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

[Danny Younger]

Hello Beau,

Let's talk about point #2 because it raises some very troubling issues.  The ALAC has "Rules of Procedure" in place.  The recommendation drafted by the Chair is recommending a change in those agreed-upon rules without such a rule change having been discussed by the ALAC membership.  

The rule regarding liaisons states:  "They shall normally be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of ICANN and of the ALAC;"

We all know what is happening here... The ALAC Chair is at odds with the current ALAC Board Liaison and has drafted language to ensure that she gets replaced.  This is reprehensible.

I happen to think that Wendy has done an admirable job as liaison, and have no wish that she be replaced simply because she is not (per the new recommendation) an ALAC member.

Endorsing this document will potentially lead to Wendy's replacement.  

Danny 


--- On Mon, 12/22/08, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe at consumer.org> wrote:

> From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe at consumer.org>
> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote?
> To: "dannyyounger at yahoo.com" <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org>
> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 10:20 AM
> I don't have any problems, personally, with numbers 2
> and 3 in Danny's note, but I admit point 1 got by me and
> is somewhat troublesome. I think the ALAC has been
> repeatedly told by a range of people (including board
> members) that a liaison is more powerful and influential in
> the ICANN system than a seated board member, because once
> someone becomes a board member their responsibility is to
> ICANN and not the user community, etc. Which is utter
> nonsense. I used to work for Disney, and one of its board
> members was a priest. Everyone knew why he was there, to
> champion "family values" and whatnot. If you have
> someone from the user community named to the board who is
> steeped in the concerns of users, then you can expect that
> influence to carry over into board-level decision-making.
> ________________________________________
> From: Danny Younger [dannyyounger at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 9:48 AM
> To: Brendler, Beau; Evan Leibovitch
> Cc: NA Discuss
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG
> midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote?
> 
> Evan,
> 
> I would like to discuss this paragraph:
> 
> "Please note mechanisms of this process would need
> careful consideration and further discussed, but could take
> the form of either one of the two Board Seats being
> initially made by the ALAC per se or perhaps more preferably
> an ALAC to Board Liaison role being maintained where the
> Liaison is a Member of the ALAC."
> 
> 1.  The ALAC is indicating that they "prefer" a
> liaison arrangement moreso than having 2 seats on the board
> 2.  They want the board liaison to be a member of the ALAC
> (which under current circumstances would mean that Wendy
> couldn't serve as the liaison as she is not an ALAC
> member)
> 3.  They want one of the board seats selected by the ALAC
> rather than by the general ALS membership.
> 
> The odds are that most ALAC members haven't read this
> document, are just going along with whatever Cheryl drafted,
> and haven't given these matters any thought.  I find
> this paragraph to be problematic to the point that I could
> not endorse the Statement.
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 12/22/08, Evan Leibovitch
> <evan at telly.org> wrote:
> 
> > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG
> midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote?
> > To: "Brendler, Beau"
> <Brenbe at consumer.org>
> > Cc: "NA Discuss"
> <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 9:25 AM
> > Good morning and happy holidays, everyone.
> >
> > It was less than a week ago that Beau sent his
> original
> > message on this
> > subject to the list. Thanks to his consultation, and
> some
> > swift response
> > from NARALO, the ALAC chair has withdrawn the original
> > vote, changed the
> > wording to remove all references to the Executive.
> While
> > acknowledging
> > the role of Internet users in other bodies such as the
> > GNSO, the
> > response still agrees that ALAC is "the
> appropriate
> > organisational
> > channel for the voice and concerns of the individual
> > Internet user in
> > ICANN process". Personally I'm quite fine
> with
> > this wording but I know
> > that Beau, Wendy and maybe others had concerns with
> it.
> >
> > My personal opinion is to approve the doc as it is
> now.
> >
> > - Evan
> >
> > ------
> > NA-Discuss mailing list
> > 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
> > ------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***
> 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.