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

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Dear Alan,

thanks for your kind response. Answers below:

On 21/06/2017 15:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> 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...

Yes that's the dilemma. On the one hand, we want to provide anyone with
the ability to flag an issue and ask that the ALAC (the organisation)
issues a Statement. On the other we are faced with too many emails
flooding the ALAC Announce mailing list. In fact, we are often faced
with ALS representatives unsubscribing from that mailing list, which
effectively cuts them out altogether from being useful or implicated at
all in ICANN and At-Large policy.

I wanted to alert you to another pilot which we are pioneering at EURALO
- the targeted request for commenting, based on the database of ALS
skills which we have established last year. We have taken the ALAC
announcement for the recent public consultations on (a) human rights WS2
topic and (b) WHOIS topic and forwarded them, with a personalised note
to the ALSes that had indicated they had a particular interest in this
issue.
As a result, of the 3 ALSes that were interested in Human Rights, all 3
responded and indeed one of the reps, Bastiaan Goslings, ended up
holding the pen on this one. This is a 100% response rate.
Of the 12 or 13 ALSes that were interested in WHOIS, 8 or 9 responded
and contributed or are in the process of contributing to drafting and/or
commenting on the current draft. This is a 66-70% response rate!

Agreed, the process for targeted consultation is labour intensive. But
this is a pilot that EURALO will present to other RALOs. In the short
term, I do not know if ultimately RALO leaders will take on the
responsibility to do something similar in their RALOs. In the long term,
I remind you that this is one step closer to the designing of an
automated system that would perform such targeted requests as part of a
Policy Management Process System, as described in the ATLAS II
recommendations. We have received indications from ICANN's CIO that he
would be interested in considering a blueprint for this, and the current
manual pilot is just a proof of concept from which I would be happy to
ultimately drafts process plans with the help of the Technical Task Force.

Kindest regards,

Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170621/2d41f35a/attachment.html>