[ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director

[Alan Greenberg]

Two thoughts...

First, although I support the concept of keeping a Liaison, I will 
note that even with a Liaison, and I should add some VERY impressive 
ones, we have not met our targets of being treated with sufficient 
respect (if I may use that term to reflect a number of other things 
as well). So simply having that position filled has not proven to be 
the magic answer.

Second, I note the SoI includes the following two questions in section C:

         4. Provide a statement about what you would contribute in 
the At-Large selected ICANN Board Director position to the At-Large Community:

         5. Please describe specifically how and why you will be able 
to advance, at the ICANN Board, the interests of the At-Large 
Community and the broader global community of Internet end-users.

It is up to the BCEC and then the electorate to select someone who 
they believe WILL support the interests of At-Large as well as the 
general user community. Of course, a Board member can only do that 
when he or she believes it is also in the interests of ICANN, but 
those two sets of interests are not necessarily at odds with each 
other.  Make sure that your representatives on the BCEC and then the 
electors know what we want.

Alan


At 23/08/2010 01:27 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

>I share Adam's fear that, with the creation of the 
>At-Large-appointed Director and elimination of Liaison, there is a 
>possibility that ALAC's own work as a policy-development body will 
>slide into far less relevance than it has now (and that bar is 
>already very low). With nobody on the Board charged with advancing 
>ALAC positions or relaying to ALAC the Board's feedback, we are 
>technically at the same advisory level as any other group submitting 
>public comments through those official mechanisms.