Jacob Malthouse wrote:
This is just a personal observation, but I really think that no one should feel terrified to post on any list anywhere, let alone an ICANN list which is supposed to be encouraging newcomers.
Thanks for the comments, Jacob. At the Toronto meeting at which my group was invited to become an ALAC, we were informed that this was to be a relatively informal advisory board that wouldn't be expected to have much of a budget. Now that I'm here, things sound different. Maybe I'm reading too much into comments, but I get the impression from what some "old timers" are saying the ALACs are a thinly veiled PR attempt by ICANN to demonstrate community involvement. In reality, there's an ivory tower that doesn't really want to listen to the masses, leaving the ALACs to internally engage in energy-consuming issues such as language of regional documents, but without substantive voice on big-picture matters. Those with experience in already trying to get their voices heard tell a disheartening story which suggests that 1) Beyond simply discussing issues of relevance to our regional communities and issues related to ICANN's mandate, ALACs (and I guess RALOs by inference) need to advocate process fundamentals such as transparency and good governance. This reduces the focus on policy, which was our reason for getting involved. 2) Experience appears to indicate that sometimes only lawsuits get ICANN's attention, suggesting that its advisory bodies need to reserve that capability merely in order to be heard. Amazingly, it is suggested that ICANN will agree to fund lawsuits against itself in return for the publicity value of having the ALAC/RALO process. I'm not dismissing the comments of those who suggest that the North American RALO needs to build in legal tools to enforce its mandate. On the contrary, I see them as a serious description of ALAC mandate and processes that appear quite different from what was promoted when we joined. I stand by my comments that the legal mechanisms indicate a failure of good faith and imagination, but it seems that some of this failure has already happened. As I was under the impression that the ALAC process is itself relatively new, I find the existing level of cynicism -- justified as it appears to be -- quite troubling. I appreciate Nick's offer of a phone call to help explain things. Given facilities such as Skype, the cost of a conference call can be minimal. Any effort to correct my impressions as stated above are VERY welcomed. Also, I share Darlene's request for a written history -- not just for the benefit of existing newcomers, but also those to follow. Evan Leibovitch Executive Director, CLUE www.cluecan.ca