Independent Examiner’s Final Recommendation
ALAC should update its Rules of Procedure to include a new procedure regarding the role and function of Rapporteurs. Rapporteurs will initially be appointed for 1 year. Renewable once for Policy input rapporteurs. Outreach Rapporteurs will serve for one year only to improve throughput. Calls for expressions of interest from qualified ALMs should be issued 6 months before their year of service.
Does ALAC Support Recommendation?
|Reject with qualification
If Not, Please Provide Reasoning.
The ALAC does not believe that the concept of a Rapporteur as described in the review is practical nor would it have the desired results. The recommendation does not take into account the difficulty and time-commitment in getting up to speed on a topic, nor the large loss of discarding that knowledge due to a year being up. To implement such a radical and untested change, against the judgement of those who have been working in this arena for years, is at best risky, and at worst exceedingly dangerous.
The ALAC does believe that the concept of designated rapporteurs, or perhaps liaisons to policy WGs does have merit.
It is unclear exactly what the Rapporteur is expected to do, but regardless, the assumption that after a 3, 6 or 12-month period, a person new to the ICANN system will fully grasp the complexities of some of the issues we address as well as the user-related issues underestimates the learning curve and complexity. Similarly, it overestimates the relatively few people who will be able to regularly keep up and then represent At-Large. Moreover, random selection of the rapporteur if there are multiple candidates is far less than optimal.
It is unclear who would act in this capacity for the first year of a WG. Although some WGs last well over a year and at times over two years, efforts are continually underway to have targeted WGs take far less than the process associated with Rapporteurs would allow.
The Review Team believes that we need multiple people on each WG, a position the ALAC supports. However, it is a mystery how the wisdom of all of these people will be funneled into the Rapporteur so that this one person can represent the entire input from the WG members to the ALAC and RALOs (in the absence of ALAC WGs which were to be dissolved).
The report also seems to presume that all ALAC comments and advice are in respect to WG activities. Many, perhaps even most, are not directly related to a WG, and the report offers no guidance as to how these would be addressed.
The report calls for selected Rapporteurs to be sent to ICANN meetings for a year, although it is not necessarily true that WGs even meet during ICANN meetings, and if they do, it is typically just for a few hours. Currently, this reporting role is done by the WG Chair by remote participation, if funding is not available to get that person to a meeting. Although the concept of “rapporteurs” is not appropriate, having travel slots in addition to those currently assigned for the ALAC and Regional leaders for those who are very active in WGs or other activities has much merit.
Lastly, the ALAC notes that the term Rapporteur is already used with specific meaning within ICANN and we should not risk confusion by adoption of the same term with a different intent.
If ALAC Does Not Support Recommendation, Does It Suggest an Alternative Recommendation?
If so, please provide a suggested alternative Recommendation.
The ALAC notes that there are at times opportunities at ICANN meetings for outreach activities and does believe that volunteer travel to such meetings should be available if applicable. When conditions exist, this is already a standard ALAC practice.
The ALAC also supports the concept of SELECTED attendance at ICANN meetings of active At-Large members and a pilot program for such attendees has been approved for FY18.
Who Will Implement?
Budget Effects impact?
Proposed Implementation Steps