[NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published

[Alan Greenberg]

At 18/06/2008 11:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>
>>Also, ALAC currently names almost 1/3 of the NomCom. If these 
>>people are helping to appoint such poor contributors to the 
>>At-Large cause, then we are either naming people who don't espouse 
>>our views, or who are particularly poor in persuading their 
>>colleagues regarding what is needed.
>>
>I'm having difficulty constructing the point of what that sentence 
>is trying to say, especially who is referred to as "we".
>
>If the point is that the elected ALAC reps are failing to convince 
>the appointed ones of their POV, my response would be -- so what? 
>Why should the representatives of the grassroots have to convince 
>non-grassroots ALAC members of validity of their cause? How many 
>other interest groups have such "devils advocates" inflicted upon 
>them by ICANN? Such defence of ALAC's views will have to happen 
>anyway once they confront those of ICANN's other constituencies, at 
>the level of the NSOs and the Board. But under the current regime, 
>our positions -- as in, the actual initiatives and views of the 
>grassroots -- are compromised and watered down before they even leave ALAC.
>
>I prefer to deal with the general question differently. Rather than 
>engage on the merits of appointees, I want to be told what ICANN has 
>against giving full trust within ALAC to democratic vote and 
>accountable delegates. If there are groups that are 
>under-represented, well then that's what outreach is for. We address 
>that problem by empowering the public, not by pretending their 
>interests are represented by unaccountable appointees.
>
>- Evan
Guess I wasn't clear. Here is the sentence again, with definition for 
the nouns and pronouns:

Also, ALAC currently names almost 1/3 of the NomCom. If these people 
{the people the ALAC has put on the NomCom} are helping to appoint 
such poor contributors to the At-Large cause, then we {the ALAC, 
specifically the Interim ALAC, since we really haven't seen the 
end-product of a NomCom with our last set of appointees on it} are 
either naming people {the people we send to the NomCom} who don't 
espouse our views, or who are particularly poor in persuading their 
colleagues {the other 12 voting members of the NomCom} regarding what 
is needed.


Sorry if I am belaboring the point, but I need make this my final 
post on the subject so that I can go complete my laundry and then can 
catch a plane tomorrow.

For the record, I wasn't making a case for NomCom appointees on the 
ALAC, I as just commenting on the curiosity of a system which 
apparently so poorly meets your (and presumably others) expectations 
of ALAC members.

Alan