[ALAC] ALS Criteria and Expectations

Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Thu Mar 3 10:54:50 UTC 2016


On 3 March 2016 at 10:20, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

>
> One interesting question that comes up is should an unaffilitated membber
> who also belongs to NCSG vote?
>

​With due respect. That's not an interesting question; in fact it's utterly
pointless.

In ICANN, multiple entry vectors for participation abound. Anyone who is
part of one or more communities is welcome to make public comments on their
own, in addition to (and maybe even totally counter to) the views of those
communities.

In ICANN's particular brand of multistakeholderism, there is no such thing
as conflict of interest so long as you declare. In this environment, I
consider issues such as the question Alan raised ​as distractions which --
deliberately or not -- divert our community's energy away from policy and
matters of substance,

​towards never-ending introspection incapable of constructive outcome.
​
Then again, I see most of the realm of discussion of "*ALS Criteria and
Expectations*" (even the title is buffoonish) to be in this light.

Expectations? Really? is being an ALS some kind of great bloody prize
against which we can draw up lists of demands? By its very application (and
willingness to be subjected to due diligence) the ALS has indicated an
interest in participating. The level or specificity of that participation
ought not to be judged by an At-Large community that makes noises about
being inclusive and welcoming.

*Annual reports?* *Are you freaking kidding me?* Needless work for ALSs to
create. Needless work for volunteers to review. Needless misuse of staff
resources to manage. Whatever people or group came up with that particular
bit of stupidity should be spanked.

If an ALS contributes one valuable commentary of substance in a year -- in
FIVE years -- that is still more valuable than if they were not here. If
there are issues about voting -- be they regarding quorum or attempts to
game elections -- then deal with that. But for heaven's sake, there should
only be three reasons to decertify an ALS:

   1. It no longer exists
   2. It is abusive of others (and that requires a high bar
   ​ of evidence​
   )
   3. Unsolicited, it asks to leave
   ​

​If the goal is to prevent "freeloaders" from getting subsidized to travel
to assemblies, that's legit -- such minimum participation requirements
exist for the Summits and General Assemblies that have already taken place.
But the mere status of being an ALS is not so ​
​
​precious that it demands periodic review and renewal. The cost to service
a quiet ALS is near zero.


​Yes, we have a massive challenge to participation. In no small part that
is because we try to speak for the interests of a global end-user community
whose members, on the whole, doesn't really care about domain name
governance. Or if they do, there is some specialized part of it that
concerns them only on certain occasions -- this is why infrequent
participation should not be grounds for jettisoning an ALS.​

​This issue of "ALS Expectations"​ is not only unimportant, the expenditure
of non-zero effort on this is IMO a major source of embarrassment of
At-Large that will seriously impair future outreach.

​I await the opportunity to ignore the request for annual reports. Do your
worst.​

*​Now go do some policy work*. Please. Before the contraction starts.​

​​- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160303/fa6f8f96/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list