[ALAC] Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC meeting

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Wed Mar 27 19:08:08 UTC 2013


Hi,

On 27 Mar 2013, at 05:59, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

> Dear Avri,
> 
> On 26/03/2013 12:25, Avri Doria wrote:
>> I think it is interesting to note how willing ALAC seems to transfer decisions to ever smaller groups while remaining reluctant to give the ALSes and members any role in decision making.
>> 
>> When it is a matter of allowing voting rights to the ALSes, the subject is first buried and then will allowed a a brief discussion  at  a meeting after the new procedures have been voted on by ALAC.  When it comes to changes like giving the ALT more decision making ability, it is easily done.
> 
> You are comparing Apples with Oranges.

They are both Fruit that people use to make wonderful healty juice.

In some Hebrew, Apple is Tree Apple, Orange is Gold Apple and potato is Earth Apple

I am talking about the distribution, or absence of distribution, of power

I am ok with comparing Apples and Oranges.

> Giving voting rights to ALSes to
> vote for a Board Director directly is a significant change in the
> At-Large Operating procedures.

Agreed

> It reverses 11 years of work that we have
> done to build the ALAC, the RALOs, the whole structure that we work on.

Yes and no.  The nomcom process is what developed over 11 years.  And I am not recommending we do anything to that process.  I do not suggest that we replace nomcom with Mass Voting.  

If anything you are comparing Potatoes and Rocks.

I suggest that SOs and ACs allow their members to vote for the board seats.
And yes, I apply this logic for the GNSO as well.  Just a bit harder to argue that one until the next review period opens up.

In At-Large I have been trying to get this on the agenda for the entire period of the revision of the ROP.  I have been pushed off continuously until now it appears that I am bringing this up at the end of the cycle.  Sorry, but I have tried to get it on your agenda and the ROP's agenda for over 18 months now.


> 
> Giving the ability to the ALAC to delegate limited responsibility on an
> ad-hoc basis just makes sense for operational purposes.

Yep, and I am arguing for a once every 3 years event.  
I am not arguing for ALS vote of every issue before the ALAC.

I sense an ad-absurdum approach in you rebuttal.


> As Alan
> mentioned recently, this has been used informally from time to time for
> decisions which did not require the staging of a full ALAC meeting. If
> every single decision needed full ALAC intervention, we'd end up with a
> weekly 2 hour ALAC meeting = 8 hours per month on average. I am not
> kidding. That's how much work there is. If this happens in addition to
> all of the other conference calls which our ALAC members attend (RALO
> calls, WG calls etc.), I do not see many ALAC members being able to
> sustain their participation.


No asking for that.  Asking for them to:

a. be informed of everything and allowed to comment if they wish
b. to vote once every 3 years for chair in addition to the vote every year for RALO stuff.

> 
> Kind regards,

I know you don't mean that as a mean thing to say. 
Don't know why I always see it that way.

Must be one of those cross-cultural phenomena.

> 
> Olivier
> 
> 

and the earlier note:

> Dear Avri,
> 
> thanks for your kind reply.

eeek!  
another cross cultural phenomenon.

> For a moment, I was agreeing with you that
> we should do more to engage ALSes.
> And then, I realised we differed in view entirely.

Oh well, happens in the best of families.

> 
> On 27/03/2013 04:37, Avri Doria wrote:
>> So I don't charge anyone with marginalisation.  Rather I argue that if we want them to come, we have to make a place for them and we have to let them know.  
> 
> Totally agree! I gather that this would mean capacity building, helping
> our ALSes understand the issues, accompanying the ALS representatives to
> take part in working groups; putting together leadership programmes to
> help them go up the ladder of responsibility; preparing them for roles
> on the ALAC; helping our ALSes explain the issues to their communities;
> enabling and supporting our ALSes to participate at other conferences to
> carry the good word of At-Large. etc. Yes! Let's proactively engage our
> ALSes!

Yay, we agree.

> 
>> I think many of us are comfortable with the status quo we find ourselves in and want to preserve it, fearing that anything we do might break what we have.  It is natural, it is the way people are.  
> 
> I'm afraid I disagree. At-Large is evolving and the ALAC too! We are
> taking on new roles. The next phase is to strengthen the RALOs and build
> them so as to scale them up!
> 
> 
>> But if we want to achieve the ICANN leadership that an idea like the At-large deserves, I beleive we have to change our ways. For me, that starts with giving the ALSes respect and among other things giving them a vote. 
> 
> RALOs already have votes to select their ALAC members.
> 
> 
>> Yes, it is only once every three years, and it may seem more symbolic than practical.  But the symbolism of voting for someone on the Board is important and I beleive would inspire some to pay greater attention and few more serve ICANN as most of you do.
> 
> This would send us back to pre-2002. ICANN decided to scrap direct
> elections of Board Directors.

As I argue above, Potatoes and Rocks.

ALS are member organizations  
The ICANN 1.0 democracy was open.

> 
> In my view, attaching a possibility for direct elections to the Board
> could result in exactly the opposite than having ALSes take more part in
> At-Large work. It would result in the application of ALSes whose only
> interest is the direct Board elections. With very loose criteria for ALS
> applications (and I *like* the fact that any organization is allowed to
> join if they fit in the criteria), there will likely be a lot of ALSes
> that will join only for the elections.

I am not suggesting you change ALS criteria.  In fact I actually suggest you review ALS membership every fiew years to see if they are fulfilling their part of the bargain.

> So the answer will then be to
> tighten the criteria and that will result exactly in the *opposite* than
> what we want since it will turn the At-Large community into an elitist
> community with high barriers to entry.

Don't see an argument for that. 

> 
> I personally consider that any proposal for direct Board elections
> effectively disenfranchises the 15 member ALAC, 10 of whom are chosen
> directly by the RALOs.
> It translates to not having the trust in people
> the RALOs have selected to act on their behalf. It kills the actual
> tiered structure of At-Large and the ALAC and renders it completely
> unscaleable.

I disagree they are trusted to do all kinds of advising and policy work.  That is a lot of responsibility.  One vote every 3 years does not disenfranchise people who elect their chair and who vote on all sorts of stuff all the time, meet with the Board and the GAC 

> If ALSes are to vote for a Board director directly, why
> keep the ALAC at all?

To do all the work?  to decide of Statements? To vote on Objections? to suggest R3? .....
I can think of LOTS of reason to keep ALAC around.

Though with the ALT, maybe I do not understand how little they are needed in the new future.

> Why not let interested ALS representatives run
> At-Large in a direct way?

Too much detailed work. Hard work.  Time consuming work. Thought and argument provoking work.

> Do I need to remind you of the dark, endless
> battles of the DNSO? These endless, thoughtless, ego-fuelled, circular
> arguments went on for so long that they kept me from wanting to touch
> any kind of ICANN responsibility. They prevents At-Large from doing any
> kind of meaningful work. As in zero real work. None.
> 
> Do you remember this: http://members.icann.org/nominees.html
> 
> I remember discussing this recipe for failure with many of my European
> colleagues at the time. The whole election ended up being filled with
> intrigue, hatred, revenge, bigotry and manipulation. I just can't
> believe you see this with rose tinted glasses...

this is not then. 
this is not the same situation.
this is a membership organization.

And members should have a vote choosing the person who is put on the Board to protect the Global Public iInterest of the Internet User while doing the best they can for ICANN itself which should indeed match the Global Public Interest of the Internet and its Users. They are the closest representative ICANN has of the User whose interests are a key element of the Public Interest requirements for ICANN legitimacy.


> 
> But these are my personal thoughts. As ALAC Chair, I'll go with whatever
> the ALAC will choose to do but I hope my colleagues will refuse to
> dismantle, brick by brick, the great structure that we have built over
> the years.
> 



cheers,

avri






More information about the ALAC mailing list