This credibility challenge can only be addressed by a radical rethink of ALAC, and changes that go far beyond those of the third-party reviews held to date. These changes keep in mind that the general public attitudes towards ICANN are close to those regarding other kinds of public infrastructure. In other words, most people just don't care until something breaks.

(Funny how other forms of public infrastructure such as sewage, electricity generation, air-travel coordination and roads don't see any calls to be improved through multi-stakeholder governance.)

But perhaps I'll allude to a 14 year old one:

See page 32-37 of the "Review of the At‐Large Advisory Committee - Final Report
of the ALAC Review Working Group on ALAC Improvements"

(I'll link to a copy on my website - I'm having trouble finding this rather expensive report on ICANN's own website. Perhaps my web search skills are taking the day off.)

https://www.cavebear.com/docs/final-report-alac-review-28jan09-en.pdf

And never bypassing a chance at self promotion, here's my general feeling about "stakeholder" models (summary: it's not a positive feeling.)

https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/

        --karl--