[governance] ITU vs. ICANN

Fri Oct 15 23:20:55 EDT 2010

The INTERIM-ALAC  might have taken a long time to get going to form the
RALOs, but since they have formed, there is definitely interest and
activity. So to be fair, you really need to separate the pre-RALO and
post-RALO At-Larges.
With regard to the history, yep, I've heard all of it before. But given that
we are not able to turn back the hands of time, it remains just that,
history. I prefer to deal with what is now in the present, and work with the
At Large, the RALOs and ALAC to move forward, rather than forever looking
back  and bemoaning what was, and complaining about what  is, because it is
different.
Your email reminds me of the old-timers who forever hearken back to the good
old days when one could leave the back door open without fear of thieves,
when one had to walk 2 miles to go to school, uphill both ways!
Jacqueline

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101015/3928509e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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