[governance] Innovation

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Tue Nov 27 23:52:30 EST 2007



> From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx]
> The ALAC grows by informed interest, by an outreach process which has been
> de necessario painstaking and slow. An increasing number of Internet
> users, and their existing organizations, are joining the ALAC, building up
> its discourse, and consolidating the foundations of its influence. This,
> and the influence, can be proven in the way considerations from the
> At-Large have marked numerous ICANN processes and decisions. It does take

There have been many good people involved in the ALAC; I think of Wendy Seltzer, Thomas Roessler, Brett Fausett, and Izumi, and I am in agreement with the spirit, if not the analysis, in Avri's post. But there are also severe problems.  You could sum up my position by saying, "I am a big supporter of "At Large" participation, but an equally adamant opponent of the impossible structure into which Pisanty's Board forced them.

Without detracting from the dedicated work of many key ALAC people, we must not lose sight of the degree to which ALAC as a whole is a Potemkin village propped up by ICANN's increasingly ample financial resources. This structure is bound to collapse under its own weight sooner or later, or, worse, turn into a patronage machine from which we would all recoil.

I know first hand what a difference money makes. In the early days of the Noncommercial users constituency, which is the autonomous civil society entity within ICANN's GNSO, the Markle Foundation offered a large number of travel grants to NCDNHC members for attendance at ICANN meetings, and we charged no membership fees. During those days we had around 150 members and our meetings at ICANN conventions were packed with around 30-50 people. 

Despite the size, however, the constituency had no real coherence, too many of the people receiving the travel grants did not stick around for the hard, pre- and post-meeting work of policy development, and there was no incentive for different factions to work together. Ease of entry into membership also meant that some interest groups tried to stack the constituency and subordinate it to the policy interests of some other interest. 

After the withdrawal of Markle funding, membership plummeted, and so did attendance at meetings. Nevertheless, in rebuilding the NCUC we have over time succeeded in focusing on consistent core policy positions, raising enough money to scrape by independently, and so have avoided the "staff problems" <chuckle> alluded to in Avri's post; we have progressively added new member organizations; most importantly, we have developed a strong and respected voice in policy development in the GNSO. 

Consider: ICANN spends perhaps 3/4 of a million dollars a year on ALAC; it spends nothing on NCUC. For its ALAC expenditure, ICANN gets about 15-24 ALACers (airfares and hotels fully paid) at its meetings and the membership of about 100-120 "At Large Structures" i.e., organizations. For its NCUC non-expenditure, ICANN gets about 6-8 representatives of nonprofits at its meetings, and a membership of about 40 noncommercial organizations. 

Think about it.



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1155 - Release Date: 11/27/2007 8:30 PM
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance



More information about the Governance mailing list