[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Towards a comment on evolving the multistakeholder model at ICANN
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Tue May 21 21:55:45 UTC 2019
+1. Your analysis may not be impeached sah!
As you rightly established, the structural framework in which the system
operates is the key issue. And it is incontestable that current structure
places the user view at the fringe.
What we're seeing here is the makings of another effort at tweaking, a tuck
here, and a cinch there, objective being to eke out another morsel of
I did not make the call on account I was away earning a living. But even
as I haven't heard the recording, I am so confident that this outline by
Marita evokes - maybe an alleged Yogi Berra saying typifies it best - 'de
ja vu all over again'.
Let her roll along, I'd say. Maybe, just maybe, the nth time is the charm.
*Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:59 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
> Hi Marita,
> I apologize for not making the call. I am very interested in this topic,
> but even more interested in not having my time wasted.
> As has been expressed before, I am extremely skeptical that the status quo
> can be disrupted purely from the inside. There have been quite a few
> exercises of this kind before, even high profile moves such as the ATRT and
> independence from the US government have been tortuous but led to little
> real change in the way decisions are made. I could even make the case that
> the IANA transition has worsened the status of stakeholders outside the
> compact of domain buyers and domain sellers. What is the assurance (or even
> broad confidence) that the results of any new work would be heeded? What
> are the consequences to ICANN of yet again ignoring the calls to distribute
> power more broadly or address its many fundamental breeches of public trust?
> There are a few key components of ICANN governance that, so long as they
> exist, render all talk of real change aspirational at best.
> - So long as GNSO consensus policy binds the ICANN Board, the rest of
> us are essentially powerless.
> - So long as ICANN's revenue comes solely from domain acquisition, it
> is by definition in a conflict of interest in setting domain policy.
> - So long as domain sellers sit on both sides of the negotiating table
> in development of the RAA and other instruments of domain regulation, ICANN
> cannot be trusted to act impartially.
> - So long ICANN is accountable to nobody but its core conflicted
> community, it will successfully resist change. "Empowered" my eye.
> ALAC has diligently participated in multiple previous "fix the MSM"
> efforts which have yielded no significant result. Two white papers produced
> by ALAC members were ignored without so much as acknowledgement of their
> existence. In this context, exactly how serious is this latest iteration? A
> new turnover of ALAC members provides fresh hope and maybe even new
> insights, but lack of institutional memory simply indicates new iterations
> of old efforts that have proven to fail. We hit the most solid of walls
> whenever intention tries to turn to execution.
> This just feels so much like ICANN is Lucy and ALAC is Charlie Brown.
> Maybe if we try kicking the football again, this time it will work.....
> What's different this time?
> - Evan
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CPWG