[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] First Thoughts on ALAC
- To: DannyYounger@cs.com
- Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] First Thoughts on ALAC
- From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:10:43 +0200
- Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
- Delivered-To: mailing list atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
- In-Reply-To: <113.14bd6f80.2a6a3503@cs.com>
- List-Help: <mailto:atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de>
- List-Post: <mailto:atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:atlarge-discuss-subscribe@lists.fitug.de>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>
- Mailing-List: contact atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de; run by ezmlm
- References: <113.14bd6f80.2a6a3503@cs.com>
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 23:37:39 EDT, you wrote:
>The current "Blueprint" calls for a 15-member board with 5 "Liaisons" who may
>participate in Board discussions and deliberations like Directors but don't
>cast votes. These liaisons are drawn from the "Advisory Committees": TAC,
>RSSAC, SAC, GAC and the IETF/IAB.
>
>Under the Blueprint, the ALAC will not have Liaison status. This issue
>should be reviewed.
AFAIK, the ALAC should have a non voting liaison on the Board - at
least, this is what we were told in Bucharest. However we surely need
to stress this point, and perhaps to ask for it to be voting (though,
given the fact that other AC liaisons will be non voting, it seems to
me quite difficult to obtain this).
>The ALAC should be available to provide *** advice and guidance to the Board
>and to other organizations within ICANN. It should serve both as a resource
>that can be called upon to pursue specific questions and as an active
>watchdog ensuring that *** issues that might otherwise be overlooked are
>brought to the attention of decision makers. It also serves as a meeting
>point for different parts of the *** community to come together to discuss
>global *** policy issues within the scope of ICANN's mission.
>
>Please note that ALL current advisory committees have an "appointed"
>membership, and that it would be naive to think that the ALAC will be an
>exception to this rule (even the governments appoint members to the GAC).
Yes. This is a good point, and one I take into account in my
proposals. A fully elective Committee would be good, but I don't think
it can be obtained now. However, I think we could still try to insert
elections in the process, and this would be a good target. (See my
separate message.)
--
vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
----------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <--------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de