[CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim

Wed Aug 30 13:28:02 UTC 2023

Agreed though I'd add that the vast majority of unaware end users, were
they aware, would choose not to be involved.

They're just not that into ICANN. :)

Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 8:05 AM Bill Jouris <b_jouris at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Rather than
>
> *We act on behalf of users who do not wish to be involved in or are
> oblivious to the arcane minutiae of DNS administration and rules that is
> ICANN but who want the benefits of a safe and stable Internet. *[Emphasis
> added]
>
> it might be more accurate to say that we (attempt to) act on behalf of
> users who do not even realize that ICANN, or the DNS even exists.  They
> aren't so much oblivious to the "arcane minutiae" as unaware that they
> exist.  It's not so much that they do not wish to be involved as that they
> are not aware that there is anything to be involved with.
>
> A subtle distinction, perhaps, but I would suggest that it is an important
> one.
>
> Bill Jouris
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 06:30:57 AM PDT, John Laprise via CPWG <
> cpwg at icann.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Longtime listener, sometime contributor.
>
> While I am not as critical as Evan, he makes a solid point and it prompts
> me to intervene. ALAC strives to be a kind of public guardian for Internet
> users in general. For those of you unfamiliar, public guardians are legal
> persons who act on behalf of and in the interests of people who are unable
> to, often minor children and adults unable to make decisions such as those
> suffering from dementia. In our case, the line is not quite so extreme. *We
> act on behalf of users who do not wish to be involved in or are oblivious
> to the arcane minutiae of DNS administration and rules that is ICANN but
> who want the benefits of a safe and stable Internet. *When I was a NARALO
> ALAC member, that thought/mission was always foremost in my mind and it's
> what differentiates from every other constituency and council. It's not
> easy.
>
> Evan said:"End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply
> chain." That *might *be true. Then again, people don't care about most
> supply chains until the chain breaks down and then they are quite irate.
> Our presence is required because we want to ensure the chain does not break.
>
> Now, other constituencies and councils regularly dispute our right to do
> this, after all it's not like we are truly an accessible democratic
> institution despite our elections. Just familiarizing oneself enough to
> meaningfully contribute might constitute a "poll tax." Nonetheless, our
> mandate and legitimacy come from ICANN itself and it is incumbent upon at
> large participants to strive to "put on the shoes of end users" everyday
> before they head out to the next meeting.
>
> Best regards,
> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:21 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230830/e0c377f3/attachment.html>