Why At-Large is not NCUC-Light
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
Dear Evan: Thanks for your comments and see below: On 14 Oct 2007, at 09:52, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
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?".
FYI, for the edification of those who do not know, ICANN is well aware that there is a real need for information about ICANN, its processes, the issues being dealt with, and the like in a format that is friendly to the technical end-user and Internet-using consumer. We are in fact working with several technical writers to produce just this kind of information. Since we have decided that the best way to do this is to have contract writers with a newsy background produce 'articles' in a news-feature style, we have deliberately gone outside the company so that we are likely to get a result which makes things much more accessible, yet provides links to the more extensive information and longer reports and documents for those who want to learn more. It is taking longer to get these done that we would like - but we will are getting them done. I am hoping we will have the first few of them available for you all to review on or before the LA Meeting actually. <snip>
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?
There is a good document which has recently been forwarded - and it is attached here again for convenience - that summarises much of the GTLD process as proposed. We are ordering translations for LA FWIW. I hope this helps with this particular issue.
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.
I would note here that unlike any other community in ICANN, At-Large receives travel support for 105 fully-funded trips by community members to ICANN meetings throughout this year. There may be those who wish that this was 210, or any other (larger) number, but considering that no other constituency in ICANN receives any travel support at all, At-Large is certainly not being starved of support for attending meetings.
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
FYI, for the edification of those who do not know, ICANN is well aware that there is a real need for information about ICANN, its processes, the issues being dealt with
We are ordering translations for LA FWIW. I hope this helps with this particular issue.
Thanks Nick, this exactly what are looking for: short documents in plain French (in our case) rather than English ICANNese. This will hopefully help us inform our community about the current issues in a way they can understand, and address Adam's concerns. As Evan pointed out, ICANN related issues is a only a small part of what ALSes have to address. At the local level, our user base may have other, more pressing issues. In our case, the local competition for access to broadband is seen as a priority, and the introduction of new gTLDs a much less important issue (we here are mostly cctld users). The fact is also that the ALAC is supposed to give well thought out comments on a wide range of issues which require a good level of expertise in various fields: technical, legal, commercial, which are further divided into specialized areas. I am not sure we have all that knowledge within ALAC and ALSes. And even when we have those resources, how can we get them to provide reports on time, given this is mostly a volunteer effort ? I am not convinced asking them to join a specific WG mailing list is sufficient to provide good interactions with other constitutencies and get really involved in discussions. Try, for example, to have a ten minute conversation with a DNSSEC or IDN technical expert and you are most likely to find out that the "simple" requirements of the end-user community are actually difficult to implement and may need to be reformulated in a more realistic way. It can only happen in F2F meetings. Nick mentioned ICANN funds 105 travels a year for ALAC. I understand that this year's budget was mainly used to get the ALSes to meetings to sign the MoU. However, there are not 35 people on the ALAC, so next year there should be a possibility to fund the travel of WG participants. However good remote participation can be organized, it still often fails on the technical side. It will never replace a F2F meeting. Patrick
Thanks for your note Patrick - see below On 15 Oct 2007, at 11:51, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
FYI, for the edification of those who do not know, ICANN is well aware that there is a real need for information about ICANN, its processes, the issues being dealt with
We are ordering translations for LA FWIW. I hope this helps with this particular issue.
Thanks Nick, this exactly what are looking for: short documents in plain French (in our case) rather than English ICANNese. This will hopefully help us inform our community about the current issues in a way they can understand, and address Adam's concerns.
To be honest, I would personally appreciate reading such documents. As a native English speaker, some of our texts are difficult to understand; for non-native speakers it must be really tough at times.
I am not convinced asking them to join a specific WG mailing list is sufficient to provide good interactions with other constitutencies and get really involved in discussions. Try, for example, to have a ten minute conversation with a DNSSEC or IDN technical expert and you are most likely to find out that the "simple" requirements of the end-user community are actually difficult to implement and may need to be reformulated in a more realistic way. It can only happen in F2F meetings.
I am not convinced that this is actually the case. I certainly do not believe that the entire conversation about such an issue requires a F2F meeting. To take your example, there is nothing to prevent me organising a suitable expert on these technologies to be available for a telephonic briefing. This could be recorded and made available for those not able to ask questions. Those interested in developing a position on securing the DNS could then go away, discuss what they believe should be said, including via teleconferences to narrow options and discuss, and at the end if necessary a further expert- briefing on the resulting draft could be arranged again.
Nick mentioned ICANN funds 105 travels a year for ALAC. I understand that this year's budget was mainly used to get the ALSes to meetings to sign the MoU. However, there are not 35 people on the ALAC, so next year
Actually this is not true I'm afraid. The purpose of travel funding is to allow one representative from each ALS to attend ICANN meetings when they are in their region. The reason that there are 35 people supported for each ICANN meeting is so that 20 people from the region nearest the meeting can attend in person. For the remainder of this year, only one meeting will involve signing ceremonies, the one in Asia (for the Asian region of course). The other meeting in Paris will host the EURALO members who will not be signing anything (that I know of anyway).
there should be a possibility to fund the travel of WG participants. However good remote participation can be organized, it still often fails on the technical side. It will never replace a F2F meeting.
On the contrary, again I must disagree. Every other community of ICANN manages to do the vast majority of their policy development work on mailing lists and teleconferences. At-Large can do the same, and the point of the working groups is to allow teams of people who are particularly interested in a given subject to work together on it. That modality has already produced two outputs: on the RAA, and on IDNs - there's no reason that it cannot work on other issues - and indeed it is now being used to work on other issues.
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I am not convinced that this is actually the case. I certainly do not believe that the entire conversation about such an issue requires a F2F meeting.
First of all, nobody is saying that the entire conversation requires F2F -- just more than is allocated for at this point. Anyone looking can see that At-Large is also doing the bulk of its discussions using other methods -- as is happening right now. In any case, the above comment illustrates why the At-Large community -- not staff -- should decide how much of At-Large's budget should be spent on F2F. With all due respect, Nick, this process should not simply be about convincing you what is necessary. Staff's role should be as a facilitator, not a gatekeeper. It should support At-Large in _its_ prioritization efforts and ensure that the budget is not overspent. And if the At-Large community believes that additional F2F is even more important than having extra support staff -- and is prepared to accept the consequences of that decision -- it should have the right to make that priority. Staff can complain that At-Large wants to spend more money on flying itself to meetings. However, is this any less defensible than staff wanting to spend At-Large's money on more staff? The problem in this dynamic is that staff alone has the final say on both such priority settings. This is why we need budget information on At-Large that does not have the staff component removed. Everything spent on At-Large -- including its HR component -- should be available to examine and prioritize. - Evan
On 15 Oct 2007, at 17:00, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
In any case, the above comment illustrates why the At-Large community -- not staff -- should decide how much of At-Large's budget should be spent on F2F. With all due respect, Nick, this process should not simply be
I refer you to my previous emails on the subject of decision-making related to expenditures and the reasons why the position previously stated are as stated.
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
Adam Peake wrote:
I didn't ask ALS to disclose details of their structures, In fact, you did. On October 7 your mail (Message ID <p06240804c3362fc0a332@[192.168.0.2]>) included this:
"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)."
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.) Agreed... and this is the order in which the process should take place. Any policy initiative for which ICANN is soliciting the advice of At-Large requires supporting data _first_.
We're waiting.
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. No, Nick didn't "just" tell us... that exact same information was conveyed to NARALO at the San Juan meeting, which was many months ago. Given that most journalists work on deadlines measured in hours and days rather than months, the speed of this process is unacceptable. If ICANN wants timely feedback it has an obligation to provide timely information. And ALAC has a primary role in pressing for this to happen.
We're waiting.
I'm suggesting your task as an ALS officer is to make sure that information received is made available to your members and others. First something has to be received.
We're waiting. - Evan
At 11:48 AM -0400 10/15/07, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Adam Peake wrote:
I didn't ask ALS to disclose details of their structures, In fact, you did. On October 7 your mail (Message ID <p06240804c3362fc0a332@[192.168.0.2]>) included this:
"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)."
Evan, apologies, you're right of course, I did write those words. I was inelegantly (and it turns out not accurately) trying to say that I wasn't the original author, they are part of the "Minimum criteria for an At-Large Structure" document you agreed to when becoming an accredited ALS (or perhaps I've just got this all completely wrong and those criteria aren't really criteria at all, or you and others didn't have to agree to them, or some such...) I added "[including how to join the group]", which is what you do describe in your application. I didn't/don't understand why you have a problem with doing what it seems to me you signed on to do. Can't you put up a page to let your membership know their organization is an ALS? A link to ALAC, tell them what an ALS is, what ALAC is, there's enough information around to cut and paste. A bunch of Linux users and people interested in FOSS. You'd expect most would have knowledge of the DNS, some might even be interested enough in ICANN and ALAC to start reading any simple sets of links you gave them. I agree you're waiting for substantive information, agree it's not your job to write it, but you could at least make an effort to do something. Adam
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.) Agreed... and this is the order in which the process should take place. Any policy initiative for which ICANN is soliciting the advice of At-Large requires supporting data _first_.
We're waiting.
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. No, Nick didn't "just" tell us... that exact same information was conveyed to NARALO at the San Juan meeting, which was many months ago. Given that most journalists work on deadlines measured in hours and days rather than months, the speed of this process is unacceptable. If ICANN wants timely feedback it has an obligation to provide timely information. And ALAC has a primary role in pressing for this to happen.
We're waiting.
I'm suggesting your task as an ALS officer is to make sure that information received is made available to your members and others. First something has to be received.
We're waiting.
- Evan
participants (4)
-
Adam Peake -
Evan Leibovitch -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Patrick Vande Walle