It amazes me that ALAC -- at least, apparently, many non-elected members as well as its staff support -- clearly continues to labour under the misconception that At-Large is "NCUC-Light". I have no idea how ALAC expects the ALSs to magically come into working groups and be able to develop policy with next to ZERO education support. Unlike the NGOs that are part of NCUC, ALSs generally do not have policy advocacy or Internet governance as primary motivation. Remember that ICANN solicited us to join; we did not seek out ICANN. If ALAC genuinely wants the point of view of the public at large, there is a desperate need to engage in _two-way_ conversation, in which policy advice is the END of a process that starts with engagement and awareness building which goes far further than "here's a summary draft policy to download". Sure, ask for policy, but also be prepared to produce the background, end-user context, and indeed the hand-holding, all necessary to produce it. The ALSs are not, by and large, policy experts. It is insane to expect the general public -- the constituency At-Large is trying to address -- to understand ICANN's issues, with the kind of language found in most of its current documents. Indeed, when producing background information for the benefit of ALSs and their members, you cannot even assume they know the answer to the question: "why should I care about this issue?". There is a phrase that is common around the technology people I know -- "garbage in, garbage out". If no resources are invested to help ALSs care about and understand the issues of the day in lay language, there is no right to complain when they do not provide sufficient volume -- let alone quality -- of feedback. The nomcomm-appointed people already have a history of ICANN culture, and understand its existing constituencies. In ALAC such familiarity may actually be detrimental because At-Large is not just another constituency, even though on the surface it bears a resemblance to NCUC. For one, it has a budget that other constituencies do not. This budget exists, rightfully, because At-Large is the one constituency that ICANN needs to actively solicit, inform, hand-hold and energize before it can extract useful advice. Most other constituencies already have their motivations, and people who make it their passion -- and sometimes their careers -- to be involved in policy. This passion does not come naturally to the public on ICANN issues. Try this exercise. In any communications or conversation, substitute "ALSs" with "the public" and "ALAC" with "the public's representatives". Does it still make sense? Are ALAC and ICANN staff justified in insisting that "the public" provide valuable policy input without an education program geared to laypeople rather than policy experts? At-Large is comprised mainly of non-profits, but its character -- and indeed its reason for existence -- differs significantly from NCUC. It is easy for ICANN veterans involved here to apply previously-learned templates, and treat At-Large like just another self-interested constituency, but that would be a substantial mistake. ALAC's RALO-elected representatives generally understand this reality.
We need input RIGHT NOW on the new gTLD document from the GNSO, we asked for input on the RAA, we always need input on IDNs and the list goes on and on.
It's all well and good to make such demands ... but what has been done to help that happen? What purpose is served by soliciting -- indeed DEMANDING -- uninformed opinion? Adam's recent post complains that ALSs are not doing enough, and they need to disclose details about their structures. I would note that the ALS applications -- which include most of the requested details -- have always been online at http://alac.icann.org/applications/ . Demanding that the onus is on the ALSs to decipher ICANN policy into plain language is a recipe for failure; they'll simply give up instead. And schemes to punish ALSs that don't add policy -- possibly because they're intimidated by the issues or don't feel qualified -- by withholding educational opportunities (such as participation in ICANN meetings), seem downright counter-productive. At-Large is not a lightweight version of NCUC, and it's critical that everyone in ICANN involved with this community understands that. ALSs will not churn policy simply because ICANN rings a little bell, especially without related education deliberately targeted to an audience that is shallower in expertise and motivation than ICANN is used to. In fact, from what I can see, the issues that At-Large may want addressed may be quite different -- and need to be addressed at a different level -- from what ICANN wants from it. ALAC should be demanding the resources to empower At-Large to define its own priorities, not simply to react to the agendas of other constituencies. Most of all, ALAC needs to actively solicit from its ALSs answers to the same question Jacob asked of us before we applied: "What matters to YOU (the ALS) about ICANN?" If ICANN doesn't care about the policy or education needs of its ALSs, how can it expect the ALSs to care about _its_ priorities? - Evan