Danny Younger wrote:
I look at the NCUC which is a bunch of similarly situated noncommercial organizations that each contributes membership dues to support the work of the NCUC. Repeat after me. At-Large is not NCUC. In fact, the two _should_ be far more different than they are, and IMO the efforts of At-Large have been significantly obstructed by efforts to view its role through NCUC-tinted glasses.
NCUC is, almost by definition, made of orgs that have advancement of policy interests as core mandates. They found ICANN before ICANN found them. Most ALSs, by contrast, are not by mission interested in policy and are here because, by and large, ICANN wants their opinions more than they want to give opinions. Most ALSs -- including mine -- are here because ICANN actively courted them and would not be involved otherwise. Put _very_ crudely, ICANN doesn't need to subsidize groups that would be involved anyway. Existing constituencies -- including NCUC -- have vested interests that bring them to the table. ALSs have no such interests, no funding to advance any such interests, and thus are worthy of subsidy. If ICANN wishes to limit involvement to those orgs who pay to play, then it simply won't have the public POV it wants, and will limit its voices to special interest groups. In the debate over tasting it was clear that NCUC is far out of touch with the public interest, so it's hardly a credible proxy. It is one thing to require that an ALS's existence should not depend on ICANN handouts -- this is not under dispute. That is quite different from asking ALSs to subsidize ICANN outreach and other activities from their own strained budgets. It is a mandate of my ALS to represent the views of its members. It is not a mandate to represent or solicit the views of other groups. I am personally offering to help ICANN in its outreach efforts; my time has value which IMO more than matches anything ICANN could spend on my attendance at an event to do outreach. If that's not good enough, well too bad -- I have many other competing uses for my time, as do many others here, that don't also require my financial subsidy. As for whether outreach is a task for ALS volunteers or ICANN staff, to me this is not an either-or. As existing parts of the grassroots, ALSs will (probably) know better than ICANN staff where are the best targets for outreach in their regions. And, since there are no current ICANN staff doing outreach in our region, the outreach work we do as volunteers is, at least for now, all that is being done. Until ICANN hires someone in our region ICANN is paying ZERO for outreach, so our proposed something is better than the status-quo nothing. Perhaps in the future, new staff will make such efforts redundant -- but the fact is that there have been very very few new ALS applications in our region since the MOU signing. Rather than pointing fingers I prefer to try to act on this with the resources available -- the efforts of NARALO volunteers -- subsidized by ICANN -- at least for now in the temporary absence of staff. Maybe someone will be hired after the budget is set, and there will be a small amount of overlap. But that's still better than sitting on our hands and doing nothing, especially if the will of people to contribute their most precious resource -- their valuable skill and time -- has been offered. Participating in ICANN does not and will not force me to devalue my time. - Evan