Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
The survey question is, in my mind, deeply flawed, but I think it is a dandy way to get into a discussion of what Board members actually expect. And yes, other communities are now (finally) being asked the same question, and I think we are in a better position than most to answer it. But back to my original message, we can only use this as a start if we have a generally agreed upon analysis of those answers. Thus the question I asked. Alan At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
This whole process is insane.
Is the Business Constituency ever asked if it represents or speaks for every business -- domain owner or not -- in the world? Is NPOC asked if it represents every NGO? Do the people who attend from law enforcement speak for all police and military?
Contracted parties -- ie, the domain industry -- generally do have reasonably full representation, in part because there are relatively few players and in part because they are so fully invested in -- and dependent on -- ICANN's pseudo-regulation more than other communities or constituencies.
But it seems that At-Large alone is singled out for this kind of analysis, because -- unlike the others -- we wouldn't be able to be involved without the charitable resources -- travel and staff support -- that ICANN bequeaths upon us. Such support clearly bothers other communities who believe that we are skimming off revenues THEY bring to ICANN just so we can trash them.
In my experience, the "who the hell are YOU speaking for?" comment has been used whenever we have something to say that poses a legitimate end-user-driven challenge to ICANN's standard operation. Hearing that in a debate would embolden me because it indicates that our logic and evidence was superior and the only rebuttal was to challenge our legitimacy.
At the end of the day, we do the job that is asked of us to the extent we are able -- that is, to bring the end-user point of view into ICANN to the best of our individual capabilities. That is all that Bylaw 12.2(d) asks of us and I believe we have generally done that as well as possible given the constraints in place. We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC. But even here we are deeply flawed, considering how the regions are sliced and a structure that is so complex so as to churn more volunteer time on process than on policy input.
Still, there is decent output. I see our policy diversions from NCSG as a (positive) reflection that grassroots population don't always share the same priorities and perspectives of the civil society that is supposedly protecting it. This divergence exists on the street, so seeing it in play within ICANN tells me that At-Large is indeed doing a reasonable -- and surprisingly accurate -- job at conveying the end-user perspective.
Whether or not we get listened to is a different story.
- Evan
On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto <<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>asoto@ibero-americano.org> wrote: I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the rest of the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL USER-RALOS-ALAC ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end users. From there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the end users.
Regards
Alberto
-----Mensaje original----- De: <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM Para: ALAC <<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users.
I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the A-L Community.
The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN?
There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for each option.
1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members that mainly act in their own interests. (58%)
2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%)
3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and non-discriminatory fashion. (6%)
4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%)
5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%)
My analysis:
1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests (which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs and interests of users world-wide.
2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we?
3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of respondents really think we do??
4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is based on experience with such a community.
5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve the global user community well.
What do people think of this analysis?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Alan - I agree with your proposed dandy's approach to manage the discussion over the flawed topics. However nothing stops me and any other ALAC members to express opinion aired by Evan. The whole deal - to framework AtLarge complex and uneasy environment, dealing with diverse domain cultures through ALSs all over the world into the best-western style management is insane. "We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC." - agree. --andrei 2017-03-03 8:52 GMT+03:00 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
The survey question is, in my mind, deeply flawed, but I think it is a dandy way to get into a discussion of what Board members actually expect.
And yes, other communities are now (finally) being asked the same question, and I think we are in a better position than most to answer it.
But back to my original message, we can only use this as a start if we have a generally agreed upon analysis of those answers. Thus the question I asked.
Alan
At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
This whole process is insane.
Is the Business Constituency ever asked if it represents or speaks for every business -- domain owner or not -- in the world? Is NPOC asked if it represents every NGO? Do the people who attend from law enforcement speak for all police and military?
Contracted parties -- ie, the domain industry -- generally do have reasonably full representation, in part because there are relatively few players and in part because they are so fully invested in -- and dependent on -- ICANN's pseudo-regulation more than other communities or constituencies.
But it seems that At-Large alone is singled out for this kind of analysis, because -- unlike the others -- we wouldn't be able to be involved without the charitable resources -- travel and staff support -- that ICANN bequeaths upon us. Such support clearly bothers other communities who believe that we are skimming off revenues THEY bring to ICANN just so we can trash them.
In my experience, the "who the hell are YOU speaking for?" comment has been used whenever we have something to say that poses a legitimate end-user-driven challenge to ICANN's standard operation. Hearing that in a debate would embolden me because it indicates that our logic and evidence was superior and the only rebuttal was to challenge our legitimacy.
At the end of the day, we do the job that is asked of us to the extent we are able -- that is, to bring the end-user point of view into ICANN to the best of our individual capabilities. That is all that Bylaw 12.2(d) asks of us and I believe we have generally done that as well as possible given the constraints in place. We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC. But even here we are deeply flawed, considering how the regions are sliced and a structure that is so complex so as to churn more volunteer time on process than on policy input.
Still, there is decent output. I see our policy diversions from NCSG as a (positive) reflection that grassroots population don't always share the same priorities and perspectives of the civil society that is supposedly protecting it. This divergence exists on the street, so seeing it in play within ICANN tells me that At-Large is indeed doing a reasonable -- and surprisingly accurate -- job at conveying the end-user perspective.
Whether or not we get listened to is a different story.
- Evan
On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org> wrote: I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the rest of the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL USER-RALOS-ALAC ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end users. From there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the end users.
Regards
Alberto
-----Mensaje original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [ mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM Para: ALAC < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users.
I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the A-L Community.
The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN?
There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for each option.
1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members that mainly act in their own interests. (58%)
2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%)
3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and non-discriminatory fashion. (6%)
4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%)
5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%)
My analysis:
1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests (which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs and interests of users world-wide.
2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we?
3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of respondents really think we do??
4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is based on experience with such a community.
5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve the global user community well.
What do people think of this analysis?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- Andrey Kolesnikov RIPN.NET
Hi Alan, I agree with your analysis. Most ALS'es (at least in Europe) are previously existing, established organizations, some older that ICANN, that have a life of their own in their national context. The fact that they have applied for an ALS status means that their own, national level goals and interests coincide at least to some extent with those of ICANN and that they thus probably defend the interests of ICANN in their national level multistakeholder setting. This important role is something that the review seems to be oblivious of. If "representing" 3,5 billion people in the classic sense of representative democracy would be possible, we would have had a world government long ago... But each ALS can try to figure out how end users in its particular environment would be best served and bring forth their points of view, as you say. To get a deeper understanding of the grassroots needs and views of their countries and regions, they might liaise with academia - another reason for enhanced cooperation with the NCUC. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei@rol.ru> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 10:40 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Subject: Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board Alan - I agree with your proposed dandy's approach to manage the discussion over the flawed topics. However nothing stops me and any other ALAC members to express opinion aired by Evan. The whole deal - to framework AtLarge complex and uneasy environment, dealing with diverse domain cultures through ALSs all over the world into the best-western style management is insane. "We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC." - agree. --andrei 2017-03-03 8:52 GMT+03:00 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>: The survey question is, in my mind, deeply flawed, but I think it is a dandy way to get into a discussion of what Board members actually expect. And yes, other communities are now (finally) being asked the same question, and I think we are in a better position than most to answer it. But back to my original message, we can only use this as a start if we have a generally agreed upon analysis of those answers. Thus the question I asked. Alan At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: This whole process is insane. Is the Business Constituency ever asked if it represents or speaks for every business -- domain owner or not -- in the world? Is NPOC asked if it represents every NGO? Do the people who attend from law enforcement speak for all police and military? Contracted parties -- ie, the domain industry -- generally do have reasonably full representation, in part because there are relatively few players and in part because they are so fully invested in -- and dependent on -- ICANN's pseudo-regulation more than other communities or constituencies. But it seems that At-Large alone is singled out for this kind of analysis, because -- unlike the others -- we wouldn't be able to be involved without the charitable resources -- travel and staff support -- that ICANN bequeaths upon us. Such support clearly bothers other communities who believe that we are skimming off revenues THEY bring to ICANN just so we can trash them. In my experience, the "who the hell are YOU speaking for?" comment has been used whenever we have something to say that poses a legitimate end-user-driven challenge to ICANN's standard operation. Hearing that in a debate would embolden me because it indicates that our logic and evidence was superior and the only rebuttal was to challenge our legitimacy. At the end of the day, we do the job that is asked of us to the extent we are able -- that is, to bring the end-user point of view into ICANN to the best of our individual capabilities. That is all that Bylaw 12.2(d) asks of us and I believe we have generally done that as well as possible given the constraints in place. We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC. But even here we are deeply flawed, considering how the regions are sliced and a structure that is so complex so as to churn more volunteer time on process than on policy input. Still, there is decent output. I see our policy diversions from NCSG as a (positive) reflection that grassroots population don't always share the same priorities and perspectives of the civil society that is supposedly protecting it. This divergence exists on the street, so seeing it in play within ICANN tells me that At-Large is indeed doing a reasonable -- and surprisingly accurate -- job at conveying the end-user perspective. Whether or not we get listened to is a different story. - Evan On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>> wrote: I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the rest of the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL USER-RALOS-ALAC ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end users. From there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the end users. Regards Alberto -----Mensaje original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [ mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM Para: ALAC < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users. I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the A-L Community. The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN? There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for each option. 1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members that mainly act in their own interests. (58%) 2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%) 3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and non-discriminatory fashion. (6%) 4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%) 5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%) My analysis: 1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests (which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs and interests of users world-wide. 2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we? 3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of respondents really think we do?? 4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is based on experience with such a community. 5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve the global user community well. What do people think of this analysis? Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 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<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...) -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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...) -- Andrey Kolesnikov RIPN.NET<http://RIPN.NET>
Do some Outreach and get people Involved are two different animals: Alberto has asked us to list all events we have talked last two years. If we get all places around in my region I + my colleagues from my ALS ( NEXTi – IT Executive women) - have talked about ICANN and encourage people to participate, I could say we have talked with more than 10,000 persons from ISPs, NGOs, students ( high school and universities), professional association, lawyers events, techy events… Even so only less than 20 persons effectively are participating in ICANN from all those contacted. Some others had applied for NOMCOM but not selected, participated in one or other ICANN groups, attended one or two LACRALO meeting but normally the feedback from those are “too complex to follow / we need more time to learn, etc…. But when you talk about some results from ALSs, having them formally involved, we have good results , even if some colleagues ( from my ALs for instance) had gone to other groups in ICANN. Even in LACRALO we have good examples from ALSs engagement : Aida, is one example of ALS that took some time to learn but now is working quite hard and contributing a lot with the group. Harold is another example… certainly other Ralos can have good examples. Individual participation is valid but need to be active part of any RALO. Other parallel structure or total independency not sounds like a good idea. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017! From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> Date: Friday, March 3, 2017 at 6:27 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board Hi Alan, I agree with your analysis. Most ALS'es (at least in Europe) are previously existing, established organizations, some older that ICANN, that have a life of their own in their national context. The fact that they have applied for an ALS status means that their own, national level goals and interests coincide at least to some extent with those of ICANN and that they thus probably defend the interests of ICANN in their national level multistakeholder setting. This important role is something that the review seems to be oblivious of. If "representing" 3,5 billion people in the classic sense of representative democracy would be possible, we would have had a world government long ago... But each ALS can try to figure out how end users in its particular environment would be best served and bring forth their points of view, as you say. To get a deeper understanding of the grassroots needs and views of their countries and regions, they might liaise with academia - another reason for enhanced cooperation with the NCUC. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei@rol.ru> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 10:40 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Subject: Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board Alan - I agree with your proposed dandy's approach to manage the discussion over the flawed topics. However nothing stops me and any other ALAC members to express opinion aired by Evan. The whole deal - to framework AtLarge complex and uneasy environment, dealing with diverse domain cultures through ALSs all over the world into the best-western style management is insane. "We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC." - agree. --andrei 2017-03-03 8:52 GMT+03:00 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>: The survey question is, in my mind, deeply flawed, but I think it is a dandy way to get into a discussion of what Board members actually expect. And yes, other communities are now (finally) being asked the same question, and I think we are in a better position than most to answer it. But back to my original message, we can only use this as a start if we have a generally agreed upon analysis of those answers. Thus the question I asked. Alan At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: This whole process is insane. Is the Business Constituency ever asked if it represents or speaks for every business -- domain owner or not -- in the world? Is NPOC asked if it represents every NGO? Do the people who attend from law enforcement speak for all police and military? Contracted parties -- ie, the domain industry -- generally do have reasonably full representation, in part because there are relatively few players and in part because they are so fully invested in -- and dependent on -- ICANN's pseudo-regulation more than other communities or constituencies. But it seems that At-Large alone is singled out for this kind of analysis, because -- unlike the others -- we wouldn't be able to be involved without the charitable resources -- travel and staff support -- that ICANN bequeaths upon us. Such support clearly bothers other communities who believe that we are skimming off revenues THEY bring to ICANN just so we can trash them. In my experience, the "who the hell are YOU speaking for?" comment has been used whenever we have something to say that poses a legitimate end-user-driven challenge to ICANN's standard operation. Hearing that in a debate would embolden me because it indicates that our logic and evidence was superior and the only rebuttal was to challenge our legitimacy. At the end of the day, we do the job that is asked of us to the extent we are able -- that is, to bring the end-user point of view into ICANN to the best of our individual capabilities. That is all that Bylaw 12.2(d) asks of us and I believe we have generally done that as well as possible given the constraints in place. We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC. But even here we are deeply flawed, considering how the regions are sliced and a structure that is so complex so as to churn more volunteer time on process than on policy input. Still, there is decent output. I see our policy diversions from NCSG as a (positive) reflection that grassroots population don't always share the same priorities and perspectives of the civil society that is supposedly protecting it. This divergence exists on the street, so seeing it in play within ICANN tells me that At-Large is indeed doing a reasonable -- and surprisingly accurate -- job at conveying the end-user perspective. Whether or not we get listened to is a different story. - Evan On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>> wrote: I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the rest of the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL USER-RALOS-ALAC ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end users. From there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the end users. Regards Alberto -----Mensaje original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [ mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM Para: ALAC < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users. I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the A-L Community. The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN? There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for each option. 1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members that mainly act in their own interests. (58%) 2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%) 3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and non-discriminatory fashion. (6%) 4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%) 5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%) My analysis: 1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests (which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs and interests of users world-wide. 2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we? 3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of respondents really think we do?? 4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is based on experience with such a community. 5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve the global user community well. What do people think of this analysis? Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 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<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...) -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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...) -- Andrey Kolesnikov RIPN.NET<http://RIPN.NET>
Hi Vanda I think you are making an important point here. Outreach extends to a lot of activities that all of the RALOs do in their various ways. And that lets people know about ICANN, about the issues. Participation is only one goal of outreach - and a hard one to achieve - for all the reasons that we have all articulated. Thanks Holly On 4 Mar 2017, at 2:15 am, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:
Do some Outreach and get people Involved are two different animals: Alberto has asked us to list all events we have talked last two years. If we get all places around in my region I + my colleagues from my ALS ( NEXTi – IT Executive women) - have talked about ICANN and encourage people to participate, I could say we have talked with more than 10,000 persons from ISPs, NGOs, students ( high school and universities), professional association, lawyers events, techy events… Even so only less than 20 persons effectively are participating in ICANN from all those contacted. Some others had applied for NOMCOM but not selected, participated in one or other ICANN groups, attended one or two LACRALO meeting but normally the feedback from those are “too complex to follow / we need more time to learn, etc…. But when you talk about some results from ALSs, having them formally involved, we have good results , even if some colleagues ( from my ALs for instance) had gone to other groups in ICANN. Even in LACRALO we have good examples from ALSs engagement : Aida, is one example of ALS that took some time to learn but now is working quite hard and contributing a lot with the group. Harold is another example… certainly other Ralos can have good examples. Individual participation is valid but need to be active part of any RALO. Other parallel structure or total independency not sounds like a good idea.
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017!
From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> Date: Friday, March 3, 2017 at 6:27 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
Hi Alan,
I agree with your analysis.
Most ALS'es (at least in Europe) are previously existing, established organizations, some older that ICANN, that have a life of their own in their national context. The fact that they have applied for an ALS status means that their own, national level goals and interests coincide at least to some extent with those of ICANN and that they thus probably defend the interests of ICANN in their national level multistakeholder setting. This important role is something that the review seems to be oblivious of.
If "representing" 3,5 billion people in the classic sense of representative democracy would be possible, we would have had a world government long ago... But each ALS can try to figure out how end users in its particular environment would be best served and bring forth their points of view, as you say. To get a deeper understanding of the grassroots needs and views of their countries and regions, they might liaise with academia - another reason for enhanced cooperation with the NCUC.
Best,
Yrjö
From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei@rol.ru> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 10:40 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Subject: Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
Alan - I agree with your proposed dandy's approach to manage the discussion over the flawed topics. However nothing stops me and any other ALAC members to express opinion aired by Evan. The whole deal - to framework AtLarge complex and uneasy environment, dealing with diverse domain cultures through ALSs all over the world into the best-western style management is insane. "We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC." - agree.
--andrei
2017-03-03 8:52 GMT+03:00 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
The survey question is, in my mind, deeply flawed, but I think it is a dandy way to get into a discussion of what Board members actually expect.
And yes, other communities are now (finally) being asked the same question, and I think we are in a better position than most to answer it.
But back to my original message, we can only use this as a start if we have a generally agreed upon analysis of those answers. Thus the question I asked.
Alan
At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
This whole process is insane.
Is the Business Constituency ever asked if it represents or speaks for every business -- domain owner or not -- in the world? Is NPOC asked if it represents every NGO? Do the people who attend from law enforcement speak for all police and military?
Contracted parties -- ie, the domain industry -- generally do have reasonably full representation, in part because there are relatively few players and in part because they are so fully invested in -- and dependent on -- ICANN's pseudo-regulation more than other communities or constituencies.
But it seems that At-Large alone is singled out for this kind of analysis, because -- unlike the others -- we wouldn't be able to be involved without the charitable resources -- travel and staff support -- that ICANN bequeaths upon us. Such support clearly bothers other communities who believe that we are skimming off revenues THEY bring to ICANN just so we can trash them.
In my experience, the "who the hell are YOU speaking for?" comment has been used whenever we have something to say that poses a legitimate end-user-driven challenge to ICANN's standard operation. Hearing that in a debate would embolden me because it indicates that our logic and evidence was superior and the only rebuttal was to challenge our legitimacy.
At the end of the day, we do the job that is asked of us to the extent we are able -- that is, to bring the end-user point of view into ICANN to the best of our individual capabilities. That is all that Bylaw 12.2(d) asks of us and I believe we have generally done that as well as possible given the constraints in place. We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC. But even here we are deeply flawed, considering how the regions are sliced and a structure that is so complex so as to churn more volunteer time on process than on policy input.
Still, there is decent output. I see our policy diversions from NCSG as a (positive) reflection that grassroots population don't always share the same priorities and perspectives of the civil society that is supposedly protecting it. This divergence exists on the street, so seeing it in play within ICANN tells me that At-Large is indeed doing a reasonable -- and surprisingly accurate -- job at conveying the end-user perspective.
Whether or not we get listened to is a different story.
- Evan
On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org> wrote: I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the rest of the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL USER-RALOS-ALAC ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end users. From there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the end users.
Regards
Alberto
-----Mensaje original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [ mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM Para: ALAC < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users.
I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the A-L Community.
The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN?
There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for each option.
1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members that mainly act in their own interests. (58%)
2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%)
3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and non-discriminatory fashion. (6%)
4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%)
5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%)
My analysis:
1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests (which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs and interests of users world-wide.
2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we?
3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of respondents really think we do??
4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is based on experience with such a community.
5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve the global user community well.
What do people think of this analysis?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Andrey Kolesnikov RIPN.NET
_______________________________________________ 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...)
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrei Kolesnikov -
Holly Raiche -
Vanda Scartezini -
Yrjö Länsipuro