Page History
...
The question of supporting the At-Large Community and the RALOs and ALSs is both easy and difficult. A Director is not on on the Board to be an advocate FOR the groups that put him or her there. But presumably if selected by those groups, the Director understands the needs and desires of that group, and generally agrees and supports these needs. As such, an At-Large Director (including me if I am selected) is likely to be an advocate for specific initiatives coming out of At-Large. I think that one of the largest contributions that the Director can make is to ensure that the ALAC and RALO leadership understand the perspective with which the Board will approach its decisions. More likely, there will be multiple perspectives since the Board may well be divided on issues. Understanding these positions will allow At-large Large to make stronger arguments for what it want s wants to see happen.
“Reporting back” is probably not the correct term for the interactions between the Director and ALAC. Certainly there will be regular interactions. I think that it is a given that schedules permitting, the Director would participate in some ALAC meetings both at ICANN meetings and teleconferences. Only experience will allow a reasonable prediction of the exact frequency. I am presuming that the Director will be on the standard ALAC and At-Large lists, and will therefore be able to monitor and intervene as appropriate. That has certainly been the case with some GNSO Directors in my experience. It would be foolish for the At-Large Director OR the ALAC to not ensure that there is a regular exchange of issues, and I do not consider either myself or the current ALAC foolish!
I alluded to “helping to implement At-Large projects and activities” above. I do not think that it is the work of the Director to create such proposals, but it is may be his or her job to act as an advisor on them. Since actually being an author of a proposal going to the Board could be viewed as a reason that the Director would have to recuse themselves from the Board discussion and vote, this is certainly not the way to go. Participation in At-Large activities is certainly an option that will depend on the specific details.
...
I have no specific plan at this stage. As noted in the ATRT report, there are already a number of ongoing initiatives to increase visibility. For getting the input from the ACs and SOs, we will have to look at various options. The current comment process does not work well at all, and only a few of the formal ICANN bodies have been using it to for input to the Board.
2.At-Large Community had expressed strong interest in supporting the Independent Objector mechanism defined in Final Guidebook, i.e. "acts solely in the best interests of the public who use the global Internet", particularly at Mexico At-Large Summit. What is your view on IO and at-large's involvement as the public-interest goalkeeper?
...
As I understand it, the Board has already decided that during the first round, we will not delegate gTLDs which involve strings deemed to be confusingly similar (even if that is a desirable characteristic in the particular case) or or TLDs which use variants. I do not see that this will be revisited for the first round unless there is a very loud outcry. I am neither an expert on this, nor have I studied the various positions in depth. I applauded the allowance of ad hoc solutions for the ccTLDs because I felt that the need was pressing (both real and from a public relations point of view). However, for the gTLD case where the number of possible TLDs is far greater and under less control, I support the current Board position. If there is a need that I am misunderstanding, I would be delighted to be educated!
...
How this should be done remains somewhat elusive. There are those who believe that the current layered At-Large structure is doomed to failure. In fact, there are some who believe that it was deliberately done created that way so it would not work. I do not accept that it was a deliberate conspiracy to yield failure, but I have voiced the opinion that perhaps some change in the structure might make it far more effective. I do not know what that change might be. I supported the idea that the overall structure should not be changed at this timeas a result of the recent ALAC review, but perhaps the next review would be a proper time.
The bottom line is that we MUST make At-Large work. With the current structure I agree that regional assemblies and summits are one component that has been shown to help. As such I support them and once I had have a better understanding of the Board decision process, I would be happy to work with At-Large leaders to help them understand the kinds of arguments which might help such a proposal succeed.
The current discussion is to have one general assembly per region over the next 2-three 3 years, and then a summit during the following 3 years. So according to that schedule, the next summit might be in 43-6 years and the one after 10-12 years from now (presuming the same pattern). For an organization that is as relatively fluid as ICANN, to talk about what will happen 10 years out makes little sense, so the question of whether summits will be held regularly is not particularly helpful.
...
I completely agree that any leadership position within ALAC and at Large should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user. I am not at all sure that this excludes people who also have other interests or involvements in their lives. Most people find it necessary to work and this often means having some business involvement. It is also common, particularly in developing countries, that people wear many hats. Restricting someone from participating in At-Large because they also play other roles nad unreasonably restrict the number of interested workers. That being said, it is up to each RALO and the ALAC to set the rules covering their organization. Some RALOs do have rules restricting some people (employees from ICANN contracted parties, for instance) from holding some offices.
The rules for the criteria for the At-Large Director explicit include explicitly includes such a restriction:
Independence from the ICANN stakeholders whose financial situation is significantly impacted by ICANN decisions.
...
So my belief is that the two organizations will not be equal. But what where we should be is quite far from the present situation. The Bylaws say the following regarding the Board<==>GAC relationship:
...
Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN and not as representatives of the entity that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or constituencies.
A Board must balance many viewpoints and needs, and I would be surprised if there were not occasional situations where the interests of users are overpowered by some other more compelling need. That is why one has advocates of specific needs in the organization – they can each resent represent their position but ultimately, a decision must be made and not everyone will be happy.
...
