Dealing with the loss or a Board liaison
Desspite our serious protest, it appears that At-Large will be transitioning from a liaison to the Board to electing (er, *selecting*) a member of the Board (who will then be organizationally independant of At-Large). Given this loss of direct influence, I offer this comment: At yesterday's EURALO Showcase, Board member Dennis Jennings clearly stated that ALAC ought to have a stronger role as part of ICANN's policy development process. I agree. We should consider proposing to the SIC that At-Large oversight / signoff be a required "check mark" in all ICANN policy development (such as GNSO PDPs). (Think of this the way that a building plan being proposed in a city has to have sign-off approval by engineering, environmental assessment, public works, etc). There may be some fears that this constitutes a potential ALAC veto of GNSO policy -- while I wouild like that personally, that may be too much to ask. However, we should have the right to send back for revision, parts of policy which we perceive to be clearly against the public interest. Later at the same event, Board member Jean-Jacques Subrenat acknowledged that At-Large tasks and responsibilities are growing faster than its staff support, and risks falling behind through no fault of its own. If these comments are sincere -- and I have no reason to believe they are not -- then we have an opportunity to direct our evolving role, rather than to allow others to evolve it for us,. -- - Evan
Evan: I too took particular note and stored Dennis Jenning's statement and was beginning to think how it could be converted into an actionable initiative. Your thinking ...that the At-Large embed itself directly in the policy development process....appeals to me. Let's take the stick...or carrot....and work it thru our groups. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 5:47 AM To: ICANN ALAC list Subject: [ALAC] Dealing with the loss or a Board liaison Desspite our serious protest, it appears that At-Large will be transitioning from a liaison to the Board to electing (er, *selecting*) a member of the Board (who will then be organizationally independant of At-Large). Given this loss of direct influence, I offer this comment: At yesterday's EURALO Showcase, Board member Dennis Jennings clearly stated that ALAC ought to have a stronger role as part of ICANN's policy development process. I agree. We should consider proposing to the SIC that At-Large oversight / signoff be a required "check mark" in all ICANN policy development (such as GNSO PDPs). (Think of this the way that a building plan being proposed in a city has to have sign-off approval by engineering, environmental assessment, public works, etc). There may be some fears that this constitutes a potential ALAC veto of GNSO policy -- while I wouild like that personally, that may be too much to ask. However, we should have the right to send back for revision, parts of policy which we perceive to be clearly against the public interest. Later at the same event, Board member Jean-Jacques Subrenat acknowledged that At-Large tasks and responsibilities are growing faster than its staff support, and risks falling behind through no fault of its own. If these comments are sincere -- and I have no reason to believe they are not -- then we have an opportunity to direct our evolving role, rather than to allow others to evolve it for us,. -- - Evan _______________________________________________ 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
I guess we shall turn this into an opportunity in the future. We will have a 6 months " experience?" Period for the first elected board vote members from ALAC. Let choose a very very good profile to this position to replace the liaison. And this person, if good, will help to make room for the future add of a liaison again. Being a Liaison I feel very easy to defend openly ALAC positions which a voted will not, but can if want and have the capacity , to defend ALAC positions as its own, just because this person will really believe the user's interest is a key value in ICANN past, present and its future. Best Vanda Scartezini from BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: "SAMUELS,Carlton A" <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> Sender: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:13:39 To: Evan Leibovitch<evan@telly.org>; ICANN ALAC list<alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Dealing with the loss or a Board liaison Evan: I too took particular note and stored Dennis Jenning's statement and was beginning to think how it could be converted into an actionable initiative. Your thinking ...that the At-Large embed itself directly in the policy development process....appeals to me. Let's take the stick...or carrot....and work it thru our groups. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 5:47 AM To: ICANN ALAC list Subject: [ALAC] Dealing with the loss or a Board liaison Desspite our serious protest, it appears that At-Large will be transitioning from a liaison to the Board to electing (er, *selecting*) a member of the Board (who will then be organizationally independant of At-Large). Given this loss of direct influence, I offer this comment: At yesterday's EURALO Showcase, Board member Dennis Jennings clearly stated that ALAC ought to have a stronger role as part of ICANN's policy development process. I agree. We should consider proposing to the SIC that At-Large oversight / signoff be a required "check mark" in all ICANN policy development (such as GNSO PDPs). (Think of this the way that a building plan being proposed in a city has to have sign-off approval by engineering, environmental assessment, public works, etc). There may be some fears that this constitutes a potential ALAC veto of GNSO policy -- while I wouild like that personally, that may be too much to ask. However, we should have the right to send back for revision, parts of policy which we perceive to be clearly against the public interest. Later at the same event, Board member Jean-Jacques Subrenat acknowledged that At-Large tasks and responsibilities are growing faster than its staff support, and risks falling behind through no fault of its own. If these comments are sincere -- and I have no reason to believe they are not -- then we have an opportunity to direct our evolving role, rather than to allow others to evolve it for us,. -- - Evan _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Evan, et.al. So much of our ALAC - At-Large Improvements implementation is aimed as specifically ensuring or increasing the ability of our ALSes to be more effective and actively involved in getting specific individual and At-Large input into WG's and PDP's; With the final drafting of the GNSO Operating Guidelines for WG's soon to be accepted and this design being a new open and welcoming mechanism that, of course is a strong and robust way of enduring that consensus is built with our voice and concerns / issues being woven into the processes and that is the main focus that I would like to be building our At-Large 'reputation' and influence with at this stage, noting specifically the options clearly defining how sector or minority reports are to be managed; However in keeping with what I have heard in a few fora both this week and in recent times (and based on some Australian Telecommunications Policy / Regulation experience) There are some options in use that we could explore, as we discuss possibilities on this issue (of "sign off"), and I'm happy to encourage that discussion for the ALAC & Regional Leadership and most importantly the newly formed (in our meeting this morning) Consumer Interests WG in concert with the wider cross constituency work into 'Development of a Consumer Agenda for ICANN', that is just beginning to get right onto... Once we recover from this week of course ;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 24 June 2010 20:46, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Desspite our serious protest, it appears that At-Large will be transitioning from a liaison to the Board to electing (er, *selecting*) a member of the Board (who will then be organizationally independant of At-Large).
Given this loss of direct influence, I offer this comment:
At yesterday's EURALO Showcase, Board member Dennis Jennings clearly stated that ALAC ought to have a stronger role as part of ICANN's policy development process. I agree. We should consider proposing to the SIC that At-Large oversight / signoff be a required "check mark" in all ICANN policy development (such as GNSO PDPs). (Think of this the way that a building plan being proposed in a city has to have sign-off approval by engineering, environmental assessment, public works, etc). There may be some fears that this constitutes a potential ALAC veto of GNSO policy -- while I wouild like that personally, that may be too much to ask. However, we should have the right to send back for revision, parts of policy which we perceive to be clearly against the public interest.
Later at the same event, Board member Jean-Jacques Subrenat acknowledged that At-Large tasks and responsibilities are growing faster than its staff support, and risks falling behind through no fault of its own.
If these comments are sincere -- and I have no reason to believe they are not -- then we have an opportunity to direct our evolving role, rather than to allow others to evolve it for us,.
-- - Evan _______________________________________________ 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
Evan, et.al. So much of our ALAC - At-Large Improvements implementation is aimed as specifically ensuring or increasing the ability of our ALSes to be more effective and actively involved in getting specific individual and At-Large input into WG's and PDP's; With the final drafting of the GNSO Operating Guidelines for WG's soon to be accepted and this design being a new open and welcoming mechanism that, of course is a strong and robust way of enduring that consensus is built with our voice and concerns / issues being woven into the processes and that is the main focus that I would like to be building our At-Large 'reputation' and influence with at this stage, noting specifically the options clearly defining how sector or minority reports are to be managed; However in keeping with what I have heard in a few fora both this week and in recent times (and based on some Australian Telecommunications Policy / Regulation experience) There are some options in use that we could explore, as we discuss possibilities on this issue (of "sign off"), and I'm happy to encourage that discussion for the ALAC & Regional Leadership and most importantly the newly formed (in our meeting this morning) Consumer Interests WG in concert with the wider cross constituency work into 'Development of a Consumer Agenda for ICANN', that is just beginning to get right onto... Once we recover from this week of course ;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 24 June 2010 20:46, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Desspite our serious protest, it appears that At-Large will be transitioning from a liaison to the Board to electing (er, *selecting*) a member of the Board (who will then be organizationally independant of At-Large).
Given this loss of direct influence, I offer this comment:
At yesterday's EURALO Showcase, Board member Dennis Jennings clearly stated that ALAC ought to have a stronger role as part of ICANN's policy development process. I agree. We should consider proposing to the SIC that At-Large oversight / signoff be a required "check mark" in all ICANN policy development (such as GNSO PDPs). (Think of this the way that a building plan being proposed in a city has to have sign-off approval by engineering, environmental assessment, public works, etc). There may be some fears that this constitutes a potential ALAC veto of GNSO policy -- while I wouild like that personally, that may be too much to ask. However, we should have the right to send back for revision, parts of policy which we perceive to be clearly against the public interest.
Later at the same event, Board member Jean-Jacques Subrenat acknowledged that At-Large tasks and responsibilities are growing faster than its staff support, and risks falling behind through no fault of its own.
If these comments are sincere -- and I have no reason to believe they are not -- then we have an opportunity to direct our evolving role, rather than to allow others to evolve it for us,.
-- - Evan _______________________________________________ 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
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 see continuing to argue for a liaison would risk the voting director position, the board isn't that petty. On the other hand, what we do see is that strong, consistent lobbying produces results: example the GNSO now has 4 representatives on the WHOIS review 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. Without the liaison there would be no voice to present or represent ALAC's advice to the board. The At Large voting Director, like all other voting Directors will "have the duty to act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN and not as representatives of the entity that selected them..." <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#VI-7>, the voting Director would not be able to act as a conduit between ALAC and the Board and the ALAC's role as an advisory committee would be severely undermined. The ALAC review recommended that At Large should, as is the case with Supporting Organizations, select two voting Directors. For reasons that are not entirely clear to the At Large/ALAC, the board rejected this proposal. To retain the board liaison position while the new single voting Director is seated would offer a compromise between the recommendations of the review and the board's findings, as well as satisfying the very practical requirement for the ALAC to be able to continue to be able to provide advice to the board. END No, Yes? Friendly amendments? Thanks, Adam At 12:46 PM +0200 6/24/10, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Desspite our serious protest, it appears that At-Large will be transitioning from a liaison to the Board to electing (er, *selecting*) a member of the Board (who will then be organizationally independant of At-Large).
Given this loss of direct influence, I offer this comment:
At yesterday's EURALO Showcase, Board member Dennis Jennings clearly stated that ALAC ought to have a stronger role as part of ICANN's policy development process. I agree. We should consider proposing to the SIC that At-Large oversight / signoff be a required "check mark" in all ICANN policy development (such as GNSO PDPs). (Think of this the way that a building plan being proposed in a city has to have sign-off approval by engineering, environmental assessment, public works, etc). There may be some fears that this constitutes a potential ALAC veto of GNSO policy -- while I wouild like that personally, that may be too much to ask. However, we should have the right to send back for revision, parts of policy which we perceive to be clearly against the public interest.
Later at the same event, Board member Jean-Jacques Subrenat acknowledged that At-Large tasks and responsibilities are growing faster than its staff support, and risks falling behind through no fault of its own.
If these comments are sincere -- and I have no reason to believe they are not -- then we have an opportunity to direct our evolving role, rather than to allow others to evolve it for us,.
-- - Evan _______________________________________________ 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
Adam Yes Dr.V.C.Vivekanandan MHRD IP Chair Professor NALSAR University of Law Adjunct Visiting Professor, University of Buffalo Business School, New York ALAC Asia Pacific Member ICANN (Internet Corporation of Assigned Names & Numbers) Office : +91-40-27567951 Mobile-+91-9866050494 vivek@nalsarpro.org personal:vivekvc2001@yahoo.co.in ________________________________ From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> To: ICANN ALAC list <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thu, 24 June, 2010 9:36:41 PM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Dealing with the loss or a Board liaison 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 see continuing to argue for a liaison would risk the voting director position, the board isn't that petty. On the other hand, what we do see is that strong, consistent lobbying produces results: example the GNSO now has 4 representatives on the WHOIS review 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. Without the liaison there would be no voice to present or represent ALAC's advice to the board. The At Large voting Director, like all other voting Directors will "have the duty to act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN and not as representatives of the entity that selected them..." <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#VI-7>, the voting Director would not be able to act as a conduit between ALAC and the Board and the ALAC's role as an advisory committee would be severely undermined. The ALAC review recommended that At Large should, as is the case with Supporting Organizations, select two voting Directors. For reasons that are not entirely clear to the At Large/ALAC, the board rejected this proposal. To retain the board liaison position while the new single voting Director is seated would offer a compromise between the recommendations of the review and the board's findings, as well as satisfying the very practical requirement for the ALAC to be able to continue to be able to provide advice to the board. END No, Yes? Friendly amendments? Thanks, Adam At 12:46 PM +0200 6/24/10, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Desspite our serious protest, it appears that At-Large will be transitioning from a liaison to the Board to electing (er, *selecting*) a member of the Board (who will then be organizationally independant of At-Large).
Given this loss of direct influence, I offer this comment:
At yesterday's EURALO Showcase, Board member Dennis Jennings clearly stated that ALAC ought to have a stronger role as part of ICANN's policy development process. I agree. We should consider proposing to the SIC that At-Large oversight / signoff be a required "check mark" in all ICANN policy development (such as GNSO PDPs). (Think of this the way that a building plan being proposed in a city has to have sign-off approval by engineering, environmental assessment, public works, etc). There may be some fears that this constitutes a potential ALAC veto of GNSO policy -- while I wouild like that personally, that may be too much to ask. However, we should have the right to send back for revision, parts of policy which we perceive to be clearly against the public interest.
Later at the same event, Board member Jean-Jacques Subrenat acknowledged that At-Large tasks and responsibilities are growing faster than its staff support, and risks falling behind through no fault of its own.
If these comments are sincere -- and I have no reason to believe they are not -- then we have an opportunity to direct our evolving role, rather than to allow others to evolve it for us,.
-- - Evan _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (6)
-
Adam Peake -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Evan Leibovitch -
SAMUELS,Carlton A -
Vanda Scartezini -
vivek anannd