Hi Evan

I can appreciate what you are saying and agree with most of it, however, I think that you are looking at a one-size-fits-all model of an ALS.

Take my small NGO in the (14,000 population) Cook Islands. I have to admit to two active participants in ICANN activities - me on the ALAC and Pua Hunter who represents the Cook Islands in the GAC. Local CIIAG members are also members of the regional ALS - PICISOC - and they participate at a local/ regional level. Some PICISOC members may never actually interact with At-Large because there are various levels of interest within this large organisation.

But PICISOC does have other active members in At-Large, the ccNSO and NCUC, just to name some of the sections, and many PICISOC members may also belong to other ALSes within Oceania. We share our expertise :)

Is that double dipping when our small communities in the Pacific have multiple memberships of ALSes which may not focus on a single sector of ICANN? What we are trying to do is to give Pacific end-users the widest possible reach for opportunities to have a voice across ICANN constituencies - not restricting them to At-Large.

Also, because we want our members to value ICANN activities, reporting back to members is an expectation we make of our leaders. It depends on each ALS as to how they do this but sometimes, the use of relevant ICANN reports and newsletters can be very helpful.

Maureen

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

I have always, and still do, object vigorously to most of what is listed under "ALS objectives". I think they (most notably the obligation to feature ICANN on ALS websites and to report on their activities to ICANN) are uncalled-for demands of the time of volunteers already stretched.

Let us remind ourselves ALWAYS that purpose of the ALS is to help and give input to ICANN on policy (through RALOs and then ALAC). It is NOT the job of ICANN to be aware of what the ALS is doing in any area that does not directly affect ICANN (unless ICANN is interested in offering resources for such activity).

At-Large is also not a pyramid scheme. Having ALSs spread the word to other like-minded organizations is a nice-to-have but should never be mandatory. If there is a desire for ALSs to recruit others, great.... engage and excite them enough that they would spread the word on their own. Mandating this through rules simply demonstrates failure to sufficiently energize existing ALSs.

And there must ALWAYS be provision for the scenario that an ALS could be dormant -- for months, maybe years -- until an issue of importance to them is raised. Remember that At-Large is intended to represent the views and interests of those in the community who may generally not interested in general ICANN governance, but have an interest in its policy outputs. Much as it likes to think otherwise, ICANN is involved with only a tiny corner of the Internet governance world(*), so its activity will not be of primary interest to many. It is reasonable that such limited-interest ALSs not be resourced to travel to events unless their issues are being addressed. However there is NO VALID REASON EVER for ALAC to bother or harass -- let alone disenfranchise -- an ALS for not caring about ICANN issues that are irrelevant to them.

That someone would even ask the question "is being a Watcher sufficient" indicates a grotesque misunderstanding of why At-Large exists!

Frankly, most of this whole exercise is utter BS. The only issue of value in the document Alan passed (besides housekeeping) was "double dipping" -- that is, when an organization already in another constituency wants to be in At-Large. Personally, I would disallow this, because At-Large is designed to give a voice to those who otherwise would not have a place to be heard in ICANN. If they already have that other place, the At-Large ought not to be exploited as a channel of second resort or redundant point of entry.

Other than that, the creation and consideration of this document is the kind of abuse of volunteer time and resources that leads to the very non-participation it seeks to address. How about understanding the causes of non-participation rather than fixing perceived symptoms by regulation? Many it is just a reality that many ALSs will only wake up when something that interests them comes up. There is nothing wrong with that.

Those are my comments. I will not be in Helsinki, and because of other engagements I will not be able to participate remotely in the 10:45 meeting.

- Evan

(*) - Internet names and numbers are indeed only a tiny part of Internet governance, but it's the only one that whose decisions can single-handedly enrich an entire industry. It's where the money hangs out.

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)