ALAC comments on the ALAC Review Draft Report
I was asked to put together a draft of comments on the Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group. Following discussions with a number of ALAC members, and factoring in discussions in Mexico City, I have put together a short reply. I think it reflects all that I heard. It is now posted on the Wiki attached to the agenda for the meeting next week (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_alac_review_comment_april_2009). It is also appended here for your convenience. The comment period has been extended until April 30th, so we will need to approve whatever we submit at the meeting next week (or in the two days following the meeting, which is not practical). So if you disagree with what is here, or feel that something important is omitted, please speak up. Alan ======================= ALAC Comments on Final Draft Report of the ALAC Review Working Group The ALAC is generally pleased with and supportive of the draft report. We are particularly pleased that the Working Group (WG) understood and acknowledged that the ALAC has a role far wider than just gTLDs a position that has not been well understood during the entire GNSO restructuring effort. This support notwithstanding, we do have a few specific comments. Planning: There is no doubt that the ALAC must be more effective in planning, and that this planning should be linked to the ICANN Strategic and Operational Plans. However, we caution the WG not to push this integration too far. Just as with the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, the main ALAC focus must be on policy, and much of this is going to be linked to varying issues-of-the-day. There is no point in the ALAC spending much of its valuable time on planning if there is no time left to actually do anything. Finances: We support the tying activities and their results to their costs. Only through mechanisms such as that can we aim for cost-effective activities and structures. We look forward to being in a position to work with ICANN staff on implementing this. Board Seats: While we fully support the concept of replacing the current ALAC Liaison with two voting Board seats, we must make it clear that the mechanism by which these Board members are chosen will be critical to success. Todays Board members do not represent the organizations that select them, but they are selected by those organizations because of a belief that the Supporting Organization and the prospective Board member share a world view of things. While the model used by the todays Supporting Organizations may not the be one that is suitable for At-Large, it will be essential for the ALAC to be sufficiently engaged in the process so as to ensure good ongoing communications between the ALAC and the Board. Skills and Competencies: Although not discussed directly in the report, one area that needs to be addressed is that of ALAC skills and competencies. Since the majority of ALAC members are chosen by RALOs to best meet their needs, the ALAC has minimal control over the skills they have. As a result, we are often lacking the skills that we need. Examples include skills and competencies associated with planning; running a meeting; and running a working group. Any suggestion from the WG on structural or other changes needed to address this problem would be welcome.
I believe your comments represents the general impression about the report I also heard around. I would like to express my point I have already expressed early: while I am very supportive on having two votes members at the board it is very important to remember that voting member does not represent ALAC positions, from my point of view the best equation would be 1 vote and 1 non vote members Best to all Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:09 AM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] ALAC comments on the ALAC Review Draft Report I was asked to put together a draft of comments on the Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group. Following discussions with a number of ALAC members, and factoring in discussions in Mexico City, I have put together a short reply. I think it reflects all that I heard. It is now posted on the Wiki attached to the agenda for the meeting next week (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_alac_review_comment_april_2009). It is also appended here for your convenience. The comment period has been extended until April 30th, so we will need to approve whatever we submit at the meeting next week (or in the two days following the meeting, which is not practical). So if you disagree with what is here, or feel that something important is omitted, please speak up. Alan ======================= ALAC Comments on Final Draft Report of the ALAC Review Working Group The ALAC is generally pleased with and supportive of the draft report. We are particularly pleased that the Working Group (WG) understood and acknowledged that the ALAC has a role far wider than just gTLDs - a position that has not been well understood during the entire GNSO restructuring effort. This support notwithstanding, we do have a few specific comments. Planning: There is no doubt that the ALAC must be more effective in planning, and that this planning should be linked to the ICANN Strategic and Operational Plans. However, we caution the WG not to push this integration too far. Just as with the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, the main ALAC focus must be on policy, and much of this is going to be linked to varying issues-of-the-day. There is no point in the ALAC spending much of its valuable time on planning if there is no time left to actually do anything. Finances: We support the tying activities and their results to their costs. Only through mechanisms such as that can we aim for cost-effective activities and structures. We look forward to being in a position to work with ICANN staff on implementing this. Board Seats: While we fully support the concept of replacing the current ALAC Liaison with two voting Board seats, we must make it clear that the mechanism by which these Board members are chosen will be critical to success. Today's Board members do not "represent" the organizations that select them, but they are selected by those organizations because of a belief that the Supporting Organization and the prospective Board member share a "world view" of things. While the model used by the today's Supporting Organizations may not the be one that is suitable for At-Large, it will be essential for the ALAC to be sufficiently engaged in the process so as to ensure good ongoing communications between the ALAC and the Board. Skills and Competencies: Although not discussed directly in the report, one area that needs to be addressed is that of ALAC skills and competencies. Since the majority of ALAC members are chosen by RALOs to best meet their needs, the ALAC has minimal control over the skills they have. As a result, we are often lacking the skills that we need. Examples include skills and competencies associated with planning; running a meeting; and running a working group. Any suggestion from the WG on structural or other changes needed to address this problem would be welcome. _______________________________________________ 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 agree that having a Liaison in addition to voting member(s) would be optimal, but I do not see this being viewed as acceptable. The phrase "having your cake and eating it" comes to mind. And if it were a valid concept for us, it would apply to the SO as well. Given that there is pressure to shrink the size of the Board, I don't think that it is a likely scenario. As long as we can find a mechanism where the At-Large Board member(s) share values with the ALAC, I think it puts us on an equal footing with the rest of ICANN, and that is about as much as we can expect. Alan At 23/04/2009 06:27 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
I believe your comments represents the general impression about the report I also heard around. I would like to express my point I have already expressed early: while I am very supportive on having two votes members at the board it is very important to remember that voting member does not represent ALAC positions, from my point of view the best equation would be 1 vote and 1 non vote members Best to all
Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:09 AM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] ALAC comments on the ALAC Review Draft Report
I was asked to put together a draft of comments on the Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group. Following discussions with a number of ALAC members, and factoring in discussions in Mexico City, I have put together a short reply. I think it reflects all that I heard. It is now posted on the Wiki attached to the agenda for the meeting next week (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_alac_review_comment_april_2009). It is also appended here for your convenience.
The comment period has been extended until April 30th, so we will need to approve whatever we submit at the meeting next week (or in the two days following the meeting, which is not practical).
So if you disagree with what is here, or feel that something important is omitted, please speak up.
Alan
=======================
ALAC Comments on Final Draft Report of the ALAC Review Working Group
The ALAC is generally pleased with and supportive of the draft report. We are particularly pleased that the Working Group (WG) understood and acknowledged that the ALAC has a role far wider than just gTLDs - a position that has not been well understood during the entire GNSO restructuring effort.
This support notwithstanding, we do have a few specific comments.
Planning: There is no doubt that the ALAC must be more effective in planning, and that this planning should be linked to the ICANN Strategic and Operational Plans. However, we caution the WG not to push this integration too far. Just as with the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, the main ALAC focus must be on policy, and much of this is going to be linked to varying issues-of-the-day. There is no point in the ALAC spending much of its valuable time on planning if there is no time left to actually do anything.
Finances: We support the tying activities and their results to their costs. Only through mechanisms such as that can we aim for cost-effective activities and structures. We look forward to being in a position to work with ICANN staff on implementing this.
Board Seats: While we fully support the concept of replacing the current ALAC Liaison with two voting Board seats, we must make it clear that the mechanism by which these Board members are chosen will be critical to success. Today's Board members do not "represent" the organizations that select them, but they are selected by those organizations because of a belief that the Supporting Organization and the prospective Board member share a "world view" of things. While the model used by the today's Supporting Organizations may not the be one that is suitable for At-Large, it will be essential for the ALAC to be sufficiently engaged in the process so as to ensure good ongoing communications between the ALAC and the Board.
Skills and Competencies: Although not discussed directly in the report, one area that needs to be addressed is that of ALAC skills and competencies. Since the majority of ALAC members are chosen by RALOs to best meet their needs, the ALAC has minimal control over the skills they have. As a result, we are often lacking the skills that we need. Examples include skills and competencies associated with planning; running a meeting; and running a working group. Any suggestion from the WG on structural or other changes needed to address this problem would be welcome. _______________________________________________ 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
Alan Greenberg wrote:
I agree that having a Liaison in addition to voting member(s) would be optimal, but I do not see this being viewed as acceptable. The phrase "having your cake and eating it" comes to mind. And if it were a valid concept for us, it would apply to the SO as well. Given that there is pressure to shrink the size of the Board, I don't think that it is a likely scenario. As long as we can find a mechanism where the At-Large Board member(s) share values with the ALAC, I think it puts us on an equal footing with the rest of ICANN, and that is about as much as we can expect. I agree, and I am quite comfortable with the ALAC Review recommendation as-is.
The reps sent by ALAC to the Board could not be expected to be fully accountable once chosen, but ALAC can (and should) do its best due diligence to ensure that the people who are selected understand and share the sensibilities and goals of At-Large. The reps should IMO also be accepted as ex-officio members of ALAC -- perhaps able to vote on internal ALAC issues. - Evan
At 24/04/2009 01:45 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Alan Greenberg wrote:
I agree that having a Liaison in addition to voting member(s) would be optimal, but I do not see this being viewed as acceptable. The phrase "having your cake and eating it" comes to mind. And if it were a valid concept for us, it would apply to the SO as well. Given that there is pressure to shrink the size of the Board, I don't think that it is a likely scenario. As long as we can find a mechanism where the At-Large Board member(s) share values with the ALAC, I think it puts us on an equal footing with the rest of ICANN, and that is about as much as we can expect. I agree, and I am quite comfortable with the ALAC Review recommendation as-is.
The reps sent by ALAC to the Board could not be expected to be fully accountable once chosen, but ALAC can (and should) do its best due diligence to ensure that the people who are selected understand and share the sensibilities and goals of At-Large.
The reps should IMO also be accepted as ex-officio members of ALAC -- perhaps able to vote on internal ALAC issues.
- Evan
Thanks Evan. Your main paragraph captures what I was trying to say. Once on the Board, the person is indeed a free agent. But you want to try to pick a person that, will espouse the same values and intents of the larger group - a group that of course, may not be of a single mind on many issues. My worry if the process is too focused at the ALS level and not sufficiently including the RALO leadership and ALAC, that there may be a significant split between THAT group (the ones that are ultimately charged with meeting ALAC commitments and targets) and the Board member. Essentially, I am saying that if selection of the Board member becomes a popularity contest, we may be in trouble. Your last paragraph is interesting and will require additional discussion. I have not really looked into the issue of whether a current Board member can still sit on a SO. Without checking, I suspect that the current rules do not forbid it, but that most resign from their original post as they cannot be expected to fulfill those obligations at the same time as being a board member. If this recommendation does ultimately get approved by the Board, we will have to act quickly to put a process in place, so I thank you for kicking off the discussion. Alan
Alan Greenberg wrote:
Once on the Board, the person is indeed a free agent. But you want to try to pick a person that, will espouse the same values and intents of the larger group - a group that of course, may not be of a single mind on many issues. My worry if the process is too focused at the ALS level and not sufficiently including the RALO leadership and ALAC, that there may be a significant split between THAT group (the ones that are ultimately charged with meeting ALAC commitments and targets) and the Board member. Essentially, I am saying that if selection of the Board member becomes a popularity contest, we may be in trouble.
Any really democratic process is, by definition, a popularity contest. The challenge is making sure we have created the right criteria for being popular. :-) One luxury of having two reps (if we indeed get them) is that they do not have to be selected the same way. One could be the choice of ALAC+RALOleaders, the other could be the subject of an ALS-wide process that has some anti-"gaming" guidelines built in. If we have a scenario in which (for example) the ALSs as a whole are more militant/pro-active than ALAC, the two reps could (and IMO should) represent that diversity of approach.
Your last paragraph is interesting and will require additional discussion.
The idea simply stemmed from an interest in keeping the reps in tune with At-Large; even though they would owe no accountability I would hope that a measure such as this would maximize bi-directional communications. I have very much appreciated Wendy's participation at ALAC and NARALO meetings, and would want to keep similar contact vibrant beyond a transition from accountable liaison to "free agent" reps.
I have not really looked into the issue of whether a current Board member can still sit on a SO. Without checking, I suspect that the current rules do not forbid it, but that most resign from their original post as they cannot be expected to fulfill those obligations at the same time as being a board member. That is why I am suggestion that the positions be ex-officio and over-and-above the current 15. If there are logistical or optical difficulties the positions could be made non-voting and/or not counted in quorums or performance measurements.
If this recommendation does ultimately get approved by the Board, we will have to act quickly to put a process in place, so I thank you for kicking off the discussion.
There is a natural and understandable caution to not want to jeopardize Board approval of two At-Large reps by already anticipating it in our planning. However, if and when the approval does happen we will need to be expedient in determining a selection process, and we might as well start now. In any case, I defer the credit of "kicking off the discussion" to the person that started this email thread in the first place :-). - Evan
At 24/04/2009 12:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Alan Greenberg wrote:
Once on the Board, the person is indeed a free agent. But you want to try to pick a person that, will espouse the same values and intents of the larger group - a group that of course, may not be of a single mind on many issues. My worry if the process is too focused at the ALS level and not sufficiently including the RALO leadership and ALAC, that there may be a significant split between THAT group (the ones that are ultimately charged with meeting ALAC commitments and targets) and the Board member. Essentially, I am saying that if selection of the Board member becomes a popularity contest, we may be in trouble.
Any really democratic process is, by definition, a popularity contest. The challenge is making sure we have created the right criteria for being popular. :-)
One luxury of having two reps (if we indeed get them) is that they do not have to be selected the same way. One could be the choice of ALAC+RALOleaders, the other could be the subject of an ALS-wide process that has some anti-"gaming" guidelines built in. If we have a scenario in which (for example) the ALSs as a whole are more militant/pro-active than ALAC, the two reps could (and IMO should) represent that diversity of approach.
Well, it is not at all clear how that will play out. At the moment we have a review of the board that is strongly recommending cutting the size of the Board in half, which would mean 1 per organization instead of two.
Your last paragraph is interesting and will require additional discussion.
The idea simply stemmed from an interest in keeping the reps in tune with At-Large; even though they would owe no accountability I would hope that a measure such as this would maximize bi-directional communications.
I have very much appreciated Wendy's participation at ALAC and NARALO meetings, and would want to keep similar contact vibrant beyond a transition from accountable liaison to "free agent" reps.
I have not really looked into the issue of whether a current Board member can still sit on a SO. Without checking, I suspect that the current rules do not forbid it, but that most resign from their original post as they cannot be expected to fulfill those obligations at the same time as being a board member. That is why I am suggestion that the positions be ex-officio and over-and-above the current 15. If there are logistical or optical difficulties the positions could be made non-voting and/or not counted in quorums or performance measurements.
If this recommendation does ultimately get approved by the Board, we will have to act quickly to put a process in place, so I thank you for kicking off the discussion.
There is a natural and understandable caution to not want to jeopardize Board approval of two At-Large reps by already anticipating it in our planning. However, if and when the approval does happen we will need to be expedient in determining a selection process, and we might as well start now.
In any case, I defer the credit of "kicking off the discussion" to the person that started this email thread in the first place :-).
- Evan
Given my understanding and experience of how boards of governance/management work, you all recall my own view that At-Large selected board members is not an assurance for the At-Large view being advocated at the Board level; I said then that selecting 2 Board members would be a wash to the At-Large interests if board members are not required to carry the constituency's line. Evans and Alan both outline my definitive view of what should be the reasonable expectation of At-Large-recommended board members. All we now need is to fashion the criteria and a mechanism to identify them. Carlton On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
At 24/04/2009 12:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Alan Greenberg wrote:
Once on the Board, the person is indeed a free agent. But you want to try to pick a person that, will espouse the same values and intents of the larger group - a group that of course, may not be of a single mind on many issues. My worry if the process is too focused at the ALS level and not sufficiently including the RALO leadership and ALAC, that there may be a significant split between THAT group (the ones that are ultimately charged with meeting ALAC commitments and targets) and the Board member. Essentially, I am saying that if selection of the Board member becomes a popularity contest, we may be in trouble.
Any really democratic process is, by definition, a popularity contest. The challenge is making sure we have created the right criteria for being popular. :-)
One luxury of having two reps (if we indeed get them) is that they do not have to be selected the same way. One could be the choice of ALAC+RALOleaders, the other could be the subject of an ALS-wide process that has some anti-"gaming" guidelines built in. If we have a scenario in which (for example) the ALSs as a whole are more militant/pro-active than ALAC, the two reps could (and IMO should) represent that diversity of approach.
Well, it is not at all clear how that will play out. At the moment we have a review of the board that is strongly recommending cutting the size of the Board in half, which would mean 1 per organization instead of two.
Your last paragraph is interesting and will require additional discussion.
The idea simply stemmed from an interest in keeping the reps in tune with At-Large; even though they would owe no accountability I would hope that a measure such as this would maximize bi-directional communications.
I have very much appreciated Wendy's participation at ALAC and NARALO meetings, and would want to keep similar contact vibrant beyond a transition from accountable liaison to "free agent" reps.
I have not really looked into the issue of whether a current Board member can still sit on a SO. Without checking, I suspect that the current rules do not forbid it, but that most resign from their original post as they cannot be expected to fulfill those obligations at the same time as being a board member. That is why I am suggestion that the positions be ex-officio and over-and-above the current 15. If there are logistical or optical difficulties the positions could be made non-voting and/or not counted in quorums or performance measurements.
If this recommendation does ultimately get approved by the Board, we will have to act quickly to put a process in place, so I thank you for kicking off the discussion.
There is a natural and understandable caution to not want to jeopardize Board approval of two At-Large reps by already anticipating it in our planning. However, if and when the approval does happen we will need to be expedient in determining a selection process, and we might as well start now.
In any case, I defer the credit of "kicking off the discussion" to the person that started this email thread in the first place :-).
- 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 know Alan, just to leave my thoughts for future debates. I believe if the board will accept our 2 votes positions will be great! Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 12:26 AM To: 'ALAC Working List' Subject: Re: [ALAC] ALAC comments on the ALAC Review Draft Report I agree that having a Liaison in addition to voting member(s) would be optimal, but I do not see this being viewed as acceptable. The phrase "having your cake and eating it" comes to mind. And if it were a valid concept for us, it would apply to the SO as well. Given that there is pressure to shrink the size of the Board, I don't think that it is a likely scenario. As long as we can find a mechanism where the At-Large Board member(s) share values with the ALAC, I think it puts us on an equal footing with the rest of ICANN, and that is about as much as we can expect. Alan At 23/04/2009 06:27 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
I believe your comments represents the general impression about the report I also heard around. I would like to express my point I have already expressed early: while I am very supportive on having two votes members at the board it is very important to remember that voting member does not represent ALAC positions, from my point of view the best equation would be 1 vote and 1 non vote members Best to all
Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:09 AM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] ALAC comments on the ALAC Review Draft Report
I was asked to put together a draft of comments on the Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group. Following discussions with a number of ALAC members, and factoring in discussions in Mexico City, I have put together a short reply. I think it reflects all that I heard. It is now posted on the Wiki attached to the agenda for the meeting next week (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_alac_review_comment_april_2009). It is also appended here for your convenience.
The comment period has been extended until April 30th, so we will need to approve whatever we submit at the meeting next week (or in the two days following the meeting, which is not practical).
So if you disagree with what is here, or feel that something important is omitted, please speak up.
Alan
=======================
ALAC Comments on Final Draft Report of the ALAC Review Working Group
The ALAC is generally pleased with and supportive of the draft report. We are particularly pleased that the Working Group (WG) understood and acknowledged that the ALAC has a role far wider than just gTLDs - a position that has not been well understood during the entire GNSO restructuring effort.
This support notwithstanding, we do have a few specific comments.
Planning: There is no doubt that the ALAC must be more effective in planning, and that this planning should be linked to the ICANN Strategic and Operational Plans. However, we caution the WG not to push this integration too far. Just as with the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, the main ALAC focus must be on policy, and much of this is going to be linked to varying issues-of-the-day. There is no point in the ALAC spending much of its valuable time on planning if there is no time left to actually do anything.
Finances: We support the tying activities and their results to their costs. Only through mechanisms such as that can we aim for cost-effective activities and structures. We look forward to being in a position to work with ICANN staff on implementing this.
Board Seats: While we fully support the concept of replacing the current ALAC Liaison with two voting Board seats, we must make it clear that the mechanism by which these Board members are chosen will be critical to success. Today's Board members do not "represent" the organizations that select them, but they are selected by those organizations because of a belief that the Supporting Organization and the prospective Board member share a "world view" of things. While the model used by the today's Supporting Organizations may not the be one that is suitable for At-Large, it will be essential for the ALAC to be sufficiently engaged in the process so as to ensure good ongoing communications between the ALAC and the Board.
Skills and Competencies: Although not discussed directly in the report, one area that needs to be addressed is that of ALAC skills and competencies. Since the majority of ALAC members are chosen by RALOs to best meet their needs, the ALAC has minimal control over the skills they have. As a result, we are often lacking the skills that we need. Examples include skills and competencies associated with planning; running a meeting; and running a working group. Any suggestion from the WG on structural or other changes needed to address this problem would be welcome. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.or g
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
At 1:08 AM -0400 4/23/09, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I was asked to put together a draft of comments on the Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group. Following discussions with a number of ALAC members, and factoring in discussions in Mexico City, I have put together a short reply. I think it reflects all that I heard. It is now posted on the Wiki attached to the agenda for the meeting next week (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_alac_review_comment_april_2009). It is also appended here for your convenience.
The comment period has been extended until April 30th, so we will need to approve whatever we submit at the meeting next week (or in the two days following the meeting, which is not practical).
So if you disagree with what is here, or feel that something important is omitted, please speak up.
Alan
Alan, sorry to be so late with comments. The ALAC review report suggests a significant increase in work for the At Large, whether ALAC, RALOs (and staff.) If we are to have resources to implement these recommendations, and I think we agree with almost all, then there needs to be something in the budget, correct? So I suggest we ask the WG to tell the board resources should be made available. And as a way to ensure that resources are allocated appropriately, a couple of members of the WG continue to provide some form of oversight (basically work with ALAC and staff.) Two new paragraphs below describing this under a new sub heading "implementation" About board seats. Think we need to note that if we are to have an ALAC board member take their seat at the end of the AGM of 2009, we are going to need to work with the NomCom to make sure we don't inadvertently break the not more than 5 from one region rule. And rather than doing what the WG suggests: seat one full board member in 2009, lose the liaison after the 2099 AGM and then seat and second full board member in 2010, why not recommend similar to Vanda's suggestion that we seat one in 2009 and *keep* the liaison. The liaison is then replaced by a full board member in 2010. (personally, I don't think we've time to get things organized in 4 or 5 months, but I am a bit cynical!) On page 22 of the report, about recommendation 17 which is "ALAC should develop a clearly defined process for the engagement of the At-Large community in developing policy positions", the WG says refer to section 3.2.2.1 which is about how the At-Large community's views are considered not how they are developed. We should ask for clarification (I think Westlake's recommendation 17 important.) Suggested additional text for our comment on the review: Implementation While we agree with many of the WG's comments and recommendations, we also consider them to be a significant expansion of the ALAC's functions and responsibilities and stress that if they are to be achieved then they must be adequately resourced, and that those resources must be provided in a timely manner. We ask the WG to recommend to the board that the FY2010 budget and operating and strategic plan take the recommendations of the WG into consideration so they can be implemented immediately and not need to wait until the next budget and/or planning cycle. Additional financial and other resources will be necessary to implement all the WG's recommendations, inter alia, from increased outreach in all regions, particularly to consumer and other organizations currently under represented in ICANN, the education of existing and new At Large Structures, increased participation in all policy processes, the ability and means to seat board members, etc. To this end we invite the WG to continue to monitor how its recommendations are implemented, and for some designated members of the WG to work with the ALAC, At Large and staff to ensure that resources are available in a timely and appropriate manner. (END) Thanks, Adam
=======================
ALAC Comments on Final Draft Report of the ALAC Review Working Group
The ALAC is generally pleased with and supportive of the draft report. We are particularly pleased that the Working Group (WG) understood and acknowledged that the ALAC has a role far wider than just gTLDs a position that has not been well understood during the entire GNSO restructuring effort.
This support notwithstanding, we do have a few specific comments.
Planning: There is no doubt that the ALAC must be more effective in planning, and that this planning should be linked to the ICANN Strategic and Operational Plans. However, we caution the WG not to push this integration too far. Just as with the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, the main ALAC focus must be on policy, and much of this is going to be linked to varying issues-of-the-day. There is no point in the ALAC spending much of its valuable time on planning if there is no time left to actually do anything.
Finances: We support the tying activities and their results to their costs. Only through mechanisms such as that can we aim for cost-effective activities and structures. We look forward to being in a position to work with ICANN staff on implementing this.
Board Seats: While we fully support the concept of replacing the current ALAC Liaison with two voting Board seats, we must make it clear that the mechanism by which these Board members are chosen will be critical to success. Todays Board members do not represent the organizations that select them, but they are selected by those organizations because of a belief that the Supporting Organization and the prospective Board member share a world view of things. While the model used by the todays Supporting Organizations may not the be one that is suitable for At-Large, it will be essential for the ALAC to be sufficiently engaged in the process so as to ensure good ongoing communications between the ALAC and the Board.
Skills and Competencies: Although not discussed directly in the report, one area that needs to be addressed is that of ALAC skills and competencies. Since the majority of ALAC members are chosen by RALOs to best meet their needs, the ALAC has minimal control over the skills they have. As a result, we are often lacking the skills that we need. Examples include skills and competencies associated with planning; running a meeting; and running a working group. Any suggestion from the WG on structural or other changes needed to address this problem would be welcome. _______________________________________________ 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 (5)
-
Adam Peake -
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Vanda Scartezini