[ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director
Tijani BEN JEMAA
tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org
Tue Aug 24 07:16:01 UTC 2010
Evan,
I think the second option is more workable than the first one since we are
asking for something that already exists with another AC.
I have talked in Brussels with the most close to ALAC among the members of
the board, and they all think that we cant have a voting Director and a
liaison. I think that we didnt insist enough to keep the liaison when we
advocated for a voting director, and people understood that the voting
director is a replacement of the liaison. I fully agree that the role of the
liaison cant be covered by the voting director, but
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations
Phone : + 216 70 825 231
Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
Fax : + 216 70 825 231
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Message d'origine-----
De : alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Evan Leibovitch
Envoyé : lundi 23 août 2010 18:28
À : Alan Greenberg
Cc : alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Objet : Re: [ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director
My two cents.
I see the very correct points that both Adam and Alan are making and am
struggling to come up with an approach that serves our purpose without
insisting on a tactic (insisting on an ALAC liaision *and* the At-Large
Director) that is politically impractical.
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.
Is this what ICANN works so hard to create and spent (and still spending) so
much money to develop? To create a body whose only real function is to wake
up every three years to help send someone to the Board and then go back to
sleep?
For ALAC to continue to engage the At-Large community in policy development,
there needs to be a direct channel between it and the Board. And just as the
At-Large-appointed Board member is not accountable to ALAC, neither must (or
even should) the liaision between the Board and ALAC go through that
designated person.
I would like to toss out a possible middle ground, in fact I can think of
two:
1) There is a designated ALAC-Board liaison, but that person be selected by
the Board from amongst its members as an official role. That person would be
charged with being the bi-directional conduit between ALAC policy
development and the Board.
2) we don't need a liaison if the Board is compelled to address and answer
ALAC communiques as it now does for the GAC, Advocating ALAC to have the
same advisory status as the GAC is both logical and accountable.
Are either of these reasonable middle grounds to push for strategically?
- Evan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
More information about the ALAC
mailing list