« Antal Szerb: The Queen's Necklace | Main | Towel day »

ICANN At-Large - Time to Reconsider?

In a prior life, I've been a member of ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee from 2003 through 2004. I was one of the folks who, back then, were seeing ALAC as an advocacy platform, and focused on the policy side of its work, pushing for what, in our judgment, were Individual Internet Users' best interests. Honestly, I can't claim a whole lot of tangible success for that, despite hard work by a number of people.

To this day, I still occasionally dangle my feet into these waters, though I've again and again promised myself not to do it again.

To say I'm disappointed by what I've seen recently would be an understatement: While I'm happy there is a number of people who, presumably, really want to move things, I'm appalled to see how discussions among both European and North American participants take on an increasingly divisive tone. There isn't much to be seen of a common goal to advocate users' interest in ICANN -- rather, a lot of fighting for table scraps (when there's more than enough work for anybody who wants to gamble some of their time on ICANN and its at-large activities!). ALAC's ICANN staff support seems most interested in staging pretty signing ceremonies and press events, one per ICANN General Meeting.

The result? Artificial and rushed time lines, premature consensus calls, and a lot of bad blood and mistrust among participants who really ought to be working together (and have been able to talk reasonably to each other before they got into fights around ICANN). Also, the ability for ICANN to pretend that there's real end user participation and representation, when there are really very few ways (if any) for ALAC to make a real difference in policy decisions -- even though the committee has some limited power to help shape ICANN's policy agenda.

Here's a Gedankenexperiment for you: Imagine ALAC was simply shut down. Would things change for the better? Or for the worse? Would we maybe see more thinking about what accountability in ICANN's processes might really mean? (And no, the sometimes surreal ombudsman doesn't provide that.) Would we see the organization really be any less sensitive to users' needs?

2007-05-21 edited to add: Relevant comment threads are in Wendy's and Patrick's blogs.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://log.does-not-exist.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2073

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ICANN At-Large - Time to Reconsider?:

» ICANN's At-Large Process: Exit, Without Voice from Wendy's Blog: Legal Tags
ICANN seems to be out to re-prove Hirschman's theories of exit, voice, and loyalty by driving all of its good people to exit rather than giving them meaningful voices. Thomas Roessler, a long-time advocate of individual users' interests on the interim ... [Read More]

Comments (2)

Jacqueline:
Hi Thomas I understand that it may seem as if the signing ceremonies are pure PR, but really, the idea that we had in ALAC was to get going on the primary task of the Interim ALAC which was to form the REAL ALAC. We want this to happen so that we can STOP spending time and effort on getting the regions organised (this has been dragging on and distracting everyone for over 3 years), and start getting going on the policy issues and getting user feedback. In my first 3 meetings with the Board as a member of ALAC, they really didn't want to hear anything coming from the Interim, they wanted us to tell them what the global users thought, and how we knew what they thought. Implementing the structure seemed to be the best way to get that legitimacy in the eyes of the Board and the rest of ICANN. I think that if we can get a position on a policy issue that we can show is backed by 100,000 or more internet users from all over the world, then we will be able to get a better hearing than if we continued to be the interim committee, with 15 people who have no linkage to the end users globally. I think that the RALOS will give the ALAC some legitimacy and will, with some work, give us more people to do policy work, more views on the issues, and more ability to effect some sort of change. We will see if I'm right or wrong, but it's early days yet. I agree that the NA and EU regions have not started off well, but I hope that when the voting is done people can put aside the bitterness and work together on the issues that brought them together in the first place.
Jacqueline, I won't go into the argument here how much legitimacy ALAC can ever get through representation, though that's an interesting debate by itself. Let me observe, however, that the context in which the latest RALOs are being built seems to put people in an unnecessarily aggressive mode. Consensus takes time, and when the basis that you want to create is built on the kind of disagreement and in-fighting that we've recently seen, then that doesn't bode well for the future.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 21, 2007 10:52 AM.

The previous post in this blog was Antal Szerb: The Queen's Necklace.

The next post in this blog is Towel day.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.35