IMHO, it is a wise choice to keep the ALAC, as advisory committee, and some sort of At Large representation in the GNSO separated. I am one of those who, like Alan, fears problems if the same organization, ALAC, is represented twice in the chart, as Advisory Committee to the Board, and as GNSO Constituency. At the very least it will open a can of worms suggesting to other constituencies to establish an Advisory Committee and vice-versa. And at the very worse start a debate on whether ALAC should lose its status as Advisory Committee to the Board. Much better to talk about an at-large community, without excluding the fact that other "at-large" participants could join in for what is related to GNSO policy making, without necessarily be an ALS or involved in ALAC. And vice-versa. This can also bring to the question on whether, for instance, consumer protection agencies should not form a constituency of the GNSO in the non-contractual, non-commercial stakeholder group. Just an example. Regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, 24 April 2008 12:05 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested
At 24/04/2008 05:39 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
<snip> The GNSO does not propose individual universities, IP lawyers, or registrars being represented -- why ALSs? If ALAC has no business having representation on GNSO, then it really has no business existing at all. The irony of a document backed by ALAC that explicitly recommends its own disenfranchisement is, to me, astounding. <snip>
I am in Africa with only sporadic connectivity, very limited bandwidth and even less time. As such I have only read a fraction of this thread.
I have thoughts on a number of issues, but for the moment, will confine myself to comments on the above thought.
The terms "At-Large" and "ALAC" are typically used interchangeably by much of ICANN. The original document from the Business Constituency did in fact reference "ALAC". I am afraid that I am the devil that caused it to change to "At-Large".
My reasoning was that the ALAC is a properly constituted Board Advisory Committee within ICANN. Perhaps the lawyers and organization-gurus among us would have no problem with an Advisory body within ICANN being represented on a Supporting Organization Council. But I did. I thought that this simply confused the relationships between the various bodies. So I suggested that references to ALAC be changed to At-Large. Now since At-Large can formally speak and act solely through the RALOs and the ALAC, Presumably these bodies or their designates will play a significant role in selecting who is representing At-Large as members of an "At-Large Constituency" within the User stakeholder group (and thus affecting who sits on the GNSO council for that stakeholder group.
My intention was not to disenfranchise ALAC or At-Large, but rather to reserve for them the ability to influence the GNSO through representatives, but at the same time to NOT muddy the already complex ICANN organization chart.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org