Re: [alac] President's Committee on Strategy, and ICANN legitimacy
Hi Roberto I'm really sorry you are not resubbing to the NomCom - ALAC will definitely miss your sensible and considered opinions. You've been great with the Board and everything in the 6 months I've been on ALAC. I'll really really miss you. I agree with pretty much everything you said. We complained about the composition, and got invited to submit one name. We submitted 2, (way late) and now want to complain that we didn't get both on... I think it's cool that we got even one, as a President's committee is hand picked and does not HAVE to have any of the PC considerations of balance that concern us. I think that having the invitation extended shows that we were listened to in Wellington, which is a huge step forward. I agree that ALAC spends way too much time to get things done - we are all volunteers, it is true, but when I spend hours and hours on email discussing the how of something that is already done instead of the what of doing what were were asked to do...it does feel like a waste of time sometimes. In my case, I am focusing on getting LACRALO to have some Caribbean participation. That's a narrow focus. and it's because it seems doable. The endless discussions on the viability of the RALO process always seemed to me to be a waste of time, as if we don't want to do the RALOs, we should not be here, as that's one of the main functions of the Interim ALAC (according to the bylaws) - seems like someone getting a job as a typist (that has typing in the job description) and deciding after they have the job that they don't think they should have to type! If we don't do the job, we'll be fired, and ICANN will get someone else to do the job who can and will do it. The Board has a responsibility and a job to make decisions. We advise. NCUC advises, GAC advises, everyone advises, the public advises. They then make their decision. It can't always go our way. That's life. That's what Boards are supposed to do. They cannot make decisions by poll, and if we are sometimes late on getting our opinions to them, that's not thier fault. If we feel really strongly about something, we should work hard to get them to understand our position, not just send a statement that says - we, the voice of the users (by the way, not picked by them in any form or fashion) think this is wrong. Sometimes we as a committee display an arrogance that is astounding. In Marrakech I found myself sometimes comparing ALAC to a spoiled brat teenager in our relations with other groups, especially the Board and the President. And these things are noted. If I see it and I'm inside, how much more so do the visitors to our meetings? We really really need to get our act together and start pulling with the ICANN team in order to have our voice respected and listened to. We can't forever be outside saying - NoNoNo. We need to get into and on the various tools that ICANN is creating to try to change, so that we can have a hand in that change. So I am thrilled that Pierre is on the PSC. I'm distressed that it took so long, so things have been going on and he has to play catch-up and maybe we have no input in topics that have been discussed while we've been faffing around. Note the time that it took for the President to make a decision on a name, compared to the length of time it took us to agree to submit a name or more names, and then to find the names, and then to send the email nominating the names... we are getting left out of things, and that can't be good for hte interests that we are supposed to (interimly) be looking out for. But Roberto, I hope that you are still going to be involved in some way with ICANN and we can still have some benefit from youe intelligence and expertise. (can I still bounce things off you??) Jacqueline On 7/22/06, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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. -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online
|