While I agree thus conversation has gone off the rails to some
degree, I'm sympathetic to Evans initiative to return the ALAC
to first principles: advocating for the interests of individual
end users and, when there's a conflict between the interests of
registrants and non-registrants, we side with the
non-registrants. That's really the whole ball of wax.
How we determine those interests is a separate and important
question for which we are searching for answers, the recent pole
being a relevant experiment. But we have to STOP relitigating
those first principles or we will never get our act together. We
do, indeed, need to have the discipline to let things go that
are already being said or are not directly relevant to the end
user experience around the world.
Just my thoughts.
Dear Evan,
I must admit that I really do not understand what you are trying
to achieve by huffing and puffing on the CPWG mailing list. You
appear to be engaged in a venture to question the ALAC's
legitimacy in anything it does - but this debate was past after
the second At-Large review and it's too late to keep on going
back to the stone age and remember the Wars of Religion. As for
the ALAC being a laughing stock, if they can do better, I invite
these people rather than laughing in their armchair, to come in
and help us draft comments that have an impact, just like the
incredibly talented people that have done so recently in this
Working Group and that are spending a considerable amount of
time contributing to the ICANN multi-stakeholder policy
processes.
When it comes to NCUC, NPOC, At-Large, the BC, the IPC and other
constituencies, there are many people who are active in more
than one of these constituencies. Unless you are aiming to run a
system that is a totalitarian regime, I would suggest that you
allow that to happen. The world is not just black or white, left
or right, hot or cold, nice or nasty. Let people be free to help
where they can and not put them in a box/jail.
Now let's please get back to discussing policy rather than
whipping ourselves into a frenzy.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 10/08/2019 03:49, Evan
Leibovitch wrote:
I
think it's not about who we are but what interests
we endeavor to represent. The NCUC only concerns
themselves with registrants.
That was my original point -- That there is a body
already within ICANN representing the interests of
individual registrants, in theory leaving ALAC as the
body uniquely positioned to speak for non-registrant
end-users. That the body charged with representing
registrants is remiss in its duty should not be ALAC's
problem, yet the resulting spillover also causes ALAC
to be remiss in ITS duty.
The logic should be easy because there are more than 4
billion Internet users and about 350 million domains
in play total. So even assuming only three domains per
registrant (and we know that is very far from
reality), registrants are outnumbered by
non-registrants by more than 30 to 1. Yet ALAC has a
problem because of its high proportion of
self-selectred Internet experts and insiders, most of
whom either own a domain or have evaluated the need to
have one. Our own makeup is heavily skewed against the
non-registrant 95% because most in At-Large simply
don't share their experience. The original theory was
that the ALSs were going to be the way through which
non-registrants would be able to participate in large
numbers, but that intent has absolutely failed as most
ALSs have turned out to be self-interested bodies such
as ISOC and Internauta chapters or tech-focused NGOs.
(Isn't that what the Review concluded?) Such
participation brings people with needed skill and
passion, but without the perspective of the 95% of the
world who will likely never own a domain. And without
a credible plan for speaking on behalf of the
non-registrant 95%, ALAC's own credibility is at risk
(arguably it's already shot and needs a reboot).
A few immediate remedies are possible while things are
sorted out:
- The NomCom is
directed to make its ALAC selections
non-registrants
as at least a token effort at balance.
- ALAC
outreach needs to find people who are interested
in end user issues who have no interest in
buying domains.
- ALAC itself
must commit to understand its issues
through a non-registrant lens before choosing to
comment
on them.
Longer term ALAC needs to engage in public surveys and
research to guide its actions (and reactions) rather
than its own elitist sense of what is right for end
users. I daresay that the priorities of the billions
wrt what is needed from ICANN differs widly from
ALAC's current guesses.
_______________________________________________
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.