[NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June

[Evan Leibovitch]

Dominik Filipp wrote:
> A very, very difficult topic to disentangle...
>   
Thanks for the good words, which ring true in many ways.

> No doubt some of the Danny's observations are right.
Of course they are. As we sit right now At-Large is still largely
toothless, with no Board vote. Ensuring that ALAC cannot be a truly
independent voice are the one-third of its members who are unelected and
unaccountable, chosen for their ability to ensure that ICANN
conventional wisdom be maintained. These are the same kinds of
appointees that, for much of this decade, in the absense of RALOs
pretended to speak for the public with no justification (and,
apparently, nothing to show for it).

Finding cynics is easy; finding problems and missed opportunities is
even easier. As I entered this environment as an ICANN newcomer I
encountered many people asking me why I bothered, and some accused me of
participating in a sham by validating a massive PR stunt. Yet these same
people refused to answer I asked back why they too were still involved
in this same "sham" if it were so useless.

> I have to admit that as regards at least the way how the domain tasting issue and the related working group with zero contributions posted altogether were being conducted is alarming.
As the first issue of substance that ALAC has tackled in its many years
of existence, it's all to easy to say that the first time through was
not done as well as it should have been. At some points it seemed like
North America was making all the noise about AGP elimination and every
other region was simply reacting to our initiative. For At-Large to
survive as the great global experiment, that situation cannot sustain --
there needs to be initiative from other regions as well. Otherwise
regional resentment is inevitable.

Counting the flaws in what happened is certainly easier than counting
what went right. But I will take it as a significant milestone that --
for once -- we at least had a coherent position, albeit crafted in a
manner that was ultimately designed to be part of a consensus than to
take a principled stand right to the end.

Central to our challenge were (and still are) two philosophical splits
within At-Large:

- one was between short-term and long-term goals. Those who carried the
day narrowly focused on tasting itself; others saw tasting as merely a
symptom, and the tasting PDP as an opportunity to get rid of the root
cause -- the AGP.

- the other was advocacy rather than consensus building. Remember, this
is a global body, and many here are not as comfortable with adversarial
politics as North Americans. We need to bring them around, and that
won't happen overnight. It is not unreasonable to have a healthy debate,
in which advocates need to demonstrate to self-styled "diplomats" that
appeasement will not accomplish our goals.

I understand and agree with your opinion that ALAC needs to take
principled stands. To me the fact this did not happen on the tasting
issue is not "alarming", but it is an identified challenge that At-Large
needs to overcome. Some of this IMO will come through increased
self-confidence as a group, but there is no doubt a gap to be bridged. I
refuse to take At-Large's unwillingness to be as aggressive as its North
American region, to indicate a failure of the process. There is learning
to be done and cultural sensitivity is needed all around.

> Also just few posts strictly based on the
> issue merit. The issue is particularly important for the wide community
> and therefore it really deserved much more care taken about. The ALAC
> statement should have not contain any sort of compromise. It is an
> advisory committee and as such it is expected to provide independent,
> objective, well-funded advices supported by number of expert analyses.
>   
Actually, I would not even go that far. ICANN has all the "expert"
analysis it needs, from its existing constituencies. ALAC should be a
distillation of the public point of view, the result of education and
consultation at a grassroots level, in plain language and many
languages. It should not need to be supported by experts -- that is part
of our whole mess with NomComm appointees.

Indeed, one would have hoped that the "experts" in NCUC would have
provided advocacy support to the public's point of view, but for
unfathomable reasons it actually defended the AGP. As someone who has
long wished for clear distinction defined between ALAC and NCUC -- both
within At-Large and ICANN in general -- I am saddened that NCUC has not
stepped up to provide the "expert" policy that supports the public good.
Of course, I have little sense of history -- all I can see so far is how
out-of-sync they were with At-Large on the first issue that was
important enough for us to take a stand.

To me, a large problem with At-Large's mandate (to solicit
non-policy-driven public orgs' points of view) is the increasing rate at
which its lined are blurred with NCUC. Organizations such as ISOC
chapters and Danny himself have come to At-Large because NCUC -- which
_DOES_ have a Board vote -- has apparently not satisfied their needs to
be heard. Indeed, the "double-dipping" of some groups as members of both
NCUC and At-Large hurts the environment even more through its clear
unfairness.

ALAC has enough deficiencies of its own to deal with... yet apparently
it must deal with NCUC's deficiencies as well. These issues surfaced
slightly during the gNSO review debate but were never really addressed.
They still remain unresolved.

> from time to time you have to stop to recapitulate what has been actually done. And to critically evaluate and conclude conseqences if necessary. Otherwise the vision will not come true.
>   
Such evaluation started the moment I became an ALS rep and has never
stopped. I see that At-Large has many important issues to deal with, and
that many within ICANN that have an interest in us not asserting
ourselves. I accept that At-Large and ALAC are in a highly transitional
state -- far different from what it was two year ago, and likely far
different from what it will be two years from now.

In that context, I have very little patience for those who repeatedly
whine that the experiment has failed before it has even started. I am
fully aware that At-Large was a botch for many years but I can't do
anything about that. I simply see what exists, what is possible, and
vision and a path that is good even if it is not as fast as some people
would like.

This is why I show my frustration with Danny so easily. His
contributions to our policy interests are invaluable, especially his
ability to find things that have "slipped through the cracks" and ought
to be on our radar. His calls for greater transparecy are always
welcomed, even when pointed internally. I am hoping his help will, in
the future, avoid the last-minute deadline rushes on policy that have
plagued ALAC since I've been involved. But that good work does not
excuse -- and indeed is tainted by -- the relentlessness of his actions
to actively diminish and demoralize At-Large because it's not full of
policy experts like him. That is simply not what At-Large is supposed to
be. Just because he doesn't need resources from ICANN to do what he does
should not be a reason for him to advocate choking resources from those
that lack his available time or passion. Aren't there enough _real_
ICANN policy issues that require our time? Can we not concentrate on our
common ground to achieve those policy goals?

I fully agree with the vision that created At-Large (as something
_designed_ to be distinct from NCUC) and I can even see the rationale
behind why the original direct-election scheme was abandoned. I agree
that, without a Board vote and a more grassroots representation, ALAC
cannot do what it must do. However I also believe that, in the pre-RALO
days, it was reasonable to deny Board representation to the
un-representative ALAC.

We are going through a formal ALAC review, one that I _expect_ will
recommend some major modifications. I _expect_ that some important
changes will receive Board consent. If, OTOH, I discover that ICANN
ultimately refuses to support its own vision, I will be more than happy
to join the ranks of the critics and cynics and the "PR stunt" crowd.
But if that happens I will certainly not hang around here and complain
-- why continue to be part of the problem? There are other ways to
attack such a problem -- sniping from within is simply counter-productive.

- Evan