Great to see discussion on this issue getting going on Regional lists thanks keep it up and as part of the ATRT I look forward to the outcomes... Just want to remind you all that this initial ATRT was highly time compressed by dates set and NOT negotiable from when the AoC was signed, future ATRT's would and should be able to do a whole lot more ( and many of us wished we had had the time ans support to do so) BUT that said what we *had to address* this time was specific to Section 9 from the AoC (copy inserted below) and therefore had to address specific matters regarding ICANN BOD, GAC and their relationship etc., :- 9. Recognizing that ICANN will evolve and adapt to fulfill its limited, but important technical mission of coordinating the DNS, ICANN further commits to take the following specific actions together with ongoing commitment reviews **specified below: 9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users: ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders by: (a) continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board) governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance, the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal mechanism for Board decisions; (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS; (c) continually assessing and improving the processes by which ICANN receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof); (d) continually assessing the extent to which ICANN's decisions are embraced, supported and accepted by the public and the Internet community; and (e) assessing the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations, and effective and timely policy development. ICANN will organize a review of its execution of the above commitments no less frequently than every three years, with the first such review concluding no later than December 31, 2010. The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts. Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the Chair of the Board of ICANN. Resulting recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations. Each of the foregoing reviews shall consider the extent to which the assessments and actions undertaken by ICANN have been successful in ensuring that ICANN is acting transparently, is accountable for its decision-making, and acts in the public interest. Integral to the foregoing reviews will be assessments of the extent to which the Board and staff have implemented the recommendations arising out of the other commitment reviews enumerated below. The 4 WT's created in the ATRT to address our work plans did therefore focus more narrowly than many of us originaly suggested or desired, but had to keep to a non negotiable end date, and of course our this was effected by several delays in some perts of our work for a variety of reason in the begining of the process; Yet being able to have the Berkman study done to address some of the matters the ATRT -WT's did not have the time or resources to do, has indeed been a boon complementary to our work indeed, they whilst maintaining their independence, yet effectively became an Ex-Officio part of the ATRT's activities, and in my view were a very productive and valuable part of our outcomes. I trust that all of At-Large appreciates that and our ability to ensure it was done. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 8 November 2010 02:53, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
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. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------