+1 on all points. -Carlton On Nov 3, 2016 2:37 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Alan, On 02/11/2016 19:58, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree that the 200+ strong ALS network could and should be used more for disseminating information about ICANN in their countries and regions. This ties in nicely with what I have understood to be Göran's focus on a more understandable grassroots communication of ICANN's new narrative.

However, I would like to suggest that the original idea of having ALS's to contribute to the At Large advice development process, in spite of disappointments, would be kept alive and not seen as a dead end, to be replaced with the new communication/information orientation. I see the two as parallel and mutually reinforcing efforts. As you say, the new role of ALS's may make them more knowledgeable and help to fullfill the original target (ALS input into the advice processes.)

I completely agree with Yrjö. As a RALO Chair, I object to becoming a mere unpaid part of ICANN's communication machine. If end users are to learn about ICANN's activities, it is because they need to be given the bylaw-mandated ability to bring their point of view into the ICANN processes. It is not because this is a hard task and because there are barriers, that we should give up. If we did, then we are literally giving up on the bottom-up multistakeholder model. We are ICANN's feet. Rather than giving up on ALS input, we need to implement all of the recommendations which our ALSes have proposed when they met in London in June 2014. The policy management process system; the mapping of competencies in ALSes; the capacity building; the tracking of ICANN stakeholder input balancing, etc. - all of these are unfinished projects. All of these require time and work. All of these are cutting edge, because nobody else is doing this in the world. Nobody. We need to push the frontiers of what can be achieved in bottom-up, grassroots input. We need to work smarter, not harder (TM CLO). If a majority of ALAC representatives really believe that input from the grassroots is impossible, then may I suggest that we close down ALAC altogether and declare ICANN a failed experiment. ICANN version 1 was built on the promise that this was going to be a bottom-up organisation answering the needs of the Internet community at large. Version 2, after the failed 2001 elections, tried to introduce more stability but stripped ICANN of a vital end user influence. Version 2b brought At-Large back to the Board of Directors. Version 3, which you appear to propose, gives the green light to the Domain Industrial Complex to run the show unhindered and for the ALAC to become its willing propaganda dispensing puppet. I'd rather have a root canal than follow this path. Kindest regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ 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)