[ALAC] ALS Criteria and Expectations

[Maureen Hilyard]

Hi Evan

I can appreciate what you are saying and agree with most of it, however, I
think that you are looking at a one-size-fits-all model of an ALS.

Take my small NGO in the (14,000 population) Cook Islands. I have to admit
to two active participants in ICANN activities - me on the ALAC and Pua
Hunter who represents the Cook Islands in the GAC. Local CIIAG members are
also members of the regional ALS - PICISOC - and they participate at a
local/ regional level. Some PICISOC members  may never actually interact
with At-Large because there are various levels of interest within this
large organisation.

But PICISOC does have other active members in At-Large, the ccNSO and NCUC,
just to name some of the sections, and many PICISOC members may also belong
to other ALSes within Oceania. We share our expertise :)

Is that double dipping when our small communities in the Pacific have
multiple memberships of ALSes  which may not focus on a single sector of
ICANN?  What we are trying to do is to give Pacific end-users  the  widest
possible reach for opportunities to have a voice across ICANN
constituencies - not restricting them to At-Large.

Also, because we want our members to value ICANN activities, reporting back
to members is an expectation we make of our leaders. It depends on each ALS
as to how they do this but sometimes, the use of relevant ICANN reports and
newsletters can be very helpful.

Maureen


On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:29 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/20160705/4607afb9/attachment.html>