Thank you to everyone for contributing to this important conversation.
Olivier deserves a special thank you for providing evidence which documents the following conclusions.
1. ICANN is acting outside its Bylaws
2. It is attempting to fix its breaking of the Bylaws by re-writing them on the fly
3. There appears to be no interest in the ICANN Board or Management (and it seems, in the Community neither) to perform ICANN's mandated reviews prior to substantive completion of the next "new gTLD round" that is widely thought to bring substantial income to both the Organisation and potentially other participants.
4. With the Empowered Community being what it is, there appears to be no independent oversight of these failings to good Governance.
I believe there is a consensus of agreement in this conversation which agrees that Olivier's four bullets are accurate.
So, what are the implications of Olivier’s well documented conclusions?
I’d like to point out the words found in ICANN Bylaw Article 12, d, i which includes the words “The ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN's accountability mechanisms, also coordinates some of ICANN's outreach to individual Internet users.”
Connecting Olivier’s conclusions with the above phrase from the ICANN bylaws, I believe it's reasonable to infer that ICANN’s accountability mechanisms defined in the ICANN bylaws are broken.
I do not believe the ICANN bylaws should be taken for idealistic goals. I believe the bylaws direct us towards two important existential questions … What is ICANN? … and What is At-Large?
Alan raises a point about one of these questions, when he says formal action may “cause some people to wonder why ICANN is wasting money on us”.
I’ve heard this question before. I think At-Large should not be afraid to discuss this question in an open and transparent manner. In fact, I believe the At-Large community can find many good answers to this question that would be exposed by having an open discussion within the At-Large community on this topic.
As for the question What is At-Large?, if we go back to the words found in ICANN Bylaw Article 12, d, i, I will suggest that the At-Large responsibility on providing ICANN accountability is tied to the At-Large responsibility for outreach to individual Internet users.
For instance, when At-Large reaches out to End Users and tries to get them to participate in the At-Large community, when intelligent End Users eventually learn that ICANN is designed (through operational policy rather than bylaw definition) in such a way as to not be accountable to At-Large advice, then there’s no motivation for a End Users to volunteer their time, knowledge and effort to the At-Large work. In fact, this operational design feeds the cynicism and distrust that affects other global institutions. ICANN suffers reputational risk by allowing a broken accountability mechanism to continue. End Users are smart.
What motivation does an intelligent End User have to participate in a community that’s only an impotent hood ornament of the ICANN “Multistakeholder” myth?
I’m not suggesting any opinion on action at this point, however, I do think it’s important that we have a transparent conversation about these existential questions as a means towards building consensus on actions which might change this state of being in the future.
Regards
David
Olivier, to be clear, I didn't claim any of the bullets were sufficient to reach my conclusion, but all together I felt that taking action on it was not worth our effort. It was a judgment call on whether to take action, not a claim that everything was rosy.AlanAlan_______________________________________________On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 11:11 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:Dear Alan,
thank you for your follow-up.
I take your point in relation to "Advice" and am sad that we'd need to constantly downplay the ALAC's input in ICANN's processes by not emphasising the importance of "Advice" but by also consciously and constantly undermining the importance of "advice". If ALAC "advice" is so inconsequential, why are we intent on wasting scarce volunteer resources on it?
Let me answer the rest of your email inline:
On 23/05/2026 03:33, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As implied in my earlier mail, it is crucial that if we are giving formal ADVICE, we label it as such. I recognize that at the time, we clearly did not think that this was an issue that would have needed such attention.
Regarding how to react now, it may be that I am simply old and crotchety, but I think that taking formal action now will:- cause a bunch of paperwork and effort, but end up with no change;
Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would vehemently disagree of starting an effort when you already think you'll lose.
- annoy some people;
Since when is this a cause for concern? Not in 2026. I could quote many historical examples whereas the fear of annoying people caused inaction that led to catastrophe.
- cause some people to wonder why ICANN is wasting money on us; and
The answer for this is simple: this complete ecosystem would not be possible without end users purchasing domain names. So the money comes from Internet domain name Registrants. If ICANN's mindset is such that it is wasting money on the very people who are meant to be served by the organisation, then it's time everyone packs up their bags and go home.
- cause a few people to admire us for sticking to our principles.
None of the points you have made are valid reasons for inaction, this one included.
The negatives seem to far outweigh the positives.
I admire Olivier's idealism, but the cynic in me cannot recommend putting volunteer effort into this.
There is no idealism in my prose. Neither is there "frustration", or "passion". I am stating basic facts which put ICANN, the Organisation, and its complete multistakeholder ecosystem at risk:
1. ICANN is acting outside its Bylaws
2. It is attempting to fix its breaking of the Bylaws by re-writing them on the fly
3. There appears to be no interest in the ICANN Board or Management (and it seems, in the Community neither) to perform ICANN's mandated reviews prior to substantive completion of the next "new gTLD round" that is widely thought to bring substantial income to both the Organisation and potentially other participants.
4. With the Empowered Community being what it is, there appears to be no independent oversight of these failings to good Governance.
You might find basic reading matter interesting: Enron; Lehman Brothers; UK Post Office Horizon Scandal -- all of whom were afflicted with significantly poor Governance.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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.