On 7 Nov 2010, at 10:35, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
- why the report deals extensively with improving the relationship of the Board and the GAC but does not mention "At-Large" once (and its only reference to ALAC is historical)
I think this is because the ICANN community has not learned to take At-Large seriously yet. Now, that the petition drive is over in NARALO, and I can speak without fear of being accused of campaigning in NARALO, that is one of the reasons a large part of my interest statement concerned working toward At-Large by-law parity with the GAC. Until such time as At-Large achieves that and demonstrates the public interest work they have done, it will be hard to get the recognition, that the role of At-Large/ALAC should have in the ICANN organizational architecture. At-Large/ALAC has achieved a good start with its use of the by-laws capability of introducing issue report requests in GNSO. And Alan's job as not only a liaison to the GNSO council, but often as a virtual council member, including as a chair of a GNSO WG, has gone a long way to increasing ALAC visibility. As he is a Nomcom appointee, though, it did less for showing that the RALOs and the ALS's were ready for prime time influence yet. I also do not know to what extent ALAC/At-Large has been active in ccNSO and ASO issues. Might also be useful to start putting out At-Large/ALAC principles on issues to match those put out by the GAC. As I say, I think that ALAC deserves to be at the same level as the GAC, but there is a chicken and egg issue - which comes first, you get the by-laws recognition or show your influence? I think the by-laws parity should happen ASAP, but I am sure I am in a minority with that view. I do agree that it might be worth commenting on this with relation to the Berkman report, which I think provides a good start in many places. a.