<html>
<body>
I need to stop sending off e-mails late at night which are not
sufficiently clear.<br><br>
In my defence, I am on a very tight timeline to finalize the questions
for the Board and needed to find out if my analysis was close to
acceptable.<br><br>
Like it or not, we WILL be judged, and I think it time that we started to
manage the criteria which will be used. Those implied in the survey
questions are NOT, in my mind, acceptable and I thought that establishing
that first might be a good way to start a more productive discussion with
the Board as to what IS reasonable.<br><br>
Alan (heading out for several hours)<br><br>
At 03/03/2017 04:27 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi Alan,<br><br>
<br>
I agree with your analysis. <br><br>
<br>
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. <br><br>
<br>
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.<br><br>
<br>
Best,<br><br>
<br>
Yrjö<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<hr>
<font face="Calibri"><b>From:</b> alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
<alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Andrei
Kolesnikov <andrei@rol.ru><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 3, 2017 10:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Cc:</b> ALAC<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community -
Discussion with the Board</font> <br>
<br>
Alan - I agree with your proposed dandy's approach to manage the
discussion over the flawed topics. <br>
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. <br>
"We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and
linguistic diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the
GAC." - agree.<br><br>
--andrei<br><br>
2017-03-03 8:52 GMT+03:00 Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
>:<br>
<dl>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>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.<font color="#888888"><br><br>
<dd>Alan</font> <br><br>
<br><br>
<dd>At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>This whole process is insane.<br><br>
<dd>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?<br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>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.<br>
<br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>Whether or not we get listened to is a different story.<br><br>
<dd>- Evan<br><br>
<br>
<dd>On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto
<<a href="mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org">
asoto@ibero-americano.org</a>> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the
rest of
<dd>the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL
USER-RALOS-ALAC
<dd>ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end
users. From
<dd>there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the
end
<dd>users.<br>
<dd>Regards<br><br>
<dd>Alberto<br>
<dd>-----Mensaje original-----
<dd>De:
<a href="mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<dd>[
<a href="mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>] En nombre de Alan
Greenberg
<dd>Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM
<dd>Para: ALAC <<a href="mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>>
<dd>Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with
the
<dd>Board<br>
<dd>One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the
Board in
<dd>CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users.<br>
<dd>I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of
Table 3 in
<dd>the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role
of the
<dd>A-L Community.<br>
<dd>The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements
most
<dd>accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within
ICANN?<br>
<dd>There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC
respondents for
<dd>each option.<br>
<dd>1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO
members
<dd>that mainly act in their own interests. (58%)<br>
<dd>2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes)
and
<dd>individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development
processes on
<dd>behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%)<br>
<dd>3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet
end-users to
<dd>engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and
<dd>non-discriminatory fashion. (6%)<br>
<dd>4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes)
and
<dd>individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global
community of
<dd>Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion.
(13%)<br>
<dd>5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the
interests
<dd>and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes.
(10%)<br>
<dd>My analysis:<br>
<dd>1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally
exist
<dd>outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own
interests
<dd>(which may well coincide with the interests of other including the
interests
<dd>of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally
diverse
<dd>inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the
needs
<dd>and interests of users world-wide.<br>
<dd>2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved,
but if
<dd>the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we?<br>
<dd>3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion
users, or
<dd>even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of
<dd>respondents really think we do??<br>
<dd>4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual
members
<dd>engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if
we
<dd>mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community,
or is
<dd>based on experience with such a community.<br>
<dd>5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what
they
<dd>meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf
of all users or
<dd>the users of their region. But together, along with the
NomCom-appointed
<dd>Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe
will serve
<dd>the global user community well.<br>
<dd>What do people think of this analysis?<br>
<dd>Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>ALAC mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
ALAC Working Wiki:
<dd>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA</a>
<dd>C)<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>ALAC mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
<dd>-- <br>
<dd>Evan Leibovitch<br>
<dd>Toronto, Canada
<dl>
<dd>Em: evan at telly dot org
<dd>Sk: evanleibovitch
<dd>Tw: el56</blockquote>
</dl><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>ALAC mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Andrey Kolesnikov<br>
<a href="http://RIPN.NET">RIPN.NET</a><br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>