[ga] [fwd] Comment Impl3: Initial ALAC; role of the committee. (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

FYI.
-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/




----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: reform-comments@icann.org
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:21:35 +0200
Subject: Comment Impl3: Initial ALAC; role of the committee.

Dear members of the Evolution and Reform Committee:

I appreciate the ERC's and ALAC-AG's efforts to find new ways for
public, individual participation in ICANN.

In order to facilitate such participation in a meaningful manner,
further discussion of some of the recommendations and ideas
contained in the recently-posted documents is necessary:

- As has already been noted by Vittorio Bertola, section III.E.2 of
  the Final Report seems to indicate that, in a transition phase,
  the ALAC is expected not to select members of the Nomination
  Committee. It is unclear what is meant by the language used in the
  Final Report ("to be selected by the ALAC once it becomes fully
  operational"): Is this supposed to mean the time after the
  implementation of an alternative mechanism as suggested by XI. (5)
  (b) of the proposed new bylaws?

  I would strongly recommend that the ALAC should be considered
  "fully operational" as soon as all its members have been
  determined, even if this determination is going to happen through
  a decision of the board.  I would also suggest that the board
  should determine an initial ALAC as quickly as possible, so ALAC
  can be operational as early as during the annual meeting 2002
  (i.e., December 2002).

  Ideally, any subsequent ALAC should already be determined
  according to the mechanisms imagined by the ALAC-AG.  Should these
  mechanisms not be fully available (for instance because some
  regional at-large organizations have not yet been formed), the
  board as a whole should make any decisions and appointments which
  would normally be these regional organizations' task.

  That is, the board should leave as many decisions as possible (and
  this as early as possible) to regional at-large organizations, and
  should only step where such organizations are not available.

  This mode of transitioning an interim ALAC to the final one should
  be codified in the new bylaws.
  
- Section X.3 of the proposed new bylaws: If individual users'
  participation and representation in ICANN is to be concentrated in
  the ALAC, then it should be entitled to appoint a liaison to the
  GNSO Names Council.

- By the same argument, the ALAC should routinely be invited to
  appoint a member to any Task Forces created by the GNSO council.

  It may be a good idea to consider this approach with _all_
  advisory committees, in order to make sure that both special
  perspectives not represented in the GNSO (ALAC, GAC), and
  technical and feasibility concerns (TAC, SAC, RSSAC) can be
  adressed as early in the process as possible.  (Obviously,
  advisory committees would be free to decline any invitation to
  participate in a particular task force.)

To summarize, the ALAC should be (1) considered operational as early
as possible, and (2) should have a credible and effective role in
the global names policy development structure.


Additional concerns:

- The proposed Policy Development Process lists a maximum number of
  three "outside advisors" per Task Force which can be appointed by
  the Council.  I would suggest to replace this by a _recommended_
  maximum number of outside advisors which can, if necessary, be
  overridden by the GNSO Names Council.  (Maybe in cooperation with
  the Staff Manager.)

- Section X.5 (4), (5) of the proposed new bylaws: The proposed new
  bylaws do not indicate any time frame for the board to decide and
  for the Names Council to comment on an application of a proposed
  new constituency.  Such a time frame being absent, there may be an
  incentive for existing constituencies to unnecessarily delay a new
  constituency's application out of fear that their own power may be
  diminished.


Kind regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler			    <roessler@does-not-exist.org>


----- End forwarded message -----
--
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