Thanks for this work. I approve of the changes and believe they do improve clarity. I have one question (and apologize for the tardiness, I haven't really been contributing much): *11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC Members are deemed to have been present* I wonder if this may be problematic, in cases where an online vote (nominally now done by BigPulse) is held, but does not have many participants. If a BigPulse vote is held but does not have at least a quorum's worth of votes, does it still count? I would suggest choosing either of two paths: either * 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC Members are deemed to have been present. Members who do not participate in the vote will be deemed to have abstained. * or * 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, at least 50% of sitting ALAC members must record a vote in order for the result to be a valid decision* My preference is for the second choice but I can live with either. - Evan On 25 March 2013 03:52, Yaovi Atohoun <yaovito@yahoo.fr> wrote:

Dear Alan,

Thank you again for the hard work.

A/ comments/questions

1) Does "recall" of an ALT member means that this member is no more member of ALT but remains an ALAC member? 2) For BCEC it is mentioned: A new BCEC will be convened for each Board Seat Selection Process in 19.3. Please don't we need such precision for BMSPC too?

B/ Comment

1) I would prefer to see also included in 12.1.15 the removal of an ALAC member. I note that 21.2 is saying "should a vote be necessary ......"

C/ One thought

Could we have a situation where a chair decide to become a regular ALT or ALAC member in a situation where he thinks that he could not more carry the work load?

Thank you Yaovi

________________________________ De : Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> À : ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé le : Lundi 25 mars 2013 6h23 Objet : [ALAC] Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC meeting

Attached please find the Draft Rules of Procedure for discussion at the 26 March 2013 ALAC meeting. Also attached is a redline version showing most of the changes from the RoP discussed at the 19 March 2013 meeting.

In addition to the changes detailed below, there are two sets of changes what do not show in the redline:

- A number of corrections to cross-references within the document. - The movement of what was "10.3 Meeting Rules" to "10. Rules of the ALAC". This change was not shown in the redline version since the move caused all of the following paragraph numbers to be changed, making the document quite confusing.

Changes showing in the redline version:

1. Clarifying the status of individual members within At-large. 1.2 clarification of rules used. 2. Add definition of Super-majority and capitalize it where used within the document. 5.2 and other places: Define AAGM on first usage, and us it instead of AGM within the document (some occurrences previously said AGM). 5.6 Made reference to privileges associated only with the "ALAC Chair" clearer. 5.13 Replaced reference to Ombudsman with an alternative phrase taken from the ICANN Bylaws. 5.14 Added condition that only those who have at least one other ALAC member supporting them can be named Chair. 10.1 The section on rules was moved because it did not apply only to meetings. The addition of "or activities" acknowledges this. 11.4.2 Add a word that had inadvertently been omitted. 11.4.4 Removal of a redundant phrase. 11.2.3 Addition of rule to allow more stringent rules for motion adoption.

The draft RoP can also be found at https://community.icann.org/x/VoYi.

Alan

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

On 25 March 2013 15:03, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:

Evan:

11.4.2 establishes quorum by indicating that "...all members are deemed to have been present". If a member does not want to participate in the electronic vote, his/her vote will not have any balance in the final result. For whatever reason people just do not vote sometimes.

Well, if a Member is deemed to be present their "non vote" still needs to be counted in a final tally. If it's to be counted as an abstention that needs to be made explicity (ie, my first option). Preferably, a poll that cannot attract a majority of ALAC members to cast a vote -- even an explicit abstention -- should IMO not be considered any more valid than an in-person show of hands in which a majority of Members are out of the room. It looks awful as a matter of acccountability, and is subject to manipulation. Cheers, - Evan

-ed

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

...

Thanks for this work. I approve of the changes and believe they do improve clarity.

I have one question (and apologize for the tardiness, I haven't really been contributing much):

*11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC Members are deemed to have been present*

I wonder if this may be problematic, in cases where an online vote (nominally now done by BigPulse) is held, but does not have many participants. If a BigPulse vote is held but does not have at least a quorum's worth of votes, does it still count?

I would suggest choosing either of two paths:

either

* 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC

Members are deemed to have been present. Members who do not participate in the vote will be deemed to have abstained. *

or

* 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, at least

50% of sitting ALAC members must record a vote in order for the result to be a valid decision*

My preference is for the second choice but I can live with either.

- Evan

On 25 March 2013 03:52, Yaovi Atohoun <yaovito@yahoo.fr> wrote:

...

Dear Alan,

Thank you again for the hard work.

A/ comments/questions

1) Does "recall" of an ALT member means that this member is no more member of ALT but remains an ALAC member? 2) For BCEC it is mentioned: A new BCEC will be convened for each Board Seat Selection Process in 19.3. Please don't we need such precision for BMSPC too?

B/ Comment

1) I would prefer to see also included in 12.1.15 the removal of an

ALAC

...

member. I note that 21.2 is saying "should a vote be necessary ......"

C/ One thought

Could we have a situation where a chair decide to become a regular ALT or ALAC member in a situation where he thinks that he could not more carry the work load?

Thank you Yaovi

________________________________ De : Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> À : ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé le : Lundi 25 mars 2013 6h23 Objet : [ALAC] Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC meeting

Attached please find the Draft Rules of Procedure for discussion at the 26 March 2013 ALAC meeting. Also attached is a redline version showing most of the changes from the RoP discussed at the 19 March 2013 meeting.

In addition to the changes detailed below, there are two sets of changes what do not show in the redline:

- A number of corrections to cross-references within the document. - The movement of what was "10.3 Meeting Rules" to "10. Rules of the ALAC". This change was not shown in the redline version since the move caused all of the following paragraph numbers to be changed, making the document quite confusing.

Changes showing in the redline version:

1. Clarifying the status of individual members within At-large. 1.2 clarification of rules used. 2. Add definition of Super-majority and capitalize it where used within the document. 5.2 and other places: Define AAGM on first usage, and us it instead of AGM within the document (some occurrences previously said AGM). 5.6 Made reference to privileges associated only with the "ALAC Chair" clearer. 5.13 Replaced reference to Ombudsman with an alternative phrase taken from the ICANN Bylaws. 5.14 Added condition that only those who have at least one other ALAC member supporting them can be named Chair. 10.1 The section on rules was moved because it did not apply only to meetings. The addition of "or activities" acknowledges this. 11.4.2 Add a word that had inadvertently been omitted. 11.4.4 Removal of a redundant phrase. 11.2.3 Addition of rule to allow more stringent rules for motion adoption.

The draft RoP can also be found at https://community.icann.org/x/VoYi.

Alan

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

...

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

...

-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

All good points from my POV and YES the power to give 'delegated authority' is important for ALAC to have ability to allocate as needs be over to the ALT *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr On 26 March 2013 13:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Thanks Olivier. See below.

At 25/03/2013 08:05 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

...

Dear Alan,

One suggestion, reading the following paragraph:

"6.2 The ALT shall have no other explicit responsibilities and is not empowered to make substantive decisions on the part of the ALAC unless urgency or confidentiality precludes consulting the ALAC. In such a case, the decision needs to be ratified with the ALAC as soon as practical."

--> With reference to 6.2, shouldn't we also allow the ALAC to explicitly give certain tasks to the ALT if it desires?

Good point, and in fact, the ALAC recently did exactly that in requesting that the current ExCom take on the responsibility of selecting/forwarding names for the new Meeting Strategy Working Group.

I would suggesting adding a new paragraph after 6.2 (to be numbered 6.3 and pushing the rest of 6.x down)

Paragraph 6.2 notwithstanding, the ALAC may, from time to time, assign specific responsibilities or tasks to the ExCom.

...

A couple of corrections:

3.3.4.5 RALO's --> RALO

That looked like a good correction until I checked the source, the Bylaws. And what we have is verbatim what is there. Actually either version is rather poor grammar when you replace RALO with what it stands for:

"... in each Regional At-Large Organisation's Region" "... in each Regional At-Large Organisation Region"

It's sort of a circular reference. It should just be "... in each ICANN region"

I suggest we leave the Bylaw words intact, bad grammar and all.

...

12.2.1 - the term "delegates" is not used anymore. Replace with "member" ?

Good catch! I thought we had eradicated all of those "delegate". I guess the abstention rules were sufficiently complex that I just cut/paste and didn't notice it. "deletages" should be replaced by "ALAC Members".

Alan

...

Thanks,

Olivier

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

On 26 March 2013 07:25, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

I think it is interesting to note how willing ALAC seems to transfer decisions to ever smaller groups while remaining reluctant to give the ALSes and members any role in decision making.

In this particular process, what you ask is out of scope. Each RALO has its own RoP to address not only how the ALSs (and individual members, as appropriate) may participate, but whether or not the ALSs may direct the choices of their elected representatives on issues that come to ALAC votes. It ensures regional balance and attempts to avoid capture, in much the same way that the GNSO makes decisions using a carefully-designed Council rather than enabling every individual domain reseller, law firm and vested interest to have individual votes.

When it is a matter of allowing voting rights to the ALSes, the subject is first buried and then will allowed a a brief discussion at a meeting after the new procedures have been voted on by ALAC. When it comes to changes like giving the ALT more decision making ability, it is easily done.

The current RoP is currently on revision 71, and is at the tail end of a very long process going back at least a year. I myself am tossing in a suggestion now at a very late date, not having been a member of the WG (though of course I could have participated directly and more deeply had I chose to). Having been an early critic of the excom, I am personally uncomfortable with the Executive/ALT having any expanded authority. I agree with components of the RoP that demand that any decisions that must be made by an executive for reasons of haste *must* be ratified -- and may be potentially undone -- by the full ALAC as soon as possible. - Evan

For the record, the proposed change gives NO new rights to the ALT. It ALLOWS the ALAC to do so if it chooses. Or not if that is the ALAC inclination. Alan At 26/03/2013 09:59 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

Some things, expanded voting rights and bottom-up processes, were defined out of scope from day 0. Some things, expanding the power of ever smaller groups at ICANN, are always in scope. And these days seem all the rage.

I wish you the best of luck in stopping that second trend.

avri

On 26 Mar 2013, at 09:39, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

On 26 March 2013 07:25, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

I think it is interesting to note how willing ALAC seems to transfer decisions to ever smaller groups while remaining reluctant to give the ALSes and members any role in decision making.

In this particular process, what you ask is out of scope. Each RALO has its own RoP to address not only how the ALSs (and individual members, as appropriate) may participate, but whether or not the ALSs may direct the choices of their elected representatives on issues that come to ALAC votes.

It ensures regional balance and attempts to avoid capture, in much the same way that the GNSO makes decisions using a carefully-designed Council rather than enabling every individual domain reseller, law firm and vested interest to have individual votes.

When it is a matter of allowing voting rights to the ALSes, the subject is first buried and then will allowed a a brief discussion at a meeting after the new procedures have been voted on by ALAC. When it comes to changes like giving the ALT more decision making ability, it is easily done.

The current RoP is currently on revision 71, and is at the tail end of a very long process going back at least a year. I myself am tossing in a suggestion now at a very late date, not having been a member of the WG (though of course I could have participated directly and more deeply had I chose to).

Having been an early critic of the excom, I am personally uncomfortable with the Executive/ALT having any expanded authority. I agree with components of the RoP that demand that any decisions that must be made by an executive for reasons of haste *must* be ratified -- and may be potentially undone -- by the full ALAC as soon as possible.

- Evan

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

On 26/03/2013 16:42, Avri Doria wrote:

Almost the same thing. And once the new authority is given, good luck taking it back.

I think that this authority given to the ExCom would be on specific tasks. I just cannot imagine the ALAC as a whole letting the ExCom run the show altogether. As a Chair, I'd be unhappy to see this happen. I despair when statements go out with little input from At-Large members. I know that we often assume that no input (silence) is an agreement, but I'd rather see input from a wide range of people around the world - and I cannot do this alone - and thus the ALAC requires the help of its RALOs, with active involvement from the RALOs. This emphasis on the RALOs increasing communication and reaching out to the edges is one of the main tasks we now have on our plate. Kind regards, Olivier

I despair when I see charges of "ALS marginalisation" made. Eduardo has said enough on how ALS determine the ALAC's composition...and, its fitness for purpose. What is distressing is with regard to the real work, as in policy discussions and drafting policy statements. It is the same set that shows up, with only a few reps work anything near hard at these tasks. Most don't show up at all. Sure, a tribe with too many chiefs and not enough indians is doomed. So to sustain ALAC we need more indians. And like hell you get 'em to come to the fight! No, don't ask me to work harder to get someone to do what they promised. I have long accepted the role underachievement plays in sustaining volunteer organisations. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:

On 26/03/2013 16:42, Avri Doria wrote:

...

Almost the same thing. And once the new authority is given, good luck taking it back.

I think that this authority given to the ExCom would be on specific tasks. I just cannot imagine the ALAC as a whole letting the ExCom run the show altogether. As a Chair, I'd be unhappy to see this happen. I despair when statements go out with little input from At-Large members. I know that we often assume that no input (silence) is an agreement, but I'd rather see input from a wide range of people around the world - and I cannot do this alone - and thus the ALAC requires the help of its RALOs, with active involvement from the RALOs.

This emphasis on the RALOs increasing communication and reaching out to the edges is one of the main tasks we now have on our plate.

Kind regards,

Olivier

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

Dear Avri, thanks for your kind reply. For a moment, I was agreeing with you that we should do more to engage ALSes. And then, I realised we differed in view entirely. On 27/03/2013 04:37, Avri Doria wrote:

So I don't charge anyone with marginalisation. Rather I argue that if we want them to come, we have to make a place for them and we have to let them know.

Totally agree! I gather that this would mean capacity building, helping our ALSes understand the issues, accompanying the ALS representatives to take part in working groups; putting together leadership programmes to help them go up the ladder of responsibility; preparing them for roles on the ALAC; helping our ALSes explain the issues to their communities; enabling and supporting our ALSes to participate at other conferences to carry the good word of At-Large. etc. Yes! Let's proactively engage our ALSes!

I think many of us are comfortable with the status quo we find ourselves in and want to preserve it, fearing that anything we do might break what we have. It is natural, it is the way people are.

I'm afraid I disagree. At-Large is evolving and the ALAC too! We are taking on new roles. The next phase is to strengthen the RALOs and build them so as to scale them up!

But if we want to achieve the ICANN leadership that an idea like the At-large deserves, I beleive we have to change our ways. For me, that starts with giving the ALSes respect and among other things giving them a vote.

RALOs already have votes to select their ALAC members.

Yes, it is only once every three years, and it may seem more symbolic than practical. But the symbolism of voting for someone on the Board is important and I beleive would inspire some to pay greater attention and few more serve ICANN as most of you do.

This would send us back to pre-2002. ICANN decided to scrap direct elections of Board Directors. In my view, attaching a possibility for direct elections to the Board could result in exactly the opposite than having ALSes take more part in At-Large work. It would result in the application of ALSes whose only interest is the direct Board elections. With very loose criteria for ALS applications (and I *like* the fact that any organization is allowed to join if they fit in the criteria), there will likely be a lot of ALSes that will join only for the elections. So the answer will then be to tighten the criteria and that will result exactly in the *opposite* than what we want since it will turn the At-Large community into an elitist community with high barriers to entry. I personally consider that any proposal for direct Board elections effectively disenfranchises the 15 member ALAC, 10 of whom are chosen directly by the RALOs. It translates to not having the trust in people the RALOs have selected to act on their behalf. It kills the actual tiered structure of At-Large and the ALAC and renders it completely unscaleable. If ALSes are to vote for a Board director directly, why keep the ALAC at all? Why not let interested ALS representatives run At-Large in a direct way? Do I need to remind you of the dark, endless battles of the DNSO? These endless, thoughtless, ego-fuelled, circular arguments went on for so long that they kept me from wanting to touch any kind of ICANN responsibility. They prevents At-Large from doing any kind of meaningful work. As in zero real work. None. Do you remember this: http://members.icann.org/nominees.html I remember discussing this recipe for failure with many of my European colleagues at the time. The whole election ended up being filled with intrigue, hatred, revenge, bigotry and manipulation. I just can't believe you see this with rose tinted glasses... But these are my personal thoughts. As ALAC Chair, I'll go with whatever the ALAC will choose to do but I hope my colleagues will refuse to dismantle, brick by brick, the great structure that we have built over the years. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

On 27 Mar 2013, at 10:49, Carlton Samuels wrote:

Avri: If your argument is that a voting event has a history of high participation then no contest. For in my region our fellas turn out to vote. So to your own objective of 'direct' suffrage for Board directorship its a perfect solution.

However, when you offer the abstraction that voting is in itself evidence of ALS enthusiasm for the ICANN policy development enterprise, that would be a stretch bordering on the giddy.

Not my point. My point is that voting is an essential ingredient to large scale enthusiasm and participation. It is necessary, but not sufficient.

For after several rounds of voting events to choose our own leaders, the evidence of sustained enthusiasm for the follow-on nitty gritty policy work you more than most immerse yourself into is against you. And I have 6 years of evidence for which there is no successful contradiction.

Why don't representatives show up and participate? The plain answer is always the best one; they're not interested. I start from some facts.....and a philosophical posture. I abhor this default position of patronage so I will not patronize. To my certain knowledge there is not a single mouth breather or half wit among ALS representatives; all are likely in the top 2% of of their educated populations. They are yet sentient beings. They know where they can keep track of what's happening. They know when something comes up that would interest and attract their active intervention. They are aware of the several intervention models; telecons, lists, WGs etc. etc. The only rational explanation of non-involvement left open to me is labeled 'no interest'.

I am not one of the ALAS representive, so I cannot speak for their interest level. Or the reasons. One of the things I know as an ALS member of 2 ALS, is we see precious little of ICANN. If I was only an ALS member, I might not know ICANN existed to be interested in. (i would put this in the fact category) So in addition to what I see as a necessary ingredient - needing to vote. Another necessary ingredient is keeping them informed and using that as the hook to get them interested. (i would put this in the we haven't tried it so I hope it will work category). Are these two sufficient, who knows. But I have little doubt that they are necessary. avri

I stand to be corrected on the facts.

- Carlton

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. The interest in informing oneself, however, involves feeling you have a stake and a voice as well as the information. I see a vote as a necessary catalyst to make this work. And as long as it is denied until later, or until they deserve it, or until the hens come home to roost, we will not achieve the level of participation we need. avri --- I have been told that sometimes things I write are hard to understand because i escape into metaphor and expression way too much. So I am trying to be clear while not stifling myself and am including glossary at the bottom of some of my international email single pont of failure - a system architecture expression meaning that the system fails is a single elements is not working. It is a principle that are argues for redundant systems. hens come home to roost - an expression that means you wait to do something until it causes a real problem. the tendency of people to wait to fix something until it is too late to fix it. On 27 Mar 2013, at 15:36, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

On 27 March 2013 14:33, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

...

One of the things I know as an ALS member of 2 ALS, is we see precious little of ICANN. If I was only an ALS member, I might not know ICANN existed to be interested in. (i would put this in the fact category)

You're right in that respect. The interface between ALS and everything else above is currently 100% dependent upon the skill and inclination of each ALS's ICANN rep to operate as a bi-directional conduit. Awareness on issues flows down, opinions and direction flow up.

That is how it's supposed to work. But it doesn't, and many factors are at play. • Limited volunteer cycles -- with all there is to ingest and process by ALS reps, how many have the ability, and the comfort level, to explain the issues to others?

• The fact that ALS rep positions may themselves be based on political choices and not who is the best communicator

• Limited staff resources -- so much is being expended in getting *some* kind of At-Large-centric view of ICANN issues that it is by necessarily focused on the top of the pyramid. Once upon a time each region had its own guardian staff member focused on ALS development-- Jacob Malthouse served Canada and the Caribbean -- but that was gone soon after the formal creation of the RALOs.

Greater suffrage will not fix this and is not a necessary pre-requisite of what is needed. It will lead to uninformed, apathetic voices that will be driven by resume-building rather than the kind of informed bottom-up direction you want. Just look how people get so involved over elections in the current systems in the same way that they DON'T get involved themselves on issues. Either they really trust their reps, or they just can't be bothered to be activist beyond punting the job to someone else. And there is a steady supply of "someone else", though the willingness of would-be leaders to serve once selected is ... erratic. Such is the reality that flies in the face of the theory. I have often argued -- and still believe -- is that an Executive Committee would be absolutely irrelevant if every ALAC member was sharing enough of the workload.

What the current structure guarantees is at least a regional balance -- that no one region can go on a "membership"-signup spree in order to impose its views on the rest of the world. As it is I am concerned that there are commercial interests, TLD applicants and others in at large who could easily game its processes were decision making just a body count. A one-vote-per-ALS puts that important balance at substantial risk; the political equivalence of the regions is a wise and important component core concept of ICANN AT-Large, and the current Director voting preserves that balance.

Having said this, Olivier is right that the At-Large infrastructure is mature and self-confident enough that it is ready for (and badly in need of) heightened attention on ALS improvement and empowerment. So where do we start?

When I first got involved in ICANN -- early enough that the initial requests were made of Nick, Heidi's predecessor -- my personal obsession was for the production of a series of "ICANN Policy Briefs", a set of documents that attempt to explain complex issues in simple language, while adding the At-Large perspective. In the time since, quite a few of these documents have been created and translated. How many ALS reps do you figure ever bother to distribute them amongst their membership, even to provide a bare minimum of understanding of the issues? Sure, many of the briefs are dated, but the core concepts are still relevant (ie, it is necessary to know what WHOIS is before delving into the accountability-versus-privacy debates).

These documents need a healthy refresh, after which they should be required reading at very least, for each ALS rep and preferably distributed widely within each ALS. Sometimes it's called outreach, sometimes it's called capacity building, sometimes it's called something else. But we can't have an effective At-Large without an informed at-large. And creating an informed end-user community -- not giving everyone a vote -- is what the ICANN bylaws mandate for ALAC.

My own first two priorities are • having a better informed At-Large, a pre-requisite to having a better engaged at-large

• advocating harder that each RALO have a way to fully engage individuals who aren't part of ALSs. Let's talk about changing voting systems, if necessary, after attacking that.

- Evan

See, now that you say it, it highlights the problem with the direct suffrage model you prefer. So we cannot get ALS representatives - them voted by individual ALS members who know them best, mind you - to follow thru on their commitments to represent. Whatever we think that 'represent' means in context. The solution you proffer might just be it; along the lines of 'bypass them layabout suckers and speak to the laity directly'. Ok. So its one-person-in-ALS-one-vote; everybody gets a vote. How do we count the votes? Do we still go with the normalised vote that exist today - meaning balanced for all regions - or a weighted vote? And if we choose a weighted vote approach, what is your favoured mechanism? Will the weight be calculated by estimated Internet user per region? How about interest in Internet policy matters? Monetary interests perhaps? Inquiring mind wants to know. Allow me to be a little provocative for effect here. Say for example, the case of an ALS in, oh lets say the AP Region. Given 'western' propaga..er, concerns with 'free and fair and free from fear' voting in the several countries, what would be your preferred approach thereabouts? Just for the 'organized legions' now. Do we have a case for the franchise to users not connected to ALS? And if so, what do we count of the dis[un]organized hordes? How would we recognize and count them in say, the Caribbean? The whole of Africa? India? China? Those persons who are habitues in places deemed paid up members of the axis-of-evil set? For I could go with you down the road to popular franchise. But only on condition that all Internet users be afforded the right to vote. Including every last one of the estimated 500M Chinese Internet users. You might even convince me that proxy voting be allowed. Then all I would ask for in return is first dibs on the 'right' pair of ears......... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

On 27 Mar 2013, at 10:49, Carlton Samuels wrote:

...

Avri: If your argument is that a voting event has a history of high participation then no contest. For in my region our fellas turn out to vote. So to your own objective of 'direct' suffrage for Board directorship its a perfect solution.

However, when you offer the abstraction that voting is in itself evidence of ALS enthusiasm for the ICANN policy development enterprise, that would be a stretch bordering on the giddy.

Not my point.

My point is that voting is an essential ingredient to large scale enthusiasm and participation. It is necessary, but not sufficient.

...

For after several rounds of voting events to choose our own leaders, the evidence of sustained enthusiasm for the follow-on nitty gritty policy work you more than most immerse yourself into is against you. And I have 6 years of evidence for which there is no successful contradiction.

Why don't representatives show up and participate? The plain answer is always the best one; they're not interested. I start from some facts.....and a philosophical posture. I abhor this default position of patronage so I will not patronize. To my certain knowledge there is not a single mouth breather or half wit among ALS representatives; all are likely in the top 2% of of their educated populations. They are yet sentient beings. They know where they can keep track of what's happening. They know when something comes up that would interest and attract their active intervention. They are aware of the several intervention models; telecons, lists, WGs etc. etc. The only rational explanation of non-involvement left open to me is labeled 'no interest'.

I am not one of the ALAS representive, so I cannot speak for their interest level. Or the reasons.

One of the things I know as an ALS member of 2 ALS, is we see precious little of ICANN. If I was only an ALS member, I might not know ICANN existed to be interested in. (i would put this in the fact category)

So in addition to what I see as a necessary ingredient - needing to vote. Another necessary ingredient is keeping them informed and using that as the hook to get them interested. (i would put this in the we haven't tried it so I hope it will work category).

Are these two sufficient, who knows. But I have little doubt that they are necessary.

avri

...

I stand to be corrected on the facts.

- Carlton

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

I think it is interesting to note how willing ALAC seems to transfer decisions to ever smaller groups while remaining reluctant to give the ALSes and members any role in decision making.

When it is a matter of allowing voting rights to the ALSes, the subject is first buried and then will allowed a a brief discussion at a meeting after the new procedures have been voted on by ALAC. When it comes to changes like giving the ALT more decision making ability, it is easily done.

It is sad.

avri

I am in absolute agreement with Avri.

On 26 Mar 2013, at 01:23, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:

...

All good points from my POV and YES the power to give 'delegated authority' is important for ALAC to have ability to allocate as needs be over to the ALT

*Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com

Hi, On 27 Mar 2013, at 05:59, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

Dear Avri,

On 26/03/2013 12:25, Avri Doria wrote:

...

I think it is interesting to note how willing ALAC seems to transfer decisions to ever smaller groups while remaining reluctant to give the ALSes and members any role in decision making.

When it is a matter of allowing voting rights to the ALSes, the subject is first buried and then will allowed a a brief discussion at a meeting after the new procedures have been voted on by ALAC. When it comes to changes like giving the ALT more decision making ability, it is easily done.

You are comparing Apples with Oranges.

They are both Fruit that people use to make wonderful healty juice. In some Hebrew, Apple is Tree Apple, Orange is Gold Apple and potato is Earth Apple I am talking about the distribution, or absence of distribution, of power I am ok with comparing Apples and Oranges.

Giving voting rights to ALSes to vote for a Board Director directly is a significant change in the At-Large Operating procedures.

Agreed

It reverses 11 years of work that we have done to build the ALAC, the RALOs, the whole structure that we work on.

Yes and no. The nomcom process is what developed over 11 years. And I am not recommending we do anything to that process. I do not suggest that we replace nomcom with Mass Voting. If anything you are comparing Potatoes and Rocks. I suggest that SOs and ACs allow their members to vote for the board seats. And yes, I apply this logic for the GNSO as well. Just a bit harder to argue that one until the next review period opens up. In At-Large I have been trying to get this on the agenda for the entire period of the revision of the ROP. I have been pushed off continuously until now it appears that I am bringing this up at the end of the cycle. Sorry, but I have tried to get it on your agenda and the ROP's agenda for over 18 months now.

Giving the ability to the ALAC to delegate limited responsibility on an ad-hoc basis just makes sense for operational purposes.

Yep, and I am arguing for a once every 3 years event. I am not arguing for ALS vote of every issue before the ALAC. I sense an ad-absurdum approach in you rebuttal.

As Alan mentioned recently, this has been used informally from time to time for decisions which did not require the staging of a full ALAC meeting. If every single decision needed full ALAC intervention, we'd end up with a weekly 2 hour ALAC meeting = 8 hours per month on average. I am not kidding. That's how much work there is. If this happens in addition to all of the other conference calls which our ALAC members attend (RALO calls, WG calls etc.), I do not see many ALAC members being able to sustain their participation.

No asking for that. Asking for them to: a. be informed of everything and allowed to comment if they wish b. to vote once every 3 years for chair in addition to the vote every year for RALO stuff.

Kind regards,

I know you don't mean that as a mean thing to say. Don't know why I always see it that way. Must be one of those cross-cultural phenomena.

Olivier

and the earlier note:

Dear Avri,

thanks for your kind reply.

eeek! another cross cultural phenomenon.

For a moment, I was agreeing with you that we should do more to engage ALSes. And then, I realised we differed in view entirely.

Oh well, happens in the best of families.

On 27/03/2013 04:37, Avri Doria wrote:

...

So I don't charge anyone with marginalisation. Rather I argue that if we want them to come, we have to make a place for them and we have to let them know.

Totally agree! I gather that this would mean capacity building, helping our ALSes understand the issues, accompanying the ALS representatives to take part in working groups; putting together leadership programmes to help them go up the ladder of responsibility; preparing them for roles on the ALAC; helping our ALSes explain the issues to their communities; enabling and supporting our ALSes to participate at other conferences to carry the good word of At-Large. etc. Yes! Let's proactively engage our ALSes!

Yay, we agree.

...

I think many of us are comfortable with the status quo we find ourselves in and want to preserve it, fearing that anything we do might break what we have. It is natural, it is the way people are.

I'm afraid I disagree. At-Large is evolving and the ALAC too! We are taking on new roles. The next phase is to strengthen the RALOs and build them so as to scale them up!

...

But if we want to achieve the ICANN leadership that an idea like the At-large deserves, I beleive we have to change our ways. For me, that starts with giving the ALSes respect and among other things giving them a vote.

RALOs already have votes to select their ALAC members.

...

Yes, it is only once every three years, and it may seem more symbolic than practical. But the symbolism of voting for someone on the Board is important and I beleive would inspire some to pay greater attention and few more serve ICANN as most of you do.

This would send us back to pre-2002. ICANN decided to scrap direct elections of Board Directors.

As I argue above, Potatoes and Rocks. ALS are member organizations The ICANN 1.0 democracy was open.

In my view, attaching a possibility for direct elections to the Board could result in exactly the opposite than having ALSes take more part in At-Large work. It would result in the application of ALSes whose only interest is the direct Board elections. With very loose criteria for ALS applications (and I *like* the fact that any organization is allowed to join if they fit in the criteria), there will likely be a lot of ALSes that will join only for the elections.

I am not suggesting you change ALS criteria. In fact I actually suggest you review ALS membership every fiew years to see if they are fulfilling their part of the bargain.

So the answer will then be to tighten the criteria and that will result exactly in the *opposite* than what we want since it will turn the At-Large community into an elitist community with high barriers to entry.

Don't see an argument for that.

I personally consider that any proposal for direct Board elections effectively disenfranchises the 15 member ALAC, 10 of whom are chosen directly by the RALOs. It translates to not having the trust in people the RALOs have selected to act on their behalf. It kills the actual tiered structure of At-Large and the ALAC and renders it completely unscaleable.

I disagree they are trusted to do all kinds of advising and policy work. That is a lot of responsibility. One vote every 3 years does not disenfranchise people who elect their chair and who vote on all sorts of stuff all the time, meet with the Board and the GAC

If ALSes are to vote for a Board director directly, why keep the ALAC at all?

To do all the work? to decide of Statements? To vote on Objections? to suggest R3? ..... I can think of LOTS of reason to keep ALAC around. Though with the ALT, maybe I do not understand how little they are needed in the new future.

Why not let interested ALS representatives run At-Large in a direct way?

Too much detailed work. Hard work. Time consuming work. Thought and argument provoking work.

Do I need to remind you of the dark, endless battles of the DNSO? These endless, thoughtless, ego-fuelled, circular arguments went on for so long that they kept me from wanting to touch any kind of ICANN responsibility. They prevents At-Large from doing any kind of meaningful work. As in zero real work. None.

Do you remember this: http://members.icann.org/nominees.html

I remember discussing this recipe for failure with many of my European colleagues at the time. The whole election ended up being filled with intrigue, hatred, revenge, bigotry and manipulation. I just can't believe you see this with rose tinted glasses...

this is not then. this is not the same situation. this is a membership organization. And members should have a vote choosing the person who is put on the Board to protect the Global Public iInterest of the Internet User while doing the best they can for ICANN itself which should indeed match the Global Public Interest of the Internet and its Users. They are the closest representative ICANN has of the User whose interests are a key element of the Public Interest requirements for ICANN legitimacy.

But these are my personal thoughts. As ALAC Chair, I'll go with whatever the ALAC will choose to do but I hope my colleagues will refuse to dismantle, brick by brick, the great structure that we have built over the years.

cheers, avri