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

[Carlton Samuels]

As a kickoff point for a discussion, yes.  But that is after you point out
how that on its face, the survey is flawed. Maybe you need to get the back
story out front first; what the bye-law says.

-Carlton


==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &
Turnaround*
=============================

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> 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/di
> splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170303/21539269/attachment.html>