I’ll ask From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 11:07 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Meeting Details - Today: The Future of .ORG: Community Engagement' Webinar Folks, I will be unable to make the call later today, but I strongly believe that there is one question that has to be asked to Ethos - that is the one I have asked yesterday to PIR but did not get an answer to. The PIR Board selection process is of the paramount importance. Up to now, this was done by the ISOC Trustees, and we were guaranteed that at least the PIR Directors were committees to the ISOC values and shared a vision. This is no longer true, as I assume that Ethos will appoint the future PIR Directors. What is the mechanism that we can design in order to ensure that the profiles of (at least part of) the PIR Board is sensitive to the problems and culture of the non-profit and non-commercial world? Please consider asking this question in my absence - if you feel that this is an issue. Cheers, Roberto On 27.02.2020, at 11:37, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Further to yesterday's CPWG discussion related to ISOC/PIR, please see details regarding the webinar to take place later today: On Thursday, February 27 2020, from 15:00–16:00 EST (20:00–21:00 UTC), the Public Interest Registry (PIR), Ethos Capital, and the Internet Society (ISOC) invite you to a webinar 'The Future of .ORG: Community Engagement'. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions during the Q&A portion. 

INFO: https://www.keypointsabout.org/events

 LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety/orgcommunity (open captions)

 PARTICIPATE IN CALL: https://pir.zoom.us/j/360446736 (closed captions) https://pir.org<https://pir.org/>
 https://internetsociety.org<https://internetsociety.org/> 
https://ethoscapital.com<https://ethoscapital.com/> Best, Evin _______________________________________________ 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.

As best I could tell, he was saying that with the additional money they could create new (unspecified) services for registrants.  Or maybe for end users.  But what those might be was left entirely to our imaginations.   I get the impression that the existence of such new products and services is an article of faith in the venture capital world.  Sometimes, they turn out to be correct.  Bill Jouris On Thursday, February 27, 2020, 12:49:34 PM PST, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com> wrote: I'm listening to the presentation now.  Did anyone understand the answer to the question about how end users benefit from the Ethos/PIR transaction?  The PIR CEO gave an answer which confused me. He said the benefit has something to do with how improving the .ORG brand will improve the brand of registrants? or end users? Can someone help me understand what he said, and how it relates to an identifiable benefit to end users? Thanks,David On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:14 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: I’ll ask   From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 11:07 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Meeting Details - Today: The Future of .ORG: Community Engagement' Webinar   Folks, I will be unable to make the call later today, but I strongly believe that there is one question that has to be asked to Ethos - that is the one I have asked yesterday to PIR but did not get an answer to. The PIR Board selection process is of the paramount importance. Up to now, this was done by the ISOC Trustees, and we were guaranteed that at least the PIR Directors were committees to the ISOC values and shared a vision. This is no longer true, as I assume that Ethos will appoint the future PIR Directors. What is the mechanism that we can design in order to ensure that the profiles of (at least part of) the PIR Board is sensitive to the problems and culture of the non-profit and non-commercial world? Please consider asking this question in my absence - if you feel that this is an issue. Cheers, Roberto   On 27.02.2020, at 11:37, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> wrote:   Dear All,   Further to yesterday's CPWG discussion related to ISOC/PIR, please see details regarding the webinar to take place later today:   On Thursday, February 27 2020, from 15:00–16:00 EST (20:00–21:00 UTC), the Public Interest Registry (PIR), Ethos Capital, and the Internet Society (ISOC) invite you to a webinar 'The Future of .ORG: Community Engagement'.    Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions during the Q&A portion.   

INFO: https://www.keypointsabout.org/events

 LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety/orgcommunity (open captions)

 PARTICIPATE IN CALL: https://pir.zoom.us/j/360446736 (closed captions)   https://pir.org
 https://internetsociety.org 
https://ethoscapital.com   Best, Evin _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.

Hi all. Sorry for having missed the call. Tomorrow I will have some time to listen to the recording - I assume that one will be available. Let me try to provide an answer to Bill and David. When I was on the PIR Board, we had often discussions about how to innovate, create new services, or even hedging against a slow down of the domain name market. We did indeed try a few things, like launching new TLDs with a different business model, like .NGO/.ONG, or address what we thought was an undersized community launching IDN TLDs, or owning an ICANN accredited registrar. However, we always had to convince ISOC, the father company, that it was a better idea to spend money in investments rather than to provide more money to ISOC for their activities. What, probably - but as I said I did not attend the call, so it is just a guess - Jon and Ethos argued is that an investment fund would give more leeway to PIR for managing its business. However, the paranoiac in me suggests that Ethos will keep a similar - if not stronger - grip on PIR, because it all has to be done in a way to maximise the profits of the investors, that will be the new owners. This said, I believe that PIR as such will indeed become more profitable, but with other means, for instance with a full vertical integration, or by having profitability rather than ethical behaviour as a guiding principle. Whether this will be at the advantage of the registrants - or the Internet users at large - remains to be seen. Cheers, Roberto On 28.02.2020, at 01:32, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@gmail.com>> wrote: Bill, Yes, sometimes the venture capital world produces fantastic value, but it doesn't come without adding risk, as mentioned by the Ethos CEO today. I'm open to anyone here explaining how this transaction benefits end users. After this call, from an end user perspective, I've still not heard of any identifiable benefit to an end user, and yet, there seems to be added financial risk. Cheers! David On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 7:03 PM Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com<mailto:b_jouris@yahoo.com>> wrote: As best I could tell, he was saying that with the additional money they could create new (unspecified) services for registrants. Or maybe for end users. But what those might be was left entirely to our imaginations. I get the impression that the existence of such new products and services is an article of faith in the venture capital world. Sometimes, they turn out to be correct. Bill Jouris On Thursday, February 27, 2020, 12:49:34 PM PST, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm listening to the presentation now. Did anyone understand the answer to the question about how end users benefit from the Ethos/PIR transaction? The PIR CEO gave an answer which confused me. He said the benefit has something to do with how improving the .ORG brand will improve the brand of registrants? or end users? Can someone help me understand what he said, and how it relates to an identifiable benefit to end users? Thanks, David On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:14 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: I’ll ask From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com<mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>> Date: Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 11:07 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Meeting Details - Today: The Future of .ORG: Community Engagement' Webinar Folks, I will be unable to make the call later today, but I strongly believe that there is one question that has to be asked to Ethos - that is the one I have asked yesterday to PIR but did not get an answer to. The PIR Board selection process is of the paramount importance. Up to now, this was done by the ISOC Trustees, and we were guaranteed that at least the PIR Directors were committees to the ISOC values and shared a vision. This is no longer true, as I assume that Ethos will appoint the future PIR Directors. What is the mechanism that we can design in order to ensure that the profiles of (at least part of) the PIR Board is sensitive to the problems and culture of the non-profit and non-commercial world? Please consider asking this question in my absence - if you feel that this is an issue. Cheers, Roberto On 27.02.2020, at 11:37, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Further to yesterday's CPWG discussion related to ISOC/PIR, please see details regarding the webinar to take place later today: On Thursday, February 27 2020, from 15:00–16:00 EST (20:00–21:00 UTC), the Public Interest Registry (PIR), Ethos Capital, and the Internet Society (ISOC) invite you to a webinar 'The Future of .ORG: Community Engagement'. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions during the Q&A portion. 

INFO: https://www.keypointsabout.org/events

 LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety/orgcommunity (open captions)

 PARTICIPATE IN CALL: https://pir.zoom.us/j/360446736 (closed captions) https://pir.org<https://pir.org/>
 https://internetsociety.org<https://internetsociety.org/> 
https://ethoscapital.com<https://ethoscapital.com/> Best, Evin _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 04:35, Wolfgang Kleinwächter < wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info> wrote:

One of the arguments for new gTLDs - ten years ago - was that it will trigger a new wave of innnovation. With new options, creativity will be stimulated and new services and applications will emerge.

Some of us knew that this was BS all along, but too many people bought into the promises of unicorns and wish-fulfillment peddled by the domain industry. "Innovation" is such a wonderful buzzword that it blinds people to the fact that the DNS is infrastructure. It's a natural commodity, like the electrical grid or highway signage. The domain industry promised that if we let them control the plumbing that they would invent better toilets. What amazes me to this day is how many intelligent and well-meaning people fell for it. But what happened? One of the personal frustrtations I have - looking

backwards - is that the new gTLD program with all its new (and great) diversity has delivered so far mainly just "more of the same" with the high risk of the emergence of new "oligopols".

That you could not see this from the outset is on you. Way back at ATLAS 1 in Mexico (2009), aspiring domain applicants described to us in detail how they would be able to game the system, and exploit rules that assumed fair play and shared interest. Some of us listened, the decision-makers did not because the exploiters were well funded and could dominate every conversation. I grant that some of the gaming methods were highly innovative, but not in any way that benefited anyone outside the domain industry. Where are the creative disruptions which open the door for new services,

applications, markets in the DNS? On the one hand, the issue of "personal idendity" is obviously a problem for the next generation of Internet users, that is the teenagers of tomorrow. But the teenagers and twens of today do not link the "issue of idendity" to the option of an own personal domainname. For them - even if they have a growing mistrust into the established social networks - to have a facebook, Instagram or TikTok account is much more convenient and they do not understand the opportunities of a personal domainname. Creators and innovators of all countries in the DNS, hear the wake up call!!!

Your analysis is deeply flawed. Society today is fully aware of the need for identity on the Internet, from the biggest company with an Instagram presence to the 12-year-old with her own monatised YouTube channel. They have evaluated the opportunities and come to the correct conclusion that "memorable" domain names are an inferior way to establish that identity. And innovators have certainly stepped up to create and support better paths. We are not in the world of Lycos and Altavista anymore, now browsers merge AI-assisted web search and type-a-URL into a single bar. Social media home pages are free and domain names are legacy tech. You want to find "Joe's Pizza" in your neighbourhood? What's easier? Trying to remember the particular URL of the one near you, or just typing (or saying) "*Joe's Pizza near me*" into the browser? Want to find a generic business by name? What's easier? Just doing a search? Or trying to guess what domain name the business uses because the most natural one they wanted is squatted by a domainer? (And we're not even beginning to talk about the impact of mobile apps or QR codes in countries with non-Latin scripts.) ICANN has shamefully targeted every person in the world as just a registrant who hasn't been sold yet. This philosophy, advanced by those who would profit from such a mindset, exists throughout ICANN, no other worldview has even been given a proper hearing. As a result, ICANN and the DNS have been oblivious to the world catching on to the scheme/scam and moving on without it. Memorable domain names still have value, but then so does MS-Windows, another legacy tech with is endured and tolerated but never loved. *YOU* are the one who needs the wake up call. There was NEVER any value in personal domain names beyond vanity and defensive registration. Sorry to lay this on so thick. But I am staggered to see in 2020 that anyone is surprised by the public rejection of domain names as a way to find what it wants on the Internet, and even more staggered to see a view that faults the public for doing so. This view is all-too-common in ICANN, and based on fantasy that never ever existed. There is incredible innovation out there, but it is happening outside the world of the DNS. The better toilets will never come. - Evan

On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 06:06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter < wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info> wrote:

1. Yes, DNS is an infrastructure, like electrical grid. But it is also an enabling technology which is operating in a dynamic environment.

All infrastructure is enabling technology. But is it noteworthy that elsewhere the providers of infrastructure are never the same ones who provide the enabling technology. Airports don't build airplanes, the power utility doesn't make LED bulbs. Yet in DNS space the same industry promises to do it all, the infrastructure and the enabling technology on top. You have already noted that you have been waiting in vain for the domain industry to deliver the enabling innovations. By giving registries and registrars full control of everything in this space the innovation has been forced outside the DNS. There is no shortage of innovation but it's not happening here. In a world where searches can be informed by GPS and context-aware, where social media can be ubiquitous or niche, who needs memorable domain names? Sure, search results can be accompanied by ads, but the ads are marked and as a result searches are more trustworthy. Search "cars" and you'll get a listing of various things to do with cars, including manufacturers, dealers, repair shops and even the Pixar movie. Search cars.com and you'll get a single vendor, whoever was fastest or richest to claim it. Same with cars.anyotherTLD, subject to some ccTLDs' residency requirements.

One of the differences between the industrial society and information society is that the "chain" of delivery becomes a "circle" of delivery which produces feedback.

No, it's always been a circle -- even the oldest manufacturer would go out of business if they didn't listen to their customers. What's changed is the speed and sophistication of the feedback, but it's always been a circle. (And the circle analogy is not universal. Debates between the waterfall and agile schools of project management persist, even in IT.)

With other words, the plumber, with all his/her experiences and knowledge, can contribute to the invention of better toilets if he/she takes the feedback from the "end user" seriously. With other words - in the ICANN context - it is one of the responsibilities of the At Large Community as representative of the "end user" to push the "plumber" to contribute to the invention of better toilets.

You raise an interesting point. Throughout the public-facing Internet, end-user feedback is built-in. Online reviews, surveys and gamification have all succeeded to give voice and incentivize volunteers reviewers. Compare this to ALAC, which has been designed to fail from the start, When has it ever been resourced with the tools to enable it to know what global end-users want from ICANN? The expectation that 25 part-timers -- many of whom are here because of political expertise rather than subject-matter expertise -- are going to have an adequate voice in an environment dominates by fulltime lawyers and lobbyists is simply more baseless wishful thinking. And any time At-Large DOES come up with a cogent point we're challenged with the "who the hell are you?" retort. Yes, I would agree that the way that the non-ICANN world solicits end-user feedback, in order to improve itself and innovate, is very very different from how ICANN does it. Unfortunately the comparison does not work in your favour. 2. Domainnames are identifiers. I remember the arguments from the 1980s

that domainnames give IP numbers a "human face", easy to find, easy to remember, easy to understand.

In the 1980s that was a reasonable viewpoint. There was no such thing as the Web and my choices for sending email were Compuserve or UUCP. But the Internet has come, yet that same old philosophy drives domain-name development. That's what I means when I say that domain names are a legacy technology. Thank you for helping me make that point Insofar, a domainname has something to do with "identity".

Yes, but ICANN destroyed the value in that when it determined that this "identity" could and should be commoditized. It re-invented the global trademark regime (the world's existing path to establishing commercial identity) with something new that was designed to maximize revenue rather than serve the identity holders. In trademark regime you lose rights to an identity by not using it. In DNS regime you lose rights to an identity by not continuing to pay for it. That simple difference has had profound negative effect. From the very beginning domain names were known to all as something that extracted value from the Internet rather than adding value to it. So as soon as viable alternatives to domain names were invented (such as algorithm-based search engines) both end-users and service providers flocked to the alternatives. Domain names are now mainly necessary primarily as a defensive tool so your competitor can't buy the rights to your name (something not allowed in trademark as a core feature). Heck, one of the better-known DNS-related innovations was created to *reduce* dependence on "easy to remember" domain names -- the URL-shortener service. For businesses, a domainname today is mainly a marketing tool.

When the Consumer Trust RT was in formation, I tried repeatedly to make the case that ICANN's main metric of competition was not between the registries, but between ALL registries and non-DNS methods for users to get to Internet services. The industry pushed back at that and to this day I don't think there's every been an accurate assessment of global trust and value of domain names compared to search engines, social media landing pages, QR codes, etc etc. I don't think the domain industry really wants the public to know the answer. And you are right, for an individual searching for something, there are

"easier" options than to use the DNS. But isn´t this the point? The DNS registries and registrars did not understand the real needs of the registrants and missed the train.

There was no train to be missed. The domain industry tried to create a product with near zero demand, and the rest of ICANN bought into the fantasy that it was a thing. No innovative services and applications by the industry and no conceptual

innovations by the registrants/end-users/ALAC in the last two decades.

I really need to restrain myself from saying something I'll be sorry for. Blaming ALAC for the arrogance of the industry, the lack of innovation and the corruption of ICANN is a truly disgusting accusation. The rest of the Internet did not need to assemble 25 people in a room three times a year to develop innovative alternatives. The At-Large system was designed as a smokescreen to hide ICANN's lack of public accountability after it eliminated direct public voting for the Board. its victories, though quite real, have been minor and tactical. We never got to challenge ICANN's core tenet of "identity is commodity" and we still can't. But the ultimate loss is on ICANN and the DNS; by ICANN's crippling At-Large, it hurt its own ability to be publicly responsive. Short term gain, long term pain. Also: in ICANN world the users are the registrants, the non-contracted half of GNSO, the community that actually pays for domain names. Where is your scorn on *them* for not innovating? Unlike ALAC, they actually have some political power within ICANN since the GNSO can compel the Board. The reality of today is that end users give all their data to much bigger

corporations, ignoring that a personal domainname in a decentralized DNS would them give a higher level of self-determination.

Especially after this discussion has pointed out the multiple fallacies of that assertion, that you still make the case for personal domains leads me to think that this is an issue of faith not logic. You're unwilling or unable to cope with the awareness that you were sold a fantasy and still pray for it. But people are not as stupid as you think they are. They know they're giving up privacy but STILL think that a better bargain than depending on he DNS for anything. There is no user-focused innovation "coming back" to the DNS because there was never any there in the first place. Stop blaming the public. Stop blaming ALAC. The error is yours in believing the domain industry religion. Own up to it. - Evan

On Sun, 1 Mar 2020 at 05:02, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:

...

On Mar 1, 2020, at 12:50 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote: All infrastructure is enabling technology. But is it noteworthy that elsewhere the providers of infrastructure are never the same ones who provide the enabling technology. Airports don't build airplanes, the power utility doesn't make LED bulbs. Yet in DNS space the same industry promises to do it all, the infrastructure and the enabling technology on top.

That may be over-simplifying, in two ways… First of all, not all of the DNS industry is vertically-integrated. There’s registry/registrar separation, most of the large DNS operators aren’t also registries or registry services providers, etc. Second, your definition of the “DNS industry” may be tautological, in the same way that you could include both airports and turbine manufacture within the “aviation industry.”

Allow me to be more specific. I consider the domain industry to be the current components of the GNSO -- the compact of domain buyers and domain sellers whos demands can compel the ICANN Board. While many domain buyers (registrants) are actual users who implement domains as places where the public can find them, a great many more are domain speculators -- another awful, value extracting consequence of the "identity is commodity" core philosophy. Generally speaking, the registries are the creators of the resources (leased at the top level from ICANN) and the registrars are their agents/resellers. I'm not sure how the separation of producer and reseller is germane to my comment on the core issues. Agreed. Perhaps more generally, ICANN has become captured by a stagnant

industry, in very much the same way that the FCC has become captured by a stagnant telco oligopoly, and the fig-leaf nature of the ALAC is one symptom of that.

Your use of "perhaps" made me smile. Such optimism. I believe the larger problem is unfortunate but not irreversible.

It's not reversible without disruptive top-down change in ICANN, and its vested interests will never let that happen. The countries of the world may one day tire of ICANN's shenanigans and choose to create a treaty organization to replace ICANN's function, reversing the governance so that the public interest guides the decision-making and industry plays an advisory role. But that will take time.

...

The At-Large system was designed as a smokescreen to hide ICANN's lack of public accountability after it eliminated direct public voting for the Board.

ICANN completely blowing off the “Empowered Community” oversight is an even more blatant example of this trend.

The design and composition of the RC is an even bigger example than its being blown off. Cheers, -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56