Evan, et.al. So much of our ALAC - At-Large Improvements implementation is aimed as specifically ensuring or increasing the ability of our ALSes to be more effective and actively involved in getting specific individual and At-Large input into WG's and PDP's; With the final drafting of the GNSO Operating Guidelines for WG's soon to be accepted and this design being a new open and welcoming mechanism that, of course is a strong and robust way of enduring that consensus is built with our voice and concerns / issues being woven into the processes and that is the main focus that I would like to be building our At-Large 'reputation' and influence with at this stage, noting specifically the options clearly defining how sector or minority reports are to be managed; However in keeping with what I have heard in a few fora both this week and in recent times (and based on some Australian Telecommunications Policy / Regulation experience) There are some options in use that we could explore, as we discuss possibilities on this issue (of "sign off"), and I'm happy to encourage that discussion for the ALAC & Regional Leadership and most importantly the newly formed (in our meeting this morning) Consumer Interests WG in concert with the wider cross constituency work into 'Development of a Consumer Agenda for ICANN', that is just beginning to get right onto... Once we recover from this week of course ;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 24 June 2010 20:46, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Desspite our serious protest, it appears that At-Large will be transitioning from a liaison to the Board to electing (er, *selecting*) a member of the Board (who will then be organizationally independant of At-Large).
Given this loss of direct influence, I offer this comment:
At yesterday's EURALO Showcase, Board member Dennis Jennings clearly stated that ALAC ought to have a stronger role as part of ICANN's policy development process. I agree. We should consider proposing to the SIC that At-Large oversight / signoff be a required "check mark" in all ICANN policy development (such as GNSO PDPs). (Think of this the way that a building plan being proposed in a city has to have sign-off approval by engineering, environmental assessment, public works, etc). There may be some fears that this constitutes a potential ALAC veto of GNSO policy -- while I wouild like that personally, that may be too much to ask. However, we should have the right to send back for revision, parts of policy which we perceive to be clearly against the public interest.
Later at the same event, Board member Jean-Jacques Subrenat acknowledged that At-Large tasks and responsibilities are growing faster than its staff support, and risks falling behind through no fault of its own.
If these comments are sincere -- and I have no reason to believe they are not -- then we have an opportunity to direct our evolving role, rather than to allow others to evolve it for us,.
-- - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac