Hi Evan, Thanks for the definition of ALAC’s mission – I saw this differently. Since 15 years at ICANN – and still learning …… Alexander From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2019 7:45 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective On Wed., Aug. 7, 2019, 10:32 a.m. Alexander Schubert, <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: We should distinguish between two groups of “Individual Internet users". Obviously we are looking at the DNS and it’s use, right? I see these two groups: 1. The person who is using the DNS to navigate the Internet. That is: Visiting Internet domain names in order to reach websites or sending and receiving emails (among other use cases). Yes, that is ALAC’s mandate 2. The registrants of domain names (insofar they utilize them for personal use) There is an entire HALF of the GNSO, the non-contracted-party half, created explicitly to represent their interests. Indeed, that half of the GNSO is further subdivided into commercial and non-commercial groups. I for example use alexander.berlin and <http://alexander.lv> alexander.lv as my virtual personal “calling cards”. I do not use them in any commercial activity. My needs and concerns (as Individual) about the governing of .berlin should be focus of ALAC in that respect. The NCSG (and specifically NCUC) was made just for you. NCUC even has "non commercial user" in its name! Unlike ALAC it has voting rights in the body that can compel the ICANN Board. (And Alexander, as a long time ICANN insider and former gTLD applicant, surely you must be aware of all that.) Why do you consider yourself entitled to influencing ICANN policy through two different vectors? The non registrant end-user has ALAC alone. You may have a problem with how well NCUC serves your needs as a registrant. But that's not ALAC's problem to solve, it has enough of its own 🙂. - Evan

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 05:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote: Paul Wilson, APNIC's DG, a member of the ASO in ICANN likes to use an

analogy of what we do as a technical community and he uses an analogy of a car but I am going to use his analogy and build on it. The average end user just enjoys the vehicle but behind the scene, there are manufacturers, standards and those who develop standards, monitor and implement standards at all levels of manufacturing, there are others who deal with insurance and product liability and guarantees and warranties. There are trade rules etc. However, those who work behind the scenes in the ecosystem and engage in vigorous debate, testing act as stewards and the average passenger or driver could'nt care less and would not be knowledgeable about the standards, they are just concerned with affordability and functionality.

Internet end-users who are not registrants have no purchase decision to make. They didn't have to choose the domain, registrar or TLD. They just have to live with the consequences. The closest one could come in the car analogy to At-Large would be passengers. They have no say in the choices being made of car make or repair shop, yet they are impacted by the choices of everyone above them. They care about safety and stability and reliability but have little stake in whether they're riding in a Ford or Lada or where it was purchased, And while all car owners are passengers too, their interests as car consumers are different from those of passengers who only care about the transport. ALAC is charged with speaking for the Internet's passengers. the NCPH for the owners and drivers, and the CPH for the auto industry. This is not a difficult concept. Each group has its distinct voice within ICANN. - Evan

"ICANN <https://icannwiki.org/ICANN>'s Advisory Committees <https://icannwiki.org/AC>. The mission of ALAC is to function as an advocate for the interests of individual Internet users". That speaks for itself. On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, 10:56 am Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro, < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:

I am in a car so having a hard time pulling the bylaws. But here is the ICANN wiki and ALAC mission.

https://icannwiki.org/At-Large_Advisory_Committee

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, 10:58 am Evan Leibovitch, <evan@telly.org> wrote:

...

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 05:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:

Paul Wilson, APNIC's DG, a member of the ASO in ICANN likes to use an

...

analogy of what we do as a technical community and he uses an analogy of a car but I am going to use his analogy and build on it. The average end user just enjoys the vehicle but behind the scene, there are manufacturers, standards and those who develop standards, monitor and implement standards at all levels of manufacturing, there are others who deal with insurance and product liability and guarantees and warranties. There are trade rules etc. However, those who work behind the scenes in the ecosystem and engage in vigorous debate, testing act as stewards and the average passenger or driver could'nt care less and would not be knowledgeable about the standards, they are just concerned with affordability and functionality.

Internet end-users who are not registrants have no purchase decision to make. They didn't have to choose the domain, registrar or TLD. They just have to live with the consequences.

The closest one could come in the car analogy to At-Large would be passengers. They have no say in the choices being made of car make or repair shop, yet they are impacted by the choices of everyone above them. They care about safety and stability and reliability but have little stake in whether they're riding in a Ford or Lada or where it was purchased, And while all car owners are passengers too, their interests as car consumers are different from those of passengers who only care about the transport.

ALAC is charged with speaking for the Internet's passengers. the NCPH for the owners and drivers, and the CPH for the auto industry.

This is not a difficult concept. Each group has its distinct voice within ICANN.

- Evan

Comments are inline: On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, 11:50 am Evan Leibovitch, <evan@telly.org> wrote:

It has been a long and hard fought battle by former ALAC chairs and

...

members to establish the At Large and we should not begin to whittle away the responsibility of being stewards.

This is not so much an issue of "whittling away" as it is about gaining focus, respect and credibility.

The focus is clear as per the Bylaws.

I guess subtlety is wasted, so...

I travel in a few interesting circles, some behind closed doors. To the rest of ICANN, At-Large is a laughing stock, to be generally tolerated so long as it stays in its corner and chatters to itself.

I would not be too concerned with how the ALAC is perceived as long as they are accountable to the wider At Large community. The ALAC does not exist to impress others but to execute a duty. If it fails in its duty then this should be addressed.

Its outputs are heard and occasionally followed if they cause no significant change to the status quo.

The ALAC is merely an advisory committee. It is their role to give advice which is taken into consideration with the whole of other advice from other advisory committees and supporting organisations. We exist in an ecosystem and we all see in part but the Board has the discretion to have a birds eye view of the whole. As long as the views are and advice rendered, and is on record then the ALAC has accomplished its role. It can only give advice not force people to take them. Unless in ICANN 3.0 this changes. :) Money spent on ALAC is seen as a sunk cost of doing business, so to provide

a superficial sheen of public participation.

No, it is an important expenditure and mechanism for advocating interests of end users and global public interest.

This is why funding is such a struggle; look at what ATLAS 3 had to go through.

Funding is a struggle if people do not turn up for meetings to develop proper budgets and justification. Tl We're seen as a charity case, with just enough funding to keep participants complacent and under the illusion that ALAC can effect real change. The At Large is just as legitimate as the GNSO, after all, don't consumers purchase domains or use the internet. Close that off and there is no demand. There can be no supply without demand. Those who were with me in the initial work on Applicant Support will recall that the Board and the rest of ICANN completely rejected us until we gained the support of the GAC.

The ALAC was legitimate even before collaborating with the GAC. To think otherwise means that we are inferior. All advisory committees have equal weighting under the Bylaws but all have specific function.

I am saying all this -- imploring that ALAC refocus its outputs and better understand its constituency -- because I honestly believe that ALAC is in crisis whether it knows it or not.

Then perhaps what is needed is a discussion on deliverables. It has nearly no credibility, mainly because it redundantly speaks on

behalf of the interests of stakeholders already served by other ICANN registrant constituent groups (notably the BC and NCUC), while spending nearly no effort actually determining the views of its particular mandate. As a result, it provides little of the unique perspective that would be expected of the only group in ICANN mandated to convey the needs of non-registrant end users. Rather than surveys or R&D to determine the actual needs of individual end users, ALAC spends its outreach resources to groom more elites.

Again, I disagree there was some criticism on a mailing list that Verisign corrupted the NCUC so it may not be as non commercial as some would like to think. What elites are the ALAC grooming? (Isn't that now the main purpose of ATLAS III?) It is a burden on ICANN

that provides so little return that it will surely be a target of future austerity programs.

As long as the ALAC is commenting on public policy, it is functional. I think from reading your emails, you are after a monitoring and evaluation and to that we would need a criteria and clearly defined yearly targets for engagement. That I agree with and assume would already be happening but if it is'nt then we can encourage the ALAC and At Large to do so at the ATLAS. This should be factored into the budget. Sala, I was as much of that long fought battle as anyone before I stepped outside the bubble and saw how ALAC is perceived by its peers. Again, it is fully to care about opinions. That battle is far from over. I want an ALAC that is listened to and not laughed at. Grow a thicker skin. There is always room for improvement in the ALAC. I would suggest you write a paper and submit it to the ALAC and At Large with a suggested scope, so that ALSes can comment on it. Getting there demands a hard rethink of what it exists to do and how it does it. The only known is that the status quo will not sustain.

The status quo is a vague insinuation. Suggest you write a paper and invite feedback.

- Evan

Evan, I had the same understanding of the NCSG/NCUC. If they are in the GNSO, it’s because they are registrant. But unfortunately, the situation changed and now, they accept individuals and organizations with no relation with the gTLDs. They now define themselves as representing the civil society, and all non commercial users. On the other hand, a lot of our members are also NCUC members, what I raised in the past explaining that this is not fair because they influence the decision making from 2 entries.I asked that at least, someone with a position in one of the 2 constituencies (ALAC and NCUC) can’t be at the same time a member of the other constituency. But I wasn’t heard. I’m registrant, and so are several of the ALAC community members, and I have never been member of the NCUC. Do you mean I have to migrate there because I have a domain name? Have a nice day Tijani

Le 8 août 2019 à 17:45, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Wed., Aug. 7, 2019, 10:32 a.m. Alexander Schubert, <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: We should distinguish between two groups of “Individual Internet users". Obviously we are looking at the DNS and it’s use, right? I see these two groups:

1. The person who is using the DNS to navigate the Internet. That is: Visiting Internet domain names in order to reach websites or sending and receiving emails (among other use cases).

Yes, that is ALAC’s mandate

2. The registrants of domain names (insofar they utilize them for personal use)

There is an entire HALF of the GNSO, the non-contracted-party half, created explicitly to represent their interests. Indeed, that half of the GNSO is further subdivided into commercial and non-commercial groups.

I for example use alexander.berlin and alexander.lv <http://alexander.lv/> as my virtual personal “calling cards”. I do not use them in any commercial activity. My needs and concerns (as Individual) about the governing of .berlin should be focus of ALAC in that respect.

The NCSG (and specifically NCUC) was made just for you. NCUC even has "non commercial user" in its name! Unlike ALAC it has voting rights in the body that can compel the ICANN Board.

(And Alexander, as a long time ICANN insider and former gTLD applicant, surely you must be aware of all that.)

Why do you consider yourself entitled to influencing ICANN policy through two different vectors? The non registrant end-user has ALAC alone.

You may have a problem with how well NCUC serves your needs as a registrant. But that's not ALAC's problem to solve, it has enough of its own 🙂.

- Evan _______________________________________________ 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._______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs _______________________________________________ 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.

Tijani BEN JEMAA

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 11:09, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote: I had the same understanding of the NCSG/NCUC. If they are in the GNSO,

it’s because they are registrant. But unfortunately, the situation changed and now, they accept individuals and organizations with no relation with the gTLDs. They now define themselves as representing the civil society, and all non commercial users.

Hi Tijani, Thanks for your explanation. What this means is that the structure of ICANN has broken down and that constituent areas are not serving their intended purposes. Perhaps it is time to get direction from the Board on this. It should not be ALAC's task to clean up the problem in other constituencies or act as a repository for disaffected community members who should be better served alesewhere. Personally I would like some clarity regarding whether ALAC is meant to represent registrants as well as non-registrant users, to clarify the distinction beyond the vagueness of the Bylaws. I see no conflict with registrants being in ALAC, so long as the shared mandate and values there are to act for non-registrant end users. It is now my experience that the needs of the two groups -- registrants and non-registrants -- are not the same. They are certainly of different priorities, some things matter to registrants that don't matter at all to non-registrants (as I have indicated elsewhere), and occasionally their interests are in complete opposition (on the issue of registrant privacy versus accountability, for example). Based on your observation, I would consider it a priority to clarify at the Board level the roles of ALAC vis NCUC. And if NCUC is not serving its purpose, either its leadership needs to be changed or a new constituency (along the lines of NPOC) needs to be created within the NCPH. This ambiguity has been the source of significant challenge and difficulty in speaking for both groups. And it has become a reason for ALAC's poor perception outside. Cheers, - Evan

I think it's not about who we are but what interests we endeavor to represent. The NCUC only concerns themselves with registrants. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 12:57:10 AM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective Evan, I had the same understanding of the NCSG/NCUC. If they are in the GNSO, it’s because they are registrant. But unfortunately, the situation changed and now, they accept individuals and organizations with no relation with the gTLDs. They now define themselves as representing the civil society, and all non commercial users. On the other hand, a lot of our members are also NCUC members, what I raised in the past explaining that this is not fair because they influence the decision making from 2 entries.I asked that at least, someone with a position in one of the 2 constituencies (ALAC and NCUC) can’t be at the same time a member of the other constituency. But I wasn’t heard. I’m registrant, and so are several of the ALAC community members, and I have never been member of the NCUC. Do you mean I have to migrate there because I have a domain name? Have a nice day Tijani Le 8 août 2019 à 17:45, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> a écrit : On Wed., Aug. 7, 2019, 10:32 a.m. Alexander Schubert, <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: We should distinguish between two groups of “Individual Internet users". Obviously we are looking at the DNS and it’s use, right? I see these two groups: 1. The person who is using the DNS to navigate the Internet. That is: Visiting Internet domain names in order to reach websites or sending and receiving emails (among other use cases). Yes, that is ALAC’s mandate 2. The registrants of domain names (insofar they utilize them for personal use) There is an entire HALF of the GNSO, the non-contracted-party half, created explicitly to represent their interests. Indeed, that half of the GNSO is further subdivided into commercial and non-commercial groups. I for example use alexander.berlin and alexander.lv<http://alexander.lv/> as my virtual personal “calling cards”. I do not use them in any commercial activity. My needs and concerns (as Individual) about the governing of .berlin should be focus of ALAC in that respect. The NCSG (and specifically NCUC) was made just for you. NCUC even has "non commercial user" in its name! Unlike ALAC it has voting rights in the body that can compel the ICANN Board. (And Alexander, as a long time ICANN insider and former gTLD applicant, surely you must be aware of all that.) Why do you consider yourself entitled to influencing ICANN policy through two different vectors? The non registrant end-user has ALAC alone. You may have a problem with how well NCUC serves your needs as a registrant. But that's not ALAC's problem to solve, it has enough of its own 🙂. - Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto: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._______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs _______________________________________________ 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. Tijani BEN JEMAA

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:

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 20:55, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> 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-registrantsas 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 commenton 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.

- Evan

_______________________________________________ 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.

Thanks to all who did engage in this email thread. The bylaws is clear of making At-large to be the voice of Individual non-registrant end-users. However, I did experienced the challenges that At-large community are facing while encouraging retired active individual end-user to get engaged into At-large. Although initially they were curious when they took the online ICANN learn course for newcomers, but when they started browsing At-large and ICANN website they got lost and they were honest telling me that At-large is not of their interested and can't be of contributor in spite they are experience in corporate governance. Following Evan's perspective and to solicit input from individual end-user is not easy. The challenge here is to rewriting the issues for survey design in a very simplified way to be understood by the layperson. But still there is a need to activate the role of the RALOs to channel the voice of Individual end-uses whether they're registrant or not through the intended planned design when At-large was founded. Because so far, I don't see this is happening. I also second Jonathan's thoughts of his last email. Wishing those observing Al-Adha a Happy Eid. Best wishes to all, Nadira On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 20:31 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

Olivier, 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. Jonathan

Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org

------------------------------ *From:* Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> *Sent:* Saturday, August 10, 2019 4:19:44 AM *To:* Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>; Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective

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:

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 20:55, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> 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.

- Evan

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.orghttps://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.

Agree Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 2:48:21 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective Dear Jonathan, thanks for your follow-up. The problem is that there *is* no problem. The ALAC has been clear and concise in over 10 years that where there is a conflict between the interests of registrants and non-registrants, it will side with the non-registrants. But this, in my opinion, does not stop the ALAC from advocating for policies, when there is no conflict between the interests of registrants and non-registrants, that will help end users in being able to register and administer a domain name with ease and at an affordable price. If a user owns a domain name, they should not be told to leave the At-Large Community and go elsewhere - that is ludicrous! Kindest regards, Olivier On 10/08/2019 19:31, Jonathan Zuck wrote: Olivier, 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. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com><mailto:ocl@gih.com> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 4:19:44 AM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com><mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>; Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org><mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org><mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective 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: On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 20:55, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> 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. - Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto: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. -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

It doesn't matter who makes up the NCUC. It's mostly academics. The interests they actually represent are registrants from an ideological rights bases perspective Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 10:25:13 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>; Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective Jonathan, the NCUC accepts members registrant or not. On the other hand, I’m a registrant (who is not on ALAC) and I have never been member of NCUC; Shall I go there? Tijani Le 10 août 2019 à 01:55, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> a écrit : I think it's not about who we are but what interests we endeavor to represent. The NCUC only concerns themselves with registrants. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 12:57:10 AM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective Evan, I had the same understanding of the NCSG/NCUC. If they are in the GNSO, it’s because they are registrant. But unfortunately, the situation changed and now, they accept individuals and organizations with no relation with the gTLDs. They now define themselves as representing the civil society, and all non commercial users. On the other hand, a lot of our members are also NCUC members, what I raised in the past explaining that this is not fair because they influence the decision making from 2 entries.I asked that at least, someone with a position in one of the 2 constituencies (ALAC and NCUC) can’t be at the same time a member of the other constituency. But I wasn’t heard. I’m registrant, and so are several of the ALAC community members, and I have never been member of the NCUC. Do you mean I have to migrate there because I have a domain name? Have a nice day Tijani Le 8 août 2019 à 17:45, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> a écrit : On Wed., Aug. 7, 2019, 10:32 a.m. Alexander Schubert, <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: We should distinguish between two groups of “Individual Internet users". Obviously we are looking at the DNS and it’s use, right? I see these two groups: 1. The person who is using the DNS to navigate the Internet. That is: Visiting Internet domain names in order to reach websites or sending and receiving emails (among other use cases). Yes, that is ALAC’s mandate 2. The registrants of domain names (insofar they utilize them for personal use) There is an entire HALF of the GNSO, the non-contracted-party half, created explicitly to represent their interests. Indeed, that half of the GNSO is further subdivided into commercial and non-commercial groups. I for example use alexander.berlin and alexander.lv<http://alexander.lv/> as my virtual personal “calling cards”. I do not use them in any commercial activity. My needs and concerns (as Individual) about the governing of .berlin should be focus of ALAC in that respect. The NCSG (and specifically NCUC) was made just for you. NCUC even has "non commercial user" in its name! Unlike ALAC it has voting rights in the body that can compel the ICANN Board. (And Alexander, as a long time ICANN insider and former gTLD applicant, surely you must be aware of all that.) Why do you consider yourself entitled to influencing ICANN policy through two different vectors? The non registrant end-user has ALAC alone. You may have a problem with how well NCUC serves your needs as a registrant. But that's not ALAC's problem to solve, it has enough of its own 🙂. - Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto: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._______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs _______________________________________________ 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. Tijani BEN JEMAA Tijani BEN JEMAA

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 01:25, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote: Jonathan, the NCUC accepts members registrant or not.

Not according to the NCUC Bylaws <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/revised-bylaws-ncuc-17oct17-en.pdf> . Bylaw III.A.3 indicates that membership criteria requires that *"The organization is the exclusive user of at least one domain name*".

On the other hand, I’m a registrant (who is not on ALAC) and I have never been member of NCUC; Shall I go there?

If you want to asset your rights as a registrant, yes. For instance, the NCUC is involved with registrant privacy to an extent that ALAC is not. Another interesting tidbit. Bylaw G.2 sais that one of its individual members "is not represented in ICANN personally or by his or her employer through membership in another Advisory Committee or Supporting Organization and their stakeholder groups". So one cannot be a member of both ALAC and NCUC. This means, Tijani, that if you wanted to assert your rights as a registrant, you're supposed to leave ALAC and join NCUC. - Evan

Dear Tijani, On 09/08/2019 09:57, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

On the other hand, a lot of our members are also NCUC members, what I raised in the past explaining that this is not fair because they influence the decision making from 2 entries.I asked that at least, someone with a position in one of the 2 constituencies (ALAC and NCUC) can’t be at the same time a member of the other constituency. But I wasn’t heard.

I must admit that I have real trouble understanding your position. It appears that you are not happy that our members have more influence in ICANN because they are able to contribute in more than one constituency? I would have thought that having more influence is exactly what we would like end users to have. Or perhaps we'd like less influence and be dragged in stupid turf wars. Divide and conquer to waste out times. Kindest regards, Olivier

Dear Tijani, of course others are trying to influence our decisions and have more influence. But the At-Large Community are not just sitting ducks. We as a group are a formidable force that can also influence others. So as much as At-Large is influenced by people participating from other communities, these people are also influencing these other communities from the discussions we are having here. The problem I have is when someone accuses the other community of trying to take it over - to "capture" it. The numbers are such that it is unlikely that this could ever happen - just accusing another community of trying to take you over is a way to avoid looking at one's own shortcomings. And my view about the Empowered Community is that it's like a nuclear button. Press it and we all die, including ICANN. We've designed this in order to make sure ICANN doesn't end up "going rogue", only our definition of "going rogue" is different, so either we'll never agree with each other to press the button(s), or we will and then... boom! the multi-stakeholder party's over for everyone. Kindest regards, Olivier On 10/08/2019 18:52, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

Olivier, Why don’t you say that the others are trying to influence our decision and have more influence? With the Empowered Community, its 5 components have one vote each, and influencing the decision in 2 of them by the same person is just unfair. But you have to explain me how this may drag us in stupid turf wars. Divide and conquer to waste out times????????  For your information, I’m one of those who have always tried to build trust with the other constituencies.

Tijani

...

Le 10 août 2019 à 12:05, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> a écrit :

Dear Tijani,

On 09/08/2019 09:57, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

...

On the other hand, a lot of our members are also NCUC members, what I raised in the past explaining that this is not fair because they influence the decision making from 2 entries.I asked that at least, someone with a position in one of the 2 constituencies (ALAC and NCUC) can’t be at the same time a member of the other constituency. But I wasn’t heard.

I must admit that I have real trouble understanding your position. It appears that you are not happy that our members have more influence in ICANN because they are able to contribute in more than one constituency? I would have thought that having more influence is exactly what we would like end users to have. Or perhaps we'd like less influence and be dragged in stupid turf wars. Divide and conquer to waste out times. Kindest regards,

Olivier

Tijani BEN JEMAA  

Absolutely Alan. And that’s why our conclusion of the discussion I initiated on that matter at the ALAC level was that we should avoid having people with responsibility on 2 groups simultaneously. But unfortunately, this wasn’t implemented.

Le 10 août 2019 à 23:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :

Tijani, there is a difference between being a member and "influencing decisions", we should not conflate them, We could allow multiple membership with the proviso that you cannot vote in multiple groups. That is how other parts of ICANN have addressed this.

Or we could outlaw multiple memberships. To do that, and at exactly what level do we make the distinction, is something that we could do as we embark on a revision of membership rules for both ALSes and unaffiliated members.

Alan

At 10/08/2019 12:52 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

...

Olivier, Why don’t you say that the others are trying to influence our decision and have more influence? With the Empowered Community, its 5 components have one vote each, and influencing the decision in 2 of them by the same person is just unfair. But you have to explain me how this may drag us in stupid turf wars. Divide and conquer to waste out times???????? For your information, I’m one of those who have always tried to build trust with the other constituencies.

Tijani

...

Le 10 août 2019 à 12:05, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> a écrit :

Dear Tijani,

On 09/08/2019 09:57, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

...

On the other hand, a lot of our members are also NCUC members, what I raised in the past explaining that this is not fair because they influence the decision making from 2 entries.I asked that at least, someone with a position in one of the 2 constituencies (ALAC and NCUC) can’t be at the same time a member of the other constituency. But I wasn’t heard.

I must admit that I have real trouble understanding your position. It appears that you are not happy that our members have more influence in ICANN because they are able to contribute in more than one constituency? I would have thought that having more influence is exactly what we would like end users to have. Or perhaps we'd like less influence and be dragged in stupid turf wars. Divide and conquer to waste out times. Kindest regards,

Olivier

Tijani BEN JEMAA

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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. _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>

_______________________________________________ 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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.

Tijani BEN JEMAA