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

[Wolf Ludwig]

Hi all,

I share Evan's basic question: "accountable to who?" and subsequent considerations. And I would say: In a broader sense to the Internet users in general, in a causal sense to the regional community that selected them = the RALOs concerned by such an under-performing candidate should be "in charge" of any potential "sanction" mechanisms because the two *RALO selected* ALAC members are - first and foremost - accountable to their electorate. A defective performance of a regional representative / ALAC member affects performance and reputation of the particular region and cannot be in their interest = be tolerated over a certain span of time (except for serious circumstances such as sickness and the like).

I understand Carlton's reservations against sanctions or punishments of volunteers but as soon as limited seats (15 or 2 per region) and financial (travel etc.) resources are associated with a volunteer's engagement, the mandated person and his community have a special responsibility and accountability towards ALAC and ICANN. Otherwise, we cannot fulfill our role and commitments - what we stand for - diligently representing the users at ICANN.

The key deliberation must be: The standards and professionalism we expect and demand from others, we must fulfill ourselves at first hand (typical trap of credibility ;-).

Best,
Wolf 


Evan Leibovitch wrote Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:39:
>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
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>

EuroDIG Secretariat
http://www.eurodig.org/
mobile +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
http://euralo.org

Profile on LinkedIn
http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig