<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">As
ICANN enters a period of austerity while it panics its way to
re-opening the gTLD floodgates, ALAC is at a crossroads. Ridiculed
wherever it is not written off for its navel-gazing and complete
ineffectiveness at bringing forth any useful input unique to end users,
ALAC struggles for legitimacy whether it knows it or not. No wonder
ATLAS 3 was so poorly funded; ICANN suspects that nothing useful (for
its purposes) will come out of the current direction of yet more process
and more capacity building. They think it's a waste of money so they
give the minimum they can get away with. Who can blame them?<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">ALAC
had the chance to prove them wrong this time and to do something
different, to take the time necessary to have the mortally necessary
debate within ALAC of how it can be relevant to ICANN and revisit how to
serve its bylaw-stated mission. It needed to counter the awful external
ALAC review with a thoughtful internal one.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">But no.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Based on <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/71605234/ATLASIII%20Overview%20-%206%20Feb.png?version=1&modificationDate=1549471752000&api=v2" target="_blank">the published objectives of ATLAS 3</a>, we are in for more of the same:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><ul><li>Leadership
Development: another way to say "capacity building", training that
could be easily be done by webinars and/or the same CBT used to deliver
"what is ICANN" that would be accessible by anyone, not just the 60
attendees<br></li></ul><ul><li> Programming: what are the tasks? "Define
and structure", "Develop meeting processes". And the outcomes of
programming? Reports, video interviews, and "fully functional next
generation leaders".<br></li></ul></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">IOW,
continued navel gazing that seems to be focused most on the succession
plans of existing leadership. Policy doesn't even get lip service, the
word isn't mentioned once.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Nothing
in the objectives points to how ALAC can actually work better to
understand what end users need from ICANN and then to communicate those
needs to the greater community. So why not stop calling it a Summit and
call it what it is -- Leadership training? Probably because, presented
that way, it wouldn't have been funded. Let's just say it's unlikely
there will be an ATLAS 4 once ICANN sees how its money was spent this
time.</div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">- Evan</div></div></div><br></div>