[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting forALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments

Fri Sep 28 08:54:41 EDT 2007

OK,

Nick, you are mainly correct on this one.  My issue is with the lack of
transparency with the entire procedure, not necessarily staff.  If it
was ALAC at fault, then it is they whom I wish to hear from.  Lets not
name names - lets just find out how this happened.

Having said that, though, at what time did staff point us to the page
where these people were listed?  As a lowly NARALO grunt, I had no idea
there was even such a page out there.  As the NARALO Secretariat, I'm
truly peeved that such a page wasn't pointed out to me so that I could
put it out to my region!  That is one area where SOMEONE sure as heck
didn't keep the lines of communication open and then opaqueness took
over.

I still want Evan's points addressed.  If it wasn't staff at fault then
who made the decision to make an end run around our entire region?

Darlene

Darlene A. Thompson

Community Access Program Administrator

Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP

c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910

Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0

Phone:  (867) 975-6531

Fax:  (867) 979-8870

dthompson at gov.nu.ca

________________________________

From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick
Ashton-Hart
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 6:34 AM
To: Evan Leibovitch
Cc: At-Large Worldwide
Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting forALAC
Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments

Thanks for your note Evan - please see below.

On 28 Sep 2007, at 11:48, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

	you are correct that it is not dictated by the Bylaws - however,
as

	the Bylaws are silent on this point the Bylaws clearly do not
prevent

	the ALAC from voting in the manner they have chosen to follow,
either.

So, because the bylaws don't mandate transparency, it's not to be

considered (let alone advocated)?

I note that I didn't say that, and as a result I didn't mean that,
either. 

The staff do not decide what the members of the ALAC vote about. We
provide the tools to ensure that voting is carried out in an orderly way
which is not subject to inherent flaws. We do have a duty to ensure that
to the extent possible the process devised is not abusive,
untransparent, or not in conformity with the Bylaws of ICANN but we
cannot dictate to the ALAC, for example, 

There is clearly a gap between doing the minimum necessary and doing

what is right. Fixing the ICANN bylaws to add transparency (that it

claims to want) is one thing; asking for basic accountability and

transparency within our own constituency -- even when not demanded by

the bylaws -- is far more straightforward, and IMO quite reasonable.

The Bylaws may offer a legal crutch but they sure don't offer an ethical

one, especially if ICANN wants any credibility in its stated desire to

be more transparent. Or does it speak one way but act another by design?

The staff have not acted in any way improperly and I object to any
characterisation of the staff role in this as untransparent. 

The page showing the Nomcom Appointees for 2008 has been publicly listed
on the ALAC working wiki for some time.  Who the ALAC were going to vote
on was listed at that page and anyone in the community could look at it.

The wiki environment itself - with the ability of each region, and of
the ALAC, to post its activities and intended courses of action, was
setup by staff to facilitate community transparency. The fact that all
agendas of ALAC are public, that recordings and transcripts are
available, is also very transparent. Votes are published as you see,
with a link to facilitate independent verification.

If you have an issue with the choices which were made then the ALAC
members are where you should focus your questions. It is the
responsibility of the community to elect its leaders. It is likewise
those leaders' responsibility to execute their responsibilities openly
and congruent with those that chose them. The staff is not responsible
for the choices made by your leaders, or for your choices in who you
choose to lead you. 

	Is it staff practice not to itself be transparent -- and to
recommend

	against transparency and accountability in internal procedures
-- unless

	the bylaws absolutely and specifically demand it? Is doing the
absolute

	minimum necessary Standard Operating Procedure?

Again, this is objectionable,  inaccurate, and actually insulting. It
would be appreciated if comments could be kept factual, and accurate. If
you object to the choices made by the representatives on the ALAC, you
should ask them about their choices, not come and blame the staff. It is
both a defocus and frankly unhelpful. I have never recommended
untransparent actions - ask the ALAC; they'll likely tell you I can be a
bit irritating in always suggesting that the community err on the side
of more transparency, rather than less. 

-- 
Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart

USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460

Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44
mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68
email: nashton at consensus.pro
Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com /
Skype: nashtonhart

Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070928/f6095b85/attachment.html 