Guest post by Ayden Férdeline (@ferdeline)
It’s a simple message: the At-Large Advisory Committee isn’t fit for purpose. That’s the conclusion that external consultants ITEMS International have drawn in their draft report, now out for public comment, on the review of the ICANN At-Large community.
The 90-page report draws on face-to-face interviews with over 100 ICANN staff and community members and the results from a multilingual, global survey to conclude that At-Large is “excessively focused on internal, procedural matters” and is “perceived to be run by an unchanging group of individuals … who have struggled to make end-user input into policy advice processes a reality.”
The report is less an explosive exposé and more a call to action – and some of the actions it calls for could make the problems it identifies worse.
One of the Internet’s most powerful characteristics is its capacity to disintermediate. It allows us to do away with pointless degrees of representation in favour of more democratic processes. Yet the At-Large of today is essentially a trade association of Internet Society chapters, and, according to this independent review, ill-positioned to speak knowledgeably on behalf of actual end-users of the Internet. Indeed, three-fifths of survey respondents said that At-Large participants were “more concerned with pushing forward their own agendas than striving to represent the interests of the global Internet end-user community”. That has led ITEMS to recommend that At-Large do a better job of helping Internet end-users aggregate their interests into a policy agenda by allowing individuals to join At-Large and to vote individually.
On the surface, that doesn’t sound like a bad idea. ICANN has long sought to position itself as an open and representative body whose bottom-up decision-making processes are built on consensus and inclusivity. But At-Large never walked the walk. It was more akin to a pyramid scheme, where the At-Large Structures exist to recruit more At-Large Structures into Regional At-Large Organisations (RALOs), which in turn select five At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) members, which is where all the decisions are made. The influence of individual users, in other words, is diluted and filtered through a thick organisational hierarchy. Inevitably in such a pyramid, a small group of individuals take on most of the leadership roles, dominate its agenda-setting and decision-making processes, and administer At-Large in a top-down manner. ITEMS, in its review, notes this widespread “perception that At-Large leaders are involved in a game of leadership position ‘musical chairs.” Incredibly, At-Large is either unable or unwilling to practice a bottom-up, multistakeholder model of governance in its own structure.
Judging from the ALAC leadership’s shocked reaction to the review, it is a novel idea to suggest that At-Large practice what it preaches. Expanding membership to include actual end-users would give At-Large more of a mandate to serve as the organisational home for individual Internet users in the ICANN ecosystem. However, this proposal is undermined by ITEMS’ calls for “ICANN staff to be more proactively engaged in support of the [At-Large] Community’s policy work.” One At-Large member is quoted as telling ITEMS, “There should be more than one person concentrating on policy. This is a single point of failure — when this person is on holiday, everything stops.” At-Large cannot serve as an independent watchdog over the work of the ICANN community and organisation if it is entirely dependent on staff support to develop its positions, and to draft its documents. But more staff support for policy development is not a solution. It is a symptom of the bigger problem.
The report says, “While ALAC advice tend[s] to be somewhat shallow and generic, ALAC leadership c[an] rapidly develop a firm view at very short notice when required. This surely could not represent bottom-up grassroots opinion.” That sounds a whole lot like At-Large is a puppet of ICANN staff; they draft up a statement, send if off to a mailing list, and the lack of a response from an ordinarily disengaged membership is seen through inertia to be a show of support. As a collection of individuals who lack the financial incentive and sometimes the knowledge to stay abreast of the domain name industry, it is understandable that At-Large will not be able to fully contribute to the community’s policy development work. That is why they are an Advisory Committee, and not a Supporting Organisation empowered through the ICANN bylaws to develop policy. It therefore raises eyebrows to see ITEMS recommending that, “At-Large should encourage greater direct participation by At-Large members in ICANN Working Groups.” It is the role of At-Large to provide the ICANN Board with advice on issues being discussed within the ICANN community which have implications for end-users. It is not the role of At-Large to be directly participating in the GNSO’s policy development functions, not least with significant aid from ICANN staff.
Indeed, one of the most serious problems created by the lavish amount of budgetary and staff support that At-Large receives is that the positions of the At-Large leadership are often very close to and supportive of those of the ICANN Board. This was especially noticeable during the IANA transition process, when ALAC representatives consistently sided with the ICANN Board and against the rest of the community in pushing for weaker accountability mechanisms. How can At-Large be a part of the community that holds the Board and staff accountable if it is totally dependent on them?
Some of the support that At-Large receives is reasonable. Few would object to translation and interpretation of documents and meetings being available, and most people would recognise that a reasonable amount of travel support for hard-working volunteers levels the playing field, bringing voices to the table that would not otherwise be there. But there is an imbalance across the community between the sheer volume of resources made available to At-Large. At-Large is the beneficiary of six-digit capital investments in website updates, ‘outreach’ cocktail receptions, multi-million dollar Summits in beach towns. No one wants to bite the hand which feeds him or her, and on subsequent calls discussing the independent review, the inextricable leaders of the At-Large community say they accept the recommendation that they be more involved in policy work. Indeed, they are already moving full-steam ahead implementing that recommendation of the draft report, even though it’s still out for public comment. Between an initial version of the draft report being published in December 2016, and the official draft being opened for public comment less than four weeks later (the only real difference between the two documents is the inclusion of flowery language praising At-Large leadership; the recommendations do not differ), a new ICANN staffer, Evin Erdoğdu, had been hired to “provide policy-related support to the ALAC/At-Large community.”
At-Large has been heavily dependent on ICANN support for over a decade now. They need staff to draft their letters, coordinate their diaries, provide access to a check book. Now they need someone else to step in and “randomly” appoint individuals to leadership roles too, because their elections have historically turned into popularity contests rather than merit-based appointments. For the 15th seat on the ICANN Board, ITEMS has suggested “simplify[ing] the selection” by having the Nominating Committee “vet nominees to produce a slate of qualified candidates from which the successful candidate is chosen by random selection.” This is an imperfect idea, because even when individuals are appointed at random from a pool of qualified candidates, one person is going to be a better fit than someone else or bring a more diverse perspective, but it is better than the status quo. After all, the current method of electing a Board member lends itself to petty politics: it entails ALAC screening the candidates and arguably stacking the deck, and the RALOs – not individual end-users – casting votes for their favourite.
It’s easy to see the same thing happening for the newly proposed rapporteur positions, where 10 individuals, after three months of membership in the At-Large community, will receive a year of travel support to attend ICANN meetings and to feed Working Group input back to the ALAC. In an ideal world, a community-driven Nominating Committee would screen candidates, evaluate their qualifications, and make informed recommendations as to who should serve in this capacity. In the real world, positions that come with funded travel, which cannot be revoked for poor performance, and which are not awarded through elections, tend to have their value diluted by politics. The power that comes from awarding such a role becomes an aphrodisiac that erases responsibility and common sense. So it’s a good idea that ITEMS has proposed that rapporteurs also be appointed through random selection, even if it does seem unlikely that an At-Large participant, potentially with as little as three months knowledge of the ICANN ecosystem, will have a comprehensive understanding of the relevant policy issues. Then again, for those who believe that the current organisational structure of At-Large was nothing but a Trojan horse created in 2003 to marginalise the voices of non-commercial Internet users in the ICANN ecosystem, the potential lack of understanding of the issues that the rapporteurs may possess might be seen to be by design.
There’s one other area where the report suggests the community not be fully involved: in the allocation of the auction proceeds raised through the new gTLD programme. The authors suggest that these funds be raided and that At-Large “initiate discussions with the ICANN Board of Directors with a view [to] gaining access to these funds in support of the At-Large Community.” At present, there is a Cross-Community Working Group determining the methodology for disbursing funds, within which the ICANN Board has instructed participants that, “there should be [a] clear separation of those deciding the general direction [of how the auction proceeds be allocated], those choosing specific projects, and those receiving the funds.” Even if it had the discretion to do so, it would clearly undermine the bottom-up, multistakeholder model of governance for the Board to ignore the work of the Cross-Community Working Group and to unilaterally decide how to allocate these funds.
At-Large isn’t fit for purpose, and much of this report captures that. It is true that At-Large has neither support nor name recognition from the very community of Internet users it claims to represent and to speak knowledgeably on behalf of. But the fact that At-Large speaks only for a few and not the many is not accidental. Structurally it was never intended to be independent. It was established so that ICANN the organisation would never again have to suffer the pain of an elected Board director who would rock the boat. The eclectic collection of characters who were the leaders of At-Large in the beginning, and remain so today, are all too happy with the status quo. No one needed a review to tell them to be “more judicious in selecting the amount of advice [At-Large] seeks to offer” – they’ve been offering less and less advice year-on-year: ALAC responded to 56% of ICANN public comments in 2012, 54% in 2013, 53% in 2014, 39% in 2015, and 35% in 2016. And no one needed a review to get At-Large onboard with the recommendation that they receive funding to “participate in Internet governance / policy-related conferences / events (IGF, RIR ISOC) in their region.” What At-Large needed a review to tell them was that they were nothing but pawns in a bigger game of chess. They do not represent end-users, and their claims to do so while being hijacked and infiltrated by special interest groups harms the broader interests of Internet end-users. Let’s see if they listen, and take this feedback to heart.
Guest post by Ayden Férdeline
7 thoughts on “Re-Thinking ICANN’s At Large community”
Surely the same could be said of other constituencies too?
In a word, no. Not by a long shot. Clearly you’ve been disengaged from the ICANN environment for a while. The At Large, by the way, is not a “constituency” it is an Advisory Committee – which means that in ICANN’s governance it is a peer of the entire GNSO (which includes a thousand registries and registrars comprising the multi-billion $$ domain name industry, the trademark/IPR lobby, and two user stakeholder groups with 5 constituencies); the entire ASO (which includes 5 regional registries each with thousands of ISP, corporate and university networks as members); the entire country code names SO (which includes nearly 200 registries, many of which have their own user participation arrangements); and the GAC (which, for all its flaws, involves over 100 national governments). So in terms of size and significance of active membership, At Large is indeed about the size of a GNSO constituency (remember, there are 5 of them), but in terms of the budgetary resources expended on it by ICANN, and its voting power in the new “Empowered Community” that is supposed to keep ICANN accountable, it is disproportionately privileged. And why? It is not helpful to have this dismissive and faux-superior attitude towards any and all constituencies involved in ICANN; it glosses over and excuses some serious issues.
“The At Large, by the way, is not a “constituency” it is an Advisory Committee – which means that in ICANN’s governance it is a peer of the entire GNSO (which includes a thousand registries and registrars comprising the multi-billion $$ domain name industry, the trademark/IPR lobby, and two user stakeholder groups with 5 constituencies); the entire ASO (which includes 5 regional registries each with thousands of ISP, corporate and university networks as members); the entire country code names SO (which includes nearly 200 registries, many of which have their own user participation arrangements); and the GAC (which, for all its flaws, involves over 100 national governments).”
I appreciate Milton underscoring the fundamental and glaring difference in resources between At-Large and it’s peer constituencies that support a different ICANN support model.
Mea Culpa: Advisory Committee not constituency.
What a “fascinating” personal perspective and analysis, and what a pity that this was not able to be published before the recent ICANN58 Meeting, where this topic had an opportunity for some interactive discussion (and clarification) it could have contributed I guess someone to that work.
Whilst written in an authoritative genre, the author of this “thought bubble” it seems has not however, managed much of (if any) of a ‘fact check’, (independent or otherwise); but then one would, I assume, either need to have had any (I am unaware he has any at all) direct or even indirect (via perhaps even any of his own significant or effective contribution to GNSO Policy processes) experience in working with At-Large. Or failing that any solidly research based approach to this opinion piece…
So I am choosing to assume that this is a product of immature, relatively inexperienced, (or narrowly experienced) overly enthusiastic, yet certainly literate zeal from someone who only appears to know what they are prattelling about, however who seems to deeply care about end user input into GNSO (as an active NCUC Member with an emergent profile) if not the wider ICANN where ALAC and the At-Large Community is required to operate.
So at this stage and to bound the minor distraction this oped piece has provided me, I am going to also assume that whilst being clearly articulated is astoundingly myopic, yet as his view, may not be held in isolation, from this piece it seems clear one learning for ALAC/At-Large is that it needs to attend far more to reporting and informing the wider ICANN of what it actually does.
Well it is often said, “Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument” and it certainly seems, at least to my extensive knowledge and experience in ICANN, that is the case here.
good to now know better where you are actually ‘coming from’ Ayden… I look forward to our next chance to meet. Will you be attending the next ICANN Meeting again as a constituency travel supported person? If so we really should catch up.
BUT having now finished this entertaining little read, and armed with the knowledge of what the author really thinks of, as the value of contributions made by those of us with long history of service as volunteer voices in ICANN, acting in the best interests of Internet end users and individual registrants… I will return to making demonstrably effective contributions to the work of ICANN and stop just self endulgently writing about it.
Bye for now… Cheryl Langdon-Orr
The author and the ITEMs team for that matter fail to take a step back and note some fundamental differences between At-Large and other constituencies.
• Binding: If you look at any other group, their members are far more homogenous than that of At-Large. RSSAC and SSAC are bound together by technical expertise. GAC have a common interest in government authority. ASO, ccNSO, and GNSO are individually joined by an interest in a facet of names and numbering. At-Large quite simply is not. Pick two members of at random of any other group and look to their affiliation and it is fairly easy to determine why they are both actors. At-Large members are only connected by the fact of Internet use and an interest, some interest, in ICANN.
• Support: I acknowledge that some members of other groups participate on their own dime and on their own time. However, I would submit that the percentage of actors in other groups who do so is far smaller than that in At-Large. Many receive some kind of support from employers, host organizations, or governments. This is not a common condition in At-Large. Speaking for myself, as an academic I was able to secure funding to participate and devote professional development resources to attend and participate in person at ICANN events. Having left academia, I no longer have access to such resources and my live participation is a matter of good fortune.
• Knowledge: the majority of At-Large’s potential members do not know ICANN exists. While this situation exists to some degree in other constituencies, I suggest that At-Large’s issue is at least an order of magnitude greater. This will likely always be the case. Nonetheless there are always some who care and take the time and effort to try and make a difference.
• Access: Consider that At-Large is the group where an end user who does not speak a UN language can actually hope to have an influence. Language facility usually is related to education, another potentially high barrier to entry. Through sheer demographics, At-Large has the lowest education of any group if you look at our potential constituents. We all how difficult it can be to navigate ICANN. This is magnified for Internet users who lack the language and education to make sense of ICANN.
The support ICANN provides At-Large reflects the unique and fundamental differences and challenges of At Large. ICANN has wisely taken it upon itself to address these challenges. The ITEMs report does have interesting and useful ideas but having focused so closely on the organization, it has left unaddressed the broader question and challenge of accommodating and incorporating our large potential member base.
The same can also be said of the UN and most of its staff. And then again, you have this minority of individuals who believe that what they do is making a change (clo being one of them)… I received travel support once to attend a 3-day event in Brazil, and wasn’t allowed to speak to anyone for 72 hours (just to the staff at the hotel and at lunch). This is not an experience I want to renew. But as noted by John, Ayden and the report have some very valid points.
Comments are closed.