(I am not a member of the "ALAC-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org> or NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> lists so have removed them from the cc list, but this discussion began At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> so that list is addressed.) Comment below: At 12:04 PM +1100 12/19/08, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:

Couple of things regarding a few points made in this topics thread...

As far as I know all comments from Wendy, Danny and others made on lists or wiki's were incprprated with the exception of a part point mae by Sebastien regarding Strategic planning...

Also there is no power grab by the ExCom => the use of ExCom in the addition of suggestion that a Board Liaison position be retained *in transition* was discused in Cairo which is where it came from and the use of Chair as a possability* of that role fits with the role of Board liaison being Chair of other AC's we extended it to the ExCom as a suggestion *IF such a proposal were ever contemplated by the BGC ALAC Review WG* to allow wider choice to ExCom but ALAC can be inserted instead of ExCom without any issue at all as far as I'm concerned...

And I totally agree with the ALAC Budget SC being the interface with the staff on budget proposal but the original consultants proposed Chair for this matter the BGC ALAC Review WG did not change it I believe and our draft was trying again to expand this role to at least ExCom but the natural alternate is the Budget & Finance SC if it is reconstituted...

Finally the ExCom is assigned authorship of this interim document UNTIL it is voted on then it becomes an ALAC Statement with all the front pages and coversheets that go along with that authority after the vote has closed...

Finally if NARALO wish, there is at least two options forward here:- 1) is to propose the ammendments below to the ALAC Working List get agreement (I'm happy to propose and endores this if Beau puts it forward) and those who have voted so far will need to revote in a new adjusted poll, with an extention of time given...

I asked for conformation of process in email sent to the At-Large Worldwide list on Tuesday December 16. <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20...> I asked if the document was draft, it certainly looked like a draft as it hadn't been put to the ALAC for any final comment, no had a vote been called (the document claimed to be "under ratification vote by the ALAC for the next 8 Days" but not such vote had been called, with not information about the vote until credentials were sent earlier today, Friday December 19.) I asked if the document still open for amendments, and made some recommendations. I am clearly not alone in wishing to see the document amended. I will not vote for the document as it stands and without the opportunity to have amendments considered. I do not know the formal procedure for the following request, but I am asking as a member of the ALAC that the vote be suspended until such time as the amendments have been submitted and considered. Request a delay of five days, to the end of Tuesday December 23rd, with the vote restarted on December 24th for eight days. Thanks, Adam

or 2) NARALO reps vote however they are advised to or not and NARALO put forward a short "We disagree with the following in the ALAC Comments / Statement" note that can act as an ammendment to any Comment already sent and I will ensure that the BGC ALAC Review WG accept this to be included in their deliberations on final recommendations, to do this I will need to know in the next day or so which you desire so that I can let Trish et.al. know what is happening before many people take a break away from thier workplaces etc.,

CLO

2008/12/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>

...

Brendler, Beau wrote:

...

I would appreciate the guidance of the NARALO as to how to vote. Personally, I'm wavering between 60 percent for and 40 percent against. The percent I'm against mostly consists of wording that reads to me like something of a transferrence of power from the ALAC to the exec committee and the chair.

Yeah, I sort of had that objection as well ;-). There are two spots where the ExCom is mentioneed, once regarding Board liaisions and once regarding budget planning. Both are IMO unacceptable overstepping of the bounds originally surounding the ExCom. I'm concerned that the ExCom assigned itself at the authors of the document -- to be endorsed by ALAC - rather than an ALAC document.

And finally, I'm more than a little concerned that I -- who am not on ALAC per-se -- had to be the first to point that out on the lists. Is most of ALAC OK with this power-grab, or just asleep at the wheel?

My personal preference would be to bring forward an amendment that would: 1) Change authorship of the document from the ExCom to ALAC 2) Change the Board liaision authority from the Chair-or-ExComm to ALAC 3) Change the ALAC liaison with staff on budget implementation from Chair-or-ExCom" to the ALAC Budget Subcommittee

If the amendment does not pass I would vote to reject the document -- and then have NARALO draft its own statement, echoing most of the other comments but noting the danger in the ExComm references.

But that's just me. Frankly, I'd be delighted if you raised a motion to disband the ExCom -- less than a month after its creation it members have wasted no time to destroy the trust that it was meant for emergency, rapid-response use only. Clearly the real solutions to the problems the ExCom was created to address lie in fixing ALAC rather than institutionalizing a shortcut around it.

The continued existence of the ExComm prolongs -- and arguably enhances -- a culture of group inaction and unaccountability. It needs to go IMO.

...

I'm also not sure about the language on page 4 referring to ALAC as the appropriate organizational channel for the voice and concern of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes. I'm opposed to this statement both in theory and in practice -- I don't think ALAC is doing that now, and I don't think it should be roped off as the most appropriate venue for individual users.

I am personally OK with language designating ALAC as the primary channel but not the only one. I have no problem with At-Large being the default forum for Internet users who don't self-identify with other constituencies. Maybe with enough new blood we can inject some life into this thing yet.

- Evan

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists....

ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org