Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Hello Eric and Danny,

At 22.07.2002 02:21, Eric Dierker wrote:
>kindly please explain why this is not simply a filter mechanism for ICANN, 
>providing both plausible deniability and a whipping group should things go 
>wrong.
>
>Why not just have the groups directly inerface with ICANN?

let me explain by taking a look at a very different Advisory
Committee, the GAC. Of course, governments could do without
a GAC: They could simply send letters to ICANN, talk to ICANN
Board and Staff in public and private, attend ICANN meetings
et cetera. Instead of *only* having this, they have a
formal Committee which is somehow part of the ICANN structure,
but on the other hand not under ICANN's direct control.
Nothing stops individual governments from doing the things
mentioned above, but the GAC is the formal interface between
governments and ICANN.

User groups currently *don't* have that kind of interface.
Of course, they can again send letters, talk to people and
attend meetings, but they don't have any formal role.
User participation has been sporadic, sometimes unorganized,
sometimes even unprofessional. The proposal is to turn into
a continuous participation with bottom-up roots (user
organizations) reaching into the ICANN structure.

(I'm of course not suggesting that the ALAC should meet behind
closed doors and emit cryptic messages which have to be 
deciphered by the Board and the public -- the internal workings
of an ALAC must be open and transparent.)

At 22.07.2002 12:02, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>The ALSC spent a year's time and $450,000 to arrive at the conclusion that 
>the needs of the At-Large are best served within the context of a Supporting 
>Organization that elects its own set of directors to the Board.  

Whereas the NAIS Final Report concludes:

  In addition to At-Large Directors, an At-Large Advisory Committee may be
  regarded as one of the most appropriate "representational models" to 
  ensure public representation and participation within the ICANN structure.
  (NAIS report, http://www.naisproject.org/report/final/2.2.1.4.shtml)

Both ALSC and NAIS argue for the election of Board directors
and I *don't* disagree. As you know, the Board has decided against
this election for the time being. My proposal takes the current 
circumstances into account and proposes a structure which the
user organizations can build upon. 

Best regards,
/// Alexander

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html