[At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote?
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Fri Dec 19 01:50:14 EST 2008
(I am not a member of the "ALAC-excom at atlarge-lists.icann.org"
<alac-excom at atlarge-lists.icann.org> or NA Discuss
<na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org> lists so have removed them from
the cc list, but this discussion began At-Large Worldwide
<at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> so that list is addressed.)
Comment below:
At 12:04 PM +1100 12/19/08, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
>Couple of things regarding a few points made in this topics thread...
>
>As far as I know all comments from Wendy, Danny and others made on lists or
>wiki's were incprprated with the exception of a part point mae by Sebastien
>regarding Strategic planning...
>
>Also there is no power grab by the ExCom => the use of ExCom in the addition
>of suggestion that a Board Liaison position be retained *in transition* was
>discused in Cairo which is where it came from and the use of Chair as a
>possability* of that role fits with the role of Board liaison being Chair
>of other AC's we extended it to the ExCom as a suggestion *IF such a
>proposal were ever contemplated by the BGC ALAC Review WG* to allow wider
>choice to ExCom but ALAC can be inserted instead of ExCom without any issue
>at all as far as I'm concerned...
>
>And I totally agree with the ALAC Budget SC being the interface with the
>staff on budget proposal but the original consultants proposed Chair for
>this matter the BGC ALAC Review WG did not change it I believe and our draft
>was trying again to expand this role to at least ExCom but the natural
>alternate is the Budget & Finance SC if it is reconstituted...
>
>Finally the ExCom is assigned authorship of this interim document UNTIL it
>is voted on then it becomes an ALAC Statement with all the front pages and
>coversheets that go along with that authority after the vote has closed...
>
>Finally if NARALO wish, there is at least two options forward here:- 1) is
>to propose the ammendments below to the ALAC Working List get agreement (I'm
>happy to propose and endores this if Beau puts it forward) and those who
>have voted so far will need to revote in a new adjusted poll, with an
>extention of time given...
I asked for conformation of process in email sent to the At-Large
Worldwide list on Tuesday December 16.
<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q4/005099.html>
I asked if the document was draft, it certainly looked like a draft
as it hadn't been put to the ALAC for any final comment, no had a
vote been called (the document claimed to be "under ratification vote
by the ALAC for the next 8 Days" but not such vote had been called,
with not information about the vote until credentials were sent
earlier today, Friday December 19.)
I asked if the document still open for amendments, and made some
recommendations.
I am clearly not alone in wishing to see the document amended. I
will not vote for the document as it stands and without the
opportunity to have amendments considered.
I do not know the formal procedure for the following request, but I
am asking as a member of the ALAC that the vote be suspended until
such time as the amendments have been submitted and considered.
Request a delay of five days, to the end of Tuesday December 23rd,
with the vote restarted on December 24th for eight days.
Thanks,
Adam
>or 2) NARALO reps vote however they are advised
>to or not and NARALO put forward a short "We disagree with the following in
>the ALAC Comments / Statement" note that can act as an ammendment to any
>Comment already sent and I will ensure that the BGC ALAC Review WG accept
>this to be included in their deliberations on final recommendations, to do
>this I will need to know in the next day or so which you desire so that I
>can let Trish et.al. know what is happening before many people take a break
>away from thier workplaces etc.,
>
>
>CLO
>
>2008/12/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
>
>> Brendler, Beau wrote:
>> > I would appreciate the guidance of the NARALO as to how to vote.
>> Personally, I'm wavering between 60 percent for and 40 percent against. The
>> percent I'm against mostly consists of wording that reads to me like
>> something of a transferrence of power from the ALAC to the exec committee
>> and the chair.
>> >
>> Yeah, I sort of had that objection as well ;-). There are two spots
>> where the ExCom is mentioneed, once regarding Board liaisions and once
>> regarding budget planning. Both are IMO unacceptable overstepping of the
>> bounds originally surounding the ExCom. I'm concerned that the ExCom
>> assigned itself at the authors of the document -- to be endorsed by ALAC
>> - rather than an ALAC document.
>>
>> And finally, I'm more than a little concerned that I -- who am not on
>> ALAC per-se -- had to be the first to point that out on the lists. Is
>> most of ALAC OK with this power-grab, or just asleep at the wheel?
>>
>> My personal preference would be to bring forward an amendment that would:
>> 1) Change authorship of the document from the ExCom to ALAC
>> 2) Change the Board liaision authority from the Chair-or-ExComm to ALAC
>> 3) Change the ALAC liaison with staff on budget implementation from
>> Chair-or-ExCom" to the ALAC Budget Subcommittee
>>
>> If the amendment does not pass I would vote to reject the document --
>> and then have NARALO draft its own statement, echoing most of the other
>> comments but noting the danger in the ExComm references.
>>
>> But that's just me. Frankly, I'd be delighted if you raised a motion to
>> disband the ExCom -- less than a month after its creation it members
>> have wasted no time to destroy the trust that it was meant for
>> emergency, rapid-response use only. Clearly the real solutions to the
>> problems the ExCom was created to address lie in fixing ALAC rather than
>> institutionalizing a shortcut around it.
>>
>> The continued existence of the ExComm prolongs -- and arguably enhances
>> -- a culture of group inaction and unaccountability. It needs to go IMO.
>>
>> > I'm also not sure about the language on page 4 referring to ALAC as the
>> appropriate organizational channel for the voice and concern of the
>> individual Internet user in ICANN processes. I'm opposed to this statement
>> both in theory and in practice -- I don't think ALAC is doing that now, and
>> I don't think it should be roped off as the most appropriate venue for
>> individual users.
>> >
>> I am personally OK with language designating ALAC as the primary channel
>> but not the only one. I have no problem with At-Large being the default
>> forum for Internet users who don't self-identify with other
>> constituencies. Maybe with enough new blood we can inject some life into
>> this thing yet.
>>
>> - Evan
>>
>>
>> ------
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>>
>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>> ------
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Cheryl Langdon-Orr
>(CLO)
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC-Internal mailing list
>ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large
mailing list