[ALAC] [ALAC-LT] Process for deciding on wether to issue a Public Comment Statement
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Jun 22 18:03:17 UTC 2017
Seun, you are correct.
This was a message that I sent to the ALT list
for their thoughts before going further, but on
my answer to Oliver, I inadvertently added the ALAC list.
Everything is included here is you. The original
message is the text which has 3 revision bars.
The history is that in replying to the At-Large
Review draft recommendation on abolishing the
ALT, I realized that there was one relatively
small example of the ALT actually making
decisions, and that was if there was a public
comment that was announced before an ALT meeting,
the ALT might decide that no comment was
warranted. This would be reported at the
following ALAC meeting. There would still be time
to reverse the decision if there was a will, but
I realized that we were reporting the "decision"
to not submit a statement, and that if fact, it
should really have been an ALT "recommendation".
If the ALAC ever did decide to draft a statement
in such a situation, the delay between the ALT
meeting and the ALAC meeting would result in a
pretty short period in which to draft the
statement. So I decided we should immediately
tell the ALAC instead of waiting.
Along with documenting a bunch of ICANN
processes, staff is also documenting the AC
decision process, so getting that right prompted
me to start this thread now instead of at some
later time. The bulk of the suggested process is
just the status quo, documented.
Hope this help,
Alan
At 22/06/2017 01:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>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"
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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.
>
><mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>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
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>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+(ALAC)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170622/086a9847/attachment.html>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list