From: Jeff Williams
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Policy-making vs. Implementation
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 19:01:55 -0700
Post a Message
Hans and all interested stakeholders,
Hans Klein wrote:
> When considering the mandate of the ALM study committee, I find it useful
> to think in terms of the division between policy-making and implementation.
> Policy-making is made by bodies that must be legitimate. The decision to
> have SO's and ALM directors in ICANN was a policy decision, and it resulted
> from due process involving the extended Internet community. Despite some
> stakeholders' abandonment of the process, the final result incorporated the
> views of multiple parties.
But without the full 9 directors elected by the @large, the policies that
have been decided upon or those that may be under consideration now
on in the future, cannot be legitimate in accordance with the White Paper
or the MoU.
> One can certainly question the policy. But to change it would require
> another decision process with comparable foundations in legitimacy.
What foundations? What little there is, is week a incomplete.
> Implementation, on the other hand, involves putting policy decisions into
> practice. Here there is undoubtedly work to be done.
Rather just another of several places where work need to be done...
> For example, the
> constituency structure of the DNSO could be improved, and the ALM elections
> might be done better (e.g. better voter registration technology.)
At least, yes. However unless at least half of the ICANN BoD members
are elected by the @large, there is no , nor can there be any assemblance
of legitimacy in policy making.
> If the ALM Study Committee tries to improve the *implementation* of the At
> Large Membership, then we can all welcome their efforts. We would all like
> that policy to be realized effectively.
> But ... if the ALM Study Committee proposes the equivalent of a
> constitutional amendment (e.g. "ICANN's representational structure should
> be modified,") then it plunges into policy-making.
Not at all. What is required is that 9 of the ICANN BOD members
be elected by the @large BEFORE any policies can be taken under
serious consideration in order for ICANN to have legitimacy.
> More importantly -- and some might overlook this point -- even the partial
> ICANN board that authorized the ALM study lacks the legitimacy to redesign
> the representation mechanisms. The current stakeholders cannot
> legitimately rewrite the rules of deliberation to exclude other,
> late-arriving stakeholders. They may have the *power* to get away with
> such a deed, but they do not have a legitimate basis for it. The full
> board has not been implemented.
Good point. Ergo any current adopted policies thus far therefore are
> I am confident that the committee members are cognizant of this basic
> distinction between policy and implementation. I hope they keep it in mind
> as they do their valuable work!
I do as well. I amongst at least hundreds of thousands of stakeholders
would like to see that the ALS will also call for a complete review of any
and all policies to be reviewed and possibly revised once a FULL
compliment of @large directors are in place.
> P.S. Do the committee members participate in this forum? Some engagement
> with the public would be a helpful confidence-building measure. :-)
One wonders.... :(
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208