(Apologies for the cross-posting, but this issue is far more than just the CPWG) Hi Kris, On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 04:49, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:

For some time I’ve been wondering the impact of our efforts. I am thinking e need to re-assess look at effectiveness just don’t do repeat because we think it is working.We need things to work. My little piece of mind.

You've nailed the #1 issue facing At-Large, Kris. Nothing else really matters right now. Through a combination of design, inertia, conflicts of interest and the fear of being unloved. ALAC and the At-Large mechanism behind it have become a black hole for resources -- volunteers' time and ICANN's money -- with damn little to show for it over more than a dozen years of existence. These ills have been actively glossed-over and diverted-from, using BS metrics and outreach initiatives that have been little more than costly indulgences in naval-gazing. What is the point of going crazy to ensure representation for [add your favourite under-represented group here] if NONE OF US are capable of affecting useful change? The only really meaningful thing At-Large has done for end-users at ICANN is eliminate domain tasting, that was a decade ago and mainly due to one person's initiative. Everything since has been tweaking the edges of policy without real substantive effect. Other initiatives have been "approved", only to be constrained to the point of uselessness (such as gTLD Applicant support, and even THAT was for the benefit of would-be registries and registrants not end users!). We play no useful role in curtailing ICANN's mission creep, its relentless expansion of the namespace, the curtailing of abuse or the balance between privacy and registrant accountability. If we have anything useful to say it's likely being echoed somewhere else, there is no effort to create an end-user perspective (let alone agenda) unique to ALAC. ICANN and other constituencies pay lip service to At-Large because they have to, and ICANN needs it as a matter of political cosmetics. *For now*. Some of our well-meaning members think that if we say the right conciliatory things we may gainpartners and collaborators. That too is BS because the sad reality is that no other constituency has anything to gain from partnering with us. The cost of coming to agreement with ALAC outweighs ANY political benefit. Thus we run our course, begging for others to love us so we can be heard, and in the process self-censor to the point of saying nothing worth hearing. Yeah, I may be sounding like a cranky old broken record. But someone needs to keep saying this. ALAC has already sleepwalked its way into irrelevance and its next step is oblivion. Other constituencies appear actively interested in gutting At-Large or maybe even eliminating it, and the counter-argument we offer gets weaker by the day. I really don't want this to happen because ICANN desperately needs the voice ALAC was supposed to offer. But that can't happen in its current state of self-important denial. I only wish more people cared about effectiveness more than they cared about making buddies in the domain industry or pretending we're the freaklng UN Security Council three times a year. What exists is unsustainable. Tick tock. - Evan