[NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote?

[Evan Leibovitch]

Brendler, Beau wrote:
> I would appreciate the guidance of the NARALO as to how to vote. Personally, I'm wavering between 60 percent for and 40 percent against. The percent I'm against mostly consists of wording that reads to me like something of a transferrence of power from the ALAC to the exec committee and the chair.
>   
Yeah, I sort of had that objection as well ;-). There are two spots
where the ExCom is mentioneed, once regarding Board liaisions and once
regarding budget planning. Both are IMO unacceptable overstepping of the
bounds originally surounding the ExCom. I'm concerned that the ExCom
assigned itself at the authors of the document -- to be endorsed by ALAC
- rather than an ALAC document.

And finally, I'm more than a little concerned that I -- who am not on
ALAC per-se -- had to be the first to point that out on the lists. Is
most of ALAC OK with this power-grab, or just asleep at the wheel?

My personal preference would be to bring forward an amendment that would:
1) Change authorship of the document from the ExCom to ALAC
2) Change the Board liaision authority from the Chair-or-ExComm to ALAC
3) Change the ALAC liaison with staff on budget implementation from
Chair-or-ExCom"  to the ALAC Budget Subcommittee

If the amendment does not pass I would vote to reject the document --
and then have NARALO draft its own statement, echoing most of the other
comments but noting the danger in the ExComm references.

But that's just me. Frankly, I'd be delighted if you raised a motion to
disband the ExCom -- less than a month after its creation it members
have wasted no time to destroy the trust that it was meant for
emergency, rapid-response use only. Clearly the real solutions to the
problems the ExCom was created to address lie in fixing ALAC rather than
institutionalizing a shortcut around it.

The continued existence of the ExComm prolongs -- and arguably enhances
-- a culture of group inaction and unaccountability. It needs to go IMO.

> I'm also not sure about the language on page 4 referring to ALAC as the appropriate organizational channel for the voice and concern of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes. I'm opposed to this statement both in theory and in practice -- I don't think ALAC is doing that now, and I don't think it should be roped off as the most appropriate venue for individual users.
>   
I am personally OK with language designating ALAC as the primary channel
but not the only one. I have no problem with At-Large being the default
forum for Internet users who don't self-identify with other
constituencies. Maybe with enough new blood we can inject some life into
this thing yet.

- Evan