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

[Evan Leibovitch]

Alan Greenberg wrote:
> The two RALO appointed members do indeed represent the RALO and its 
> ALSs.  It is subject to debate whether you believe that in every 
> region and at every point in time, a RALO and its ALS fully and 
> accurately represent all USERS of that region.
Of course the challenge is to get as much genuine representation as
possible. If various countries or interest groups exist that need a
voice, then attempts should be made to genuinely give them that voice --
not to appoint people pretending to speak on their behalf with ZERO
accountability.

> The NomCom appointed  ALAC members are charged with doing just that.
We're ALL charged with trying to represent the grassroots as best we
can. The difference is that the ALS delegates to ALAC must be
accountable to their ALS _and_ their RALO. The fact remains -- despite
all sugar coating -- that once selected, the NonCommers are accountable
to nobody. That's two levels of accountability, election and potential
recall by the grassrooots, compared to zero.

> No doubt this latter  task is also potentially as fraught with problems, but it does give  some balance to the committee.
>   
The problems far outweigh the balance -- and it's not potential, it's
very real as we've witnessed in the lack of ability of NARALO to respond
adequately to the GNSO documents. The problems in NomComm appointees to
ALAC compound further once one considers the reciprocal incestuousness
inherent in ALAC picking NomComm members.

ALAC is always in need of good sources of advice on policy, and it
doesn't need the NomComm to identify those good sources. What is at
issue are delegates who have zero accountability to the grassroots,
affecting the direction of At-Large with equal status to those with
proper accountability.

> Just to be clear, this is, as you noted, a "proposal". At the moment, 
> all NomCom appointees are full voting members of the groups to which 
> they are appointed, and one of the motivations is to add some measure 
> of balance to the other members who represent specific organizations 
> (just as RALO appointed members represent their RALO and ALSs).
>   
I simply note that the GNSO proposal comes to the same sane conclusion
that must seriously be considered by ALAC -- have appointees for advice
by all means, but limit voting and leadership to elected representatives.

In any case, the repeated excuse of "balance" is disturbing and
bordering on insult. To speak of a need for balance is to assert that
there is something unwanted amongst the elected, accountable
representatives that must be balanced against. I am eagerly awaiting a
enumeration of those undesirable components, ESPECIALLY in the
constitution of a body that is itself supposed to be representative of
ICANN's grassroots.

I hope that anyone who has spoken to the ALAC review people (and
especially those of you who haven't yet, please do) will indicate the
impediment to the maturation of ALAC caused by the NomComm component.

- Evan