Does it seem to you that ICANN has turned up the volume on the Marina del Rey Rhythm Machine?
Recently I keep hearing ICANN self-promotions about how the ALAC is the
el perfecto of public accountability and participation.
I'm half expecting ICANN cheer leaders,
with pom poms and wearing short skirts, shouting out:
gimme an 'A'
gimme an 'L'
gimme an 'A'
gimme a 'C'...
From the promotional noises you'd think that the ALAC was better 'n sex and a whole lot better for you than sliced bread.
My advice for those who are considering falling for the hype - don't.
ICANN's ALAC is like an invitation to stand outside the football field while the game goes on on the inside. You can hear the noises but you can't see anything, and you certainly aren't going to get to play.
ICANN has a big political need to make the ALAC look better than the play pen that it is. The membership drive that ICANN seems to be pushing is for one purpose and one purpose only - to create enough confusion about ICANN's accountability to the public to dismiss questions about how a body that claims to be for the public benefit (and receives tax breaks worth several million dollars a year as a result) can really be for the benefit of the public when it so forcefully slams the door in their faces.
If you've got a need to feel powerless and want to have that feeling reflect reality, then ICANN's ALAC is for you. Otherwise, friends don't let friends drink the ALAC kool aid.
Until this last week every resolution before ICANN for a new TLD was written as a positive question, roughly in the form "should we approve this TLD?"
The .xxx resolution, unlike all of its predecessors, was written in the negative; it was in the form of "should we deny this TLD?".
That made things very odd, and the transcript contains several interventions by ICANN's chairman to clarify that "no" meant "yes" and that "yes" meant "no". Indeed one director, in explaining her vote got the two in reverse.
By passing this resolution, ICANN's board voted to doing nothing - the same effect would have been achieved simply by not having a vote at all. That's a rather odd way of doing business but it's a legitimate way. However it is quite at odds with ICANN's past practices.
Which raises the question: Why the change? And the ancillary question: Who wrote the resolution?
My own feeling, based only on speculation, is that the resolution was written by ICANN's "staff" and outside legal counsel in was put into that form in expectation of litigation and a feeling that the negative form would be a stronger prophalytic.