[CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim

Tue Aug 29 12:15:52 UTC 2023

Hi Evan,
Just a comment
"yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in the
world can"
Public comment with the new format (After Reviewing) is more or less Yes or
No questions  more than an opportunity for community members to express any
point of view --Bylaws Amendments and Documents to Implement the NomCom2
Review
<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/bylaws-amendments-and-documents-to-implement-the-nomcom2-review-17-04-2023>
is
a good example!

Friendly regards
Chokri

Le mar. 29 août 2023 à 06:21, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org> a
écrit :

> 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/20230829/7f3dec29/attachment-0001.html>