Sorry Roberto. It was
not meant disparagingly. I really like how you have framed it
here -- about the foundation of our concerns which should
revolve around the importance of protecting the public interest
and concerns of the non-profit community in a historic deal that
could spin in the other direction. We cannot rely on promises
made where there are no consequences for breaking them . Ethos
has said they would apply to become a "sort of" public benefit
corp. but apparently that doesn't provide much comfort. I am not
up on corp. law in the U.S. but there is apparently another
option -- a real public benefit corp that would hold them to
real outcomes (I am getting this info off another list -- so a
bit fuzzy). Is that one avenue we could explore as a response
not to ICANN but to the situation in general in a letter to
PIR/ISOC.
Marita
Just for the sake of clarity, I have never said that we should only ask for a seat on the Board, I was only adding this item to what I have stated in my earlier messages.I agree with you that the key question is to keep the voice of the users heard loud and clear, and to keep the public interest on top of the priorities for the “new” PIR.Incidentally, if we fail to make the point about the prominent place of the public interest and the non-profit community, we will even fail to have an argument for practical changes, like the Board seat.
Cheers,Roberto
On 08.01.2020, at 22:50, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
_______________________________________________I am afraid I am starting to feel this way as well. The end user voice that we are here to provide is becoming a glaring absence. And we need to do more than ask for a seat on the PIR board. We should be joining our voice to others asking why and how the public interest aspect of this corner of the ecosystem can be so easily abandoned.
Marita
On 1/8/2020 4:33 AM, Vittorio Bertola via CPWG wrote:
Il 2020-01-07 22:22 lists@christopherwilkinson.eu ha scritto:
The main reason why almost 20 years ago we fought to create the ALAC and preserve some form of user representation in ICANN after the cancellation of the original At Large election mechanism was exactly to guarantee a voice for the global public interest of billions of Internet users, against possible capture or failure of ICANN's industry self-regulation model. I have rarely seen a case in which that global interest is so clear, so uniformly shared across the community and so loudly voiced. IMHO, failing to act in this case would easily become evidence in favour of those who challenge ALAC's usefulness and ability to fulfill its mission.--
vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------
--------> now blogging & more at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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.
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
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.