2010/1/10 Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu>

...

Any direct vote of ALSs will without doubt bring into question to what extent that actual members of the ALS are being involved in the process and the decision, or whether the vote is being decided on and cast by a single representative of that ALS.

...

Given the importance of this process, it is vital that whoever the electorate is that is selected, that there can be a high degree of confidence that they will vote based on the evidence and not based primarily on the origins of the candidates or the languages that they speak.

As an ALS representative, I personally feel that these statements are close to an insult. We are basically questioning the integrity of the ALS representative.

Patrick, As an ALS member myself who has been part of this process, I can tell you that this is not about issues of integrity. This is about the very real fact that it is often difficult to bring to ALS members the level of understanding that enables the grassroots to assist in ICANN policy making. Of course you are aware that it is the ALSs themselves that appoint two-thirds of the ALAC (and don't get me started on the process for that other third). In some regions the elected ALAC representatives *must* vote in accordance of the majority of ALSs; in these instances, the ALSs already directly control three of their region's four votes for Director. If ALSs do not have sufficently directed input into the process then that can be addressed at the RALO level. If you want, you may encourage your region to adopt a policy that binds its Chair and ALAC representatives to the will of the ALSs. So the ALSs would, in fact, be casting the bulk of their region's votes. By contrast, some regions choose to give some flexibility to their elected representatives. This provides a situation in which the elected representatives consult with their community and vote in accordance accordance with the consensus, while still having the leeway to alter their actions based on changing circumstances. I resent your inference that this approach must be abandoned where it is working well.

We miss here a tremendous opportunity to motivate ALSes and (clearly identified) individual members of NARALO by not giving them a direct input in the process.

All year, every year we have a challenge to motivate ALSs to be interested in the issues which need to be addressed. This must not be a process that only happens every three years during a director election. Frankly, I am disinterested in motivating ALSs (or anyone else) in the director election when they have shown zero interest in being educated in (let alone provide feedback to) the policy issues that such a Director will need to address once on the Board. I sympathize with the issues NARALO is facing to identify its individual

membership.

Your pity is unwelcome. Our MOU outlines the voting rights of members quite clearly. To date we have not had a formal register because everyone who has participated in our discussions -- whether ALS or not -- has been a part of our consensus driven process. Until the last vote for Board liaison we have been able to accomplish all regional decisions through a process at which everyone who participates -- whether ALAC member, ALS representative, ALS member or individual -- is part of the resulting decisions. In other words, we already give a "direct input in the process" to anyone who steps forward. This has served us well, but has problems in situations where explicit votes are required. In response, NARALO will be working to implement an official register of individual RALO members in anticipation of a vote for Director. In our case, this is a matter of mechanics more than an "issue" we must face.

However, I am not sure that ALSes in other regions are to be victims of that situation.

Victims? If anything, the ALAC Review (and others) have often expressed the wish that more RALOs would incorporate a method for accommodating the needs individual users to participate in the At-Large Community. It is sad that you consider us "victims" of the choice to empower individuals.

As a compromise, I would suggest the all ALSes outside North America be granted an individual vote. For North America, the RALO would get all the votes for the region.

Beyond the inherent unfairness of this suggested process, it is inadvisable on many other levels, not the least of which would be the need to weight ALSs votes in order to maintain a balance between regions (which is, in effect, what the current White Paper proposal will do automatically). - Evan