I completely agree wit Evan. Communication should be bidirectional. Up to now we have concentrated the efforts in outreach and RALO formation, now we need to make a reasonable plan for action, and to do this we need to assess what resources are needed. And I do not mean only financial support to various F2F meeting (which is probably the most popular request), but support for understanding the issues and support for further outreach. In plain understandable local languages. I believe that something has been done already, I have seen leaflets that are quite explanatory, but maybe we should make the point on what we have and what is further needed. The audit that Adam is proposing is something that should eventually be done, but my personal opinion is that the december deadline is too short. After all, a specific date can be set as part of the plan that will be developed, I assume, in LA. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: 15 October 2007 04:14 To: Adam Peake; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC / ALS - users and policy
Adam Peake wrote:
How about writing to all ALS now. Remind them of their commitment to ALAC <http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>. Tell them they must meet the requirements of the minimum criteria. And audit the lists and websites of all ALS in the last week or so of December.
Perhaps ALAC should first be reminded of its commitment to ALSs -- give them the information they need to make informed reports to their memberships and engage in useful policy analysis.
If ICANN and ALAC want participation from the public -- that is, the public that is not knee-deep in ICANN issues and eager to insert its agenda -- then it needs to _suitably_ invest in that effort before it may expect a payback.
I guess a periodic audit is reasonable if ALAC members suddenly find themselves with too much time on their hands. Given that ICANN needs _more_ public involvement and not less, frequent audit/purge cycles are a sub-optimal use of ALAC's limited human resources.
In any case, non-participation by an ALS should be addressed by finding out its needs and obstacles, rather than looking for reasons to disenfranchise. Please keep in mind that these bodies, unlike those in NCUC, were sought out and courted by ICANN. Their very act of responding by applying for entry indicates an interest in participation. If they don't participate further, that's as much ALAC's fault as the ALSs'.
The minimum we can do is try to inform people. There's plenty of information being produced that can be pushed to the ALS. As has been mentioned, there is a language issue. Most of the information produced is not even in a form of English most lay people (who are not ICANN insiders) would easily comprehend. I can only shudder at the challenges faced by ALSs whose primary language is not English.
Remember, At-Large and the ALS/RALO structure is an effort to work with the public, not career policy junkies. Information intended to be 'pushed' through this infrastructure must consider its audience and recognize the distinction from other ICANN constituencies.
Simply raising the volume of information that can't be understood will not fix the lack of participation.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org