<html>
<body>
Seun, you are correct.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Everything is included here is you. The original message is the text
which has 3 revision bars.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
Hope this help,<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 22/06/2017 01:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hello Alan,<br><br>
This seem like a discussion happening somewhere else and ALAC list just
got copied in one of the responses. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
Overall based on the subject of the thread and the content
there-of, I think it's a good thing to consider.<br>
<br>
Regards<br><br>
On 21 Jun 2017 4:07 PM, "Alan Greenberg"
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Thanks Olivier. See further comments below.<br><br>
<dd>At 21/06/2017 03:23 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Dear Alan,<br><br>
<dd>thanks for launching this important discussion. Please be so kind to
find my responses interspersed in your text:<br><br>
<dd>On 20/06/2017 05:49, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Going forward, I would like to suggest the following process be
followed. Note that there are several questions embedded. <br><br>
<dd>- 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>
<dd>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>
<dd><a href="mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>, 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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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="">
<dd>- If there is an ALAC meeting soon, their will be a discussion on
whether to issue a statement. </blockquote><br>
<dd>Excellent.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<dd>- If there is an ALT soon, the issue will be discussed during that
meeting. </blockquote><br>
<dd>Excellent.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<dd>- If there is neither within a week or less, then the ALT needs to
consider the issue by e-ail or Skype. </blockquote><br>
<dd>I agree with the ALT being most active, thus being able to consider
the issue.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<dd>- 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>
<dd>- 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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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="">
<dd>- 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>
<dd>How else would you communicate with the wider At-Large
membership?</blockquote><br>
<dd>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="">
<dd>- 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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>Thanks for the detailed questions. Alan<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Kindest regards,<br><br>
<dd>Olivier</blockquote><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>ALAC mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>