The survey question is, in my mind, deeply flawed, but I think it is a dandy way to get into a discussion of what Board members actually expect.

And yes, other communities are now (finally) being asked the same question, and I think we are in a better position than most to answer it.

But back to my original message, we can only use this as a start if we have a generally agreed upon analysis of those answers. Thus the question I asked.

Alan

At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

This whole process is insane.

Is the Business Constituency ever asked if it represents or speaks for every business -- domain owner or not -- in the world? Is NPOC asked if it represents every NGO? Do the people who attend from law enforcement speak for all police and military?

Contracted parties -- ie, the domain industry -- generally do have reasonably full representation, in part because there are relatively few players and in part because they are so fully invested in -- and dependent on -- ICANN's pseudo-regulation more than other communities or constituencies.

But it seems that At-Large alone is singled out for this kind of analysis, because -- unlike the others -- we wouldn't be able to be involved without the charitable resources -- travel and staff support -- that ICANN bequeaths upon us. Such support clearly bothers other communities who believe that we are skimming off revenues THEY bring to ICANN just so we can trash them.

In my experience, the "who the hell are YOU speaking for?" comment has been used whenever we have something to say that poses a legitimate end-user-driven challenge to ICANN's standard operation. Hearing that in a debate would embolden me because it indicates that our logic and evidence was superior and the only rebuttal was to challenge our legitimacy.

At the end of the day, we do the job that is asked of us to the extent we are able -- that is, to bring the end-user point of view into ICANN to the best of our individual capabilities. That is all that Bylaw 12.2(d) asks of us and I believe we have generally done that as well as possible given the constraints in place. We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC. But even here we are deeply flawed, considering how the regions are sliced and a structure that is so complex so as to churn more volunteer time on process than on policy input.

Still, there is decent output. I see our policy diversions from NCSG as a (positive) reflection that grassroots population don't always share the same priorities and perspectives of the civil society that is supposedly protecting it. This divergence exists on the street, so seeing it in play within ICANN tells me that At-Large is indeed doing a reasonable -- and surprisingly accurate --  job at conveying the end-user perspective.

Whether or not we get listened to is a different story.

- Evan


On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org> wrote:

I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the rest of

the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL USER-RALOS-ALAC

ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end users. From

there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the end

users.

Regards

Alberto

-----Mensaje original-----

De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org

[ mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg

Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM

Para: ALAC < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>

Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the

Board

One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in

CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users.

I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in

the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the

A-L Community.

The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most

accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN?

There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for

each option.

1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members

that mainly act in their own interests. (58%)

2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and

individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on

behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%)

3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to

engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and

non-discriminatory fashion. (6%)

4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and

individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of

Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%)

5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests

and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%)

My analysis:

1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist

outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests

(which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests

of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse

inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs

and interests of users world-wide.

2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if

the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we?

3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or

even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of

respondents really think we do??

4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members

engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we

mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is

based on experience with such a community.

5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they

meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or

the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed

Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve

the global user community well.

What do people think of this analysis?

Alan

_______________________________________________

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+(ALA

C)

_______________________________________________

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)

--
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto, Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org

Sk: evanleibovitch

Tw: el56

_______________________________________________
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)