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

[Carlton Samuels]

Yessir!  On both substantive questions you get - and managed to amplify and
clarify - the concerns I have.

Wished I had seen this before so I could've saved my fingers with a
"+1".......

Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>