Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] ELECTION CALL for ALAC Officers to serve from 22 October 2012 to ICANN AGM 2013
On 18 September 2012 09:57, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 this is a very reasonable position. We have to have rotation and new faces all the time in all positions.
As someone standing for re-election, I have an obvious bias in the discussion. However, even were I not, I would be intrigued -- and a little unsettled -- by the concept of "change for the sake of change". There are term limits for many positions within At-Large leadership -- I am in my last of two terms as ALAC member -- and I am curious to know the rationale behind "new faces all the time" in a manner that exceeds both the intent and the practice of these reasonable limits. This is now my sixth year within ICANN as a volunteer and I am only now finding a comfort level with the many layers and complexities of working within ICANN's policy development. That may just mean that I'm slow, but I would suggest that ICANN possesses a level of internal complexity rivalling that of a UN or government bureacuracy. It takes time just to learn. Insisting on rapid rotation -- for the sake of rapid rotation -- ensures that ALAC leadership will never have the depth necessary to deal with issues that matter to Internet end-users. Our adversaries -- those who dispense with the public interest because of financial gain -- have no such limits. Indeed there are many within the domain industry who have been involved with ICANN since its inception and are acutely aware of its inner workings and how to manipulate them for gain. Given our reasonable levels of term limits our people will never achieve the level of personal entrenchment enjoyed by industry, but I would suggest that the rapid rotation suggested by some here would be absolutely devastating to the ability of ICANN At-Large to assert itself in the corridors of power. If there are issues with the performance of individuals running for re-election, general complaints about leadership or direction, or the ascendency of people advocating fresh priorities or changes of strategy, by all means let's bring them forward and engage in useful debate and an informed election. I welcome such engagement. But I know that there are a number of issues that I personally am involved with and consider "unfinished business" -- unfinished because they just take so long to process through ICANN. The others running for re-election have their own priorities in this regard. I think it would be a shame -- and damaging to the At-Large cause -- if many of these efforts are forced to pause while being rebooted or re-learned simply because of an election based on theory that looks good on paper but works poorly in the negotiations room. Two years from now, because of term limits, I know for certain that I will be off not only the executive but my ALAC position. I will welcome my replacement. I fully understand and appreciate the need to share the load and encourage new voices, both as a matter of outreach and keeping At-Large constantly in touch. But I suggest that there is a balance to be struck between continuity and refreshment, and that the balance currently in place within ALAC is a good one. Going more narrowly than term limits to assert change for its own sake does a disservice to incumbents and all of At-Large. In most organizations of which I'm aware -- whether corporation, government or NPO -- frequent changes of leadership does not indicate stability or success. - Evan
I share Evan's sentiments...and offer the same mea culpa. Let us be clear here. I went to the Internal list before the call for nominations with my perspective on Olivier's leadership because I wished to offer a view - maybe a peculiar one - of what really makes the ALAC of notice in ICANN affairs. I truly believe that it takes gumption, a certain diplomatic skill, will and the time to commit to do what Olivier has done. And all for free. IMHO, these are major reasons -vested in the Chair - for what we have collectively achieved. Yes, all others of the Ex-Com, and indeed some colleagues not of the Ex-Com, have played significant roles. Because once the strategic framework is advised by the ALAC, the details of strategy and how to put them in play are determined collectively. I am a mere bit player with some knowledge, expertise and experience that might be useful to advance the common endeavour. I was asked to assume a role and I accepted. The role does not define who I am; I bring that to it. Neither is my sense of self - or value - entwined with the position. I am asked yet again. I have accepted, yet again. It is quite all right for the electorate, in their wisdom, to make another choice. I second Evan's nomination. Assuming acceptance of nominations of all, I shall vote for the slate. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 18 September 2012 09:57, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 this is a very reasonable position. We have to have rotation and new faces all the time in all positions.
As someone standing for re-election, I have an obvious bias in the discussion. However, even were I not, I would be intrigued -- and a little unsettled -- by the concept of "change for the sake of change".
There are term limits for many positions within At-Large leadership -- I am in my last of two terms as ALAC member -- and I am curious to know the rationale behind "new faces all the time" in a manner that exceeds both the intent and the practice of these reasonable limits.
This is now my sixth year within ICANN as a volunteer and I am only now finding a comfort level with the many layers and complexities of working within ICANN's policy development. That may just mean that I'm slow, but I would suggest that ICANN possesses a level of internal complexity rivalling that of a UN or government bureacuracy. It takes time just to learn.
Insisting on rapid rotation -- for the sake of rapid rotation -- ensures that ALAC leadership will never have the depth necessary to deal with issues that matter to Internet end-users. Our adversaries -- those who dispense with the public interest because of financial gain -- have no such limits. Indeed there are many within the domain industry who have been involved with ICANN since its inception and are acutely aware of its inner workings and how to manipulate them for gain. Given our reasonable levels of term limits our people will never achieve the level of personal entrenchment enjoyed by industry, but I would suggest that the rapid rotation suggested by some here would be absolutely devastating to the ability of ICANN At-Large to assert itself in the corridors of power.
If there are issues with the performance of individuals running for re-election, general complaints about leadership or direction, or the ascendency of people advocating fresh priorities or changes of strategy, by all means let's bring them forward and engage in useful debate and an informed election. I welcome such engagement. But I know that there are a number of issues that I personally am involved with and consider "unfinished business" -- unfinished because they just take so long to process through ICANN. The others running for re-election have their own priorities in this regard. I think it would be a shame -- and damaging to the At-Large cause -- if many of these efforts are forced to pause while being rebooted or re-learned simply because of an election based on theory that looks good on paper but works poorly in the negotiations room.
Two years from now, because of term limits, I know for certain that I will be off not only the executive but my ALAC position. I will welcome my replacement. I fully understand and appreciate the need to share the load and encourage new voices, both as a matter of outreach and keeping At-Large constantly in touch. But I suggest that there is a balance to be struck between continuity and refreshment, and that the balance currently in place within ALAC is a good one. Going more narrowly than term limits to assert change for its own sake does a disservice to incumbents and all of At-Large.
In most organizations of which I'm aware -- whether corporation, government or NPO -- frequent changes of leadership does not indicate stability or success.
- 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...)
participants (2)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch