[ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ALAC Statement on Future Structure and Governance of ICANN

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

Dear Evan:

To your second question, the answer's somewhat complex.

The voting on the statement was setup specifically so that it would end 
on the 10th, in order to allow the statement to be sent in before the 
comment period closed. However, during the voting, Sebastien returned 
from holidays and raised questions about the statement's content, as he 
believed that it was to include an addition which he had written and 
tried to send in to the working group list immediately before he left 
for the Philippines. Unfortunately the statement didn't reach the list 
and therefore didn't arrive in the window during which comments were 
still being taken on the draft before voting began.

As a result it was not clear to us precisely what to do. At the same 
time, we had transmitted the statement, and accompanying draft text of 
the email to accompany it, to the Excom list so that either one of the 
Excom, or ourselves on behalf of the ALAC, were to transmit the 
statement to the public comment period. An answer took a little time.

What we (staff) should have done is simply send the statement in once 
the voting was concluded, copying the relevant lists and people, and 
asking for forgiveness afterwards as it were, due to the situation. For 
not ensuring this I apologise. At the same time, were we to have ensured 
Maria had a copy and knew what the situation was, that would have also 
helped greatly, though in this particular case the statement text had 
already been transmitted to the Board as a part of the At-Large Summit 
Declaration, so the contents had already been seen by the Board. Whilst 
it was very public that At-Large was going through the bottom-up, 
community-wide consultation on the text before the ALAC vote to ratify 
the statement, Maria has many things to read and would have certainly 
been helped by directly receiving something from us so that she knew 
what was coming and had the text to hand (apologies to you too Maria).

I would not want anyone to think that I'm trying to shift any 
responsibility to Sebastien or anyone else - I most definitely am not - 
but I do want you all to understand the situation as a whole.

I think that this sort of situation would be much less likely to occur 
if At-Large's policy advice development process didn't run up so close 
to deadlines but I would like to stress that I know this is often very 
difficult to avoid considering the bottom-up nature of deliberation in 
At-Large that takes place to the maximum extent possible, the geographic 
and linguistic diversity of participants, and the 30-day window in which 
many, though not all, comment periods run.

In this vein it may interest you to know that Cheryl's asked me to 
prepare a draft Advisory for the ALAC and community to consider related 
to the structure of public consultations, drawn from the Thought Paper 
on the subject requested by Working Group 1 in the lead-up to the 
Summit. The referenced paper may be found here: 
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/summit-wg/attachments/wg1_documents:20090212233632-0-6257/original/AL-SUM-WG1-01-INF-1%20Thought%20Paper%20on%20Public%20Consultations%20-%20EN.pdf

Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> Hello everyone.
>
> ICANN staffer Maria Farrell recently wrote a letter to the ALAC announce
> list, scolding At-Large for missing one of ICANN's typical too-tight
> comment deadlines.
>
> In a moment of pique I wrote the response below. Before I send it in my
> capacity as NARALO chair, I would like to receive feedback on both its
> content and appropriateness. Personally I'm simply fed up with
> complaints like this that we can't play the game as well as the vested
> interests.
>
> And ... to At-Large staff ... are Maria and other ICANN staffers not
> alterted in advance when ALAC statements are to be submitted past their
> deadlines? I thought that was the case,
>
>
> - Evan
>
> ---------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Maria Farrell wrote:
>   
>> In the future, I would be most grateful if you could follow the agreed procedure for submitting public comments to an ICANN consultation; i.e. posting them to the correct location within the time agreed. This is the only way to ensure equity between all contributors and allow us to complete the overall process in a timely manner.
>>
>> I understand that it can be a challenge for diverse groups to get comments agreed in time. However, other contributors with similar internal consensus-building processes to fulfill, including the GAC, various government authorities and trade associations, submit their input on time and/or appraise the relevant staff beforehand if there is going to be an issue.
>>   
>>     
>
> Hello Maria,
>
> Respectfully, if the above statement conveys your true sentiment then
> you do not, indeed, understand At-Large.
>
> At-Large, by definition, does not include bodies with financial interest
> in ICANN outcomes. It has no business models, national interests, or
> property to protect. Its members primarily do not have English as their
> first language, let alone the technical jargon that more often than not
> pervades ICANN policy debate. They do, however, attempt to represent
> more than 99% of the community affected by ICANN decisions.
>
> During my brief history within At-Large I have seen countless similar
> misunderstandings of At-Large's most difficult role within ICANN. These
> misunderstandings are manifested through unrealistic deadlines, and
> other expectations that are based on the assumption that we can move as
> quickly as governments and lobbyists with interests to protect. When was
> that last time that At-Large was ever consulted in advance on whether a
> deadline was reasonable?
>
> Some of these misunderstandings, arguably, are institutionalized deep
> within ICANN. To a casual observer, the idea that ICANN's "public
> participation" mechanism is distinct and separate from the component
> that works with At-Large is astounding.
>
> If ICANN claims of public transparency and accountability are to be seen
> as more than a facade, then perhaps it's time to better recognize --
> throughout the organization -- that the challanges of At-Large are both
> different and substantially more complex than those of governments or
> vested interests.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Evan Leibovitch
> Chair, NARALO
>
>   

-- 

-- 

Regards,

 

Nick Ashton-Hart

Director for At-Large

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83

USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637

Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44

Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468

email: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org

Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com / 
Skype: nashtonhart

Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart