[CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim

Tue Aug 29 12:02:21 UTC 2023

Evan,

Thank you and to those of you who have given us a variety of
multi-perspective insights recently.

I agree with you on the need for a discussion to clarify the ALAC mission. We
can continue to rely on a few words from by-laws written in the distant
past and different interpretations, or we can try to build and clarify what
has been learned since the time when the words were written.

I’d hope that a new written document would be used to capture the
discussion and results, if consensus can be reached.

This may or may not involve consultants to help manage the conversation,
but consultants should only be used to facilitate the process, There is
much wisdom in our community already. We do not need consultants to
independently add perspectives which don’t originate from the At-Large
community itself.

I also think the value of a written document is that it will be easier for
new participants At-Large participants to understand how past ALAC
institutional debates effect the present without them having to learn by
laboriously studying ALAC/ICANN history and slowly getting random tidbits
of wisdom from those who have personal experience with past debates An
additional benefit, is that a written document can also be used to educate
and interact with non-ICANN informed end users themselves.

This likely means that we need to revisit what the concept of consensus
means within the ALAC community.

Additionally, I’d like to gently pushback and add a new perspective for how
to think about end user needs.

First, as a system designer and experienced software developer, I find it’s
absolutely critical to build systems which prioritize end user needs. I
have no argument with this mission centered goal.

However, although end users' needs are a critical part of the process, end
users themselves often have a very narrow view on the best way to achieve
their needs. Also, they don’t always understand the necessary tradeoffs
which must be taken to ensure a stable system that balances the needs of
others. This is the trick of creating a good user experience design
process. Understanding and adopting user experience design skills to
achieve a healthy balance with At-Large institutional design can be useful
to our work.

Furthermore, if we allow ourselves to move beyond a narrow perspective of
an end user in order to meet the goals of the At-Large mission, I think
it’s important for an informed At-Large community to use a system thinking
frame when looking at how to design the At-Large community. I believe the
system thinking frame will help us understand and effectively
represent/advocate for end users.

I believe we exist within an evolving complex adaptive socio-technical
system. This is a non-trivial problem. The work of institutional innovation
is not done, either within the institution of At-Large or more broadly with
the institution of ICANN and its interaction with the world itself. By
using a transparent process we can educate end users, include/welcome end
users into the discussion and eventually pass our work on to a new
generation of end users who will come after us.

Mike Palage said in a different thread “I have enjoyed participating in
CPWG calls for years because I believe they give some of the best objective
reviews of the issues being discussed within the community.”. This to me
indicates we have a healthy community which adds value to the ICANN
organization despite any opinions which may differ. ALAC does provide an
effective public forum which doesn't exist elsewhere in ICANN. In fact, our
success at building a strong and effective At-Large institution
representing end users will likely bring more criticism from those who
oppose the interests of end users, especially from those who oppose end
users with a strong informed voice.

Just a few thoughts. Thanks for listening.

Cheers

David

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:21 AM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230829/51fe28e8/attachment.html>