Page History
...
“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! There is a consideration that if a Director is too involved in the At-Large activities he or she could not participate in Board discussions and votes directly related to the AC.
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 may be his or her job to act as an advisor on them. Since actually being Being an author of a proposal going to the Board could would certainly 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 an option that will depend on the specific details.
The following questions were prepared by Hong Xue, Chair of APRALO, on behalf of APRALO.
1. You must have read ATRT Proposed Recommendations, which are now available for public comments. What are your comments on following two recommendations:
...
It remains to be seen exactly what the impact will be. Certainly without a person sitting there and reminding the Board of At-Large issues, we should demand that we get far better feedback on the advice that we do give. My experience being the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO is that for the majority of discussions and debates, I have not been acting under explicit orders but have participated based on my understanding of At-large beliefs coupled with my own. I suspect that this has been the case with Board Liaisons as well. If that is correct, then that responsibility is simply transferred to the new voting Director with no harm. The problems may occur when there ARE differences between the At-Large Director and an At-Large position, or at times when some other message must be relayed from the ALAC to the Board. Additionally, if a Director is TOO involved with the ALAC/At-Large, there may be a potential conflict when the Board discusses or votes on issues directly related to them. I suspect that there will not be a very large number of these times. If that is correct, the impact of losing the Liaison may not be that large. Only time will tell.
Question to Alan Greenberg from Sivasubramanian M, from APRALO, but question posed as an individual
As more and more at Large leadership positions are filled by people from the business constituency, It is becoming very important for ALAC and at Large to preserve at Large as a user's constituency to TRULY balance the business stakeholder group. Any leadership position within ALAC and at Large should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user.
...
The ATRT's proposed recommendations include:unmigrated-wiki-markup
*"ICANN should establish \ [by INSERT DATE\] formal mechanisms for identifying the collective skill-set required by the ICANN Board including including such skills as public policy, finance, strategic planning, corporate governance, negotiation, and dispute resolution. Emphasis should be placed upon ensuring the Board has the skills and experience to effectively provide oversight of ICANN operations consistent with the global public interest and deliver best practice in corporate governance."*
1. What skill sets do you feel currently missing from the board and how will your skills fill those gaps?
...
The scope of ICANN is defined in its Articles of Incorporation (http://icann.org/en/general/articles.htm). Specifically:
In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall \ […\] pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by \ (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items \ (i) through (iv). Wiki Markup
That being said, there is the potential for a lot of discretion on just what “performing and overseeing” entails. Interpretations range from that of minimalists who say that if a function is not absolutely mandatory, then ICANN should not do it, to those that believe that virtually everything related to the Internet uses IP and DNS and is thus in ICANN’s purview.
...
