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

Sat Aug 10 21:48:21 UTC 2019

Dear Jonathan,

thanks for your follow-up. The problem is that there *is* no problem.
The ALAC has been clear and concise in over 10 years that where there is
a conflict between the interests of registrants and non-registrants, it
will side with the non-registrants.
But this, in my opinion, does not stop the ALAC from advocating for
policies, when there is no conflict between the interests of registrants
and non-registrants, that will help end users in being able to register
and administer a domain name with ease and at an affordable price. If a
user owns a domain name, they should not be told to leave the At-Large
Community and go elsewhere - that is ludicrous!
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 10/08/2019 19:31, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
> Olivier,
> While I agree thus conversation has gone off the rails to some degree,
> I'm sympathetic to Evans initiative to return the ALAC to first
> principles: advocating for the interests of individual end users and,
> when there's a conflict between the interests of registrants and
> non-registrants, we side with the non-registrants. That's really the
> whole ball of wax.
>
> How we determine those interests is a separate and important question
> for which we are searching for answers, the recent pole being a
> relevant experiment. But we have to STOP relitigating those first
> principles or we will never get our act together. We do, indeed, need
> to have the discipline to let things go that are already being said or
> are not directly relevant to the end user experience around the world.
>
> Just my thoughts.
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan Zuck
> Executive Director
> Innovators Network Foundation
> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 10, 2019 4:19:44 AM
> *To:* Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>; Jonathan Zuck
> <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion:
> End-users definition from At-large perspective
>  
> Dear Evan,
>
> I must admit that I really do not understand what you are trying to
> achieve by huffing and puffing on the CPWG mailing list. You appear to
> be engaged in a venture to question the ALAC's legitimacy in anything
> it does - but this debate was past after the second At-Large review
> and it's too late to keep on going back to the stone age and remember
> the Wars of Religion. As for the ALAC being a laughing stock, if they
> can do better, I invite these people rather than laughing in their
> armchair, to come in and help us draft comments that have an impact,
> just like the incredibly talented people that have done so recently in
> this Working Group and that are spending a considerable amount of time
> contributing to the ICANN multi-stakeholder policy processes.
>
> When it comes to NCUC, NPOC, At-Large, the BC, the IPC and other
> constituencies, there are many people who are active in more than one
> of these constituencies. Unless you are aiming to run a system that is
> a totalitarian regime, I would suggest that you allow that to happen.
> The world is not just black or white, left or right, hot or cold, nice
> or nasty. Let people be free to help where they can and not put them
> in a box/jail.
>
> Now let's please get back to discussing policy rather than whipping
> ourselves into a frenzy.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 10/08/2019 03:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 20:55, Jonathan Zuck
>> <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     I think it's not about who we are but what interests we endeavor
>>     to represent. The NCUC only concerns themselves with registrants.
>>
>>
>> That was my original point -- That there is a body already within
>> ICANN representing the interests of individual registrants, in theory
>> leaving ALAC as the body uniquely positioned to speak for
>> non-registrant end-users. That the body charged with representing
>> registrants is remiss in its duty should not be ALAC's problem, yet
>> the resulting spillover also causes ALAC to be remiss in ITS duty.
>>
>> The logic should be easy because there are more than 4 billion
>> Internet users and about 350 million domains in play total. So even
>> assuming only three domains per registrant (and we know that is very
>> far from reality), registrants are outnumbered by non-registrants by
>> more than 30 to 1. Yet ALAC has a problem because of its high
>> proportion of self-selectred Internet experts and insiders, most of
>> whom either own a domain or have evaluated the need to have one. Our
>> own makeup is heavily skewed against the non-registrant 95% because
>> most in At-Large simply don't share their experience. The original
>> theory was that the ALSs were going to be the way through which
>> non-registrants would be able to participate in large numbers, but
>> that intent has absolutely failed as most ALSs have turned out to be
>> self-interested bodies such as ISOC and Internauta chapters or
>> tech-focused NGOs. (Isn't that what the Review concluded?) Such
>> participation brings people with needed skill and passion, but
>> without the perspective of the 95% of the world who will likely never
>> own a domain. And without a credible plan for speaking on behalf of
>> the non-registrant 95%, ALAC's own credibility is at risk (arguably
>> it's already shot and needs a reboot).
>>
>> A few immediate remedies are possible while things are sorted out:
>>
>>   * The NomCom is directed to make its ALAC selections
>>     non-registrantsas at least a token effort at balance.
>>   * ALAC outreach needs to find people who are interested in end user
>>     issues who have no interest in buying domains.
>>   * ALAC itself must commit to understand its issues through a
>>     non-registrant lens before choosing to commenton them.
>>
>> Longer term ALAC needs to engage in public surveys and research to
>> guide its actions (and reactions) rather than its own elitist sense
>> of what is right for end users. I daresay that the priorities of the
>> billions wrt what is needed from ICANN differs widly from ALAC's
>> current guesses.
>>
>> - Evan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190810/97c42b96/attachment-0001.html>