Evan, Hello. Comment below.
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/ .
Please re-read what I wrote. I didn't ask ALS to disclose details of their structures, I asked that they all make an effort to achieve the criteria described in the application process you quote... from the URL you gave above: "Any group (existing or newly formed for this purpose) that supports individuals' ability to share their views on ICANN issues, and that meets the few simple criteria <http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm> listed on the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) website, can apply to be an At-Large Structure." These simple criteria are the basic commitment to becoming an accredited ALS.
Demanding that the onus is on the ALSs to decipher ICANN policy into plain language is a recipe for failure;
No, I didn't say the onus was on the ALS. My suggestions were twofold, (1) to make sure information about policies processes flowed to the ALS (ALAC delegate's responsibility), (2) the ALS had a means of disseminating that information, asking for comment on it, and a means to provide any comment back to the ALAC (and from there whatever policy process might be going on.) For example, Nick's just told us about the new "news-backgrounders" that are being produced. These should be getting out to the ALS, being presented on your websites. Again, here's what I wrote: At 8:59 PM +0900 10/13/07, Adam Peake wrote:
A suggestion. Before the first ICANN meeting of 2008.
(1.) Whenever ALAC is to provide input on an ICANN policy activity, ALAC delegates will ensure that a summary describing the policy activity, ALAC's intended input to it, and any questions ALAC would like users to address, is provided to ALS so they can make such information available to their members and ALAC community at large.
(2.) All ALS will "Post on the Internet (on the ALAC's website or elsewhere) publicly-accessible, current information about the ALS's goals, structure, description of constituent group(s)/membership [including how to join the group], working mechanisms, leadership, and contact(s)."
(3.) All ALS will "Commit to supporting individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions." To this end all ALS will provide:
A section on their website dedicated to information about the ALS (2 above) and ALAC and provide information about ALAC policy discussions and how users can contribute. The website must include a mechanism for receiving public comment on issues being discussed. ALS officers will ensure that public comment is summarized and provided to the ALAC. If the ALS is unable to create and operate a website then pages will be made available on the ALAC website or ALAC wiki.
A mailing list where policy discussions can take place. The list will be open to any interested individual from their country/region. ALS officers will ensure that list discussion is summarized and provided to the ALAC.
(4.) ALAC delegates will be responsible for ensuring comments from ALS are considered in the ALAC's response to any policy activity. A record of ALS contributions should be maintained on the ALAC website.
(5.) ALS officers (including ALS officers who may also be ALAC delegates) will only eligible for financial support to attend ICANN meetings or regional RALO meetings, if their ALS meets the criteria provided in 1,2,3 above.
The quoted text in 2 and 3 above comes from the "simple criteria" all ALS accept to follow when they apply to become and accredited ALS. I'm suggesting your task as an ALS officer is to make sure that information received is made available to your members and others. That the people in your ALS are aware of this information. If they wish they have a means to comment on that information. And you will summarize comments and bring back to ALAC. Too much? As far as I can see every ALS has any agreed to do this, it's part of what you sign up to do. Second, given your complaints about lack of education/information it should be a pretty easy intro to begin following the process. Thanks, Adam
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
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org