Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Please see my initial responses (limited to points raised that fit in my remit from an ALAC POV) are interspaced below...
Thanks for the quick replies, Cheryl.
Perhaps it might be easier to explore and hopefully solve some of your quandaries in a special purpose teleconference where others may also be involved in a discussion on these matters? Not just because as you said how draining just the writing of this was for you, but also as it would offer opportunity for others to engage in a different way as well...
I'm open to anything that would help the situation, either in the short term (what statement to we send regarding GNSO reform) or the long (how does ALAC deal with the fact that one third of its reps are _from_ regions but not responsible to them).
<CLO> ALAC does not hold the view (*nor could it* I believe, under our bylaws, but I'm sure someone will correct me on that if I am laboring under any error of assumption) that there is any variance in the 'representativeness' (beyond any measure of their minimum performance criteria under the ROP's) of any of the 3 persons appointed from any region... At one level that seems silly. We know that one person from each region is solely identified by their location of residence, with neither support of or responsibility to the local community.
Legally there likely exists a requirement that, for the sake of voting, all ALAC members are equal -- I get that. But that is not the same as assuming that all members _from_ a region _represent_ that region. ALAC cannot and must not assume that, simply because it has chosen one person from each region, that such a body constitutes anything that ALAC can call "representative" unless all five are RALO selected ALAC members. By definition, NomComm ALAC members are representative of, and responsible to, themselves and nothing else. They may claim they're acting for some greater good -- and generally most are -- but no check or balance exists to ensure that. ALAC _must_ address this in future dealings. If it is not going to limit critical WG participation to RALO reps, then it cannot assume such bodies are globally representative -- and as such, ALAC and its support staff must carry the burden of communications with the community.
The bottom line from my point of view is 'the ALAC is currently structured the way it is structured -> so that is what we will work with until it is changed'... (remember we are under review)
May be... but for the purposes of communications, interim negotiations and other relevant processes you must NEVER assume that any ALAC subgroup is necessarily representative of At-Large wishes.
And for the record I personally believe that the current system of 1 of 3 appointments from any region being NomCom gives an important balance and broadening of views function... Particularly in Regions where only some member countries have ALS's... Then let's have them in an advisory capacity. Appointed members are still not representative members, even if they are chosen to give voice to the (arbitrarily selected) "under-represented". They still aren't responsible to the under-represented, and as such will never will be a suitable replacement for actually having genuine reps.
There is also a concern that this process allows ICANN to game the system by giving status to those who might otherwise be explicitly rejected as leaders within their own communities.
As well as giving the opportunity of us all ALAC & Region access to highly talented and experienced people who must in order to be selected (as far as I can tell) show considerable knowledge of ICANN and the Internet
ALAC has always had the unlimited capacity to seek counsel from others. This is not about good advice. This is about VOTES that purport to speak for At-Large when they don't. One third of ICANN's "grassroots" body isn't grassroots at all. They may have been useful as placeholders before the RALOs were formed, but no longer.
, as well as high degrees of impartiality and professionalism to be selected, by an independent review system... There is an additional advantage not only to any Advisory Committee that must try and put forward the broadest agreed *global view* it can on any matter (through consensus building wherever possible); A RALO could see (and I know several who do) that direct access and working as a team with the NomCom appointments gives them unique access to the talent skills and experience that the they are meant to bring to the process... You shouldn't need to bribe someone with an ALAC vote in order to get their good advice. I prefer to leave it to ALAC's representatives to determine whose advice THEY need. I'm tired of the paternalism and eilitism inherent in the insistence that the masses don't know what's good for them and need the injection of well-meaning outsiders. To continue this attitude is to permanently inhibit the maturation of ALAC.
<CLO> Yes and No... Yes->in terms of the Joint Statement (which I need to remind you is intended to be a high level statement which reflects the agreed outcomes of the User Constituencies and AC's listed) as ALAC is just one player amongst several in that work on a new GNSO structure alternative for consideration. {And just for one moment explore the hypothetical exercise of NARALO having had 'their elected person' on the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG as well... Even with arguments against the tripartite model and the offering of (yet to be determined/ finalized) alternates, whatever concept NARALO has for ideal GNSO structure may not have received majority ALAC support *or* survived the negotiations of the Joint Statement development... I don't know the results in this hypothetical exercise btw but I think it is worth pondering}
Having a real rep there might have given us the opportunity to be better prepared for the outcome, regardless if it agreed with our position or not, and given us more time to consider the best possible response. Disassociation remains a last-resort option, providing our reasons are sound and backed with constructive alternatives. I have no problem challenging other RALOs why they (and/or their reps) would support options that we would consider harmful or deficient. Their negotiators may have never even identified the problems. - Evan