Dear Yrjö,

thank you very much for starting this discussion. Please be so kind to find a few of my personal points of views, interspersed in your text:

On 29/07/2016 16:32, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:

Dear members of the Task Force,

 

A few thoughts on our task:

 

1) It is self-evident that without active ALS's, EURALO (like other RALOs and At Large itself) would be just an  empty shell. The credibility of ALAC/At Large as "the primary organizational home within ICANN for individual Internet users" hinges on whether our voice is emanating from the grassroots or just from a club of "usual suspects".


Ever since I have been involved in At-Large this has been a key component part and potential criticism. Indeed, ICANN as a whole is often accused of being a small club of "usual suspects" and the mission for the ALAC & At-Large Community is to make sure it is not. It is a very serious mission indeed.


 

2) As we heard from Wolf at the EURALO call (July 26), earlier attempts at enhancing the grassroots engagement have been resisted by some ALS's as bureaucratic meddling from EURALO's side.   As unjustified as such criticism may be, now we have to make absolutely sure that our efforts  will not be seen in such light, and don't meet the same fate.


Today we are at an intersection with two more components which make the game very different indeed:

1. The implementation of the At-Large Summit recommendations
These were decided by the At-Large community, drafted at the Summit in London (June 2014) and ratified unanimously by the ALAC. It is the will of the At-Large Community to proceed forward with these changes. The tracking of the recommendation implementation is on: https://community.icann.org/x/IJZCAw
Recommendation #28
Recommendation #29
Recommendation #42
Recommendation #43

2. The current ALAC Review.
This is a bylaw-mandated independent review of the ALAC and its component parts. Recommendations from the independent review are binding once the ALAC ratifies them and the plan is sent to the ICANN Board.
The At-Large Review Working Party's page is on: https://community.icann.org/x/aZMQAw

This second process will make recommendations on improving the RALOs which are non negotiable. I would think that ALSes which have a problem with the recommendations would be better served in taking part in the current process of self-improvement, rather than waiting to be told what to do in the RALO top down. Because I also have to add one more thing: the concept that a RALO is "sovereign" is completely false. The RALO has obligations to ICANN and if these obligations are not met, including working with ICANN on regional outreach and strategic plans, the ALAC has the option of ending its MoU with the RALO and to create a new one with new members.


 

3) If one looks at the EURALO ALS list (https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo), two facts jump out.  First, the great diversity of the ALS's as to their nature and areas of interest.  Some  cover a broad spectrum of internet and information society issues.  Some are interested in a more narrow segment among them.  Some  are NGO's  engaged in other fields that have joined the At Large because of the importance of the internet in  their core activities.  Thus, their engagement in  At Large varies greatly in relevance and subject matter interest from one ALS to the next.  Thus, one size does not fit all.  ( The other salient feature is EURALO's lopsided geography, especially the absence of ALS's in some parts of Europe. That is a separate problem, but our work may also contribute to solving it)


Absolutely agreed -- but you know, EURALO is not the only region like this. The whole At-Large Community is very diverse. Hence ATLAS II recommendations #28 and #29.


 

4) Enhancing the measurable activity level of ALS's is not an end in itself. Statistics aside,  we are first of all interested in their activities that support the main role of At Large/ALAC "to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users".  Thus, all potential expertise "hidden" in the ALS's should be discovered and  leveraged in preparing ALAC advice on ICANN activities.  This would relieve the workload of those few who now do most of the drafting.   Here, the diversity and different fields of specialization of ALS's could actually be a great asset.


Ooops, sorry, at the risk of repeating myself -- see #28 & #29 :-)
We are entirely in agreement.


 

5) An ALS can play an important role as a component of the multistakeholder setup at the national level and even as the initiator for national-level multistakeholder cooperation.  To what extent this actually happens,  varies from country to country,  with have different traditions of communications among different sectors of the society, but the potential for improvement seems to be there.  Like charity, multistakeholderism starts  at home. The engagement of ALS´s in national multistakeholder cooperation should be actively promoted by EURALO, ie. by facilitating their contacts with other national level stakeholders active in ICANN.  (The table  prepared by Oksana is a good beginning for mapping the situation in various countries)


Absolutely agree.

 

6) In my view, the Task Force should focus on  (1) how to encourage the participation of fresh expert resources from the ALS's, according to their area of specialization, in the development of ALAC advice to ICANN's policy development processes and (2) how to encourage ALS's to play an active part in the multistakeholder processes on the national level.


I would hope that the task force can also play a good part in the mapping & the topics of interest from #28 & #29.

Last but not least, I think the task force should also be looking at the work of the At-Large ALS Criteria and Expectations Task Force. https://community.icann.org/x/AohCAw

Kindest regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html