[NA-Discuss] [ALAC-Announce] ALAC Statement on Future Structure and Governance of ICANN

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hello everyone.

ICANN staffer Maria Farrell recently wrote a letter to the ALAC announce
list, scolding At-Large for missing one of ICANN's typical too-tight
comment deadlines.

In a moment of pique I wrote the response below. Before I send it in my
capacity as NARALO chair, I would like to receive feedback on both its
content and appropriateness. Personally I'm simply fed up with
complaints like this that we can't play the game as well as the vested
interests.

And ... to At-Large staff ... are Maria and other ICANN staffers not
alterted in advance when ALAC statements are to be submitted past their
deadlines? I thought that was the case,


- Evan

---------------








Maria Farrell wrote:
> In the future, I would be most grateful if you could follow the agreed procedure for submitting public comments to an ICANN consultation; i.e. posting them to the correct location within the time agreed. This is the only way to ensure equity between all contributors and allow us to complete the overall process in a timely manner.
>
> I understand that it can be a challenge for diverse groups to get comments agreed in time. However, other contributors with similar internal consensus-building processes to fulfill, including the GAC, various government authorities and trade associations, submit their input on time and/or appraise the relevant staff beforehand if there is going to be an issue.
>   

Hello Maria,

Respectfully, if the above statement conveys your true sentiment then
you do not, indeed, understand At-Large.

At-Large, by definition, does not include bodies with financial interest
in ICANN outcomes. It has no business models, national interests, or
property to protect. Its members primarily do not have English as their
first language, let alone the technical jargon that more often than not
pervades ICANN policy debate. They do, however, attempt to represent
more than 99% of the community affected by ICANN decisions.

During my brief history within At-Large I have seen countless similar
misunderstandings of At-Large's most difficult role within ICANN. These
misunderstandings are manifested through unrealistic deadlines, and
other expectations that are based on the assumption that we can move as
quickly as governments and lobbyists with interests to protect. When was
that last time that At-Large was ever consulted in advance on whether a
deadline was reasonable?

Some of these misunderstandings, arguably, are institutionalized deep
within ICANN. To a casual observer, the idea that ICANN's "public
participation" mechanism is distinct and separate from the component
that works with At-Large is astounding.

If ICANN claims of public transparency and accountability are to be seen
as more than a facade, then perhaps it's time to better recognize --
throughout the organization -- that the challanges of At-Large are both
different and substantially more complex than those of governments or
vested interests.

Sincerely,

Evan Leibovitch
Chair, NARALO