I agree that having a Liaison in addition to voting member(s) would be optimal, but I do not see this being viewed as acceptable. The phrase "having your cake and eating it" comes to mind. And if it were a valid concept for us, it would apply to the SO as well. Given that there is pressure to shrink the size of the Board, I don't think that it is a likely scenario. As long as we can find a mechanism where the At-Large Board member(s) share values with the ALAC, I think it puts us on an equal footing with the rest of ICANN, and that is about as much as we can expect. Alan At 23/04/2009 06:27 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
I believe your comments represents the general impression about the report I also heard around. I would like to express my point I have already expressed early: while I am very supportive on having two votes members at the board it is very important to remember that voting member does not represent ALAC positions, from my point of view the best equation would be 1 vote and 1 non vote members Best to all
Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:09 AM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] ALAC comments on the ALAC Review Draft Report
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
=======================
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. Today's 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 today's 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