[ALAC] Byelaw Changes Reagrding Consideration of GAC Advice

[Carlton Samuels]

Thanks for this notice Fatima.

As we consider this change, I would urge that we look at this in
conjunction with the Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Report
(BGC-NomCoM) that deals with a reformulation of the NomCom.  See it here:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/bwg-nomcom-21aug14-en.pdf

In agreeing generally to expand the size of the NomCom, the BGC-NomCom has,
among other developments, proposed aligning voting rights to SO/ASO and
expanding regional diversity  thru added voting rights for the ASO and
ccNSO, the Board is proposing  as well as increase the voting membership.

In context, I think three (3) matters are compelling; 1) the GAC is to have
at least (3) voting representatives to NomCom 2) NomCom voting to be
organised by delegation or factions 3) Appointments affirmed only with
support of at least three (3) delegations or factions.

We are at the place where all ACs are not equal. At the moment, GAC advice
is the only one for which the Board has a bye-law mandated duty to respond.
All others can throw as much as they want over the fence. But there is no
duty on the Board  to respond, nay, even acknowledge receipt of advice.
Much less, if it is even considered.

The strategic imperative is not to disqualify but to contain; by making
that privilege harder to exercise in transparent practice.

On the balance of all these developments, maybe it is appropriate that a
higher bar be in place for the Board to heed GAC advice. Conversely, maybe
it would also be useful for a higher bar to compel explanation for not
heeding GAC advice.

Best,
-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
============================