OK, Nick, you are mainly correct on this one. My issue is with the lack of transparency with the entire procedure, not necessarily staff. If it was ALAC at fault, then it is they whom I wish to hear from. Lets not name names - lets just find out how this happened. Having said that, though, at what time did staff point us to the page where these people were listed? As a lowly NARALO grunt, I had no idea there was even such a page out there. As the NARALO Secretariat, I'm truly peeved that such a page wasn't pointed out to me so that I could put it out to my region! That is one area where SOMEONE sure as heck didn't keep the lines of communication open and then opaqueness took over. I still want Evan's points addressed. If it wasn't staff at fault then who made the decision to make an end run around our entire region? Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 6:34 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting forALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments Thanks for your note Evan - please see below. On 28 Sep 2007, at 11:48, Evan Leibovitch wrote: Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: you are correct that it is not dictated by the Bylaws - however, as the Bylaws are silent on this point the Bylaws clearly do not prevent the ALAC from voting in the manner they have chosen to follow, either. So, because the bylaws don't mandate transparency, it's not to be considered (let alone advocated)? I note that I didn't say that, and as a result I didn't mean that, either. The staff do not decide what the members of the ALAC vote about. We provide the tools to ensure that voting is carried out in an orderly way which is not subject to inherent flaws. We do have a duty to ensure that to the extent possible the process devised is not abusive, untransparent, or not in conformity with the Bylaws of ICANN but we cannot dictate to the ALAC, for example, There is clearly a gap between doing the minimum necessary and doing what is right. Fixing the ICANN bylaws to add transparency (that it claims to want) is one thing; asking for basic accountability and transparency within our own constituency -- even when not demanded by the bylaws -- is far more straightforward, and IMO quite reasonable. The Bylaws may offer a legal crutch but they sure don't offer an ethical one, especially if ICANN wants any credibility in its stated desire to be more transparent. Or does it speak one way but act another by design? The staff have not acted in any way improperly and I object to any characterisation of the staff role in this as untransparent. The page showing the Nomcom Appointees for 2008 has been publicly listed on the ALAC working wiki for some time. Who the ALAC were going to vote on was listed at that page and anyone in the community could look at it. The wiki environment itself - with the ability of each region, and of the ALAC, to post its activities and intended courses of action, was setup by staff to facilitate community transparency. The fact that all agendas of ALAC are public, that recordings and transcripts are available, is also very transparent. Votes are published as you see, with a link to facilitate independent verification. If you have an issue with the choices which were made then the ALAC members are where you should focus your questions. It is the responsibility of the community to elect its leaders. It is likewise those leaders' responsibility to execute their responsibilities openly and congruent with those that chose them. The staff is not responsible for the choices made by your leaders, or for your choices in who you choose to lead you. Is it staff practice not to itself be transparent -- and to recommend against transparency and accountability in internal procedures -- unless the bylaws absolutely and specifically demand it? Is doing the absolute minimum necessary Standard Operating Procedure? Again, this is objectionable, inaccurate, and actually insulting. It would be appreciated if comments could be kept factual, and accurate. If you object to the choices made by the representatives on the ALAC, you should ask them about their choices, not come and blame the staff. It is both a defocus and frankly unhelpful. I have never recommended untransparent actions - ask the ALAC; they'll likely tell you I can be a bit irritating in always suggesting that the community err on the side of more transparency, rather than less. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 email: nashton@consensus.pro Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart