[CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim

[Evan Leibovitch]

A high-level tangent inspired by the current discussion:

A casual reader might look at this thread and come to an observation that
there are two separate issues being discussed, that may not have much to do
with each other. The conversation that Mike, Steinar, Olivier and others
are having concern details -- contract language, specifics about volumes
and dollar amounts and assignment of responsibilities. Meanwhile, I have
barged in -- surely unwelcome by some -- to challenge the very premises
upon which ALAC's participation is being conducted.

I have done this because, in my observation, ALAC lacks -- and has always
lacked -- an overarching set of objectives upon which to base strategy and
ultimately tactics. We engage in the minutiae of contract language (etc)
without clarity of what ALAC -- and what the constituency it is mandated to
speak for -- wants from the end result of such engagement.

*Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without
> strategy is the noise before defeat -- Sun Tzu *
>

While I was involved deeply in At-Large I would note that any internal
attempt to create a coherent statement of purpose would be invariably
torpedoed by people insisting that we engage in a never-ending attempt to
define the "public interest". As a result, all attempts inevitably sank in
the bureaucratic mud. Two separate third-party ICANN reviews of At-Large
seemed to wholly overlook the lack of overarching purpose and mandate
service while themselves dwelling on the minutiae. It's probably best that
we don't depend on outside consultants to define our purpose, but why can't
we do it ourselves?

WIthout a clear mission, ALAC has weighed in on many issues in which
non-registrant end users have no stake at all. Take vertical integration.
End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain. Even
domain consumers -- technically outside our remit but closest to end-users
in the ICANN food chain -- could hardly care less if they bought their
domain from a registrar or directly from a registry. And yet there we were
at the virtual table, as if our constituency has a crucial stake in that
topic's outcome. Think of how many parts of the current ALAC agenda fit the
same description. Meanwhile, on high-profile issues that WOULD affect
end-users, such as the delegation of .XXX and the attempted private
takeover of .ORG, we were silent. Such choices of action and inaction
clearly telegraph -- throughout ICANN and the world around us -- a lack of
both purpose and focus.

This glaring deficiency continues to retard ALAC's agency within the rest
of the ICANN community. Over the years I have received many private emails
insisting that ALAC has more respect now than it did in the past and that
it is invited to the policy table more often. To me this is tokenism. I'll
be more persuaded that At-Large has the respect of ICANN when we get that
second Board seat that was recommended and promised so long ago. Until
then, or until a policy we want that is opposed by the domain industry is
implemented, I will maintain that ALAC is being pandered to. We are
tolerated in working groups so long as we make little line-item corrections
and don't challenge their very premises or the ability of contracted
parties to maximize revenue. We have the authority to talk directly to the
Board, yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in
the world can. We respond to the actions of others, we never initiate or
try to set the agenda. One of the last such initiatives by At-Large, a
white paper of which I was a co-author, was received with a smile and
summarily binned; not a single response was returned from staff or the
community. Maybe the cosmetics have changed in the last 15 years but the
underlying politics certainly have not.

While the status quo is obviously sustainable -- so long as ALAC members
get funded to pretend they're the UNSC at a cavernous U-shaped table three
times a year and learn how to play the insider games -- it doesn't do
anything to serve At-Large's bylaw mandate. The inmates will continue to
run the asylum, because the only entity really capable of making them
accountable to the world-at-large is just fine with being tolerated.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230829/ae8e0b4d/attachment.html>