I don't have any problems, personally, with numbers 2 and 3 in Danny's note, but I admit point 1 got by me and is somewhat troublesome. I think the ALAC has been repeatedly told by a range of people (including board members) that a liaison is more powerful and influential in the ICANN system than a seated board member, because once someone becomes a board member their responsibility is to ICANN and not the user community, etc. Which is utter nonsense. I used to work for Disney, and one of its board members was a priest. Everyone knew why he was there, to champion "family values" and whatnot. If you have someone from the user community named to the board who is steeped in the concerns of users, then you can expect that influence to carry over into board-level decision-making. ________________________________________ From: Danny Younger [dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 9:48 AM To: Brendler, Beau; Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote? Evan, I would like to discuss this paragraph: "Please note mechanisms of this process would need careful consideration and further discussed, but could take the form of either one of the two Board Seats being initially made by the ALAC per se or perhaps more preferably an ALAC to Board Liaison role being maintained where the Liaison is a Member of the ALAC." 1. The ALAC is indicating that they "prefer" a liaison arrangement moreso than having 2 seats on the board 2. They want the board liaison to be a member of the ALAC (which under current circumstances would mean that Wendy couldn't serve as the liaison as she is not an ALAC member) 3. They want one of the board seats selected by the ALAC rather than by the general ALS membership. The odds are that most ALAC members haven't read this document, are just going along with whatever Cheryl drafted, and haven't given these matters any thought. I find this paragraph to be problematic to the point that I could not endorse the Statement. --- On Mon, 12/22/08, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote? To: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 9:25 AM Good morning and happy holidays, everyone.
It was less than a week ago that Beau sent his original message on this subject to the list. Thanks to his consultation, and some swift response from NARALO, the ALAC chair has withdrawn the original vote, changed the wording to remove all references to the Executive. While acknowledging the role of Internet users in other bodies such as the GNSO, the response still agrees that ALAC is "the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN process". Personally I'm quite fine with this wording but I know that Beau, Wendy and maybe others had concerns with it.
My personal opinion is to approve the doc as it is now.
- Evan
------ 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 ------
*** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.