[ALAC] [ALAC-Internal] ALAC in an evolving ICANN.

[JJS]

*Dear Salanieta & All,*
*
*
*thanks for including my remarks. A few quick comments:*
*
*
*- What's the main issue here? As already mentioned, I thought it necessary
to draw the attention of my colleagues in ALAC to a number of emerging
patterns which may affect the general Internet user, whether within ICANN
or in a wider context. My purpose was to invite us to focus on some major
challenges. In order to do this, it is my belief that we must set up
clearer lines of responsibility within the ALAC, in order to better follow
and address those wider issues. My aim was not to impose any rigid,
take-it-or-leave-it solution, such as 3 or 5 individuals with the title of
Vice-Chair, or any other title for that matter. My analysis led me to the
conclusion that we need to be more issue-oriented.*
*
*
*- Structure? The alternatives you have suggested all have merit. Regarding
the number of line leaders, the figure 5 would fit in neatly with our
regional structures, whereas a more issue-oriented approach might warrant
only 3 or 4. Whether they be entrusted to Vice-Chairs or any other
appellation is a subsidiary question. But whatever our choice, I think we
need to organize our work -and our consciousness of issues- in a more
forward-looking manner.*
*
*
*Best regards,*
*Jean-Jacques.*

2012/7/5 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>

>
> On 5 Jul 2012, at 12:04, JJS wrote:
>
> > *3) There is no consensus on preferred structures. Some suggest that the
> > lines of responsibility be integrated into the Executive Committee;
> others
> > call for such lines to be led by individuals not necessarily seated on
> the
> > ExeCom; yet others remark that such a task would provide the ideal level
> > for the involvement of RALOs. Most comments dwell on the fact that the
> > choice of a title (e.g. Vice Chair) is far less important than reliably
> > performing a function (e.g. Community, which requires a stable,
> > identifiable lead). A minority calls for a regional balance in leading
> the
> > lines of responsibility, but most consider that regional balance is best
> > achieved in other ways in ALAC.*
>
>
> In looking at the needs over time and the fact that the structure needs to
> be simple and flexible, I think picking any one configuration can be
> difficult, unless it is the most basic.
>
> I think that the multi-region nature of ALAC is critical and the most
> basic.  If the ExecComm has real function then its structure needs to be
> representative of the regions. I think it would be problematic to not
> consider this.  Perhaps the reason only a minority spoke up to support is
> because they all thought it was basic and a given.
>
> I think the necessary functions can vary over time; the 3 you have seem
> right, but there may be others and they may need to be split  between a few
> people in times of great pressure. I beleive that the ExecComm should have
> the flexibility to assign the roles as needed, including reaching beyond
> and including observers if necessary - if (e.g. hypothetical) the IANA
> Political Crisis of 2015 is incredibly knotty and requires a single point
> of focus for ExecComm activities, the ExecComm should be able to decide in
> the regionally balanced ExecComm how to do this.
>
> avri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>