At 1:08 AM -0400 4/23/09, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I was asked to put together a draft of comments on the Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group. Following discussions with a number of ALAC members, and factoring in discussions in Mexico City, I have put together a short reply. I think it reflects all that I heard. It is now posted on the Wiki attached to the agenda for the meeting next week (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_alac_review_comment_april_2009). It is also appended here for your convenience.
The comment period has been extended until April 30th, so we will need to approve whatever we submit at the meeting next week (or in the two days following the meeting, which is not practical).
So if you disagree with what is here, or feel that something important is omitted, please speak up.
Alan
Alan, sorry to be so late with comments. The ALAC review report suggests a significant increase in work for the At Large, whether ALAC, RALOs (and staff.) If we are to have resources to implement these recommendations, and I think we agree with almost all, then there needs to be something in the budget, correct? So I suggest we ask the WG to tell the board resources should be made available. And as a way to ensure that resources are allocated appropriately, a couple of members of the WG continue to provide some form of oversight (basically work with ALAC and staff.) Two new paragraphs below describing this under a new sub heading "implementation" About board seats. Think we need to note that if we are to have an ALAC board member take their seat at the end of the AGM of 2009, we are going to need to work with the NomCom to make sure we don't inadvertently break the not more than 5 from one region rule. And rather than doing what the WG suggests: seat one full board member in 2009, lose the liaison after the 2099 AGM and then seat and second full board member in 2010, why not recommend similar to Vanda's suggestion that we seat one in 2009 and *keep* the liaison. The liaison is then replaced by a full board member in 2010. (personally, I don't think we've time to get things organized in 4 or 5 months, but I am a bit cynical!) On page 22 of the report, about recommendation 17 which is "ALAC should develop a clearly defined process for the engagement of the At-Large community in developing policy positions", the WG says refer to section 3.2.2.1 which is about how the At-Large community's views are considered not how they are developed. We should ask for clarification (I think Westlake's recommendation 17 important.) Suggested additional text for our comment on the review: Implementation While we agree with many of the WG's comments and recommendations, we also consider them to be a significant expansion of the ALAC's functions and responsibilities and stress that if they are to be achieved then they must be adequately resourced, and that those resources must be provided in a timely manner. We ask the WG to recommend to the board that the FY2010 budget and operating and strategic plan take the recommendations of the WG into consideration so they can be implemented immediately and not need to wait until the next budget and/or planning cycle. Additional financial and other resources will be necessary to implement all the WG's recommendations, inter alia, from increased outreach in all regions, particularly to consumer and other organizations currently under represented in ICANN, the education of existing and new At Large Structures, increased participation in all policy processes, the ability and means to seat board members, etc. To this end we invite the WG to continue to monitor how its recommendations are implemented, and for some designated members of the WG to work with the ALAC, At Large and staff to ensure that resources are available in a timely and appropriate manner. (END) Thanks, Adam
=======================
ALAC Comments on Final Draft Report of the ALAC Review Working Group
The ALAC is generally pleased with and supportive of the draft report. We are particularly pleased that the Working Group (WG) understood and acknowledged that the ALAC has a role far wider than just gTLDs a position that has not been well understood during the entire GNSO restructuring effort.
This support notwithstanding, we do have a few specific comments.
Planning: There is no doubt that the ALAC must be more effective in planning, and that this planning should be linked to the ICANN Strategic and Operational Plans. However, we caution the WG not to push this integration too far. Just as with the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, the main ALAC focus must be on policy, and much of this is going to be linked to varying issues-of-the-day. There is no point in the ALAC spending much of its valuable time on planning if there is no time left to actually do anything.
Finances: We support the tying activities and their results to their costs. Only through mechanisms such as that can we aim for cost-effective activities and structures. We look forward to being in a position to work with ICANN staff on implementing this.
Board Seats: While we fully support the concept of replacing the current ALAC Liaison with two voting Board seats, we must make it clear that the mechanism by which these Board members are chosen will be critical to success. Todays Board members do not represent the organizations that select them, but they are selected by those organizations because of a belief that the Supporting Organization and the prospective Board member share a world view of things. While the model used by the todays Supporting Organizations may not the be one that is suitable for At-Large, it will be essential for the ALAC to be sufficiently engaged in the process so as to ensure good ongoing communications between the ALAC and the Board.
Skills and Competencies: Although not discussed directly in the report, one area that needs to be addressed is that of ALAC skills and competencies. Since the majority of ALAC members are chosen by RALOs to best meet their needs, the ALAC has minimal control over the skills they have. As a result, we are often lacking the skills that we need. Examples include skills and competencies associated with planning; running a meeting; and running a working group. Any suggestion from the WG on structural or other changes needed to address this problem would be welcome. _______________________________________________ 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