Re: [alac] Selecting Our Successors

[Bret Fausett <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Annette, that's my perception as well. In my view, the seven years of  
ICANN's history shows that end-users can be counted on to muster  
energy and interest in ICANN's work (a) out of a sense of civic duty  
for periodic elections of Board members, and (b) when an issue under  
consideration directly impacts their business or personal interests.  
(That's the way I approach the activities of my government, both  
local and national.) Outside the significant circle of persons who  
have decided to volunteer their civic efforts toward the DNS --  
that's us among others -- most individuals and organizations are  
unwilling to devote significant time and resources to ICANN. (That's  
not unique to ICANN; it's fairly typical of the way individuals and  
organizations approach most public policy issues as well.)

This is why I think the current structure only works if the  
expectations on the ALS is extra-light. The primary responsibility of  
the ALS is to receive information from the ALAC and disseminate it to  
its members. After that, anything is a bonus. On occasion, when an  
issue affects the ALS, we'll get something back. Once every year or  
two, we can ask the ALS to help elect the ALAC representatives. If we  
ask them to do anything more, in terms of financing or time, I think  
the ALS-RALO-ALAC structure is doomed.

I think this also would help us market the ALAC: all we're asking is  
that you receive information about ICANN and distribute it to your  
members.

       Bret




On Jan 29, 2006, at 8:21 AM, Annette Muehlberg wrote:

> It is already hard to get Europeans involved in ICANN work, but not  
> because we do not have enough people active in serving internet  
> endusers interests/consumers rights. Actually, Europe has quite a  
> lot of very interesting consumer and user organisations as well as  
> individuals working in that field.
>
> They were not attracted by the excisting structures to get involved  
> because they are impact oriented and not keen in bureaucracy. The  
> RALO structure as proposed now worsens that problem. Instead of  
> showing how and on which issues they can have an impact, the  
> outlined EU-RALO will be a closed shop for those who want to spend  
> their time fighting for persons not for content. Participation will  
> be reduced to electing those who will finally elect the relevant  
> two persons.