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

Yrjö Länsipuro yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com
Fri Nov 4 12:34:54 UTC 2016

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.



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
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.


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.
>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,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20161104/daa673e3/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list