Hello Vittorio,
Just a technical note - all ICANN structures are subject to review every three years (for example, the GNSO was reviewed last year, and this year, in parallel to the ALAC review, the Nomcom is being reviewed, and the Board will be up for review soon). This was foreseen in the Bylaws as a way to facilitate continue evolution of the structures, and prevent ossification. Yes, but ALAC has only been in full operation (ie, all RALOs operating and sending elected representatives) for two weeks. This is not a three-year review, this is a six-month review at best.
Having said that, I am not altogether upset with the timing given what I have seen with the current operation of ALAC ;-).
I'm quite sure that we wouldn't even have got the significant increase in funding, attention and importance that we've had in the last two or three years, if the hard work and credibility of the people in the ALAC hadn't been complemented by a some external factors, and particularly by the attempted "competition" by the ITU and by other United Nations processes that challenged the role of ICANN, forcing ICANN to increase its commitment to the public interest and to broader accountability, to rank better on the international scene.
There are people on this list (you know who you are) who have experienced ICANN at its opaque worst, who believe that the whole ALAC process is a publicity stunt to appease the pressures you mention above. I certainly realize, as I mentioned before, many parts of ICANN wish that At-Large is "seen but not heard". That is, in their perfect world they benefit from the appearance of a public process without actually needing to listen to it. While I have often taken issue with the cynicism and defeatism in the way such issues have expressed on this list, the core of their argument has not been lost by us newcomers. (I certainly hope that was the impression Wendy took away from San Juan). Our challenge is to exploit the external pressures and whatever good intentions actually exist, so that ICANN cannot just throw money at us but otherwise ignore what we have to say. The first step, of course, is having something of value to say. ALAC's obsessing over issues such as "how to appoint the chair" or how much to restrict ALS requirements are impediments and distractions from the most important work. Even our own debates on "enfranchising the individual participant" have taken on this characteristic, even though most people here are sympathetic. My greatest fear is that ALAC will get too comfortable with its existing level of influence obsessing with internal matters but producing little of its real mandate. Doing so will render it to no more than an agent of those who want to keep us silent. Busy and well funded, to be sure, but silent nonetheless. Somehow I am quite confident that we will not allow that silence to happen. :-) - Evan