Re: [ga] Sorry, ... we can't discuss this in public

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To be fair to Vint, I have always found him responsive... I don't agree with
all his views and I think he can be methodically 'vague' a lot of the time,
but at least he does reply.

In contrast, Paul Twomey - who arrived at ICANN proclaiming the need for
greater openness and responsiveness - has never once replied to a single
e-mail I have sent him (and I've probably sent him around 20). Call me
old-fashioned but here in the UK we would regard that as just plain
discourteous. Even a simple acknowledgment of receipt would be something.

But Vint almost always replies to me, and that has meant I am more prepared
to listen to him and at least think through his comments and opinions - he
does not run away from open dialogue.

Equally I think Michael Palage has been open to dialogue on various
occasions.

But I would agree that, institutionally, ICANN's approach to dialogue has
been disgraceful, amounting to a deliberate policy of keeping difficult or
dissenting voices at arm's length from their processes.

That is the whole reason for the creation of ALAC: to keep (awkward)
individual internet users at arms length by banning them from membership,
and marginalising the challenge of the At Large, allowing its forums to
become graveyards. ALAC was created to project a semblance of user
involvement, while locking individual users out of its processes. The
result: disenchantment and a moribund shell of the real At Large.

It was the same with the development and processes of the New TLDs
Evaluation run by Sebastian Bachollet: there was no open forum during the
production of his report, no posting of views, timescales and developments.
Just a "closed" receipt of opinions from selected individuals and months
later... plonk... the report was presented. People were simply locked out -
prevented from developing and discussing ideas in any ICANN webspace during
the drafting of the report.

To illustrate Danny's point further, a while back I posted some comments on
the gTLD constituency forum (now dead). I was raising relevant questions
about the way ICANN's Agreements with the registries had been flouted with
impunity in a number of cases. I'd already raised the same issues with Dan
Halloran (who had responsibility for ICANN's interface with the DNS industry
at the time) but in a period of over 2 years, and despite repeated requests,
he never so much as acknowledged my mail. I hoped for discussion on the gTLD
forum.

I received this reply from the head of one of the Registries:

"Richard,

This message is only intended for you. Your message is exactly what scares
the other members of the constituency away from wanting such an open list.
Unfortunately, your gripes about the activities of .biz or .info it is not a
'constituency issue.'...  I am trying to make a difference here and it
becomes impossible with messages like yours.

Think about it, why would you join a debate when you know that no matter
what you say, no matter what you do, right or wrong, you will get bashed by
the public.

As a prison warden yourself, let me give you an analogy.  Would you get into
a prison cell with a prisoner that you know would beat the crap out of you
once you took a step inside (even if you were the nicest of all wardens and
you tried to do everything that you believed was right).  The answer is I
would think not.

Same concept here."

I think Danny Younger is correct in his analysis that public comment and,
even more so, a public constituency of registrants or internet users, is
something that ICANN fears. It's all about "control". The elected
representatives of the At Large were expelled from the ICANN Board for just
that reason, in my opinion: because they presented the ICANN establishment
with something which was hard to manage - the concept of divergent views and
open and responsive dialogue.

Paul Twomey said he wanted more dialogue and greater responsiveness.

He has never replied to a single mail I've sent him.

Work it out for yourself...

Yrs,

Richard Henderson
www.atlarge.org