ALAC and AtLarge and france at large
The real problem, of course, is the current perverted definition of the at-large. Since early 1999 the operative definition was "At-large membership should primarily represent those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations (SOs)." -- see the Memembership Advisory Committee (MAC) documents. As non-commercial organizations are represented within the SOs, namely by way of the NCUC, they are, by definition, not the at-large (which is supposed to be primarily the home of individuals). You have chosen to accept a perversion formulated after at-large directors were expelled from the Board instead of that which was broadly accepted by the wider community. In doing so, you have abandoned the clearly stated goals of the at-large, namely: "The goals of the at-large membership are as follows: (a) to include any Internet user with access and verifiable identity in order to reflect the global diversity of users (membership should not be limited to IP address or domain name holders), (b) to elect Directors to the ICANN Board by procedures that are valid and authentic, (c) to ensure that ICANN�s corporate structure operates for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, is not captured, and continues to provide fair and proportional representation of the entire user community, (d) to provide input from the user community to the ICANN Directors and (e) to do so in a cost-efficient manner." So, what steps has your "pretend At-Large" taken to secure voting representation on the ICANN Board of Directors? None whatsoever. It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted in the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed.
Hey Danny I am not ashamed at all. We have successfully managed to get ICANN issues in the air in Trinidad and Tobago and in a large part of the Caribbean that wasn't involved at all, thanks to this current structure. I think you meant to refer to the earlier "part-global" elections, as many many Internet users were left out. We went over this a lot a year ago. Those elections were not at all representative, IMO. So I think your structure was not good as I think it is intrinsically unfair to developing countries, and you think the current one is not good. Makes no sense fighting for a structure that doesn't exist, got scrapped and doesn't have support from at least half of the involved users. The logical thing is to work towards a structure that works for us both, and stop trying to beat a very very dead cow back to life. Jacqueline On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted in the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed.
Jacqueline, Of course, "The logical thing is to work towards a structure"; unfortunately, no one is working. They are blithely ignoring the need to have board-level voting representation -- they are doing nothing. Even the Nominating Committee reviewers recognized the need to have at-large directors seated with their recommendation: "The ALAC appoints two policy board Directors using whatever mechanism it considers to be appropriate." So the question remains, what have you and the "pretend at-large" done to lobby and argue for the representation that is your right? What do you intend to do? Or are you comfortable with forever not having a voting seat at the table? Have you consigned yourself to permanent second-class status? --- On Fri, 6/6/08, Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
From: Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, June 6, 2008, 10:49 AM Hey Danny I am not ashamed at all. We have successfully managed to get ICANN issues in the air in Trinidad and Tobago and in a large part of the Caribbean that wasn't involved at all, thanks to this current structure. I think you meant to refer to the earlier "part-global" elections, as many many Internet users were left out. We went over this a lot a year ago. Those elections were not at all representative, IMO. So I think your structure was not good as I think it is intrinsically unfair to developing countries, and you think the current one is not good. Makes no sense fighting for a structure that doesn't exist, got scrapped and doesn't have support from at least half of the involved users. The logical thing is to work towards a structure that works for us both, and stop trying to beat a very very dead cow back to life. Jacqueline
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted in the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed.
Jacqueline, Danny is talking about principal things. The fact is that at-large in its current status should be advocating the wide user community, which is over 99% of all people/bodies recognized as Internet stakeholders. The fact that this vast majority has no representative voting seats is simply unacceptable, dishonesting and a failure of the commitment given to the public community. That is, every efforts not targeted this direction is just tacit collaboration in making up this cover-up and an extension of the agony. The fact that you have managed something in the air is, sorry, nearly nothing in comparison to the great loss of real and representative voting power. I am sorry but without this all this are just toothless toys for children playing in the sand. Jacqueline and some others, I don't diminish all the efforts and the sincerity you have invested into it but realize that the basic priorities are upside down. I absolutely cannot understand how the ALAC and the ALS'es can accept such a subordinate and undignified position! Doing this is unfair and unaccountable and just covering the real goals being pursued behind the scenes. We know all what they are like. But have no courage to speak them out loudly. That's the tragedy of the at-large. And the results? The ALAC was not even able to advocate its own position on domain tasting held previously. Is this a proper advisory committee behavior? Isn't it funny? A committee that is first 'advised' what it should advise? Just a masquerade. And the classical bread and circuses. Nothing else yet. That is my pretty honest opinion. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline Morris Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 4:49 PM To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large Hey Danny I am not ashamed at all. We have successfully managed to get ICANN issues in the air in Trinidad and Tobago and in a large part of the Caribbean that wasn't involved at all, thanks to this current structure. I think you meant to refer to the earlier "part-global" elections, as many many Internet users were left out. We went over this a lot a year ago. Those elections were not at all representative, IMO. So I think your structure was not good as I think it is intrinsically unfair to developing countries, and you think the current one is not good. Makes no sense fighting for a structure that doesn't exist, got scrapped and doesn't have support from at least half of the involved users. The logical thing is to work towards a structure that works for us both, and stop trying to beat a very very dead cow back to life. Jacqueline On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted in the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Danny Younger wrote:
The real problem, of course, is the current perverted definition of the at-large.
Ah, back to that old romantic vision... at least you're persistent, no matter how sad and tired the crusade.
Since early 1999 the operative definition was "At-large membership should primarily represent those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations (SOs)." -- see the Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) documents.
So far so good.
As non-commercial organizations are represented within the SOs, namely by way of the NCUC, they are, by definition, not the at-large (which is supposed to be primarily the home of individuals).
Let's stop there. At-Large is meant to be the home of individuals, but not simply the handful of elitist, baggage-laden, largely-American noisemakers that Danny falsely believes speak for the "public at large". NCUC is the rightful place for academia, and for organizations and people actively involved in making Internet policy as part of their mandate. At-Large is for everyone else -- the consumers of the Internet, so to speak, who generally don't own domains but are greatly affected by their allocation and use. To do this, the current ALS infrastructure is designed to get as many people as possible involved -- or at least aware -- through membership organizations that don't nominally have Internet policy as a mandate. Computer user groups, free speech advocates, community co-operatives, consumer groups and others from everywhere on Earth all have a role to play here. Personally I believe that maximizing public involvement through otherwise-ambivalent public groups was a smart -- bordering on brilliant -- idea. It strives to reserve a corner of the ICANN process for those who were not self-described policymakers and to whom ICANN has been inaccessible to date. The voice of the global public goes far beyond the elitist cadre that forms the core of Danny's tragically romanticized vision. The extra level of indirection -- ALSs -- between ICANN and the public allows various core individuals to help drive the process, supported by ICANN but ultimately charged with helping to build a grassroots that simply could never happen under Danny's model. Indeed, it is his view of At-Large that is grossly perverted, and must be avoided.
"The goals of the at-large membership are as follows: (a) to include any Internet user with access and verifiable identity in order to reflect the global diversity of users (membership should not be limited to IP address or domain name holders), We got that. As At-Large matures it will even get beyond its current concentrations of ISOC chapters and attract more groups such as Consumers Union. Not only should At-Large not be limited to domain name holders, it is in our interests -- to keep to the vision -- that the vast majority of At-Large is comprised of those who do not own domains.
(b) to elect Directors to the ICANN Board by procedures that are valid and authentic,
"Valid and authentic" is in the eye of the beholder. Danny wants a return to elitism, I want to broaden the base exactly to give the At-Large voice more validity. It is no surprise that, in other mail, Danny has defended the NomComm and attacked outreach initiatives; his vision actually *fears* greater public involvement and accountability. Of course, ALAC doesn't have a Board vote, so this one is not really fulfilled. We can wait and see how the ALAC review group handles that one.
(c) to ensure that ICANN�s corporate structure operates for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, is not captured, and continues to provide fair and proportional representation of the entire user community,
Danny's romantic vision of At-Large is, in fact, a repudiation of this objective. The ALS structure is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing this, though one can certainly take issue with the quality of execution.
(d) to provide input from the user community to the ICANN Directors and
We do that now. Wendy's success in getting approval in principle for the Summit is only one recent example. Of course a Board vote (or, IMO more than one vote) would be better.
(e) to do so in a cost-efficient manner."
The effort to engage an otherwise-disinterested public comes with an expense; for that I make no apology. Otherwise all you hear are the noisemakers who think they have all the answers but certainly do not represent the global public POV.
So, what steps has your "pretend At-Large" taken to secure voting representation on the ICANN Board of Directors?
Don't know about anyone else, but I had a very prepared and thought-out submission (actually, more than one) to the ALAC review. Not sure what else we are expected to do ... stage sit-ins? Boycott IPv6? Deface websites? Write angry emails with a hundred Ccs that all get ignored? There is a process -- long and drawn out it may be -- and we are following it. I would be the first to argue that until now ALAC has lacked either the maturity or the mandate to deserve a Board vote. While the maturation process still has far to go, the environment has improved by leaps and bounds since my ALS got involved.
It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted in the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed.
I am certainly not ashamed of my role in At-Large; indeed, I believe most of the current members of ALAC and At-Large deserve praise for their perseverance at working to achieve a most difficult task. Given that At-Large should not be dominated by self-styled experts who create policy in their bedrooms, I'd say it's doing reasonably well. The new allocation of staff will help provide badly needed resources to a group of volunteers, most of whose day jobs take us far away from Internet policy. And we get to do this all in the face of virtual rock-throwers, of saboteurs from within who claim we're irrelevant yet still insist on engaging us. Such distractions are annoying, but must not deter achievement of the vision that the current ALS/RALO/ALAC structure is well capable to deliver. - Evan
Well said, Evan! Of course we want to have at least one vote at the Board level, but we have to make the current structure actually work first. I agree that we are making progress, even though it sometimes seems to be painfully slow. Gareth On 6-Jun-08, at 9:07 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
The real problem, of course, is the current perverted definition of the at-large.
Ah, back to that old romantic vision... at least you're persistent, no matter how sad and tired the crusade.
Since early 1999 the operative definition was "At-large membership should primarily represent those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations (SOs)." -- see the Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) documents.
So far so good.
As non-commercial organizations are represented within the SOs, namely by way of the NCUC, they are, by definition, not the at- large (which is supposed to be primarily the home of individuals).
Let's stop there.
At-Large is meant to be the home of individuals, but not simply the handful of elitist, baggage-laden, largely-American noisemakers that Danny falsely believes speak for the "public at large".
NCUC is the rightful place for academia, and for organizations and people actively involved in making Internet policy as part of their mandate. At-Large is for everyone else -- the consumers of the Internet, so to speak, who generally don't own domains but are greatly affected by their allocation and use. To do this, the current ALS infrastructure is designed to get as many people as possible involved -- or at least aware -- through membership organizations that don't nominally have Internet policy as a mandate. Computer user groups, free speech advocates, community co-operatives, consumer groups and others from everywhere on Earth all have a role to play here. Personally I believe that maximizing public involvement through otherwise-ambivalent public groups was a smart -- bordering on brilliant -- idea. It strives to reserve a corner of the ICANN process for those who were not self-described policymakers and to whom ICANN has been inaccessible to date. The voice of the global public goes far beyond the elitist cadre that forms the core of Danny's tragically romanticized vision.
The extra level of indirection -- ALSs -- between ICANN and the public allows various core individuals to help drive the process, supported by ICANN but ultimately charged with helping to build a grassroots that simply could never happen under Danny's model.
Indeed, it is his view of At-Large that is grossly perverted, and must be avoided.
"The goals of the at-large membership are as follows: (a) to include any Internet user with access and verifiable identity in order to reflect the global diversity of users (membership should not be limited to IP address or domain name holders), We got that. As At-Large matures it will even get beyond its current concentrations of ISOC chapters and attract more groups such as Consumers Union. Not only should At-Large not be limited to domain name holders, it is in our interests -- to keep to the vision -- that the vast majority of At-Large is comprised of those who do not own domains.
(b) to elect Directors to the ICANN Board by procedures that are valid and authentic,
"Valid and authentic" is in the eye of the beholder. Danny wants a return to elitism, I want to broaden the base exactly to give the At-Large voice more validity. It is no surprise that, in other mail, Danny has defended the NomComm and attacked outreach initiatives; his vision actually *fears* greater public involvement and accountability.
Of course, ALAC doesn't have a Board vote, so this one is not really fulfilled. We can wait and see how the ALAC review group handles that one.
(c) to ensure that ICANN�s corporate structure operates for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, is not captured, and continues to provide fair and proportional representation of the entire user community,
Danny's romantic vision of At-Large is, in fact, a repudiation of this objective. The ALS structure is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing this, though one can certainly take issue with the quality of execution.
(d) to provide input from the user community to the ICANN Directors and
We do that now. Wendy's success in getting approval in principle for the Summit is only one recent example. Of course a Board vote (or, IMO more than one vote) would be better.
(e) to do so in a cost-efficient manner."
The effort to engage an otherwise-disinterested public comes with an expense; for that I make no apology. Otherwise all you hear are the noisemakers who think they have all the answers but certainly do not represent the global public POV.
So, what steps has your "pretend At-Large" taken to secure voting representation on the ICANN Board of Directors?
Don't know about anyone else, but I had a very prepared and thought- out submission (actually, more than one) to the ALAC review. Not sure what else we are expected to do ... stage sit-ins? Boycott IPv6? Deface websites? Write angry emails with a hundred Ccs that all get ignored?
There is a process -- long and drawn out it may be -- and we are following it. I would be the first to argue that until now ALAC has lacked either the maturity or the mandate to deserve a Board vote. While the maturation process still has far to go, the environment has improved by leaps and bounds since my ALS got involved.
It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted in the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed.
I am certainly not ashamed of my role in At-Large; indeed, I believe most of the current members of ALAC and At-Large deserve praise for their perseverance at working to achieve a most difficult task. Given that At-Large should not be dominated by self-styled experts who create policy in their bedrooms, I'd say it's doing reasonably well. The new allocation of staff will help provide badly needed resources to a group of volunteers, most of whose day jobs take us far away from Internet policy.
And we get to do this all in the face of virtual rock-throwers, of saboteurs from within who claim we're irrelevant yet still insist on engaging us. Such distractions are annoying, but must not deter achievement of the vision that the current ALS/RALO/ALAC structure is well capable to deliver.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Evan, Please read my remarks below...
At-Large is meant to be the home of individuals, but not simply the handful of elitist, baggage-laden, largely-American noisemakers that Danny falsely believes speak for the "public at large".
Do you see the five points enumerated by Danny elitistic and sort of romanticized vision? You then perhaps want to get rid the Board as a whole and replace it by a brand new structure where the wide community voice would be inherently reflected (in votes) in a fully transparent manner. I would second it. Just please explain how this could be feasible.
At-Large is for everyone else -- the consumers of the Internet, so to speak, who generally don't own domains but are greatly affected by their allocation and use. To do this, the current ALS infrastructure is designed to get as many people as possible involved -- or at least aware -- through membership organizations that don't nominally have Internet policy as a mandate. Computer user groups, free speech advocates, community co-operatives, consumer groups and others from everywhere on Earth all have a role to play here. Personally I believe that maximizing public involvement through otherwise-ambivalent public groups was a smart -- bordering on brilliant -- idea. It strives to reserve a corner of the ICANN process for those who were not self-described policymakers and to whom ICANN has been inaccessible to date.
Great vision, indeed. I fully agree. Just one weak point out here. All this effort can be spoiled in a minute by a vote of few unaccounatble individuals whose the only interest is to stuff the pockets. And this negligible detail turns the whole great vision into a fairy tail.
Danny's romantic vision of At-Large is, in fact, a repudiation of this objective. The ALS structure is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing this, though one can certainly take issue with the quality of execution.
No, it is not a repudiation. But without the representative voting power the ALS is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing a persuasive cover-up to the outside world.
Of course, ALAC doesn't have a Board vote, so this one is not really fulfilled. We can wait and see how the ALAC review group handles that one.
So far so very good. The problem is in the words "wait and see". I'll tell you how the ALAC will handle that one. Exactly the same way as it did in domain tasting. You will be persuaded of not feasibility of a stronger solution and you'll finally back off.
Indeed, it is his view of At-Large that is grossly perverted, and must be avoided.
Ah, now I fully understand.
There is a process -- long and drawn out it may be -- and we are following it. I would be the first to argue that until now ALAC has lacked either the maturity or the mandate to deserve a Board vote. While the maturation process still has far to go, the environment has improved by leaps and bounds since my ALS got involved.
Correct. And I hope you'll find some of my observations helpful in achieving this goal.
I am certainly not ashamed of my role in At-Large; indeed, I believe most of the current members of ALAC and At-Large deserve praise for their perseverance at working to achieve a most difficult task. Given that At-Large should not be dominated by self-styled experts who create policy in their bedrooms, I'd say it's doing reasonably well. The new allocation of staff will help provide badly needed resources to a group of volunteers, most of whose day jobs take us far away from Internet policy.
Certainly not. And I do believe too that many people are doing good job. They just perhaps do not fully realize that waiting and seeing might be sort of naïve expectations. Nevertheless, the litmus test is the upcoming bringing of the GNSO improvements into life. This step will no doubt be significant in revealing the further direction. Let's see what is going to happen. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 6:07 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Who's ashamed? Danny Younger wrote:
The real problem, of course, is the current perverted definition of the at-large.
Ah, back to that old romantic vision... at least you're persistent, no matter how sad and tired the crusade.
Since early 1999 the operative definition was "At-large membership should primarily represent those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations (SOs)." -- see the Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) documents.
So far so good.
As non-commercial organizations are represented within the SOs, namely by way of the NCUC, they are, by definition, not the at-large (which is supposed to be primarily the home of individuals).
Let's stop there. At-Large is meant to be the home of individuals, but not simply the handful of elitist, baggage-laden, largely-American noisemakers that Danny falsely believes speak for the "public at large". NCUC is the rightful place for academia, and for organizations and people actively involved in making Internet policy as part of their mandate. At-Large is for everyone else -- the consumers of the Internet, so to speak, who generally don't own domains but are greatly affected by their allocation and use. To do this, the current ALS infrastructure is designed to get as many people as possible involved -- or at least aware -- through membership organizations that don't nominally have Internet policy as a mandate. Computer user groups, free speech advocates, community co-operatives, consumer groups and others from everywhere on Earth all have a role to play here. Personally I believe that maximizing public involvement through otherwise-ambivalent public groups was a smart -- bordering on brilliant -- idea. It strives to reserve a corner of the ICANN process for those who were not self-described policymakers and to whom ICANN has been inaccessible to date. The voice of the global public goes far beyond the elitist cadre that forms the core of Danny's tragically romanticized vision. The extra level of indirection -- ALSs -- between ICANN and the public allows various core individuals to help drive the process, supported by ICANN but ultimately charged with helping to build a grassroots that simply could never happen under Danny's model. Indeed, it is his view of At-Large that is grossly perverted, and must be avoided.
"The goals of the at-large membership are as follows: (a) to include any Internet user with access and verifiable identity in order to reflect the global diversity of users (membership should not be limited to IP address or domain name holders), We got that. As At-Large matures it will even get beyond its current concentrations of ISOC chapters and attract more groups such as Consumers Union. Not only should At-Large not be limited to domain name holders, it is in our interests -- to keep to the vision -- that the vast majority of At-Large is comprised of those who do not own domains.
(b) to elect Directors to the ICANN Board by procedures that are valid and authentic,
"Valid and authentic" is in the eye of the beholder. Danny wants a return to elitism, I want to broaden the base exactly to give the At-Large voice more validity. It is no surprise that, in other mail, Danny has defended the NomComm and attacked outreach initiatives; his vision actually *fears* greater public involvement and accountability. Of course, ALAC doesn't have a Board vote, so this one is not really fulfilled. We can wait and see how the ALAC review group handles that one.
(c) to ensure that ICANN s corporate structure operates for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, is not captured, and continues to provide fair and proportional representation of the entire user community,
Danny's romantic vision of At-Large is, in fact, a repudiation of this objective. The ALS structure is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing this, though one can certainly take issue with the quality of execution.
(d) to provide input from the user community to the ICANN Directors and
We do that now. Wendy's success in getting approval in principle for the Summit is only one recent example. Of course a Board vote (or, IMO more than one vote) would be better.
(e) to do so in a cost-efficient manner."
The effort to engage an otherwise-disinterested public comes with an expense; for that I make no apology. Otherwise all you hear are the noisemakers who think they have all the answers but certainly do not represent the global public POV.
So, what steps has your "pretend At-Large" taken to secure voting representation on the ICANN Board of Directors?
Don't know about anyone else, but I had a very prepared and thought-out submission (actually, more than one) to the ALAC review. Not sure what else we are expected to do ... stage sit-ins? Boycott IPv6? Deface websites? Write angry emails with a hundred Ccs that all get ignored? There is a process -- long and drawn out it may be -- and we are following it. I would be the first to argue that until now ALAC has lacked either the maturity or the mandate to deserve a Board vote. While the maturation process still has far to go, the environment has improved by leaps and bounds since my ALS got involved.
It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted in the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed.
I am certainly not ashamed of my role in At-Large; indeed, I believe most of the current members of ALAC and At-Large deserve praise for their perseverance at working to achieve a most difficult task. Given that At-Large should not be dominated by self-styled experts who create policy in their bedrooms, I'd say it's doing reasonably well. The new allocation of staff will help provide badly needed resources to a group of volunteers, most of whose day jobs take us far away from Internet policy. And we get to do this all in the face of virtual rock-throwers, of saboteurs from within who claim we're irrelevant yet still insist on engaging us. Such distractions are annoying, but must not deter achievement of the vision that the current ALS/RALO/ALAC structure is well capable to deliver. - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dominik Filipp wrote:
Do you see the five points enumerated by Danny elitistic and sort of romanticized vision? No, those five points were objectives as stated by ICANN. Danny and I have obviously different paths towards accomplishing those objectives; indeed it seems we even interpret them differently.
All this effort can be spoiled in a minute by a vote of few unaccounatble individuals whose the only interest is to stuff the pockets. And this negligible detail turns the whole great vision into a fairy tail.
Please elaborate. Are you talking about corrupt (or potentially corrupt) members of ALAC? Or elsewhere? I was under the belief that there are conflict of interest protocols that, should they be breached, should have some serious consequences. I base at least part of my "trust" on the belief that At-Large should be comprised of those who may not stand to be financially rewarded as a result of ICANN policy changes (except for the indirect benefit which would accompany reduced fraud, spam, deception, crime, etc). Those with explicit interest in ICANN policy, whether for profit or non-profit goals, already have constituencies outside of At-Large (with the possible exception of personal registrants). In any case, I fully agree with you on this potential downside of having unaccountable positions of leadership within At-Large. My views on NomComm appointees to ALAC are already fairly well known, and I supported the majority view in the GNSO recommendation to eliminate voting NomComm appointees there too.
without the representative voting power the ALS is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing a persuasive cover-up to the outside world.
I agree that without a Board vote (and in fact I think At-Large deserves more than one), ALAC can roar all it want but is ultimately toothless. I await the ALAC review, to which I (and I am sure many others) have made this point clearly. On the other hand, I see no great harm in not having given ALAC a Board vote until now. It was only with the last year that all RALOs were fully in place. Until then, ALAC was simply a bunch of appointees charged with guessing the mood of the public -- and to me that body did not warrant a Board vote. However, things have changed... if ICANN continues to deny At-Large a Board vote, my optimism will be short-lived. As for the theory that At-Large is just a public relations exercise designed to mask the lack of a real public voice in ICANN -- I will reserve judgment until I see ICANN's willingness to make ALAC a full constituency and not just an advisory role.
Of course, ALAC doesn't have a Board vote, so this one is not really fulfilled. We can wait and see how the ALAC review group handles that one.
So far so very good. The problem is in the words "wait and see". I'll tell you how the ALAC will handle that one. Exactly the same way as it did in domain tasting. You will be persuaded of not feasibility of a stronger solution and you'll finally back off.
Don't be so sure. Remember, this is a maturing process. ALAC is still finding its footing, having realized the need to deal with internal elements who favour diplomacy over advocacy, and others with the opposite inclination. Arguably the domain tasting issue was the first piece of real policy work with which to test us in that manner. Don't judge the long-term process by the first effort...
And I hope you'll find some of my observations helpful in achieving this goal.
Indeed I do. I will be watching closely the way that the ALAC review is presented publicly, and how At-Large responds to it, and how the Board ultimately addresses our needs. The status quo works for this moment but is unacceptable for moving forward. Without significant increases in member accountability and Board representation, ALAC may indeed be revealed as the publicity stunt that you (and a number of others) have suggested that it is. At this moment I would like to believe this is not the case, but I cannot rule out that it is possible. The difference between me and Danny in this regard is that, if I come to that conclusion, I will leave the At-Large process and spend my valuable time in more productive ways. If I come to judge that At-Large is pointless, then I am being both hypocritical and irresponsible to myself if I continue to spend energy on it. I would certainly not waste my time telling the remaining people they should be ashamed of themselves. Such actions accomplish nothing positive.
I do believe too that many people are doing good job. They just perhaps do not fully realize that waiting and seeing might be sort of naïve expectations.
While there are many ICANN old timers, everyone is a newbie in the RALO-based At-Large infrastructure. Its path to maturity is (and will continue to be) filled with mistakes, bad choices and unwelcome discoveries. If the public (through its reps in ALAC) is incapable of learning from its mistakes then it will get the ICANN it deserves -- however even _that_ is prefereable to one in which the public view is represented by elitists who are really no different from a weak clone of NCUC.
Nevertheless, the litmus test is the upcoming bringing of the GNSO improvements into life. This step will no doubt be significant in revealing the further direction. Let's see what is going to happen.
And my litmus test is the ALAC review. Between the two of them, we will see how committed ICANN really is to its stated goals of _real_ public participation (and ultimately leadership) in its work. Eventually one of us will need to change our minds, with either you getting more hopeful or me getting more cynical. :-) - Evan
At 00:53 07/06/2008, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
And my litmus test is the ALAC review.
Dear Evan and Dominik, I agree with most of what you say except that being a pragmatic old timer (long before ICANN) I am not candid or hopeful. I am just an Internet @large and I consider ICANN as I consider FTP. Do I need it ? No. Must I support it ? Yes because others use it and it may become a pain to me otherwise. Should we want it to disappear? It would be replaced until the concept eventually becomes obsolete, but it can be a real nuisance in the meanwhile if we do not help its graceful evolution. Will it willingly and decently cooperate? This is what we wanted to check through the france@large accreditation. So far, the answer seems to be "no". We are dismayed, but not surprised, nor disapointed: this is ICANN. Our focus is now on understanding how to force ICANN to cooperate to the best operational interest of all the Internet @larges. The first step is for ICANN to understand what such a best interest is (something I fear the ICANN @large have no real idea). We wanted to be able to explain it from within ALAC; so it could be internally checked and discuss. We will have to do it by our own. It may take more time, it may call for more conflicts. If this happens, just remember we proposed to cooperate and still do. ALAC voted "no". Their responsibility. jfc
Evan, By 'few unaccountable individuals' I mean some people with voting power not the ALAC members. An example could be the approval of the Verisign agreement that in fact cements the Verisign's monopoly on the .com market for a long time, which, of course, is far away from public interests. And I am just asking myself whether this all was just an objective and selfless act. Otherwise, I agree on most your counts here. I see the at-large consolidation similarly important as you do. However, it seems we both can agree upon the fact that the representative voting power is the corner stone turning the vision to reality. Hope, it is me who will need to change my mind getting me more hopeful ;-) Dominik -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 12:53 AM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Who's ashamed? Dominik Filipp wrote:
Do you see the five points enumerated by Danny elitistic and sort of romanticized vision? No, those five points were objectives as stated by ICANN. Danny and I have obviously different paths towards accomplishing those objectives; indeed it seems we even interpret them differently.
All this effort can be spoiled in a minute by a vote of few unaccounatble individuals whose the only interest is to stuff the pockets. And this negligible detail turns the whole great vision into a fairy tail.
Please elaborate. Are you talking about corrupt (or potentially corrupt) members of ALAC? Or elsewhere? I was under the belief that there are conflict of interest protocols that, should they be breached, should have some serious consequences. I base at least part of my "trust" on the belief that At-Large should be comprised of those who may not stand to be financially rewarded as a result of ICANN policy changes (except for the indirect benefit which would accompany reduced fraud, spam, deception, crime, etc). Those with explicit interest in ICANN policy, whether for profit or non-profit goals, already have constituencies outside of At-Large (with the possible exception of personal registrants). In any case, I fully agree with you on this potential downside of having unaccountable positions of leadership within At-Large. My views on NomComm appointees to ALAC are already fairly well known, and I supported the majority view in the GNSO recommendation to eliminate voting NomComm appointees there too.
without the representative voting power the ALS is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing a persuasive cover-up to the outside world.
I agree that without a Board vote (and in fact I think At-Large deserves more than one), ALAC can roar all it want but is ultimately toothless. I await the ALAC review, to which I (and I am sure many others) have made this point clearly. On the other hand, I see no great harm in not having given ALAC a Board vote until now. It was only with the last year that all RALOs were fully in place. Until then, ALAC was simply a bunch of appointees charged with guessing the mood of the public -- and to me that body did not warrant a Board vote. However, things have changed... if ICANN continues to deny At-Large a Board vote, my optimism will be short-lived. As for the theory that At-Large is just a public relations exercise designed to mask the lack of a real public voice in ICANN -- I will reserve judgment until I see ICANN's willingness to make ALAC a full constituency and not just an advisory role.
Of course, ALAC doesn't have a Board vote, so this one is not really fulfilled. We can wait and see how the ALAC review group handles that one.
So far so very good. The problem is in the words "wait and see". I'll tell you how the ALAC will handle that one. Exactly the same way as it did in domain tasting. You will be persuaded of not feasibility of a stronger solution and you'll finally back off.
Don't be so sure. Remember, this is a maturing process. ALAC is still finding its footing, having realized the need to deal with internal elements who favour diplomacy over advocacy, and others with the opposite inclination. Arguably the domain tasting issue was the first piece of real policy work with which to test us in that manner. Don't judge the long-term process by the first effort...
And I hope you'll find some of my observations helpful in achieving this goal.
Indeed I do. I will be watching closely the way that the ALAC review is presented publicly, and how At-Large responds to it, and how the Board ultimately addresses our needs. The status quo works for this moment but is unacceptable for moving forward. Without significant increases in member accountability and Board representation, ALAC may indeed be revealed as the publicity stunt that you (and a number of others) have suggested that it is. At this moment I would like to believe this is not the case, but I cannot rule out that it is possible. The difference between me and Danny in this regard is that, if I come to that conclusion, I will leave the At-Large process and spend my valuable time in more productive ways. If I come to judge that At-Large is pointless, then I am being both hypocritical and irresponsible to myself if I continue to spend energy on it. I would certainly not waste my time telling the remaining people they should be ashamed of themselves. Such actions accomplish nothing positive.
I do believe too that many people are doing good job. They just perhaps do not fully realize that waiting and seeing might be sort of naïve expectations.
While there are many ICANN old timers, everyone is a newbie in the RALO-based At-Large infrastructure. Its path to maturity is (and will continue to be) filled with mistakes, bad choices and unwelcome discoveries. If the public (through its reps in ALAC) is incapable of learning from its mistakes then it will get the ICANN it deserves -- however even _that_ is prefereable to one in which the public view is represented by elitists who are really no different from a weak clone of NCUC.
Nevertheless, the litmus test is the upcoming bringing of the GNSO improvements into life. This step will no doubt be significant in revealing the further direction. Let's see what is going to happen.
And my litmus test is the ALAC review. Between the two of them, we will see how committed ICANN really is to its stated goals of _real_ public participation (and ultimately leadership) in its work. Eventually one of us will need to change our minds, with either you getting more hopeful or me getting more cynical. :-) - Evan
At 13:12 07/06/2008, Dominik Filipp wrote:
An example could be the approval of the Verisign agreement that in fact cements the Verisign's monopoly on the .com market for a long time, which, of course, is far away from public interests.
As you know, one could claim that the ALAC is a way to strangle the DNSO/GA who motionned against that agreement and has been set-up in a way this cannot happen again. When ALAC becomes too "active" the solution is to redowngrade it to the GA level. 15 ALAC members are roughly the equivalent of the GA Membership, with similar influence. jfc
participants (6)
-
Danny Younger -
Dominik Filipp -
Evan Leibovitch -
Gareth Shearman -
Jacqueline Morris -
JFC Morfin