ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments)
I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily increasing role of the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this recommendation -- which I honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs for comment -- suggests that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be given the authority to appoint a Board Liaision. We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed for issues of unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants to -- in recommendations it has itself written -- be given consideration to have the power to make appointments and decisions on predictable timelines. If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to me -- then that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that the ExecComm was created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole ALAC, under the pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these fears being realized. Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in which participants are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory) regarding their subject preferences, then _required_ to actively participate in working groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel support and ultimately the ability to be complete participants. If only the same zeal used to demand participation from Summit delegates was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would not need to exist. Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is noteworthy that, despite many months of member performance reports in our hands, ALAC has not begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the recall provisions) even once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair having to take performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own hands, having exhausted my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to fix itself in this regard. The Board liaison is the only reference to the ExecComm in this document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points to a disturbing -- if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to give the ExecComm powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should they be "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend should be stopped and if possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a very few people shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to address this by increasing participation by all rather than entrenching a special position for the inner core. It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm indicates a failure of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this out in discussion of a document related to the ALAC review. - Evan
"If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to me -- then that needs to be confronted directly."
I agree. However, the institutional mechanism for change was the ALAC review, was it not? The conclusion was, essentially, give ALAC time to mature. How is ALAC dysfunction to be confronted at this point? I ask the question out of real curiosity, not to be pedantic. There are a lot of questions being asked about creating a constituency of consumer groups. Maybe that's the way for some of us to go.
________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch [evan@telly.org] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:47 AM To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: At-Large Worldwide; At-Large Worldwide Subject: [ALAC] ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments) I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily increasing role of the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this recommendation -- which I honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs for comment -- suggests that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be given the authority to appoint a Board Liaision. We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed for issues of unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants to -- in recommendations it has itself written -- be given consideration to have the power to make appointments and decisions on predictable timelines. If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to me -- then that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that the ExecComm was created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole ALAC, under the pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these fears being realized. Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in which participants are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory) regarding their subject preferences, then _required_ to actively participate in working groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel support and ultimately the ability to be complete participants. If only the same zeal used to demand participation from Summit delegates was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would not need to exist. Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is noteworthy that, despite many months of member performance reports in our hands, ALAC has not begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the recall provisions) even once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair having to take performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own hands, having exhausted my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to fix itself in this regard. The Board liaison is the only reference to the ExecComm in this document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points to a disturbing -- if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to give the ExecComm powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should they be "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend should be stopped and if possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a very few people shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to address this by increasing participation by all rather than entrenching a special position for the inner core. It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm indicates a failure of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this out in discussion of a document related to the ALAC review. - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
Brendler, Beau wrote:
"If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to me -- then that needs to be confronted directly."
I agree. However, the institutional mechanism for change was the ALAC review, was it not? The conclusion was, essentially, give ALAC time to mature. How is ALAC dysfunction to be confronted at this point? Bringing in structural changes seems pointless if they're not followed.
We have processes in place to deal with ALAC members who aren' t pulling their weight. Implementing those processes, rather than obfuscating them (as was put forward in Cairo) or bypassing them (by forming an executive committee to simply ignore the no-shows), seems a reasonable request. How do we know if the existing measures in place are insufficient if we never try them?
I ask the question out of real curiosity, not to be pedantic. There are a lot of questions being asked about creating a constituency of consumer groups. Maybe that's the way for some of us to go.
Perhaps, but it depends on how narrow a view you take of the definition of " consumer groups". If you suggest something exclusively narrow such as Consumers Union and its international counterparts, that might be a Very Good Thing but it does not supplant (at least the theoretical intent of) the purpose of At-Large.
- Evan
I share Evan's frustration. I am not seeing a willingness on the part of the ALAC to follow its own rules, to engage in consultative activities with the RALOs, or to work toward making necessary improvements. There is a reticence on the part of ALAC members to discuss anything on-line or to bring user issues forward. The dysfunctional state of the ALAC impacts our ability as North Americans to protect the interests of our community. I appreciate and endorse Beau's suggestion to consider forming a separate GNSO constituency of consumer groups, but such an action alone won't have an effect upon the continuing dysfunctional state of the ALAC. In my view, the ALAC needs to be sent a strong message -- that unless necessary changes are made, and quickly, the NARALO will secede from the ALAC and will work exclusively within the GNSO. We don't need to continue working within a broken model that brooks no hope for change. In the past, the ccTLDs withdrew from the DNSO to better protect the interests of their own community. Withdrawal from the ALAC remains a viable option that we should consider. --- On Mon, 12/15/08, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Subject: ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments) To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 11:47 AM I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily increasing role of the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this recommendation -- which I honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs for comment -- suggests that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be given the authority to appoint a Board Liaision.
We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed for issues of unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants to -- in recommendations it has itself written -- be given consideration to have the power to make appointments and decisions on predictable timelines.
If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to me -- then that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that the ExecComm was created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole ALAC, under the pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these fears being realized.
Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in which participants are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory) regarding their subject preferences, then _required_ to actively participate in working groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel support and ultimately the ability to be complete participants.
If only the same zeal used to demand participation from Summit delegates was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would not need to exist. Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is noteworthy that, despite many months of member performance reports in our hands, ALAC has not begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the recall provisions) even once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair having to take performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own hands, having exhausted my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to fix itself in this regard.
The Board liaison is the only reference to the ExecComm in this document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points to a disturbing -- if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to give the ExecComm powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should they be "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend should be stopped and if possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a very few people shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to address this by increasing participation by all rather than entrenching a special position for the inner core.
It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm indicates a failure of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this out in discussion of a document related to the ALAC review.
- Evan
I'm looking for "this recommendation" and cannot find it. What is it? Carlton On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily increasing role of the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this recommendation -- which I honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs for comment -- suggests that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be given the authority to appoint a Board Liaision.
We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed for issues of unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants to -- in recommendations it has itself written -- be given consideration to have the power to make appointments and decisions on predictable timelines.
If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to me -- then that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that the ExecComm was created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole ALAC, under the pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these fears being realized.
Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in which participants are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory) regarding their subject preferences, then _required_ to actively participate in working groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel support and ultimately the ability to be complete participants.
If only the same zeal used to demand participation from Summit delegates was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would not need to exist. Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is noteworthy that, despite many months of member performance reports in our hands, ALAC has not begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the recall provisions) even once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair having to take performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own hands, having exhausted my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to fix itself in this regard.
The Board liaison is the only reference to the ExecComm in this document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points to a disturbing -- if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to give the ExecComm powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should they be "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend should be stopped and if possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a very few people shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to address this by increasing participation by all rather than entrenching a special position for the inner core.
It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm indicates a failure of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this out in discussion of a document related to the ALAC review.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
Carlton, Evan is referring to this sentence in point #2 of the ALAC response to the Mid-Term Consultation: "Please note mechanisms of this process would need careful consideration and further discussed, but could take the form of either one of the two Board Seats being initially made by the ALAC per se or perhaps more preferably an ALAC to Board Liaison role being maintained where the Liaison is the ALAC Chair or nominee of the ALAC Executive." You will note that even though this Statement hasn't been ratified by the ALAC, it was submitted anyway and points to new powers being considered for the ExCom. --- On Mon, 12/15/08, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:
From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> Subject: Re: [ALAC] ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments) To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Cc: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "At-Large Worldwide" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 2:32 PM I'm looking for "this recommendation" and cannot find it. What is it? Carlton
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily
increasing role of
the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this recommendation -- which I honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs for comment -- suggests that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be given the authority to appoint a Board Liaision.
We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed for issues of unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants to -- in recommendations it has itself written -- be given consideration to have the power to make appointments and decisions on predictable timelines.
If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to me -- then that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that the ExecComm was created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole ALAC, under the pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these fears being realized.
Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in which participants are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory) regarding their subject preferences, then _required_ to actively participate in working groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel support and ultimately the ability to be complete participants.
If only the same zeal used to demand participation from Summit delegates was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would not need to exist. Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is noteworthy that, despite many months of member performance reports in our hands, ALAC has not begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the recall provisions) even once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair having to take performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own hands, having exhausted my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to fix itself in this regard.
The Board liaison is the only reference to the ExecComm in this document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points to a disturbing -- if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to give the ExecComm powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should they be "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend should be stopped and if possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a very few people shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to address this by increasing participation by all rather than entrenching a special position for the inner core.
It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm indicates a failure of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this out in discussion of a document related to the ALAC review.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
Danny & Members All: Many thanks to Danny for bringing this change to my attention. Yes, this is not a small change from the original text and thus, a cause for concern. On its face, it appears the ExCom is reserving a right to exercise a power that it said it was not after. And, it appears, by stealth. The question of appointment of Board Members from ALAC - or for that matter, a Board Liaison from ALAC - could hardly be said to fit into the time-circumscribed decision-making that was used to justify decision-making by a rump ALAC. I have supported the ExCom as was defined in formalizing the structure. But I think of this specific set of decisions like I would a Caribbean hurricane; if they catch you by surprise then there has to be contributory negligence. For you should have known the silly thing was coming long before landfall, indeed from the time when it was a slight area of 'disturbed weather' off West Africa! I am as exercised as anyone about the participation challenges with the At-large business but a wholesale redefinition of the participation model cannot be the best answer we have. I would oppose any suggestion to short circuit the bottom-up advise and consent role the entire ALAC must play in these matters. Otherwise, we might just go back to the ALAC Version 1 and be done with it. But openly so! By the way, this is not an issue for which the response is "well, the Ex-Com is subject to recall". I allowed that answer to past the last time without further comment. But quite frankly, that response barely rises to the level of, um, well, sophistry. Best, Carlton On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>wrote:
Carlton,
Evan is referring to this sentence in point #2 of the ALAC response to the Mid-Term Consultation:
"Please note mechanisms of this process would need careful consideration and further discussed, but could take the form of either one of the two Board Seats being initially made by the ALAC per se or perhaps more preferably an ALAC to Board Liaison role being maintained where the Liaison is the ALAC Chair or nominee of the ALAC Executive."
You will note that even though this Statement hasn't been ratified by the ALAC, it was submitted anyway and points to new powers being considered for the ExCom.
--- On Mon, 12/15/08, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:
From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> Subject: Re: [ALAC] ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments) To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Cc: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "At-Large Worldwide" < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 2:32 PM I'm looking for "this recommendation" and cannot find it. What is it? Carlton
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily
increasing role of
the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this recommendation -- which I honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs for comment -- suggests that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be given the authority to appoint a Board Liaision.
We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed for issues of unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants to -- in recommendations it has itself written -- be given consideration to have the power to make appointments and decisions on predictable timelines.
If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to me -- then that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that the ExecComm was created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole ALAC, under the pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these fears being realized.
Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in which participants are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory) regarding their subject preferences, then _required_ to actively participate in working groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel support and ultimately the ability to be complete participants.
If only the same zeal used to demand participation from Summit delegates was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would not need to exist. Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is noteworthy that, despite many months of member performance reports in our hands, ALAC has not begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the recall provisions) even once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair having to take performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own hands, having exhausted my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to fix itself in this regard.
The Board liaison is the only reference to the ExecComm in this document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points to a disturbing -- if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to give the ExecComm powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should they be "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend should be stopped and if possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a very few people shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to address this by increasing participation by all rather than entrenching a special position for the inner core.
It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm indicates a failure of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this out in discussion of a document related to the ALAC review.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
Dear All: I told you one month ago (see below and remember) that Ex Com issue issue needed time and a carefully treatment . And also said that I had serious concerns about the Ex Com behaviour after to be ratified (for the futures Ex Com), because in they, was summarized the power of entirely ALAC. This change is not a good thing, and my soul of lawyer say to me that was not a mistake. For that reason I asked a write rule (inside bylaws) previously. We need a long discussion about that with RALO`s , because is not a minor change. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: carlosaguirre62@hotmail.comTo: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.orgSubject: RE: [ALAC] Motions with respect to the Ex-ComDate: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:54:01 +0000 Dear All: After yesterday teleconference and having the desition to ratify the Ex Com, and to be clear, I want to say that I'm not against Ex Com, but yes with the procedure in order to ratify it, because IMHO was at least so fast and not careful. And I think we should be extremely cautious when it comes to translate it into the ALAC OP, because we need define with surgical presicion: *what are the issues on which can act?, *which are important matters?, *what are urgent matters? and * if this does not mean the concentration of decisions which correspond to ALAC? (this is my biggest concern). what will happen if the desition takes by Ex Com are not ratify by ALAC? *what happen if there are not consensus into Ex Com. and it occurs to me several others questions. I hope, we will do ok.my two cents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423www.derechoytecnologia.com.arhttp://ar.ageiadensi.org
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:14:38 -0500> From: carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com> CC: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments)> > Danny & Members All:> Many thanks to Danny for bringing this change to my attention. Yes, this is> not a small change from the original text and thus, a cause for concern. On> its face, it appears the ExCom is reserving a right to exercise a power that> it said it was not after. And, it appears, by stealth.> > The question of appointment of Board Members from ALAC - or for that matter,> a Board Liaison from ALAC - could hardly be said to fit into the> time-circumscribed decision-making that was used to justify decision-making> by a rump ALAC. I have supported the ExCom as was defined in formalizing the> structure. But I think of this specific set of decisions like I would a> Caribbean hurricane; if they catch you by surprise then there has to be> contributory negligence. For you should have known the silly thing was> coming long before landfall, indeed from the time when it was a slight area> of 'disturbed weather' off West Africa!> > I am as exercised as anyone about the participation challenges with the> At-large business but a wholesale redefinition of the participation model> cannot be the best answer we have. I would oppose any suggestion to short> circuit the bottom-up advise and consent role the entire ALAC must play in> these matters. Otherwise, we might just go back to the ALAC Version 1 and be> done with it. But openly so!> > By the way, this is not an issue for which the response is "well, the Ex-Com> is subject to recall". I allowed that answer to past the last time without> further comment. But quite frankly, that response barely rises to the level> of, um, well, sophistry.> > Best,> Carlton> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>wrote:> > > Carlton,> >> > Evan is referring to this sentence in point #2 of the ALAC response to the> > Mid-Term Consultation:> >> > "Please note mechanisms of this process would need careful consideration> > and further discussed, but could take the form of either one of the two> > Board Seats being initially made by the ALAC per se or perhaps more> > preferably an ALAC to Board Liaison role being maintained where the Liaison> > is the ALAC Chair or nominee of the ALAC Executive."> >> > You will note that even though this Statement hasn't been ratified by the> > ALAC, it was submitted anyway and points to new powers being considered for> > the ExCom.> >> >> >> > --- On Mon, 12/15/08, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm>> > wrote:> >> > > From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm>> > > Subject: Re: [ALAC] ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC> > Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments)> > > To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org>> > > Cc: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "At-Large Worldwide" <> > alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" <> > at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> > > Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 2:32 PM> > > I'm looking for "this recommendation" and> > > cannot find it. What is it?> > > Carlton> > >> > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Evan Leibovitch> > > <evan@telly.org> wrote:> > >> > > >> > > > I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily> > > increasing role of> > > > the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this> > > recommendation -- which I> > > > honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs> > > for comment -- suggests> > > > that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be> > > given the> > > > authority to appoint a Board Liaision.> > > >> > > > We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed> > > for issues of> > > > unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants> > > to -- in> > > > recommendations it has itself written -- be given> > > consideration to have> > > > the power to make appointments and decisions on> > > predictable timelines.> > > >> > > > If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is> > > to me -- then> > > > that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that> > > the ExecComm was> > > > created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole> > > ALAC, under the> > > > pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these> > > fears being realized.> > > >> > > > Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in> > > which participants> > > > are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory)> > > regarding their> > > > subject preferences, then _required_ to actively> > > participate in working> > > > groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel> > > support and ultimately> > > > the ability to be complete participants.> > > >> > > > If only the same zeal used to demand participation> > > from Summit delegates> > > > was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would> > > not need to exist.> > > > Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is> > > noteworthy that, despite> > > > many months of member performance reports in our> > > hands, ALAC has not> > > > begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the> > > recall provisions) even> > > > once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair> > > having to take> > > > performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own> > > hands, having exhausted> > > > my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to> > > fix itself in this regard.> > > >> > > > The Board liaison is the only reference to the> > > ExecComm in this> > > > document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points> > > to a disturbing --> > > > if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to> > > give the ExecComm> > > > powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should> > > they be> > > > "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend> > > should be stopped and if> > > > possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a> > > very few people> > > > shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to> > > address this by> > > > increasing participation by all rather than> > > entrenching a special> > > > position for the inner core.> > > >> > > > It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm> > > indicates a failure> > > > of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this> > > out in discussion> > > > of a document related to the ALAC review.> > > >> > > > - Evan> > > >> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________> > > > ALAC mailing list> > > > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > >> > > >> > >> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > >> > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org> > > > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac> > > >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________> At-Large mailing list> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Enterate todas las novedades del mundo del deporte por MSN. http://msn.foxsports.com/fslasc
I agree now with Carlos as I agreed when this was discussed JOS -----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de carlos aguirre Enviado el: lunes, 15 de diciembre de 2008 09:57 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide; 'Danny Younger' Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments) Dear All: I told you one month ago (see below and remember) that Ex Com issue issue needed time and a carefully treatment . And also said that I had serious concerns about the Ex Com behaviour after to be ratified (for the futures Ex Com), because in they, was summarized the power of entirely ALAC. This change is not a good thing, and my soul of lawyer say to me that was not a mistake. For that reason I asked a write rule (inside bylaws) previously. We need a long discussion about that with RALO`s , because is not a minor change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- From: carlosaguirre62@hotmail.comTo: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.orgSubject: RE: [ALAC] Motions with respect to the Ex-ComDate: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:54:01 +0000 Dear All: After yesterday teleconference and having the desition to ratify the Ex Com, and to be clear, I want to say that I'm not against Ex Com, but yes with the procedure in order to ratify it, because IMHO was at least so fast and not careful. And I think we should be extremely cautious when it comes to translate it into the ALAC OP, because we need define with surgical presicion: *what are the issues on which can act?, *which are important matters?, *what are urgent matters? and * if this does not mean the concentration of decisions which correspond to ALAC? (this is my biggest concern). what will happen if the desition takes by Ex Com are not ratify by ALAC? *what happen if there are not consensus into Ex Com. and it occurs to me several others questions. I hope, we will do ok.my two cents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423www.derechoytecnologia.com.arhttp://ar.ageiadensi.org
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:14:38 -0500> From: carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com> CC: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments)> > Danny & Members All:> Many thanks to Danny for bringing this change to my attention. Yes, this is> not a small change from the original text and thus, a cause for concern. On> its face, it appears the ExCom is reserving a right to exercise a power that> it said it was not after. And, it appears, by stealth.> > The question of appointment of Board Members from ALAC - or for that matter,> a Board Liaison from ALAC - could hardly be said to fit into the> time-circumscribed decision-making that was used to justify decision-making> by a rump ALAC. I have supported the ExCom as was defined in formalizing the> structure. But I think of this specific set of decisions like I would a> Caribbean hurricane; if they catch you by surprise then there has to be> contributory negligence. For you should have known the silly thing was> coming long before landfall, indeed from the time when it was a slight area> of 'disturbed weather' off West Africa!> > I am as exercised as anyone about the participation challenges with the> At-large business but a wholesale redefinition of the participation model> cannot be the best answer we have. I would oppose any suggestion to short> circuit the bottom-up advise and consent role the entire ALAC must play in> these matters. Otherwise, we might just go back to the ALAC Version 1 and be> done with it. But openly so!> > By the way, this is not an issue for which the response is "well, the Ex-Com> is subject to recall". I allowed that answer to past the last time without> further comment. But quite frankly, that response barely rises to the level> of, um, well, sophistry.> > Best,> Carlton> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>wrote:> > > Carlton,> >> > Evan is referring to this ! sentence in point #2 of the ALAC response to the> > Mid-Term Consultation:>
"Please note mechanisms of this process would need careful consideration> > and further discussed, but could take the form of either one of the two> > Board Seats being initially made by the ALAC per se or perhaps more> > preferably an ALAC to Board Liaison role being maintained where the Liaison> > is the ALAC Chair or nominee of the ALAC Executive."> You will note that even though this Statement hasn't been ratified by the> > ALAC, it was submitted anyway and points to new powers being considered for> > the ExCom.> >> >> >> > --- On Mon, 12/15/08, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm>> > wrote:> >> > > From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm>> > > Subject: Re: [ALAC] ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC> > Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments)> > > To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org>> > > Cc: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "At-Large Worldwide" <> > alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" <> > at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> > > Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 2:32 PM> > > I'm looking for "this recommendation" and> > > cannot find it. What is it?> > > Carlton> > >> > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Evan Leibovitch> > > <evan@telly.org> wrote:> > >> > > >> > > > I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily> > > increasing role of> > > > the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this> > > recommendation -- which I> > > > honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs> > > for comment -- suggests> > > > that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be> > > given the> > > > authority to appoint a Board Liaision.> > > >> > > > We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed> > > for issues of> > > > unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants> > > to -- in> > > > recommendations it has itself written -- be given> > > consideration to have> > > > the power to make appointments and decisions on> > > predictable timelines.> > > >> > > > If! ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is> > > to me -- then> > that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that> > > the ExecComm was> > > > created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole> > > ALAC, under the> > > > pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these> > > fears being realized.> > > >> > > > Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in> > > which participants> > > > are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory)> > > regarding their> > > > subject preferences, then _required_ to actively> > > participate in working> > > > groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel> > > support and ultimately> > > > the ability to be complete participants.> > > >> > > > If only the same zeal used to demand participation> > > from Summit delegates> > > > was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would> > > not need to exist.> > > > Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is> > > noteworthy that, despite> > many months of member performance reports in our> > > hands, ALAC has not> > > > begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the> > > recall provisions) even> > > > once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair> > having to take> > > > performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own> > hands, having exhausted> > > > my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to> > > fix itself in this regard.> > > >> > > > The Board liaison is the only reference to the> > > ExecComm in this> > > > document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points> > > to a disturbing --> > > > if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to> > > give the ExecComm> > powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should> > > they be> > > "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend> > > should be stopped and if> > possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a> > > very few people> > > > shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to> > > address this by> > > > increasing participation by all rather than> > > entrenching a special> > > > position for the ! inner core.> > > >> > > > It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm> > > indicates a failure> > > > of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this> > > out in discussion> > > > of a document related to the ALAC review.> > > >> > > > - Evan> > > >> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________> > > > ALAC mailing list> > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > >> > > >> > >> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org> > > > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac> > > >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________> At-Large mailing list> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Enterate todas las novedades del mundo del deporte por MSN. http://msn.foxsports.com/fslasc _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Carleton, I will make this short because people do not seem to read long e-mails. 1. It was Evan, not Danny who first mentioned this. 2. Although this entire discussion is theoretical for the reasons I gave in my previous e-mail, if the Ex-Com were to have the power to appoint Board members or Liaisons, then it would get that power in one of two ways. Either the Board would decide that it should be done that way (HIGHLY unlikely) or the ALAC were to vote to give the power. If neither were to have happened, then recall would be to gentile a word for what I believe should happen next. Alan At 15/12/2008 08:14 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Danny & Members All: Many thanks to Danny for bringing this change to my attention. Yes, this is not a small change from the original text and thus, a cause for concern. On its face, it appears the ExCom is reserving a right to exercise a power that it said it was not after. And, it appears, by stealth.
The question of appointment of Board Members from ALAC - or for that matter, a Board Liaison from ALAC - could hardly be said to fit into the time-circumscribed decision-making that was used to justify decision-making by a rump ALAC. I have supported the ExCom as was defined in formalizing the structure. But I think of this specific set of decisions like I would a Caribbean hurricane; if they catch you by surprise then there has to be contributory negligence. For you should have known the silly thing was coming long before landfall, indeed from the time when it was a slight area of 'disturbed weather' off West Africa!
I am as exercised as anyone about the participation challenges with the At-large business but a wholesale redefinition of the participation model cannot be the best answer we have. I would oppose any suggestion to short circuit the bottom-up advise and consent role the entire ALAC must play in these matters. Otherwise, we might just go back to the ALAC Version 1 and be done with it. But openly so!
By the way, this is not an issue for which the response is "well, the Ex-Com is subject to recall". I allowed that answer to past the last time without further comment. But quite frankly, that response barely rises to the level of, um, well, sophistry.
Best, Carlton
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>wrote:
Carlton,
Evan is referring to this sentence in point #2 of the ALAC response to the Mid-Term Consultation:
"Please note mechanisms of this process would need careful consideration and further discussed, but could take the form of either one of the two Board Seats being initially made by the ALAC per se or perhaps more preferably an ALAC to Board Liaison role being maintained where the Liaison is the ALAC Chair or nominee of the ALAC Executive."
You will note that even though this Statement hasn't been ratified by the ALAC, it was submitted anyway and points to new powers being considered for the ExCom.
--- On Mon, 12/15/08, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:
From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> Subject: Re: [ALAC] ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments) To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Cc: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "At-Large Worldwide" < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 2:32 PM I'm looking for "this recommendation" and cannot find it. What is it? Carlton
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily
increasing role of
the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this recommendation -- which I honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs for comment -- suggests that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be given the authority to appoint a Board Liaision.
We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed for issues of unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants to -- in recommendations it has itself written -- be given consideration to have the power to make appointments and decisions on predictable timelines.
If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to me -- then that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that the ExecComm was created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole ALAC, under the pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these fears being realized.
Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in which participants are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory) regarding their subject preferences, then _required_ to actively participate in working groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel support and ultimately the ability to be complete participants.
If only the same zeal used to demand participation from Summit delegates was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would not need to exist. Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is noteworthy that, despite many months of member performance reports in our hands, ALAC has not begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the recall provisions) even once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair having to take performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own hands, having exhausted my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to fix itself in this regard.
The Board liaison is the only reference to the ExecComm in this document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points to a disturbing -- if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to give the ExecComm powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should they be "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend should be stopped and if possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a very few people shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to address this by increasing participation by all rather than entrenching a special position for the inner core.
It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm indicates a failure of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this out in discussion of a document related to the ALAC review.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I think now would also be a good time for someone to propose text describing the role of the ExCom/Executive Committee so we can vote on amending the rules of procedure. But back to the current issue: I am confused by process. The the document submitted to the mid-term consultation <http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00008.html> looks like a draft, it opens with "This text for ALAC Response to BGC WG Report on ALAC Review has completed an At-Large Community comments period and is under ratification vote by the ALAC for the next 8 Days. " But there is no note stating the document is draft. Could the chair/ExCom (it is sent in both the Chair's and ALAC ExCom's name, which is also confusing) please explain. 2 questions. If draft, is the document still open for amendments ? (some suggested below) If not draft, but a document proposed for a vote, when will the vote begin (seems we are already eating into the 8 day period stated on the document.) Thanks. General comment: can we submit documents in MS Word, RTF or text. The PDF format used for this document is awkward to manipulate. Suggested amendments: (a) Organization, section 2. Delete the following sentences "From a purely current ALAC perspective it would also be important if in transition or in the longer term a clear connection with an appointee to the Board was directly made from its Membership to maintain a clear nexus between the Advisory Committee and the Board. Please note mechanisms of this process would need careful consideration and further discussed, but could take the form of either one of the two Board Seats being initially made by the ALAC per se or perhaps more preferably an ALAC to Board Liaison role being maintained where the Liaison is the ALAC Chair or nominee of the ALAC Executive." If I understand what it's attempting to say, this statement needs much discussion. And as others have noted the ALAC Executive has no such powers. Section 3. (ingoing? perhaps ongoing commitment?) Think the paragraph needs a re-write. Section 5. What is the sentence including "hither and yon" trying to say? To the follows sentence about priorities being in concert with those of users, this would be a good place to add that one of the goals of the Summit is to identify user priorities. Section 6. Last sentence of the 2nd paragraph. Delete reference to the ExCom, it has no such powers (and should try to be consistent in naming this committee). Suggest changing the sentence to read We also agree with the comments of BGC WG Report on the Recommendation 5 of the Independent Review Report referring to the preparation of an ALAC budget which best contributes to the achievement of ICANN¹s goals. We recommend that preparation of the budget for ALAC activities be undertaken through discussion and negotiation between the ALAC Chair and any appropriate committee of the ALAC and ICANN staff. On sections 10 and 11, I support Wendy's proposal: "Regarding points 10 and 11, I think the case is overstated. ALAC is /an/ appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user, but because of its Advisory role, ALAC is not an effective route for participation in many policy-making processes. Opportunities for individuals and their representatives to participate in existing GNSO constituencies and new stakeholder groups are equally important. If other entities have the demonstrable support of representative groups of individuals, they are no less legitimate voices than the ALAC." Best, Adam
Danny Younger wrote:
Evan is referring to this sentence in point #2 of the ALAC response to the Mid-Term Consultation:
"Please note mechanisms of this process would need careful consideration and further discussed, but could take the form of either one of the two Board Seats being initially made by the ALAC per se or perhaps more preferably an ALAC to Board Liaison role being maintained where the Liaison is the ALAC Chair or nominee of the ALAC Executive."
If anyone is looking for the document, the one I used for reference is at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfn1TpttS4Dm.pdf And, by the way, I inadvertently misspoke when I said, "The Board liaison is the only reference to the ExecComm in this document". The term "ExCom" is used twice within (though this colloquialism is not defined) -- as the document's author and in one other context, arguably more damaging than the first one I found. On the bottom of page three (point #6) is this: "... we would recommend that the specific ways on how to allocate the budget for ALAC activities be remanded to negotiations between the ALAC Chair (or Excom as we now have one that is Regionally balanced) and ICANN staff." Budget negotiations? Does ALAC not already have a subgroup already defined for this important purpose (see https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?finance_and_budget_committee)? Under what possible mandate should ALAC be recommending budgetary planning -- hardly a matter of spontaneous urgency -- to be handled by its Executive Commitee (or the Chair alone for that matter) instead of the existing body designed expressly for that role? This example is even clearer than the Board Liaison one (which is indeed ambiguous as Alan pointed out) in demonstrating a role envisioned by the ExCom for itself quite different from the one apparently approved for it by ALAC. It is necessary to request the entire ALAC to take responsibility for its creation. Personally I believe that this document illustrates an *inevitable* tendency for an ExCom to assume -- in the name of expediency -- power it was not authorized to take. As such, it may be justification for immediate dissolution of the Executive Committee. The goal of ALAC should be to reduce the amount of panic reactions it encounters, rather than to search for more-efficient, more-expedient ways to deal with an increasing frequency of panics. - Evan
participants (8)
-
Adam Peake -
Alan Greenberg -
Brendler, Beau -
carlos aguirre -
Carlton Samuels -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
José Ovidio Salgueiro A.