[ALAC] ALS Criteria and Expectations

Tue Jul 5 20:47:05 UTC 2016

Other than the matter he calls double dipping, let the record show I fully
endorse the views expressed by Evan.

So you know, my views on double dipping is only more slightly nuanced but
enough to give reprieve.  Some issues are given to more finer gradations
than others.  And it might very well entail forum-shopping to be effective
in advocacy.

On the balance of facts, just as I would find it an insurmountable
difficulty restricting individuals from having multiple interests and
acting on them in different fora, I would not disallow the same
organisation similar leeway.  Afterall, the will of the organisation is
effected thru people.

The history of LACRALO for example, will show the representatives of most
ALS are only activated at election time. As pernicious as that may seem to
be, I have a difficulty in exacting sanctions.  First, on principle. They
are volunteers. There is almost a reflexive dislike for the idea of
sanctioning volunteers for being insufficiently voluntary. Second - and
Evan explained it well! - not every ALS/volunteer will be interested in
every issue that comes along in ICANN. So while we may see them as
layabouts, I would preferentially consider them as sleeper agents, only to
be roused when their issue has come. Even if the issue is elections. There
are ways to fix that without disenfranchising.

These ideas are inextricably linked to my own view that At-Large
decision-making, should, by and large, be consensual. Not everybody is a
policy wonk. And we know for sure we all don't start at the same place for
knowledge. But we must remain committed to the "whosoever will, may come."

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> I have always, and still do, object vigorously to most of what is listed
> under "ALS objectives". I think they (most notably the obligation to
> feature ICANN on ALS websites and to report on their activities to ICANN)
> are uncalled-for demands of the time of volunteers already stretched.
>
> Let us remind ourselves ALWAYS that purpose of the ALS is to help and give
> input to ICANN on policy (through RALOs and then ALAC). It is NOT the job
> of ICANN to be aware of what the ALS is doing in any area that does not
> directly affect ICANN (unless ICANN is interested in offering resources for
> such activity).
>
> At-Large is also not a pyramid scheme. Having ALSs spread the word to
> other like-minded organizations is a nice-to-have but should never  be
> mandatory. If there is a desire for ALSs to recruit others, great....
> engage and excite them enough that they would spread the word on their own.
> Mandating this through rules simply demonstrates failure to sufficiently
> energize existing ALSs.
>
> And there must ALWAYS be provision for the scenario that an ALS could be
> dormant -- for months, maybe years -- until an issue of importance to them
> is raised. Remember that At-Large is intended to represent the views and
> interests of those in the community who may generally not interested in
> general ICANN governance, but have an interest in its policy outputs. Much
> as it likes to think otherwise, ICANN is involved with only a tiny corner
> of the Internet governance world(*), so its activity will not be of primary
> interest to many. It is reasonable that such limited-interest ALSs not be
> resourced to travel to events unless their issues are being addressed.
> However there is NO VALID REASON EVER for ALAC to bother or harass -- let
> alone disenfranchise -- an ALS for not caring about ICANN issues that are
> irrelevant to them.
>
> That someone would even ask the question "is being a Watcher sufficient"
> indicates a grotesque misunderstanding of why At-Large exists!
>
> Frankly, most of this whole exercise is utter BS. The only issue of value
> in the document Alan passed (besides housekeeping) was "double dipping" --
> that is, when an organization already in another constituency wants to be
> in At-Large. Personally, I would disallow this, because At-Large is
> designed to give a voice to those who otherwise would not have a place to
> be heard in ICANN. If they already have that other place, the At-Large
> ought not to be exploited as a channel of second resort or redundant point
> of entry.
>
> Other than that, the creation and consideration of this document is the
> kind of abuse of volunteer time and resources that leads to the very
> non-participation it seeks to address. How about understanding the causes
> of non-participation rather than fixing perceived symptoms by regulation?
> Many it is just a reality that many ALSs will only wake up when something
> that interests them comes up. *There is nothing wrong with that*.
>
> Those are my comments. I will not be in Helsinki, and because of other
> engagements I will not be able to participate remotely in the 10:45 meeting.
>
> - Evan
>
> (*) - Internet names and numbers are indeed only a tiny part of Internet
> governance, but it's the only one that whose decisions can single-handedly
> enrich an entire industry. It's where the money hangs out.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160705/bff072e8/attachment.html>