Jacque, Evan, and all, The obvious problems with the seemingly increasing complex organization structure of the ALAC, and the RALO's as well as the differences between the them is now, and continues to lead to gross misunderstanding and will continue to do so as Wendy and Danny have frequently elaborated upon in various discussions on the reletive forums associated. So I fully agree with Evan on that score, but would suggest that simplification, transparency, accountability, and openness will go far to improving this now growing and unecessarly complex organizational and operational structure problems I also fully agree with Jacque's concerns and would expand on her concern in that if any and all users cannot have a voice and vote on all issues introduced, able to introduce new or developing concerns that may not be obviously recognized, the mission of ICANN via the ALAC or the RALO's cannot ever be fulfilled. "Jacqueline A. Morris" wrote:
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Maybe this is not a meeting topic, but I am increasingly becoming aware that the GAC -- although, like ALAC has no direct Board seat, wields enormous power within ICANN. I would appreciate if some people here with some background could confirms or deny, and offer opinions on the organizational differences between the two advisory groups. Perhaps such information may be helpful in our meeting ... even if informal.
yes, the GAC is very powerful without any voting Board seat. And one of the reasons that I consistently ask WHY it is necessary to have a voting seat to have influence. I think that there's a concept that the vote means something in and of itself - honestly, if we have 40% of the Board seats , we can still lose EVERY vote if we are not respected, and have no influence! Whereas as you see with the GAC, you don't need to vote if you can persuade the people who have votes to vote your way. But anyway IMO it's a combination of things - Governments intrinsically have a lot of power/respect from people (yes, I know there are many that may not deserve such, but the fact of their being a Government carries with it a certain power) ; the Government representatives to ICANN so far are seen by many as being quality persons (Janis, Sharil, Bertrand etc); the GAC picks its areas of focus and issues its communique at the end of each ICANN meeting (predictable timing, weighty statement); it stands together in public, so that even if there are bitter disagreements in private, when the statement comes out, it's a GAC statement, supported by the Governments.
Organisationally, the GAC both benefits from and loses from the Government protocols to which it is subject - they can't move quickly to a final decision as home offices must often sign off on issues that may be controversial, they have a lot of work to do to get to a position On the other hand, they are very experienced in negotiation to a relatively win-win position for the group (diplomats...); they all subscribe to and follow GAC rules for statements, discussion and negotiation to get to those statements, etc.
ALAC is both new and old, it has huge baggage from the past experiments, it does not have a common purpose, and obviously not a common position. One big problem with getting respect is that the At Large itself cuts down the ALAC. It is rare for the ALAC to discuss and come out with a position without the proponents of the unsuccessful position immediately, publicly and in some cases viciously tearing it down. There are also many At Large members who disagree with the mandate of the ALAC as stated in the bylaws, and often derail or divert discussion, shown on the public lists, and this can turn off a lot of potential contributors who aren't comfortable with the level of the discussion. IMO, this does not build respect for the group as a whole. It makes it difficult for people unaccustomed to the rough and tumble of CS as displayed by the At Large to imagine that anything useful could come out of such chaos, and as such to discount it reflexively. There are many At Large members whose behaviour can be considered on one hand extremely passionate, and on the other hand, extremely rude and offensive. It depends on culture and experiences etc. We've had these discussion both on and off list, and there are many people who are offended by the way in which discussion takes place in the At Large. If we offend them, how can we easily persuade them to support our position? Vote or no vote?
And of course, the fact that the At Large hasn't put out many substantive statements since the RALO formation (despite quite a few in the pre-RALO and RALO building periods) - I know it's because the RALO's aren't yet supported to be able to provide timely input (translations etc) - but it adds to the perception.
Just a few thoughts - hope they help Jacqueline
------ 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 ------
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827