Hi Evan,

As you know I agree with much of what you see in terms of improvements to the process and the inclusion of all voices in the multistakeholder process.

And I understand the ALAC, and maybe even the At-LArge if they knew what was going on,  being happy with the decisions being made by ICANN Sr. Staff.

But these decisions are not being made using an improved policy process as suggested by R3, they are being made despotically.  So while you may be happy with the benevolence expressed in these decisions, as someone who is both user and registrant and both NCSG and At-Large, I worry about the trend to despotism.

Remember the quote about freedom and security: (approx) those who trade freedom for security, neither achieve not deserve either.  If we trade away the multistakeholder development process to get a few consumer advantages today, what will we be giving up in the long run?  I agree we need to improve those process, but circumventing them is problematic.

avri

Ps. Not sure why you need a firefighter's suit.  You are a vice-chair of ALAC and speak for them.



On 22 Mar 2013, at 11:44, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> [ donning firefighter's suit ]
> 
> Allow, perhaps, a different perspective.
> 
> In its current ICANN state the so-called multi-stakeholder process is, through the GNSO, simply a compact between domain sellers (ie, CPH) and buyers (ie, NCPH). The rest of the world is left outside. It's "multi", but it's exclusive and unequal.
> 
> While the ALAC certainly has its structural flaws, it does attempt to at least offer a perspective of those who intend to never buy or sell a domain, yet are heavily impacted by the decisions made inside the compact. And yet neither end users nor governments have a full seat at the table. The NCUC claims to speak for end users, but you can't join if you don't own a domain -- and the vast VAST majority of people out there don't own a domain.
> 
> Not all believes that everyone on earth ought to own a domain. As such, a large segment of the population will be forever shut out of representation of policy making, at least via the GNSO.
> 
> Sure, ALAC is occasionally invited to the table. But as was evidenced so clearly in the Consumer Metrics WG, its opinions can be cavalierly tossed aside if "real" GNSO members don't like the At-Large PoV. And when the public interest efforts of the ALAC coincide with those of the NCUC (as they did on issues such as Applicant Support), we're still in the minority and heavily out-resourced.
> 
> So, while you may vociferously object to it, you may want to consider that what is considered ham-handed Staff intervention by some might be considered by others that finally someone -- even occasionally and partially -- is asserting the interests of non-domain-owning end-users. Fadi's early references to not just multi-stakeholderism, but multi-EQUAL-stakeholderism, resonate within many in At-Large which has too often seen the end-user PoV shut out of the compact's internal deliberations.
> 
> As Alan Greenberg noted in his analysis of the staff action on the TMCH Strawman proposals.
> 
> Although the outcomes were not exactly as the ALAC advised (in terms of what required policy development), all of the IP protections that ICANN will be moving ahead with were supported by the ALAC, and the one additional protection that the ALAC explicitly did not support will not be implemented.
> 
> Similarly, many in At-Large have no problem at all with the RAA unilateral right to amend.
> 
> My main point is that not everyone is disgusted with the current path. Calling the opposition unanimous, as some have, is inaccurate; however, such claims re-enforce the perception that the end-user PoV is ignored. ICANN staff under Fadi's watch -- with all of its flaws -- is now seen by a significant number, as part of a system of checks and balances against what the domain buyer/seller compact wants to inflict outside the ICANN bubble. Given the clear threat to the MSM as seen in WCIT and elsewhere, arguably some form of this was inevitable.
> 
> The ALAC, through its R3 paper, attempted to envision an evolved set of checks and balances. It may not be THE answer but the status quo may not be sustainable if it isn't true MSM.
> 
> I think this issue is certainly worth discussing between the NCSG and ALAC in Beijing.
> 
> If not, that's OK too.
> 
> -- 
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56