[NA-Discuss] Draft report on ICANN Accountability and Transparency

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Nov 8 04:24:01 UTC 2010

Avri, thanks for the very kind words.

It is worth noting that even with the Bylaw status that the GAC has, 
the ATRT report makes it clear that the GAC too has had problems with 
having that status honored.

It may be that the optimal way to address the situation would be to 
have Bylaw recognition and thus have that put pressure on the ALAC 
and At-Large to deliver. But, as you imply, there is probably not a 
majority of Board members who would take that path at this moment. 
Hopefully, with the combination of the new Director to be seated and 
the increasing maturity of the ALAC/At-Large work product, At-Large 
will be taken more seriously and we will see a continued increase in 
the respect that it deserves as a prime ICANN guardian of the public interest.


At 07/11/2010 10:53 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

>On 7 Nov 2010, at 10:35, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> > - why the report deals extensively with improving the relationship of the
> > Board and the GAC but does not mention "At-Large" once (and its only
> > reference to ALAC is historical)
>I think this is because the ICANN community has not learned to take 
>At-Large seriously yet.
>Now, that the petition drive is over in NARALO, and I can speak 
>without fear of being accused of campaigning in NARALO, that is one 
>of the reasons a large part of my interest statement concerned 
>working toward At-Large by-law parity with the GAC.  Until such time 
>as At-Large achieves that and demonstrates the public interest work 
>they have done, it will be hard to get the recognition, that the 
>role of At-Large/ALAC should have in the ICANN organizational architecture.
>At-Large/ALAC has achieved a good start with its use of the by-laws 
>capability of introducing issue report requests in GNSO. And Alan's 
>job as not only a liaison to the GNSO council, but often as a 
>virtual council member, including as a chair of a  GNSO WG, has gone 
>a long way to increasing ALAC visibility.  As he is a Nomcom 
>appointee, though, it did less for showing that the RALOs and the 
>ALS's were ready for prime time influence yet.  I also do not know 
>to what extent ALAC/At-Large has been active in ccNSO and ASO 
>issues.  Might also be useful to start putting out At-Large/ALAC 
>principles on issues to match those put out by the GAC.
>As I say, I think that ALAC deserves to be at the same level as the 
>GAC, but there is a chicken and egg issue - which comes first, you 
>get the by-laws recognition or show your influence?  I think the 
>by-laws parity should happen ASAP, but I am sure I am in a minority 
>with that view.
>I do agree that it might be worth commenting on this with relation 
>to the Berkman report, which I think provides a good start in many places.
>NA-Discuss mailing list
>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list