Evan, Hi. Cutting a couple of lines from your comment:
to say that not having a liaison significantly *impairs* our ability to provide advice; to assert that it *eliminates* our ability to provide advice is, IMO, ill-advised.
You are correct. I hope we'll continue to press from the dual liaison/voting director based on your words. Adam At 1:16 AM +0200 6/25/10, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi Adam,
On 24 June 2010 18:06, Adam Peake <<mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp>ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
Evan, much as I like your idea, I'd prefer we continue to protest the loss of the liaison role while also working on something that may or may not happen in the future.
I don't have a problem with this; the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. We should be trying to maintain a liaison, while at the same time realizing that we ought to be finding some innovative alternate methods of getting our message across. It is not coincidental that I was quoting two board members, one of whom is the Vice-Chair. While I will encourage our attempts to maintain an active liaison, let us be reminded that the Board doesn't have a good record at reversing its decisions.
I propose the following as text the ALAC should submit to the board:
We are pleased to see the progress being made to seat a voting Director to represent the At Large community of global Internet users on the ICANN board. We look forward to providing advice on the amended bylaws when they are made available for public comment.
However, we again emphasize that a voting director representing the At-Large Community while an extremely important and welcome development for global Internet users, is not a replacement for the ALAC board liaison position. ALAC is an Advisory Committee, to not have a liaison would prevent ALAC from providing advice in an effective, efficient, transparent and accountable manner.
David Jennings' comments at the EURALO Showcase indicate a clear disagreement with this point of view, an insistence that alternative methods exist and a challenge to us to develop them.
Making a direct assertion that "not having a liaison prevents us from providing advice" is both factually incorrect and indicative of a failure of imagination; I would not recommend making such a public statement. It is accurate (and IMO sufficient) to say that not having a liaison significantly *impairs* our ability to provide advice; to assert that it *eliminates* our ability to provide advice is, IMO, ill-advised.
- Evan