[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 can’t have a voting Director and a
liaison. I think that we didn’t 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 can’t 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