Re: [alac] my suggestion

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Izumi,

I think these are the right questions for us to be asking.  If ICANN needs 
ALAC in order to be more than a "trade association," is it giving ALAC the 
resources we need to meet those demands?  Not financial resources so much 
as ability to be heard within the ICANN structure.  I don't think it is 
yet.  Without votes in the policy development process, we have very little 
to to offer to the individual users' groups who we're supposed to be 
recruiting.  We need more from ICANN to offer the end user before we can 
let ICANN claim ALAC as a success.

--Wendy

At 10:24 PM 12/3/2004 +0900, AIZU wrote:
> This is my suggested material for ALAC Presentation by Vittorio
> tomorrow.
>
> It is not "from Asia Pacific" material, but I tried to recap what we
> have discussed during past days here in Cape Town and added
> my very own ideas and phrases. I do not insist that Vittorio
> should incoporate all of them, some are inmmature, perhaps, and
> others are not in tune with others thought. But I hope there
> is some value we can share.
>
> I may think more about these and write more, but in the mean
> time, for your own considersation, I share this.
>
> izumi
>
> --------
>
>
> Are we meeting with the "outside" expectations?
> Simple answer is NO - in both ways: better than initial low expectations, 
> but worse
> than what we really want to be.
>
> We are at a critical juncture now - to succeed or fail will depend on our 
> performance
> in perhaps next 12 months. AND.
>
> It is not only ALAC's business, to have functional AtLarge within ICANN 
> community,
> but it is up to all the constituencies' who really think they need AtLarge 
> or not.
>
> We are now making our own internal review and hopefully the result in a 
> shape of a
> position paper will be finalized within 2 months time. In this excersise 
> we will
> evaluate our own performance, as well as the situation and conditions 
> surrounding
> AtLarge, both within and outside of ICANN world.
>
> We have worked hard to out-reach and produced 19 ALSs certified to date. 
> This is
> still far lower than we need to establish effective RALO mechanism in all 
> five regions.
> We are facing difficulty, frankly, in showing clear benefit or value to 
> potential AL
> members to come and form ALS and RALO within ICANN.
>
> On the other hand, we have put serious effort to be engaged in policy 
> issues and
> policy developing process of ICANN with other consistencies. By doing so, we
> think we have demonstrated the significant value of having users voices 
> into the
> PDP - for all constituencies.
>
> Unless you have the functional mechanism within ICANN process to 
> effectively hear
> and incorporate users' voices, ICANN will become, to borrow Paul Twomey's 
> word,
> a "mere Trade Organization". This is the fundamental question. Does ICANN need
> AtLarge, or does only AtLarge needs AtLarge.
>
> Now that after two years of ALAC activities, we see certain accomplishment and
> certain failures or shortcomings. But within these two years, ICANN itself 
> have
> faced serious and legitimate challenges. Recent development of political 
> debate
> around "Internet Governance" at the WSIS process and its WGIG work is a clear
> indication of the challenges ICANN is now facing as a whole.
>
> While some governments now demand their greater role to perform, including the
> management of DNS and IP address and other identifiers/resources, other 
> governments
> and most Internet community do not follow this call and still believe in that
> private-sector led, self-governance model without excessive governmental 
> regulation
> and intervention is far better than giving more role to governments and 
> their Inter-governmental organizations such us UN and ITU.
>
> But in order to keep this belief credible and functional, ICANN community 
> should ask
> themselves. How do we cope with the now massive number of users on the 
> globe using
> the Internet - unlike two years ago? Do we have enough capacity? Do we 
> have enough
> legitimacy?  Are we reaching to the all parts of the world, developed and 
> developing,
> in sufficient degree?
>
> These are the questions AtLarge is facing. But ICANN is facing as well.
>
> The original assumption of AtLarge mechanism designed more than two years ago
> during the Reform process was based on the assumption that individual 
> end-users will
> self-organize and form a constituency in a bottom-up manner, 
> self-sustaining and
> independent. While this assumption has a very sound base at that time, the 
> reality came
> out during the past 2 years may not support this.
>
> Unlike the other stakeholders (except, perhaps, NCUC of gNSO) where they have
> clear business model in relation to areas of ICANN activities, individual 
> users do not
> have means and ways to be engaged directly to ICANN. This does not mean 
> they have
> no interest or concern. They have other important priorities to make their 
> living first.
> That is the definition of, Users, not suppliers.
>
> Many ALAC members for example are having problem with their own 
> institutions, or
> business organizations to allocate his or her time and energy on ICANN 
> AtLarge activities
> not to mention financial resources. Only very few fortunate people can 
> devote the energy
> and time to be active at ALAC.
>
> Of course, we are supposed to reach out to existing and new organizations 
> around the
> world, ask them to become ALS and form RALO to create sustainable base to 
> participate
> ICANN activities with user perspectives.  But is this model workable?
>
> We at ALAC will ask this fundamental question in our coming activities and 
> will get back
> to you with at least some collective answers.
>
> END

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org/