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

[Adam Peake]

At 9:21 AM +0200 4/9/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>Adam Peake ha scritto:
>>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.
>
>At least in Europe (but for what I've seen is the same everywhere), 
>we're having all discussions on the -discuss lists, which are also 
>open to individuals and everyone interested. We've just used the 
>-als list once recently, when one ALS representative complained that 
>messages sent through the -discuss list weren't "official" and would 
>get lost in the discussion anyway.


OK.

So the ALS encourage their members to get involved in the regional 
discuss lists?  Are they successful?



>In any case, I see no reason why those archives shouldn't be open 
>(even if, sometimes, there might be the need to discuss individuals 
>for appointments in a candid way, and that's why, I guess, Nick made 
>it private) - but I hope we're not getting into a week of 
>discussions for the archive of a quasi-dead announcement list :-)
>


No, please, definitely not a discussion of whether or not to open an 
email archive!

I am just trying to understand how the ALAC structure works.

ALS have a pretty clear mandate to support
"individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by 
distributing to individual constituents/members information on 
relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based 
mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities 
and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving 
individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, 
discussions and decisions."
and to be organised around individual participation, etc. 
<http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>

Does the current ALAC structure achieve this?

I've been trying to work out what role (if any) the ALS and perhaps 
those lists were playing in informing users. It's not clear to me how 
the ALS (therefore RALO and ALAC) are supporting this commitment to 
informed participation etc.  And as I've tried to explain, given the 
review (of ALAC and NomCom), Vint's and other's comments, if ALAC can 
show it is really representing user interests through a solid 
"bottom-up" process, then it has a opportunities for much greater 
influence in ICANN.

Current set up seems as though there is almost a cutoff between the 
individuals who should be the membership of ALS and policy 
development. They are asked to join one organization so they can be 
recognized, then join a different group to discuss policy. Organise 
locally, but discuss policy regionally. Awkward, no?

I might be confused, perhaps you could point to the policy discussion 
of the ALS you represent and the other ALS that have recently formed 
the EU RALO?  How many of your ALS members (ISOC IT) subscribe of the 
EU RALO discuss list?

I have a feeling that without clear evidence that the policy coming 
from ALAC is representative of individual users views, then ALAC will 
never grow beyond it's current weak position in ICANN's 
organizational structure.


>>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)
>
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/


Thanks, I'd been going around in circles looking at that list and not 
seeing the posts I wanted to quote.  duh.


>>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.
>
>Sure, just like the Business Constituency (which already appoints 
>Directors) is really functioning to bring the views of the average 
>business of the world that uses the Internet. (No offense implied to 
>the BC - just wondering why the At Large always gets higher bars for 
>legitimacy than anyone else.)


Why should we care about the Business Constituency? [which doesn't 
appoint directors, it's one of six GNSO constituencies, the GNSO 
collectively (including its NomCom appointed councillors) elects two 
directors.]

Why set the bar low for ALAC?  ALAC's task is to represent 
individuals, we should set our own standards, not look to how others 
have got out of their commitments.


>Ciao,
>
>P.S. By the way - could you please pass me the link to the archive 
>of the BC mailing lists? And what about those of the GAC? Did you 
>also check whether each GAC member (let's say, their Ministry) has a 
>properly functioning website, and whether it features anything about 
>ICANN on its front page? I think you'd be surprised :-)


Who cares!

Thanks,

Adam




>--
>vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
>-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------