[CPWG] ALAC Advice

[Evan Leibovitch]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 10:43, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <
cpwg at icann.org> wrote:


> Now the issue which I found more significant, and mentioned by, I think it
> was Jonathan Zuck, on the call, was the notion that the ALAC position could
> be a "minority position". That has a deeper consequence. As a member of the
> ICANN SO/AC/SG/C microcosm, the ALAC is indeed just one of the
> organisations, thus if it hold a position by itself, it is in a minority
> and thus holds a "minority opinion". But it is possible to argue that the
> ALAC is representing the interests of end users, which is by now several
> billion people, thus the majority of people affected by the policy. We
> immediately land in the contested zone of "who do you represent" and "what
> is your legitimacy", "you can't represent end users", "you are a bunch of
> self-selected power hungry... yadda yadda yadda....." and the rest is
> history.
>

This is not new; I have joined Olivier in the past at experiencing that
playbook first hand:

When we agree with the contracted parties: "You're a vital part of the
process and your input is cherished"

When we disagree: "Who the hell are you? Fifteen self-selected "experts"
who pretend to know what the world wants? What a joke"

This is why I have always seen working cross-community activity with some
mistrust. Our opinions really matter if they're in sync with the common
wisdom, else the common wisdom falls back on "who the hell are you?".
Direct advice to the Board is the only way for the end-user point of view
to be directly expressed, not submitted for rework by those parties
directly impacted by what we have to say. In "their" consensus we are the
minority view, which is why it is an unreliable path for our positions.

This is one of the reasons I've been pushing for public surveys by ALAC, to
help get us direct feedback to better inform the 15 what's important
outside the bubble.

But there is more that we can do; to this end ALAC really needs to
radically change its outreach approach from "get involved" to "we need to
hear from you". Getting more people is the easy way out; we attract more
people to share the load and then we expect them to learn the inner
workings of ICANN before they can meaningfully get involved. OTOH, "we need
to hear from you" forces us who are here to figure out the right questions,
how to ask them and how to analyze the results.

The current ALAC engagement approach is futile, expensive, and distracts
from policy development. Getting 200 people to fill out a questionnaire
once a year is far more valuable IMO than signing one ALS, and easier to
achieve.

Addressing "who the hell are you" is the single biggest long-term challenge
to clarifying an end-user agenda within ALAC and then advocating it within
ICANN. Developing a solution should be the #1 non-policy priority within
ALAC.

Cheers,
- Evan

PS: The "consensus" thing is a non issue. In this world there is little
that is universally agreed, even climate change action and vaccinations
have small but loud (and sometimes well monied) detractors. Acknowledging
this diversity is a feature; it ensures that decision-making is as
well-informed as possible. If we do nothing more than identify a majority
view but still account for the minorities, we are doing a substantial
service to those we seek to inform.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20210614/cccc595b/attachment-0001.html>