[At-Large] [ALAC] ELECTION CALL for ALAC Officers to serve from 22 October 2012 to ICANN AGM 2013
shearman at victoria.tc.ca
Tue Sep 18 17:38:04 UTC 2012
On 2012-09-18, at 9:38 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> On 18 September 2012 09:57, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq at gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1 this is a very reasonable position. We have to have rotation and new
>> faces all the time in all positions.
> As someone standing for re-election, I have an obvious bias in the
> discussion. However, even were I not, I would be intrigued -- and a little
> unsettled -- by the concept of "change for the sake of change".
> There are term limits for many positions within At-Large leadership -- I am
> in my last of two terms as ALAC member -- and I am curious to know the
> rationale behind "new faces all the time" in a manner that exceeds both the
> intent and the practice of these reasonable limits.
> This is now my sixth year within ICANN as a volunteer and I am only now
> finding a comfort level with the many layers and complexities of working
> within ICANN's policy development. That may just mean that I'm slow, but I
> would suggest that ICANN possesses a level of internal complexity rivalling
> that of a UN or government bureacuracy. It takes time just to learn.
> Insisting on rapid rotation -- for the sake of rapid rotation -- ensures
> that ALAC leadership will never have the depth necessary to deal with
> issues that matter to Internet end-users. Our adversaries -- those who
> dispense with the public interest because of financial gain -- have no such
> limits. Indeed there are many within the domain industry who have been
> involved with ICANN since its inception and are acutely aware of its inner
> workings and how to manipulate them for gain. Given our reasonable levels
> of term limits our people will never achieve the level of personal
> entrenchment enjoyed by industry, but I would suggest that the rapid
> rotation suggested by some here would be absolutely devastating to the
> ability of ICANN At-Large to assert itself in the corridors of power.
> If there are issues with the performance of individuals running for
> re-election, general complaints about leadership or direction, or the
> ascendency of people advocating fresh priorities or changes of strategy, by
> all means let's bring them forward and engage in useful debate and an
> informed election. I welcome such engagement. But I know that there are a
> number of issues that I personally am involved with and consider
> "unfinished business" -- unfinished because they just take so long to
> process through ICANN. The others running for re-election have their own
> priorities in this regard. I think it would be a shame -- and damaging to
> the At-Large cause -- if many of these efforts are forced to pause while
> being rebooted or re-learned simply because of an election based on theory
> that looks good on paper but works poorly in the negotiations room.
> Two years from now, because of term limits, I know for certain that I will
> be off not only the executive but my ALAC position. I will welcome my
> replacement. I fully understand and appreciate the need to share the load
> and encourage new voices, both as a matter of outreach and keeping At-Large
> constantly in touch. But I suggest that there is a balance to be struck
> between continuity and refreshment, and that the balance currently in place
> within ALAC is a good one. Going more narrowly than term limits to assert
> change for its own sake does a disservice to incumbents and all of At-Large.
> In most organizations of which I'm aware -- whether corporation, government
> or NPO -- frequent changes of leadership does not indicate stability or
> - Evan
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large