[fwd] No Smoking Gun [Was: RE: [ALSC-Forum] At Large Choreography - smoking gun?] (from: avc@nameengine.com)

[Thomas Roessler]

It seems that this clarification from van Couvering didn't make it 
to this list for whatever reason.

----- Forwarded message from Antony Van Couvering <avc@nameengine.com> -----

From: "Antony Van Couvering" <avc@nameengine.com>
To: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>,
	"Pindar Wong" <pindar@hk.super.net>
Cc: "ALSC forum" <forum@atlargestudy.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 01:12:49 -0400
Subject: No Smoking Gun [Was: RE: [ALSC-Forum] At Large Choreography - smoking gun?]
Thread-Topic: [ALSC-Forum] At Large Choreography - smoking gun?
Thread-Index: AcD0UsOGqW4uTMzAQJ2R9SQmtKqqlQAALEEw

> Van Couvering's message sounds like he has strong reasons to believe 
> - apparently from conversations with the board - that the board 
> seats for a ccSO would be taken from the At Large pool. 
> 

Dear Thomas Roessler, 

You've misread my message.   Whatever it sounded like, I meant no such
thing.    The tone of my message to the INTA list was arch and that's
probably why people are reading more into it than was there.   My
apologies - this is how stupid rumors get started.

I posted to the  INTA list in reaction to press accounts which
characterized the ccTLD vote to form a ccSO as a revolt against ICANN.
It was not a revolt.  This move by the ccTLDs had been much discussed
within and among constituencies, support in various quarters had been
lined up and were temperatures taken, before the ccTLDs voted.   There's
no smoking gun, because there's no gun, no smoke, no bullet.   The
ccTLDs voted to do something they've been wanting for a long time, but
they only did it when it was clear that it wouldn't be a problem.
That's what I wanted to say on the INTA list.

I continued in my note to speculate where the 3 seats for a new SO would
come from.  It's an interesting question.  This was my train of thought:

Consider that the ccTLDs have been talking about leaving ICANN, talking
about refusing to pay ICANN, talking about demanding guaranteed
representation on the ICANN Board if they were to be expected to
contribute to the budget, etc., etc. -- all this at every ICANN meeting
I can remember.   It has been a long lament, but always one that was met
with with silence and occasionally disdain by the ICANN Board and staff,
though there were individual efforts by some to build some bridges.  And
nothing, nothing at all, has ever come of all this talk.

Consider that in Melbourne, the ccTLD Adcom was invited to dinner with
certain members of the Board (5 of them), apparently for  no other
reason than to get acquainted and perhaps to bridge a bit the distrust
that had grown in the constituency.   It was a very friendly and
pleasant meal, and the need for a reform of the DNSO -- to make it work,
which it manifestly does not -- was a major topic of conversation.
Ideas were asked for, and since the ccSO idea had been in the air for a
while within the constituency, it was mentioned, and it met with a
favorable reception.  (The passive voice is intentional here - I'm not
providing any more conspiracy-theory fodder.)

[HOWEVER -- No "deal" was made with the ccTLDs, and none was discussed.
The Adcom certainly had no remit to make decisions for the ccTLD
constituency, and since a small minority of the ICANN Board was there
neither could they make any decisions.   The ICANN Board doesn't make
"deals" with consituencies anyway -- only Verisign, apparently, merits
that status.  The conversation did not touch in any way on allocation of
Board seats in any context.  It *did* center around how to make the DNSO
productive, and the tone of the conversation was constructive.   There
was no mention *at all* of the At Large seats (why would they discuss
that with us?).]

Fast-forward to Stockholm, where the ccTLD Constituency votes
unanimously -- not, by the way, a binding vote, which can only happen
online -- to form a ccSO.   At a cross-constituency meeting reps from
the other constituencies expressed their support for the ccTLDs.   The
new CEO sends the ccTLDs a letter that he is watching developments with
"great interest" and appreciates the ccTLDs "expression of continued
support" for ICANN.  This is not a revolt.

Assuming the ccSO goes through, and I think it will, where are the ccSO
Board seats going to come from?  Either new seats have to be created, or
seats have to be taken away from existing members to make room.  I know
that some of the At Large members elected so far have been very sharp
critics of the rest of the ICANN Board, which behaves defensively, as
well they might.   Do they wish for more of them?  I doubt it.   

I believe that some on the ICANN Board/Staff would like to see the ccSO
seats come out of the pesky At-Large ration of seats.  I believe that
they would like to see fewer At-Large members, not more.   I believe
that this helps explain why the ccTLD's aspirations are being met by the
ICANN Board with sweetness and light after a long dark night in the
wilderness.  But do I know of any quid-pro-quo arrangements?  Definitely
not. 

Forget the smoking gun.    

Antony Van Couvering

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Thomas Roessler [ mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:46 PM 
> To: Pindar Wong 
> Cc: ALSC forum; avc@interport.net 
> Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] At Large Choreography - smoking gun? 
> 
> 
> On 2001-06-13 22:04:06 +0800, Pindar Wong wrote: 
> 
> >Personally, trying to take a more positive view, I consider the 
> >the cctld departure indicative that some part of the ICANN 
> >structure is clearly not working and that there's an immediate 
> >desire for change.  I'd thought that this would have logically 
> >bubbled-up through the DNSO-review process but, for whatever 
> >reason, it didn't. 
> 
> I agree. 
> 
> >how do you think the cctld's departure from the DNSO specifically 
> >impacts the ALSC study? 
> 
> Van Couvering's message sounds like he has strong reasons to believe 
> - apparently from conversations with the board - that the board 
> seats for a ccSO would be taken from the At Large pool. 
> 
> This means that the ALSC has three possibilities: 
> 
> 1. Ignore the ccTLDs' move.  That is, examine at large participation 
>     with the current board structure in mind, and risk that your 
>     results are more or less ignored by the board. 
> 
> 2. Perform the study with the constraints created by the addition of 
>     a ccSO in mind.  Taking into consideration that the board isn't 
>     particularly small now, and that an enlargement of the board 
>     doesn't look likely (in particular when there are board signals 
>     that the ccSO seats should be taken from the at large), this 
>     would mean that some results of the study committee are made much 
>     less likely. 
> 
> 3. Perform a study of the ICANN's entire structure, and suggest how 
>     it can be improved or redesigned to avoid the problems we are 
>     seeing today. 
> 
> I'm afraid that option 2 looks like the most practical one, and the 
> one most likely to produce results which would indeed be respected 
> by the board.  However, I'd have expected the board to abstain from 
> any activities which further constrain this study committee's 
> possible results. 
> 
> I sincerely hope I'm wrong with this analysis: I hope that this 
> committee is indeed studying the issues of user participation and 
> public accountability of ICANN in an open-minded way (which, I 
> believe, would indeed mean you end up with something like public 
> elections for a balancing set of directors).  I hope that the board 
> is going to respect the committee's recommendations, and to follow 
> them.  Bad enough, it's getting harder and harder to believe that. 
> 
> >PS: If we're all wasting our time, energy, effort, brainpower etc. 
> >then someone please let me know ... and we can go dancing ;) 
> >Otherwise let's please keep plugging away at the issues at hand. 
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/ 
> 


----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/