[lac-discuss-en] Voto ALAC sobre KSK

[Alan Greenberg]

Alejandro, you are correct that although there are exceptions, ALSes 
have not been effective vehicles for ICANN policy work. That has to 
and will change.

There are two initiatives which are coming together that I hope and 
in fact believe will change things.

Several years ago, we started an small group looking at "ALS Criteria 
and Expectations". The premise was simple. One of the prime reasons 
for having ALSes is to be a communications channel to their members. 
There is no benefit in having an ALS with many members if only the 
formal (voting) representative is involved. The plan was to regularly 
send understandable information to ALSes and REQUIRE that they 
distribute them to their members. We know that only a few people have 
a strong interest in ICANN policy work, but if we can reach enough 
people, SOME of them will be interested.

Unfortunately the IANA transition and ICANN accountability efforts 
started and took all of our time and the ALS project did not progress very far.

Now we are hopefully near the end of the At-Large Review. It will be 
no surprise that the review found that ALSes were not very effective 
at contributing to policy work. Our plan (hopefully to be approved by 
the Board in Panama) is to revive and enhance the ALS project. So 
there will be an obligation of ALSes to be more active. This plan has 
been very actively supported down within the ALAC and all RALOs.

We cannot force any ALS to have all of their members contact their 
ISPs regarding the KSK Rollover. But if we can send them 
understandable and actionable information, hopefully many of them will.

Going forward, if an ALS exists just so its representative can vote 
or apply for a trip, I would like to think that they will not be 
judged an effective part of a RALO or At-Large and we will take action.

Alan


At 06/04/2018 03:52 PM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:

>Humberto,
>
>We will look forward to the details. In my original motion I 
>stressed the shortness of deadlines. Given that the ALAC deadlines 
>are overcoming, adherence to the procedures will make it difficult 
>to give a formal mandate to our ALAC representatives, who will have 
>the option to vote in conscience. Anticipating that you would not 
>organize the procedure on time, my motion gives the alternative to 
>manifest ex-post.
>
>Dev's objection ratifies what I oppose: ALSs do not assume 
>responsibilities, they only serve as petitioners. This deepens the 
>arguments that are advanced against the community At Large as a 
>whole. Dev's expression subverts the analysis and goodwill shown in 
>Alan Greenberg's extensive explanation.
>
>The ALS that act with responsibility for the users, as Vanda has 
>expressed very well, will continue to have to act outside and in 
>spite of LACRALO, before the silence of the dozens of organizations 
>whose existence only manifests itself to vote and fly.Hopefully, in 
>the future, the ALAC representation will bring these matters to the 
>forum in a timely manner without having to wait for the ALSs to present them.
>
>Alejandro Pisanty