<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Wolfgang & Ayden,<br>
<br>
I am in agreement with the need for a full review and new approach
here, but correct me if I am wrong on a minor point. Most of the
time, and certainly I have heard this from the long-haul old
timers in NCSG, the turn of phrase used by many is not to say "we
represent Internet users", but to say "we represent <i>the
interests of</i> Internet users".I sense a minor representation
disclaimer in the phrase "<i>the interests of</i>", but I too
would like to see a broader, deeper and more robust <i>representation
by</i> civil society, especially one not distracted by bouts of
in-fighting over...what of substance?.... I agree that a skinny
civil society leg on the ICANN multistakeholder edifice is not
enough. <br>
<br>
Sam L. <br>
<br>
On 12/10/2016 6:37 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B182@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
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](<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline">http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline</a>)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>