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

[Vittorio Bertola]

Evan Leibovitch ha scritto:
> 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)?

As I am not an ALAC member any more since last April, I have not been 
involved directly in this process - but I observed it, and so I would 
like to make some personal considerations.

As I gather from the history of messages from the ALAC lists, things 
went this way:
- the NARALO submitted a list of candidates;
- the three NA ALAC members discussed them extensively, discarded all of 
them but one, and added the name of Ross Rader;
- they could not agree on which of the two remaining candidates they 
would have liked to recommend to the whole ALAC, so two of them 
submitted to the group their personal preferences;
- the ALAC decided to vote on each slot for which the Region could not 
agree on a unanimous suggestion, so the two candidates were put to 
votes; [note - this was already done once, two years ago for Europe, so 
there was a precedent]
- and the ALAC voted for Ross (with quite a majority).

So I am troubled by your conclusion:

> 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?

because it is the ALAC who sets its procedures, and it is the ALAC who 
took all the decisions you disagree with, not staff. I actually saw 
staff often remind the ALAC of responsibilities about due process, 
transparency, and public consultation, including consultation with 
RALOs. However, the ALAC often spends more time complaining about staff 
"interference" than working on policy, and, for some ALAC members 
(fortunately not all), blaming staff and ICANN in general has become an 
easy trick to dump personal responsibility and to promote themselves.

Anyway, I find what happened in this case extremely worrying. We may 
discuss about process, but it was in ALAC's formal prerogatives to do 
all of the above actions. But when we come to substance, even if Ross is 
a honest, committed and intelligent person, appointing to the Nomcom a 
key employee of one of the biggest registrars, who was never involved 
with the At Large before, makes one wonder about how well does the ALAC 
intend to pursue the global public interest. I am sure that most ALAC 
members didn't mean to do anything bad, they just followed the 
recommendations from the regional members and overlooked the issue, but 
this kind of factual conflicts of interest deserves much more attention.

Regards,
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------