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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Jun 22 17:36:13 UTC 2017


Hello Alan,

This seem like a discussion happening somewhere else and ALAC list just got
copied in one of the responses.

Perhaps this was in error? If no then it may be good to have a background
on this (assuming you require feedback from the members of alac working
list.

Overall  based on the subject of the thread and the content there-of, I
think it's a good thing to consider.

Regards

On 21 Jun 2017 4:07 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170622/3db797f4/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list