Dear All

I agree with Wolgang. It is high time that we have this discussion, but 
we need to have this discussion based on a clear, fair, completely open 
and transparent process that ensures that old power constellations and 
interests are simply getting transferred into something that looks new, 
but in fact isn't.

We all have to be prepared to part with that what we have in order to 
create something that is much better then we have now. I propose that we 
start thinking about how to set up such a process of renewal and then 
follow it. I think this is also the chance to engage with and bring in 
those who are not currently engaged with internet governance processes 
at all. The fact of a agreed renewal process should be communicated to 
the currently un-engaged civil society through a massive awareness and 
engagement campaign. What I propose is a three stage renewal process of:

1) agree on a civil society role in ICANN renewal process

2) promote engagement in renewal process through targeted outreach to 
those civil society stakeholders currently un-engaged

3) enter civil society role in ICANN renewal process that includes new 
stakeholders

Yours,

Klaus

On 12/11/2016 12:37 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Thx. Ayden,
>
> this is one reason wy I argue since years that we do need  new approach to design civil socitey´s role and representation in ICANNs multistakeholder model. After the IANA transituib we can not postpone such a discussiin.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>   
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Ayden Férdeline
> Gesendet: Sa 10.12.2016 23:50
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] ALAC interim review report out
>   
> This is a very good report. It seems clear from its findings that the current structure of the ALAC, with a largely self-appointed membership, is not conducive to the effective representation of Internet users within ICANN. I agree with the authors that ALAC's claim to represent hundreds of millions of Internet users is yet to be demonstrated. And I was shocked (though not surprised) to read in this report of their inward focus, with significantly more process-focused working groups than policy ones. I think we should all read this report, and I would hope we could reflect on its contents to see if we think we might benefit from adopting some of its recommendations as well. We may not cost ICANN as much (this report indicates that ICANN is spending $200,000 to $250,000 a meeting engaging At-Large), and we do deliver substantive policy advice, but there's always room for improvement.
>
>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: ALAC interim review report out
> Local Time: 9 December 2016 5:53 PM
> UTC Time: 9 December 2016 23:53
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> As some may be aware, there is an ALAC review process going on at the moment. The interim report has been published https://community.icann.org/display/ALRW/Draft+Report%3A+Review+of+the+ICANN+At-Large+Community?preview=/63151025/63151023/20161206-At-Large-Review-Draft1c.pdf. ITEMS International is the contractor; some may have filled out the survey that was circulated earlier this year or been interviewed. It is an interesting report, and raises many issues that we ourselves need to ponder, as we look at implementation of some of the recommendations of our own GNSO review.
>
>
> Regards, Stephanie Perrin
>