[ga] Domain Tasting Motion With Full Public Participation

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

Read the post below on how Evan sees the ALAC's and ICANN's support
towards public community.

It is already 14 April and I do not see the Final Report amended. Also
proceed with opening the motion on Domain Tasting issue with full public
participation ASAP!

Thank you

Dominik


-----Original Message-----
>From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Apr 13, 2008 12:34 PM
>To: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@xxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NA Discuss
<na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and
Conflicts of    Interest Policy
>
>
>I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and 
>debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN staff

>of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve.
>
>Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of 
>which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my 
>biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much

>the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) 
>destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it
exists.
>
>ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- 
>their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste 
>extremely scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with 
>yet more internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations 
>of the public to them.
>
>The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we 
>are already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish 
>"non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful inclination

>towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued 
>ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large
serves.
>
>To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that 
>out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and 
>to every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very 
>difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and 
>uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough to

>learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over 
>themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and 
>attract high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits 
>and censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive!
>
>I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to 
>substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest 
>(open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral 
>to our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and 
>this was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN 
>constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy 
>wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others.
>It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be 
>"encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect 
>many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and 
>require significant background information supplied in the local street
language.
>
>It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we 
>are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical 
>background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest sin

>will be to have turned nothing into nothing.
>
>I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already 
>has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That 
>ALAC still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its

>own image appears to indicate that:
>1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity
>2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually 
>serve its mandate
>3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it 
>serves
>4) all of the above
>
>Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and 
>their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back.
>Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending 
>ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by a

>committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one 
>person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise.
>
>Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional obligations.
>On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can 
>be handled with common sense and discretion.
>
>I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with 
>procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the 
>public and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that
education.
>Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, 
>and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted.
>>Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_
ALAC 
>activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could 
>survive such a drought without entropy or implosion.
>
>Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as 
>NARALO chair.
>
>- Evan