[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits

[Evan Leibovitch]

Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
> However the ALAC is an "AC to the ICANN Board" that is constituted by equitably balanced regional representation.
This is inaccurate.

Only two-thirds of ALAC is regional representation. The other third is
regionally balanced but not representative of, voted by or responsible
to anyone.

ALAC is not, in its entirety, a representative body and should stop
advancing itself as such.

In the interest of accuracy please describe ALAC as "_partially_
constituted by equitably balanced regional representation".

If ICANN wants to use the NomComm to pick an advisory board of (what it
believes to be) sage voices it is welcome to do so. But calling these
voices representatives of anyone -- let alone the public grassroots --
is incorrect and potentially misleading.

> We do keep seeing the use of interchanging 'nomenclature' and descriptions
> of 'purpose'  in these conversations, a confusion (to some) that I believe
> is best avoided if at all possible.
I'm happy that you are interested in accuracy. So I hope you'll
appreciate my correction above and consider it in the future when
describing the ALAC to others.

- Evan

PS: The GNSO, in its revision proposal, sees merit in having 100% of its
council be representative, and its NomComm appointees as non-voting
advisors. Why is this approach not reasonable for ALAC?