Now the issue which I found more significant, and mentioned by, I
think it was Jonathan Zuck, on the call, was the notion that the
ALAC position could be a "minority position". That has a deeper
consequence. As a member of the ICANN SO/AC/SG/C microcosm, the ALAC
is indeed just one of the organisations, thus if it hold a position
by itself, it is in a minority and thus holds a "minority opinion".
But it is possible to argue that the ALAC is representing the
interests of end users, which is by now several billion people, thus
the majority of people affected by the policy. We immediately land
in the contested zone of "who do you represent" and "what is your
legitimacy", "you can't represent end users", "you are a bunch of
self-selected power hungry... yadda yadda yadda....." and the rest
is history.
This is not new; I have joined Olivier in the past at experiencing that playbook first hand:
When we agree with the contracted parties: "You're a vital part of the process and your input is cherished"
When we disagree: "Who the hell are you? Fifteen self-selected "experts" who pretend to know what the world wants? What a joke"
This is why I have always seen working cross-community activity with some mistrust. Our opinions really matter if they're in sync with the common wisdom, else the common wisdom falls back on "who the hell are you?". Direct advice to the Board is the only way for the end-user point of view to be directly expressed, not submitted for rework by those parties directly impacted by what we have to say. In "their" consensus we are the minority view, which is why it is an unreliable path for our positions.
This is one of the reasons I've been pushing for public surveys by ALAC, to help get us direct feedback to better inform the 15 what's important outside the bubble.
But there is more that we can do; to this end ALAC really needs to radically change its outreach approach from "get involved" to "we need to hear from you". Getting more people is the easy way out; we attract more people to share the load and then we expect them to learn the inner workings of ICANN before they can meaningfully get involved. OTOH, "we need to hear from you" forces us who are here to figure out the right questions, how to ask them and how to analyze the results.
The current ALAC engagement approach is futile, expensive, and distracts from policy development. Getting 200 people to fill out a questionnaire once a year is far more valuable IMO than signing one ALS, and easier to achieve.
Addressing "who the hell are you" is the single biggest long-term challenge to clarifying an end-user agenda within ALAC and then advocating it within ICANN. Developing a solution should be the #1 non-policy priority within ALAC.
Cheers,
- Evan
PS: The "consensus" thing is a non issue. In this world there is little that is universally agreed, even climate change action and vaccinations have small but loud (and sometimes well monied) detractors. Acknowledging this diversity is a feature; it ensures that decision-making is as well-informed as possible. If we do nothing more than identify a majority view but still account for the minorities, we are doing a substantial service to those we seek to inform.