[NA-Discuss] 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee Announces Selections

[Alan Greenberg]

At 07/09/2008 11:04 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>Alan Greenberg wrote:
> > If it is indeed a problem (and I am not making a case for or
> > against), then we should be talking about changing the rules that are
> > based on citizenship. In this particular case , would have preferred
> > if the dialogue was carried out on the world-wide list so that those
> > people involved could also have a say.
> >
>It is timely in a NARALO context because of our meeting tomorrow.
>
>The begining of our call will have Tricia Drakes of the Board Governance
>Committee as a participant, as the BGC is seeking input regarding the
>ALAC review. One of the two issues on which the BGC is most keen to hear
>input is the Westlake recommendation to address regional imbalance by
>adding two Asian NomComm members to ALAC (without any corresponding
>RALO-elected members).
>
>If the NomComm cannot be relied upon to pick, for ALAC reps designated
>for a region, people who are actually from that region, then isn't the
>Westlake recommendation pointless?
>
>- Evan
>
>PS: The other issue they want to hear about regards the recommendation
>to better clarify the distinction between  NCUC and At-Large, from the
>point of view of participating stakeholders.

If indeed the By-Laws were changed (or whatever is required) to have 
the NomCom select two additional people from AP (an idea which I 
don't support, for whatever that is worth), then presumably and 
hopefully, they would provide some guidance as to the selection criteria.

I can make arguments for and against the current rules and for one 
based solely on residence and a rule based on the coincidence of 
both. In the end, it matters more that the NomCom (which include 
regional people) tries to find someone who will actually help the 
organization they are being appointed to. And that is a far more 
critical issue than their residence/citizenship.

If residency is an issue, the RALO or ALAC should say so. Personally, 
I would be careful about it though. I am not sure that Evan would be 
a less qualified candidate to represent North America is he was on 
assignment in the UK next year, nor would I think it makes him more 
qualified to be the EU appointee (and I say that without having any 
prior knowledge of Evan's plans to apply to the NomCom or to work in the UK).

Regarding the second question, I have already had an opportunity to 
present my ideas to Tricia at a recent GNSO meeting, so I may not 
again. In summary, I think the Recommendation 12 (which is the one 
about ALAC/NCUC) is addressing a non-issue. It suggests that the ALAC 
identify what kind of groups should be an ALAS and which should join 
NCUC. Ignoring that the playing field has been radically changed with 
the approval of the new GNSO structure, I don't see the reason to 
have to make the distinction. The ICANN By-Laws EXPLICITLY allow a 
person or organization to participate in more than one GNSO 
constituency at the same time. Why should the same not apply to an 
ALS. Many ALS's are ISOC chapters. If one also want to join NCUC, and 
they meet NCUC's criteria, more power to them. The real differentiation is:

= NCUC is a part of the GNSO which has a mandate to get involved in 
ALL gTLD policy issues in ICANN. No more, no less.
= ALAC and it's At-Large organization has a mandate to advise the 
Board on ANY ICANN issue. But because of the wider scope, we will 
always need to pick and choose what we select to address.

Depending on where your interest and priorities lie, you pick who you 
want to associate with. Or both. Can the ALAC help make that clear to 
prospective applicant ALSs? Sure. But it is not an either/or choice.

Alan

Alan