[At-Large] ALS lists - why no public archive?

[Adam Peake]

At 10:06 PM -0700 4/8/07, Bret Fausett wrote:
>  > I'm obviously not explaining
>>  myself very well.
>
>Ok, I think I'm getting closer to what you're seeking. Are you asking for
>list archives of the individual At Large Structures?


I was thinking these:

<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/afri-als_atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
(All Accredited At Large Structures (ALS) in Africa)
<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-als_atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
(ALS Reps in Asia-Pacific)
<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-als_atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
(European ALS Representatives)
<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-als_atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
(ALS Reps in LAC At-Large) 
<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-als_atlarge-lists.icann.org>? 
(North American Region ALS Discussions)

I might be misunderstanding what they actually do -- I was guessing 
their function was to bring together discussion from the individual 
ALS (like Web405) so ideas are taken from the individual level to the 
ALAC.


>For example, I'm a
>member of an accredited ALS called "Web405," consisting primarily of
>Internet professionals in Southern California. You can subscribe to the list
>easily (see http://www.web405.org/ ) but a long time ago, Web405 members
>agreed to "No public archiving of Web405 messages." (see
>http://www.web405.org/guidelines.html ) We've recently talked about new TLDs
>generally and .XXX specifically, but we have no public archives...by express
>choice so we're not haunted by our out-dated opinions years from now in
>Google searches. This strikes me as a reasonable choice for a group of
>people to make.


It's good that Web405 is active.  And I take your point about why you 
don't want to archive. But of you are an ALS, can't you at least make 
some comment about ICANN on the site -- this is what we think about x 
(or xxx)? If they are all like Web405 (an some don't even have 
websites) then the ALS might look like shells.

I should explain why I think this important.  On another ALAC list 
(alac at icann.org, can't find the archive or I'd link to the posts) and 
a thread "ICANN Seeks Public Comments on Proposed Termsof 
Reference..."  I wrote:

"I think ALAC (ALS and RALOs) should see the review as a great 
opportunity to show what that can do.  That the Nominating 
Committee's being reviewed at the same time might be seen as an 
opportunity:  what can the RALOs and ALS contribute to the NomCom, 
could the[y] play a greater role in making selections?  (NomCom's 
missed named: it's a selection committee.)

NomCom (I'm the associate chair, but speaking for myself not the 
committee) held a workshop in Lisbon.  Not very well attended, but 
Vint Cerf's comments are worth noting 
<http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-nomcom-28mar07.htm>

VINT CERF: It occurs to me -- I can't predict this, of course, but it 
occurs to me that if we are successful with the rapidly forming RALO 
structure that some day we might imagine that board members might be 
appointed by those RALOs.

We're not there yet. But is it possible that we can now go to the 
formed RALOs and say, in emulation of what might ultimately occur, 
can you supply recommendations for people to serve on the ALAC. (end 
[Vint] quote)

Not the first time I've heard Vint mention this possibility.

ALAC proving that it really does enable "individual Internet users' 
informed participation in ICANN" would be a good challenge for the 
review.   It's not clear to me how how that really happens.

Adam"

So I can see a time when ALAC might select Directors, and might be 
able to move from providing non-voting liaisons to other supporting 
organizations to taking on a voting role. This possibility has been 
mentioned by Vint and others --tentatively, with caveats--, but it 
seems to be there as a possibility.  But I think we can be sure this 
won't happen unless it is clear to all that the ALS are really 
functioning to bring the views of Internet users. Transparency is 
essential, or ALS, RALO and ALAC may look like a few individuals 
rather than something more representative.  ALAC currently does not 
have a strong reputation with the rest of the ICANN  community.

Thanks,

Adam


>If you're looking for a publicly archived list of respresentatives from the
>various ALSs to talk specifically about ICANN policy, then I think you're
>talking about the RALO lists which, to the best of my knowledge, are
>publicly archived. (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo )
>
>       -- Bret