Agree with Alan, in fact would go much further, the framework really is a very unusual document. Seems for forget that ALAC members are volunteers, offers them little respect, instead treating them as children who aren't to be trusted. It has the ALAC adopting a more detailed and lengthy conflict of interest than the board. Why? Concentrates power at the tip if the pyramid rather than with RALO, ALS and users: ALAC members don't serve the chair and staff, they are appointed either by the RALOs or the NomCom. They are appointed under conditions set by their respective RALOs and the NomCom, if necessary it is those groups that should be instigating recall. The framework seems to be asserting authority over the RALOs (and less concern to me, NomCom), which is obviously not how it should be. For sure develop guidelines on what constitutes expected level service by an ALAC member, and inform the RALO (NomCom?) if standards are not met (in fact, inform the RALO when standards are met!) It's not clear to me that the chair has the authority to sack (recall) anyone. As Alan noted (and I think both he and I mentioned when the rules of procedures document was being drafted) the NomCom does not have a recall process, though such has been suggested during the NomCom review. NomCom could replace someone during the first year of their two year term, but not the second. The framework seems to suggest that during meetings ALAC members will be on call 24 hours/day. Takes no account of ALAC members participation in the ICANN community, whether to learn, just be part of the broader process or because some RALOs might want their members to participate in other ICANN activities. ALAC's already isolated, often stuck away in some cheap hotel down the street and otherwise occupied with its own meetings. Some of the text about travel is just petty. The term officer is unclear. The code of conduct is excessive, how about replacing it with: ALAC members should work in a collegial and cooperative manner. The end. Really is a bizarre document. Best, Adam
I have some substantive comments, but first, I must point out that the document says a vote will be taken during the April teleconference, I presume that the plan is actually for May.
I am attaching a copy of the draft document with my COMMENTS inserted (you may have to turn on displaying of Comment Balloons to see them). Some are purely editorial, but most are substantive.
Overall, I find this document far too long, and too bureaucratic. Providing an 11 page document to tell people what is expected of them seems like a way to guarantee that it is not read. On the other hand, the major participation requirements are at times glossed over where they should be more descriptive. I nevertheless have addressed the document as it stands.
I find the Conflict of Interest procedures overly complex. Yes, we must make sure we are not perceived as serving some other master, but we are an advisory committee, not a policy-making body. The GNSO, which *is* a policy making body has less onerous rules.
I must admit that I am troubled that I found so much to comment on, and I haven't seen any other comments from ALAC members (unless they came in while I was in transit the last 24 hours). Am really that out of touch with everyone else?
Alan
At 31/03/2008 02:49 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Community members:
The ALAC decided at their last meeting to request the staff to draft up a comprehensive Accountability Framework, which the ALAC Executive Committee was to review and amend at its meeting this month. The Chair proposed to the ExComm that at the same time a Conflicts of Interest Policy should be prepared as this was a natural accompaniment to the Accountability Framework.
he ExComm has reviewed these two texts, and the ALAC is now to review the draft from 1 April until 11th April - comments from the wider At-Large community are of course welcomed.
Any comments received are then to be incorporated and the resulting text will be on the agenda for adoption at the next ALAC Teleconference, in May.
The URL for the text is as follows. In order to save bandwidth for those who do not have broadband, the text has not been attached to this message: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:200803311...
French and Spanish translation will be available once they are ready. -- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:AL-ALAC-EXC-0308-1-2#5660D9.doc (WDBN/«IC») (005660D9) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org