[ALAC] Inactive WG Report

Mon May 16 07:46:43 UTC 2016

Hi Alan and ALAC

I am appreciating the discussion about Working Groups as I think the whole
exercise has raised some issues which need to be resolved sooner rather
than later.  Although we need to have some consistent expectations, we have
identified that we can't impose a one-size fits all model on all WGs.  We
have to find some way of "parking" WGs when they are not active for good
reason. But you can't just close them.

We are supposed to be reviewing At-Large and its practices, so maybe it is
timely to have a team to look at WGs as a whole and to establish a policy
as an annexe to our ROPs.  Perhaps some of you may be interested in a read
about At Large Working Groups.
<https://apralo2015.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/alwg-hu-2015.pdf> based on
Heidi's CB webinar in Nov 2015.

Maureen

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> Before I start, note that I could not see any reason for this thread being
> on the ALAC-Internal list and have moved my reply to the public list.
>
> A few comments:
>
> 1. As I previously noted, I really cannot get that excited about whether
> we temporarily shelve an inactive WG or shut it down. I have a slight
> preference for the latter, but there is really no difference. Regardless of
> the name of the process, we will preserve the work spaces, history and
> mailing lists.
>
> 2. For ongoing WGs, I believe that we need a clearly stated mission. I
> suspect a "charter" may be overkill (but see my next point). I would not
> want to set too high a barrier to starting a WG. And for some WGs, it is
> not clear that we want to specify outcomes ahead of time.
>
> 3. On membership, we have always been VERY open. For WG/SC with specific
> tasks assigned by the ALAC (such as Finance & Budget, Outreach & Engagement
> or the CROPP_RT, it makes sense to limit "membership" and voting rights and
> have required regional representation and balance. For other WGs, is there
> a real need to have all that?
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 15/05/2016 08:58 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
>
> It is easy to just close
> WGs and just start up new ones when required, but
> where does it leave the original intent of the first WG? You also lose a
> lot of the history which reviving enables you to continue with -
> assuming
> you can access this history on the community wiki.
>
> Our new At-Large website lists all WGs and links to their
> workspaces.  But
> some of these workspace pages are embarrassingly out of date, the page
> is
> filled with a list of WG members who never turn/ed up and monthly report
> spaces are empty.
>
> I am suggesting a reorganisation of these workspaces and a review of
> some
> of our current WG practices to include the following:
>
> 1. In keeping with Tijani's suggestion, the establishment of WGs should
> follow a simple At-Large WG Charter with its mission, specific rules,
> members and outcomes clearly stated, and with initially prescribed
> time-framed outputs - so everyone knows what they are there for and some
> indication of who long this commitment is required for. Some WGs already
> have Charters, others don't. Outputs can change over time too, depending
> on
> the type of WG.
>
> 2. A monthly report on the workspace could simply be a table listing the
> meeting date and a brief summary of the decisions made. Meeting notes
> can
> be linked here  Any interested new participants can therefore view
> the WGs
> history in relation to its purpose, and also understand what stage of
> the
> WGs life-cycle they are entering into.
>
> 3. WGs should consist of Members (1 or 2 from each region - one is
> Chair)
> who must be active or be replaced. It was raised as an ALAC metric that
> ALAC members should be actively reporting to their RALOs about the WGs
> they
> are in and encouraging participation.
>
> 4. Other Non-Member Participants in WG meetings should be acknowledged
> in
> the meeting notes and their ALS or other affiliation recorded (for WG
> metrics).
>
> 5. Once all the outputs related to the original purpose of the WG have
> been
> achieved, a final report of its achievements should be submitted and the
> WG
> can then be closed legitimately.
>
> 6. If another similar WG is to be formed, then the final report of the
> former WG's activities could be linked to the new workspace, to give
> some
> acknowledgement of the work that has already been done in that area.
>
>
> Perhaps we need a WG on At-Large WGs and Workspaces, etc :-)
>
> Maureen
>
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Vanda Scartezini
> <
>
> vanda at scartezini.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>>
> wrote:
>
> > Liked the approach. Just end the group and when needed create
> another> group – with the same name -, specially because probably persons
> will not
> > be the same.
> >
> > Vanda Scartezini
> > Polo Consultores Associados
> > Av. Paulista 1159 # 1004
> > 01311-200 – Sao Paulo/SP – Brazil
> > Phone: + 55 11 3266-6253
> > Mobile: + 55 11 98181-1464
> >
> > On 5/14/16, 6:50 PM,
> "
> alac-internal-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal> on
> > behalf of Alan Greenberg"
> <
> alac-internal-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>
> > on behalf of
>
> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>> wrote:
> >
> > >I find the discussion about whether a WG should
> > >be "archived" so it can be revived or shut down
> > >is rather academic. Typically those in the former
> > >category have no formal mission or charter, no
> > >chair and no active members. So all we are going
> > >to revive at some unspecified time in the future
> > >is the name. And we have no rule saying we cannot
> > >re-use a name. Both paths lead to the same end.
> > >
> > >Being somewhat pedantic, I will note that in
> > >another part of my life, I interact a lot with
> > >Archives. Things that are archived are by
> > >definition records from the past that are not
> > >going to be changed or reactivated. So
> > >technically we do want to archive records of
> > >closed WGs to preserve the history, but that
> > >might not be the best name for a WG that we really think
> will live once
> > more.
> > >
> > >Alan
> > >
> > >At 14/05/2016 01:28 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
> > >>I think the important point is that "archived"
> means it can be revived
> > when
> > >>the circumstances are right. Most of our
> "on-hold" WGs are in the same
> > >>situation except that they already have an identified
> chair and active
> > >>members who can resume once we get back to some sort of
> "normality" (if
> > >>there is such a thing in ICANN ?)
> > >>
> > >>M
> > >>On 14/05/2016 3:36 am, "Seun Ojedeji"
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Yeah I discuss my interest to get involved
> sometime ago with Olivier
> > >> > (though not necessarily as chair) but could still
> stick my head out
> > to wear
> > >> > the hat if it comes to that. For now what I am
> saying is that we could
> > >> > leave it packed but not deleted based on post
> transition activities
> > of CSC
> > >> > (don't know how heavy it will be)
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards
> > >> >
> > >> > Sent from my LG G4
> > >> > Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> > >> > On 14 May 2016 10:43, "Maureen Hilyard"
> > >> <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Yay Seun!  Does that mean you would be
> interested in Chairing the
> > Technical
> > >> > Issues WG? I am sure that those who have been
> interested enough to
> > stick
> > >> > with the team would love to get their show back on
> the road.  You can
> > get
> > >> > more info from Olivier.
> > >> >
> > >> > Pity about the joint NCSG-ALAC group not getting
> off the ground.
> > Perhaps
> > >> > with different (NCSG) personnel things may have
> progressed normally.
> > >> >
> > >> > M
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji
> <seun.ojedeji at
> > gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Thanks Maureen, I also initially thought that
> both groups were
> > going to
> > >> > > have similar views as well as it concerns the
> transition but after
> > >> > > participating on the NCSG discussions (during
> the early times) it
> > became
> > >> > > obvious that interest differ significantly.
> It's definitely a +1
> > from me
> > >> > as
> > >> > > well. However if the NCSG makes a move in
> future, we can be sure to
> > >> > > reconsider and a new WG can always be setup
> as may be required.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > That said, I am quite interested in the
> "Technical Issues WG" I
> > think we
> > >> > > may not want to kill it yet, considering that
> we may have a CSC
> > liaison
> > >> > > post-transition, it could then be the home to
> discuss those issues
> > >> > related
> > >> > > to names IANA operations.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Regards
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Sent from my LG G4
> > >> > > Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> > >> > > On 13 May 2016 2:33 a.m., "Maureen
> Hilyard"
> > >> <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Hi Leon
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Actually that was the only one that
> volunteered closure.  The
> > >> > explanation
> > >> > > > in more detail was...
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > The WG which you have referred to below
> was born dead. When CWG
> > IANA &
> > >> > > CCWG
> > >> > > > Accountability were started, there were
> hopes that the ALAC and
> > NCSG
> > >> > > would
> > >> > > > have similar view on the public
> interest. Unfortunately NCSG's
> > choice
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > representatives like Milton Mueller and
> Robin Gross, meant that
> > any
> > >> > > > dialogue was completely impossible from
> the outset.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >  I'd suggest we close this one as
> it has not only done nothing
> > but will
> > >> > > > likely never be able to do anything.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Maureen
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:59 PM, León
> Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
> > >> > > > leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Dear Maureen,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Thanks for this very useful
> document. I support your
> > suggestions. The
> > >> > > > only
> > >> > > > > one I have doubt about is the joint
> At-Large-NCSG WG. Should we
> > try
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > give
> > >> > > > > it a last chance before burying
> it?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > León
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > El 12/05/2016, a las 2:34
> p.m., Maureen Hilyard <
> > >> > > > > maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> escribió:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Hi Alan
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > A request was made at our last
> ALT meeting to look into 10 WGs
> > >> > which
> > >> > > > had
> > >> > > > > > been inactive for some time.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > In my report, a very brief
> statement and a recommendation has
> > been
> > >> > > made
> > >> > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > each, but the overall
> recommendation is that 6 should be
> > reinstated
> > >> > > as
> > >> > > > > > ACTIVE or ON-HOLD for the
> reasons given; 2 are to be closed;
> > and 2
> > >> > > are
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > be archived and revived if
> required in the future.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > The 2 WGs recommended for
> closure are:
> > >> > > > > > (1)  the joint
> At-Large-NCSG WG which  never really got
> > started and
> > >> > > > > > (2) the Study group re: use of
> names for countries and
> > territories)
> > >> > > > > having
> > >> > > > > > completed its objective and a
> CCWG being subsequently formed
> > in
> > >> > which
> > >> > > > > > At-Large is represented.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > The 2 WGs recommended for
> archiving and if required in the
> > future
> > >> > can
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > resurrected to deal with
> related matters. Neither have
> > identified
> > >> > > > Chairs
> > >> > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > active members, but were
> considered to be important enough
> > that
> > >> > they
> > >> > > > are
> > >> > > > > > able to be revived if needed.
> These are the Technical Issues
> > WG and
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > At-Large new gTLDs WG
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > My report is attached.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Maureen
> > >> > > > > > <INACTIVE-PASSIVE WGs
> > >> > > > >
> Report.docx>_______________________________________________
> > >> > > > > > ALAC-Internal mailing list
> > >> > > > > > ALAC-Internal atatlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> > > > > >
> >
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > ALAC Wiki:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>
> )
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > At-Large Website:http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > >> > > > > ALAC-Internal mailing list
> > >> > > > > ALAC-Internal atatlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> > > > >
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > ALAC Wiki:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>
> )
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > At-Large Website:http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > >> > > > ALAC-Internal mailing list
> > >> > > > ALAC-Internal atatlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> > > >
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ALAC Wiki:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>
> )
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > At-Large Website:http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> _______________________________________________
> > >> > > ALAC-Internal mailing list
> > >> > > ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> > >
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ALAC Wiki:
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>
> )
> > >> > >
> > >> > > At-Large Website:http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >> > >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > ALAC-Internal mailing list
> > >> > ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> >
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
> > >> >
> > >> > ALAC Wiki:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>
> )
> > >> >
> > >> > At-Large Website:http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > ALAC-Internal mailing list
> > >> > ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> >
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
> > >> >
> > >> > ALAC Wiki:
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>
> )
> > >> >
> > >> > At-Large Website:http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >> >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >ALAC-Internal mailing list
> >
> >
> ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>
> >
> >
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
> > >
> > >ALAC Wiki:
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>
> )
> > >
> > >At-Large Website:http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC-Internal mailing list
> >
> ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>
> >
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
> >
> > ALAC Wiki:
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>
> )
> >
> > At-Large Website:http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160515/9c587964/attachment.html>