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

[Evan Leibovitch]

Danny Younger wrote:
> If all that ICANN wants is "public opinion", they could easily be reading the relevant news articles and blogs that express the public's sentiment -- they certainly don't need to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring organizational
> representatives into their midst on a periodic basis just to accomplish that goal -- they could (for a lot
> less money) hire a group like Pew to conduct the necessary surveys and polls.
>   

Truth be told, to get the level of public opinion ALAC seeks to extract
from the public, a global polling strategy -- in multiple languages --
will likely be more expensive than ALAC's budget.

The cost gap would be even greater if ICANN staff figured out how to
engage their ALSs to assist with translation services, a point I raised
at the Translation workshop in Delhi but was rebuffed.

> They want real solutions to real problems... that means that they are expecting an Advisory Committee to engage in research, to declare their findings based upon the research, and to arrive at recommendations based upon the findings.
>   

And that has been starting to happen, as witnessed with the position on
the AGP/tasting. A good start, IMO.

> Those few ALSs that want to continue their involvement could readily migrate to the NCUC where research does happen, where findings are noted, and where policy recommendations do emerge.

... and the AGP was defended. No thanks.

> It's time to call an end to this six-year long failed experiment.

I can't speak for the time before we got here; I would agree that the
first five years was largely a sham, but I can't change the past. Much
has changed since the RALOs were actually formed.

> I see no ongoing value in pouring more money down this rathole.
>   

Then why are you here? If we're as useless as you say, then you're
wasting your time talking to us.

- Evan