[ALAC] Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC meeting

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Charges?  That is a bit strong.

My belief is that there is a reciprocal relationship between continued outreach, recognition and a vote, and the participation you attract.  People pitch in and do stuff when they feel a sense of belonging.  Paying attention to the ALSes, drawing them in, and giving them more direct democracy would, in my opinion help bring in the particpation we need to keep up with all that is going on in ICANN.

In the group I am chairing, we have a project that is trying to understand why we did not reach people on applications, and did not reach people on support.  and just this week Evan made a very impassioned statement about how we had not succeeded in attracting the interest in the objection process that we should have.  In most of this, our first thought is to accuse ICANN of not having done something it should have.  And beleive me, I do not want people to think I hold them blameless, perish the thought - it would be out of character.

But, the whole design of At-Large relies on the participation of ALSes.  But they don't participate for the most part. Are we asking why that is?  Shouldn't that be one of our biggest concerns? Aren't the ALSes the way we reach the Internet Users the ALAC is chosen to represent?

It is my belief that if the people in the ALS, who cared enough at some point to join a RALO were made to feel that they had some stake in what we did, made to feel they had a voice and given a direct vote for leadership positions like the Board seat, they would start to care and would start to work in the WG etc.  If we want them to come, we have to attract them and we have to make their membership meaningful.

So I don't charge anyone with marginalisation.  Rather I argue that if we want them to come, we have to make a place for them and we have to let them know.  I think many of us are comfortable with the status quo we find ourselves in and want to preserve it, fearing that anything we do might break what we have.  It is natural, it is the way people are.  But if we want to achieve the ICANN leadership that an idea like the At-large deserves, I beleive we have to change our ways. For me, that starts with giving the ALSes respect and among other things giving them a vote. Yes, it is only once every three years, and it may seem more symbolic than practical.  But the symbolism of voting for someone on the Board is important and I beleive would inspire some to pay greater attention and few more serve ICANN as most of you do. 

We need a feedback loop for accountability.  And we need accountability in order to succeed.

Just saying.

avri



On 26 Mar 2013, at 21:33, Carlton Samuels wrote:

> I despair when I see charges of "ALS marginalisation" made.  Eduardo has
> said enough on how ALS determine the ALAC's composition...and, its fitness
> for purpose.  What is distressing is with regard to the real work, as in
> policy discussions and drafting policy statements.  It is the same set that
> shows up, with only a few reps work anything near hard at these tasks.
> Most don't show up at all.
> 
> Sure, a tribe with too many chiefs and not enough indians is doomed.  So to
> sustain ALAC we need more indians.  And like hell you get 'em to come to
> the fight!  No, don't ask me to work harder to get someone to do what they
> promised. I have long accepted the role underachievement plays in
> sustaining volunteer organisations.
> 
> -Carlton
> 
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
> 
>