[ALAC] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update

Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Tue Oct 11 01:39:35 UTC 2011


On 10 October 2011 19:14, SAMUELS,Carlton A
<carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm>wrote:

> A lot of wisdom distilled here.
>
> Thank you, Jean Jacques.
>

+1

Excellently stated,

- Evan




>
>
> Carlton
> ________________________________________
> From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [
> alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Jacques SUBRENAT [
> jjs.global at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 10:22 PM
> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Evan Leibovitch
> Cc: ALAC Working List
> Subject: Re: [ALAC] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update
>
> Hello Olivier, Evan,
>
> the question is not just about choosing "phase" or "milestone": it should
> be
> about the way ALAC considers its role within ICANN. Let me offer a few
> thoughts:
>
> 1) When to publish? It is common sense that the Final Report should be
> completed before publication. However, 2 separate things should be
> considered here:
> * The legal or formal aspect: General Counsel's office (GCO) is right, and
> common sense would also have it that a report be considered "final" when
> all
> pending matters have been brought to a close.
> * But more importantly, there is a "political" aspect as well: ALAC should
> assert itself according to its own assessment of ICANN's overall situation,
> and not only in reaction to the ALAC Review WG recommendations or GCO's
> advice on timing. Thus, we should determine if and whether there is a need
> to call the Board's and our community's attention to progress already made,
> challenges ahead, and our timeline.
> 2) "Phase" or "milestone"? We need to take a wider and longer-term view of
> things. Yes, At-Large has come a long way from (unfairly) perceived
> irrelevance to being a natural partner. And yes, this progress has been
> achieved by sending the right type of signals (advice requested from ALAC
> is
> provided in a more professional and timely way, better coordination now
> between different elements of At-Large...). So I would suggest that if we
> want to send something to the Board now, we should do so by placing our
> current work in perspective: step 1 was the ALAC Review WG's
> recommendations, step 2 entailed implementing what could be done quickly,
> step 3 was taking stock of the ATRT's additional layer of recommendations,
> step 4 is where we are at now, and step 5 will be the Final Report. The
> advantage of this (truthful) presentation is that we show we have the
> bigger
> picture in mind, and that we're already at step 4 out of 5. If necessary,
> we
> should also point out that, several years after the Board Review WG
> recommendations (e.g. compensation for Directors), some of those latter
> have
> still not been implemented either, so we're on an equal footing, and will
> not accept people in glass houses throwing stones at us (ALAC members all
> reside in yurts, so there's no risk). IT's high time that the famed
> multi-stakeholder model, which implies equality, be more thoroughly
> implemented within ICANN's ACs and SOs, so that advice from ALAC will be
> considered equivalent to what comes, say, from the GAC.
>
> 3) Make the best use of ICANN-42 in Dakar. From Dakar onwards, the Board
> will go into "sorry I can't look at that now we've got to implement new
> gTLDs and search for the next CEO" mode. So Dakar is our last chance in
> 2011
> to really get the Board's attention. But what message do we want to
> deliver?
> IMO, we should use the joint breakfast opportunity to
> * Demonstrate that ALAC, though determined to carry out ongoing obligations
> (implementing the Improvement recommendations, churning out reactive
> advice), is now sufficiently autonomous in its thinking to have its own,
> dynamic agenda (how we expect ALAC's advice to be acted upon by the Board;
> also, I'd be glad to say a few words about our FCWG)
> * Offer to each member of the Board a 2-page résumé of where ALAC stands
> now
> (we're at step 4 out of 5, what else we do, how we are now organized). The
> idea is that each individual member of the Board should take away from our
> breakfast, a sense that ALAC has indeed matured, and is worthy of being
> heeded.
> Regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> From:  Olivier CREPIN-LEBLOND <ocl at gih.com>
> Date:  Sun, 09 Oct 2011 23:35:39 +0200
> To:  Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> Cc:  ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Subject:  Re: [ALAC] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update
>
> > Hello Evan,
> >
> > thanks for your kind suggestion. However, I believe that we are not
> > actually at "phase one" of the At-Large Improvements. The whole process
> > started with the external review report, a few years ago -- and I am not
> > sure what phase we are in since I've not tracked exactly what
> > constitutes a "phase".
> > "Phase one" would convey the wrong idea that we're actually at the very
> > beginning of the process when we're actually closer to its conclusion.
> > IMHO "Milestone" is more neutral.
> > Warm regards,
> >
> > Olivier
> >
> > On 09/10/2011 23:02, Evan Leibovitch wrote :
> >>
> >>  Just one suggestion.
> >>
> >>  Perhaps, rather than calling this an interim or milestone report, the
> >>  one we submit could be called "phase one". This brings across the
> >>  point that some of the Improvements have been completed and some are
> >>  still in progress.
> >>
> >>  A milestone or interim report
> >>  suggests that none of what was started had been completed. This way we
> >>  can say that "phase one" (which includes the bylaw revisions) had been
> >>  completed.
> >>
> >>  Comments?
> >>
> >>  - Evan (on my mobile)
> >>
> >>  On Oct 9, 2011 12:53 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com
> >>  <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>      Dear ALAC members,
> >>
> >>      I want to inform you of some changes to the Improvements report
> >>      based on
> >>      information Heidi and Seth received. After consulting with ICANN
> >>      Legal,
> >>      it has been suggested that the only "final report" appropriate for
> >>      Board
> >>      approval would come once the ALAC can report having implemented
> >>      *all* the
> >>      recommendations of the ALAC Review WG.
> >>
> >>      At this stage, however, we could report that the ALAC has completed
> a
> >>      substantial amount of ALAC Improvements work, including developing
> >>      specific proposals for the implementation of the ALAC Review WG
> >>      recommendations. Consequently, it was suggested that the current
> >>      status
> >>      report ­ which need only be submitted by staff (not by the ALAC) ­
> >>      not be
> >>      called a ³final report²¹; we are thinking of calling it the
> >>      "ALAC/At-Large
> >>      Improvements Project Milestone Report."
> >>
> >>      Still, an endorsement of this Milestone Report by the ALAC would
> >>      send a
> >>      strong message to the Board. So I have instructed Staff to start a
> >>      vote
> >>      endorsing the report on Sunday.
> >>
> >>      The next steps in the At-Large Improvements Project will be for
> >>      the ALAC
> >>      to discuss the implementation of the remaining ALAC Review
> >>      recommendations and WT proposals in Dakar, including allocating
> >>      them to
> >>      existing At-Large Working Groups, creating timelines for their
> >>      completion, and determining potential resource implications.
> >>
> >>      I would like to be able to submit these details to the Board as
> >>      soon as
> >>      practical but hopefully no later than the meeting in Costa Rica
> (11-16
> >>      March 2012). The ALAC could then aim to submit the actual final
> Final
> >>      Report -- marking the completion of the implementation of all
> >>      Improvements recommendations -- to the Board in Prague (24-28 June
> >>      2012).
> >>
> >>      Comments/Questions are welcome.
> >>
> >>      Seth and others are working to convert the report into a
> "Milestone"
> >>      report as we speak.
> >>
> >>      Best regards,
> >>
> >>      Olivier Crépin-Leblond
> >>      ALAC Chair
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>      _______________________________________________
> >>      ALAC mailing list
> >>      ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> >>      https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >>
> >>      At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >>      ALAC Working Wiki:
> >>
> >>
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>
> >>
> )
> >>
> >> <
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A
> >> LAC%29>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki:
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29>
>


More information about the ALAC mailing list