Dear Evan, On 22/05/2019 08:36, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Every other constituency in ICANN has already charged in on their white horses, imposing their will on ICANN's very way of operating. ALAC, seemingly alone, is actually embarrassed to say what it really thinks needs to be done. Our opening position on every issue is close to the existing consensus, no wonder we have neither clout nor respect.
Of COURSE I don't expect that "the rest of the organization" will support our honest and principled stands on what ICANN must do to serve the public interest. What we want threatens the very existence of some of the Internet's worst rent-seekers. But if we don't lay down our own idea of a superior destination we have no chance of even starting a path to it.
It might be because we start from a position of weakness. I've mentioned it before, but before Kobe, when the idea was circulated that there should be fundamental changes made to ICANN's structure, and in particular, the bi-cameral structure of the GNSO Council, it was mentioned that this could signify civil war in the GNSO. And this got everyone to retract. I guess the GNSO is too fundamentally important for the majority of the community, for it to risk breaking apart. Can that be said of the ALAC or the GAC? In past months, I have actually attempted to find out how ICANN' structure was changed from its 1.0 Board direct At-Large election model to its 2.0 Board selected by its constituencies + NomCom model. Who decided to make this change? Was it the Board itself? Why? Were there any external powers involved? I realise that this was a long time ago and methods might completely differ now as the dynamics are very different, but if there is no path to an overall, holistic review of the structure of the organisation, there is nothing that can be done from the inside to evolve the organisation, apart from the tweaks that you so decry. Kindest regards, Olivier