Hi Maureen,

You're absolutely right that ALAC is at a multi-pronged disadvantage compared to the SOs, whose members are paid to be self-serving and devote sufficient resources to ICANN work so as to immerse themselves in jargon and technical detail. The GAC and SSAC are also disadvantaged but not to the same extent as ALAC because their people are (generally) there because of their regular job duties. Most At-Largers are doing this on their own time.

Under the status quo ALAC will be forever dragged down by the vested interests. Our resources are destined to be consumed with just trying to keep up with people whose whole jobs exist to game the ICANN process.

My point is that we don't have to play their game.
ALAC has a singular bylaw task -- advise the Board on the interests of Internet end-users. It's not obligated to react to every Public Comment process. It's not obligated to react to ANY of them: At-Large is fully within its mandate fully independent of what the SOs think is important right now.
What do WE think is important? Why can't we set our own agenda?

Think of how many staff are devoted to At-Large. How much better could that resource be used in service to public education and public research, rather than deciding which wretched PCPs to follow and which do not. It has always been a frustration to me that Heidi has a doctorate in policy development yet spends most time on admin and herding cats. What other talents are we wasting that could be better spent directly in serve of those for whom we are mandated to speak? What good is being uber-inclusive but irrelevant? It is *our* job to de-jargonize ICANN, nobody else has an interest in doing so. Are we up to it?

ALAC has forever been plagued by "what will they think of us?" syndrome, fearful that setting our own agenda to fulfil our bylaw role will run us afoul of ICANN staff and other constituencies. First it was travel subsidies hanging over our heads -- play nice or you can't come to the meetings. Then have since been other implied threats that have caused us to stop short of asserting what we wanted to please the agendas of others. To me it's a subtle but insidious form of self-censorship.

It's not as if decades of doing what they want gains ALAC respect from elsewhere in the ICANN community. Look at the last At-Large Review. The SOs surveyed show contempt for ALAC when not forced to speak publicly. If they're going to hate us anyway, why not just follow the path we need and stop trying to please everyone else?

There is a path out, which is why I remain involved.

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch / @el56


On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 1:01 PM Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
It would be good to have similar research done on the AC communities who aren't paid to produce the outputs that are pushed by the various GNSO constituencies each guarding their own group's interests. You can't compare the work that is done by volunteers in the ALAC and the GAC who don't come to the ICANN table with the technical knowledge and expertise of the SO community, so that AC end-user interests are dismissed as insignificant. It is forgotten that ACs cannot be effective in the work of communication to the public at-large when the language of the information they have to work with is targetted at the wider SO technical community and may be incomprehensible to the AC lay-person. How often do the ALAC and the GAC have to make that point? 

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 6:38 AM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:31 AM David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
 
It may be noted that ALAC is only referenced once in the article content, and then only as a definition. Even the definition of ALAC has a spelling error ... "Ad-Large Advisory Committee".

Incorrect.

Under section 4 we have:

"an absence of awareness of ICANN among the public at large leaves the regime with a narrow base of legitimacy. True, the world’s 4.7 billion regular internet users (as of 2020) obtain notional representation in the ICANN multistakeholder framework through the At-Large Constituency. However, participants in At-Large are self-selected and have few systematic communications with the wider public."

Plus, the 2017 At-Large Review is cited in the bibliography.
So, the authors are aware of ALAC and At-Large but dismiss its significance in ICANN's governance.
Sounds accurate to me.

As I have said repeatedly... concentrating all efforts on user-focused public education and selective advocacy based on research of public needs is ALAC's best (and I would argue only) path to legitimacy.

- Evan



_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.