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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

 As previously stated  I'm going to endorse these amendments and to restart
the poll so to that end I have requested staff to proceed to restart poll
and request a revote on the amended document  to restart on December 23rd
for 8 days

CLO

2008/12/20 Brendler, Beau <Brenbe at consumer.org>

> Personally, I'm not accusing anybody of any power grab. My position has
> always been that while I understand the need for an excom and for
> streamlining processes, I think there's some risk of institutionalizing ALAC
> dysfunction if we do so. Thanks, Cheryl, for this clarification. I'm all for
> progress, so: I would formally like to propose that in the document we:
>
> 1) Change authorship from the ExCom to ALAC.
> 2) Change the Board liaison 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.
>
> With those who have voted so far needing to revote in a new adjusted poll,
> with an extension of time given.
>
> Beau Brendler
> ________________________________________
> From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [langdonorr at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:04 PM
> To: Evan Leibovitch; ALAC-excom at atlarge-lists.icann.org; Atlarge Staff;
> ALAC Internal List
> Cc: Brendler, Beau; NA Discuss
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG midpoint etc.: How do
> you want me to vote?
>
> Couple of things regarding a few points made in this topics thread...
>
> As far as I know all comments from Wendy, Danny and others made on lists or
> wiki's were incprprated with the exception of a part point mae by Sebastien
> regarding Strategic planning...
>
> Also there is no power grab by the ExCom => the use of ExCom in the
> addition of suggestion that a Board Liaison position be retained *in
> transition*  was discused in Cairo which is where it came from and the use
> of Chair as a possability* of that role fits with the role of Board liaison
>  being Chair of other AC's  we extended it to the ExCom  as a suggestion *IF
> such a proposal were ever contemplated by the BGC ALAC Review WG*  to allow
> wider choice to ExCom but ALAC  can be inserted instead of ExCom without any
> issue at all as far as I'm concerned...
>
> And I totally agree with the ALAC Budget SC being the interface with the
> staff on budget proposal  but the original consultants proposed Chair for
> this matter the BGC ALAC Review WG did not change it I believe and our draft
> was trying again to expand this role to at least ExCom  but the natural
> alternate is the Budget & Finance SC if it is reconstituted...
>
> Finally the ExCom is assigned authorship of this interim document UNTIL it
> is voted on then it becomes an ALAC Statement with all the front pages and
> coversheets that go along with that authority  after the vote has closed...
>
> Finally if NARALO wish, there is at least two options forward here:-  1) is
> to propose the ammendments below to the ALAC Working List get agreement (I'm
> happy to propose and endores this if Beau puts it forward) and those who
> have voted so far will need to revote in a new adjusted poll, with an
> extention of time given... or 2) NARALO reps vote however they are advised
> to or not and NARALO put forward a short "We disagree with the following in
> the ALAC Comments / Statement" note that can act as an ammendment to any
> Comment already sent and I will ensure that the BGC ALAC Review WG accept
> this to be included in their deliberations on final recommendations,  to do
> this I will need to know in the next day or so which you desire so that I
> can let Trish et.al<http://et.al>. know what is happening before many
> people take a break away from thier workplaces etc.,
>
>
> CLO
>
> 2008/12/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org<mailto:evan at telly.org>>
> 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
>
>
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------
>
>
>
> --
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> (CLO)
>
> ***
> Scanned
>
> **
> This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named
> above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be
> confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
> you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any
> attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents.  If
> you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender
> by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from
> your computer system.
>



-- 
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)