On 27 March 2013 16:02, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Except for the fact that I think we need both the info and the vote, not just one, I agree with much of what you wrote about communications, though I think stuff should go out from ALAC and from ICANN itself to all ALSes directly as well as using the fragile, single person - single point of failure, link of the ALS representative.
That, then, requires more work from ALAC or staff. Any suggestions how that's done? The ALS rep, one would hope (*), would know ALS's needs and perspectives better than those of ALAC or staff. The interest in informing oneself, however, involves feeling you have a
stake and a voice as well as the information.
The stake and voice already exist -- but they exist at the RALO level. And some RALOs enable ALSs to direct the vote of their reps. You can argue that this isn't sufficient (and I wouldn't agree), but it does exist. In some countries' voting systems, you vote directly for President. In other systems you don't, and you might vote for a party which may elect people you don't know based on proportional representation.. Yet others think they vote direct, but actually vote for members an "electoral collage" and *it* picks the President. Such extra levels of indirection do not necessarily make voters feel unengaged if the chain is sufficiently trusted. No one system is perfect or necessarily "best" engages participants. - Evan (*) and there need not be only one rep -- while each ALS has one vote in RALO matters, it can have multiple participants in discussions and calls and multiple people invoplved in WGs)