[ALAC] Document for discussion during Friday's ALS Expectations session

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

+1 - and EURALO is well in the process of gaining a better understanding
of what competencies are present in its ALSes.
Kindest regards,
Olivier

On 04/11/2016 18:04, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
>
> Dear Alan, all
>
>
> Perhaps I didn't read your document carefully enough. It seems me now
> that there is no disagreement: both tracks will be pursued, and they
> will hopefully reinforce each other.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Yrjö
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 4, 2016 11:23 AM
> *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Yrjö Länsipuro; Veronica Cretu
> *Cc:* ALAC
> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Document for discussion during Friday's ALS
> Expectations session
>  
> Yrjö and Olivier and others,
>
> If you read my suggestion as giving up on the
> original intent, then I obviously did not make it sufficiently clear.
>
> What I am saying is that it is unrealistic to
> expect effective input from ALS members and ALSes
> unless we lay the groundwork and provide them
> with palatable, comprehensible input. And in my
> mind, it is critical to do that not only to the
> ALS representative, but to the wider ALS membership.
>
> If we do that, Then over time we will have an
> increasing number (and hopefully large number) of
> ALS members who become active in our WGs and processes.
>
> Along the way, we are also increasing awareness
> of ICANN and its issues, even among those who do
> not become "converts". Perhaps that makes us
> unpaid part of ICANN's communications team, but
> since I envisage ICANN staff being the prime
> source of our outgoing missives, I am not sure
> that is a strong argument. We may well need
> additional staff capacity to do this, and that
> will require a strong direction from the ALAC.
>
> I completely agree that such things as
> understanding the competencies of ALSes and ALS
> members is critical (as opposed to just the
> competencies of the ALS representatives). You
> will note that I did mention that some ALSes with
> particular competencies might be treated differently.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> At 03/11/2016 03:36 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> >Dear Alan,
> >
> >On 02/11/2016 19:58, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
> > >
> > > I wholeheartedly agree that  the  200+ strong ALS network could and
> > > should be used more for disseminating information about ICANN in their
> > > countries and regions.   This ties in nicely with what I have
> > > understood to be Göran's focus on a more understandable grassroots
> > > communication of ICANN's new narrative.
> > >
> > >
> > > However, I would like to suggest that the original idea of having
> > > ALS's to contribute to the At Large advice development process, in
> > > spite of disappointments, would  be kept alive and not seen as a dead
> > > end, to be replaced with the new communication/information
> > > orientation.  I see the two as parallel and mutually reinforcing
> > > efforts. As you say, the new role of ALS's may make them more
> > > knowledgeable and help to fullfill the original target (ALS input into
> > > the advice processes.)
> > >
> >
> >I completely agree with Yrjö.
> >
> >As a RALO Chair, I object to becoming a mere unpaid part of ICANN's
> >communication machine. If end users are to learn about ICANN's
> >activities, it is because they need to be given the bylaw-mandated
> >ability to bring their point of view into the ICANN processes. It is not
> >because this is a hard task and because there are barriers, that we
> >should give up. If we did, then we are literally giving up on the
> >bottom-up multistakeholder model. We are ICANN's feet.
> >
> >Rather than giving up on ALS input, we need to implement all of the
> >recommendations which our ALSes have proposed when they met in London in
> >June 2014. The policy management process system; the mapping of
> >competencies in ALSes; the capacity building; the tracking of ICANN
> >stakeholder input balancing, etc. - all of these are unfinished
> >projects. All of these require time and work. All of these are cutting
> >edge, because nobody else is doing this in the world.
> >
> >Nobody.
> >
> >We need to push the frontiers of what can be achieved in bottom-up,
> >grassroots input.
> >
> >We need to work smarter, not harder (TM CLO).
> >
> >If a majority of ALAC representatives really believe that input from the
> >grassroots is impossible, then may I suggest that we close down ALAC
> >altogether and declare ICANN a failed experiment. ICANN version 1 was
> >built on the promise that this was going to be a bottom-up organisation
> >answering the needs of the Internet community at large. Version 2, after
> >the failed 2001 elections, tried to introduce more stability but
> >stripped ICANN of a vital end user influence. Version 2b brought
> >At-Large back to the Board of Directors. Version 3, which you appear to
> >propose, gives the green light to the Domain Industrial Complex to run
> >the show unhindered and for the ALAC to become its willing propaganda
> >dispensing puppet.
> >
> >I'd rather have a root canal than follow this path.
> >
> >Kindest regards,
> >
> >Olivier
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20161105/0a01eba9/attachment.html>