[NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published

[Evan Leibovitch]

Bret Fausett wrote:
> I suppose I'm having difficulty understanding what different  
> accountability mechanism you are recommending, because from my  
> perspective, everyone in an official ICANN position, from your  
> position as NARALO Chair all the way to the CEO and Chairman of the  
> Board, has an obligation to act for the "good of ICANN." That  
> obligation necessarily trumps any other obligation to any other body,  
> including one's employer, constituency, or ALS.
>   
Agreed. However, there are clear discrepancies between the views of "the
good if ICANN" as expressed by ALAC, other constituencies, the Board,
and the NomComm itself.

> That said, we can, and should in a healthy ICANN, have differing views  
> about what is "good for ICANN."

My POV is that ALAC _must_, as best as it is able, reflect the vision of
"what is good for ICANN" as expressed by the public at large. That is,
indeed, why this body even exists. And I firmly believe that determining
such vision is best done through community involvement through their
representatives, not appointees lacking any connection to the
grassroots. Such detached appointees just get in the way of the real
goal of extracting public opinion.

And if the NomComm finds people with strong ties to the grassroots, that
begs the question.... why aren't they naturally involved in ALAC anyway
at that point, either directly or through an ALS? That should be
outreach activity, not appointments...

- Evan