[At-Large] Say Whut!

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Tue Dec 11 11:24:24 UTC 2018

I have been asked directly my views on the At-Large place in the ICANN
comunity and specifically, the role of the ALAC.

First, my strategic and operational views - what we might do and how we
ought to do that - have not changed and are outlined in the R3 Paper
co-authored with Evan, Jean Jacque [Subrenat] and a few others.  The
principal R3 pleading is for a more strategic ALAC role and, tacking to an
operational profile similar to the SSAC's; fewer and more authoritative

Second, I have always believed that the At-Large can exert more influence
by participating in PDP WGs, that is, in the guts of the policy-setting
process. This means more of us must step up ready to play the long game.
Yes, some internal WGs are useful for sunshine to overarching issues and
maybe, extracting consensus At-Large positions. I do not believe direct
engagement in the PDP WGs are much more useful for advancing the At-Large
agenda and identifying collaborators in other groups. This posture requires
a lot of work for individuals but from my view, a greater At-Large's
interaction in this space will do more to advance the At-Large agenda than
anywhere else.

With specific reference to the Applicant Support PDP, I served as Co-Chair
and I know several of us, like Dev and Lance and certainly Evan included,
were heavily invested in those outcomes. We did not get all we wanted and
its implementation was certainly not what was anticipated.  However, the
results reinforced my thinking on the approach we must take for results to
matter and firmed up my belief that more At-Large interests engaged could
have engendered better outcomes.


*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 9:21 AM Carlos Raul Gutierrez <
carlosraul at gutierrez.se> wrote:

> Roberto
> It's about time. And the effort should be internal (like the GNSO's PDP
> 2.0 strategy exercise). Instead of external reviewers and mediators....
> On December 10, 2018 8:18:30 AM CST, Roberto Gaetano <
> roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I am wondering whether this thread suggests that time at the next summit
>> should be dedicated to rethinking the role of ALAC, its effectiveness in
>> the Multi-Stakeholder model, its priorities, etc.
>> R
>> On 10.12.2018, at 14:49, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> Hi Siva,
>> Were I to be engaged in a real exercise to enable ALAC to serve its bylaw
>>>> mandate, I would wish to eliminate ALSs and move to fully individual
>>>> membership in RALOs. I would reduce travel and invest more in vitual
>>>> meeting technologies. I would also concentrate ALAC activity in ONLY three
>>>> areas:
>> The suggestions above sound too drastic to take sides with.
>> I make no apologies for this proposal's radicalism. But I also recognize
>> that proper public education, surveys and research will be expensive. ICANN
>> will not manufacture a significantly bigger budget.
>> But if ALAC is focused on the areas I propose, there is substantial
>> savings to be realized in cutting back on facets of At-Large that have, at
>> best, offered only cosmetic benefit.
>> If DNS is demystified there would be greater user participation.
>> Maybe. Not everyone who needs to know how the DNS works needs to be
>> engaged in it. Nor should they. People who get the education and are
>> interested to help will know where to find us, reducing the wasteful
>> expenditures on "outreach".
>> - surveys and R&D into public needs and opinions about domain names and
>>>> the DNS
>>> +1.  A considerable amount of R&D could happen through social media, not
>>> necessarily by votes, even by 'likes' and reactions to non-commercially
>>> promoted posts and tweets
>> That's not where I was headed. Proper quantitative research requires
>> effort and expertise. I would never trust social media for this, at least
>> as a primary source.
>> - analysis of the result of such research, and development of ICANN input
>>>> based on that (both in original policy initiatives and response to existing
>>>> activity)
>>> Needs to go even beyond that. ALAC could become more emphatic on Cross
>>> Community PDPs.
>> That's way too into the details. I expect that if we engage in real
>> research, the areas of global public concern will not lie where you may
>> believe they are. What is of great interest inside the domain bubble is of
>> little interest to the world outside that bubble, and vice versa.
>> Doing this properly, I expect, will dramatically change ALAC's policy
>> priorities.
>> - Evan
>>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20181211/da968c17/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list