[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective

[Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro]

Comments are inline:

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, 11:50 am Evan Leibovitch, <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> It has been a long and hard fought battle by former ALAC chairs and
>> members to establish the At Large and we should not begin to whittle away
>> the responsibility of being stewards.
>>
>
> This is not so much an issue of "whittling away" as it is about gaining
> focus, respect and credibility.
>
The focus is clear as per the Bylaws.


> I guess subtlety is wasted, so...
>
> I travel in a few interesting circles, some behind closed doors. To the
> rest of ICANN, At-Large is a laughing stock, to be generally tolerated so
> long as it stays in its corner and chatters to itself.
>

I would not be too concerned with how the ALAC is perceived as long as they
are accountable to the wider At Large community. The ALAC does not exist to
impress others but to execute a duty. If it fails in its duty then this
should be addressed.

> Its outputs are heard and occasionally followed if they cause no
> significant change to the status quo.
>

The ALAC is merely an advisory committee. It is their role to give advice
which is taken into consideration with the whole of other advice from other
advisory committees and supporting organisations. We exist in an ecosystem
and we all see in part but the Board has the discretion to have a birds eye
view of the whole.

As long as the views are and advice rendered, and is on record then the
ALAC has accomplished its role. It can only give advice not force people to
take them. Unless in ICANN 3.0 this changes. :)

Money spent on ALAC is seen as a sunk cost of doing business, so to provide
> a superficial sheen of public participation.
>

No, it is an important expenditure and mechanism for advocating interests
of end users and global public interest.

> This is why funding is such a struggle; look at what ATLAS 3 had to go
> through.
>

Funding is a struggle if people do not turn up for meetings to develop
proper budgets and justification. Tl

We're seen as a charity case, with just enough funding to keep participants
complacent and under the illusion that ALAC can effect real change.

The At Large is just as legitimate as the GNSO, after all, don't consumers
purchase domains or use the internet. Close that off and there is no
demand. There can be no supply without demand.

 Those who were with me in the initial work on Applicant Support will
recall that the Board and the rest of ICANN completely rejected us until we
gained the support of the GAC.

>
The ALAC was legitimate even before collaborating with the GAC. To think
otherwise means that we are inferior. All advisory committees have equal
weighting under the Bylaws but all have specific function.

>
> I am saying all this -- imploring that ALAC refocus its outputs and better
> understand its constituency -- because I honestly believe that ALAC is in
> crisis whether it knows it or not.
>
Then perhaps what is needed is a discussion on deliverables.


It has nearly no credibility, mainly because it redundantly speaks on
> behalf of the interests of stakeholders already served by other ICANN
> registrant constituent groups (notably the BC and NCUC), while spending
> nearly no effort actually determining the views of its particular mandate. As
> a result, it provides little of the unique perspective that would be
> expected of the only group in ICANN mandated to convey the needs of
> non-registrant end users. Rather than surveys or R&D to determine the
> actual needs of individual end users, ALAC spends its outreach resources to
> groom more elites.
>
Again, I disagree there was some criticism on a mailing list that Verisign
corrupted the NCUC so it may not be as non commercial as some would like to
think.

What elites are the ALAC grooming?


(Isn't that now the main purpose of ATLAS III?) It is a burden on ICANN
> that provides so little return that it will surely be a target of future
> austerity programs.
>
As long as the ALAC is commenting on public policy, it is functional. I
think from reading your emails, you are after a monitoring and evaluation
and to that we would need a criteria and clearly defined yearly targets for
engagement. That I agree with and assume would already be happening but if
it is'nt then we can encourage the ALAC and At Large to do so at the ATLAS.
This should be factored into the budget.

Sala, I was as much of that long fought battle as anyone before I stepped
outside the bubble and saw how ALAC is perceived by its peers.

Again, it is fully to care about opinions.
That battle is far from over. I want an ALAC that is listened to and not
laughed at.

Grow a thicker skin.
There is always room for improvement in the ALAC. I would suggest you write
a paper and submit it to the ALAC and At Large with a suggested scope, so
that ALSes can comment on it.

Getting there demands a hard rethink of what it exists to do and how it
does it. The only known is that the status quo will not sustain.

> The status quo is a vague insinuation. Suggest you write a paper and
invite feedback.

>
> - Evan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190809/ef7d15b8/attachment-0001.html>