[EURO-Discuss] At-Large Advisory Committee Election Results

[Vittorio Bertola]

Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto:
> Dear list,
> 
> In complicated procedural discussions the easiest way to move
> foreward is to look into legal texts. And if the legal text is
> unclear and open for interpretation you need advise or you have to
> consider how to make existing legal language more precise.

ICANN staff asked the ICANN General Counsel and he gave an 
interpretation that it was then posted to this list as well - 
apparently, there is no doubt at all on how to interpret that text.

> In our case we have the text of the ICANN bylaws. They do not specify
> the rules and conditions how a "Board Liaison" is "appointed". The
> general practice of the other Advisory Committees (there are
> four/GAC, RSSAC, SSAC, ALAC) is that the appointed "liaison" is a
> member of the Committee (Sharil, Steve, Suzanne / incase of Steve and
> Sharil it is the Chair of the Committee who is the liaison) .

But there are numerous other cases of appointment of liaisons outside of 
the Committee - both in the ALAC (e.g. Bret as GNSO liaison for the last 
two years) and outside (e.g. the Vice-Chair of the Nomcom, whom the 
Chair of the Nomcom decided to appoint outside of the Nomcom members 
rather than picking one of them). There is not a general rule nor a 
general practice, at all.

> The missing point here is that the ALAC has no procedures how to
> appoint the liaison, the most important personal decision the ALAC
> has to made every year.

Yes and no.
When we got into the Sao Paulo meetings, many of us expected to find a 
more formalized procedure - in fact, when we asked, Annette told us that 
her plan was just to "meet and vote" on Thursday. I guess she didn't 
expect so much controversy! In the end, as more candidacies were 
presented (and you might note that this was the first time ever that we 
did not have an incumbent member to reappoint) and more and more doubts 
on how to proceed arose as well, many people in the Committee, starting 
from myself, suggested that we needed clearer formalized rules (in the 
meantime, we had a lot of discussion before voting, on procedures for 
the voting itself). Thus we agreed that we would prepare written rules 
of operation for all the appointments that the ALAC has to make, and I 
actually volunteered to write a draft. There is plenty of time, but we'd 
like to do this by the Lisbon meeting, so that it's sorted out well 
before the next cycle of elections.

> With other words, I recommend that ALAC drafts procedural rules for
> the appointment of the Board liaison as soon as possible and adopts
> it on its next regular meeting in Lisboa.

...which is what the ALAC already decided to do one week ago, so we are 
actually in agreement :)

> BTW, in the ALAC chapter of the ICANN bylaws there is made a
> difference  between "appointment" (liaison to the board)  and
> "designation" (liaison to the CNSO and GNSO). We have to consult with
> JJ to find out what the meaning of this difference is. I am not so
> familiar with californian law so for me it would be just the same.
> But legal experts - in case of conflicts - turn every word three
> times around :-(((

Which conflicts?
The entire Committee, including those who voted for the other candidate, 
stands by the result of our vote and by the fact that I will serve as 
Board liaison until the end of 2007. There is actually no conflict 
inside the Committee; until now, you, Jeanette and Wolf are the only 
ones who have somewhat challenged this decision.

I am really sorry of this situation and I do not want to take it 
personally, my plan is to be even a better Board liaison than Roberto 
and to make all of you happy about my service there. I would be happier 
if we focused the discussion on how can I do a better job. By the way, 
we should celebrate that the ALAC picked one of us for this role, rather 
than being unhappy about it!
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...