[NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2

[Evan Leibovitch]

Alan Greenberg wrote:
> The substance was:
> The terms "At-Large" and "ALAC" are typically used interchangeably by 
> much of ICANN. The original document from the Business Constituency 
> did in fact reference "ALAC". I am afraid that I am the devil that 
> caused it to change to "At-Large".
>   
Alan,

First of all, thanks for writing. I know Internet access has been
difficult where you've been travelling and I appreciate both the time
you've put into the entire process and your participation here.

> My reasoning was that the ALAC is a properly constituted Board Advisory Committee within ICANN. Perhaps the lawyers and 
> organization-gurus among us would have no problem with an Advisory  body within ICANN being represented on a Supporting Organization Council. But I did.
I am definitely not a lawyer and I hardly consider myself an
organization guru. Quite the contrary, I frankly don't care how our
resulting action looks like on an org chart.

My issues are simple. It's taken a long time to get ALAC to the level of
maturity it now is. The group now has ICANN resource staff behind it in
Frederic and Matthias, supporting Nick. After what's seemed like ageless
internal navel-gazing over procedures, ALAC is finally starting to take
some initiative and have an effect on ICANN policy -- specifically, the
domain tasting issue.

This appears to me the absolutely wrong time to extract it from
contribution to the GNSO process. I understand that there may be a
perceived conflict, that At-Large would be seen to be getting both an
advisory role throughout ICANN plus an explicit vote/liaison at GNSO. I
must say that this does not bother me -- At-Large has been getting the
shaft from the ICANN policy process for a long time, and even this
perceived conflict (ALAC still doesn't have a vote on the Board) does
not go nearly as far IMO as is necessary to give the public voice its
rightful prominence within ICANN.

I don't like the idea of any attempt to create a parallel ALAC just in
order to determine what At-Large reps participate in the GNSO.

> I thought that this simply confused the relationships between the various bodies.
Not to me, nor, from what I can tell to most others. The confusion is
IMO a fabrication of those who want to continue to minimize the role of
At-Large and its legitimate representative body, ALAC.

ALAC appoints a liaison to the Board and to other committees.

It can also appoints liaisons to the GNSO (and I would hope eventually
the CCNSO and any other NSOs as they are created).

No confusion. And so long as ALAC doesn't have a vote on the board, not
even a conflict. In any case, I had REALLY hoped that something this
significant would have come back to the community for debate -- part of
the reason for the response you saw was because of the apparently
arbitrary resolution of this issue, without benefit of those -- the
RALOs and ALSs -- directly affected by it.

> So I suggested that  references to ALAC be changed to At-Large. Now since At-Large can 
> formally speak and act solely through the RALOs and the ALAC, presumably these bodies or their designates will play a significant role in selecting who is representing At-Large as members of an  "At-Large Constituency" within the User stakeholder group
You mean, like, ALAC selecting At-Large members to sit on GNSO? After
all, what is ALAC _except_ for the voice of the RALOs? (well, it is also
the NomComm appointees -- I really like the GNSO intended approach of
shifting NomComm appointees from voting members to an advisory capacity.
I hope this approach is suggested by the ALAC review).

In any case, whether they're called ALAC reps or whether ALAC selects
"At-Large reps" who are not necessarily ALAC committee members, this is
splitting hairs. What matters to me is that there must be no allowance
for or suggestion of a parallel process to be created, that bypasses the
ALAC, to determine the At-Large representation on the GNSO. Since not
every ALS -- or even every RALO -- can have a GNSO seat, the people who
are selected should be accountable to ALAC and subject to direction
and/or recall.

In other words, regardless of the specific process of appointments, ALAC
will have some role. And I prefer to make that explicit and transparent,
rather than to avoid mention now and have someone "discover" ALAC's
involvement later.

Of course, one reasonable option is to allocate five at-large seats, one
for each RALO which could appoint them directly. This avoids ALAC, but
leaves only one seat for NCUC. Personally, I could live with that quite
happily...
(Of course, I believe that At-Large should eventually comprise more than
50% of GNSO, but that's not going to happen in this go-round.)

- Evan