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

Fri Mar 3 09:27:31 UTC 2017

Hi Alan,

I agree with your analysis.

Most ALS'es (at least in Europe) are previously existing, established organizations, some older that ICANN, that have a life of their own  in their national context. The fact that they have applied for an ALS status means that their own, national level goals and interests  coincide at least to some extent with those of ICANN and that they thus probably defend the interests of ICANN in their national level multistakeholder setting. This important role is something that the review seems to be oblivious of.

If "representing" 3,5 billion people in the classic sense of representative democracy would be possible, we would have had a world government long ago...  But each ALS can try to figure out how end users in its particular environment would be best served and bring forth their points of view, as you say.  To get a deeper understanding of the grassroots needs and views of their countries and regions, they might liaise with academia - another reason for enhanced cooperation with the NCUC.

Best,

Yrjö

________________________________
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei at rol.ru>
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 10:40 AM
To: Alan Greenberg
Cc: ALAC
Subject: Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board

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<mailto: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<mailto: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>
[ 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://RIPN.NET>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170303/d052b53e/attachment.html>