Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualización importante

carlton.samuels en gmail.com carlton.samuels en gmail.com
Jue Oct 13 15:02:13 UTC 2011


[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]

 Asunto: Re: Proyecto de mejoras de ALAC / At-Large - actualización importante 
 A partir de: carlton.samuels en gmail.com

 1. 


 Carlton 


 ============================== 
 Carlton A Samuels 
 Móvil: 876-818-1799 
 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y plazos de entrega * 
 ============================= 




 El Mar, 11 de octubre 2011 a las 10:26 PM, Jacqueline Morris < 
 jam en jacquelinemorris.com> escribió: 


> Evan - I agree with the idea of recall, and have so advocated for
> years, but I do  have a problem with sanctions from ALAC. I understand
> the problems, have dealt with them myself several times, and moral
> suasion is not sufficient for some. But having the RALO appointees
> accountable to the RALOs should be more than sufficient, and I am sure
> the NomCom and Board would consider some sort of accountability for
> NomCom appointees as well, were it to be raised.
> Jacqueline A. Morris
> Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and
> Free. (after Chris Lehmann )
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan en telly.org> wrote:
> > On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl en 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > lac-discuss-en mailing list
> > lac-discuss-en en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
> >
>



[[--Original text (en)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/720bedb75f.html
--]]





Más información sobre la lista de distribución lac-discuss-es