[NA-Discuss] ALAC Chair responses to parts of the message entitled 'Out of the Loop'

Sun Apr 27 17:37:50 EDT 2008

Please see my initial responses (limited to points raised that fit in my remit from an ALAC POV) are interspaced below...

CLO

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan at telly.org] 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:15 AM
To: NA Discuss; At-Large Staff; Alan Greenberg; cheryl at hovtek.com.au
Subject: Out of the Loop

Hello all,

As you may have noticed, I've been away from email and Skype for much of
the last few days. As it was, the mental effort required to follow the
multiple shell games going on regarding the recent GNSO document became
a bit much. After a few days to ponder, and still not quite all there, I
still find myself presented with a number of quandries regarding this
whole multiple-issue mess.

<CLO> Evan, after any surgery (particularly one involving any form of anesthetic which I am guessing yours did) it is important to take proper time to recover...  We are after all volunteers and you must look after your own health above many things, including ICANN matters even if at times they do seem time critical on first reading...  

Perhaps it might be easier to explore and hopefully solve some of your quandaries in a special purpose teleconference where others may also be involved in a discussion on these matters? Not just because as you said how draining just the  writing of this was for you, but also as it would offer opportunity for others to engage in a different way as well...

1) So long as one-third of its members are un-representative delegates,
parachuted in by ICANN, the ALAC _must_ _never_ assume that its working
groups are fully representative of -- or responsible to -- the community
at large. Alan said it "wasn't his place" to share early drafts of the
GNSO document with the community ... if not him, then who? Striving for
geographical diversity within subgroups is obviously pointless if
regional "members" are unaccountable to their regions.

<CLO>  ALAC does not hold the view (*nor could it* I believe, under our bylaws, but I'm sure someone will correct me on that if I am laboring under any error of assumption) that there is any variance in the 'representativeness' (beyond any measure of their minimum performance criteria under the ROP's) of any of the 3 persons appointed from any region... 

The bottom line from my point of view is 'the ALAC is currently structured the way it is structured -> so that is what we will work with until it is changed'... (remember we are under review)

And for the record I personally believe that the current system of 1 of 3 appointments from any region being NomCom gives an important balance and broadening of views function... Particularly in Regions where only some member countries have ALS's... As well as giving the opportunity of us all ALAC & Region access to highly talented and experienced people who must in order to be selected (as far as I can tell) show considerable knowledge of ICANN and the Internet, as well as high degrees of impartiality and professionalism to be selected, by an independent review system... There is an additional advantage not only to any Advisory Committee that must try and put forward the broadest agreed *global view*  it can on any matter  (through consensus building wherever possible); A RALO could see (and I know several who do) that direct access and working as a team with the NomCom appointments gives them unique access to the talent skills and experience that the they are meant to bring to the process...  

As a result of this I feel it is the obligation of ALAC Staff to keep
the community informed of what is going on, which includes what their
"representatives" are doing on their behalf. We may not be able to hold
our regional NomComm rep responsible for their actions, however ALAC as
a whole *is* responsible -- and in the case of the GNSO documents -- has
severely let down its community. I request from ALAC and ALAC-supporting
staff a response regarding how such utter breakdowns will be avoided in
the future.

<CLO>  Noted and I have included this specific request in my response to the request for me to the following question by Denise Michel "... how the Policy Staff can best serve the ALAC and ICANN over the next twelve months." For discussion by the ICANN Policy Staff at the retreat they are currently participating in  (or about to)... 

1a) Given that ALAC has existed since 2002 (or maybe earlier), it amazes
me how many fundamental errors such as this have not been detected and
addressed earlier. It's hard to avoid a conclusion that, until now, ALAC
has done so little of value that such levels of scrutiny have rarely
been applied before.

<CLO>  that is one possible conclusion... But the question of who scrutinizes the outcomes of an AC? How? and When? also need to be considered.

2) Again, ALAC finds itself at having to react to the frames of
reference determined by someone else as opposed to providing its own
vision and initiative. Why do we keep finiding ourselves in this
situation? Rather than determining our own goals, why are we forever --
on major issues of substance -- going deadline to deadline?

<CLO> I'm sure many will agree that is the 'end-game objective' clearly we are not there yet, but I should note until we have a mechanism that is working successfully as a consensus building tool we are unlikely to get to moving from predominantly reaction to pro-activity... Again these are issues being raised by many including the ALAC... Yes we are probably still 'playing catch-up' on issues of substance that are being discussed in ICANN at the moment,  we still do have to respond to deadlines (set by ICANN and ourselves) but in my opinion many efforts are being made to help the At-Large Community  prepare themselves in a timely (or as timely as possible) manner  so that proper input into ALAC process (and their own submissions / contributions)  van be made *I attach as an example here the most resent ICANN Policy Update  sent to the public At-Large list*  

There recent exchange between Danny and Beau, which identified four
general components of GNSO, illustrates the kind of conversation should
be ongoing. (I personally don't believe that each of the four ought to
have an equal stake, but then that's up for dicussion and a what was
said is a great starting point.) Having ongoing awareness of these
issues makes it easy to respond to the agendas of others without having
to always use their frames of reference.

<CLO>  Agreed  and as we are all working towards methods of better informing and empowering ALS's and the RALO's with good background information (including the Summit) I'm sure we all agree better briefed and informed discussion is essential for best outcomes... If however you are however presuming that these issues were not discussed or that the ALAC- WG was working in some sort of knowledge vacuum on these matters... 

3) Where are we now wrt the GNSO documents? Is it possible for Danny or
Wendy or Beau and/or some others to re-draft the ALAC position on GNSO
reform? 

Have we painted ourselves into a corner in the joint statement,
precluding us from coming to different conclusions than it reached? Is
it OK for the ALAC position and its "endorsed"  joint statement to be
contradictory?

<CLO> Yes and No...  Yes->in terms of the Joint Statement (which I need to remind you is intended to be a high level statement which reflects the agreed outcomes of the User Constituencies and AC's listed) as ALAC is just one player amongst several in that work on a new GNSO structure alternative for consideration. {And just for one moment explore the hypothetical exercise of NARALO having had 'their elected person' on the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG as well... Even with arguments against the tripartite model and the offering of (yet to be determined/ finalized) alternates, whatever concept NARALO has for ideal GNSO structure may not have received majority ALAC support *or*  survived the negotiations of the Joint Statement development... I don't know the results in this hypothetical exercise btw but I think it is worth pondering}

No-> in terms of the ALAC Statement which we have said can have amendments and minority statements to bring up critical issues attached at this stage (see the original call for comments email)  they may of course end up as listed minority views if they do not get intraregional support... but that is fine...  Getting a 'global' view on anything was never assumed to be easy... Nor do I suspect many expect total consensus on everything when we have established and emerging economies (digital and otherwise) involved in trying to find a balance between 'best for us (regionally) and best for all'...

As Beau said, we should not be coming across as whiners. The joint
process itself did not fail ALAC, our own inside portion of it did
because if our members' unaccountability. So what are we going to do
about it? If the joint statement is etched in stone and contains or
ignores issues which are critical, I still do not have objections to
issuing a statement of detachment. But if we do so, we need to provide
an alternate vision, one that illustrates that perhaps the original
tri-party frames of reference were too limiting in vision. DO we have
people here with the skill and time to do so?

Sorry for the rant. It's just that, after a big flurry of activity,
there's been not much here, and the issues are very significant.
Protesting is far easier than suggesting alternatives. Have we defined
what are protesting? Have we produced an alternative?

I'm sorry that I'm not more involved but it is draining me just to write
this rambling plea. The issue(s) right now are all unresolved -- we have
neither protested NOR re-crafted a position with ALAC NOR addressed the
NomComm unaccountability issue.

We need to re-engage, at many levels.

- Evan

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Denise Michel" <denise.michel at icann.org>
Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Policy Update
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:21:07 +1000
Size: 37221
Url: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20080428/04f61375/attachment-0001.mht 