This is a complete tangent from this note, but Adam mentions the lobbying for seats on the WHOIS review. Are we sure the door is closed on this? Is there any other lobbying tactic we can use to at least try to get two seats instead of one? -----Original Message-----

From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> Sent: Jun 24, 2010 12:06 PM To: ICANN ALAC list <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> 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