Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Towards a comment on evolving the multistakeholder model at ICANN
Evan that is not at all what I said. We are under no obligation to comply and in fact we should not if there is a general feeling that this is a useless exercise. I personally think that it is useful. As much as I believe that we need some structural change, I do not believe that will happen in the short term and this work may well help, and as I said, may reverse other things that could make matters worse. That is purely my opinion. You are right that we can say whatever we wish whenever we wish. I personally think that advice we give should be useful and implementable, but perhaps that is just me. But doing that does not preclude also working on shorter term measures. You know how well your white paper was received. But it is a very different ICANN and specifically ICANN Board now. That means parts of the organization might be more receptive now. But let's not pretend that if we come charging in on our (proverbial) white horse, the rest of the organization will all quickly support it - that is a far more difficult challenge than just writing a paper. Alan At 21/05/2019 06:50 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: Hi Alan, Marita, and the WG. Evan, as much as some people (and I count myself among them) feel that the overall ICANN model needs to be changed to address the types of issues you list in your bullet points below, that is not what this exercise is about. This sentiment infuriates me. "We all know that we really need A but they're telling us they want B so we must comply". WHY? What prevents ALAC from actually expressing your accurate instinct, that all this tweaking and searching for inefficiencies is a diversion from what really matters? If you and others agree that the ICANN model needs to be changed, who has stolen your voice to say that? Exactly what objectives of our mandate do we serve through such self-censorship? Playing the game of the status quo maintainers simply validates their power and confirms they can screw over the public interest with impunity, not even a quiet reprimand. Heaven knows accountability elsewhere is in short supply. I remind, once again, that ALAC is empowered by the ICANN bylaws to advise the board about any issue at any time intended to benefit end-users. We are indeed less constrained than the GNSO in scope. There is nothing ever binding us to react to the initiatives of the those working against the public interest, except our own timidity. Perhaps one day it will occur to ALAC that we are not, and never were, obligated to follow an agenda that repeatedly and consistently harms our cause. We've tried so far and have regressed as a result. Even the little victories such as domain tasting are a distant memory. WHAT ARE WE SCARED OF? Why not at least try -- even as an experiment -- to establish the priorities of end user interests and assert them? That's why ALAC exists. ICANN staff and the domain compact can't possibly ignore us more than they do now (beyond diplomatic patronizing), and we might just gain some respect for having discovered a backbone and the voice we were elected and funded to provide. Everyone reading this email involved in At-Large, please ask yourself: Is this what ALAC exists to do -- identify inefficiencies and tweak ICANN around the edges, because that's what staff and the domain compact want us to do? Is this what the massive cost to ICANN, the substantial infrastructure, and most importantly the cost of your own time and money to participate, is for? We're better than this, and we need to show it. Maybe, just maybe, the next time ICANN's bell rings instead of salivating we should consider growling. If we can't speak truth to power, who within ICANN will? - Evan
On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 19:44, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
We are under no obligation to comply and in fact we should not if there is a general feeling that this is a useless exercise.
Before committing volunteer and staff time to track this, please offer (beyond wishful thinking) evidence that this exercise will serve the ALAC mandate and make ICANN more responsive to the needs of end users. Aren't you tired of all these dead ends? You are right that we can say whatever we wish whenever we wish. I
personally think that advice we give should be useful and implementable
And here is where the self-censorship begins. We pre-suppose what the rest of ICANN will judge to be useful and implementable and restrict our comments to that. Why don't we trust ourselves to determine what is useful and implementable? All of what I have spoken of is "implementable", but it will be derided by the status quo. So we limit ourselves only to ask for what would already be given, never testing boundaries or challenging conventional wisdom. Funny, those fears never seem to strike those within ICANN who work against the public interest. When one side of a conflict is willing to die for a cause and the other is willing to kill for its cause, the outcome is easy to determine. You know how well your white paper was received. But it is a very different
ICANN and specifically ICANN Board now.
Sorry, but "it's a new ICANN" is trotted out every time some high profile Board members swap out, or a new CEO comes in. While newcomers may be swayed by it, this rationale can't fly with anyone possessing any historical context. All that I have seen changed is the extent to which various Board members indulge our fantasies of being heard. I think I prefer to the ones who are transparently hostile to those who wait for closed meetings to abandon us. Sure we have occasionally had some good friends on the Board along the way, not to mention the ones we elect, and behind closed doors our views are likely well conveyed. But to take the Board by its actual deeds rather than its individual allies, truly little has changed over the years. And I remind that the Board is bound by GNSO consensus policy, in which instances the common ground of some Board members is irrelevant. That means parts of the organization might be more receptive now.
There's Lucy with the football. She promises this time it'll be different. But let's not pretend that if we come charging in on our (proverbial) white
horse, the rest of the organization will all quickly support it - that is a far more difficult challenge than just writing a paper.
And here we have our really fundamental difference and IMO the reason we get nothing accomplished. 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. As I've said before, I don't think ICANN is any more capable of reforming itself purely from the inside, it is way too corrupt for that. If ALAC takes a principled and researched stance, it will definitely be rebuked and probably even ridiculed by the existing status quo. It may even lead to some shunning and reduced access to those in power because they don't like our message. We'll certainly get fewer invitations to the closed industry parties at ICANN meetings, But that doesn't mean our message is wrong, we might just be targeting the wrong audiences. ALAC, at its best, has the capability to mediate (or at least significantly participate in) a difficult but necessary global conversation to discover a user-centered path that is neither the industry capture of the current ICANN nor the totalitarian government capture proposed by the ITU. But so long as ALAC is content with bikeshedding, that's all we'll get. - Evan
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
Hi Olivier,
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?
This goes to the heart of one of my original bullet points: ICANN's core corruption is its financial dependence on the very industry it exists to regulate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hoversee. It is not the governance or technical consequence of a GNSO "civil war" that so terrifies ICANN as much as the possibility its revenue would implode. I vividly recall during my days in ALAC a presentation made by ICANN corporate counsel to us at one of the meetings, describing the Board structure and duties. One point that stuck with me to this day was that Directors are expected to uphold a fiduciary duty to ICANN itself. This is staggeringly different from conventional Boards who have such duty to shareholders, or normal nonprofits whose fiduciary duty is to a defined external community or the public interest. In ICANN such duty is solely to the institution itself, barring Directors from acting in a way that might diminish ICANN even should that act serve the community or public interest. This is a radical difference from other nonprofits who exist to serve the greater good. ICANN literally exists only to serve itself, a reality that petrified once the last external accountability -- US government oversight -- was eliminated. I never participated in the "IANA transition" work because I knew than nothing positive could possibly come from it given its scope. The bubble is now completely self-contained, So we now have ICANN completely dependent on the compact between domain sellers and buyers -- the two halves of the GNSO and the bulk of the "Empowered Community" that IIRC now has the power to unseat Directors. Disruption of that compact would indeed affect ICANN's revenue stability and thus its Board is legally obligated to prevent it. Relentless industry lobbying doesn't hurt. 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.
I agree. Change will be from the outside, it will probably be catastrophic (from an ICANN context), and it will come from an unexpected source. The ITU keeps painting itself as the alternative and occasionally makes a push, but its own capture by authoritarian states diminishes its consideration as a competing model. I have forever hoped that a body such as the IGF or ISOC might be the place where smart people would come together to solve this, but these options have been stuck at "potential" for more than a decade. Is there still hope here? For this reason, I am advancing the notion that ALAC be proactive in seeking partners, allies and other audiences for its principled messages *outside ICANN*. Media, NGOs, governments, W3C, anyone who's had enough but is more scared of the ITU than of ICANN. This is why ALAC's outreach has for a log time been totally backwards IMO, We don't need more outside involvement with ALAC, we need more ALAC involvement with the outside -- *our mandated constituency*. Yes, we are primarily mandated to provide ICANN with advice, but let's have that advice meaningful, honest and relevant to end users. And let's make sure it's public -- so that if ICANN doesn't take our advice, maybe someone else will. Cheers, - Evan
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond