ALAC & At-Large involvement in GNSO activities
This is a long message, but please take the time to read it. This is my seventh year as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO. It has always been a challenge, and has at times been exciting, frustrating, productive, discouraging and often satisfying. And I have learnt far more on so many levels than I could even start to recount here. I take some pride at having initiated two PDPs on behalf of the ALAC, and seen them through to create new ICANN policy. One, domain tasting, was so successful at killing a distasteful practice that most people no longer even remember what it was. The other on post-expiration registrant rights was successful in that the resultant policy gives registrants some rights to renew gTLD accidentally expired domains where they previously had no rights at all, but the results were not quite at the level that we had hoped for, to some extent due to the limited involvement of At-Large throughout the process. I, along with Cheryl when her busy schedule has allowed, have been regular participants in quite a number of GNSO activities, both policy and administrative. Others such as Evan and Carlton have made their voices heard as well, and more recently we have seen a few others start to participate. This note is prompted by a number of issues. First, it hopefully will come as no surprise that I do not intend to hold the role of ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for Life. It is therefore increasingly important to have more people knowledgeable about the GNSO and active in its activities, so that when a new Liaison is required, the ALAC will have good options for my replacement. Second, for several years, the GNSO spent far more time than perhaps it should have on its re-organization and reformulation of all of its procedures and methodologies. These changes were mandated by the Board and the GNSO had little choice but to carry out the re-org, but that has now largely been completed. What was a slow trickle of policy work when the focus was on administration is now becoming a flood. There are currently several PDPs active and more coming down the pipe (I am participating in three of them, and I am a vice-chair of one). In addition, the GNSO is under increasing pressure to develop policy through other means, and neither the community nor the Board is comfortable with policy development taking years. The net effect is that the work going on at any time is growing, and there is pressure to get the work done faster. If At-Large is to be able to influence these efforts, it MUST get involved from the very start. And it will take a lot more than one or two people. Issuing comments and advice at the end of the process is simply not going to allow us to properly influence policy outcomes. Lastly, the overall character of many discussions in ICANN is changing. When I started, the "public interest" was a phrase that showed up in an obscure way in the ICANN Bylaws and was rarely mentioned. Users who did not register domain names were generally not considered to be a factor in decisions. With increased ALAC visibility and the Affirmation of Commitment, that has changed. A lot! As the one part of ICANN to have the interest of the billions of Internet users as its core mission, ALAC and At-Large have an opportunity to help drive ICANN in a direction that indeed serves the public interest. But we can only do that if we are actively and intensely involved in activities outside of our little corner of ICANN. We need to be out there, participating and helping to formulate the policies that we believe WILL benefit the public interest and Internet users. And we need to have the credibility so that when we do engage, people listen. I will soon put together a list of ongoing GNSO activities as well as those that may be starting soon. For a few ongoing activities, it is probably too late for new people to get involved. For others, getting involved now will be an interesting learning experience. And as new projects start up, there will be lots of new opportunities. I am prepared to work with anyone who has a true interest in becoming active in GNSO policy activities. Some of these topics are complex and will take work to understand and eventually to contribute. Others will be far easier. But in all cases, helping to formulate GOOD policy will be both satisfying and productive. Alan (also being sent to the At-Large list)
*Dear Alan & All,* * * *like others on the ALAC, I am humbled by your dedication, Alan, in promoting the interest of the general Internet user. Your experience with the GNSO is of great value, your analyses have helped nurture awareness within ALAC and At-Large, and your recommendations have always been balanced, workable. The insights you have provided amount to a precious guide to policy development. What you Alan, and others like Cheryl, Evan and Carlton have done, provided perspective to the newcomer to the ALAC, when I arrived in late 2010.* * * *I would like to connect Alan's long and instructive message to a discussion going on elsewhere, about the "At-Large Report of the GNSO WG on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition Workspace". Such a conjunction prompts me to offer a few remarks:* * * *- First, a sociological overview. Since its inception, At-Large and the ALAC emerged as a top-down response to a strong demand for recognition of the importance of the user perspective. As commercial interests became more weighty in ICANN, it became obvious that a new balance had to be struck. It is this awareness of inadequate representation of the general user which led the ALAC Review to strongly recommend the inclusion of a user-community member on the Board, with voting rights.* * * *- Second, there is a lesson to be learned from this pattern of evolution. In the early stages, the ALAC had to prove its "worthiness" by taking up a more significant share of the community task of providing input to the Board and reacting to its initiatives. And this was ably done during Cheryl's tenure as Chair. By the same token, when the ALAC Review recommended that the Board welcome in its midst a person designated by the ALAC, that move was finally successful because it was presented as a recognition of progress already achieved, but also as an "act of faith" (I remember using the term) in the ALAC's ability to evolve even further. In a word, the allocation of a voting member seat on the Board marked the closure of a phase of recognition, and put a seal on the ALAC's legitimacy. This was the context at the time when Olivier was elected as Chair, and his leadership has accelerated this progress.* * * *- Third, I posit that the period before us is quite unlike the previous one. In the past, gaining acceptance as an AC has sometimes required us to relinquish inconvenient principles for the benefit of short-term practicality. But the challenge the ALAC now faces is quite different: how to effectively introduce, or better acclimatize, the fundamental notion of the global public interest, in an organization where commercial interests, the lawyer class, and the satellites gravitating around them, have gained a dominant position. This is not to say that the latter are illegitimate; but it is a question of setting the balance right.* * * *- Fourth, if my analysis is not completely wrong, I would suggest that the ALAC can now afford to concentrate on wider issues, on fostering principles which may have been neglected, while at the same time pursuing its valuable work on responding to the Board and neighbours in the ACs and SOs. I admit this is an important choice, but I believe now is the right time to formulate the question squarely, and to act accordingly.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* 2013/2/9 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
This is a long message, but please take the time to read it.
This is my seventh year as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO. It has always been a challenge, and has at times been exciting, frustrating, productive, discouraging and often satisfying. And I have learnt far more on so many levels than I could even start to recount here.
I take some pride at having initiated two PDPs on behalf of the ALAC, and seen them through to create new ICANN policy. One, domain tasting, was so successful at killing a distasteful practice that most people no longer even remember what it was. The other on post-expiration registrant rights was successful in that the resultant policy gives registrants some rights to renew gTLD accidentally expired domains where they previously had no rights at all, but the results were not quite at the level that we had hoped for, to some extent due to the limited involvement of At-Large throughout the process.
I, along with Cheryl when her busy schedule has allowed, have been regular participants in quite a number of GNSO activities, both policy and administrative. Others such as Evan and Carlton have made their voices heard as well, and more recently we have seen a few others start to participate.
This note is prompted by a number of issues.
First, it hopefully will come as no surprise that I do not intend to hold the role of ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for Life. It is therefore increasingly important to have more people knowledgeable about the GNSO and active in its activities, so that when a new Liaison is required, the ALAC will have good options for my replacement.
Second, for several years, the GNSO spent far more time than perhaps it should have on its re-organization and reformulation of all of its procedures and methodologies. These changes were mandated by the Board and the GNSO had little choice but to carry out the re-org, but that has now largely been completed. What was a slow trickle of policy work when the focus was on administration is now becoming a flood. There are currently several PDPs active and more coming down the pipe (I am participating in three of them, and I am a vice-chair of one). In addition, the GNSO is under increasing pressure to develop policy through other means, and neither the community nor the Board is comfortable with policy development taking years. The net effect is that the work going on at any time is growing, and there is pressure to get the work done faster. If At-Large is to be able to influence these efforts, it MUST get involved from the very start. And it will take a lot more than one or two people. Issuing comments and advice at the end of the process is simply not going to allow us to properly influence policy outcomes.
Lastly, the overall character of many discussions in ICANN is changing. When I started, the "public interest" was a phrase that showed up in an obscure way in the ICANN Bylaws and was rarely mentioned. Users who did not register domain names were generally not considered to be a factor in decisions. With increased ALAC visibility and the Affirmation of Commitment, that has changed. A lot! As the one part of ICANN to have the interest of the billions of Internet users as its core mission, ALAC and At-Large have an opportunity to help drive ICANN in a direction that indeed serves the public interest. But we can only do that if we are actively and intensely involved in activities outside of our little corner of ICANN. We need to be out there, participating and helping to formulate the policies that we believe WILL benefit the public interest and Internet users. And we need to have the credibility so that when we do engage, people listen.
I will soon put together a list of ongoing GNSO activities as well as those that may be starting soon. For a few ongoing activities, it is probably too late for new people to get involved. For others, getting involved now will be an interesting learning experience. And as new projects start up, there will be lots of new opportunities.
I am prepared to work with anyone who has a true interest in becoming active in GNSO policy activities. Some of these topics are complex and will take work to understand and eventually to contribute. Others will be far easier. But in all cases, helping to formulate GOOD policy will be both satisfying and productive.
Alan
(also being sent to the At-Large list)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Dear Alan, Your dedication and service to the At-Large are legendary. I had wondered often how it would be possible for anyone to fill your gigantic shoes, which tend to grow exponentially in the frenetic ICANN vortex and endless cycle of calls for input. The same thought applies to Cheryl and Olivier. With expanding scope, a team of people with the right blend of skill, interest and dedication could be a solution. The crux of the matter is the sustainability of the volunteer model itself, and I think that the ALAC needs to ponder this issue carefully because demand will always exceed supply where ICANN is concerned. If we have limited capacity and the issue space keeps expanding and the wider At-Large community is unable to help us pick up the slack, then the rational solution is to be selective, which means that we have to prioritize the issues that we address. And in this regard, I tend to agree with Jean-Jacques that we should focus on principles and issues with big picture implication in terms of the global public interest. The management argument says that we need to focus. The evolutionary argument says that it is now the right time to focus on higher principle-based issues with wide ramification for end users. The question that we need to consider (if there is agreement on this) is whether we are comfortable with not being responsive on many issues. My sense is that there may be discomfort in the course of implementation and it will be something that we struggle with. This is not to say that we should not do it! I wecome the views of other ALAC members on this topic. Best regards, Rinalia On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:08 PM, JJS <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Dear Alan & All,* * * *like others on the ALAC, I am humbled by your dedication, Alan, in promoting the interest of the general Internet user. Your experience with the GNSO is of great value, your analyses have helped nurture awareness within ALAC and At-Large, and your recommendations have always been balanced, workable. The insights you have provided amount to a precious guide to policy development. What you Alan, and others like Cheryl, Evan and Carlton have done, provided perspective to the newcomer to the ALAC, when I arrived in late 2010.* * * *I would like to connect Alan's long and instructive message to a discussion going on elsewhere, about the "At-Large Report of the GNSO WG on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition Workspace". Such a conjunction prompts me to offer a few remarks:* * * *- First, a sociological overview. Since its inception, At-Large and the ALAC emerged as a top-down response to a strong demand for recognition of the importance of the user perspective. As commercial interests became more weighty in ICANN, it became obvious that a new balance had to be struck. It is this awareness of inadequate representation of the general user which led the ALAC Review to strongly recommend the inclusion of a user-community member on the Board, with voting rights.* * * *- Second, there is a lesson to be learned from this pattern of evolution. In the early stages, the ALAC had to prove its "worthiness" by taking up a more significant share of the community task of providing input to the Board and reacting to its initiatives. And this was ably done during Cheryl's tenure as Chair. By the same token, when the ALAC Review recommended that the Board welcome in its midst a person designated by the ALAC, that move was finally successful because it was presented as a recognition of progress already achieved, but also as an "act of faith" (I remember using the term) in the ALAC's ability to evolve even further. In a word, the allocation of a voting member seat on the Board marked the closure of a phase of recognition, and put a seal on the ALAC's legitimacy. This was the context at the time when Olivier was elected as Chair, and his leadership has accelerated this progress.* * * *- Third, I posit that the period before us is quite unlike the previous one. In the past, gaining acceptance as an AC has sometimes required us to relinquish inconvenient principles for the benefit of short-term practicality. But the challenge the ALAC now faces is quite different: how to effectively introduce, or better acclimatize, the fundamental notion of the global public interest, in an organization where commercial interests, the lawyer class, and the satellites gravitating around them, have gained a dominant position. This is not to say that the latter are illegitimate; but it is a question of setting the balance right.* * * *- Fourth, if my analysis is not completely wrong, I would suggest that the ALAC can now afford to concentrate on wider issues, on fostering principles which may have been neglected, while at the same time pursuing its valuable work on responding to the Board and neighbours in the ACs and SOs. I admit this is an important choice, but I believe now is the right time to formulate the question squarely, and to act accordingly.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.*
2013/2/9 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
This is a long message, but please take the time to read it.
This is my seventh year as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO. It has always been a challenge, and has at times been exciting, frustrating, productive, discouraging and often satisfying. And I have learnt far more on so many levels than I could even start to recount here.
I take some pride at having initiated two PDPs on behalf of the ALAC, and seen them through to create new ICANN policy. One, domain tasting, was so successful at killing a distasteful practice that most people no longer even remember what it was. The other on post-expiration registrant rights was successful in that the resultant policy gives registrants some rights to renew gTLD accidentally expired domains where they previously had no rights at all, but the results were not quite at the level that we had hoped for, to some extent due to the limited involvement of At-Large throughout the process.
I, along with Cheryl when her busy schedule has allowed, have been regular participants in quite a number of GNSO activities, both policy and administrative. Others such as Evan and Carlton have made their voices heard as well, and more recently we have seen a few others start to participate.
This note is prompted by a number of issues.
First, it hopefully will come as no surprise that I do not intend to hold the role of ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for Life. It is therefore increasingly important to have more people knowledgeable about the GNSO and active in its activities, so that when a new Liaison is required, the ALAC will have good options for my replacement.
Second, for several years, the GNSO spent far more time than perhaps it should have on its re-organization and reformulation of all of its procedures and methodologies. These changes were mandated by the Board and the GNSO had little choice but to carry out the re-org, but that has now largely been completed. What was a slow trickle of policy work when the focus was on administration is now becoming a flood. There are currently several PDPs active and more coming down the pipe (I am participating in three of them, and I am a vice-chair of one). In addition, the GNSO is under increasing pressure to develop policy through other means, and neither the community nor the Board is comfortable with policy development taking years. The net effect is that the work going on at any time is growing, and there is pressure to get the work done faster. If At-Large is to be able to influence these efforts, it MUST get involved from the very start. And it will take a lot more than one or two people. Issuing comments and advice at the end of the process is simply not going to allow us to properly influence policy outcomes.
Lastly, the overall character of many discussions in ICANN is changing. When I started, the "public interest" was a phrase that showed up in an obscure way in the ICANN Bylaws and was rarely mentioned. Users who did not register domain names were generally not considered to be a factor in decisions. With increased ALAC visibility and the Affirmation of Commitment, that has changed. A lot! As the one part of ICANN to have the interest of the billions of Internet users as its core mission, ALAC and At-Large have an opportunity to help drive ICANN in a direction that indeed serves the public interest. But we can only do that if we are actively and intensely involved in activities outside of our little corner of ICANN. We need to be out there, participating and helping to formulate the policies that we believe WILL benefit the public interest and Internet users. And we need to have the credibility so that when we do engage, people listen.
I will soon put together a list of ongoing GNSO activities as well as those that may be starting soon. For a few ongoing activities, it is probably too late for new people to get involved. For others, getting involved now will be an interesting learning experience. And as new projects start up, there will be lots of new opportunities.
I am prepared to work with anyone who has a true interest in becoming active in GNSO policy activities. Some of these topics are complex and will take work to understand and eventually to contribute. Others will be far easier. But in all cases, helping to formulate GOOD policy will be both satisfying and productive.
Alan
(also being sent to the At-Large list)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Dear Rinalia, thank you for your kind message and for sharing your views. I would like to focus specifically on the points you have developed: On 09/02/2013 07:16, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
With expanding scope, a team of people with the right blend of skill, interest and dedication could be a solution. The crux of the matter is the sustainability of the volunteer model itself, and I think that the ALAC needs to ponder this issue carefully because demand will always exceed supply where ICANN is concerned.
If we have limited capacity and the issue space keeps expanding and the wider At-Large community is unable to help us pick up the slack, then the rational solution is to be selective, which means that we have to prioritize the issues that we address. And in this regard, I tend to agree with Jean-Jacques that we should focus on principles and issues with big picture implication in terms of the global public interest.
On issues of the sustainability of the volunteer model itself, I would indeed be interested in hearing views. Demand has *always* outstripped supply. We have therefore already been conducting a selection in the number of public comments we respond to. The alternative is to push for more volunteer involvement from ALAC members or to expand the community itself thus having more capacity to distribute tasks to more people. Alan has let us know there is likely to be *more* demand. He has also let us know that rather than being reactive and commenting on GNSO processes once the work has finished, our community is increasingly being invited to take part in the working group itself - something we have asked for in many of our statements in the past, so our demand is being granted. I therefore only see one solution to our dilemma: growth of our active community.
The question that we need to consider (if there is agreement on this) is whether we are comfortable with not being responsive on many issues. My sense is that there may be discomfort in the course of implementation and it will be something that we struggle with. This is not to say that we should not do it!
We have done it already - but this mission is also by-law-mandated. Furthermore, how do you choose the issues that need a response? Kindest regards, Olivier
Dear Olivier, Apologies for delayed response. Blame it all on Chinese New Year and all that it brings. Responses threaded. Best regards, Rinalia On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Dear Rinalia,
thank you for your kind message and for sharing your views. I would like to focus specifically on the points you have developed:
On 09/02/2013 07:16, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
With expanding scope, a team of people with the right blend of skill, interest and dedication could be a solution. The crux of the matter is the sustainability of the volunteer model itself, and I think that the ALAC needs to ponder this issue carefully because demand will always exceed supply where ICANN is concerned.
If we have limited capacity and the issue space keeps expanding and the wider At-Large community is unable to help us pick up the slack, then the rational solution is to be selective, which means that we have to prioritize the issues that we address. And in this regard, I tend to agree with Jean-Jacques that we should focus on principles and issues with big picture implication in terms of the global public interest.
On issues of the sustainability of the volunteer model itself, I would indeed be interested in hearing views. Demand has *always* outstripped supply. We have therefore already been conducting a selection in the number of public comments we respond to. The alternative is to push for more volunteer involvement from ALAC members or to expand the community itself thus having more capacity to distribute tasks to more people. Alan has let us know there is likely to be *more* demand. He has also let us know that rather than being reactive and commenting on GNSO processes once the work has finished, our community is increasingly being invited to take part in the working group itself - something we have asked for in many of our statements in the past, so our demand is being granted. I therefore only see one solution to our dilemma: growth of our active community.
RAR: Yes, we need growth of our "active" community, which we can do in 2 ways. We can actively encourage and we can nurture, both in a targeted way. I think we have some good foundational initiatives that will help with this including the capacity building work and objectives.
The question that we need to consider (if there is agreement on this) is whether we are comfortable with not being responsive on many issues. My sense is that there may be discomfort in the course of implementation and it will be something that we struggle with. This is not to say that we should not do it!
We have done it already - but this mission is also by-law-mandated. Furthermore, how do you choose the issues that need a response?
RAR: We choose by assessing the issues against a matrix of criteria to be developed. :)
Kindest regards,
Olivier
Dear Jean-Jacques, thank you very much for your kind message which I very much agree with. I wanted to respond to specific points which you have made and have therefore cut/pasted the paragraphs in question, with my answers in-line: On 09/02/2013 06:08, JJS wrote:
* *- Third, I posit that the period before us is quite unlike the previous one. In the past, gaining acceptance as an AC has sometimes required us to relinquish inconvenient principles for the benefit of short-term practicality. But the challenge the ALAC now faces is quite different: how to effectively introduce, or better acclimatize, the fundamental notion of the global public interest, in an organization where commercial interests, the lawyer class, and the satellites gravitating around them, have gained a dominant position. This is not to say that the latter are illegitimate; but it is a question of setting the balance right.*
I do not think that at any time, the ALAC has relinquished inconvenient principles for the benefit of short term practicality. The ALAC might have had to adopt shortened procedures in order to keep its response on-time and this is possible by the very Rules of Procedure which the ALAC runs by. As for the content of the message, I would like to be pointed to example of statements where our principles were relinquished. Concerning the introduction of the fundamental notion of the global public interest, I note that whilst a while ago this notion was completely foreign to many parts of ICANN, recent events point to the direction that things are improving and the notion itself is gaining acceptance. This is partly due to the change in ICANN leadership, both in Staff and on the Board, but also due to the ALAC's insistence on the term, sharing its point of view on the matter at every opportunity at ICANN meetings, starting with meetings with the GAC and with the Board and I must thank you for your work and the work of others on the ALAC for putting the point across so eloquently that the Global Public Interest is on its way to become part of ICANN's DNA. With an evolving ICANN, I believe that whilst there was a time when commercial interests peaked, the pendulum is currently swinging in the other direction. More than just setting the balance right, we need to seize that opportunity to make sure the global public interest is firmly etched into ICANN's DNA.
* * *- Fourth, if my analysis is not completely wrong, I would suggest that the ALAC can now afford to concentrate on wider issues, on fostering principles which may have been neglected, while at the same time pursuing its valuable work on responding to the Board and neighbours in the ACs and SOs. I admit this is an important choice, but I believe now is the right time to formulate the question squarely, and to act accordingly.*
I have always supported this, starting with the creation of the At-Large Future Challenges Working Group. However, the ALAC's mission is listed in the ICANN bylaws and we therefore must not forget performing those duties. I'll respond to Rinalia's message next. Kind regards, Olivier
*Dear Olivier,* * * *sorry for not responding immediately to your message. I'm traveling just now, and have access generally in the evening.* * * *You make some interesting and valid points. But as this thread has already been well nourished, I will not belabour the points already made .* * * *The purpose of my previous e-mails was to point out a few simple things:* * * *- we are fortunate in the ALAC to have had a Chair like Cheryl and to have a leader like you, each at a critical period in the short life of our AC **(sorry for not going further down into history, as my involvement with the ALAC started when Cheryl was Chair).* * * *- Like any living organism, structures evolve. ICANN and ALAC are no exception. I distinguished two periods,* * - first, the ALAC had to prove its existence, gain respect and visibility: this was the time of adding value to initiatives or drafts from other parts of ICANN; * * - and now, because ICANN has evolved the way it has, with the business perspective gradually dominating the debate, it may be time for the ALAC to assert -more forcefully than in the past- the central importance of the global public interest.* * * *- If I have expressed anything which you found unfair, please accept my apologies. I felt that, with experience gained in various areas, it was my duty to point out some of the larger trends which, whether or not we react, will shape the future of the Internet, and therefore the way users relate to it.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques. * 2013/2/9 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
Dear Jean-Jacques,
thank you very much for your kind message which I very much agree with.
I wanted to respond to specific points which you have made and have therefore cut/pasted the paragraphs in question, with my answers in-line:
On 09/02/2013 06:08, JJS wrote:
* *- Third, I posit that the period before us is quite unlike the previous one. In the past, gaining acceptance as an AC has sometimes required us to relinquish inconvenient principles for the benefit of short-term practicality. But the challenge the ALAC now faces is quite different: how to effectively introduce, or better acclimatize, the fundamental notion of the global public interest, in an organization where commercial interests, the lawyer class, and the satellites gravitating around them, have gained a dominant position. This is not to say that the latter are illegitimate; but it is a question of setting the balance right.*
I do not think that at any time, the ALAC has relinquished inconvenient principles for the benefit of short term practicality. The ALAC might have had to adopt shortened procedures in order to keep its response on-time and this is possible by the very Rules of Procedure which the ALAC runs by. As for the content of the message, I would like to be pointed to example of statements where our principles were relinquished.
Concerning the introduction of the fundamental notion of the global public interest, I note that whilst a while ago this notion was completely foreign to many parts of ICANN, recent events point to the direction that things are improving and the notion itself is gaining acceptance. This is partly due to the change in ICANN leadership, both in Staff and on the Board, but also due to the ALAC's insistence on the term, sharing its point of view on the matter at every opportunity at ICANN meetings, starting with meetings with the GAC and with the Board and I must thank you for your work and the work of others on the ALAC for putting the point across so eloquently that the Global Public Interest is on its way to become part of ICANN's DNA.
With an evolving ICANN, I believe that whilst there was a time when commercial interests peaked, the pendulum is currently swinging in the other direction. More than just setting the balance right, we need to seize that opportunity to make sure the global public interest is firmly etched into ICANN's DNA.
* * *- Fourth, if my analysis is not completely wrong, I would suggest that the ALAC can now afford to concentrate on wider issues, on fostering principles which may have been neglected, while at the same time pursuing its valuable work on responding to the Board and neighbours in the ACs and SOs. I admit this is an important choice, but I believe now is the right time to formulate the question squarely, and to act accordingly.*
I have always supported this, starting with the creation of the At-Large Future Challenges Working Group. However, the ALAC's mission is listed in the ICANN bylaws and we therefore must not forget performing those duties. I'll respond to Rinalia's message next.
Kind regards,
Olivier
Dear Jean-Jacques, thank you for your insightful follow-up: On 12/02/2013 03:22, JJS wrote:
/- Like any living organism, structures evolve. ICANN and ALAC are no exception. I distinguished two periods,/ / - first, the ALAC had to prove its existence, gain respect and visibility: this was the time of adding value to initiatives or drafts from other parts of ICANN; / / - and now, because ICANN has evolved the way it has, with the business perspective gradually dominating the debate, it may be time for the ALAC to assert -more forcefully than in the past- the central importance of the global public interest./
I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. I am still concerned that we are still in the phase of gaining respect. We are close to it, but not quite there yet, with still significant opposition from some. After so many years, I still heard in Toronto an isolated point of view that the ALAC and At-Large could not be trusted to be involved more in policy development due to the "ignorance" (sic) of At-Large and the lack of legitimacy of the ALAC. Second, enforcing the central importance of the global public interest is something we have already done in the past. If you are asking for us to continue along this path, I would totally agree, but I must also caution that the ALAC should be careful not to risk dispensing lessons to all other SO/ACs and the rest of the ICANN community - risking to look as the purveyor of all morality. I have concerns that this offends other SOs/ACs at a time when the whole ICANN community needs to be all cemented as one in the face of outside factors looking at discrediting the whole organisation. So yes, we need to be firm. But we also need to use all means possible to be fair and constructive to make the ICANN experiment succeed. Having often called upon you to articulate the ALAC's point of view with regards to the public interest, I will need all your diplomatic experience to make sure we are heard, listened to and taken seriously without appearing to be power-hungry anarchists who just want to take the domain industry down and then take over the world. Far from it. I therefore believe that whilst we should constantly look out for the public interest, we should also be promoters of the "balanced multi-stakeholder" system. (I prefer this term to "equal multi-stakeholder"). Referring to Alan's call for more At-Large participation in GNSO WGs -- I completely support it. We need to be present at the root of all policy (pun intended). 15 people from the ALAC can't do this all by themselves - we need all of the power, knowledge, insight and diversity of our ALSes to provide the experts and the active participants to these WGs and relay the common At-Large points of view into those processes, acting for the public interest. Kind regards, Olivier
Hi, Jean-Jacques provides a very good analyses, but as someone who has now spent several years participating in At-Large without being one of the ALAC, I think something major is missing - real involvement from the At-Large. ALAC is full of well intention people trying to do the best for Internet users. Unfortunately those users are _not_ involved in this process. We talk about the ICANN top down creation of ALAC. Unfortunately, to me it still appears that At-Large is still top-dpwn organization where ALAC makes the decisions and the At-Large remains large uninvolved. Except for a few active ALS, I see nothing of bottom-up activity, and I belong to two active ALSs. ALAC is not alone in the lack of real grassroots bottom-up activity. But one of the things that is most remarkable about the At-Large is that it really is supposed to be about reaching the actual users and bringing them in. That is hard, but it is special and it something that ALAC should be dedicated to; it does not appear to be. Until this actually starts to happen, until the users' voices are actually heard and measured in a predictable and steady manner on the most important decisions, ALAC remains part of a top down solution, not the representatives of a bottom-up democratic effort. ALAC is a bureau, and as happens in many bureaucracies, has become an self maintaining institution unto itself that is not connected to the people it is supposed to represent. As ALAC sets itself to carry a message of global public interest, it is critical that At-Large really become a bottom-up organization. Or let me say, as we in ICANn seem to be losing the definition of bottom-up as we continually speaking of it, even when it is absent. It needs to be energized and motivated as a grass-roots organization. And for that to happen ALAC really has to work hard to bring the ALS members and other users into the process. The At-large has yet to become real. After all of the years, since the creation of ALAC, At-Large is largely missing from the formula. Alan's message calls for At-large involvement in the policy development processes. I support this call, but it must be a call for the At-Large and not just to ALAC. As the pinnacle of At-Large, it is ALAC job to figure out how to make involvement of the At-Large real. Until it is, ALAC advice will always be suspect as the voice of a few privileged suzerains. In terms of Alan, I think his service has been long and arduous and I think he is now the longest serving member of the g-council. Years ago, when I was still involved in GNSO council (g-council), I remember Alan as being more of a g-council member than many g-council members. His tenure on the g-council as one of its senior members has become an institution for which he should be congratulated. avri
Dear Avri, thank you for your kind message. I'll reply to a few selected paragraphs: On 13/02/2013 14:12, Avri Doria wrote:
ALAC is not alone in the lack of real grassroots bottom-up activity. But one of the things that is most remarkable about the At-Large is that it really is supposed to be about reaching the actual users and bringing them in. That is hard, but it is special and it something that ALAC should be dedicated to; it does not appear to be. Until this actually starts to happen, until the users' voices are actually heard and measured in a predictable and steady manner on the most important decisions, ALAC remains part of a top down solution, not the representatives of a bottom-up democratic effort. ALAC is a bureau, and as happens in many bureaucracies, has become an self maintaining institution unto itself that is not connected to the people it is supposed to represent.
I think that this criticism is unwarranted. Let me repeat this again: the ALAC is *dedicated* to the bottom-up process. All of the ALAC's calls are open to any ALS to participate in and I have, on each of the RALO calls, actively asked that individuals from ALSes get involved directly in the policy development. And I say it again here: the current policy development of the ALAC is here: https://community.icann.org/x/bwFO Anyone can comment on the current drafts. Anyone can volunteer to hold the pen in putting together a first draft. But it is hard work -- and so far, only a small subset of ALS representatives not in the ALAC have held the pen. Another component is capacity building. Through working groups, but also through RALO working groups, we are making progress on Capacity Building. Informal discussions I have had with ALS representatives made it appear that only when our ALSes are empowered can they feel the confidence in taking part in the ALAC's bottom-up policy development process. Now I am aware that our ALAC Web site is still an absolute mess and was supposed to be completely redesigned a year ago -- and that the process has been taking ages, but the ball is in ICANN Staff hands and as you know ICANN has gone through a complete change - so our community is still eagerly awaiting a follow-up on this. Now let me address something which you appear to point to regarding bottom up: bottom up policy input has nothing to do with elections, selections and appointments. Elections, Selections and Appointments are to do with leadership. Bottom-up is to do with having the policy input from the edges go to the top --- and this community has been practising this for as long as I have been an ALAC member... so the I reject the blame you are putting onto the ALAC, sorry.
As ALAC sets itself to carry a message of global public interest, it is critical that At-Large really become a bottom-up organization. Or let me say, as we in ICANn seem to be losing the definition of bottom-up as we continually speaking of it, even when it is absent. It needs to be energized and motivated as a grass-roots organization. And for that to happen ALAC really has to work hard to bring the ALS members and other users into the process. The At-large has yet to become real. After all of the years, since the creation of ALAC, At-Large is largely missing from the formula.
Sorry, I do not agree. The First At-Large Summit got the community to come together and do excellent work. We are now going to ask for a second Summit and I hope you will join us in promoting this to the rest of the ICANN community when the time comes. In the meantime, by the end of this year, every region will have had its own Face to Face General Assembly and Capacity Building Programme. But as one ALS member recently said very eloquently on a RALO call, "a one-off face to face meeting was good, but not enough. You cannot learn everything in one go. I wish we could have two or three face to face meetings to help us be more effective in our input and understand the issues". And this is completely in line with my point of view and the point of view of many of my colleagues. Ask Sandra, Sala, Tijani, Cheryl and their respective Teams with which they have worked hard to put together proposals: "why have they done this" ? Because it's all about user and ALS empowerment to channel their input into the ICANN policy development process.
Alan's message calls for At-large involvement in the policy development processes. I support this call, but it must be a call for the At-Large and not just to ALAC. As the pinnacle of At-Large, it is ALAC job to figure out how to make involvement of the At-Large real. Until it is, ALAC advice will always be suspect as the voice of a few privileged suzerains.
So you see? You and I agree on the conclusion. And I think that my ALAC colleagues will agree too. The size of the task is so huge, it's going to take time, work and funding. And we all know that Rome was not built in a day, so we need to start one step at a time. The good thing is that we have already started. Kind regards, Olivier
I'm between engagements and took a look. This argument peaked my interest. Olivier made some observations and its a +1. Most of you know my position. Persons like me, yet sentient, *volunteer* to do a job. And when said persons, like me again, avail themselves of tools that enable them to do that job, I am prepared to help in execution. But if you *volunteer* with the expectation that I must constantly coax you to do what you, yet sentient, *volunteered* to do, with respect, that is an unconscionable imposition. Especially when I have to work, like you, for a living! As that old bromide of a joke goes, the chief without indians is a dead one. And what the ALAC needs is more indians. There are mechanisms in place to deliver them; that's RALOs===>ALS. And therein lies the problem. It is also the locus of a feature of voluntarism. Many are called. But few remain locked to calling. I know that problem acutely. Our membership is potentially 45K! Hell, I cannot even get the man signed up vice me from an institution to get on a teleconference; he gets every email, he's busy and its work! In some ways it is like pimping. And I guess in some ways, too, it ain't easy. Meaning, being a volunteer who deliberately takes on more work to get others to work. And, for free! Especially for the kind of sustained effort that is names and numbers policy development. I don't know how many members there are in Avri's active ALSes. And I don't know how many of the lot are *actively* engaged in names and numbers policy development. But I can tell you if you do the work it is easier to get a head nodded or a tick mark in agreement! Here's an active case from my edge of empire. We are starting an ISOC chapter. There are over 68 global ISOC members here, most of them clustered in the Kingston metropolitan region. We need at least 25 for recognition as a chapter. [Hmmm, wonder why that specific number?] So we advertised the formative activities relentlessly. We ended up having a meeting of 10; only 4 attendees were already ISOC members. Two of those were also ICANN fellows. And the lament was the same; people who are natural members say they don't have the time. Grist for the mill. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Dear Avri,
thank you for your kind message. I'll reply to a few selected paragraphs:
On 13/02/2013 14:12, Avri Doria wrote:
ALAC is not alone in the lack of real grassroots bottom-up activity. But one of the things that is most remarkable about the At-Large is that it really is supposed to be about reaching the actual users and bringing them in. That is hard, but it is special and it something that ALAC should be dedicated to; it does not appear to be. Until this actually starts to happen, until the users' voices are actually heard and measured in a predictable and steady manner on the most important decisions, ALAC remains part of a top down solution, not the representatives of a bottom-up democratic effort. ALAC is a bureau, and as happens in many bureaucracies, has become an self maintaining institution unto itself that is not connected to the people it is supposed to represent.
I think that this criticism is unwarranted. Let me repeat this again: the ALAC is *dedicated* to the bottom-up process. All of the ALAC's calls are open to any ALS to participate in and I have, on each of the RALO calls, actively asked that individuals from ALSes get involved directly in the policy development. And I say it again here: the current policy development of the ALAC is here: https://community.icann.org/x/bwFO
Anyone can comment on the current drafts. Anyone can volunteer to hold the pen in putting together a first draft. But it is hard work -- and so far, only a small subset of ALS representatives not in the ALAC have held the pen. Another component is capacity building. Through working groups, but also through RALO working groups, we are making progress on Capacity Building. Informal discussions I have had with ALS representatives made it appear that only when our ALSes are empowered can they feel the confidence in taking part in the ALAC's bottom-up policy development process. Now I am aware that our ALAC Web site is still an absolute mess and was supposed to be completely redesigned a year ago -- and that the process has been taking ages, but the ball is in ICANN Staff hands and as you know ICANN has gone through a complete change - so our community is still eagerly awaiting a follow-up on this.
Now let me address something which you appear to point to regarding bottom up: bottom up policy input has nothing to do with elections, selections and appointments. Elections, Selections and Appointments are to do with leadership. Bottom-up is to do with having the policy input from the edges go to the top --- and this community has been practising this for as long as I have been an ALAC member... so the I reject the blame you are putting onto the ALAC, sorry.
As ALAC sets itself to carry a message of global public interest, it is critical that At-Large really become a bottom-up organization. Or let me say, as we in ICANn seem to be losing the definition of bottom-up as we continually speaking of it, even when it is absent. It needs to be energized and motivated as a grass-roots organization. And for that to happen ALAC really has to work hard to bring the ALS members and other users into the process. The At-large has yet to become real. After all of the years, since the creation of ALAC, At-Large is largely missing from the formula.
Sorry, I do not agree. The First At-Large Summit got the community to come together and do excellent work. We are now going to ask for a second Summit and I hope you will join us in promoting this to the rest of the ICANN community when the time comes. In the meantime, by the end of this year, every region will have had its own Face to Face General Assembly and Capacity Building Programme. But as one ALS member recently said very eloquently on a RALO call, "a one-off face to face meeting was good, but not enough. You cannot learn everything in one go. I wish we could have two or three face to face meetings to help us be more effective in our input and understand the issues".
And this is completely in line with my point of view and the point of view of many of my colleagues. Ask Sandra, Sala, Tijani, Cheryl and their respective Teams with which they have worked hard to put together proposals: "why have they done this" ? Because it's all about user and ALS empowerment to channel their input into the ICANN policy development process.
Alan's message calls for At-large involvement in the policy development
processes. I support this call, but it must be a call for the At-Large and not just to ALAC. As the pinnacle of At-Large, it is ALAC job to figure out how to make involvement of the At-Large real. Until it is, ALAC advice will always be suspect as the voice of a few privileged suzerains.
So you see? You and I agree on the conclusion. And I think that my ALAC colleagues will agree too. The size of the task is so huge, it's going to take time, work and funding. And we all know that Rome was not built in a day, so we need to start one step at a time. The good thing is that we have already started.
Kind 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...)
Hi, I understand, i am wrong in my viewpoint. I am used to that. People say it to me all the time. Only time will tell whether I see the situation clearly or not. But please recognize that I am one who also puts in work in the At-Large cause. And I see a problem. Yes, I may be wrong and you may be right to ignore my warning. Or maybe not. avri On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:45, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Avri,
thank you for your kind message. I'll reply to a few selected paragraphs:
On 13/02/2013 14:12, Avri Doria wrote:
ALAC is not alone in the lack of real grassroots bottom-up activity. But one of the things that is most remarkable about the At-Large is that it really is supposed to be about reaching the actual users and bringing them in. That is hard, but it is special and it something that ALAC should be dedicated to; it does not appear to be. Until this actually starts to happen, until the users' voices are actually heard and measured in a predictable and steady manner on the most important decisions, ALAC remains part of a top down solution, not the representatives of a bottom-up democratic effort. ALAC is a bureau, and as happens in many bureaucracies, has become an self maintaining institution unto itself that is not connected to the people it is supposed to represent.
I think that this criticism is unwarranted. Let me repeat this again: the ALAC is *dedicated* to the bottom-up process. All of the ALAC's calls are open to any ALS to participate in and I have, on each of the RALO calls, actively asked that individuals from ALSes get involved directly in the policy development. And I say it again here: the current policy development of the ALAC is here: https://community.icann.org/x/bwFO
Anyone can comment on the current drafts. Anyone can volunteer to hold the pen in putting together a first draft. But it is hard work -- and so far, only a small subset of ALS representatives not in the ALAC have held the pen. Another component is capacity building. Through working groups, but also through RALO working groups, we are making progress on Capacity Building. Informal discussions I have had with ALS representatives made it appear that only when our ALSes are empowered can they feel the confidence in taking part in the ALAC's bottom-up policy development process. Now I am aware that our ALAC Web site is still an absolute mess and was supposed to be completely redesigned a year ago -- and that the process has been taking ages, but the ball is in ICANN Staff hands and as you know ICANN has gone through a complete change - so our community is still eagerly awaiting a follow-up on this.
Now let me address something which you appear to point to regarding bottom up: bottom up policy input has nothing to do with elections, selections and appointments. Elections, Selections and Appointments are to do with leadership. Bottom-up is to do with having the policy input from the edges go to the top --- and this community has been practising this for as long as I have been an ALAC member... so the I reject the blame you are putting onto the ALAC, sorry.
As ALAC sets itself to carry a message of global public interest, it is critical that At-Large really become a bottom-up organization. Or let me say, as we in ICANn seem to be losing the definition of bottom-up as we continually speaking of it, even when it is absent. It needs to be energized and motivated as a grass-roots organization. And for that to happen ALAC really has to work hard to bring the ALS members and other users into the process. The At-large has yet to become real. After all of the years, since the creation of ALAC, At-Large is largely missing from the formula.
Sorry, I do not agree. The First At-Large Summit got the community to come together and do excellent work. We are now going to ask for a second Summit and I hope you will join us in promoting this to the rest of the ICANN community when the time comes. In the meantime, by the end of this year, every region will have had its own Face to Face General Assembly and Capacity Building Programme. But as one ALS member recently said very eloquently on a RALO call, "a one-off face to face meeting was good, but not enough. You cannot learn everything in one go. I wish we could have two or three face to face meetings to help us be more effective in our input and understand the issues".
And this is completely in line with my point of view and the point of view of many of my colleagues. Ask Sandra, Sala, Tijani, Cheryl and their respective Teams with which they have worked hard to put together proposals: "why have they done this" ? Because it's all about user and ALS empowerment to channel their input into the ICANN policy development process.
Alan's message calls for At-large involvement in the policy development processes. I support this call, but it must be a call for the At-Large and not just to ALAC. As the pinnacle of At-Large, it is ALAC job to figure out how to make involvement of the At-Large real. Until it is, ALAC advice will always be suspect as the voice of a few privileged suzerains.
So you see? You and I agree on the conclusion. And I think that my ALAC colleagues will agree too. The size of the task is so huge, it's going to take time, work and funding. And we all know that Rome was not built in a day, so we need to start one step at a time. The good thing is that we have already started.
Kind regards,
Olivier
PS. This is a corollary of the lack of suffrage problem. But it is a different problem, and if I had been arguing for suffrage in that email, I would have said so explicitly. The lack of inclusion of the users by the user's group, goes beyond the denial of suffrage. It goes all the way to the lack of constant effort for inclusion on every issue. avri On 13 Feb 2013, at 20:49, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I understand, i am wrong in my viewpoint. I am used to that. People say it to me all the time.
Only time will tell whether I see the situation clearly or not.
But please recognize that I am one who also puts in work in the At-Large cause. And I see a problem. Yes, I may be wrong and you may be right to ignore my warning. Or maybe not.
avri
On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:45, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Avri,
thank you for your kind message. I'll reply to a few selected paragraphs:
On 13/02/2013 14:12, Avri Doria wrote:
ALAC is not alone in the lack of real grassroots bottom-up activity. But one of the things that is most remarkable about the At-Large is that it really is supposed to be about reaching the actual users and bringing them in. That is hard, but it is special and it something that ALAC should be dedicated to; it does not appear to be. Until this actually starts to happen, until the users' voices are actually heard and measured in a predictable and steady manner on the most important decisions, ALAC remains part of a top down solution, not the representatives of a bottom-up democratic effort. ALAC is a bureau, and as happens in many bureaucracies, has become an self maintaining institution unto itself that is not connected to the people it is supposed to represent.
I think that this criticism is unwarranted. Let me repeat this again: the ALAC is *dedicated* to the bottom-up process. All of the ALAC's calls are open to any ALS to participate in and I have, on each of the RALO calls, actively asked that individuals from ALSes get involved directly in the policy development. And I say it again here: the current policy development of the ALAC is here: https://community.icann.org/x/bwFO
Anyone can comment on the current drafts. Anyone can volunteer to hold the pen in putting together a first draft. But it is hard work -- and so far, only a small subset of ALS representatives not in the ALAC have held the pen. Another component is capacity building. Through working groups, but also through RALO working groups, we are making progress on Capacity Building. Informal discussions I have had with ALS representatives made it appear that only when our ALSes are empowered can they feel the confidence in taking part in the ALAC's bottom-up policy development process. Now I am aware that our ALAC Web site is still an absolute mess and was supposed to be completely redesigned a year ago -- and that the process has been taking ages, but the ball is in ICANN Staff hands and as you know ICANN has gone through a complete change - so our community is still eagerly awaiting a follow-up on this.
Now let me address something which you appear to point to regarding bottom up: bottom up policy input has nothing to do with elections, selections and appointments. Elections, Selections and Appointments are to do with leadership. Bottom-up is to do with having the policy input from the edges go to the top --- and this community has been practising this for as long as I have been an ALAC member... so the I reject the blame you are putting onto the ALAC, sorry.
As ALAC sets itself to carry a message of global public interest, it is critical that At-Large really become a bottom-up organization. Or let me say, as we in ICANn seem to be losing the definition of bottom-up as we continually speaking of it, even when it is absent. It needs to be energized and motivated as a grass-roots organization. And for that to happen ALAC really has to work hard to bring the ALS members and other users into the process. The At-large has yet to become real. After all of the years, since the creation of ALAC, At-Large is largely missing from the formula.
Sorry, I do not agree. The First At-Large Summit got the community to come together and do excellent work. We are now going to ask for a second Summit and I hope you will join us in promoting this to the rest of the ICANN community when the time comes. In the meantime, by the end of this year, every region will have had its own Face to Face General Assembly and Capacity Building Programme. But as one ALS member recently said very eloquently on a RALO call, "a one-off face to face meeting was good, but not enough. You cannot learn everything in one go. I wish we could have two or three face to face meetings to help us be more effective in our input and understand the issues".
And this is completely in line with my point of view and the point of view of many of my colleagues. Ask Sandra, Sala, Tijani, Cheryl and their respective Teams with which they have worked hard to put together proposals: "why have they done this" ? Because it's all about user and ALS empowerment to channel their input into the ICANN policy development process.
Alan's message calls for At-large involvement in the policy development processes. I support this call, but it must be a call for the At-Large and not just to ALAC. As the pinnacle of At-Large, it is ALAC job to figure out how to make involvement of the At-Large real. Until it is, ALAC advice will always be suspect as the voice of a few privileged suzerains.
So you see? You and I agree on the conclusion. And I think that my ALAC colleagues will agree too. The size of the task is so huge, it's going to take time, work and funding. And we all know that Rome was not built in a day, so we need to start one step at a time. The good thing is that we have already started.
Kind 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...)
Dear Avri, I understood that the question was about inclusion. Saying that platforms/mechanisms for participation are open is certainly not the same as being able to ensure there is effective engagement from the user community in providing appropriate and consultative responses on various issues. The ALAC certainly strives for inclusion and wants a higher level of inclusion. Unfortunately, there are real constraints that limit the ability to achieve an ideal state. I could list the constraints, but I don't think the main strategy for grappling with the problem would change: We would still need to enlarge our active community base to deal with an expanding issue space. There are nevertheless things that we can do better to support growing our active community-base and to deepen our consultativeness: - We can strive to articulate our work methods, processes and timelines better to facilitate wider participation, particularly if they occur across multiple platforms such as email, wiki and skype. - We could work on strategies for targeted outreach/consultation based on issues, which is premised on having better internal knowledge about what assets (communities with knowledge and interest) are already within our current network and what we need to seek out additionally. This would require identifying what would complement/enhance the WG model. - We could demand for a better wiki system that allows for intuitive searching that support learning. - ........ and more Some of these are easier to implement than others. The main constraints are volunteer energy, attention/interest and time as well as resources at our disposal. For everything that we want to do or do better, the time required to see it through has an opportunity cost. There are no easy solutions, but one thing I have to say about the ALAC. It do believe that it does try to do the best that it can despite the limited resources at its disposal. Best regards, Rinalia On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
PS.
This is a corollary of the lack of suffrage problem. But it is a different problem, and if I had been arguing for suffrage in that email, I would have said so explicitly.
The lack of inclusion of the users by the user's group, goes beyond the denial of suffrage. It goes all the way to the lack of constant effort for inclusion on every issue.
avri
On 13 Feb 2013, at 20:49, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I understand, i am wrong in my viewpoint. I am used to that. People say it to me all the time.
Only time will tell whether I see the situation clearly or not.
But please recognize that I am one who also puts in work in the At-Large cause. And I see a problem. Yes, I may be wrong and you may be right to ignore my warning. Or maybe not.
avri
On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:45, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Avri,
thank you for your kind message. I'll reply to a few selected paragraphs:
On 13/02/2013 14:12, Avri Doria wrote:
ALAC is not alone in the lack of real grassroots bottom-up activity. But one of the things that is most remarkable about the At-Large is that it really is supposed to be about reaching the actual users and bringing them in. That is hard, but it is special and it something that ALAC should be dedicated to; it does not appear to be. Until this actually starts to happen, until the users' voices are actually heard and measured in a predictable and steady manner on the most important decisions, ALAC remains part of a top down solution, not the representatives of a bottom-up democratic effort. ALAC is a bureau, and as happens in many bureaucracies, has become an self maintaining institution unto itself that is not connected to the people it is supposed to represent.
I think that this criticism is unwarranted. Let me repeat this again: the ALAC is *dedicated* to the bottom-up process. All of the ALAC's calls are open to any ALS to participate in and I have, on each of the RALO calls, actively asked that individuals from ALSes get involved directly in the policy development. And I say it again here: the current policy development of the ALAC is here: https://community.icann.org/x/bwFO
Anyone can comment on the current drafts. Anyone can volunteer to hold the pen in putting together a first draft. But it is hard work -- and so far, only a small subset of ALS representatives not in the ALAC have held the pen. Another component is capacity building. Through working groups, but also through RALO working groups, we are making progress on Capacity Building. Informal discussions I have had with ALS representatives made it appear that only when our ALSes are empowered can they feel the confidence in taking part in the ALAC's bottom-up policy development process. Now I am aware that our ALAC Web site is still an absolute mess and was supposed to be completely redesigned a year ago -- and that the process has been taking ages, but the ball is in ICANN Staff hands and as you know ICANN has gone through a complete change - so our community is still eagerly awaiting a follow-up on this.
Now let me address something which you appear to point to regarding bottom up: bottom up policy input has nothing to do with elections, selections and appointments. Elections, Selections and Appointments are to do with leadership. Bottom-up is to do with having the policy input from the edges go to the top --- and this community has been practising this for as long as I have been an ALAC member... so the I reject the blame you are putting onto the ALAC, sorry.
As ALAC sets itself to carry a message of global public interest, it is critical that At-Large really become a bottom-up organization. Or let me say, as we in ICANn seem to be losing the definition of bottom-up as we continually speaking of it, even when it is absent. It needs to be energized and motivated as a grass-roots organization. And for that to happen ALAC really has to work hard to bring the ALS members and other users into the process. The At-large has yet to become real. After all of the years, since the creation of ALAC, At-Large is largely missing from the formula.
Sorry, I do not agree. The First At-Large Summit got the community to come together and do excellent work. We are now going to ask for a second Summit and I hope you will join us in promoting this to the rest of the ICANN community when the time comes. In the meantime, by the end of this year, every region will have had its own Face to Face General Assembly and Capacity Building Programme. But as one ALS member recently said very eloquently on a RALO call, "a one-off face to face meeting was good, but not enough. You cannot learn everything in one go. I wish we could have two or three face to face meetings to help us be more effective in our input and understand the issues".
And this is completely in line with my point of view and the point of view of many of my colleagues. Ask Sandra, Sala, Tijani, Cheryl and their respective Teams with which they have worked hard to put together proposals: "why have they done this" ? Because it's all about user and ALS empowerment to channel their input into the ICANN policy development process.
Alan's message calls for At-large involvement in the policy
development processes. I support this call, but it must be a call for the At-Large and not just to ALAC. As the pinnacle of At-Large, it is ALAC job to figure out how to make involvement of the At-Large real. Until it is, ALAC advice will always be suspect as the voice of a few privileged suzerains.
So you see? You and I agree on the conclusion. And I think that my ALAC colleagues will agree too. The size of the task is so huge, it's going to take time, work and funding. And we all know that Rome was not built in a day, so we need to start one step at a time. The good thing is that we have already started.
Kind 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Hi all, I somehow understood what Avri meant, although I agree with Olivier in many points. In EURALO we are facing this problem right now and our hope is the upcoming F2F GA which we desired so much. This issue will be the main topic on our agenda and we received a pretty good feedback form participants coming to Lisbon, where this GA is taking place the day before EuroDIG. We hope to come up with some ideas on how to better include the ALSes into the policy development and how to better connect them with ALAC / ICANN. I think regular F2F meetings is one essential thing to do in the future, but there must be others as well. We keep you posted! Best Sandra -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Rinalia Abdul Rahim Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Februar 2013 10:26 An: Avri Doria Cc: ALAC Working List Betreff: Re: [ALAC] ALAC & At-Large involvement in GNSO activities Dear Avri, I understood that the question was about inclusion. Saying that platforms/mechanisms for participation are open is certainly not the same as being able to ensure there is effective engagement from the user community in providing appropriate and consultative responses on various issues. The ALAC certainly strives for inclusion and wants a higher level of inclusion. Unfortunately, there are real constraints that limit the ability to achieve an ideal state. I could list the constraints, but I don't think the main strategy for grappling with the problem would change: We would still need to enlarge our active community base to deal with an expanding issue space. There are nevertheless things that we can do better to support growing our active community-base and to deepen our consultativeness: - We can strive to articulate our work methods, processes and timelines better to facilitate wider participation, particularly if they occur across multiple platforms such as email, wiki and skype. - We could work on strategies for targeted outreach/consultation based on issues, which is premised on having better internal knowledge about what assets (communities with knowledge and interest) are already within our current network and what we need to seek out additionally. This would require identifying what would complement/enhance the WG model. - We could demand for a better wiki system that allows for intuitive searching that support learning. - ........ and more Some of these are easier to implement than others. The main constraints are volunteer energy, attention/interest and time as well as resources at our disposal. For everything that we want to do or do better, the time required to see it through has an opportunity cost. There are no easy solutions, but one thing I have to say about the ALAC. It do believe that it does try to do the best that it can despite the limited resources at its disposal. Best regards, Rinalia On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
PS.
This is a corollary of the lack of suffrage problem. But it is a different problem, and if I had been arguing for suffrage in that email, I would have said so explicitly.
The lack of inclusion of the users by the user's group, goes beyond the denial of suffrage. It goes all the way to the lack of constant effort for inclusion on every issue.
avri
On 13 Feb 2013, at 20:49, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I understand, i am wrong in my viewpoint. I am used to that. People say it to me all the time.
Only time will tell whether I see the situation clearly or not.
But please recognize that I am one who also puts in work in the At-Large cause. And I see a problem. Yes, I may be wrong and you may be right to ignore my warning. Or maybe not.
avri
On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:45, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Avri,
thank you for your kind message. I'll reply to a few selected paragraphs:
On 13/02/2013 14:12, Avri Doria wrote:
ALAC is not alone in the lack of real grassroots bottom-up activity. But one of the things that is most remarkable about the At-Large is that it really is supposed to be about reaching the actual users and bringing them in. That is hard, but it is special and it something that ALAC should be dedicated to; it does not appear to be. Until this actually starts to happen, until the users' voices are actually heard and measured in a predictable and steady manner on the most important decisions, ALAC remains part of a top down solution, not the representatives of a bottom-up democratic effort. ALAC is a bureau, and as happens in many bureaucracies, has become an self maintaining institution unto itself that is not connected to the people it is supposed to represent.
I think that this criticism is unwarranted. Let me repeat this again: the ALAC is *dedicated* to the bottom-up process. All of the ALAC's calls are open to any ALS to participate in and I have, on each of the RALO calls, actively asked that individuals from ALSes get involved directly in the policy development. And I say it again here: the current policy development of the ALAC is here: https://community.icann.org/x/bwFO
Anyone can comment on the current drafts. Anyone can volunteer to hold the pen in putting together a first draft. But it is hard work -- and so far, only a small subset of ALS representatives not in the ALAC have held the pen. Another component is capacity building. Through working groups, but also through RALO working groups, we are making progress on Capacity Building. Informal discussions I have had with ALS representatives made it appear that only when our ALSes are empowered can they feel the confidence in taking part in the ALAC's bottom-up policy development process. Now I am aware that our ALAC Web site is still an absolute mess and was supposed to be completely redesigned a year ago -- and that the process has been taking ages, but the ball is in ICANN Staff hands and as you know ICANN has gone through a complete change - so our community is still eagerly awaiting a follow-up on this.
Now let me address something which you appear to point to regarding bottom up: bottom up policy input has nothing to do with elections, selections and appointments. Elections, Selections and Appointments are to do with leadership. Bottom-up is to do with having the policy input from the edges go to the top --- and this community has been practising this for as long as I have been an ALAC member... so the I reject the blame you are putting onto the ALAC, sorry.
As ALAC sets itself to carry a message of global public interest, it is critical that At-Large really become a bottom-up organization. Or let me say, as we in ICANn seem to be losing the definition of bottom-up as we continually speaking of it, even when it is absent. It needs to be energized and motivated as a grass-roots organization. And for that to happen ALAC really has to work hard to bring the ALS members and other users into the process. The At-large has yet to become real. After all of the years, since the creation of ALAC, At-Large is largely missing from the formula.
Sorry, I do not agree. The First At-Large Summit got the community to come together and do excellent work. We are now going to ask for a second Summit and I hope you will join us in promoting this to the rest of the ICANN community when the time comes. In the meantime, by the end of this year, every region will have had its own Face to Face General Assembly and Capacity Building Programme. But as one ALS member recently said very eloquently on a RALO call, "a one-off face to face meeting was good, but not enough. You cannot learn everything in one go. I wish we could have two or three face to face meetings to help us be more effective in our input and understand the issues".
And this is completely in line with my point of view and the point of view of many of my colleagues. Ask Sandra, Sala, Tijani, Cheryl and their respective Teams with which they have worked hard to put together proposals: "why have they done this" ? Because it's all about user and ALS empowerment to channel their input into the ICANN policy development process.
Alan's message calls for At-large involvement in the policy
development processes. I support this call, but it must be a call for the At-Large and not just to ALAC. As the pinnacle of At-Large, it is ALAC job to figure out how to make involvement of the At-Large real. Until it is, ALAC advice will always be suspect as the voice of a few privileged suzerains.
So you see? You and I agree on the conclusion. And I think that my ALAC colleagues will agree too. The size of the task is so huge, it's going to take time, work and funding. And we all know that Rome was not built in a day, so we need to start one step at a time. The good thing is that we have already started.
Kind 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 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 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 C)
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Carlton Samuels -
JJS -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim -
sandra hoferichter