[atlarge-discuss] Unresolved issues about the ALAC in the Final Implementation Report

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>]

FYI - I just sent this to the ERC.
-----

Dear ERC members,

please let me express my first comments to your Final Implementation Report
(these comments are personal and do not represent an official view of the
ALAC-AG, ISOC Italy or icannatlarge.com).

First of all, I thank you for accepting many of the ALAC-AG suggestions.
However, I am strongly concerned by the transition issues that you have not
addressed yet, but for which you hint at some possible solutions in the
report.

I am aware that there is a chicken-and-egg problem in the composition and
selection process we suggested for the ALAC; even if I originally hoped that
the new At Large structures could be in place and choose their
representatives in the ALAC by the first meeting of year 2003, I acknowledge
that this target might be unrealistic, and that it might be necessary and
advisable that the Board appoints an interim ALAC in Shanghai.

However, the fact that the first instance of the ALAC needs to be
Board-appointed does not mean that the rest of the mechanism cannot work
from the first day, nor that we need to enter an interim phase of unknown
length in which the ALAC won't be fully empowered. In fact, such interim
phase would only lengthen the unsettled situation in which the At Large
issue lays since ICANN's inception in 1998, a situation that has cast huge
shadows about the stability, legitimacy and effectiveness of ICANN.

In section 3.E point 2 of the report, you seem to be prospecting a situation
where, in the first NomCom, the seats delegated to the ALAC will not be
filled by the interim ALAC, but otherwise. This would be in my opinion a
mortal blow to the credibility and strength of the newly created Committee,
and would put its effectiveness in serious danger.

While I understand (though I don't share) the Board's natural concern about
keeping the first nomination process under control to guarantee a positive
result in such a delicate moment, I think that reserving to the Board the
right to appoint the first ALAC in its entirety already provides to the
Board a significant degree of control on this process. So the five ALAC
delegates to the first NomCom should be chosen by the interim ALAC after its
appointment in Shanghai.

Also, in XI.2.5.b of the proposed new Bylaws, it is stated that the ALAC
will be a Committee entirely appointed by the Board for an indefinite amount
of time, until a future Board's decision will change this situation. Nowhere
in the Bylaws the existence of Regional At Large Organizations, or the other
instruments of public participation and selection of ALAC members that the
ALAC-AG suggested and that the ERC mostly supported in its Second
Implementation Report, are even mentioned. I think that this is extremely
dangerous, both because the new Bylaws do not supply even a tentative date
for the final settlement of the At Large issue, and because they would leave
the final decision about the ALAC structure and selection process completely
open to future discussions, thus not solving the problem and risking to let
the issue arise again in the next years.

I think that it would be a better approach if the new Bylaws devised the
intended final structure of ICANN, whichever the ERC and the Board will
decide it to be, in all its details, rather than leaving potentially
explosive problems like this open and unsettled.

So I think that, between now and the Shanghai meeting, the comma XI.2.5.b of
the proposed new Bylaws should be completely rewritten to describe the final
structure of the ALAC, and that the transitory provision to let the Board
appoint its first instance should be moved to article XX. I - as, I guess,
the rest of the ALAC-AG - am available to work to supply an alternate
wording proposal for that comma in the shortest possible timeframe.

Also, I strongly suggest that any transitory provision should be coupled
with dates for its expiration. The ALAC-AG supplied proposals on tentative
dates and process to establish a "fully operational ALAC" and all the
related structures by the summer-autumn 2003. In any case, I think a safest
approach would be making any interim provisions about the ALAC expire no
later than autumn 2003 unless renewed by a Bylaws amendment.

I really think that the points I am bringing to your attention could make
the difference between a permanent and effective solution to the At Large
historical difficulties, and an endless continuation, perhaps a worsening,
of the current quarrel about public participation in ICANN. This is why I
hope in your positive response.

Regards,
-- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
--------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de