[ALAC] ALS Criteria and Expectations

[Maureen Hilyard]

Hi Evan

As my ALS is an incorporated society I have to provide an annual report for
my members (and our Ministry of Justice or they strike us off the
register.) I must admit that adding information about At-Large activities
and our involvement certainly adds more colour and interest than if I was
relying on the same old same old on our little island and didnt have a
story to tell. It goes on our website so At-Large is also notified. Task
done to cover a range of stakeholder expectations. No big deal. On with
everything else we're involved in. ☺

Regards
Maureen
On 3/03/2016 12:56 am, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160304/e688bd86/attachment.html>