[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy

[Evan Leibovitch]

I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and
debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN staff
of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve.

Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of
which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my
biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much
the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me)
destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it exists.

ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill --
their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste extremely
scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more
internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the
public to them.

The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we are
already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish
"non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful inclination
towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued
ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large serves.

To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that
out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and to
every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very
difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and
uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough to
learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over
themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and attract
high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and
censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive!

I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to
substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest
(open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral to
our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and this
was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN
constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy
wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others.
It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be
"encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect
many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and require
significant background information supplied in the local street language.

It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we
are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical
background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest sin
will be to have turned nothing into nothing.

I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already
has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That ALAC
still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own
image appears to indicate that:
1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity
2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually
serve its mandate
3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it serves
4) all of the above

Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and
their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back.
Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending
ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by a
committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one
person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise.

Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional obligations.
On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can be
handled with common sense and discretion.

I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with
procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the public
and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that education.
Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it,
and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted.

Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ ALAC
activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could
survive such a drought without entropy or implosion.

Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as
NARALO chair.

- Evan