Well said, Darlene +1 Dev Anand Teelucksingh On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
I agree with both Olivier and Evan. ;)
One thing that I think is *super* important is to educate the RALOs in:
1) What their elected ALAC rep is supposed to be doing. If they know this from the beginning, they may make different choices when electing their ALAC rep. Since this is an elected position that people actually campaign for, the ideals need to be set at the beginning so that those that are running for the position know what is expected of them and the region knows where to set their expectations.
2) Being kept informed about how their ALAC rep is actually performing. The members of the region, right now, have no idea if their ALAC rep is showing up to meetings or giving any kind of substantive input while at these meetings.
Right now, the RALOs are powerless to remove an elected ALAC rep that is non-performing because they have no idea HOW they are performing. This problem needs to be addressed as soon as possible, IMHO. I'm tired of seeing just a few ALAC members over and over again on these lists shouldering all of the work when I know that there are 10 elected reps out there. That also leaves the matter of the NomCom reps. They need to be made accountable too but I'm just not sure how.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:40 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: Carlton Samuels; lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ALAC EXCOM; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update
On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not accountable.
I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, accountable to who?
If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle this issue through a recall or other similar measure.
If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different but a mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC appointee is not accountable to ALAC or the region, however it reflects badly on the NomCom and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC members are chosen and allowed to under-serve for an entire two-year term.
What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment over its own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their viewpoint, and that viewpoint is that only a small number of issues matter, this is indeed the RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no right to engage in top-down second-guessing. Education and persuasion, certainly, but not sanctions.
I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but also RALO chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I have long advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in favour of staff's providing attendance and other performance metrics that allow a RALO to act appropriately on factual inputs. But I am very much against any scheme that has ALAC members being accountable to other ALAC members.
It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to the public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone propagate that mistake within our own bounds.
But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate
stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later.
I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's simply that the wording in the report right now could easily be interpreted by a casual reader to infer that we have already had the discussion, agreed on a regime of sanctions, and are simply discussing appropriate implementation going forward. WE know the debate is incomplete, but that is not what the report indicates.
- Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en