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

Fri Mar 3 08:40:48 UTC 2017

Alan - I agree with your proposed dandy's approach to manage the discussion
over the flawed topics.
However nothing stops me and any other ALAC members to express opinion
aired by Evan. The whole deal - to framework AtLarge complex and uneasy
environment, dealing with diverse domain cultures through ALSs all over the
world into the best-western style management is insane.
"We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic
diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC." - agree.

--andrei

2017-03-03 8:52 GMT+03:00 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>:

> 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 < 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
> <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>

-- 
Andrey Kolesnikov
RIPN.NET
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170303/f6edb48a/attachment.html>