[CPWG] ALAC Advice

[Evan Leibovitch]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 15:03, Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
wrote:

we need to get Internet user views about systems and processes that they
> are experiencing but with perhaps no understanding about why these
> processes and policies exist - for example,  people who can't understand
> why they are being impacted and experiencing strange things happening to
> them on the internet - those who have never heard about "DNS Abuse" but are
> certainly experiencing it.
>

Indeed.

The Boards mandate for At-Large is to get ICANN's messages out to our
> communities
>

"Our communities" is collectively the world of end-users.


> so our first focus is on getting our ALSes and individual members "engaged
> with the ICANN process" and its policies.
>

Sigh. This tactic has been the norm for dozens of years and returned very
little; doing a proper cost-benefit analysis of the resources (ICANN cash
and volunteer time) spent on ALAC outreach would result in a cause for
distress.

People inside the bubble refuse to see that the effort required to be as
engaged as they are in ICANN is well beyond the time/effort ability of the
vast majority of people, and those who ARE interested know where to find
it. Perhaps if the aim was a little more basic, to encourage the public to
know what ICANN is and be aware of its impact (in order to provide informed
feedback)  is a more reasonable goal that will yield better results for
ALAC's mandate. The implicit current demand that one needs to be "engaged"
in order to have any input will continue to fail.

  Surely our "legitimacy" to contribute to the discussions that we have
> with other sections of the ICANN community needs to come from those who
> have NOT been instructed to consider ICANN expectations first and foremost.
>

"Consider ICANN"?

Get far more basic than that. Our impact needs to come from people who
don't know (and shouldn't have to care) what an ICANN is.


> Maybe we need to be canvassing the views of people BEFORE they enter ICANN
>

And here is the assumption at the heart of the problem. "Getting involved
in ICANN" remains a required part of the process. ALAC will forever ignore
(and be ignored by) the vast bulk of its Board-defined constituency by
maintaining this attitude, and the resulting lack of credibility issue will
continue to linger.

ICANN is part of the Internet's infrastructure, yet people are not asked to
"get involved" in other infrastructure such as their local electrical,
trash-collection or road-building authority. In a well working system of
infrastructure the public is informed and its feedback solicited to inform
future decisions. The in-vogue priority of "getting people involved" is a
loser and has been demonstrated so nearly since the RALOs were formed.
Those who have specific interest and/or expertise to offer can easily find
out how to engage, and for one-third of ALAC it's the NomCom's job to find
suitable participants anyway. For the rest of the billions, informed
feedback is all we should ever want or expect -- and should be the primary
legitimacy-building strategy.
- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20210616/c0638253/attachment.html>