[ALAC] [ALAC-LT] Process for deciding on wether to issue a Public Comment Statement

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Jun 21 13:50:31 UTC 2017


Thanks Olivier. See further comments below.

At 21/06/2017 03:23 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
>Dear Alan,
>
>thanks for launching this important discussion. 
>Please be so kind to find my responses interspersed in your text:
>
>On 20/06/2017 05:49, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>Going forward, I would like to suggest the 
>>following process be followed. Note that there are several questions embedded.
>>
>>- When a new PC is posted (or for other reason 
>>we may need to do a statement), a brief message 
>>should be sent by Staff to the normal ALAC list 
>>saying that a new PC (or other) is open giving 
>>the subject and asking for input (to be sent to 
>>the same list) on whether we need to issue a 
>>statement, why, and offers to participate in the process.
>
>What is the "normal" ALAC list? Is this the ALAC 
>working list or is this the At-Large worldwide 
>list? Or ALAC announce? If the former, then you 
>are willingly restricting the ability for 
>calling for a Statement, to the 15 member ALAC 
>plus regional leads plus a flurry of other 
>people - but are effectively taking out of the 
>equation the rest of the At-Large Community. 
>Except if this call for input is related to the RALOs.

alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org, the standard 
working ALAC list that also includes most past 
ALAC members and regional leaders is what I 
meant. The wider community was to be consulted 
once we decided to actually do a statement.

However, since I wrote this, I found out that 
once the wiki space is created, we already send a 
message to ALAC-Announce (ALAC, regional leaders, 
ALS reps), so we will continue to do that.

But also see my previous message about sending 
too many messages to that list...




>>- If there is an ALAC meeting soon, their will 
>>be a discussion on whether to issue a statement.
>
>Excellent.
>
>>
>>- If there is an ALT soon, the issue will be discussed during that meeting.
>
>Excellent.
>
>>
>>- If there is neither within a week or less, 
>>then the ALT needs to consider the issue by e-ail or Skype.
>
>I agree with the ALT being most active, thus being able to consider the issue.
>
>>
>>- If it is not obvious from the subject whether 
>>a statement is necessary, someone from the ALT 
>>or Advisors must review the documentation and 
>>make a recommendation generally within a week.
>>
>>- Once an ALT decision is taken, a message 
>>should be sent to the ALAC list by Staff saying 
>>that the ALT is recommending that there be no 
>>statement issued and that anyone who disagrees 
>>should quickly state why they thought a 
>>statement is needed (ie why user input is 
>>required in this case) and identify who is willing to work on the statement.
>
>I understand the intent. Does this change the 
>nature of the ALT? I am asking this because if 
>the ALT is formally solicited to make a 
>recommendation, could this be seen as a top down 
>process for deciding if a Statement is to be drafted?

Just the opposite. Currently the ALT often 
decides to not do a statement and that is that. 
Now I am treating this as a recommendation to the 
ALAC with an opportunity for ALAC members (and others) to disagree.



>>- QUESTION: Once a decision is taken either by 
>>the ALAC during a meeting, or by the ALAC by 
>>accepting the ALT recommendation, do we need to 
>>(or want to) send out a message to 
>>ALAC-Announce that eith no statement will be 
>>issued, or asking for input if a statement is warranted?
>
>How else would you communicate with the wider At-Large membership?

As in my previous e-mail in response to Leon, my 
question is really how many checkpoints along the 
way do we keep them informed.



>>- QUESTION: I think that this entire process 
>>can largely be handled by Staff, but I think 
>>that there should be an ALT member who takes 
>>responsibility. Who is willing to 5take this on?
>
>That's of course only if you decide that it is 
>the ALT' job to make decisions on this. Could 
>you not appoint a policy tracking person on the 
>ALAC, irrespective of whether they are ALT or not?

ALT member is to shepherd the process and make 
sure it keeps moving. No formal decisions 
involved. It could well be a non-ALT ALAC member, 
but I was trying to keep this simple.

Thanks for the detailed questions.  Alan


>Kindest regards,
>
>Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170621/957ac2d2/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list