On ALAC response to BGC WG midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote?
http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfMMtE1XZm6d.pdf I have noted some issues among the NA with some of the language in this report. I would appreciate the guidance of the NARALO as to how to vote. Personally, I'm wavering between 60 percent for and 40 percent against. The percent I'm against mostly consists of wording that reads to me like something of a transferrence of power from the ALAC to the exec committee and the chair. I'm also not sure about the language on page 4 referring to ALAC as the appropriate organizational channel for the voice and concern of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes. I'm opposed to this statement both in theory and in practice -- I don't think ALAC is doing that now, and I don't think it should be roped off as the most appropriate venue for individual users. What sayest thou, constituents? Endorse or reject? ** 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.
Reject. The comments of those who bothered to comment were neither incorporated nor responded to. (Like you, I criticized the assertion that ALAC is the unique appropriate channel for individuals. --Wendy Brendler, Beau wrote:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfMMtE1XZm6d.pdf
I have noted some issues among the NA with some of the language in this report.
I would appreciate the guidance of the NARALO as to how to vote. Personally, I'm wavering between 60 percent for and 40 percent against. The percent I'm against mostly consists of wording that reads to me like something of a transferrence of power from the ALAC to the exec committee and the chair.
I'm also not sure about the language on page 4 referring to ALAC as the appropriate organizational channel for the voice and concern of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes. I'm opposed to this statement both in theory and in practice -- I don't think ALAC is doing that now, and I don't think it should be roped off as the most appropriate venue for individual users.
What sayest thou, constituents? Endorse or reject?
Brendler, Beau wrote:
I would appreciate the guidance of the NARALO as to how to vote. Personally, I'm wavering between 60 percent for and 40 percent against. The percent I'm against mostly consists of wording that reads to me like something of a transferrence of power from the ALAC to the exec committee and the chair.
Yeah, I sort of had that objection as well ;-). There are two spots where the ExCom is mentioneed, once regarding Board liaisions and once regarding budget planning. Both are IMO unacceptable overstepping of the bounds originally surounding the ExCom. I'm concerned that the ExCom assigned itself at the authors of the document -- to be endorsed by ALAC - rather than an ALAC document. And finally, I'm more than a little concerned that I -- who am not on ALAC per-se -- had to be the first to point that out on the lists. Is most of ALAC OK with this power-grab, or just asleep at the wheel? My personal preference would be to bring forward an amendment that would: 1) Change authorship of the document from the ExCom to ALAC 2) Change the Board liaision authority from the Chair-or-ExComm to ALAC 3) Change the ALAC liaison with staff on budget implementation from Chair-or-ExCom" to the ALAC Budget Subcommittee If the amendment does not pass I would vote to reject the document -- and then have NARALO draft its own statement, echoing most of the other comments but noting the danger in the ExComm references. But that's just me. Frankly, I'd be delighted if you raised a motion to disband the ExCom -- less than a month after its creation it members have wasted no time to destroy the trust that it was meant for emergency, rapid-response use only. Clearly the real solutions to the problems the ExCom was created to address lie in fixing ALAC rather than institutionalizing a shortcut around it. The continued existence of the ExComm prolongs -- and arguably enhances -- a culture of group inaction and unaccountability. It needs to go IMO.
I'm also not sure about the language on page 4 referring to ALAC as the appropriate organizational channel for the voice and concern of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes. I'm opposed to this statement both in theory and in practice -- I don't think ALAC is doing that now, and I don't think it should be roped off as the most appropriate venue for individual users.
I am personally OK with language designating ALAC as the primary channel but not the only one. I have no problem with At-Large being the default forum for Internet users who don't self-identify with other constituencies. Maybe with enough new blood we can inject some life into this thing yet. - Evan
Couple of things regarding a few points made in this topics thread... As far as I know all comments from Wendy, Danny and others made on lists or wiki's were incprprated with the exception of a part point mae by Sebastien regarding Strategic planning... Also there is no power grab by the ExCom => the use of ExCom in the addition of suggestion that a Board Liaison position be retained *in transition* was discused in Cairo which is where it came from and the use of Chair as a possability* of that role fits with the role of Board liaison being Chair of other AC's we extended it to the ExCom as a suggestion *IF such a proposal were ever contemplated by the BGC ALAC Review WG* to allow wider choice to ExCom but ALAC can be inserted instead of ExCom without any issue at all as far as I'm concerned... And I totally agree with the ALAC Budget SC being the interface with the staff on budget proposal but the original consultants proposed Chair for this matter the BGC ALAC Review WG did not change it I believe and our draft was trying again to expand this role to at least ExCom but the natural alternate is the Budget & Finance SC if it is reconstituted... Finally the ExCom is assigned authorship of this interim document UNTIL it is voted on then it becomes an ALAC Statement with all the front pages and coversheets that go along with that authority after the vote has closed... Finally if NARALO wish, there is at least two options forward here:- 1) is to propose the ammendments below to the ALAC Working List get agreement (I'm happy to propose and endores this if Beau puts it forward) and those who have voted so far will need to revote in a new adjusted poll, with an extention of time given... or 2) NARALO reps vote however they are advised to or not and NARALO put forward a short "We disagree with the following in the ALAC Comments / Statement" note that can act as an ammendment to any Comment already sent and I will ensure that the BGC ALAC Review WG accept this to be included in their deliberations on final recommendations, to do this I will need to know in the next day or so which you desire so that I can let Trish et.al. know what is happening before many people take a break away from thier workplaces etc., CLO 2008/12/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>
Brendler, Beau wrote:
I would appreciate the guidance of the NARALO as to how to vote. Personally, I'm wavering between 60 percent for and 40 percent against. The percent I'm against mostly consists of wording that reads to me like something of a transferrence of power from the ALAC to the exec committee and the chair.
Yeah, I sort of had that objection as well ;-). There are two spots where the ExCom is mentioneed, once regarding Board liaisions and once regarding budget planning. Both are IMO unacceptable overstepping of the bounds originally surounding the ExCom. I'm concerned that the ExCom assigned itself at the authors of the document -- to be endorsed by ALAC - rather than an ALAC document.
And finally, I'm more than a little concerned that I -- who am not on ALAC per-se -- had to be the first to point that out on the lists. Is most of ALAC OK with this power-grab, or just asleep at the wheel?
My personal preference would be to bring forward an amendment that would: 1) Change authorship of the document from the ExCom to ALAC 2) Change the Board liaision authority from the Chair-or-ExComm to ALAC 3) Change the ALAC liaison with staff on budget implementation from Chair-or-ExCom" to the ALAC Budget Subcommittee
If the amendment does not pass I would vote to reject the document -- and then have NARALO draft its own statement, echoing most of the other comments but noting the danger in the ExComm references.
But that's just me. Frankly, I'd be delighted if you raised a motion to disband the ExCom -- less than a month after its creation it members have wasted no time to destroy the trust that it was meant for emergency, rapid-response use only. Clearly the real solutions to the problems the ExCom was created to address lie in fixing ALAC rather than institutionalizing a shortcut around it.
The continued existence of the ExComm prolongs -- and arguably enhances -- a culture of group inaction and unaccountability. It needs to go IMO.
I'm also not sure about the language on page 4 referring to ALAC as the appropriate organizational channel for the voice and concern of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes. I'm opposed to this statement both in theory and in practice -- I don't think ALAC is doing that now, and I don't think it should be roped off as the most appropriate venue for individual users.
I am personally OK with language designating ALAC as the primary channel but not the only one. I have no problem with At-Large being the default forum for Internet users who don't self-identify with other constituencies. Maybe with enough new blood we can inject some life into this thing yet.
- 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 ------
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Also there is no power grab by the ExCom => the use of ExCom in the addition of suggestion that a Board Liaison position be retained *in transition* was discused in Cairo which is where it came from and the use of Chair as a possability* of that role fits with the role of Board liaison being Chair of other AC's we extended it to the ExCom as a suggestion *IF such a proposal were ever contemplated by the BGC ALAC Review WG* to allow wider choice to ExCom but ALAC can be inserted instead of ExCom without any issue at all as far as I'm concerned... OK, then do it, please.
And I totally agree with the ALAC Budget SC being the interface with the staff on budget proposal but the original consultants proposed Chair for this matter the BGC ALAC Review WG did not change it I believe and our draft was trying again to expand this role to at least ExCom but the natural alternate is the Budget & Finance SC if it is reconstituted... "If reconstituted"? I understand your point, but this illustrates the problem I'm trying to highlight -- that the ExCom is becoming seen as a method to bypass problems (ie, lack of an active budget SC) rather than confront them. It is as much a matter of mindset than the actual wording; the ExCom should never be thought of as an answer to _anything_ that isn't an emergency situation.
Finally the ExCom is assigned authorship of this interim document UNTIL it is voted on then it becomes an ALAC Statement with all the front pages and coversheets that go along with that authority after the vote has closed... OK, fair enough.
Finally if NARALO wish, there is at least two options forward here:- 1) is to propose the ammendments below to the ALAC Working List get agreement (I'm happy to propose and endores this if Beau puts it forward) and those who have voted so far will need to revote in a new adjusted poll, with an extention of time given... This choice is by far my preference. There are some within NARALO who are all too eager for us to go it alone. However I consider that a last resort and a failure of consensus when we all really want the same thing (a better-working ALAC).
- Evan
Personally, I'm not accusing anybody of any power grab. My position has always been that while I understand the need for an excom and for streamlining processes, I think there's some risk of institutionalizing ALAC dysfunction if we do so. Thanks, Cheryl, for this clarification. I'm all for progress, so: I would formally like to propose that in the document we: 1) Change authorship from the ExCom to ALAC. 2) Change the Board liaison authority from the Chair-or-ExComm to ALAC. 3) Change the ALAC liaison with staff on budget implementation from "Chair-or-ExCom" to the ALAC Budget Subcommittee. With those who have voted so far needing to revote in a new adjusted poll, with an extension of time given. Beau Brendler ________________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:04 PM To: Evan Leibovitch; ALAC-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Atlarge Staff; ALAC Internal List Cc: Brendler, Beau; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote? Couple of things regarding a few points made in this topics thread... As far as I know all comments from Wendy, Danny and others made on lists or wiki's were incprprated with the exception of a part point mae by Sebastien regarding Strategic planning... Also there is no power grab by the ExCom => the use of ExCom in the addition of suggestion that a Board Liaison position be retained *in transition* was discused in Cairo which is where it came from and the use of Chair as a possability* of that role fits with the role of Board liaison being Chair of other AC's we extended it to the ExCom as a suggestion *IF such a proposal were ever contemplated by the BGC ALAC Review WG* to allow wider choice to ExCom but ALAC can be inserted instead of ExCom without any issue at all as far as I'm concerned... And I totally agree with the ALAC Budget SC being the interface with the staff on budget proposal but the original consultants proposed Chair for this matter the BGC ALAC Review WG did not change it I believe and our draft was trying again to expand this role to at least ExCom but the natural alternate is the Budget & Finance SC if it is reconstituted... Finally the ExCom is assigned authorship of this interim document UNTIL it is voted on then it becomes an ALAC Statement with all the front pages and coversheets that go along with that authority after the vote has closed... Finally if NARALO wish, there is at least two options forward here:- 1) is to propose the ammendments below to the ALAC Working List get agreement (I'm happy to propose and endores this if Beau puts it forward) and those who have voted so far will need to revote in a new adjusted poll, with an extention of time given... or 2) NARALO reps vote however they are advised to or not and NARALO put forward a short "We disagree with the following in the ALAC Comments / Statement" note that can act as an ammendment to any Comment already sent and I will ensure that the BGC ALAC Review WG accept this to be included in their deliberations on final recommendations, to do this I will need to know in the next day or so which you desire so that I can let Trish et.al<http://et.al>. know what is happening before many people take a break away from thier workplaces etc., CLO 2008/12/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> Brendler, Beau wrote:
I would appreciate the guidance of the NARALO as to how to vote. Personally, I'm wavering between 60 percent for and 40 percent against. The percent I'm against mostly consists of wording that reads to me like something of a transferrence of power from the ALAC to the exec committee and the chair.
Yeah, I sort of had that objection as well ;-). There are two spots where the ExCom is mentioneed, once regarding Board liaisions and once regarding budget planning. Both are IMO unacceptable overstepping of the bounds originally surounding the ExCom. I'm concerned that the ExCom assigned itself at the authors of the document -- to be endorsed by ALAC - rather than an ALAC document. And finally, I'm more than a little concerned that I -- who am not on ALAC per-se -- had to be the first to point that out on the lists. Is most of ALAC OK with this power-grab, or just asleep at the wheel? My personal preference would be to bring forward an amendment that would: 1) Change authorship of the document from the ExCom to ALAC 2) Change the Board liaision authority from the Chair-or-ExComm to ALAC 3) Change the ALAC liaison with staff on budget implementation from Chair-or-ExCom" to the ALAC Budget Subcommittee If the amendment does not pass I would vote to reject the document -- and then have NARALO draft its own statement, echoing most of the other comments but noting the danger in the ExComm references. But that's just me. Frankly, I'd be delighted if you raised a motion to disband the ExCom -- less than a month after its creation it members have wasted no time to destroy the trust that it was meant for emergency, rapid-response use only. Clearly the real solutions to the problems the ExCom was created to address lie in fixing ALAC rather than institutionalizing a shortcut around it. The continued existence of the ExComm prolongs -- and arguably enhances -- a culture of group inaction and unaccountability. It needs to go IMO.
I'm also not sure about the language on page 4 referring to ALAC as the appropriate organizational channel for the voice and concern of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes. I'm opposed to this statement both in theory and in practice -- I don't think ALAC is doing that now, and I don't think it should be roped off as the most appropriate venue for individual users.
I am personally OK with language designating ALAC as the primary channel but not the only one. I have no problem with At-Large being the default forum for Internet users who don't self-identify with other constituencies. Maybe with enough new blood we can inject some life into this thing yet. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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 ------ -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) *** 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.
As previously stated I'm going to endorse these amendments and to restart the poll so to that end I have requested staff to proceed to restart poll and request a revote on the amended document to restart on December 23rd for 8 days CLO 2008/12/20 Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org>
Personally, I'm not accusing anybody of any power grab. My position has always been that while I understand the need for an excom and for streamlining processes, I think there's some risk of institutionalizing ALAC dysfunction if we do so. Thanks, Cheryl, for this clarification. I'm all for progress, so: I would formally like to propose that in the document we:
1) Change authorship from the ExCom to ALAC. 2) Change the Board liaison authority from the Chair-or-ExComm to ALAC. 3) Change the ALAC liaison with staff on budget implementation from "Chair-or-ExCom" to the ALAC Budget Subcommittee.
With those who have voted so far needing to revote in a new adjusted poll, with an extension of time given.
Beau Brendler ________________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:04 PM To: Evan Leibovitch; ALAC-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Atlarge Staff; ALAC Internal List Cc: Brendler, Beau; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote?
Couple of things regarding a few points made in this topics thread...
As far as I know all comments from Wendy, Danny and others made on lists or wiki's were incprprated with the exception of a part point mae by Sebastien regarding Strategic planning...
Also there is no power grab by the ExCom => the use of ExCom in the addition of suggestion that a Board Liaison position be retained *in transition* was discused in Cairo which is where it came from and the use of Chair as a possability* of that role fits with the role of Board liaison being Chair of other AC's we extended it to the ExCom as a suggestion *IF such a proposal were ever contemplated by the BGC ALAC Review WG* to allow wider choice to ExCom but ALAC can be inserted instead of ExCom without any issue at all as far as I'm concerned...
And I totally agree with the ALAC Budget SC being the interface with the staff on budget proposal but the original consultants proposed Chair for this matter the BGC ALAC Review WG did not change it I believe and our draft was trying again to expand this role to at least ExCom but the natural alternate is the Budget & Finance SC if it is reconstituted...
Finally the ExCom is assigned authorship of this interim document UNTIL it is voted on then it becomes an ALAC Statement with all the front pages and coversheets that go along with that authority after the vote has closed...
Finally if NARALO wish, there is at least two options forward here:- 1) is to propose the ammendments below to the ALAC Working List get agreement (I'm happy to propose and endores this if Beau puts it forward) and those who have voted so far will need to revote in a new adjusted poll, with an extention of time given... or 2) NARALO reps vote however they are advised to or not and NARALO put forward a short "We disagree with the following in the ALAC Comments / Statement" note that can act as an ammendment to any Comment already sent and I will ensure that the BGC ALAC Review WG accept this to be included in their deliberations on final recommendations, to do this I will need to know in the next day or so which you desire so that I can let Trish et.al<http://et.al>. know what is happening before many people take a break away from thier workplaces etc.,
CLO
2008/12/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> Brendler, Beau wrote:
I would appreciate the guidance of the NARALO as to how to vote. Personally, I'm wavering between 60 percent for and 40 percent against. The percent I'm against mostly consists of wording that reads to me like something of a transferrence of power from the ALAC to the exec committee and the chair.
Yeah, I sort of had that objection as well ;-). There are two spots where the ExCom is mentioneed, once regarding Board liaisions and once regarding budget planning. Both are IMO unacceptable overstepping of the bounds originally surounding the ExCom. I'm concerned that the ExCom assigned itself at the authors of the document -- to be endorsed by ALAC - rather than an ALAC document.
And finally, I'm more than a little concerned that I -- who am not on ALAC per-se -- had to be the first to point that out on the lists. Is most of ALAC OK with this power-grab, or just asleep at the wheel?
My personal preference would be to bring forward an amendment that would: 1) Change authorship of the document from the ExCom to ALAC 2) Change the Board liaision authority from the Chair-or-ExComm to ALAC 3) Change the ALAC liaison with staff on budget implementation from Chair-or-ExCom" to the ALAC Budget Subcommittee
If the amendment does not pass I would vote to reject the document -- and then have NARALO draft its own statement, echoing most of the other comments but noting the danger in the ExComm references.
But that's just me. Frankly, I'd be delighted if you raised a motion to disband the ExCom -- less than a month after its creation it members have wasted no time to destroy the trust that it was meant for emergency, rapid-response use only. Clearly the real solutions to the problems the ExCom was created to address lie in fixing ALAC rather than institutionalizing a shortcut around it.
The continued existence of the ExComm prolongs -- and arguably enhances -- a culture of group inaction and unaccountability. It needs to go IMO.
I'm also not sure about the language on page 4 referring to ALAC as the appropriate organizational channel for the voice and concern of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes. I'm opposed to this statement both in theory and in practice -- I don't think ALAC is doing that now, and I don't think it should be roped off as the most appropriate venue for individual users.
I am personally OK with language designating ALAC as the primary channel but not the only one. I have no problem with At-Large being the default forum for Internet users who don't self-identify with other constituencies. Maybe with enough new blood we can inject some life into this thing yet.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: 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 ------
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
*** 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.
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
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
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 ------
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.
Hello Beau, Let's talk about point #2 because it raises some very troubling issues. The ALAC has "Rules of Procedure" in place. The recommendation drafted by the Chair is recommending a change in those agreed-upon rules without such a rule change having been discussed by the ALAC membership. The rule regarding liaisons states: "They shall normally be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of ICANN and of the ALAC;" We all know what is happening here... The ALAC Chair is at odds with the current ALAC Board Liaison and has drafted language to ensure that she gets replaced. This is reprehensible. I happen to think that Wendy has done an admirable job as liaison, and have no wish that she be replaced simply because she is not (per the new recommendation) an ALAC member. Endorsing this document will potentially lead to Wendy's replacement. Danny --- On Mon, 12/22/08, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote? To: "dannyyounger@yahoo.com" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 10:20 AM 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.
Brendler, Beau wrote:
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 I agree fully. But here's why that paragraph doesn't bother me.
The part that concerns Danny begins, "Please note mechanisms of this process would need careful consideration and further discussed, but could take the form [...]" In other words, it is yet to be discussed to death and it most certainly will be once the issue (of board involvement) is formally raised. Everything after that opening sentence suggests scenarios, but they're hardly exclusive. Use of words such as "perhaps" are clearly there to weasel out of anything resembling clear direction. It's so clumsily worded -- maybe deliberately so -- that I can easily read an interpretation that eliminates Danny's concern. But it doesn't matter. Whether I agree with that paragraph or not, it's irrelevant. If I were crafting it myself I'd use other words, or might have left out "possible scenarios" entirely -- but IMO it's not worth impeding the rest of the doc. - Evan
participants (5)
-
Brendler, Beau -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Wendy Seltzer