<html>
<body>
Thanks Olivier. See further comments below.<br><br>
At 21/06/2017 03:23 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear Alan,<br>
<br>
thanks for launching this important discussion. Please be so kind to find
my responses interspersed in your text:<br><br>
On 20/06/2017 05:49, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Going forward, I would like to
suggest the following process be followed. Note that there are several
questions embedded. <br><br>
- 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.
</blockquote><br>
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. </blockquote><br>
alac@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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
But also see my previous message about sending too many messages to that
list...<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">- If there is an ALAC meeting
soon, their will be a discussion on whether to issue a statement.
</blockquote><br>
Excellent.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
- If there is an ALT soon, the issue will be discussed during that
meeting. </blockquote><br>
Excellent.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
- If there is neither within a week or less, then the ALT needs to
consider the issue by e-ail or Skype. </blockquote><br>
I agree with the ALT being most active, thus being able to consider the
issue.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
- 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. <br><br>
- 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.
</blockquote><br>
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?</blockquote><br>
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. <br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">- 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? </blockquote><br>
How else would you communicate with the wider At-Large
membership?</blockquote><br>
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. <br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">- 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? </blockquote><br>
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?</blockquote><br>
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. <br><br>
Thanks for the detailed questions. Alan<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Kindest regards,<br><br>
Olivier</blockquote></body>
</html>