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

Tue Dec 16 11:57:38 EST 2008

I agree now with Carlos as I agreed when this was discussed

JOS

-----Mensaje original-----
De: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de carlos
aguirre
Enviado el: lunes, 15 de diciembre de 2008 09:57 p.m.
Para: At-Large Worldwide; 'Danny Younger'
Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss]
ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments)

Dear All:

I told you one month ago (see below and remember) that Ex Com issue issue
needed time and a carefully treatment . 

And also said that I had serious concerns about the Ex Com behaviour after
to be ratified (for the futures Ex Com), because in they, was summarized the
power of entirely ALAC.

This change is not a good thing, and my soul of lawyer say to me that was
not a mistake.

For that reason I asked a write rule (inside bylaws) previously.  We need a
long discussion about that with RALO`s , because is not a minor change.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------

From: carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.comTo: alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca;
alac at atlarge-lists.icann.orgSubject: RE: [ALAC] Motions with respect to the
Ex-ComDate: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:54:01 +0000

Dear All:  After yesterday teleconference and having the desition to ratify
the Ex Com, and to be clear, I want to say that I'm not against Ex Com, but
yes with the procedure in order to ratify it, because IMHO was at least so
fast and not careful. And I think we should be extremely cautious when it
comes to translate it into the ALAC OP, because we need define with surgical
presicion: *what are the issues on which can act?,  *which are important
matters?,  *what are urgent matters? and  * if this does not mean the
concentration of decisions which correspond to ALAC? (this is my biggest
concern).  what will happen if the desition takes by Ex Com are not ratify
by ALAC?  *what happen if there are not consensus into Ex Com. and it occurs
to me several others questions. I hope, we will do ok.my two cents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------

Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina
-*54-351-424-2123 /
423-5423www.derechoytecnologia.com.arhttp://ar.ageiadensi.org 
> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:14:38 -0500> From:
carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm> To: dannyyounger at yahoo.com> CC:
at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ExecComm
Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report -
Personal comments)> > 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
_________________________________________________________________
Enterate todas las novedades del mundo del deporte por MSN.
http://msn.foxsports.com/fslasc 
_______________________________________________
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