A high-level tangent inspired by the current discussion: A casual reader might look at this thread and come to an observation that there are two separate issues being discussed, that may not have much to do with each other. The conversation that Mike, Steinar, Olivier and others are having concern details -- contract language, specifics about volumes and dollar amounts and assignment of responsibilities. Meanwhile, I have barged in -- surely unwelcome by some -- to challenge the very premises upon which ALAC's participation is being conducted. I have done this because, in my observation, ALAC lacks -- and has always lacked -- an overarching set of objectives upon which to base strategy and ultimately tactics. We engage in the minutiae of contract language (etc) without clarity of what ALAC -- and what the constituency it is mandated to speak for -- wants from the end result of such engagement. *Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without
strategy is the noise before defeat -- Sun Tzu *
While I was involved deeply in At-Large I would note that any internal attempt to create a coherent statement of purpose would be invariably torpedoed by people insisting that we engage in a never-ending attempt to define the "public interest". As a result, all attempts inevitably sank in the bureaucratic mud. Two separate third-party ICANN reviews of At-Large seemed to wholly overlook the lack of overarching purpose and mandate service while themselves dwelling on the minutiae. It's probably best that we don't depend on outside consultants to define our purpose, but why can't we do it ourselves? WIthout a clear mission, ALAC has weighed in on many issues in which non-registrant end users have no stake at all. Take vertical integration. End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain. Even domain consumers -- technically outside our remit but closest to end-users in the ICANN food chain -- could hardly care less if they bought their domain from a registrar or directly from a registry. And yet there we were at the virtual table, as if our constituency has a crucial stake in that topic's outcome. Think of how many parts of the current ALAC agenda fit the same description. Meanwhile, on high-profile issues that WOULD affect end-users, such as the delegation of .XXX and the attempted private takeover of .ORG, we were silent. Such choices of action and inaction clearly telegraph -- throughout ICANN and the world around us -- a lack of both purpose and focus. This glaring deficiency continues to retard ALAC's agency within the rest of the ICANN community. Over the years I have received many private emails insisting that ALAC has more respect now than it did in the past and that it is invited to the policy table more often. To me this is tokenism. I'll be more persuaded that At-Large has the respect of ICANN when we get that second Board seat that was recommended and promised so long ago. Until then, or until a policy we want that is opposed by the domain industry is implemented, I will maintain that ALAC is being pandered to. We are tolerated in working groups so long as we make little line-item corrections and don't challenge their very premises or the ability of contracted parties to maximize revenue. We have the authority to talk directly to the Board, yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in the world can. We respond to the actions of others, we never initiate or try to set the agenda. One of the last such initiatives by At-Large, a white paper of which I was a co-author, was received with a smile and summarily binned; not a single response was returned from staff or the community. Maybe the cosmetics have changed in the last 15 years but the underlying politics certainly have not. While the status quo is obviously sustainable -- so long as ALAC members get funded to pretend they're the UNSC at a cavernous U-shaped table three times a year and learn how to play the insider games -- it doesn't do anything to serve At-Large's bylaw mandate. The inmates will continue to run the asylum, because the only entity really capable of making them accountable to the world-at-large is just fine with being tolerated. - Evan
Evan, Thank you and to those of you who have given us a variety of multi-perspective insights recently. I agree with you on the need for a discussion to clarify the ALAC mission. We can continue to rely on a few words from by-laws written in the distant past and different interpretations, or we can try to build and clarify what has been learned since the time when the words were written. I’d hope that a new written document would be used to capture the discussion and results, if consensus can be reached. This may or may not involve consultants to help manage the conversation, but consultants should only be used to facilitate the process, There is much wisdom in our community already. We do not need consultants to independently add perspectives which don’t originate from the At-Large community itself. I also think the value of a written document is that it will be easier for new participants At-Large participants to understand how past ALAC institutional debates effect the present without them having to learn by laboriously studying ALAC/ICANN history and slowly getting random tidbits of wisdom from those who have personal experience with past debates An additional benefit, is that a written document can also be used to educate and interact with non-ICANN informed end users themselves. This likely means that we need to revisit what the concept of consensus means within the ALAC community. Additionally, I’d like to gently pushback and add a new perspective for how to think about end user needs. First, as a system designer and experienced software developer, I find it’s absolutely critical to build systems which prioritize end user needs. I have no argument with this mission centered goal. However, although end users' needs are a critical part of the process, end users themselves often have a very narrow view on the best way to achieve their needs. Also, they don’t always understand the necessary tradeoffs which must be taken to ensure a stable system that balances the needs of others. This is the trick of creating a good user experience design process. Understanding and adopting user experience design skills to achieve a healthy balance with At-Large institutional design can be useful to our work. Furthermore, if we allow ourselves to move beyond a narrow perspective of an end user in order to meet the goals of the At-Large mission, I think it’s important for an informed At-Large community to use a system thinking frame when looking at how to design the At-Large community. I believe the system thinking frame will help us understand and effectively represent/advocate for end users. I believe we exist within an evolving complex adaptive socio-technical system. This is a non-trivial problem. The work of institutional innovation is not done, either within the institution of At-Large or more broadly with the institution of ICANN and its interaction with the world itself. By using a transparent process we can educate end users, include/welcome end users into the discussion and eventually pass our work on to a new generation of end users who will come after us. Mike Palage said in a different thread “I have enjoyed participating in CPWG calls for years because I believe they give some of the best objective reviews of the issues being discussed within the community.”. This to me indicates we have a healthy community which adds value to the ICANN organization despite any opinions which may differ. ALAC does provide an effective public forum which doesn't exist elsewhere in ICANN. In fact, our success at building a strong and effective At-Large institution representing end users will likely bring more criticism from those who oppose the interests of end users, especially from those who oppose end users with a strong informed voice. Just a few thoughts. Thanks for listening. Cheers David On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:21 AM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
A high-level tangent inspired by the current discussion:
A casual reader might look at this thread and come to an observation that there are two separate issues being discussed, that may not have much to do with each other. The conversation that Mike, Steinar, Olivier and others are having concern details -- contract language, specifics about volumes and dollar amounts and assignment of responsibilities. Meanwhile, I have barged in -- surely unwelcome by some -- to challenge the very premises upon which ALAC's participation is being conducted.
I have done this because, in my observation, ALAC lacks -- and has always lacked -- an overarching set of objectives upon which to base strategy and ultimately tactics. We engage in the minutiae of contract language (etc) without clarity of what ALAC -- and what the constituency it is mandated to speak for -- wants from the end result of such engagement.
*Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without
strategy is the noise before defeat -- Sun Tzu *
While I was involved deeply in At-Large I would note that any internal attempt to create a coherent statement of purpose would be invariably torpedoed by people insisting that we engage in a never-ending attempt to define the "public interest". As a result, all attempts inevitably sank in the bureaucratic mud. Two separate third-party ICANN reviews of At-Large seemed to wholly overlook the lack of overarching purpose and mandate service while themselves dwelling on the minutiae. It's probably best that we don't depend on outside consultants to define our purpose, but why can't we do it ourselves?
WIthout a clear mission, ALAC has weighed in on many issues in which non-registrant end users have no stake at all. Take vertical integration. End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain. Even domain consumers -- technically outside our remit but closest to end-users in the ICANN food chain -- could hardly care less if they bought their domain from a registrar or directly from a registry. And yet there we were at the virtual table, as if our constituency has a crucial stake in that topic's outcome. Think of how many parts of the current ALAC agenda fit the same description. Meanwhile, on high-profile issues that WOULD affect end-users, such as the delegation of .XXX and the attempted private takeover of .ORG, we were silent. Such choices of action and inaction clearly telegraph -- throughout ICANN and the world around us -- a lack of both purpose and focus.
This glaring deficiency continues to retard ALAC's agency within the rest of the ICANN community. Over the years I have received many private emails insisting that ALAC has more respect now than it did in the past and that it is invited to the policy table more often. To me this is tokenism. I'll be more persuaded that At-Large has the respect of ICANN when we get that second Board seat that was recommended and promised so long ago. Until then, or until a policy we want that is opposed by the domain industry is implemented, I will maintain that ALAC is being pandered to. We are tolerated in working groups so long as we make little line-item corrections and don't challenge their very premises or the ability of contracted parties to maximize revenue. We have the authority to talk directly to the Board, yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in the world can. We respond to the actions of others, we never initiate or try to set the agenda. One of the last such initiatives by At-Large, a white paper of which I was a co-author, was received with a smile and summarily binned; not a single response was returned from staff or the community. Maybe the cosmetics have changed in the last 15 years but the underlying politics certainly have not.
While the status quo is obviously sustainable -- so long as ALAC members get funded to pretend they're the UNSC at a cavernous U-shaped table three times a year and learn how to play the insider games -- it doesn't do anything to serve At-Large's bylaw mandate. The inmates will continue to run the asylum, because the only entity really capable of making them accountable to the world-at-large is just fine with being tolerated.
- 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.
Hi Evan, Just a comment "yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in the world can" Public comment with the new format (After Reviewing) is more or less Yes or No questions more than an opportunity for community members to express any point of view --Bylaws Amendments and Documents to Implement the NomCom2 Review <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/bylaws-amendments-and-doc...> is a good example! Friendly regards Chokri Le mar. 29 août 2023 à 06:21, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
A high-level tangent inspired by the current discussion:
A casual reader might look at this thread and come to an observation that there are two separate issues being discussed, that may not have much to do with each other. The conversation that Mike, Steinar, Olivier and others are having concern details -- contract language, specifics about volumes and dollar amounts and assignment of responsibilities. Meanwhile, I have barged in -- surely unwelcome by some -- to challenge the very premises upon which ALAC's participation is being conducted.
I have done this because, in my observation, ALAC lacks -- and has always lacked -- an overarching set of objectives upon which to base strategy and ultimately tactics. We engage in the minutiae of contract language (etc) without clarity of what ALAC -- and what the constituency it is mandated to speak for -- wants from the end result of such engagement.
*Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without
strategy is the noise before defeat -- Sun Tzu *
While I was involved deeply in At-Large I would note that any internal attempt to create a coherent statement of purpose would be invariably torpedoed by people insisting that we engage in a never-ending attempt to define the "public interest". As a result, all attempts inevitably sank in the bureaucratic mud. Two separate third-party ICANN reviews of At-Large seemed to wholly overlook the lack of overarching purpose and mandate service while themselves dwelling on the minutiae. It's probably best that we don't depend on outside consultants to define our purpose, but why can't we do it ourselves?
WIthout a clear mission, ALAC has weighed in on many issues in which non-registrant end users have no stake at all. Take vertical integration. End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain. Even domain consumers -- technically outside our remit but closest to end-users in the ICANN food chain -- could hardly care less if they bought their domain from a registrar or directly from a registry. And yet there we were at the virtual table, as if our constituency has a crucial stake in that topic's outcome. Think of how many parts of the current ALAC agenda fit the same description. Meanwhile, on high-profile issues that WOULD affect end-users, such as the delegation of .XXX and the attempted private takeover of .ORG, we were silent. Such choices of action and inaction clearly telegraph -- throughout ICANN and the world around us -- a lack of both purpose and focus.
This glaring deficiency continues to retard ALAC's agency within the rest of the ICANN community. Over the years I have received many private emails insisting that ALAC has more respect now than it did in the past and that it is invited to the policy table more often. To me this is tokenism. I'll be more persuaded that At-Large has the respect of ICANN when we get that second Board seat that was recommended and promised so long ago. Until then, or until a policy we want that is opposed by the domain industry is implemented, I will maintain that ALAC is being pandered to. We are tolerated in working groups so long as we make little line-item corrections and don't challenge their very premises or the ability of contracted parties to maximize revenue. We have the authority to talk directly to the Board, yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in the world can. We respond to the actions of others, we never initiate or try to set the agenda. One of the last such initiatives by At-Large, a white paper of which I was a co-author, was received with a smile and summarily binned; not a single response was returned from staff or the community. Maybe the cosmetics have changed in the last 15 years but the underlying politics certainly have not.
While the status quo is obviously sustainable -- so long as ALAC members get funded to pretend they're the UNSC at a cavernous U-shaped table three times a year and learn how to play the insider games -- it doesn't do anything to serve At-Large's bylaw mandate. The inmates will continue to run the asylum, because the only entity really capable of making them accountable to the world-at-large is just fine with being tolerated.
- 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.
Hi Everyone, Longtime listener, sometime contributor. While I am not as critical as Evan, he makes a solid point and it prompts me to intervene. ALAC strives to be a kind of public guardian for Internet users in general. For those of you unfamiliar, public guardians are legal persons who act on behalf of and in the interests of people who are unable to, often minor children and adults unable to make decisions such as those suffering from dementia. In our case, the line is not quite so extreme. *We act on behalf of users who do not wish to be involved in or are oblivious to the arcane minutiae of DNS administration and rules that is ICANN but who want the benefits of a safe and stable Internet. *When I was a NARALO ALAC member, that thought/mission was always foremost in my mind and it's what differentiates from every other constituency and council. It's not easy. Evan said:"End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain." That *might *be true. Then again, people don't care about most supply chains until the chain breaks down and then they are quite irate. Our presence is required because we want to ensure the chain does not break. Now, other constituencies and councils regularly dispute our right to do this, after all it's not like we are truly an accessible democratic institution despite our elections. Just familiarizing oneself enough to meaningfully contribute might constitute a "poll tax." Nonetheless, our mandate and legitimacy come from ICANN itself and it is incumbent upon at large participants to strive to "put on the shoes of end users" everyday before they head out to the next meeting. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:21 AM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
A high-level tangent inspired by the current discussion:
A casual reader might look at this thread and come to an observation that there are two separate issues being discussed, that may not have much to do with each other. The conversation that Mike, Steinar, Olivier and others are having concern details -- contract language, specifics about volumes and dollar amounts and assignment of responsibilities. Meanwhile, I have barged in -- surely unwelcome by some -- to challenge the very premises upon which ALAC's participation is being conducted.
I have done this because, in my observation, ALAC lacks -- and has always lacked -- an overarching set of objectives upon which to base strategy and ultimately tactics. We engage in the minutiae of contract language (etc) without clarity of what ALAC -- and what the constituency it is mandated to speak for -- wants from the end result of such engagement.
*Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without
strategy is the noise before defeat -- Sun Tzu *
While I was involved deeply in At-Large I would note that any internal attempt to create a coherent statement of purpose would be invariably torpedoed by people insisting that we engage in a never-ending attempt to define the "public interest". As a result, all attempts inevitably sank in the bureaucratic mud. Two separate third-party ICANN reviews of At-Large seemed to wholly overlook the lack of overarching purpose and mandate service while themselves dwelling on the minutiae. It's probably best that we don't depend on outside consultants to define our purpose, but why can't we do it ourselves?
WIthout a clear mission, ALAC has weighed in on many issues in which non-registrant end users have no stake at all. Take vertical integration. End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain. Even domain consumers -- technically outside our remit but closest to end-users in the ICANN food chain -- could hardly care less if they bought their domain from a registrar or directly from a registry. And yet there we were at the virtual table, as if our constituency has a crucial stake in that topic's outcome. Think of how many parts of the current ALAC agenda fit the same description. Meanwhile, on high-profile issues that WOULD affect end-users, such as the delegation of .XXX and the attempted private takeover of .ORG, we were silent. Such choices of action and inaction clearly telegraph -- throughout ICANN and the world around us -- a lack of both purpose and focus.
This glaring deficiency continues to retard ALAC's agency within the rest of the ICANN community. Over the years I have received many private emails insisting that ALAC has more respect now than it did in the past and that it is invited to the policy table more often. To me this is tokenism. I'll be more persuaded that At-Large has the respect of ICANN when we get that second Board seat that was recommended and promised so long ago. Until then, or until a policy we want that is opposed by the domain industry is implemented, I will maintain that ALAC is being pandered to. We are tolerated in working groups so long as we make little line-item corrections and don't challenge their very premises or the ability of contracted parties to maximize revenue. We have the authority to talk directly to the Board, yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in the world can. We respond to the actions of others, we never initiate or try to set the agenda. One of the last such initiatives by At-Large, a white paper of which I was a co-author, was received with a smile and summarily binned; not a single response was returned from staff or the community. Maybe the cosmetics have changed in the last 15 years but the underlying politics certainly have not.
While the status quo is obviously sustainable -- so long as ALAC members get funded to pretend they're the UNSC at a cavernous U-shaped table three times a year and learn how to play the insider games -- it doesn't do anything to serve At-Large's bylaw mandate. The inmates will continue to run the asylum, because the only entity really capable of making them accountable to the world-at-large is just fine with being tolerated.
- 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.
Rather than We act on behalf of users who do not wish to be involved in or are oblivious to the arcane minutiae of DNS administration and rules that is ICANN but who want the benefits of a safe and stable Internet. [Emphasis added] it might be more accurate to say that we (attempt to) act on behalf of users who do not even realize that ICANN, or the DNS even exists. They aren't so much oblivious to the "arcane minutiae" as unaware that they exist. It's not so much that they do not wish to be involved as that they are not aware that there is anything to be involved with. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but I would suggest that it is an important one. Bill Jouris On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 06:30:57 AM PDT, John Laprise via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: Hi Everyone, Longtime listener, sometime contributor. While I am not as critical as Evan, he makes a solid point and it prompts me to intervene. ALAC strives to be a kind of public guardian for Internet users in general. For those of you unfamiliar, public guardians are legal persons who act on behalf of and in the interests of people who are unable to, often minor children and adults unable to make decisions such as those suffering from dementia. In our case, the line is not quite so extreme. We act on behalf of users who do not wish to be involved in or are oblivious to the arcane minutiae of DNS administration and rules that is ICANN but who want the benefits of a safe and stable Internet. When I was a NARALO ALAC member, that thought/mission was always foremost in my mind and it's what differentiates from every other constituency and council. It's not easy. Evan said:"End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain." That might be true. Then again, people don't care about most supply chains until the chain breaks down and then they are quite irate. Our presence is required because we want to ensure the chain does not break. Now, other constituencies and councils regularly dispute our right to do this, after all it's not like we are truly an accessible democratic institution despite our elections. Just familiarizing oneself enough to meaningfully contribute might constitute a "poll tax." Nonetheless, our mandate and legitimacy come from ICANN itself and it is incumbent upon at large participants to strive to "put on the shoes of end users" everyday before they head out to the next meeting. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:21 AM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: A high-level tangent inspired by the current discussion: A casual reader might look at this thread and come to an observation that there are two separate issues being discussed, that may not have much to do with each other. The conversation that Mike, Steinar, Olivier and others are having concern details -- contract language, specifics about volumes and dollar amounts and assignment of responsibilities. Meanwhile, I have barged in -- surely unwelcome by some -- to challenge the very premises upon which ALAC's participation is being conducted. I have done this because, in my observation, ALAC lacks -- and has always lacked -- an overarching set of objectives upon which to base strategy and ultimately tactics. We engage in the minutiae of contract language (etc) without clarity of what ALAC -- and what the constituency it is mandated to speak for -- wants from the end result of such engagement. Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat -- Sun Tzu While I was involved deeply in At-Large I would note that any internal attempt to create a coherent statement of purpose would be invariably torpedoed by people insisting that we engage in a never-ending attempt to define the "public interest". As a result, all attempts inevitably sank in the bureaucratic mud. Two separate third-party ICANN reviews of At-Large seemed to wholly overlook the lack of overarching purpose and mandate service while themselves dwelling on the minutiae. It's probably best that we don't depend on outside consultants to define our purpose, but why can't we do it ourselves? WIthout a clear mission, ALAC has weighed in on many issues in which non-registrant end users have no stake at all. Take vertical integration. End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain. Even domain consumers -- technically outside our remit but closest to end-users in the ICANN food chain -- could hardly care less if they bought their domain from a registrar or directly from a registry. And yet there we were at the virtual table, as if our constituency has a crucial stake in that topic's outcome. Think of how many parts of the current ALAC agenda fit the same description. Meanwhile, on high-profile issues that WOULD affect end-users, such as the delegation of .XXX and the attempted private takeover of .ORG, we were silent. Such choices of action and inaction clearly telegraph -- throughout ICANN and the world around us -- a lack of both purpose and focus. This glaring deficiency continues to retard ALAC's agency within the rest of the ICANN community. Over the years I have received many private emails insisting that ALAC has more respect now than it did in the past and that it is invited to the policy table more often. To me this is tokenism. I'll be more persuaded that At-Large has the respect of ICANN when we get that second Board seat that was recommended and promised so long ago. Until then, or until a policy we want that is opposed by the domain industry is implemented, I will maintain that ALAC is being pandered to. We are tolerated in working groups so long as we make little line-item corrections and don't challenge their very premises or the ability of contracted parties to maximize revenue. We have the authority to talk directly to the Board, yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in the world can. We respond to the actions of others, we never initiate or try to set the agenda. One of the last such initiatives by At-Large, a white paper of which I was a co-author, was received with a smile and summarily binned; not a single response was returned from staff or the community. Maybe the cosmetics have changed in the last 15 years but the underlying politics certainly have not. While the status quo is obviously sustainable -- so long as ALAC members get funded to pretend they're the UNSC at a cavernous U-shaped table three times a year and learn how to play the insider games -- it doesn't do anything to serve At-Large's bylaw mandate. The inmates will continue to run the asylum, because the only entity really capable of making them accountable to the world-at-large is just fine with being tolerated. - 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
Agreed though I'd add that the vast majority of unaware end users, were they aware, would choose not to be involved. They're just not that into ICANN. :) Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 8:05 AM Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rather than
*We act on behalf of users who do not wish to be involved in or are oblivious to the arcane minutiae of DNS administration and rules that is ICANN but who want the benefits of a safe and stable Internet. *[Emphasis added]
it might be more accurate to say that we (attempt to) act on behalf of users who do not even realize that ICANN, or the DNS even exists. They aren't so much oblivious to the "arcane minutiae" as unaware that they exist. It's not so much that they do not wish to be involved as that they are not aware that there is anything to be involved with.
A subtle distinction, perhaps, but I would suggest that it is an important one.
Bill Jouris On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 06:30:57 AM PDT, John Laprise via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Longtime listener, sometime contributor.
While I am not as critical as Evan, he makes a solid point and it prompts me to intervene. ALAC strives to be a kind of public guardian for Internet users in general. For those of you unfamiliar, public guardians are legal persons who act on behalf of and in the interests of people who are unable to, often minor children and adults unable to make decisions such as those suffering from dementia. In our case, the line is not quite so extreme. *We act on behalf of users who do not wish to be involved in or are oblivious to the arcane minutiae of DNS administration and rules that is ICANN but who want the benefits of a safe and stable Internet. *When I was a NARALO ALAC member, that thought/mission was always foremost in my mind and it's what differentiates from every other constituency and council. It's not easy.
Evan said:"End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain." That *might *be true. Then again, people don't care about most supply chains until the chain breaks down and then they are quite irate. Our presence is required because we want to ensure the chain does not break.
Now, other constituencies and councils regularly dispute our right to do this, after all it's not like we are truly an accessible democratic institution despite our elections. Just familiarizing oneself enough to meaningfully contribute might constitute a "poll tax." Nonetheless, our mandate and legitimacy come from ICANN itself and it is incumbent upon at large participants to strive to "put on the shoes of end users" everyday before they head out to the next meeting.
Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:21 AM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
A high-level tangent inspired by the current discussion:
A casual reader might look at this thread and come to an observation that there are two separate issues being discussed, that may not have much to do with each other. The conversation that Mike, Steinar, Olivier and others are having concern details -- contract language, specifics about volumes and dollar amounts and assignment of responsibilities. Meanwhile, I have barged in -- surely unwelcome by some -- to challenge the very premises upon which ALAC's participation is being conducted.
I have done this because, in my observation, ALAC lacks -- and has always lacked -- an overarching set of objectives upon which to base strategy and ultimately tactics. We engage in the minutiae of contract language (etc) without clarity of what ALAC -- and what the constituency it is mandated to speak for -- wants from the end result of such engagement.
*Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat -- Sun Tzu *
While I was involved deeply in At-Large I would note that any internal attempt to create a coherent statement of purpose would be invariably torpedoed by people insisting that we engage in a never-ending attempt to define the "public interest". As a result, all attempts inevitably sank in the bureaucratic mud. Two separate third-party ICANN reviews of At-Large seemed to wholly overlook the lack of overarching purpose and mandate service while themselves dwelling on the minutiae. It's probably best that we don't depend on outside consultants to define our purpose, but why can't we do it ourselves?
WIthout a clear mission, ALAC has weighed in on many issues in which non-registrant end users have no stake at all. Take vertical integration. End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain. Even domain consumers -- technically outside our remit but closest to end-users in the ICANN food chain -- could hardly care less if they bought their domain from a registrar or directly from a registry. And yet there we were at the virtual table, as if our constituency has a crucial stake in that topic's outcome. Think of how many parts of the current ALAC agenda fit the same description. Meanwhile, on high-profile issues that WOULD affect end-users, such as the delegation of .XXX and the attempted private takeover of .ORG, we were silent. Such choices of action and inaction clearly telegraph -- throughout ICANN and the world around us -- a lack of both purpose and focus.
This glaring deficiency continues to retard ALAC's agency within the rest of the ICANN community. Over the years I have received many private emails insisting that ALAC has more respect now than it did in the past and that it is invited to the policy table more often. To me this is tokenism. I'll be more persuaded that At-Large has the respect of ICANN when we get that second Board seat that was recommended and promised so long ago. Until then, or until a policy we want that is opposed by the domain industry is implemented, I will maintain that ALAC is being pandered to. We are tolerated in working groups so long as we make little line-item corrections and don't challenge their very premises or the ability of contracted parties to maximize revenue. We have the authority to talk directly to the Board, yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in the world can. We respond to the actions of others, we never initiate or try to set the agenda. One of the last such initiatives by At-Large, a white paper of which I was a co-author, was received with a smile and summarily binned; not a single response was returned from staff or the community. Maybe the cosmetics have changed in the last 15 years but the underlying politics certainly have not.
While the status quo is obviously sustainable -- so long as ALAC members get funded to pretend they're the UNSC at a cavernous U-shaped table three times a year and learn how to play the insider games -- it doesn't do anything to serve At-Large's bylaw mandate. The inmates will continue to run the asylum, because the only entity really capable of making them accountable to the world-at-large is just fine with being tolerated.
- 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Folks, I’m doing my best NOT to put my “thumb on the scale,” so to speak on this issue as it’s one worthy of thoughtful consideration. Like Evan, I believe we involve ourselves in many issues on which we do not have a unique (end user specific) perspective to bring to the table. In that case, we are redundant and exhausting what volunteer resources we have without much effect. Evan and I do NOT always agree on what the core issues for end users are. We agree on DNS Abuse and disagreed on the sale of ORG which I truly believed to be immaterial to individual end users and should have been more a focus of NPOC. We agree that prices could be higher to good benefit, even in underserved regions though this requires a more careful analysis than anyone has truthfully done. As for an At-Large mandate, it’s twofold, the identification and amplification of end user interests as preservation and effacy of the multistakeholder model. Between those two we can talk ourselves into ANY issue and I, like Evan, think we should always be endeavoring to talk ourselves OUT of a particular issue, leaving only those where we have a unique, end user, perspective to bring to the table. Our value is not that we are smart people but that we are dedicated to a singular mission. In any case, let’s have a fulsome discussion about the future of the At-Large and what we want from it, in Hamburg. I’ve set aside 2 hours for our anniversary which is intended to be 10min of celebration and 1:50 of discussion, breakouts, debate, etc. Evan, I hope you’ll be able to participate. Jonathan From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 at 10:21 PM To: mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim A high-level tangent inspired by the current discussion: A casual reader might look at this thread and come to an observation that there are two separate issues being discussed, that may not have much to do with each other. The conversation that Mike, Steinar, Olivier and others are having concern details -- contract language, specifics about volumes and dollar amounts and assignment of responsibilities. Meanwhile, I have barged in -- surely unwelcome by some -- to challenge the very premises upon which ALAC's participation is being conducted. I have done this because, in my observation, ALAC lacks -- and has always lacked -- an overarching set of objectives upon which to base strategy and ultimately tactics. We engage in the minutiae of contract language (etc) without clarity of what ALAC -- and what the constituency it is mandated to speak for -- wants from the end result of such engagement. Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat -- Sun Tzu While I was involved deeply in At-Large I would note that any internal attempt to create a coherent statement of purpose would be invariably torpedoed by people insisting that we engage in a never-ending attempt to define the "public interest". As a result, all attempts inevitably sank in the bureaucratic mud. Two separate third-party ICANN reviews of At-Large seemed to wholly overlook the lack of overarching purpose and mandate service while themselves dwelling on the minutiae. It's probably best that we don't depend on outside consultants to define our purpose, but why can't we do it ourselves? WIthout a clear mission, ALAC has weighed in on many issues in which non-registrant end users have no stake at all. Take vertical integration. End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain. Even domain consumers -- technically outside our remit but closest to end-users in the ICANN food chain -- could hardly care less if they bought their domain from a registrar or directly from a registry. And yet there we were at the virtual table, as if our constituency has a crucial stake in that topic's outcome. Think of how many parts of the current ALAC agenda fit the same description. Meanwhile, on high-profile issues that WOULD affect end-users, such as the delegation of .XXX and the attempted private takeover of .ORG, we were silent. Such choices of action and inaction clearly telegraph -- throughout ICANN and the world around us -- a lack of both purpose and focus. This glaring deficiency continues to retard ALAC's agency within the rest of the ICANN community. Over the years I have received many private emails insisting that ALAC has more respect now than it did in the past and that it is invited to the policy table more often. To me this is tokenism. I'll be more persuaded that At-Large has the respect of ICANN when we get that second Board seat that was recommended and promised so long ago. Until then, or until a policy we want that is opposed by the domain industry is implemented, I will maintain that ALAC is being pandered to. We are tolerated in working groups so long as we make little line-item corrections and don't challenge their very premises or the ability of contracted parties to maximize revenue. We have the authority to talk directly to the Board, yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in the world can. We respond to the actions of others, we never initiate or try to set the agenda. One of the last such initiatives by At-Large, a white paper of which I was a co-author, was received with a smile and summarily binned; not a single response was returned from staff or the community. Maybe the cosmetics have changed in the last 15 years but the underlying politics certainly have not. While the status quo is obviously sustainable -- so long as ALAC members get funded to pretend they're the UNSC at a cavernous U-shaped table three times a year and learn how to play the insider games -- it doesn't do anything to serve At-Large's bylaw mandate. The inmates will continue to run the asylum, because the only entity really capable of making them accountable to the world-at-large is just fine with being tolerated. - Evan
In a previous life I believed that any time spent on crafting a corporate mission statement was truly time wasted. Since then I have realized that this disdain came from my observation that most mission statements are bland, generic business-speak using words like "excellence" and "leadership" and especially "synergy" (a trait well expressed in a lovely Weird Al song <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyV_UG60dD4>). I have come to realize that an succinct, expressive, jargon-free statement of purpose can be of substantial value and is worth the effort. It can provide necessary focus, constantly reminding us why exactly we're here, minimizing mission creep and setting priorities on which to spend our limited resources. Mission drives strategy (getting more specific) and strategy drives tactics (down to the detail level). The reason I started this thread comes from the frustration of seeing ALAC engage in activities that don't seem to be part of a coherent strategy and thus questionable linkage to any overarching At-Large goal. Like Jonathan said, we can occasionally have differences about whether any particular ICANN issue serves our mission but without clear frames of reference such debates are inefficient at best and futile at worst. In this light, I welcome the opportunity to engage in a good-faith attempt to develop something akin to an At-Large Strategic Plan, to ensure that we pick our battles wisely and then fight them as best as our collective talent is able. I would be delighted to participate in the Frankfurt discussion Jonathan describes and perhaps even help to lead any followup effort if you'll have me. Successful execution of this effort directly addresses the concerns I expressed in opening this thread. Plus, it would be a chance for people who don't know me here to finally see my constructive side ;-). - Evan
+∞ I'm in Evan. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:50 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
In a previous life I believed that any time spent on crafting a corporate mission statement was truly time wasted. Since then I have realized that this disdain came from my observation that most mission statements are bland, generic business-speak using words like "excellence" and "leadership" and especially "synergy" (a trait well expressed in a lovely Weird Al song <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyV_UG60dD4>).
I have come to realize that an succinct, expressive, jargon-free statement of purpose can be of substantial value and is worth the effort. It can provide necessary focus, constantly reminding us why exactly we're here, minimizing mission creep and setting priorities on which to spend our limited resources. Mission drives strategy (getting more specific) and strategy drives tactics (down to the detail level). The reason I started this thread comes from the frustration of seeing ALAC engage in activities that don't seem to be part of a coherent strategy and thus questionable linkage to any overarching At-Large goal. Like Jonathan said, we can occasionally have differences about whether any particular ICANN issue serves our mission but without clear frames of reference such debates are inefficient at best and futile at worst.
In this light, I welcome the opportunity to engage in a good-faith attempt to develop something akin to an At-Large Strategic Plan, to ensure that we pick our battles wisely and then fight them as best as our collective talent is able. I would be delighted to participate in the Frankfurt discussion Jonathan describes and perhaps even help to lead any followup effort if you'll have me. Successful execution of this effort directly addresses the concerns I expressed in opening this thread. Plus, it would be a chance for people who don't know me here to finally see my constructive side ;-).
- 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.
I fully support providing Evan with the necessary resources to attend the conference in person in Hamburg. His attendance would be extremely valuable, given his expertise and knowledge. Investing in his participation will likely yield significant benefits for our organization that outweigh the costs. -ed On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:50 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
In a previous life I believed that any time spent on crafting a corporate mission statement was truly time wasted. Since then I have realized that this disdain came from my observation that most mission statements are bland, generic business-speak using words like "excellence" and "leadership" and especially "synergy" (a trait well expressed in a lovely Weird Al song <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyV_UG60dD4>).
I have come to realize that an succinct, expressive, jargon-free statement of purpose can be of substantial value and is worth the effort. It can provide necessary focus, constantly reminding us why exactly we're here, minimizing mission creep and setting priorities on which to spend our limited resources. Mission drives strategy (getting more specific) and strategy drives tactics (down to the detail level). The reason I started this thread comes from the frustration of seeing ALAC engage in activities that don't seem to be part of a coherent strategy and thus questionable linkage to any overarching At-Large goal. Like Jonathan said, we can occasionally have differences about whether any particular ICANN issue serves our mission but without clear frames of reference such debates are inefficient at best and futile at worst.
In this light, I welcome the opportunity to engage in a good-faith attempt to develop something akin to an At-Large Strategic Plan, to ensure that we pick our battles wisely and then fight them as best as our collective talent is able. I would be delighted to participate in the Frankfurt discussion Jonathan describes and perhaps even help to lead any followup effort if you'll have me. Successful execution of this effort directly addresses the concerns I expressed in opening this thread. Plus, it would be a chance for people who don't know me here to finally see my constructive side ;-).
- 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.
-- *Notice*: This email may contain confidential information, is subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
I think it's WAY too late to pull THAT off, Ed, but I can check. Jonathan Zuck Director, Future of Work Project Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org ________________________________ From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 7:38:53 AM To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Cc: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim I fully support providing Evan with the necessary resources to attend the conference in person in Hamburg. His attendance would be extremely valuable, given his expertise and knowledge. Investing in his participation will likely yield significant benefits for our organization that outweigh the costs. -ed On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:50 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: In a previous life I believed that any time spent on crafting a corporate mission statement was truly time wasted. Since then I have realized that this disdain came from my observation that most mission statements are bland, generic business-speak using words like "excellence" and "leadership" and especially "synergy" (a trait well expressed in a lovely Weird Al song<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyV_UG60dD4>). I have come to realize that an succinct, expressive, jargon-free statement of purpose can be of substantial value and is worth the effort. It can provide necessary focus, constantly reminding us why exactly we're here, minimizing mission creep and setting priorities on which to spend our limited resources. Mission drives strategy (getting more specific) and strategy drives tactics (down to the detail level). The reason I started this thread comes from the frustration of seeing ALAC engage in activities that don't seem to be part of a coherent strategy and thus questionable linkage to any overarching At-Large goal. Like Jonathan said, we can occasionally have differences about whether any particular ICANN issue serves our mission but without clear frames of reference such debates are inefficient at best and futile at worst. In this light, I welcome the opportunity to engage in a good-faith attempt to develop something akin to an At-Large Strategic Plan, to ensure that we pick our battles wisely and then fight them as best as our collective talent is able. I would be delighted to participate in the Frankfurt discussion Jonathan describes and perhaps even help to lead any followup effort if you'll have me. Successful execution of this effort directly addresses the concerns I expressed in opening this thread. Plus, it would be a chance for people who don't know me here to finally see my constructive side ;-). - 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. -- Notice: This email may contain confidential information, is subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline: 1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies 2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once. 3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting. 4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years. - Evan
An excellent plan Evan... On Fri, 1 Sept 2023, 05:38 Evan Leibovitch via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline:
1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies
2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once.
3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting.
4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years.
- 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.
Folks As always, I agree with Evan and think working out a process to refine the issues the ALAC gets involved in would be a terrific step forward. (I was involved in the first discussion and noted the complete lack of response - do I become involved in a second go???) But now for another issue that I think CPWG should worry about. Heaven help us, talk of a SECOND round! I recently attended (and presented in) the APrIGF. On the sidelines, I wound up with a discussion of Ram - who was there. It started with a discussion on new gTLDs - in the context of UA. And the thought in my mind was why are we talking about a second round when so many new gTLDs don’t resolve. (the nastier question - why is ICANN pocketing money for new GTLDs if they don’t work!) This should be a particular issue for IDNs. IDNs are one thing that IS on the ALAC agenda - the firm conviction that we should be making communications on the Internet easier for the billions of people whose first language is not English. And - since one of the justifications (true or not) was to provide more gTLDs that reflect something of the actual name, why is their usability by the public not an issue? If ICANN is happy to take money for new names, should that not come with some kind of assurance/industry commitment that the new names will work? Just a thought Holly
On Sep 1, 2023, at 5:30 AM, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline: Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies
The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once.
The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting.
The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years. - 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.
Dear Holly, thanks for raising this. Strictly speaking according to its bylaws on of ICANN's Core Commitments is to: _/(i) Preserve and enhance the administration of /__//__/the /__/DNS/__/and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the /__/DNS/__/and the Internet;/_ Some TLDs do not resolve? Does this impact on the stability of the DNS? Are there provisions in the ICANN Registry Agreement that the TLD must resolve? I note that Specifications 10 in the Registry Agreement (REGISTRY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS) deals with DNS availability - so perhaps that's where the data, which is indeed collected and transmitted to ICANN, should be available. Kindest regards, Olivier On 01/09/2023 05:30, Holly Raiche via CPWG wrote:
Folks
As always, I agree with Evan and think working out a process to refine the issues the ALAC gets involved in would be a terrific step forward. (I was involved in the first discussion and noted the complete lack of response - do I become involved in a second go???)
But now for another issue that I think CPWG should worry about. Heaven help us, talk of a SECOND round! I recently attended (and presented in) the APrIGF. On the sidelines, I wound up with a discussion of Ram - who was there. It started with a discussion on new gTLDs - in the context of UA. And the thought in my mind was why are we talking about a second round when so many new gTLDs don’t resolve. (the nastier question - why is ICANN pocketing money for new GTLDs if they don’t work!) This should be a particular issue for IDNs. IDNs are one thing that IS on the ALAC agenda - the firm conviction that we should be making communications on the Internet easier for the billions of people whose first language is not English. And - since one of the justifications (true or not) was to provide more gTLDs that reflect something of the actual name, why is their usability by the public not an issue? If ICANN is happy to take money for new names, should that not come with some kind of assurance/industry commitment that the new names will work?
Just a thought
Holly
On Sep 1, 2023, at 5:30 AM, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline:
1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies
2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once.
3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting.
4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years.
- 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Olivier and Holly, I believe Olivier points to the correct section in the RA (Spec 10). If the TLD is delegated and not in compliance with Spec 10, I assume ICANN compliance then will “knock on the Registry Operator door”. Maybe Holly refers to domain names under a TLD that is not resolving (correctly) on the Internet? However, it is frustrating to see the number of TLDs approved and delegated and only with nic.[tld] resolving. There may be legit reasons for this. But I am not sure how to “regulate”/prevent it. Regards, Steinar Grøtterød From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Friday, 1 September 2023 at 12:01 To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim yet again.... Dear Holly, thanks for raising this. Strictly speaking according to its bylaws on of ICANN's Core Commitments is to: (i) Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet; Some TLDs do not resolve? Does this impact on the stability of the DNS? Are there provisions in the ICANN Registry Agreement that the TLD must resolve? I note that Specifications 10 in the Registry Agreement (REGISTRY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS) deals with DNS availability - so perhaps that's where the data, which is indeed collected and transmitted to ICANN, should be available. Kindest regards, Olivier On 01/09/2023 05:30, Holly Raiche via CPWG wrote: Folks As always, I agree with Evan and think working out a process to refine the issues the ALAC gets involved in would be a terrific step forward. (I was involved in the first discussion and noted the complete lack of response - do I become involved in a second go???) But now for another issue that I think CPWG should worry about. Heaven help us, talk of a SECOND round! I recently attended (and presented in) the APrIGF. On the sidelines, I wound up with a discussion of Ram - who was there. It started with a discussion on new gTLDs - in the context of UA. And the thought in my mind was why are we talking about a second round when so many new gTLDs don’t resolve. (the nastier question - why is ICANN pocketing money for new GTLDs if they don’t work!) This should be a particular issue for IDNs. IDNs are one thing that IS on the ALAC agenda - the firm conviction that we should be making communications on the Internet easier for the billions of people whose first language is not English. And - since one of the justifications (true or not) was to provide more gTLDs that reflect something of the actual name, why is their usability by the public not an issue? If ICANN is happy to take money for new names, should that not come with some kind of assurance/industry commitment that the new names will work? Just a thought Holly On Sep 1, 2023, at 5:30 AM, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline: 1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies 2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once. 3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting. 4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years. - 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. _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks you both Maybe this is an issue we can raise in discussions on the second round. I know Jonathan purchased a new gTLD - and then complained that it wouldn’t resolve. I wonder how many others don’t. And Olivier- you could be right - maybe worth t least a question Holly
On Sep 1, 2023, at 8:17 PM, Steinar Grøtterød <steinar@recito.no> wrote:
Dear Olivier and Holly,
I believe Olivier points to the correct section in the RA (Spec 10). If the TLD is delegated and not in compliance with Spec 10, I assume ICANN compliance then will “knock on the Registry Operator door”.
Maybe Holly refers to domain names under a TLD that is not resolving (correctly) on the Internet?
However, it is frustrating to see the number of TLDs approved and delegated and only with nic.[tld] resolving. There may be legit reasons for this. But I am not sure how to “regulate”/prevent it.
Regards,
Steinar Grøtterød
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 1 September 2023 at 12:01 To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim yet again....
Dear Holly,
thanks for raising this. Strictly speaking according to its bylaws on of ICANN's Core Commitments is to:
(i) Preserve and enhance the administration of <>the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet;
Some TLDs do not resolve? Does this impact on the stability of the DNS? Are there provisions in the ICANN Registry Agreement that the TLD must resolve? I note that Specifications 10 in the Registry Agreement (REGISTRY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS) deals with DNS availability - so perhaps that's where the data, which is indeed collected and transmitted to ICANN, should be available.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 01/09/2023 05:30, Holly Raiche via CPWG wrote: Folks
As always, I agree with Evan and think working out a process to refine the issues the ALAC gets involved in would be a terrific step forward. (I was involved in the first discussion and noted the complete lack of response - do I become involved in a second go???)
But now for another issue that I think CPWG should worry about. Heaven help us, talk of a SECOND round! I recently attended (and presented in) the APrIGF. On the sidelines, I wound up with a discussion of Ram - who was there. It started with a discussion on new gTLDs - in the context of UA. And the thought in my mind was why are we talking about a second round when so many new gTLDs don’t resolve. (the nastier question - why is ICANN pocketing money for new GTLDs if they don’t work!) This should be a particular issue for IDNs. IDNs are one thing that IS on the ALAC agenda - the firm conviction that we should be making communications on the Internet easier for the billions of people whose first language is not English. And - since one of the justifications (true or not) was to provide more gTLDs that reflect something of the actual name, why is their usability by the public not an issue? If ICANN is happy to take money for new names, should that not come with some kind of assurance/industry commitment that the new names will work?
Just a thought
Holly
On Sep 1, 2023, at 5:30 AM, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline: Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years. - Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto: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.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto: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.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html <http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>
I didn't see Holly's original email until seeing Olivier's response. I don't think my proposal is incompatible with the issue Holly raised, indeed I had no intention for CPWG's work to come to a halt while this other WG was going on. gTLDs not resolving is as much of an end-user issue as could exist IMO. It's an issue not only of the stability of the DNS, but also -- relevant to us -- public perception of and trust in the DNS. Then again, some here may recall the first At-Large Summit in Mexico City, from which the resulting communiqué said to go slow on even the FIRST new round without addressing serious At-Large concerns. That communiqué, delivered to ICANN leadership by the ATLAS 1 co-chairs -- myself and Wolf Ludwig -- was notable in its complete lack of attention, response or even acknowledgement of receipt. Part of the reason that I think that clarity of purpose is so vital for At-Large is because most of ICANN's other policy constituencies have long had their core objectives laid out quite clearly (whether documented or not). With the exception of the other ACs, GNSO's noncommercial constituencies and the IPC, constituency objectives are related to maximizing revenue and minimizing accountability (which in a contract-based world means minimizing liability). Arguably ICANN's own motivation for expansion is also revenue-based, but it doesn't help that the GNSO can compel it to move forward with gTLD expansion even should the GAC or ALAC vehemently oppose. In any case, again I would imagine (and indeed hope) that ALAC's response to a second round -- as well as any other policy action -- would take place in parallel with what I proposed. As for this: On 01/09/2023 05:30, Holly Raiche via CPWG wrote:
(I was involved in the first discussion and noted the complete lack of response - do I become involved in a second go???)
I have no useful answer because I don't even recall the first discussion. I can't speak for the past, and I can't guarantee there will be sufficient uptake at the Hamburg meeting but I will certainly give it my best shot. I would note that the WG need not be large and indeed would likely work best if it was small and nimble. - Evan
Crucial thoughts dear Holly! Those reflections are also available for UA, IDN and many others ICANN services I think that ICANN should follow the ecosystem evolvement and innovate the services provided to the differents DNS actors including end users , At-large community could play a key roles in pushing ICANN to innovate those services since this community have the flexibility to act and don't have any legals or technicals or Business barrier like GAC or SSAC or any others Contracted Party! So it's more an *Innovation* issue than *Governance * , since improving the governance of deprecated services will not help. Friendly regards Chokri Le ven. 1 sept. 2023, 05:30, Holly Raiche via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
Folks
As always, I agree with Evan and think working out a process to refine the issues the ALAC gets involved in would be a terrific step forward. (I was involved in the first discussion and noted the complete lack of response - do I become involved in a second go???)
But now for another issue that I think CPWG should worry about. Heaven help us, talk of a SECOND round! I recently attended (and presented in) the APrIGF. On the sidelines, I wound up with a discussion of Ram - who was there. It started with a discussion on new gTLDs - in the context of UA. And the thought in my mind was why are we talking about a second round when so many new gTLDs don’t resolve. (the nastier question - why is ICANN pocketing money for new GTLDs if they don’t work!) This should be a particular issue for IDNs. IDNs are one thing that IS on the ALAC agenda - the firm conviction that we should be making communications on the Internet easier for the billions of people whose first language is not English. And - since one of the justifications (true or not) was to provide more gTLDs that reflect something of the actual name, why is their usability by the public not an issue? If ICANN is happy to take money for new names, should that not come with some kind of assurance/industry commitment that the new names will work?
Just a thought
Holly
On Sep 1, 2023, at 5:30 AM, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline:
1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies
2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once.
3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting.
4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years.
- 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Evan, I'd like to volunteer for your working group. Thank you David On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:38 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline:
1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies
2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once.
3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting.
4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years.
- 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.
Yes do count me in as well, thank you. On Sat, 2 Sept 2023, 01:18 David Mackey via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Evan,
I'd like to volunteer for your working group.
Thank you David
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:38 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline:
1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies
2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once.
3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting.
4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years.
- 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
And me as well... On Fri, Sept 1, 2023, 12:41 p.m. Cheryl Langdon-Orr via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Yes do count me in as well, thank you.
On Sat, 2 Sept 2023, 01:18 David Mackey via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Evan,
I'd like to volunteer for your working group.
Thank you David
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:38 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline:
1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies
2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once.
3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting.
4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years.
- 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
So, apparently... The specific process and timeline I proposed in August, which attracted a number of endorsements and approvals, has no time in any agenda in Hamburg. Instead there'll be some kind of amorphous discussion of "At-Large TNG" or whatever at the anniversary, involving the same kind of never-ending discussion of definitions and navel-gazing that my proposal explicitly attempted to reduce. It's hard to come to a conclusion *other than* At-Large prefers endless introspection and unfocused participation over concrete focus and specific action in service of its bylaw mandate. I consider the reaction to my proposal an act of bad faith and will not be participating in whatever happens Wednesday. Never let it be said that I have only been negative. But when I come up with something constructive and specific that even seems to be met with broad agreement and interest in participation, it gets binned without explanation and replaced by the status quo. As currently constituted, this environment once again demonstrates that it is incapable of improving itself, let alone the rest of ICANN. - Evan On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:30 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline:
1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies
2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once.
3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting.
4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years.
- Evan
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
Jonathan, Can you please help us understand where your statement on August 30th broke down? *"In any case, let’s have a fulsome discussion about the future of the At-Large and what we want from it, in Hamburg. I’ve set aside 2 hours for our anniversary which is intended to be 10min of celebration and 1:50 of discussion, breakouts, debate, etc. Evan, I hope you’ll be able to participate."* It seems to me that the lack of Evan's experience in our discussions will severely limit the value of any attempt to have a "fulsome" discussion. Cheers, David On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:14 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
So, apparently...
The specific process and timeline I proposed in August, which attracted a number of endorsements and approvals, has no time in any agenda in Hamburg. Instead there'll be some kind of amorphous discussion of "At-Large TNG" or whatever at the anniversary, involving the same kind of never-ending discussion of definitions and navel-gazing that my proposal explicitly attempted to reduce.
It's hard to come to a conclusion *other than* At-Large prefers endless introspection and unfocused participation over concrete focus and specific action in service of its bylaw mandate. I consider the reaction to my proposal an act of bad faith and will not be participating in whatever happens Wednesday.
Never let it be said that I have only been negative. But when I come up with something constructive and specific that even seems to be met with broad agreement and interest in participation, it gets binned without explanation and replaced by the status quo. As currently constituted, this environment once again demonstrates that it is incapable of improving itself, let alone the rest of ICANN.
- Evan
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:30 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline:
1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies
2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once.
3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting.
4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years.
- Evan
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 _______________________________________________ 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.
Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit. I ALREADY had a plan to have a discussion about our future, which includes further refining our mission and objectives and I invited this inconsolable crybaby to participate. I never promised he would lead anything or that we would adhere to his plan. I invited him to be a part of a discussion that was meant to address our priorities for the future. I was hoping to specifically include fellows and nextgen so we would NOT just hear from a bunch of old timers with an ax to grind. I don’t even know whether to address Evan’s latest rant with a response because he only remembers what he wants to remember. It began because he thought we were taking on an issue that we shouldn’t. We’ll be discussing what kind of issues we should take on. He suggested that we shouldn’t bother with registrants and that was specifically one of the questions I was already planning to cover because the previous consensus, before my time, was that that end users DID include registrants but that if there was a conflict of interest we would side with non-registrant end users. That is, in fact, a definitional question that Evan, in his wisdom, has decided to classify as navel gazing. I’m pretty sure there’s no greater navel gazing exercise than the creation of a “mission statement,” but rather than embarrass our periodic friend, I invited him to be part of the discussion. I then further reached out to him privately with what I was planning, inviting his input. Instead of giving it he decided to ONCE. AGAIN throw a pointless tantrum on the list. So, I say again. Evan, don’t let the door hit you in the ass. We have work to do and there’s no room for babies. Jonathan From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:58 PM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim Jonathan, Can you please help us understand where your statement on August 30th broke down? "In any case, let’s have a fulsome discussion about the future of the At-Large and what we want from it, in Hamburg. I’ve set aside 2 hours for our anniversary which is intended to be 10min of celebration and 1:50 of discussion, breakouts, debate, etc. Evan, I hope you’ll be able to participate." It seems to me that the lack of Evan's experience in our discussions will severely limit the value of any attempt to have a "fulsome" discussion. Cheers, David On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:14 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: So, apparently... The specific process and timeline I proposed in August, which attracted a number of endorsements and approvals, has no time in any agenda in Hamburg. Instead there'll be some kind of amorphous discussion of "At-Large TNG" or whatever at the anniversary, involving the same kind of never-ending discussion of definitions and navel-gazing that my proposal explicitly attempted to reduce. It's hard to come to a conclusion other than At-Large prefers endless introspection and unfocused participation over concrete focus and specific action in service of its bylaw mandate. I consider the reaction to my proposal an act of bad faith and will not be participating in whatever happens Wednesday. Never let it be said that I have only been negative. But when I come up with something constructive and specific that even seems to be met with broad agreement and interest in participation, it gets binned without explanation and replaced by the status quo. As currently constituted, this environment once again demonstrates that it is incapable of improving itself, let alone the rest of ICANN. - Evan On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:30 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline: 1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies 2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once. 3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting. 4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years. - Evan -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 _______________________________________________ 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.
"Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit." Really? Is it fair to say that your statement on August 30th was not completely genuine? Is this something we should expect from At-Large leadership in the future? On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:14 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit. I ALREADY had a plan to have a discussion about our future, which includes further refining our mission and objectives and I invited this inconsolable crybaby to participate. I never promised he would lead anything or that we would adhere to his plan. I invited him to be a part of a discussion that was meant to address our priorities for the future. I was hoping to specifically include fellows and nextgen so we would NOT just hear from a bunch of old timers with an ax to grind.
I don’t even know whether to address Evan’s latest rant with a response because he only remembers what he wants to remember. It began because he thought we were taking on an issue that we shouldn’t. We’ll be discussing what kind of issues we should take on. He suggested that we shouldn’t bother with registrants and that was specifically one of the questions I was already planning to cover because the previous consensus, before my time, was that that end users DID include registrants but that if there was a conflict of interest we would side with non-registrant end users. That is, in fact, a definitional question that Evan, in his wisdom, has decided to classify as navel gazing.
I’m pretty sure there’s no greater navel gazing exercise than the creation of a “mission statement,” but rather than embarrass our periodic friend, I invited him to be part of the discussion. I then further reached out to him privately with what I was planning, inviting his input. Instead of giving it he decided to ONCE. AGAIN throw a pointless tantrum on the list.
So, I say again. Evan, don’t let the door hit you in the ass. We have work to do and there’s no room for babies.
Jonathan
*From: *CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:58 PM *To: *Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim
Jonathan,
Can you please help us understand where your statement on August 30th broke down?
*"In any case, let’s have a fulsome discussion about the future of the At-Large and what we want from it, in Hamburg. I’ve set aside 2 hours for our anniversary which is intended to be 10min of celebration and 1:50 of discussion, breakouts, debate, etc. Evan, I hope you’ll be able to participate."*
It seems to me that the lack of Evan's experience in our discussions will severely limit the value of any attempt to have a "fulsome" discussion.
Cheers,
David
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:14 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
So, apparently...
The specific process and timeline I proposed in August, which attracted a number of endorsements and approvals, has no time in any agenda in Hamburg. Instead there'll be some kind of amorphous discussion of "At-Large TNG" or whatever at the anniversary, involving the same kind of never-ending discussion of definitions and navel-gazing that my proposal explicitly attempted to reduce.
It's hard to come to a conclusion *other than* At-Large prefers endless introspection and unfocused participation over concrete focus and specific action in service of its bylaw mandate. I consider the reaction to my proposal an act of bad faith and will not be participating in whatever happens Wednesday.
Never let it be said that I have only been negative. But when I come up with something constructive and specific that even seems to be met with broad agreement and interest in participation, it gets binned without explanation and replaced by the status quo. As currently constituted, this environment once again demonstrates that it is incapable of improving itself, let alone the rest of ICANN.
- Evan
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:30 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline:
1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies 2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once. 3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting. 4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years.
- Evan
--
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch / @el56
_______________________________________________ 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.
I’m going to assume that you either failed to read my entire message or you are illiterate and unable to read it. Let me know which it is David, so I know whether to be angry or sad when you throw around an accusation of me not being genuine. From: David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:20 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim "Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit." Really? Is it fair to say that your statement on August 30th was not completely genuine? Is this something we should expect from At-Large leadership in the future? On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:14 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit. I ALREADY had a plan to have a discussion about our future, which includes further refining our mission and objectives and I invited this inconsolable crybaby to participate. I never promised he would lead anything or that we would adhere to his plan. I invited him to be a part of a discussion that was meant to address our priorities for the future. I was hoping to specifically include fellows and nextgen so we would NOT just hear from a bunch of old timers with an ax to grind. I don’t even know whether to address Evan’s latest rant with a response because he only remembers what he wants to remember. It began because he thought we were taking on an issue that we shouldn’t. We’ll be discussing what kind of issues we should take on. He suggested that we shouldn’t bother with registrants and that was specifically one of the questions I was already planning to cover because the previous consensus, before my time, was that that end users DID include registrants but that if there was a conflict of interest we would side with non-registrant end users. That is, in fact, a definitional question that Evan, in his wisdom, has decided to classify as navel gazing. I’m pretty sure there’s no greater navel gazing exercise than the creation of a “mission statement,” but rather than embarrass our periodic friend, I invited him to be part of the discussion. I then further reached out to him privately with what I was planning, inviting his input. Instead of giving it he decided to ONCE. AGAIN throw a pointless tantrum on the list. So, I say again. Evan, don’t let the door hit you in the ass. We have work to do and there’s no room for babies. Jonathan From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Date: Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:58 PM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim Jonathan, Can you please help us understand where your statement on August 30th broke down? "In any case, let’s have a fulsome discussion about the future of the At-Large and what we want from it, in Hamburg. I’ve set aside 2 hours for our anniversary which is intended to be 10min of celebration and 1:50 of discussion, breakouts, debate, etc. Evan, I hope you’ll be able to participate." It seems to me that the lack of Evan's experience in our discussions will severely limit the value of any attempt to have a "fulsome" discussion. Cheers, David On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:14 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: So, apparently... The specific process and timeline I proposed in August, which attracted a number of endorsements and approvals, has no time in any agenda in Hamburg. Instead there'll be some kind of amorphous discussion of "At-Large TNG" or whatever at the anniversary, involving the same kind of never-ending discussion of definitions and navel-gazing that my proposal explicitly attempted to reduce. It's hard to come to a conclusion other than At-Large prefers endless introspection and unfocused participation over concrete focus and specific action in service of its bylaw mandate. I consider the reaction to my proposal an act of bad faith and will not be participating in whatever happens Wednesday. Never let it be said that I have only been negative. But when I come up with something constructive and specific that even seems to be met with broad agreement and interest in participation, it gets binned without explanation and replaced by the status quo. As currently constituted, this environment once again demonstrates that it is incapable of improving itself, let alone the rest of ICANN. - Evan On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:30 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline: 1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies 2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once. 3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting. 4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years. - Evan -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 _______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Jonathan, I have read and re-read your message. I think it's very important to invite dissenting voices into the At-Large conversation. This is especially true for a global organization that interacts with the widest population possible. It makes the community stronger. It makes the output of At-Large more trustworthy. Since I don't wish to be labeled as an old-timer with an axe to grind in the future, I think it's time for me to withdraw my active participation in the at-large for now. Regards, David On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:24 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I’m going to assume that you either failed to read my entire message or you are illiterate and unable to read it. Let me know which it is David, so I know whether to be angry or sad when you throw around an accusation of me not being genuine.
*From: *David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:20 AM *To: *Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc: *Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim
"Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit." Really?
Is it fair to say that your statement on August 30th was not completely genuine?
Is this something we should expect from At-Large leadership in the future?
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:14 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit. I ALREADY had a plan to have a discussion about our future, which includes further refining our mission and objectives and I invited this inconsolable crybaby to participate. I never promised he would lead anything or that we would adhere to his plan. I invited him to be a part of a discussion that was meant to address our priorities for the future. I was hoping to specifically include fellows and nextgen so we would NOT just hear from a bunch of old timers with an ax to grind.
I don’t even know whether to address Evan’s latest rant with a response because he only remembers what he wants to remember. It began because he thought we were taking on an issue that we shouldn’t. We’ll be discussing what kind of issues we should take on. He suggested that we shouldn’t bother with registrants and that was specifically one of the questions I was already planning to cover because the previous consensus, before my time, was that that end users DID include registrants but that if there was a conflict of interest we would side with non-registrant end users. That is, in fact, a definitional question that Evan, in his wisdom, has decided to classify as navel gazing.
I’m pretty sure there’s no greater navel gazing exercise than the creation of a “mission statement,” but rather than embarrass our periodic friend, I invited him to be part of the discussion. I then further reached out to him privately with what I was planning, inviting his input. Instead of giving it he decided to ONCE. AGAIN throw a pointless tantrum on the list.
So, I say again. Evan, don’t let the door hit you in the ass. We have work to do and there’s no room for babies.
Jonathan
*From: *CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:58 PM *To: *Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim
Jonathan,
Can you please help us understand where your statement on August 30th broke down?
*"In any case, let’s have a fulsome discussion about the future of the At-Large and what we want from it, in Hamburg. I’ve set aside 2 hours for our anniversary which is intended to be 10min of celebration and 1:50 of discussion, breakouts, debate, etc. Evan, I hope you’ll be able to participate."*
It seems to me that the lack of Evan's experience in our discussions will severely limit the value of any attempt to have a "fulsome" discussion.
Cheers,
David
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:14 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
So, apparently...
The specific process and timeline I proposed in August, which attracted a number of endorsements and approvals, has no time in any agenda in Hamburg. Instead there'll be some kind of amorphous discussion of "At-Large TNG" or whatever at the anniversary, involving the same kind of never-ending discussion of definitions and navel-gazing that my proposal explicitly attempted to reduce.
It's hard to come to a conclusion *other than* At-Large prefers endless introspection and unfocused participation over concrete focus and specific action in service of its bylaw mandate. I consider the reaction to my proposal an act of bad faith and will not be participating in whatever happens Wednesday.
Never let it be said that I have only been negative. But when I come up with something constructive and specific that even seems to be met with broad agreement and interest in participation, it gets binned without explanation and replaced by the status quo. As currently constituted, this environment once again demonstrates that it is incapable of improving itself, let alone the rest of ICANN.
- Evan
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:30 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline:
1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies 2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once. 3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting. 4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years.
- Evan
--
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch / @el56
_______________________________________________ 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.
To be EXTRA clear, Evan WAS invited and has chosen not to participate. You even quoted the text in which I said we were having a session and would love for him to participate so I fail to understand your point. Perhaps you can clarify. Oh wow. Okay, well goodbye to you as also then. Jonathan P.S. I had a great conversation with the folks from IFLA, in Kyoto. They’re very interested in our plans for end user education. Thanks for the idea. JZ From: David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:52 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim Hi Jonathan, I have read and re-read your message. I think it's very important to invite dissenting voices into the At-Large conversation. This is especially true for a global organization that interacts with the widest population possible. It makes the community stronger. It makes the output of At-Large more trustworthy. Since I don't wish to be labeled as an old-timer with an axe to grind in the future, I think it's time for me to withdraw my active participation in the at-large for now. Regards, David On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:24 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: I’m going to assume that you either failed to read my entire message or you are illiterate and unable to read it. Let me know which it is David, so I know whether to be angry or sad when you throw around an accusation of me not being genuine. From: David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:20 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim "Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit." Really? Is it fair to say that your statement on August 30th was not completely genuine? Is this something we should expect from At-Large leadership in the future? On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:14 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit. I ALREADY had a plan to have a discussion about our future, which includes further refining our mission and objectives and I invited this inconsolable crybaby to participate. I never promised he would lead anything or that we would adhere to his plan. I invited him to be a part of a discussion that was meant to address our priorities for the future. I was hoping to specifically include fellows and nextgen so we would NOT just hear from a bunch of old timers with an ax to grind. I don’t even know whether to address Evan’s latest rant with a response because he only remembers what he wants to remember. It began because he thought we were taking on an issue that we shouldn’t. We’ll be discussing what kind of issues we should take on. He suggested that we shouldn’t bother with registrants and that was specifically one of the questions I was already planning to cover because the previous consensus, before my time, was that that end users DID include registrants but that if there was a conflict of interest we would side with non-registrant end users. That is, in fact, a definitional question that Evan, in his wisdom, has decided to classify as navel gazing. I’m pretty sure there’s no greater navel gazing exercise than the creation of a “mission statement,” but rather than embarrass our periodic friend, I invited him to be part of the discussion. I then further reached out to him privately with what I was planning, inviting his input. Instead of giving it he decided to ONCE. AGAIN throw a pointless tantrum on the list. So, I say again. Evan, don’t let the door hit you in the ass. We have work to do and there’s no room for babies. Jonathan From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Date: Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:58 PM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim Jonathan, Can you please help us understand where your statement on August 30th broke down? "In any case, let’s have a fulsome discussion about the future of the At-Large and what we want from it, in Hamburg. I’ve set aside 2 hours for our anniversary which is intended to be 10min of celebration and 1:50 of discussion, breakouts, debate, etc. Evan, I hope you’ll be able to participate." It seems to me that the lack of Evan's experience in our discussions will severely limit the value of any attempt to have a "fulsome" discussion. Cheers, David On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:14 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: So, apparently... The specific process and timeline I proposed in August, which attracted a number of endorsements and approvals, has no time in any agenda in Hamburg. Instead there'll be some kind of amorphous discussion of "At-Large TNG" or whatever at the anniversary, involving the same kind of never-ending discussion of definitions and navel-gazing that my proposal explicitly attempted to reduce. It's hard to come to a conclusion other than At-Large prefers endless introspection and unfocused participation over concrete focus and specific action in service of its bylaw mandate. I consider the reaction to my proposal an act of bad faith and will not be participating in whatever happens Wednesday. Never let it be said that I have only been negative. But when I come up with something constructive and specific that even seems to be met with broad agreement and interest in participation, it gets binned without explanation and replaced by the status quo. As currently constituted, this environment once again demonstrates that it is incapable of improving itself, let alone the rest of ICANN. - Evan On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:30 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline: 1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies 2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once. 3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting. 4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years. - Evan -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 _______________________________________________ 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.
All, As I think you all know, there is a 2 hour session tomorrow, “ALAC Anniversary — Brainstorming on the Future” from 1:00-3:00 Hamburg time (11:00-13:00 UTC). That is what Jonathan said would happen and it’s happening. I think we should all approach that discussion with good faith and an open mind. We should do the same in all our discussions, including this one. While we should all be thinking critically and be critical when warranted, let’s all try to keep the criticism constructive and intended to advance the dialogue. Greg On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 01:01 Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
To be EXTRA clear, Evan WAS invited and has chosen not to participate. You even quoted the text in which I said we were having a session and would love for him to participate so I fail to understand your point. Perhaps you can clarify.
Oh wow. Okay, well goodbye to you as also then.
Jonathan
P.S. I had a great conversation with the folks from IFLA, in Kyoto. They’re very interested in our plans for end user education. Thanks for the idea.
JZ
*From: *David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:52 AM *To: *Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc: *Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim
Hi Jonathan,
I have read and re-read your message.
I think it's very important to invite dissenting voices into the At-Large conversation. This is especially true for a global organization that interacts with the widest population possible. It makes the community stronger. It makes the output of At-Large more trustworthy.
Since I don't wish to be labeled as an old-timer with an axe to grind in the future, I think it's time for me to withdraw my active participation in the at-large for now.
Regards,
David
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:24 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I’m going to assume that you either failed to read my entire message or you are illiterate and unable to read it. Let me know which it is David, so I know whether to be angry or sad when you throw around an accusation of me not being genuine.
*From: *David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:20 AM *To: *Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc: *Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim
"Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit." Really?
Is it fair to say that your statement on August 30th was not completely genuine?
Is this something we should expect from At-Large leadership in the future?
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:14 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit. I ALREADY had a plan to have a discussion about our future, which includes further refining our mission and objectives and I invited this inconsolable crybaby to participate. I never promised he would lead anything or that we would adhere to his plan. I invited him to be a part of a discussion that was meant to address our priorities for the future. I was hoping to specifically include fellows and nextgen so we would NOT just hear from a bunch of old timers with an ax to grind.
I don’t even know whether to address Evan’s latest rant with a response because he only remembers what he wants to remember. It began because he thought we were taking on an issue that we shouldn’t. We’ll be discussing what kind of issues we should take on. He suggested that we shouldn’t bother with registrants and that was specifically one of the questions I was already planning to cover because the previous consensus, before my time, was that that end users DID include registrants but that if there was a conflict of interest we would side with non-registrant end users. That is, in fact, a definitional question that Evan, in his wisdom, has decided to classify as navel gazing.
I’m pretty sure there’s no greater navel gazing exercise than the creation of a “mission statement,” but rather than embarrass our periodic friend, I invited him to be part of the discussion. I then further reached out to him privately with what I was planning, inviting his input. Instead of giving it he decided to ONCE. AGAIN throw a pointless tantrum on the list.
So, I say again. Evan, don’t let the door hit you in the ass. We have work to do and there’s no room for babies.
Jonathan
*From: *CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:58 PM *To: *Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim
Jonathan,
Can you please help us understand where your statement on August 30th broke down?
*"In any case, let’s have a fulsome discussion about the future of the At-Large and what we want from it, in Hamburg. I’ve set aside 2 hours for our anniversary which is intended to be 10min of celebration and 1:50 of discussion, breakouts, debate, etc. Evan, I hope you’ll be able to participate."*
It seems to me that the lack of Evan's experience in our discussions will severely limit the value of any attempt to have a "fulsome" discussion.
Cheers,
David
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:14 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
So, apparently...
The specific process and timeline I proposed in August, which attracted a number of endorsements and approvals, has no time in any agenda in Hamburg. Instead there'll be some kind of amorphous discussion of "At-Large TNG" or whatever at the anniversary, involving the same kind of never-ending discussion of definitions and navel-gazing that my proposal explicitly attempted to reduce.
It's hard to come to a conclusion *other than* At-Large prefers endless introspection and unfocused participation over concrete focus and specific action in service of its bylaw mandate. I consider the reaction to my proposal an act of bad faith and will not be participating in whatever happens Wednesday.
Never let it be said that I have only been negative. But when I come up with something constructive and specific that even seems to be met with broad agreement and interest in participation, it gets binned without explanation and replaced by the status quo. As currently constituted, this environment once again demonstrates that it is incapable of improving itself, let alone the rest of ICANN.
- Evan
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:30 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline:
1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies 2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once. 3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting. 4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years.
- Evan
--
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch / @el56
_______________________________________________ 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.
At last! FWIW, I have privately urged Evan to re-engage with the At-Large, partly because I sensed the philosophical perspective we share seems to have a critical mass of actively engaged individuals. This is a good thing. +1 Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 22:50, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
In a previous life I believed that any time spent on crafting a corporate mission statement was truly time wasted. Since then I have realized that this disdain came from my observation that most mission statements are bland, generic business-speak using words like "excellence" and "leadership" and especially "synergy" (a trait well expressed in a lovely Weird Al song <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyV_UG60dD4>).
I have come to realize that an succinct, expressive, jargon-free statement of purpose can be of substantial value and is worth the effort. It can provide necessary focus, constantly reminding us why exactly we're here, minimizing mission creep and setting priorities on which to spend our limited resources. Mission drives strategy (getting more specific) and strategy drives tactics (down to the detail level). The reason I started this thread comes from the frustration of seeing ALAC engage in activities that don't seem to be part of a coherent strategy and thus questionable linkage to any overarching At-Large goal. Like Jonathan said, we can occasionally have differences about whether any particular ICANN issue serves our mission but without clear frames of reference such debates are inefficient at best and futile at worst.
In this light, I welcome the opportunity to engage in a good-faith attempt to develop something akin to an At-Large Strategic Plan, to ensure that we pick our battles wisely and then fight them as best as our collective talent is able. I would be delighted to participate in the Frankfurt discussion Jonathan describes and perhaps even help to lead any followup effort if you'll have me. Successful execution of this effort directly addresses the concerns I expressed in opening this thread. Plus, it would be a chance for people who don't know me here to finally see my constructive side ;-).
- 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.
+1 Hadia From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jonathan Zuck via CPWG Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 12:42 AM To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim Folks, I'm doing my best NOT to put my "thumb on the scale," so to speak on this issue as it's one worthy of thoughtful consideration. Like Evan, I believe we involve ourselves in many issues on which we do not have a unique (end user specific) perspective to bring to the table. In that case, we are redundant and exhausting what volunteer resources we have without much effect. Evan and I do NOT always agree on what the core issues for end users are. We agree on DNS Abuse and disagreed on the sale of ORG which I truly believed to be immaterial to individual end users and should have been more a focus of NPOC. We agree that prices could be higher to good benefit, even in underserved regions though this requires a more careful analysis than anyone has truthfully done. As for an At-Large mandate, it's twofold, the identification and amplification of end user interests as preservation and effacy of the multistakeholder model. Between those two we can talk ourselves into ANY issue and I, like Evan, think we should always be endeavoring to talk ourselves OUT of a particular issue, leaving only those where we have a unique, end user, perspective to bring to the table. Our value is not that we are smart people but that we are dedicated to a singular mission. In any case, let's have a fulsome discussion about the future of the At-Large and what we want from it, in Hamburg. I've set aside 2 hours for our anniversary which is intended to be 10min of celebration and 1:50 of discussion, breakouts, debate, etc. Evan, I hope you'll be able to participate. Jonathan From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 at 10:21 PM To: mike palage.com <mike@palage.com<mailto:mike@palage.com>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim A high-level tangent inspired by the current discussion: A casual reader might look at this thread and come to an observation that there are two separate issues being discussed, that may not have much to do with each other. The conversation that Mike, Steinar, Olivier and others are having concern details -- contract language, specifics about volumes and dollar amounts and assignment of responsibilities. Meanwhile, I have barged in -- surely unwelcome by some -- to challenge the very premises upon which ALAC's participation is being conducted. I have done this because, in my observation, ALAC lacks -- and has always lacked -- an overarching set of objectives upon which to base strategy and ultimately tactics. We engage in the minutiae of contract language (etc) without clarity of what ALAC -- and what the constituency it is mandated to speak for -- wants from the end result of such engagement. Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat -- Sun Tzu While I was involved deeply in At-Large I would note that any internal attempt to create a coherent statement of purpose would be invariably torpedoed by people insisting that we engage in a never-ending attempt to define the "public interest". As a result, all attempts inevitably sank in the bureaucratic mud. Two separate third-party ICANN reviews of At-Large seemed to wholly overlook the lack of overarching purpose and mandate service while themselves dwelling on the minutiae. It's probably best that we don't depend on outside consultants to define our purpose, but why can't we do it ourselves? WIthout a clear mission, ALAC has weighed in on many issues in which non-registrant end users have no stake at all. Take vertical integration. End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain. Even domain consumers -- technically outside our remit but closest to end-users in the ICANN food chain -- could hardly care less if they bought their domain from a registrar or directly from a registry. And yet there we were at the virtual table, as if our constituency has a crucial stake in that topic's outcome. Think of how many parts of the current ALAC agenda fit the same description. Meanwhile, on high-profile issues that WOULD affect end-users, such as the delegation of .XXX and the attempted private takeover of .ORG, we were silent. Such choices of action and inaction clearly telegraph -- throughout ICANN and the world around us -- a lack of both purpose and focus. This glaring deficiency continues to retard ALAC's agency within the rest of the ICANN community. Over the years I have received many private emails insisting that ALAC has more respect now than it did in the past and that it is invited to the policy table more often. To me this is tokenism. I'll be more persuaded that At-Large has the respect of ICANN when we get that second Board seat that was recommended and promised so long ago. Until then, or until a policy we want that is opposed by the domain industry is implemented, I will maintain that ALAC is being pandered to. We are tolerated in working groups so long as we make little line-item corrections and don't challenge their very premises or the ability of contracted parties to maximize revenue. We have the authority to talk directly to the Board, yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in the world can. We respond to the actions of others, we never initiate or try to set the agenda. One of the last such initiatives by At-Large, a white paper of which I was a co-author, was received with a smile and summarily binned; not a single response was returned from staff or the community. Maybe the cosmetics have changed in the last 15 years but the underlying politics certainly have not. While the status quo is obviously sustainable -- so long as ALAC members get funded to pretend they're the UNSC at a cavernous U-shaped table three times a year and learn how to play the insider games -- it doesn't do anything to serve At-Large's bylaw mandate. The inmates will continue to run the asylum, because the only entity really capable of making them accountable to the world-at-large is just fine with being tolerated. - Evan
OK, Hamburg is starting. What's the progress on this? When am I being asked to participate? And for how long? Is the issue of strategic planning specifically on the table, or will it just be caught in a blur of other things? I've heard no updates since August. - Evan On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:42 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Folks,
I’m doing my best NOT to put my “thumb on the scale,” so to speak on this issue as it’s one worthy of thoughtful consideration. Like Evan, I believe we involve ourselves in many issues on which we do not have a unique (end user specific) perspective to bring to the table. In that case, we are redundant and exhausting what volunteer resources we have without much effect.
Evan and I do NOT always agree on what the core issues for end users are. We agree on DNS Abuse and disagreed on the sale of ORG which I truly believed to be immaterial to individual end users and should have been more a focus of NPOC. We agree that prices could be higher to good benefit, even in underserved regions though this requires a more careful analysis than anyone has truthfully done.
As for an At-Large mandate, it’s twofold, the identification and amplification of end user interests as preservation and effacy of the multistakeholder model. Between those two we can talk ourselves into ANY issue and I, like Evan, think we should always be endeavoring to talk ourselves OUT of a particular issue, leaving only those where we have a unique, end user, perspective to bring to the table. Our value is not that we are smart people but that we are dedicated to a singular mission.
In any case, let’s have a fulsome discussion about the future of the At-Large and what we want from it, in Hamburg. I’ve set aside 2 hours for our anniversary which is intended to be 10min of celebration and 1:50 of discussion, breakouts, debate, etc. Evan, I hope you’ll be able to participate.
Jonathan
*From: *CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, August 28, 2023 at 10:21 PM *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *[CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim
A high-level tangent inspired by the current discussion:
A casual reader might look at this thread and come to an observation that there are two separate issues being discussed, that may not have much to do with each other. The conversation that Mike, Steinar, Olivier and others are having concern details -- contract language, specifics about volumes and dollar amounts and assignment of responsibilities. Meanwhile, I have barged in -- surely unwelcome by some -- to challenge the very premises upon which ALAC's participation is being conducted.
I have done this because, in my observation, ALAC lacks -- and has always lacked -- an overarching set of objectives upon which to base strategy and ultimately tactics. We engage in the minutiae of contract language (etc) without clarity of what ALAC -- and what the constituency it is mandated to speak for -- wants from the end result of such engagement.
*Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat -- Sun Tzu *
While I was involved deeply in At-Large I would note that any internal attempt to create a coherent statement of purpose would be invariably torpedoed by people insisting that we engage in a never-ending attempt to define the "public interest". As a result, all attempts inevitably sank in the bureaucratic mud. Two separate third-party ICANN reviews of At-Large seemed to wholly overlook the lack of overarching purpose and mandate service while themselves dwelling on the minutiae. It's probably best that we don't depend on outside consultants to define our purpose, but why can't we do it ourselves?
WIthout a clear mission, ALAC has weighed in on many issues in which non-registrant end users have no stake at all. Take vertical integration. End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain. Even domain consumers -- technically outside our remit but closest to end-users in the ICANN food chain -- could hardly care less if they bought their domain from a registrar or directly from a registry. And yet there we were at the virtual table, as if our constituency has a crucial stake in that topic's outcome. Think of how many parts of the current ALAC agenda fit the same description. Meanwhile, on high-profile issues that WOULD affect end-users, such as the delegation of .XXX and the attempted private takeover of .ORG, we were silent. Such choices of action and inaction clearly telegraph -- throughout ICANN and the world around us -- a lack of both purpose and focus.
This glaring deficiency continues to retard ALAC's agency within the rest of the ICANN community. Over the years I have received many private emails insisting that ALAC has more respect now than it did in the past and that it is invited to the policy table more often. To me this is tokenism. I'll be more persuaded that At-Large has the respect of ICANN when we get that second Board seat that was recommended and promised so long ago. Until then, or until a policy we want that is opposed by the domain industry is implemented, I will maintain that ALAC is being pandered to. We are tolerated in working groups so long as we make little line-item corrections and don't challenge their very premises or the ability of contracted parties to maximize revenue. We have the authority to talk directly to the Board, yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in the world can. We respond to the actions of others, we never initiate or try to set the agenda. One of the last such initiatives by At-Large, a white paper of which I was a co-author, was received with a smile and summarily binned; not a single response was returned from staff or the community. Maybe the cosmetics have changed in the last 15 years but the underlying politics certainly have not.
While the status quo is obviously sustainable -- so long as ALAC members get funded to pretend they're the UNSC at a cavernous U-shaped table three times a year and learn how to play the insider games -- it doesn't do anything to serve At-Large's bylaw mandate. The inmates will continue to run the asylum, because the only entity really capable of making them accountable to the world-at-large is just fine with being tolerated.
- Evan
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
participants (16)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bill Jouris -
Carlton Samuels -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Chokri Ben Romdhane -
David Mackey -
Eduardo Diaz -
Evan Leibovitch -
Evan Leibovitch -
Greg Shatan [NARALO] -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
Holly Raiche -
John Laprise -
Jonathan Zuck -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Steinar Grøtterød