[governance] ITU vs. ICANN

[Karl Auerbach]

On 10/15/2010 03:13 PM, Jacqueline Morris wrote:
> I disagree. The Interim ALAC was a very different creature, and the true
> ALAC really can be said to have begun with the creation of the RALOs.
> That means that the ALAC most certainly isn't 7 years old at all.

Your mathematics and mine are rather different.

I first heard "the ALAC is too new to judge" excuse perhaps 6 years ago.

Back then there might have been some weight to that excuse.  But many 
years have intervened.

Since year 2003 ICANN has given assistance to the ALAC in the form of 
hundreds of thousands of direct dollars (perhaps more, ICANN can't tell) 
and a similar amount of staff time.

Throughout that interval there has been nothing to stop the formation of 
those sub-bodies called RALOs and ALS's - he only thing that held the 
RALOs and ALS's back was lack of willpower.

It is the public's recognition of the ALAC system as a captive, kept 
body that has caused it to grow less in 7 years than the public election 
system did in 7 weeks.

In other words, the reason that the ALAC and (its sub-structures) is 
withered is that there is nothing on the table for it to do; there is 
nothing to attract the interest and time of people interested in 
internet governance.

The ALAC has as much power to control direction in ICANN as a childs toy 
steering wheel has power to control an automobile - none.

It is the ability to affect the exercise of power that would draw people 
to the ALAC.  That ability is absent.

We see a similar issue in other fora of internet governance - there is 
lots of space to talk - and talk endlessly we do - and little space to 
exercise authority.

It is useful to compare the vibrancy of the other "stakeholder" groups 
within ICANN to the ALAC - those other groups have a $$ stake and they 
have self-organized into effective powers within ICANN.  In fact the 
intellectual property group organized so quickly after ICANN's creation 
that it was able to ram the UDRP into effect ICANN before any 
countervailing groups could form.

Back in the 1880s through 1930's industrial corporations found a useful 
tool to fight the growing labour unions - that tool was the "company 
union".  It is revealing how much the ALAC resembles a company union not 
merely in its shape and form but also in its financial dependency.

Here in the US the company union was found to be so contrary to the 
public good that it was declared unlawful.

What is there about the ALAC, if anything, that immunizes it from the 
dangers that made company unions unacceptable?

If one argues that the ALAC is "new" and thus must be forgiven its small 
size and given the benefit of every doubt, then by comparable 
mathematics the original election system was given but a few hours of 
life before it was killed without proof that it was ailing.

Why the intensive care given to the ALAC when there was a rush to 
execution for the original election system?  The answer, in my mind, is 
that the the board members that came out of the election process were 
independent and empowered - to a man (they were all men) they were more 
vocal and active than the non-elected directors.  ICANN's fear of the 
public took concrete form in the elected directors.  On the other hand 
the ALAC is exactly what was intended by its creators - a dependent 
creature crushed under the weight of an over-ramified organizational 
hierarchy; all gums, no teeth.

ICANN is a public-benefit corporation; it exists to protect and enhance 
the public good.

And to that end ICANN when it was created promised that more than half 
of its board seats would be chosen by the public.

We waited three years to get any - and when we got them it was a 
minority 5 out of about 17.

Then two years later, for the price of an ALAC and an ombudsman, ICANN 
cut that to zero.

Three years ago some of us worked our tails off to get ICANN to formally 
consider returning to a paltry two board seats to be filled by the 
community of internet users.

I did not hear much of a ruckus from the ALAC when that diminutive 
number was cut in half to one.

Even if we accept the claim that the ALAC is "new" and that it will 
grow, it is like looking at a new-born mouse and trying to imagine "here 
is a lion" - its genetics make that an unlikely outcome.

		--karl--


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t