I guess we shall turn this into an opportunity in the future. We will have a 6 months " experience?" Period for the first elected board vote members from ALAC. Let choose a very very good profile to this position to replace the liaison. And this person, if good, will help to make room for the future add of a liaison again. Being a Liaison I feel very easy to defend openly ALAC positions which a voted will not, but can if want and have the capacity , to defend ALAC positions as its own, just because this person will really believe the user's interest is a key value in ICANN past, present and its future. Best Vanda Scartezini from BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: "SAMUELS,Carlton A" <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> Sender: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:13:39 To: Evan Leibovitch<evan@telly.org>; ICANN ALAC list<alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Dealing with the loss or a Board liaison Evan: I too took particular note and stored Dennis Jenning's statement and was beginning to think how it could be converted into an actionable initiative. Your thinking ...that the At-Large embed itself directly in the policy development process....appeals to me. Let's take the stick...or carrot....and work it thru our groups. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 5:47 AM To: ICANN ALAC list Subject: [ALAC] Dealing with the loss or a Board liaison 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 _______________________________________________ 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