[lac-discuss-en] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:



> Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls,
> does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of
> the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A
> is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks
> good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the
> moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person
> is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people
> supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out
> there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not
> accountable.
>

I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, accountable to
who?

If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle this
issue through a recall or other similar measure.

If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different but a
mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC appointee is not
accountable to ALAC or the region, however it reflects badly on the NomCom
and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC members are chosen and allowed to
under-serve for an entire two-year term.

What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment over its
own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their viewpoint, and that
viewpoint is that only a small number of issues matter, this is indeed the
RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no right to engage in top-down
second-guessing. Education and persuasion, certainly, but not sanctions.

I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall
mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but also RALO
chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I have long
advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in favour of staff's
providing attendance and other performance metrics that allow a RALO to act
appropriately on factual inputs. But I am very much against any scheme that
has ALAC members being accountable to other ALAC members.

It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to the
public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone propagate
that mistake within our own bounds.

But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate
> stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which
> are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The
> debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later.


I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's simply
that the wording in the report right now could easily be interpreted by a
casual reader to infer that we have already had the discussion, agreed on a
regime of sanctions, and are simply discussing appropriate implementation
going forward. WE know the debate is incomplete, but that is not what the
report indicates.

- Evan