[NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris

[Jacqueline A. Morris]

Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> Maybe this is not a meeting topic, but I am increasingly becoming aware
> that the GAC -- although, like ALAC has no direct Board seat, wields
> enormous power within ICANN. I would appreciate if some people here with
> some background could confirms or deny, and offer opinions on the
> organizational differences between the two advisory groups. Perhaps such
> information may be helpful in our meeting ... even if informal.
yes, the GAC is very powerful without any voting Board seat. And one of 
the reasons that I consistently ask WHY it is necessary to have a voting 
seat to have influence. I think that there's a concept that the vote 
means something in and of itself - honestly, if we have 40% of the Board 
seats , we can still lose EVERY vote if we are not respected, and have 
no influence! Whereas as you see with the GAC, you don't need to vote if 
you can persuade the people who have votes to vote your way.
But anyway
IMO it's a combination of things -
Governments intrinsically have a lot of power/respect from people (yes, 
I know there are many that may not deserve such, but the fact of their 
being a Government carries with it a certain power) ;
the Government representatives to ICANN so far are seen by many as being 
quality persons (Janis, Sharil, Bertrand etc);
the GAC picks its areas of focus and issues its communique at the end of 
each ICANN meeting (predictable timing, weighty statement);
it stands together in public, so that even if there are bitter 
disagreements in private, when the statement comes out, it's a GAC 
statement, supported by the Governments.

Organisationally, the GAC both benefits from and loses from the 
Government protocols to which it is subject - they can't move quickly to 
a final decision as home offices must often sign off on issues that may 
be controversial, they have a lot of work to do to get to a position
On the other hand, they are very experienced in negotiation to a 
relatively win-win position for the group (diplomats...); they all 
subscribe to and follow GAC rules for statements, discussion and 
negotiation to get to those statements, etc.

ALAC is both new and old, it has huge baggage from the past experiments, 
it does not have a common purpose, and obviously not a common position. 
One big problem with getting respect is that the At Large itself cuts 
down the ALAC. It is rare for the ALAC to discuss and come out with a 
position without the proponents of the  unsuccessful position 
immediately, publicly and in some cases viciously tearing it down.
There are also many At Large members who disagree with the mandate of 
the ALAC as stated in the bylaws, and often derail or divert discussion, 
shown on the public lists, and this can turn off a lot of potential 
contributors who aren't comfortable with the level of the discussion. 
IMO,  this does not build respect for the group as a whole. It makes it 
difficult for people unaccustomed to the rough and tumble of CS as 
displayed by the At Large to imagine that anything useful could come out 
of such chaos, and as such to discount it reflexively.
There are many At Large members whose behaviour can be considered on one 
hand extremely passionate, and on the other hand, extremely rude and 
offensive. It depends on culture and experiences etc. We've had these 
discussion both on and off list, and there are many people who are 
offended by the way in which discussion takes place in the At Large. If 
we offend them, how can we easily persuade them to support our position? 
Vote or no vote?

And of course, the fact that the At Large hasn't put out many 
substantive statements since the RALO formation (despite quite a few in 
the pre-RALO and RALO building periods) - I know it's because the RALO's 
aren't yet supported to be able to provide timely input (translations 
etc)  - but it adds to the perception.

Just a few thoughts - hope they help
Jacqueline