Brendler, Beau wrote:
Evan had asked that I post an e-mail to keep NA RALO up to date on the results of this ALAC meeting. After the meeting, I sent Evan a note saying it would be better to follow up by phone, because I was feeling pretty negative about what was said. What with the summit and everything, that kind of fell through the cracks.
Partly that, partly that I'd hoped you might cheer up. I've had other private conversations with people here who are either in or near "aw, screw it all" mode; this is Not Good. All the outreach we can possibly do is of no value if people get utterly demoralized once they get here.
Bottom line I got from the ALAC corresponds to what Danny wrote. The ALAC excom, it would seem, does not view contract compliance and individual user complaints about registrar malfeasance to be in its mandate. I think this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, at the summit or elsewhere, because it doesn't make sense to me.
It is indeed a serious problem. We keep being told that ALAC has an unlimited mandate. Just two days ago, in a response to Danny's proposal that NARALO just move to the GNSO, Nick stated: "At-Large's remit is much larger than any GNSO constituency, as the GNSO only relates to generic TLDs, and not addressing policy, country code TLDs, etc." What's the point of the larger remit if we refuse to engage? Now... it is a legitimate reply that At-Large has neither the resources nor processes to act on individual consumer complaints. However, we ABSOLUTELY have the mandate to ensure that ICANN's processes to do so are fair and expedient, and that patterns of abuse (of registrants or Internet end-users) are identified and acted upon. IMO our role of oversight there is at least as important as our participation in the rollout of new TLDs. Of course, there is the awful side-issue that the ExecComm still lives. But you need to confront that publicly on the global ALAC list -- I can help but you're the one who experienced it firsthand.
Note also that with staff's help, we have put together a notice of intent to form a consumer constituency. They will probably copy CAUCE, Knujon and others for feedback on it if they have not already done so. I have always had a nagging problem identifying what is supposed to differentiate the composition of a "consumer constituency" from that of At-Large itself. Do ISOC chapters not consider themselves protectors of consumer/registrant rights? (though operating a registry does provide something of a conflict :-) ) What about ALSs such as my own, who got involved in At-Large to look out for issues relevant to our own members who are both registrants and Internet users?
In other words, I am concerned about the rules of exclusion for the GNSO consumer constituency.
There is language in that NOI that basically says such a constituency is needed because ALAC's worldwide scope is so broad that there needs to be a more direct avenue to the GNSO/board/etc. for consumer concerns. At a GNSO level, I can totally see the point. NCUC has seen itself as the protector of the user interest there but has been utterly ineffective at it, single-handedly trying to counter all of the commercial interests. However, when you start talking about a mandate beyond GNSO (the "board/etc" part), you are basically reinventing the wheel. At-Large was supposed to put forward consumer concerns. If that is not happening then promote the fixing of ALAC or (as a worst case) induge Danny -- dissolve ALAC and start over.
The consumer constituency will not, for instance, take up issues such as international IDNs, ipv4-6 transition, the structure of ALAC and its various reviews, etc.
Have no delusion that it will not, eventually, get caught up in its own structural issues and reviews. And I would argue that the international IDNs is most certainly a consumer issue outside of English speaking countries. So unless the consumer constituency is to be limited the the USA and the Commonwealth, I suggest you may be a bit hasty on setting the limits of the CC's mandate or the structure of its leadership. In other words, a CC *could* easily get as bogged down in structure and mandate definition as ALAC; its only initial advantage is the absense of ALAC's NomComm-injected virus. (And yes, I have come back to the POV that the NomComm is absolutely a destabilizing force within ALAC -- Alan excepted). - Evan