Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] - Price caps - was: The Case for Regulatory Capture at ICANN | Review Signal Blog

 Given the entrenchment of social darwinism -- well-expressed by Karl -- deep 
inside ICANN's culture, I have serious concerns about its willingness -- 
let alone ability -- to yield to even the middle ground you suggest. If that is 
the case, is even seeking a middle ground worth the effort?  
  
  
And the alternative is?

 
I don't know. There seems little more that we can do from the side of 
moderation to convince the status quo to yield anything. That's one of the 
reasons I have withdrawn from deep participation in ICANN, after a a long time 
trying I have concluded that the task looks futile. To me it appears that the 
Internet will do what it does best, rerouting around obstacles, including the 
obstacle called ICANN. A a result, there is an increasing trend to go beyond 
"memorable" domain names. (As Jonathan knows, I wanted that issue to 
be front-and-centre in CCT investigations.) One could even make a reasonable 
case that Google and Facebook would not be so dominant in the Internet now had 
domain names had been usefully deployed. But it's too late to reboot that.  
In fact, IMO things have become worse not better. The IANA transition 
eliminated ICANN's last shred of external accountability, leaving control 
in an "empowered" (100%-pure Doublespeak) community that makes the 
Board only really accountable to those inside the bubble. It's no surprise 
that voices against ALAC have risen as the level of industry entitlement grows, 
seemingly without limit. See threads elsewhere about a new gTLD expansion round 
coming, clearly desired by nobody but the domain industry, but coming 
nonetheless. IMO, ALAC is utterly powerless to affect change, especially given 
its lack of focus. This is why I concentrate my current participation here on 
focusing ALAC to understand and advance end-user needs exclusively; it's 
our best shot at remaining relevant.  In the end, only some kind of external 
stimulus will prod ICANN to change course. Unprotected by treaty, I believe 
that eventually ICANN will encounter ever-more hostility at the ITU, by 
individual states or blocs of states. Or perhaps there will be some event or 
action, a scandal that publicly exposes the culture of corruption and/or lack 
of public-mindedness. Eventually ICANN's arrogance will push even neutral 
players to determine that a change is in order, that even the feared 
multilateralism can't be worse than what exists now. What I don't know 
is whether ICANN's "Entitled Community" (which is the proper name 
for it) will see the threat in time enough to change, or whether it will remain 
oblivious and/or defiant right until catastrophic change. I have a genuine 
concern about the potential damage to the technical components of ICANN which 
generally work well, that would come with an overhaul of the trade/political 
components. 
 
This may be an unsatisfying answer, but it's the best that I can conclude. 
 
- Evan