[EURO-Discuss] alac review

William Drake william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
Mon Jun 30 11:32:37 EDT 2008


Hi Heike,

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Heike Jensen <dr.heike.jensen at web.de> wrote:
> Thanks for posting the notes, Bill, but is that really the latest version? I
> thought that you had reworked the text to make it more coherent? The below,

Per previous, we were going to meet at 16:30 to do this when people
got out of other appointments but as it turned out comments had been
invited just at the outset of the public forum that commenced 16:00 so
there was no longer any point to a rushed drafting meeting and
statement.  Given that nobody had actually read the full draft report,
this wasn't a bad outcome in my view.

> I think, is hard to understand for people who were not present at the
> meeting.

Which is why I didn't send it originally, but then Wolf and Vittorio
asked that it be sent.

> A point that I would like to reiterate in terms of our approach to the
> review is that I think it would be important to distinguish between content
> (are they suggesting what we would like them to suggest?) and methodology
> (does their review make sense, and do they arrive at their conclusions in a
> logical manner?). I think our criticism is most credible when concerned with
> the latter. As for the former, I think we need to discuss whether we would
> like to reiterate our suggestions, but in any case they should be clearly
> set apart from our methodological critique.

I'm all for being clear, good to keep this in mind.  On the other
hand, sometimes the binary breaks down, e.g. the reasoning in the
board liaison bit is contorted and the recommendation is problematic
in consequence, etc.

Cheers,

Bill
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> To: "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Wolf Ludwig
> <wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Vittorio that it would be much easier - especially for those
>> who haven't
>> been in Paris - to have some starting points already (otherwise it would
>> habe been
>> rather useless to sit together in Paris for almost two hours). We could
>> use the "starting
>> points" as a basis for further considerations and suggestions on the list.
>
> Ok then, by popular demand, below are the notes I received on the
> initial discussion.  I've left them in their raw state---there are
> some general cross-cutting points about overall thrust and balance and
> the target audience (believe we settled on the board wg) followed by
> issue-specific points grouped under the section headings of the draft
> summary report.  Perhaps as a first step people could read the full
> draft report and then provide any comments using these headings for
> easy identification.  After everything's on the table a few of us
> could form a drafting group to massage the inputs into an integrated
> text.  I'll volunteer to be part of that group.
>
>> I suggest that afterwards we give about 10-14 days for discussion
>> to come up with a consolidated and final EURALO Statement
>> around 15 July.
>
> Some time is needed between discussion/inputs and production of a
> statement, so unless there's some urgency relating to the board
> wg/Westlake production schedule I'd suggest we think in terms of the
> week of the 21st for the latter.  If others will be in Meissen for
> Wolfgang's Internet governance summer school, we could even finalize
> in person.  And of course the resulting text should be cleared through
> list before sending it off.  In any event, since this will be Euralo's
> first substantive output we should ensure we get the process right and
> help set a foundation for future work.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
> ------------
>
> Express concerns:
> Staff – several layers of indirectness
> Budget independence
> Positive, points we agree with
> What should have been looked at
> Giving some recommendations
> Individual memberships
> Participation of users
> Voting rights on supporting organizations (gnso) and board…
> Surprise about statements the range is not wide – ahistorical…
>
> Who to address:
> The Westlake group?
> The Board?
>
>
> Process:
> Conflict of interests the very staff who is responsible
>
> You did not examine the role of staff:
>
> The procedure of the selection of the reviewer was not transparent.
>
> Although the review was mandated by the bylaws, the date of reviewing
> was unlucky because it reviewed the interim alac.
>
> 1. The way the contract was done.
> 2. Allocation in management of the contract
> 3. Timing of the report (mandated by bylaws)
> 4. Relationship to staff – dependency conflict of interests
> 5. Not everyone has been interviewed
> 6. Skope: Terms of reference
>
> Assessment of key factors affecting alac s effectiveness:
> Staff,
> History, individual membership
> Constitutional question of role of alac
> At-Large structure participation
> Democratizing icann
> Budget
> Focus on the committee itself
> The skope is weak in terms analyzing of the relationship of the
> committee board and constituent membership at-large
>
> Promote web
> Did they not get it by accident or did they not get it because they
> were instructed to not get it.
>
> Introduction:
> Procedural points:
>
> History of the ALAC starts in 1999. That means you cannot look at the
> ALAC without looking at the At-Large.
>
> Purpose of alac
> The good part of the review is they mention – accountability of icann
> Give representation of the users in icann
> Terms of reference…
>
> Structural options:
> The range of options considered where at some place excentric, and
> other options promoting the bottom up involvement of users (which make
> more sense were not mentioned.)
> They should be transparent about the options chosen from the data they
> collected. As it is clear that other options have been mentioned.
>
>
> Geography:
> Positive, that they looked at the population and to find a way of good
> user´s representation.
> It would be adv
> Problem of pure numeric representation should be mentioned.
> Different cultures, languages, political structures.
> A very non-scientific approach. Methodologically unsophisticated.
> Resolution premature, and it would be best to take that issue up in
> icanns larger regional represantation.
> No reference had been made to former studies on geographic regional
> representation (sub-organisations).
>
> Future developments of growing number of ALSes were not taken into account.
>
>
> ALAC influence:
> Ok
>
> Board liaison:
> Voting: We find that the logic is amusing/ flawed. If having a vote
> hampers consensus building on the board than all of the stakeholders
> should…
> All board members should be treated equally
> A vote on the board
> While we understand the concern that giving a vote to a committee that
> might change its status of the ALAC this will not change the procedure
> of consensus building.
> The gac was offered voting rights, they did not want.
> (Later: maybe a clear statement: We would like to have it.)
>
> The quote: "`to act in what [directors] reasonably believe ar the best
> interests of ICANN and not as….`"
>
> Secondly we find the conclusion that giving alac a vote would dilute
> rather than increase its influence because of the duty to serve the
> interest of Icann
> Is based on a false dichotomy.
> Alac members are fully invested in ICANN's mission and tasks. There is
> no contradiction between serving ICANN's interests and representing At
> Large interests.
> We support the suggestion to allocate staff support on a regional
> basis. The effectiveness of staff support is more depend on quality
> than quantity. In addition, we have further observations.
> 1. The consultant should review the processes of appointing staff for
> ALAC and RALOs to see whether those processes are in line with the
> goal to create a supporting structure for ALAC and REALOS.
> 2. The consultant should look into the matter of budget allocation and
> particularly review the procedure of decision making to allocate the
> budget and investigate whether those structures allows ALAC and RALOs
> to fulfill their function.
>
> Due to the late delivery of the report, there was no time to consult
> with all of our members. For this reason, we reserve the right to
> prepare further statements in the next few days.
>
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>



-- 
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Director, Project on the Information
 Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
 Graduate Institute for International Studies
 Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
http://tinyurl.com/38dcxf
***********************************************************



More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list