For a long time the Board wouldn’t even recognize it had received ALAC advice (how different from when it receives GAC advice). To be frank though, only in recent years has ALAC advice been any good.

I read the paper you’re referring to. It improved markedly from the early drafts (I assume you were responsible for much of that) and is a useful document. I hope it become a reference point for the future. And I hope the ALAC continues to produce better quality papers.

I do think it’s a shame that some of the recent safeguards suggested by the GAC recently for new gTLDs did not come from the ALAC. I would really like to see the ALAC in future years produce documents as considered, representative and impactful as the GAC’s.

Maybe then you’ll see the Board putting it out to public comment and introducing a rating system for recommendations, as they’ve done with the recent Beijing communique.

Kieren

Of course situations like this are personal and frequently subjective. Which is why it is all the more important that there be both impartial policies and impartial individuals trained to carry them out.

That much is clear in your comment about “how you are quick to take shots at individuals who were less than deferential to you as well as the company proper”.

I would of course disagree with you. I took substantial criticism while at ICANN both personally and on behalf of the organization, both internally and externally.

What I did do, which many of the staff did not feel they could, was take a firm stand against the destructive interactions that were prevalent at the time.

Often staff was effectively bullied into silence by members of the community; I was always taught to stand up to bullies. At the same time, I also challenged internal dynamics that meant the community was not kept up-to-date, and questioned processes that were built more around getting something agreed and approved than ensuring broader buy-in.

Anyway, I did not write this whistleblower email, and I doubt very much whether you believe I did either. You’re either going to have to get better at trolling, or enter into a reasoned discourse and give up the pseudonyms. The middle ground’s not very effective.

Kieren

thank you for yet another interesting article, this time on the whistle-blowing function which has eluded proper implementation in ICANN.

This concern was also voiced a few months ago in an ICANN/ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee) White Paper entitled “Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected” (R3), drafted by 6 co-authors (Evan Leibovitch, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Yrjö Länsipuro, Carlton Samuels, XUE Hong, and yours truly).
The last section of this White Paper contains a series of recommendations, following upon the findings in the preceding sections. Thus, under “The Global Public Interest”, the fourth recommendation calls upon ICANN to
“Provide for relevant whistle-blowing (e.g. regarding conflicts of interest), with proper rules protecting both the corporation and prospective whistle-blowers.”

Just to give you an indication of how the members of the ALAC considered R3, I’d like to recall that the ALAC voted unanimously to turn it into an ALAC White Paper, which was then conveyed by the ALAC Chair to the Board Chair, and copied to the CEO. The Board Chair graciously acknowledged receiving the document.

Several months have gone by, and just like you, I’m curious about the attitude of the Board towards the principle of whistle-blowing, whether and when they will take action, and in what guise.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.

It was Goose Island Bourbon Country Stout and it was on draft at Rye House (11 West 17 Street).

Unbelievably good. On a par with the very best Belgian beers, drunk in Belgium.

That’s a very negative assumption and not one in my experience that people that like good beer tends tends to have. They’re a pretty positive bunch – most likely because they’re drinking good beer.

Are there good beers and bad beers? Yes, I would say so. Objectively, some beer has more taste, more layers of taste, greater subtleties, different textures, and so on.

The fact that brewers dedicate their whole lives to perfecting something and that other people will seek what they produce out, and pay more for it. And talk about it. All of this would indicate that there is such a thing as better beer. What’s more people broadly agree on what a better beer is like.

I am also pretty certain that these people – these elitist twats, as you put it – would love nothing more than to explain what it is that they love about their “better” beer. I think you’d find that for an “elite”, it is surprisingly inclusive and welcoming.

If you don’t want to know what people are talking about. If the idea of there being better quality beer offends your sensibilities. If you just like to chug on beer because its refreshing and gives you a buzz, good for you.

But don’t confuse trying to build on that enjoyment by looking for deeper and varied tastes as looking down on others. And if you are interested in what on earth we’re all talking about, go buy some of the beers mentioned above and drink them with an open mind, by yourself if need be. You’ll find that there’s something to it.

Given your history with ICANN and how you are quick to take shots at individuals who were less than deferential to you as well as the company proper, I find it as likely that you generated the anonymous mail as any other possible insider or outsider sender. Please put more effort into future posts.