[Alac-sc-outreach] [ALAC] Document for discussion during Friday's ALS Expectations session
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
devtee at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 06:47:37 UTC 2016
Agree with Olivier
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> Dear Alan,
> On 02/11/2016 19:58, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
>> I wholeheartedly agree that the 200+ strong ALS network could and
>> should be used more for disseminating information about ICANN in their
>> countries and regions. This ties in nicely with what I have
>> understood to be Göran's focus on a more understandable grassroots
>> communication of ICANN's new narrative.
>> However, I would like to suggest that the original idea of having
>> ALS's to contribute to the At Large advice development process, in
>> spite of disappointments, would be kept alive and not seen as a dead
>> end, to be replaced with the new communication/information
>> orientation. I see the two as parallel and mutually reinforcing
>> efforts. As you say, the new role of ALS's may make them more
>> knowledgeable and help to fullfill the original target (ALS input into
>> the advice processes.)
> I completely agree with Yrjö.
> As a RALO Chair, I object to becoming a mere unpaid part of ICANN's
> communication machine. If end users are to learn about ICANN's
> activities, it is because they need to be given the bylaw-mandated
> ability to bring their point of view into the ICANN processes. It is not
> because this is a hard task and because there are barriers, that we
> should give up. If we did, then we are literally giving up on the
> bottom-up multistakeholder model. We are ICANN's feet.
> Rather than giving up on ALS input, we need to implement all of the
> recommendations which our ALSes have proposed when they met in London in
> June 2014. The policy management process system; the mapping of
> competencies in ALSes; the capacity building; the tracking of ICANN
> stakeholder input balancing, etc. - all of these are unfinished
> projects. All of these require time and work. All of these are cutting
> edge, because nobody else is doing this in the world.
> We need to push the frontiers of what can be achieved in bottom-up,
> grassroots input.
> We need to work smarter, not harder (TM CLO).
> If a majority of ALAC representatives really believe that input from the
> grassroots is impossible, then may I suggest that we close down ALAC
> altogether and declare ICANN a failed experiment. ICANN version 1 was
> built on the promise that this was going to be a bottom-up organisation
> answering the needs of the Internet community at large. Version 2, after
> the failed 2001 elections, tried to introduce more stability but
> stripped ICANN of a vital end user influence. Version 2b brought
> At-Large back to the Board of Directors. Version 3, which you appear to
> propose, gives the green light to the Domain Industrial Complex to run
> the show unhindered and for the ALAC to become its willing propaganda
> dispensing puppet.
> I'd rather have a root canal than follow this path.
> Kindest regards,
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
More information about the Alac-sc-outreach