At 07/09/2008 11:04 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Alan Greenberg wrote:
If it is indeed a problem (and I am not making a case for or against), then we should be talking about changing the rules that are based on citizenship. In this particular case , would have preferred if the dialogue was carried out on the world-wide list so that those people involved could also have a say.
It is timely in a NARALO context because of our meeting tomorrow.
The begining of our call will have Tricia Drakes of the Board Governance Committee as a participant, as the BGC is seeking input regarding the ALAC review. One of the two issues on which the BGC is most keen to hear input is the Westlake recommendation to address regional imbalance by adding two Asian NomComm members to ALAC (without any corresponding RALO-elected members).
If the NomComm cannot be relied upon to pick, for ALAC reps designated for a region, people who are actually from that region, then isn't the Westlake recommendation pointless?
- Evan
PS: The other issue they want to hear about regards the recommendation to better clarify the distinction between NCUC and At-Large, from the point of view of participating stakeholders.
If indeed the By-Laws were changed (or whatever is required) to have the NomCom select two additional people from AP (an idea which I don't support, for whatever that is worth), then presumably and hopefully, they would provide some guidance as to the selection criteria. I can make arguments for and against the current rules and for one based solely on residence and a rule based on the coincidence of both. In the end, it matters more that the NomCom (which include regional people) tries to find someone who will actually help the organization they are being appointed to. And that is a far more critical issue than their residence/citizenship. If residency is an issue, the RALO or ALAC should say so. Personally, I would be careful about it though. I am not sure that Evan would be a less qualified candidate to represent North America is he was on assignment in the UK next year, nor would I think it makes him more qualified to be the EU appointee (and I say that without having any prior knowledge of Evan's plans to apply to the NomCom or to work in the UK). Regarding the second question, I have already had an opportunity to present my ideas to Tricia at a recent GNSO meeting, so I may not again. In summary, I think the Recommendation 12 (which is the one about ALAC/NCUC) is addressing a non-issue. It suggests that the ALAC identify what kind of groups should be an ALAS and which should join NCUC. Ignoring that the playing field has been radically changed with the approval of the new GNSO structure, I don't see the reason to have to make the distinction. The ICANN By-Laws EXPLICITLY allow a person or organization to participate in more than one GNSO constituency at the same time. Why should the same not apply to an ALS. Many ALS's are ISOC chapters. If one also want to join NCUC, and they meet NCUC's criteria, more power to them. The real differentiation is: = NCUC is a part of the GNSO which has a mandate to get involved in ALL gTLD policy issues in ICANN. No more, no less. = ALAC and it's At-Large organization has a mandate to advise the Board on ANY ICANN issue. But because of the wider scope, we will always need to pick and choose what we select to address. Depending on where your interest and priorities lie, you pick who you want to associate with. Or both. Can the ALAC help make that clear to prospective applicant ALSs? Sure. But it is not an either/or choice. Alan Alan