AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
3 Comments
-
Topic 1
ATRT2 Recommendation 10.5.
The Board must facilitate the equitable participation in applicable ICANN activities, of those ICANN stakeholders who lack the financial support of industry players.
The opposite side to the difficulty in recruiting new active volunteers - how to ensure that those you have do not disappear due to lack of funding.
Topic 2
Postponement of At-Large Review: Dialogue when it was first discussed. To say we were relieved would be an exaggeration. More like no longer being asked to deliver what was clearly impossible if done with any modicum of quality.
WHY WERE WE WILLING TO ACCEPT IT?
- Used to being FAR too overloaded
- Used to having unreasonable demands
- No belief that complaining would result in a change - "that is what the rules are. They can't be changed..."
-
I like these two topics..
Hearing for the first time that the at-large review may be postponed - what a great idea! On top of the IANA and Accountability meetings which have intruded on the progress of other already established working groups, piling on another was not the best idea that has come out of the system - but as you say, we are so used to being overloaded we just accept it and wonder why no-one applies to join the group..
They are also just too busy.Also, the review of At-Large should really be done AFTER the ICANN Accountability issues have been sorted out. How can we review the expectations of At-Large when there may be uncertainty of what these are in relation to ICANN and its own accountability?
With regards to the equitable participation of our ALAC members in particular, ICANN always says that they will clear up the visa issue before the next ICANN meeting, but new meeting, new country - same issues! Does ICANN have a protocol body that works with governments who offer to hold ICANN meetings, to prioritise the applications of key participants who are experiencing difficulties? I remember having to send my passport from the Cook Islands to Canberra in Australia to get a visa to go to an IGF in Egypt (there was no consulate or embassy even in NZ - so I am not looking forward to ICANN ever holding a meeting in Egypt). Although they asked for my passport to be delivered in person - not unlike Beran's case - I was able to give it to someone who was going to Canberra and who delivered and picked it up on my behalf. The embassy would not even return it to me by post. As has been shown in our ALAC communications already, everyone is pretty well fed up with the fact that there has been no improvement in the visa issue, despite its affecting someone just about every meeting.
And we haven't even touched on how we might address equitable participation of those ALSes who cannot attend ICANN meetings, and whose bandwidth does not successfully allow for normal online participation of meetings and webinars.
Who should represent us on the panel? I think our regional ALT representatives have done a great job in the past to bring our concerns to the Board... One main topic and a second supplementary topic should be enough..
-
I like the funding idea, but maybe a broader look - how do we see our role (and funding requirements that go with that) and how does the Board see our role - and how do they tie funding for ALAC to that. Really, it's about our expectations of ourselves and our role - almost as intermediary between attending/being involved with ICANN and understanding the many issues it raises, but then being the spokespeople back in our regions to both provide the feedback to our constituencies and bringing their views back to the ICANN table.
I realise that may look like the ALAC review - and they will be included, I'm sure, but it could be seen as a start of our review of ourselves. At least, that's my take on the questions you pose.
Topic 1
Equitable Access for all Stakeholders
ATRT2 Recommendation 10.5: The Board must facilitate the equitable participation in applicable ICANN activities, of those ICANN stakeholders who lack the financial support of industry players. The recent case of an ALAC member who could not attend this meeting due to lack of personal funding is a blatant case in point.
The opposite side to the difficulty in recruiting new active volunteers - how to ensure that those you have do not disappear due to lack of funding.
Discussion on options. This is not just a matter for the ALAC to submit special budget requests, but more one of philosophy on how to address the issue.
Topic 2
Postponement of At-Large Review
We were recently told that the At-Large review, along with other reviews would be postponed. The timing details will depend on the outcome of a public comment, but it will surely be delayed for at least a few months, perhaps more.
Discussion when it was first discussed: To say we were relieved would be an exaggeration. The perception at the time was that we were being asked to deliver what was clearly impossible if done with any modicum of quality.
WHY WERE WE WILLING TO ACCEPT IT?
Topic 3
PICs and Category 1 TLDs. The process and outcomes associated with the ALAC Advice.
(NOT a discussion of the substance of PICS for Category 1 TLDs)
The ALAC was pleased to be able to engage in substantive discussion on the issue of the PICs and Category 1 TLDs.
We are ready to continue similar discussions if considered useful on other issues.
The ALAC finds such informal and open discussion very useful in order to help shape issues as they are being developed rather than only commenting on them once they are at the final approval or implementation stage.
The ALAC is concerned, however, that the discussions such as the those on the Category 1 TLD PICs demonstrate the difficulty in finding common ground when the power-relationships are completely unbalanced.