[CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim

[David Mackey]

Hi Jonathan,

I have read and re-read your message.

I think it's very important to invite dissenting voices into the At-Large
conversation. This is especially true for a global organization
that interacts with the widest population possible. It makes the community
stronger. It makes the output of At-Large more trustworthy.

Since I don't wish to be labeled as an old-timer with an axe to grind in
the future, I think it's time for me to withdraw my active participation in
the at-large for now.

Regards,
David

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:24 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> I’m going to assume that you either failed to read my entire message or
> you are illiterate and unable to read it. Let me know which it is David, so
> I know whether to be angry or sad when you throw around an accusation of me
> not being genuine.
>
>
>
> *From: *David Mackey <mackey361 at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:20 AM
> *To: *Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> *Cc: *Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>, CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim
>
> "Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit." Really?
>
>
>
> Is it fair to say that your statement on August 30th was not completely
> genuine?
>
>
>
> Is this something we should expect from At-Large leadership in the future?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:14 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> wrote:
>
> Frankly, I don’t think we’ll miss him a bit. I ALREADY had a plan to have
> a discussion about our future, which includes further refining our mission
> and objectives and I invited this inconsolable crybaby to participate. I
> never promised he would lead anything or that we would adhere to his plan.
> I invited him to be a part of a discussion that was meant to address our
> priorities for the future. I was hoping to specifically include fellows and
> nextgen so we would NOT just hear from a bunch of old timers with an ax to
> grind.
>
>
>
> I don’t even know whether to address Evan’s latest rant with a response
> because he only remembers what he wants to remember. It began because he
> thought we were taking on an issue that we shouldn’t. We’ll be discussing
> what kind of issues we should take on. He suggested that we shouldn’t
> bother with registrants and that was specifically one of the questions I
> was already planning to cover because the previous consensus, before my
> time, was that that end users DID include registrants but that if there was
> a conflict of interest we would side with non-registrant end users. That
> is, in fact, a definitional question that Evan, in his wisdom, has decided
> to classify as navel gazing.
>
>
>
> I’m pretty sure there’s no greater navel gazing exercise than the creation
> of a “mission statement,” but rather than embarrass our periodic friend, I
> invited him to be part of the discussion. I then further reached out to him
> privately with what I was planning, inviting his input. Instead of giving
> it he decided to ONCE. AGAIN throw a pointless tantrum on the list.
>
>
>
> So, I say again. Evan, don’t let the door hit you in the ass. We have work
> to do and there’s no room for babies.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG <
> cpwg at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:58 PM
> *To: *Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim
>
> Jonathan,
>
>
>
> Can you please help us understand where your statement on August 30th
> broke down?
>
>
>
> *"In any case, let’s have a fulsome discussion about the future of the
> At-Large and what we want from it, in Hamburg. I’ve set aside 2 hours for
> our anniversary which is intended to be 10min of celebration and 1:50 of
> discussion, breakouts, debate, etc. Evan, I hope you’ll be able to
> participate."*
>
>
>
> It seems to me that the lack of Evan's experience in our discussions will
> severely limit the value of any attempt to have a "fulsome" discussion.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:14 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> So, apparently...
>
>
>
> The specific process and timeline I proposed in August, which attracted a
> number of endorsements and approvals, has no time in any agenda in Hamburg.
> Instead there'll be some kind of amorphous discussion of "At-Large TNG" or
> whatever at the anniversary, involving the same kind of never-ending
> discussion of definitions and navel-gazing that my proposal explicitly
> attempted to reduce.
>
>
>
> It's hard to come to a conclusion *other than* At-Large prefers endless
> introspection and unfocused participation over concrete focus and specific
> action in service of its bylaw mandate. I consider the reaction to my
> proposal an act of bad faith and will not be participating in whatever
> happens Wednesday.
>
>
>
> Never let it be said that I have only been negative. But when I come up
> with something constructive and specific that even seems to be met with
> broad agreement and interest in participation, it gets binned without
> explanation and replaced by the status quo. As currently constituted, this
> environment once again demonstrates that it is incapable of improving
> itself, let alone the rest of ICANN.
>
>
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:30 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>
> Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I
> would like to suggest this timeline:
>
>    1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I
>    would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting
>    Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My
>    preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong
>    written English communications skills who have not participated in other
>    ICANN constituencies
>    2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual
>    meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources
>    allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take
>    feedback at every RALO at least once.
>    3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would
>    present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public
>    workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC
>    endorsement at its closing meeting.
>    4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the
>    issue every five years.
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
>
> @evanleibovitch / @el56
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20231023/d3cb9320/attachment.html>