[NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [At-Large] Nominating Special Adviser on Internet Governance Policy]

Fri Nov 9 14:27:55 EST 2007

To be clear, the NomCom review suggested that the ICANN Bylaws be 
changed to allow the ALAC to name two voting Directors to the ICANN 
Board of Directors (a subset of which the review sometimes called the 
Policy Board).

Since there is no mention in the ICANN Bylaws or in out own rules 
about advisors, whether or not the ALAC takes formal or informal 
actions to create advisors is a matter for the ALAC to decide. I do 
agree with Evan that we should not need to take formal action if 
there is a consensus among members that we want to do this, and 
assuming that Jonathan does not need any formally accepted title in 
order to participate.

Alan

At 09/11/2007 01:33 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
>Well, I think Jonathan would be willing to help in whatever capacity we
>asked, time permitting. I agree with you about the bureaucracy, but I do
>want ALAC to deal with the recommendation made in the nom-com review
>report to bring aboard two policy directors. That report had not been
>released when I first nominated Jonathan. If we can actually create two
>formal roles for getting policy work done, that would be good for
>everyone, I think.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan at telly.org]
>Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:28 PM
>To: NA Discuss; Brendler, Beau
>Subject: [Fwd: [At-Large] Nominating Special Adviser on Internet
>Governance Policy]
>
>
>
>[ forwarded from the public ALAC list ]
>
>
>Hello Beau,
>
>I am staggered by the needless bureaucracy involved in ALAC's dealing
>with your request. That you should have to re-nominate Jonathan boggles
>the mind -- unless there's official status or title or some such at
>stake, why can't ALAC have as many advisors as it needs?
>
>Perhaps we should invite Jonathan to help in NARALO's little corner of
>the world, and have his advice guide our own contributions to ALAC
>policy development. That process should go much easier than ALAC's.
>
>Can we really afford to stonewall offers of help?
>
>- Evan
>
>
>
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject:        [At-Large] Nominating Special Adviser on Internet
>Governance
>Policy
>Date:   Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:07:06 -0500
>From:   Brendler, Beau <Brenbe at consumer.org>
>To:     At-Large Worldwide <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>
>
>
>I'm re-nominating Jonathan Zittrain (bio here:
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/bio_jzittrain) for the ad hoc position
>of Special Adviser to the ALAC on Internet Governance Policy, as I did
>in the month or so before the Los Angeles meeting.
>
>The reason I am proposing this is because I think the ALAC would find it
>valuable to consult an external expert on matters of formulating policy,
>in keeping with the ALAC's mission to represent the user community. I
>met Jonathan three years ago at a seminar at Harvard Law School's
>Berkman Center, and from there, we went on to work together in creating
>the StopBadware.org project (http://www.stopbadware.org). He has some
>great insight into the "big picture" of the Web and its future, and
>where the various component parts, such as ICANN, WSIS, WIPO, etc.,
>etc., should fit, don't fit, do fit, need retrofitting, etc.
>
>Specifically, from his biography, I think the following paragraph helps
>spell it out: "Zittrain's research includes digital property, privacy,
>and speech, and the role played by private "middlepeople" in Internet
>architecture. He has a strong interest in creative, useful, and
>unobtrusive ways to deploy technology in the classroom." He's also got a
>brilliant mind, is never boring, and seems genuinely interested in the
>future of the Internet becoming something close to Vint Cerf's vision
>for what it should be.
>
>The most critical advisory role I would see Jonathan playing is: Helping
>us set priorities with our mission and constituency of end-users in
>mind. I have spoken to Jonathan ahead of time about greater involvement
>in ICANN matters, of course, and he said he would be interested.
>
>Another alternative to consider: should the ALAC choose to follow the
>auditors' recommendation on page 46 of the recent Independent Review of
>the ICANN Nominating Committee, "We recommend that the ALAC appoint two
>policy board Directors, using whatever mechanism it considers to be
>appropriate," then I would propose Jonathan be elected to serve in one
>of these two slots.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>*From:* Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:cheryl at hovtek.com.au]
>*Sent:* Monday, November 05, 2007 3:45 PM
>*To:* jam at jacquelinemorris.com; Brendler, Beau
>*Subject:* RE: Special Adviser on Internet Governance Policy
>
>Well just so you all know, I totally support the concept of ALAC and the
>RALO's usefully accessing  a distributed network of talented and
>experienced experts in a number of fields including this suggestion.
>
>
>
>CLO
>
>
>
>
>
>*From:* Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
>*Sent:* Tuesday, 6 November 2007 2:47 AM
>*To:* 'Brendler, Beau'
>*Cc:* cheryl at hovtek.com.au
>*Subject:* RE: Special Adviser on Internet Governance Policy
>
>
>
>Cool
>
>I'm copying Cheryl so she knows and can handle this. However the ALAC
>wants to manage it.
>
>JAM
>
>
>
>*From:* Brendler, Beau [mailto:Brenbe at consumer.org]
>*Sent:* Monday, November 05, 2007 11:38
>*To:* jam at jacquelinemorris.com
>*Subject:* RE: Special Adviser on Internet Governance Policy
>
>
>
>Hi, Jacqueline...
>
>
>
>I was hoping that there would be some movement by the ALAC on the
>recommendation within the NomCom review to name two policy leaders.
>Since that didn't happen, I'll just re-propose Jonathan with some more
>detail as you suggested in your e-mail a couple of weeks ago, and we'll
>see where it goes.
>
>
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
>Beau
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
>     *Sent:* Friday, November 02, 2007 4:37 PM
>     *To:* Brendler, Beau
>     *Subject:* Special Adviser on Internet Governance Policy
>
>     *Hi Beau*
>
>     *What did you decide to do about the proposal for this? Trying to
>     tie up all my loose ends...*
>
>     *JAM *
>
>
>
>
>     ***
>     Scanned
>
>     No virus found in this outgoing message.
>     Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>     Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.18/1104 - Release Date:
>     11/1/2007 18:47
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date:
>11/5/2007 04:36
>
>
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date:
>11/5/2007 04:36
>
>
>***
>Scanned
>
>
>
>***
>Scanned
>
>------
>NA-Discuss mailing list
>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/
>------