Evan, In your theory of a model for IG where ICANN staff decisions replace bottom-up policy, how are the staff held accountable and to whom? Thanks, Robin On Mar 22, 2013, at 8:44 AM, 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 IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]