Wendy, I am not speaking on behalf of the ALAC, but please see my
comments embedded below. ALan

At 22/05/2009 09:00 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>The Board engaged in some discussion of the question of At-Large seat(s)
>on the Board but concluded that the time was not ripe for a formal
>resolution. The structural improvements group will continue to consider
>the matter of voting board seats in the context of the several ongoing
>reviews (At-Large, Board, and NomCom) to which it relates.
>
>I noted that ALAC and members had supported the concept of voting board
>seats at many meetings with the At-Large Review Working Group (although
>ALAC as a whole has not made a statement on the WG's report).

The ALAC has formally commented on the draft reports and was
supportive of the Board seats in all such comments. Our last reply
was to the final draft of the WG report and was ratified unanimously
during an ALAC meeting. I don't know how much more formal we can get.

>Since this discussion is ongoing, it would be quite helpful for the At
>Large to give further comments on the matter of Board seat(s): If you
>want them, how do you see that interacting with the 5 at-large slots on
>the NomCom, board liaisons, and the Board Review's recommendation for a
>smaller board? How does At-Large see the director(s) being selected?

As clearly stated in the comments on the final draft report of the
review WG, the ALAC supports the creation of such seats. We do have
concern with the mechanism with which they are selected to ensure
that there is a philosophical connection between the ALAC charged
with carrying out the At-Large mission of ICANN and the Board members
representing At-Large. Currently the Board seats of the three SO that
have them are selected by their respective councils, presumably in
consultation with the constituencies and members represented by those
councillors. If in the future the overall organization of At-Large is
revamped (such a future change is suggested in the various review
documents), then of course how the Board member(s) are selected would
need to be reconsidered.

I see no conflict between voting Board seats and people placed on the
NomCom. The GNSO currently selects two voting Board members and
cumulatively, they have SEVEN seats on the NomCom.

Regarding Board Liaison, assuming the ALAC has reasonable ability to
influence the selection of the At-Large Board seat(s), I would expect
that we no longer have a Liaison. If the Board members are selected
by a process removed from the ALAC, then a Liaison would still be required.

I personally support keeping the Board at a size comparable to the
current one with two voting seats per SO/AC (for those that have
voting seats). Although I appreciate the potential benefits of a
smaller Board, I find it difficult to reconcile how the varying needs
of the many ICANN stakeholders can be well represented with a
significantly smaller Board. I do not believe that the ALAC has taken
a formal position on this. Regardless, if the ultimate decision is
that those who currently have two seats be reduced to one (ASO,
ccNSO, GNSO), I would presume that the ALAC would similarly have one seat.

In terms of exactly how the seat(s) are to be filled, that is clearly
the subject for discussion if we are at a position that the seat(s)
will become a reality.