[ALAC] Panel overload

Thu Nov 28 03:11:57 UTC 2013

Hi.

I wonder if people remember Fadi's speech during the LACRALO showcase in
Buenos Aires. He explained why the panels, which comprised mostly external
people of high reputation, were established.

For him, the panels essentially had a two-fold purpose:
1. To help frame strategy development in the areas of concern; and
2. To get the world's attention.

As a publicity tool, it certainly was not a bad idea. And Fadi also
understood and explained that filling in the strategy itself would not come
from the panels, but rather the community because the expertise for that
lies within the community.

My concern about the panels is this:
1. There are many panels and they are all drawing from the same community
for ideas and resources, creating fatigue at a time when people are worried
about what will happen in Brazil and the ITU events;
2. There is a relationship among the panels that haven't been worked out
yet (eg, I believe that the public responsibility panel should be the
aggregate or stand above the rest as the highest level strategic direction).

Strategy development is a CEO's responsibility with Board oversight.
Rather than start another initiative now, let us see what the panels come
up with.

The panels have a very short frame-development timeline (ie, January). If
the community does not believe that the panels are adding any value after
seeing the output, then a different strategy development initiative would
be warranted.

Best regards,

Rinalia
On Nov 28, 2013 10:07 AM, "Edmon" <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:

> +1
>
> Those are slaps in the face of both bottom-up and multistakeholder
> approach.
>
> Rather than supporting strategy development from the bottom, the approach
> is
> top-down board/ceo initiated "panels".
> I can only believe that the same funds, if directed to the "bottom", can
> achieve much better "input" to the process.
>
> I am not against having outside "panelists" but I can only agree that there
> is significant overload.
>
> Perhaps we need ONE MORE multistakeholder panel that is bottom-up... I
> wonder how the bottom-up process can put a stop or at least develop some
> sensible framework and oversight to it.  Perhaps the GNSO/ccNSO/ASO jointly
> should work to put better parameters around such board/ceo initiated
> panels?... ALAC can be the facilitator I believe.
>
> This allows the community to produce a consensus policy for ICANN itself in
> a bottom up, multistakeholder way.
>
> Edmon
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-
> > lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of José Francisco Arce
> > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:30 AM
> > To: Evan Leibovitch
> > Cc: At-Large Worldwide
> > Subject: Re: [ALAC] Panel overload
> >
> > +1
> > I have the same feeling. It seems that everything needs to be more
> > organize. What realy ICANN (Fady) wants to reach with all this? It's
> about
> > multistekeholderism or anything else.
> >
> > Jose.-
> > El nov 27, 2013 4:18 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org> escribió:
> >
> > > I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to
> get
> > > dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups
> being
> > > formed.
> > >
> > >    - Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban
> > >    (originally fivem two have been merged)
> > >    - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration
> > >    - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia
> > >    - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting
> (asked
> > >    for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered
> by a
> > >    joint ALAC/NCSG effort)
> > >
> > > That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be
> > > missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on
> > > within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't
> see
> > > any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the
> > > RIRs on these matters).
> > >
> > > There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility
> --
> > > credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels
> is
> as
> > > chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them.
> > >
> > > Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there
> are
> > > only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of
> the
> > > other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support
> for
> > > the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or
> > > opposed.
> > >
> > > But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling
> that
> > > this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no
> focus
> > > beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of
> > > government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is
> ICANN's
> > > civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked.
> > >
> > > Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the
> best
> > > defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this
> model
> > > appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were
> all
> > > these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation
> itself
> > > indicates a problem with the model.
> > >
> > > All I know right now is that:
> > >
> > >    - It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels,
> and
> > >    what relation they have to each other;
> > >    - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense
> of
> > >    the MSM, is diminishing by the day;
> > >    - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just
> woken
> > >    up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been
> > > arrogantly
> > >    assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not
> wholly
> > >    satisfying.
> > >
> > > My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Evan Leibovitch
> > > Toronto Canada
> > >
> > > Em: evan at telly dot org
> > > Sk: evanleibovitch
> > > Tw: el56
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ALAC mailing list
> > > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> > >
> > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > > ALAC Working Wiki:
> > >
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA
> C)
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
> > Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>