Affirmation of Commitments", power evolves from one government to many. But this is still a far far distance from the notion that ICANN gets its mandate from the Internet end-user.

I say this not with approval, but as what I believe is a realistic evaluation of what I have encountered. We can't properly plan strategy unless we have a clear picture of what we're dealing with.

"I have a dream..." :-) Olivier

Evan On 13 Jan 2010, at 20:20, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

With the expiration of the JPA and its replacement by the "Affirmation of Commitments", power evolves from one government to many. But this is still a far far distance from the notion that ICANN gets its mandate from the Internet end-user.

Neither the JPA nor Affirmation of Commitments amended the fundamental rationale for ICANN to work from the bottom up for a very limited scope of resources including DNS root entries, IP address delegations, AS Number delegations, and Port address registry. The point of reference remains the Internet user. Governments all have jurisdiction locally over their territory including over any network infrastructure or services and use of trademarks. These powers are general and pervasive and subject to both multi and bi lateral treaty arrangements. This is not changed with the move from the JPA. ICANN has nothing like this scope.

I say this not with approval, but as what I believe is a realistic evaluation of what I have encountered. We can't properly plan strategy unless we have a clear picture of what we're dealing with.

Hmm. So what happens when that application service comes through from the user edge that provides useful support for trademarks across the world in a way that the DNS cannot? That won't happen at ICANN. No assumption should be made that ICANN is the place to control the routing of names more generally on networks. Christian