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

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 11:08:27 UTC 2016

+1 on all points.


On Nov 3, 2016 2:37 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> 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.


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,

ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20161104/0c6255d0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list