On 28 March 2010 19:13, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
it was not the Board that made this decision, but rather the Chair of the Board along with the Chair of the GAC. That doesn't make the outcome any more palatable in my mind, but based on a number of actions at the Nairobi Board meeting, the current board is showing some signs of redeeming itself, so I wouldn't want to blame the entire Board for what was an extremely untransparent and unaccountable lead-off to the review whose purpose is "Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users".
Indeed. The three 'disenfranchising' decisions I referred to were actually made by three very different sets of decision-makers. That helps illustrate my point that the mistrust (or is it fear?) of At-Large is pervasive. If the Board wants to "redeem" itself, it will work with At-Large to help deal with our loss of a conduit once the transition happens from official liaison to Board member. Once that transition is complete, At-Large's ability to initiate policy as a constituency will be severely reduced. We will be reduced to reacting through conventional public comment mechanisms. Perhaps At-Large PDP needs its own board-blessed PDP process? Sorry for the diversion from the original issue, ICANN's own particular approach to "T&A". But the challenges that At-Large faced with getting its voice heard at this committee appear to be symptoms of being part of policy-making that we facing throughout ICANN. There are some encouraging steps -- we have been invited into forums that are certainly new to us. But there is still much to be concerned about. - Evan