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
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)
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
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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.
+1. Should have read the entire thread before and save myself some words. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
I agree with Evan. We are representatives of a constituency, the end-users. Direct Democracy sounds nice, but it it's completely impracticable in large scale constituencies. It's not only 3 Billion it's 3 plus the next 3! In a way that is covered, because we are all individual end-users with our different point of views. It is equally true, though, that (like in legislatures/parliaments) one wishes that MP or congresswoman to be as representative as possible of her society, her constituency. Some of the policies and reforms that can help with that in ICANN are the ones that continually strive for more and more diversity in the RALO and ALAC member profile (gender balance, ethnic diversity, etc.) and I actually think we are not doing a terrible job there. One very interesting program in that vein is the NARALO Tribal Ambassadors program: all of a sudden you have women of tribal backgrounds engaging and coming to meetings. That is great and that is representativity. Surely there are other programs that strive to do the same with varying results. In terms of getting more end-users (on a massive world scale) to know about At-Large and ALAC is an issue of marketing, of letting people know we exist, what we do and how to join. I think a good way to realistically take up this task is with a very highly sophisticated, coordinated, professional and equally massive social media driven education and engagement strategy, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIN, and who knows maybe somehow the younger Apps like SnapChat and InstaGram. That takes resources, but it has great bang for the buck. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 3, 2017, at 1:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> 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+(ALA...)
-- 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+(ALA...)
So, we know a few things about the nature of voluntarism. And we ignore what we know of voluntarism at our peril. There really are three problems to solve: 1. How we get more and a continued stream of 'end-user' representatives into the ICANN environment? 2. How we get them action-ready? 3. How do we keep them working at same or better pace and diligence alongside those who are paid to work the shift? ICANN the corporation has always supposed that ALS/RALOs will do the outreach for it and on our dime; read the MOU. ICANN the corporation has always supposed that the ALAC would find a way to prep the recruits, some help of course from ICANN the corporation ICANN the corporation has always supposed that there is an unending supply of willing action-ready recruits. And the ALS/RALOs would always find a way to achieve this feat of alchemy Every single one of those suppositions actually devolve to a full time job. And every single one of them has a likely outcome which takes the suppositions into fabled territory, even if you had full time bodies to throw at them. And yet, the narrative stubbornly remain in classifying all of us as part time volunteers. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Evan. We are representatives of a constituency, the end-users. Direct Democracy sounds nice, but it it's completely impracticable in large scale constituencies. It's not only 3 Billion it's 3 plus the next 3!
In a way that is covered, because we are all individual end-users with our different point of views. It is equally true, though, that (like in legislatures/parliaments) one wishes that MP or congresswoman to be as representative as possible of her society, her constituency. Some of the policies and reforms that can help with that in ICANN are the ones that continually strive for more and more diversity in the RALO and ALAC member profile (gender balance, ethnic diversity, etc.) and I actually think we are not doing a terrible job there. One very interesting program in that vein is the NARALO Tribal Ambassadors program: all of a sudden you have women of tribal backgrounds engaging and coming to meetings. That is great and that is representativity. Surely there are other programs that strive to do the same with varying results.
In terms of getting more end-users (on a massive world scale) to know about At-Large and ALAC is an issue of marketing, of letting people know we exist, what we do and how to join. I think a good way to realistically take up this task is with a very highly sophisticated, coordinated, professional and equally massive social media driven education and engagement strategy, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIN, and who knows maybe somehow the younger Apps like SnapChat and InstaGram. That takes resources, but it has great bang for the buck.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 <(787)%20396-6511> twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 3, 2017, at 1:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> 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+Advisor y+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/di splay/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)
_______________________________________________ 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)
Carlton I love your summaries. Now to find a way to incorporate the sentiment into our response. Holly On 4 Mar 2017, at 2:10 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
So, we know a few things about the nature of voluntarism. And we ignore what we know of voluntarism at our peril.
There really are three problems to solve: 1. How we get more and a continued stream of 'end-user' representatives into the ICANN environment? 2. How we get them action-ready? 3. How do we keep them working at same or better pace and diligence alongside those who are paid to work the shift?
ICANN the corporation has always supposed that ALS/RALOs will do the outreach for it and on our dime; read the MOU.
ICANN the corporation has always supposed that the ALAC would find a way to prep the recruits, some help of course from ICANN the corporation
ICANN the corporation has always supposed that there is an unending supply of willing action-ready recruits. And the ALS/RALOs would always find a way to achieve this feat of alchemy
Every single one of those suppositions actually devolve to a full time job. And every single one of them has a likely outcome which takes the suppositions into fabled territory, even if you had full time bodies to throw at them.
And yet, the narrative stubbornly remain in classifying all of us as part time volunteers.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Evan. We are representatives of a constituency, the end-users. Direct Democracy sounds nice, but it it's completely impracticable in large scale constituencies. It's not only 3 Billion it's 3 plus the next 3!
In a way that is covered, because we are all individual end-users with our different point of views. It is equally true, though, that (like in legislatures/parliaments) one wishes that MP or congresswoman to be as representative as possible of her society, her constituency. Some of the policies and reforms that can help with that in ICANN are the ones that continually strive for more and more diversity in the RALO and ALAC member profile (gender balance, ethnic diversity, etc.) and I actually think we are not doing a terrible job there. One very interesting program in that vein is the NARALO Tribal Ambassadors program: all of a sudden you have women of tribal backgrounds engaging and coming to meetings. That is great and that is representativity. Surely there are other programs that strive to do the same with varying results.
In terms of getting more end-users (on a massive world scale) to know about At-Large and ALAC is an issue of marketing, of letting people know we exist, what we do and how to join. I think a good way to realistically take up this task is with a very highly sophisticated, coordinated, professional and equally massive social media driven education and engagement strategy, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIN, and who knows maybe somehow the younger Apps like SnapChat and InstaGram. That takes resources, but it has great bang for the buck.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 3, 2017, at 1:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> 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+(ALA...)
-- 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Thanks Javier (and Evan) First - we have finally sorted the language - we represent the INTERESTS of end users - we do not directly represent over 3 billion of them And we try as best we can - thus the breadth of representation in the AT-Large Community - the differences in geography, cultures, language, governmental structures, connectivity, policy priorities, etc. So we do listen to each other and hope, because we do, that we are listened to. What we need to applaud in the Review is that FINALLY outreach is listed as something we should do and be funded for (check the restrictions on things like CROPP funding). And yes, the Tribal Ambassadors is but one good example. Pua from the Cook Islands is another excellent example, and for different reasons, it is so important that Kaili as there, along with Ali - completely different cultures, languages, governmental structures, connectivity. And one other welcome suggestion (which we already follow- but could do more of) is to use the communications tools that do ready out. Holly On 3 Mar 2017, at 9:25 pm, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Evan. We are representatives of a constituency, the end-users. Direct Democracy sounds nice, but it it's completely impracticable in large scale constituencies. It's not only 3 Billion it's 3 plus the next 3!
In a way that is covered, because we are all individual end-users with our different point of views. It is equally true, though, that (like in legislatures/parliaments) one wishes that MP or congresswoman to be as representative as possible of her society, her constituency. Some of the policies and reforms that can help with that in ICANN are the ones that continually strive for more and more diversity in the RALO and ALAC member profile (gender balance, ethnic diversity, etc.) and I actually think we are not doing a terrible job there. One very interesting program in that vein is the NARALO Tribal Ambassadors program: all of a sudden you have women of tribal backgrounds engaging and coming to meetings. That is great and that is representativity. Surely there are other programs that strive to do the same with varying results.
In terms of getting more end-users (on a massive world scale) to know about At-Large and ALAC is an issue of marketing, of letting people know we exist, what we do and how to join. I think a good way to realistically take up this task is with a very highly sophisticated, coordinated, professional and equally massive social media driven education and engagement strategy, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIN, and who knows maybe somehow the younger Apps like SnapChat and InstaGram. That takes resources, but it has great bang for the buck.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 3, 2017, at 1:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> 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+(ALA...)
-- 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+(ALA...)
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...)
Thanks Holly Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 4, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Javier (and Evan)
First - we have finally sorted the language - we represent the INTERESTS of end users - we do not directly represent over 3 billion of them And we try as best we can - thus the breadth of representation in the AT-Large Community - the differences in geography, cultures, language, governmental structures, connectivity, policy priorities, etc. So we do listen to each other and hope, because we do, that we are listened to. What we need to applaud in the Review is that FINALLY outreach is listed as something we should do and be funded for (check the restrictions on things like CROPP funding). And yes, the Tribal Ambassadors is but one good example. Pua from the Cook Islands is another excellent example, and for different reasons, it is so important that Kaili as there, along with Ali - completely different cultures, languages, governmental structures, connectivity. And one other welcome suggestion (which we already follow- but could do more of) is to use the communications tools that do ready out.
Holly
On 3 Mar 2017, at 9:25 pm, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Evan. We are representatives of a constituency, the end-users. Direct Democracy sounds nice, but it it's completely impracticable in large scale constituencies. It's not only 3 Billion it's 3 plus the next 3!
In a way that is covered, because we are all individual end-users with our different point of views. It is equally true, though, that (like in legislatures/parliaments) one wishes that MP or congresswoman to be as representative as possible of her society, her constituency. Some of the policies and reforms that can help with that in ICANN are the ones that continually strive for more and more diversity in the RALO and ALAC member profile (gender balance, ethnic diversity, etc.) and I actually think we are not doing a terrible job there. One very interesting program in that vein is the NARALO Tribal Ambassadors program: all of a sudden you have women of tribal backgrounds engaging and coming to meetings. That is great and that is representativity. Surely there are other programs that strive to do the same with varying results.
In terms of getting more end-users (on a massive world scale) to know about At-Large and ALAC is an issue of marketing, of letting people know we exist, what we do and how to join. I think a good way to realistically take up this task is with a very highly sophisticated, coordinated, professional and equally massive social media driven education and engagement strategy, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIN, and who knows maybe somehow the younger Apps like SnapChat and InstaGram. That takes resources, but it has great bang for the buck.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 3, 2017, at 1:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> 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+(ALA...)
-- 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+(ALA...)
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...)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1 On 3/3/17 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 <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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 <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...> C)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
-- 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+(ALA...)
-- Garth Bruen gbruen@knujon.com 617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com ICANN At-Large Advisory Council Author: WHOIS Running the Internet http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118679555.html
As a kickoff point for a discussion, yes. But that is after you point out how that on its face, the survey is flawed. Maybe you need to get the back story out front first; what the bye-law says. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
gbruen＠knujon.com -
Holly Raiche -
Javier Rua