I agree with your dim assessment in many ways, but not all.
There is something that the ALAC can do, and relatively easily.
The issue of naming is beginning to move beyond the domain name system - there will be (and are) issues of naming of "topics" for IoT networking; there are issues in cloud computing of entities as they split, move, and merge; etc.
Now on one hand there is a lot of technological issues in there - which are better left to the IETF and similar groups.
On the other hand there are major non-technical lessons to be learned from ICANN of what ought to be done in the world of governance including issues of whether-or-not-to-govern, what-to-do, what-not-to-do, ownership information access (the whois issue again), etc.
The ALAC of all the bodies in ICANN, is in the best position to step back and give an unbiased (at least, commercially unbiased) assessment and roadmap for that future.
--karl--
As ICANN enters a period of austerity while it panics its way to re-opening the gTLD floodgates, ALAC is at a crossroads. Ridiculed wherever it is not written off for its navel-gazing and complete ineffectiveness at bringing forth any useful input unique to end users, ALAC struggles for legitimacy whether it knows it or not. No wonder ATLAS 3 was so poorly funded; ICANN suspects that nothing useful (for its purposes) will come out of the current direction of yet more process and more capacity building. They think it's a waste of money so they give the minimum they can get away with. Who can blame them?
ALAC had the chance to prove them wrong this time and to do something different, to take the time necessary to have the mortally necessary debate within ALAC of how it can be relevant to ICANN and revisit how to serve its bylaw-stated mission. It needed to counter the awful external ALAC review with a thoughtful internal one.
But no.
Based on the published objectives of ATLAS 3, we are in for more of the same:
- Leadership Development: another way to say "capacity building", training that could be easily be done by webinars and/or the same CBT used to deliver "what is ICANN" that would be accessible by anyone, not just the 60 attendees
- Programming: what are the tasks? "Define and structure", "Develop meeting processes". And the outcomes of programming? Reports, video interviews, and "fully functional next generation leaders".
IOW, continued navel gazing that seems to be focused most on the succession plans of existing leadership. Policy doesn't even get lip service, the word isn't mentioned once.
Nothing in the objectives points to how ALAC can actually work better to understand what end users need from ICANN and then to communicate those needs to the greater community. So why not stop calling it a Summit and call it what it is -- Leadership training? Probably because, presented that way, it wouldn't have been funded. Let's just say it's unlikely there will be an ATLAS 4 once ICANN sees how its money was spent this time.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.