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

[jam at jacquelinemorris.com]

Hi Adam
Maybe if I go through how it applies to an ALS that I am a member of   
(TTCS)- in the LACRALO, which is the longest-serving RALO (all of 3  
months!)

Information, requests for comment, policy issues, etc get posted to  
Lac-discuss. The members of the ALS who are subscribed to LAC-Discuss  
(in the case of this ALS at least) take that info and retransmit it to  
our own mailing list, where discussion takes place with the individual  
members. They may or may not continue this discussion with other  
groups  that they are involved in who may not be  ALSes. We may also  
discuss the issues at our monthly f2f meetings. Some ppl then  
summarise the discussion or position that we come to, and take it back  
to the RALO as the ALS input.
For other groups in LAC that either cannot join as an ALS or haven't  
come to that decision yet, that I'm a member of (like the caribbean  
CIVIC), I take the info and post it on their list or otherwise bring  
it up for discussion, take the responses and retransmit them.
I don't think that a lot of the individual members of the ALS of which  
I am a member want to necessarily join a new list. We've informed  
them, but they haven't joined in a major way. In LAC it's also  
sometimes a language issue.
I know it sounds very complex, but it's been only 3 months. Maybe as  
time goes by, and the autotranslation facility goes live on the list,  
the LAC discuss list will be more active with individuals.
Hope this helps
Jacqueline

Quoting Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:

> 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/  <--------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> www.alac.icann.org
> www.icannalac.org
>



-- 
Jacqueline A. Morris
www.jacquelinemorris.com