[ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board

Fri Mar 3 05:33:04 UTC 2017

This whole process is insane.

Is the Business Constituency ever asked if it represents or speaks for
every business -- domain owner or not -- in the world? Is NPOC asked if it
represents every NGO? Do the people who attend from law enforcement speak
for all police and military?

Contracted parties -- ie, the domain industry -- generally do have
reasonably full representation, in part because there are relatively few
players and in part because they are so fully invested in -- and dependent
on -- ICANN's pseudo-regulation more than other communities or
constituencies.

But it seems that At-Large alone is singled out for this kind of analysis,
because -- unlike the others -- we wouldn't be able to be involved without
the charitable resources -- travel and staff support -- that ICANN
bequeaths upon us. Such support clearly bothers other communities who
believe that we are skimming off revenues THEY bring to ICANN just so we
can trash them.

In my experience, the "who the hell are YOU speaking for?" comment has been
used whenever we have something to say that poses a legitimate
end-user-driven challenge to ICANN's standard operation. Hearing that in a
debate would embolden me because it indicates that our logic and evidence
was superior and the only rebuttal was to challenge our legitimacy.

At the end of the day, we do the job that is asked of us to the extent we
are able -- that is, to bring the end-user point of view into ICANN to the
best of our individual capabilities. That is all that Bylaw 12.2(d) asks of
us and I believe we have generally done that as well as possible given the
constraints in place. We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a
geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except
for the GAC. But even here we are deeply flawed, considering how the
regions are sliced and a structure that is so complex so as to churn more
volunteer time on process than on policy input.

Still, there is decent output. I see our policy diversions from NCSG as a
(positive) reflection that grassroots population don't always share the
same priorities and perspectives of the civil society that is supposedly
protecting it. This divergence exists on the street, so seeing it in play
within ICANN tells me that At-Large is indeed doing a reasonable -- and
surprisingly accurate --  job at conveying the end-user perspective.

Whether or not we get listened to is a different story.

- Evan

On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org> wrote:

> I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the rest of
> the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL USER-RALOS-ALAC
> ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end users. From
> there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the end
> users.
>
> Regards
>
> Alberto
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg
> Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM
> Para: ALAC <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the
> Board
>
> One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in
> CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users.
>
> I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3
> in
> the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the
> A-L Community.
>
> The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most
> accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within
> ICANN?
>
> There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents
> for
> each option.
>
> 1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members
> that mainly act in their own interests. (58%)
>
> 2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and
> individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes
> on
> behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%)
>
> 3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to
> engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and
> non-discriminatory fashion. (6%)
>
> 4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and
> individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community
> of
> Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%)
>
> 5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests
> and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%)
>
> My analysis:
>
> 1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist
> outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests
> (which may well coincide with the interests of other including the
> interests
> of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse
> inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs
> and interests of users world-wide.
>
> 2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but
> if
> the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we?
>
> 3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users,
> or
> even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of
> respondents really think we do??
>
> 4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members
> engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we
> mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is
> based on experience with such a community.
>
> 5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they
> meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or
> the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed
> Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will
> serve
> the global user community well.
>
> What do people think of this analysis?
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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+(ALA
> C)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>

-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto, Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170303/e27d89ac/attachment.html>