[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Dear Tijani,

of course others are trying to influence our decisions and have more
influence. But the At-Large Community are not just sitting ducks. We as
a group are a formidable force that can also influence others. So as
much as At-Large is influenced by people participating from other
communities, these people are also influencing these other communities
from the discussions we are having here.
The problem I have is when someone accuses the other community of trying
to take it over - to "capture" it. The numbers are such that it is
unlikely that this could ever happen - just accusing another community
of trying to take you over is a way to avoid looking at one's own
shortcomings.

And my view about the Empowered Community is that it's like a nuclear
button. Press it and we all die, including ICANN. We've designed this in
order to make sure ICANN doesn't end up "going rogue", only our
definition of "going rogue" is different, so either we'll never agree
with each other to press the button(s), or we will and then... boom! the
multi-stakeholder party's over for everyone.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 10/08/2019 18:52, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
> Olivier,
> Why don’t you say that the others are trying to influence our decision
> and have more influence?
> With the Empowered Community, its 5 components have one vote each, and
> influencing the decision in 2 of them by the same person is just unfair.
> But you have to explain me how this may drag us in stupid turf wars.
> Divide and conquer to waste out times???????? 
> For your information, I’m one of those who have always tried to build
> trust with the other constituencies.
>
> Tijani
>
>> Le 10 août 2019 à 12:05, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com
>> <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> a écrit :
>>
>> Dear Tijani,
>>
>> On 09/08/2019 09:57, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>>> On the other hand, a lot of our members are also NCUC members, what
>>> I raised in the past explaining that this is not fair because they
>>> influence the decision making from 2 entries.I asked that at least,
>>> someone with a position in one of the 2 constituencies (ALAC and
>>> NCUC) can’t be at the same time a member of the other constituency.
>>> But I wasn’t heard.
>>
>> I must admit that I have real trouble understanding your position. It
>> appears that you are not happy that our members have more influence
>> in ICANN because they are able to contribute in more than one
>> constituency? I would have thought that having more influence is
>> exactly what we would like end users to have.
>> Or perhaps we'd like less influence and be dragged in stupid turf
>> wars. Divide and conquer to waste out times.
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
>  
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190810/42e95caa/attachment-0001.html>