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

Fri Mar 3 05:52:06 UTC 2017

The survey question is, in my mind, deeply flawed, but I think it is 
a dandy way to get into a discussion of what Board members actually expect.

And yes, other communities are now (finally) being asked the same 
question, and I think we are in a better position than most to answer it.

But back to my original message, we can only use this as a start if 
we have a generally agreed upon analysis of those answers. Thus the 
question I asked.

Alan

At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>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 
><<mailto:asoto at ibero-americano.org>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: 
><mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>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 <<mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>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
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: 
><http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA
>C)
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>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/ce98843d/attachment.html>