Document for discussion during Friday's ALS Expectations session
Over the last months I have done a lot of thinking and talking about how to make ALSes effective - specifically to set reasonable expectations that will allow At-Large and its ALSes to be critical and useful parts of the ICANN ecosystem. Please find attached an analysis of where I think we are today, why we are here, and how we should move forward. I believe that we need a realistic plan and we should not just wait for the independent review to tell us what to do. Alan
Dear Alan, many thanks for sharing this important analyses. As I am not attending Hyderabad meeting, due to a commitment made long ago to Council of Europe for the upcoming World Forum for Democracy, here are my few immediate reflections, in addition to the ones you have shared: People engage/participate and get involved for a number of reasons: - Personal/professional ambitions and motivations/aspirations or a commitment to a certain agenda; - Organizational related objectives – promoting the institution one is part of, bringing the organization to a different development stage, among others; - Good knowledge of the issues being addressed and expertise that allows for a constructive engagement; In line with the above, might be worth mapping and understanding what ‘brings’ ALSs and formal ALS representative to the ICANN ecosystem in the first place, what are the driving elements behind. On the other hand, we may also want to consider having some quantitative and qualitative indicators in place, that would allow measuring the engagement along with the quality of engagement and understand what is the kind of transformational changes that need to occur at the ALS, RALO, ALAC or ICANN level in order to deepen and broaden the engagement of ALSs in long run. For this to happen, I envisage that a data collection mechanism might help track progress, and it can be also a scorecard with an operational layer (where data for specific indicators are collected), and a dashboard that allows to see in real time where things go into the ‘wrong’ direction and allow for a rapid response mechanism in place/or intervene and re-dress the situation before it is too late. Wishing you all a productive week ahead, Veronica -- *Veronica Cretu * *MA in Contemporary Diplomacy* *Governance Reforms Scorecard Initiative Coordinator with World Bank Moldova* *President, Open Government Institute **- http://opengov.si.md/ <http://opengov.si.md/>* *Email: veronicacretu@gmail.com <veronicacretu@gmail.com> * *Skype: veronicacretu * *Phone: 373 067435000* On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Over the last months I have done a lot of thinking and talking about how to make ALSes effective - specifically to set reasonable expectations that will allow At-Large and its ALSes to be critical and useful parts of the ICANN ecosystem.
Please find attached an analysis of where I think we are today, why we are here, and how we should move forward.
I believe that we need a realistic plan and we should not just wait for the independent review to tell us what to do.
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+(ALAC)
Dear Alan, all, 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.) EURALO is right now engaged in mapping the expertise at its member ALS's (according to recommendation #28 of ATLAS II) and identifying potential subject matter experts, who could contribute drafting ALAC advice, as well as encouraging their participation in multi-stakeholder processes at national level. Each of the 38 ALS has been contacted individually, and the response rate has been encouraging. A compilation of their answers is being prepared, and EURALO leaders will be able to give more information about the project at appropriate At Large meetings in Hyderabad. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Veronica Cretu <veronicacretu@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 2:22 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Subject: Re: [ALAC] Document for discussion during Friday's ALS Expectations session Dear Alan, many thanks for sharing this important analyses. As I am not attending Hyderabad meeting, due to a commitment made long ago to Council of Europe for the upcoming World Forum for Democracy, here are my few immediate reflections, in addition to the ones you have shared: People engage/participate and get involved for a number of reasons: - Personal/professional ambitions and motivations/aspirations or a commitment to a certain agenda; - Organizational related objectives – promoting the institution one is part of, bringing the organization to a different development stage, among others; - Good knowledge of the issues being addressed and expertise that allows for a constructive engagement; In line with the above, might be worth mapping and understanding what ‘brings’ ALSs and formal ALS representative to the ICANN ecosystem in the first place, what are the driving elements behind. On the other hand, we may also want to consider having some quantitative and qualitative indicators in place, that would allow measuring the engagement along with the quality of engagement and understand what is the kind of transformational changes that need to occur at the ALS, RALO, ALAC or ICANN level in order to deepen and broaden the engagement of ALSs in long run. For this to happen, I envisage that a data collection mechanism might help track progress, and it can be also a scorecard with an operational layer (where data for specific indicators are collected), and a dashboard that allows to see in real time where things go into the ‘wrong’ direction and allow for a rapid response mechanism in place/or intervene and re-dress the situation before it is too late. Wishing you all a productive week ahead, Veronica -- Veronica Cretu MA in Contemporary Diplomacy Governance Reforms Scorecard Initiative Coordinator with World Bank Moldova President, Open Government Institute - http://opengov.si.md/ OpenGovernment | Open Government Institute/Institutul ...<http://opengov.si.md/> opengov.si.md Open Government Institute/Institutul pentru o Guvernare Deschisă – we aim at promoting open government, citizen-engagement and participatory democracy at national ... Email: veronicacretu@gmail.com<mailto:veronicacretu@gmail.com> Skype: veronicacretu Phone: 373 067435000 On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Over the last months I have done a lot of thinking and talking about how to make ALSes effective - specifically to set reasonable expectations that will allow At-Large and its ALSes to be critical and useful parts of the ICANN ecosystem. Please find attached an analysis of where I think we are today, why we are here, and how we should move forward. I believe that we need a realistic plan and we should not just wait for the independent review to tell us what to do. Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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...)
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
Agree with Olivier Dev Anand On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:06 AM, 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+(ALA...)
Yrjö and Olivier and others, If you read my suggestion as giving up on the original intent, then I obviously did not make it sufficiently clear. What I am saying is that it is unrealistic to expect effective input from ALS members and ALSes unless we lay the groundwork and provide them with palatable, comprehensible input. And in my mind, it is critical to do that not only to the ALS representative, but to the wider ALS membership. If we do that, Then over time we will have an increasing number (and hopefully large number) of ALS members who become active in our WGs and processes. Along the way, we are also increasing awareness of ICANN and its issues, even among those who do not become "converts". Perhaps that makes us unpaid part of ICANN's communications team, but since I envisage ICANN staff being the prime source of our outgoing missives, I am not sure that is a strong argument. We may well need additional staff capacity to do this, and that will require a strong direction from the ALAC. I completely agree that such things as understanding the competencies of ALSes and ALS members is critical (as opposed to just the competencies of the ALS representatives). You will note that I did mention that some ALSes with particular competencies might be treated differently. Alan At 03/11/2016 03:36 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 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
Dear Alan, all Perhaps I didn't read your document carefully enough. It seems me now that there is no disagreement: both tracks will be pursued, and they will hopefully reinforce each other. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 11:23 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Yrjö Länsipuro; Veronica Cretu Cc: ALAC Subject: Re: [ALAC] Document for discussion during Friday's ALS Expectations session Yrjö and Olivier and others, If you read my suggestion as giving up on the original intent, then I obviously did not make it sufficiently clear. What I am saying is that it is unrealistic to expect effective input from ALS members and ALSes unless we lay the groundwork and provide them with palatable, comprehensible input. And in my mind, it is critical to do that not only to the ALS representative, but to the wider ALS membership. If we do that, Then over time we will have an increasing number (and hopefully large number) of ALS members who become active in our WGs and processes. Along the way, we are also increasing awareness of ICANN and its issues, even among those who do not become "converts". Perhaps that makes us unpaid part of ICANN's communications team, but since I envisage ICANN staff being the prime source of our outgoing missives, I am not sure that is a strong argument. We may well need additional staff capacity to do this, and that will require a strong direction from the ALAC. I completely agree that such things as understanding the competencies of ALSes and ALS members is critical (as opposed to just the competencies of the ALS representatives). You will note that I did mention that some ALSes with particular competencies might be treated differently. Alan At 03/11/2016 03:36 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 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
+1 - and EURALO is well in the process of gaining a better understanding of what competencies are present in its ALSes. Kindest regards, Olivier On 04/11/2016 18:04, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
Dear Alan, all
Perhaps I didn't read your document carefully enough. It seems me now that there is no disagreement: both tracks will be pursued, and they will hopefully reinforce each other.
Best,
Yrjö
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Friday, November 4, 2016 11:23 AM *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Yrjö Länsipuro; Veronica Cretu *Cc:* ALAC *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Document for discussion during Friday's ALS Expectations session
Yrjö and Olivier and others,
If you read my suggestion as giving up on the original intent, then I obviously did not make it sufficiently clear.
What I am saying is that it is unrealistic to expect effective input from ALS members and ALSes unless we lay the groundwork and provide them with palatable, comprehensible input. And in my mind, it is critical to do that not only to the ALS representative, but to the wider ALS membership.
If we do that, Then over time we will have an increasing number (and hopefully large number) of ALS members who become active in our WGs and processes.
Along the way, we are also increasing awareness of ICANN and its issues, even among those who do not become "converts". Perhaps that makes us unpaid part of ICANN's communications team, but since I envisage ICANN staff being the prime source of our outgoing missives, I am not sure that is a strong argument. We may well need additional staff capacity to do this, and that will require a strong direction from the ALAC.
I completely agree that such things as understanding the competencies of ALSes and ALS members is critical (as opposed to just the competencies of the ALS representatives). You will note that I did mention that some ALSes with particular competencies might be treated differently.
Alan
At 03/11/2016 03:36 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 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
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Alan, This is a very timely document. I look forward to the discussion. In addition i have been thinking about the role of the RALO Secretariats in coordinating ALS's in conjuction with the At Large Secretariat. We need to adopt an an approach that promotes local/regional engagement which then feeds into the global ICANN engagement. Not sure if my statement makes sense, i will try to explain the point at the meeting. Best Regards On 11/2/16, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Over the last months I have done a lot of thinking and talking about how to make ALSes effective - specifically to set reasonable expectations that will allow At-Large and its ALSes to be critical and useful parts of the ICANN ecosystem.
Please find attached an analysis of where I think we are today, why we are here, and how we should move forward.
I believe that we need a realistic plan and we should not just wait for the independent review to tell us what to do.
Alan
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
Hi Alan et al As you know I too have been following discussions about the expectations of ALSes and although I agree with 90% of what you are saying, I think we have to look at what ALSes are and do on the ground in their place of origin, many of whom in developing countries like my own. An analysis of ALS members's skills may reveal some important information about EU ALSes who have been formed with large numbers of skilled and knowledgably like-minded individuals who have wide experience about the internet, and CAN contribute ably to discussions about how it works. However that same analysis may not be appropriately applied to ALSes in developing countries such as in my region (the Pacific Islands). In my ALS, although there are a half a dozen information systems graduates among our members (in a country with a population of 14,000, many graduates leave the island for better opportunities overseas), many of the others within our group are those for whom the internet is still a mystery. For them, the internet is a work tool they use for inputting and getting emails and other work-based information. The cost of internet in the Pacific is beyond the means of many to connect it to their homes, therefore they do not enjoy the pleasure of browsing and experiencing what else the internet may have to offer. To expect them to contribute to a PDP about the domain name system and how it works is beyond their readiness. The focus of my ALS is capacity building within our own community about its more technical side. It is a slow knowledge-building process, and for many of our members, much of it is still over their heads. My Cook Islands GAC colleague, Pua Hunter, and I help build their understanding by providing small snippets of information at a time about our involvements within ICANN and through gradual introductions to APRALO, APAC and APTLD, and other internet related regional organisations. Increasingly we are using social media for mobiles, so that Facebook has become a more appropriate and effective web presence for ALS members than a website which was an earlier ALS expectation. Eventually, we'd like to create more ALSes in our region, but this will require INDIVIDUALS doing the legwork and first of all informing people within their communities. For these ALSes you may only get one or two people contributing until others get up to speed, and this may take some time as we build competency, understanding and interest. I would like to draw the attention of the ALAC and At-Large members to the GAC's HIT session on ICANN and Underserved Regions (on Monday @ 5pm HYD time). ICANN cannot impose a one-size-fits-all model onto all ALSes and all RALOs. If we want to reach the next 3 billion, our expectations of current ALSes and the individuals within them who are already engaged, have to allow for different models of engagement. What these models are, is the issue. Maureen (Pacific Islands) On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Over the last months I have done a lot of thinking and talking about how to make ALSes effective - specifically to set reasonable expectations that will allow At-Large and its ALSes to be critical and useful parts of the ICANN ecosystem.
Please find attached an analysis of where I think we are today, why we are here, and how we should move forward.
I believe that we need a realistic plan and we should not just wait for the independent review to tell us what to do.
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+(ALAC)
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Barrack Otieno -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Maureen Hilyard -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Veronica Cretu -
Yrjö Länsipuro