On 12 October 2011 00:05, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote : Carlton, On 11/10/2011 15:49, Carlton Samuels wrote :

As I have already stated, I cannot vote for any report that recommends

"sanctions" on volunteers, even if they are yet to be determined. The

state of mind that delivers this gem can only be repudiated for cause.

Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not accountable. Yes, that person is a volunteer, but when you volunteer for ALAC, you're not doing it as a piece of fun. There is a deep responsibility that goes along with that. There is accountability to users in the rest of the world. You are absolutely right Olivier ---------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ----------------------------------------------------------

Evan - I agree with the idea of recall, and have so advocated for years, but I do have a problem with sanctions from ALAC. I understand the problems, have dealt with them myself several times, and moral suasion is not sufficient for some. But having the RALO appointees accountable to the RALOs should be more than sufficient, and I am sure the NomCom and Board would consider some sort of accountability for NomCom appointees as well, were it to be raised. Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

...

Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not accountable.

I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, accountable to who?

If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle this issue through a recall or other similar measure.

If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different but a mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC appointee is not accountable to ALAC or the region, however it reflects badly on the NomCom and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC members are chosen and allowed to under-serve for an entire two-year term.

What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment over its own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their viewpoint, and that viewpoint is that only a small number of issues matter, this is indeed the RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no right to engage in top-down second-guessing. Education and persuasion, certainly, but not sanctions.

I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but also RALO chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I have long advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in favour of staff's providing attendance and other performance metrics that allow a RALO to act appropriately on factual inputs. But I am very much against any scheme that has ALAC members being accountable to other ALAC members.

It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to the public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone propagate that mistake within our own bounds.

But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate

...

stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later.

I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's simply that the wording in the report right now could easily be interpreted by a casual reader to infer that we have already had the discussion, agreed on a regime of sanctions, and are simply discussing appropriate implementation going forward. WE know the debate is incomplete, but that is not what the report indicates.

- Evan _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

I agree with both Olivier and Evan. ;) One thing that I think is *super* important is to educate the RALOs in: 1) What their elected ALAC rep is supposed to be doing. If they know this from the beginning, they may make different choices when electing their ALAC rep. Since this is an elected position that people actually campaign for, the ideals need to be set at the beginning so that those that are running for the position know what is expected of them and the region knows where to set their expectations. 2) Being kept informed about how their ALAC rep is actually performing. The members of the region, right now, have no idea if their ALAC rep is showing up to meetings or giving any kind of substantive input while at these meetings. Right now, the RALOs are powerless to remove an elected ALAC rep that is non-performing because they have no idea HOW they are performing. This problem needs to be addressed as soon as possible, IMHO. I'm tired of seeing just a few ALAC members over and over again on these lists shouldering all of the work when I know that there are 10 elected reps out there. That also leaves the matter of the NomCom reps. They need to be made accountable too but I'm just not sure how. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:40 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: Carlton Samuels; lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ALAC EXCOM; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not accountable.

I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, accountable to who? If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle this issue through a recall or other similar measure. If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different but a mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC appointee is not accountable to ALAC or the region, however it reflects badly on the NomCom and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC members are chosen and allowed to under-serve for an entire two-year term. What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment over its own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their viewpoint, and that viewpoint is that only a small number of issues matter, this is indeed the RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no right to engage in top-down second-guessing. Education and persuasion, certainly, but not sanctions. I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but also RALO chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I have long advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in favour of staff's providing attendance and other performance metrics that allow a RALO to act appropriately on factual inputs. But I am very much against any scheme that has ALAC members being accountable to other ALAC members. It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to the public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone propagate that mistake within our own bounds. But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate

stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later.

I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's simply that the wording in the report right now could easily be interpreted by a casual reader to infer that we have already had the discussion, agreed on a regime of sanctions, and are simply discussing appropriate implementation going forward. WE know the debate is incomplete, but that is not what the report indicates. - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca>wrote:

The members of the region, right now, have no idea if their ALAC rep is showing up to meetings or giving any kind of substantive input while at these meetings.

Ah, there's the rub.....emphasis on 'substantive input'! Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

Hi all, I share Evan's basic question: "accountable to who?" and subsequent considerations. And I would say: In a broader sense to the Internet users in general, in a causal sense to the regional community that selected them = the RALOs concerned by such an under-performing candidate should be "in charge" of any potential "sanction" mechanisms because the two *RALO selected* ALAC members are - first and foremost - accountable to their electorate. A defective performance of a regional representative / ALAC member affects performance and reputation of the particular region and cannot be in their interest = be tolerated over a certain span of time (except for serious circumstances such as sickness and the like). I understand Carlton's reservations against sanctions or punishments of volunteers but as soon as limited seats (15 or 2 per region) and financial (travel etc.) resources are associated with a volunteer's engagement, the mandated person and his community have a special responsibility and accountability towards ALAC and ICANN. Otherwise, we cannot fulfill our role and commitments - what we stand for - diligently representing the users at ICANN. The key deliberation must be: The standards and professionalism we expect and demand from others, we must fulfill ourselves at first hand (typical trap of credibility ;-). Best, Wolf Evan Leibovitch wrote Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:39:

On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

...

Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not accountable.

I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, accountable to who?

If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle this issue through a recall or other similar measure.

If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different but a mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC appointee is not accountable to ALAC or the region, however it reflects badly on the NomCom and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC members are chosen and allowed to under-serve for an entire two-year term.

What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment over its own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their viewpoint, and that viewpoint is that only a small number of issues matter, this is indeed the RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no right to engage in top-down second-guessing. Education and persuasion, certainly, but not sanctions.

I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but also RALO chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I have long advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in favour of staff's providing attendance and other performance metrics that allow a RALO to act appropriately on factual inputs. But I am very much against any scheme that has ALAC members being accountable to other ALAC members.

It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to the public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone propagate that mistake within our own bounds.

But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate

...

stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later.

I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's simply that the wording in the report right now could easily be interpreted by a casual reader to infer that we have already had the discussion, agreed on a regime of sanctions, and are simply discussing appropriate implementation going forward. WE know the debate is incomplete, but that is not what the report indicates.

- Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

Wolf wrote: "The key deliberation must be: The standards and professionalism we expect and demand from others, we must fulfill ourselves at first hand (typical trap of credibility ;-)." Yessir, Wolf. +1. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net>wrote:

Hi all,

I share Evan's basic question: "accountable to who?" and subsequent considerations. And I would say: In a broader sense to the Internet users in general, in a causal sense to the regional community that selected them = the RALOs concerned by such an under-performing candidate should be "in charge" of any potential "sanction" mechanisms because the two *RALO selected* ALAC members are - first and foremost - accountable to their electorate. A defective performance of a regional representative / ALAC member affects performance and reputation of the particular region and cannot be in their interest = be tolerated over a certain span of time (except for serious circumstances such as sickness and the like).

I understand Carlton's reservations against sanctions or punishments of volunteers but as soon as limited seats (15 or 2 per region) and financial (travel etc.) resources are associated with a volunteer's engagement, the mandated person and his community have a special responsibility and accountability towards ALAC and ICANN. Otherwise, we cannot fulfill our role and commitments - what we stand for - diligently representing the users at ICANN.

The key deliberation must be: The standards and professionalism we expect and demand from others, we must fulfill ourselves at first hand (typical trap of credibility ;-).

Best, Wolf

Evan Leibovitch wrote Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:39:

...

On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

...

Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not accountable.

I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, accountable to who?

If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle this issue through a recall or other similar measure.

If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different but a mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC appointee is not accountable to ALAC or the region, however it reflects badly on the NomCom and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC members are chosen and allowed to under-serve for an entire two-year term.

What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment over its own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their viewpoint, and that viewpoint is that only a small number of issues matter, this is indeed the RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no right to engage in top-down second-guessing. Education and persuasion, certainly, but not sanctions.

I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but also RALO chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I have long advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in favour of staff's providing attendance and other performance metrics that allow a RALO to act appropriately on factual inputs. But I am very much against any scheme that has ALAC members being accountable to other ALAC members.

It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to the public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone propagate that mistake within our own bounds.

But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate

...

stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later.

I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's simply that the wording in the report right now could easily be interpreted by a casual reader to infer that we have already had the discussion, agreed on a regime of sanctions, and are simply discussing appropriate implementation going forward. WE know the debate is incomplete, but that is not what the report indicates.

- Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org

Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

Dear Olivier: I truly understand your perspective and even acknowledge that the 'fer-instance' you record, admittedly an extreme case, is possible.....and troubling. But I am convinced that "sanctions" talk is the wrong mindset to address this. Persons are appointed for a period. That period can be adjusted by design and in context of the appointive process. That the least of it though. When it comes to elected members, elections have a particular objective in our at-large context; it presages the 'bottom up' process to which names and numbers policy making is said to be committed. Persons are elected for a period. History absolves me; everyone knows that I am aware electorates can, in fact, return 'unsuitable' persons. However, because we must pay more than lip service to this 'bottom up' ideal, the ALAC cannot adopt such a cavalier attitude to the rejection of that quintessential 'bottom up' action that nullification of that election will message. Then there are the 'unintended consequences' one can anticipate. I have consistently cautioned against this talk of 'sanctions', even when well-respected colleagues have privately sought my views in circumstances where ALAC members are judged to be 'lifting light' in ALAC work. I feel equally strong that as this mindset remains with life and stalks the framework, it is bad for our business. So consistent with my own views and intuit, I shall oppose. Best, Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:

Carlton,

On 11/10/2011 15:49, Carlton Samuels wrote :

As I have already stated, I cannot vote for any report that recommends "sanctions" on volunteers, even if they are yet to be determined. The state of mind that delivers this gem can only be repudiated for cause.

Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not accountable.

Yes, that person is a volunteer, but when you volunteer for ALAC, you're not doing it as a piece of fun. There is a deep responsibility that goes along with that. There is accountability to users in the rest of the world.

But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later. (and in Dakar we have a session on metric which might touch on that... or we might have to wait until after Dakar. In any case, there will be plenty of times to debate this)

Warmest regards,

Olivier

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html