[NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published

[Evan Leibovitch]

Bret Fausett wrote:
> I very much  like the fact that one ALAC representative from each region comes from the NomComm,

Please elaborate. I see NomComm as a way to repress -- or at least
inhibit the growth of -- a distinct character for ALAC. It has seemed to
me that the appointees exist to ensure that ALAC does not stray too far
from ICANN culture. What is rationalized as a benign injection of
"wisdom" is, IMO a euphamism for "conventional wisdom", retarding
advocacy and points of view beyond the status quo.

It seems that, in the recommendations, At-Large is to be tolerated so
long as measures exist to ensure that it doesn't get too
confrontational. The changes that are suggested -- wikis rather than
mailing lists, rejection of the board vote, more NomComm appointees,
expanded scrutiny of ALSs while more than one-third of ALAC is beyond
any scrutiny once installed -- all point to an obsession with avoiding
confrontation.

(And when ICANN is served with confrontation it can't avoid -- in court
-- it backs down rather than defends the interests of the public it is
supposed to serve. Does there need to be a class-action lawsuit to get
ICANN to listen to the public?)

What positive actions does the all-appointed (pre-RALO) ALAC have to
claim for all its years of existence? It took _staff_ such as Jacob to
do the outreach that brought in ALSs like mine. Why are there no
appointees to ALAC's other big advisory group, the GAC? Because
governments would never stand for that, yet the public interest has no
choice but to have arbitrary "wisdom" inflicted upon it.

That's my POV. I really would like to hear a reasonable defence of
NomComm appointees to ALAC that doesn't use the term "wisdom". I haven't
heard one yet.

- Evan