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.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ALAC interim review report out
Local Time: 9 December 2016 5:53 PM
UTC Time: 9 December 2016 23:53
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