RE: [alac] President's Committee on Strategy, and ICANN legitimacy

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is actually a very interesting discussion, thanks to Wendy for having
moved it to the public list.
I think that this matter is a very good example of our behaviour. We take a
piece of reality, we play with it for months, we decide that the reality is
not what we like, we wish it was different, then we change it, and we act
not according to what the reality was (and damn, still is), but according to
what we wish it should be. Of course our actions fail, because the reality
stubbornly remains what it is, and does not change because of our wishes. At
that point one of us comes up with the statement: "Lets destroy everything
and start all over again".
This was the case with the .com negotiation, even with the very existence of
ALAC as is, and obviously also with this committee.
Let me summarize the facts.
In Wellington, out of the blue, comes the President Committee (actually, it
originates from a Board resolution back in Vancouver, but anyway, I agree
that the process was not cristal clear). People, including Vittorio and
Raimundo Beca, react on this, and question the method as well as the
composition of the Committee. Paul replies asking ALAC to propose *a name*
to be included to represent the interests that have been claimed to be
neglected. This does not solve the process problem, but at least gives us
the chance to put our foot in the door. He also makes it very clear that the
person should come from the area of the world where it has been
traditionally more difficult to find good candidates. After all, the
Vancouver resolution was clear, the responsibility for hand-picking the
members of the President's Strategy Committee remains with... the President.
After another three months of no action, in Marrakesh we finally discuss the
matter. We have almost consensus on one name, then the whole thing falls
apart because we should not act in a hurry (we have been sitting on the
problem without doing anything only for a few months, after all), but should
apply proper process, which means putting forward more names. I repeatedly
made clear that we were expected to give only one name, also questioned in
writing the reasons why we were putting forward a slate of candidates rather
than one name, and when we had the final list also asked to put the names in
priority order. The reason was to give a strong signal (this is what we
prefer) rather than a weak one (here's a list, pick one).
Of course, in the meantime another month goes by, and the committee starts
working, still without a representative from ALAC. Finally, we present the
list, that now only contains two names. Paul picks one, and actually, with
all due respect to the second very good name, I feel lucky that he picked
the person that I thought should have been our choice since the beginning.
So, all OK? No, because some now claim that the reality was different, and
that we have put forward an arbitrary number of names, and that Paul should
have accepted all of them. Actually, I would like to know from what facts we
could draw the conclusion that Paul would have committed to take any number
of people the ALAC would have recommended. If there is something I have
missed, I would like to be pointed to the relevant document, but I fear that
this is just another example of our way to substitute our wishes to the
reality, an then complain that the reality is not what it should be.
But the pearl still has to come, and I confess I was going to be surprised
if it was not going to come. We have one blunt statement that, since not all
names we have proposed have been accepted, the committee should be
disbanded. Excellent! It should either be our way, or nothing at all. After
all, we are representing the masses, deprived of voice in this process, and
we have been given from God (or the White Paper, which for some is the same
thing) the right to impose on ICANN, its Board, and its CEO what we want. In
our virtual reality, the President's Strategy Committee should be the ALAC's
Strategy Committee: ALAC, not the President, should decid the members,
otherwise it would be the living proof that Paul is not applying due
process. Full stop.

Going to more serious argumentations, about the legitimate concern that the
Board will be shortcut by this committee, I don't think that this will
happen. I don't see people like Peter, Raimundo, Susan, Joichi (just to name
a few among all the others), as being unable to think with their heads and
simply stamping for approval something that comes out from a committee. Of
course, this does not mean that the Board will take decisions that will
always be in line with the wishes of ALAC. And I know that the first time
that something gets decided that is not what ALAC wants (or maybe some in
ALAC want), it is not going to be because we have to acknowledge that there
are interests and approaches other than ALAC's, but it is going to be rather
the living proof that the Board is blindly obeying to the ordeers of the
multinational capitalist pig, or the president's committee, or other
fashionable conspiracy.

Now, some have asked me why I am not putting forward my name again to NomCom
for ALAC. Given the above, it should not be very difficult to guess the
answer.

Cheers, and good luck.

Roberto Gaetano
ALAC
ICANN Board Liaison