[At-Large] [ALAC] ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments)

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Dec 15 22:20:32 EST 2008 

Carleton, I will make this short because people do not seem to read 
long e-mails.

1. It was Evan, not Danny who first mentioned this.

2. Although this entire discussion is theoretical for the reasons I 
gave in my previous e-mail, if the Ex-Com were to have the power to 
appoint Board members or Liaisons, then it would get that power in 
one of two ways. Either the Board would decide that it should be done 
that way (HIGHLY unlikely) or the ALAC were to vote to give the 
power. If neither were to have happened, then recall would be to 
gentile a word for what I believe should happen next.

Alan

At 15/12/2008 08:14 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>Danny & Members All:
>Many thanks to Danny for bringing this change to my attention.  Yes, this is
>not a small change from the original text and thus, a cause for concern.  On
>its face, it appears the ExCom is reserving a right to exercise a power that
>it said it was not after. And, it appears, by stealth.
>
>The question of appointment of Board Members from ALAC - or for that matter,
>a Board Liaison from ALAC - could hardly be said to fit into the
>time-circumscribed decision-making that was used to justify decision-making
>by a rump ALAC. I have supported the ExCom as was defined in formalizing the
>structure. But I think of this specific set of decisions like I would a
>Caribbean hurricane; if they catch you by surprise then there has to be
>contributory negligence. For you should have known the silly thing was
>coming long before landfall, indeed from the time when it was a slight area
>of 'disturbed weather' off West Africa!
>
>I am as exercised as anyone about the participation challenges with the
>At-large business but a wholesale redefinition of the participation model
>cannot be the best answer we have. I would oppose any suggestion to short
>circuit the bottom-up advise and consent role the entire ALAC must play in
>these matters. Otherwise, we might just go back to the ALAC Version 1 and be
>done with it.  But openly so!
>
>By the way, this is not an issue for which the response is "well, the Ex-Com
>is subject to recall".  I allowed that answer to past the last time without
>further comment. But quite frankly, that response barely rises to the level
>of, um, well, sophistry.
>
>Best,
>Carlton
>
>On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > Carlton,
> >
> > Evan is referring to this sentence in point #2 of the ALAC response to the
> > Mid-Term Consultation:
> >
> > "Please note mechanisms of this process would need careful consideration
> > and further discussed, but could take the form of either one of the two
> > Board Seats being initially made by the ALAC per se or perhaps more
> > preferably an ALAC to Board Liaison role being maintained where the Liaison
> > is the ALAC Chair or nominee of the ALAC Executive."
> >
> > You will note that even though this Statement hasn't been ratified by the
> > ALAC, it was submitted anyway and points to new powers being considered for
> > the ExCom.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 12/15/08, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm>
> > > Subject: Re: [ALAC] ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC
> > Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments)
> > > To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org>
> > > Cc: dannyyounger at yahoo.com, "At-Large Worldwide" <
> > alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" <
> > at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > > Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 2:32 PM
> > > I'm looking for "this recommendation" and
> > > cannot find it. What is it?
> > > Carlton
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Evan Leibovitch
> > > <evan at telly.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily
> > > increasing role of
> > > > the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this
> > > recommendation -- which I
> > > > honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs
> > > for comment -- suggests
> > > > that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be
> > > given the
> > > > authority to appoint a Board Liaision.
> > > >
> > > > We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed
> > > for issues of
> > > > unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants
> > > to -- in
> > > > recommendations it has itself written -- be given
> > > consideration to have
> > > > the power to make appointments and decisions on
> > > predictable timelines.
> > > >
> > > > If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is
> > > to me -- then
> > > > that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that
> > > the ExecComm was
> > > > created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole
> > > ALAC, under the
> > > > pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these
> > > fears being realized.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in
> > > which participants
> > > > are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory)
> > > regarding their
> > > > subject preferences, then _required_ to actively
> > > participate in working
> > > > groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel
> > > support and ultimately
> > > > the ability to be complete participants.
> > > >
> > > > If only the same zeal used to demand participation
> > > from Summit delegates
> > > > was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would
> > > not need to exist.
> > > > Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is
> > > noteworthy that, despite
> > > > many months of member performance reports in our
> > > hands, ALAC has not
> > > > begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the
> > > recall provisions) even
> > > > once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair
> > > having to take
> > > > performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own
> > > hands, having exhausted
> > > > my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to
> > > fix itself in this regard.
> > > >
> > > > The Board liaison is the only reference to the
> > > ExecComm in this
> > > > document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points
> > > to a disturbing --
> > > > if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to
> > > give the ExecComm
> > > > powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should
> > > they be
> > > > "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend
> > > should be stopped and if
> > > > possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a
> > > very few people
> > > > shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to
> > > address this by
> > > > increasing participation by all rather than
> > > entrenching a special
> > > > position for the inner core.
> > > >
> > > > It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm
> > > indicates a failure
> > > > of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this
> > > out in discussion
> > > > of a document related to the ALAC review.
> > > >
> > > > - Evan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > ALAC mailing list
> > > > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > >
> > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > > > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>_______________________________________________
>At-Large mailing list
>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

More information about the At-Large mailing list