[ALAC] New Draft Text for ALAC Review WG Report

Tue Nov 4 11:11:08 EST 2008

With my remarks.

Sébastien Bachollet
...
sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr
www.egeni.org
www.isoc.fr

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-
> lists.icann.org] De la part de Jacqueline A. Morris
> Envoyé : mardi 4 novembre 2008 17:48
> À : Izumi AIZU
> Cc : ALAC Working List
> Objet : Re: [ALAC] New Draft Text for ALAC Review WG Report
> 
> 
> See Word doc attached with grammar and style changes in Track Changes
> mode.
> 
> Jacqueline
> Izumi AIZU wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > We had morning meeting and also another discussion from 3:30 pm to
> > 4:15 pm today, and here follows is the edited version of the current
> > draft. There were some
> > 7 or 8 people,
> > at least for these two meetings and we had, at least, "rough"
> > consensus on most of the texts, if not in details and wordings. I
> > added, using the "Editor's privilege", some phrases to the one
> > displayed in the room.
> >
> > Of course, this is not nowhere near "final". Please express your
> > comments and suggestions to all points. For convenience, I also
> attach
> > the Word file.
> > Please,
> > if so needed, use the "history tracking" function of the Word to
> > indicate where you suggest changes. And also, please give us the
> exact
> > wording you like to propose, rather than just pointing out what
> should
> > be done.
> >
> > *Draft text for ALAC Response to BGC WG Report on ALAC Review*
> >
> > *Nov 4 version*
> > At this time, we would like to provide our comments mainly to the
> "Key
> > Points for discussion" in Page 4 of the Report as they capture the
> > most important issues. We may further work more on the specifics and
> > details later.
> >
> > First and foremost, we appreciate and commend the high-quality work
> of
> > the BGC Working Group on ALAC Review. We are not in full agreement of
> > all specifics of the report, but we are pleasantly surprised that the
> > Report showed the deep understanding of the issue, made sensible
> > suggestions and practical proposals that is very valid for us to
> > seriously respond and act on.
> >
> >
> > *1. The ALAC has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure. This
> > continuing purpose has three key elements: *
> >
> > *o providing advice on policy;
> > o providing input into ICANN operations and structure; o part of
> > ICANN's accountability mechanisms *
> >
> > We have no additional comment on these, but just agree.
> >
> > *Organization*
> >
> > *2. At Large should in principle be given two voting seats on the
> > ICANN Board 3. The ALAC**-RALO**-ALS structure should remain in place
> > for now
> >  *
> >
> > The ALAC welcomes the recommendation of the BGC that the ALAC be
> > allocated two (2) seats on the ICANN Board. This development is very
> > useful in projecting to the AT-Large community and users in general
> > the value that ICANN places on our engagement in the process and
> > provides a real opportunity to see the views of the community
> > reflected in policy and administration.
> >
> > When the time comes for this recommendation to be implemented, we
> > would wish that the ALAC is reserved the right to determine a
> > selection process for these seats with a right of recall embedded.
> >
> > *Effectiveness and participation*
> >
> > *4. Educating and engaging the ALSs should be an immediate priority;
> > compliance should be a longer term goal.*
> >
> > We agree that there is a good room to improve the participation of
> > ALSs in our RALO and AtLarge activities. Therefore, we request that
> > ALAC should be included and considered in all ICANN outreach and
> > education activities, including, inter alia, regional meetings,
> mutual
> > collaboration with regional liaisons and fellowship programme.
> >
> > ALAC also believes that engagement and recruitment of ALSs needs to
> go
> > hand in hand with compliance. It does not serve our purpose to go
> > recruit a bunch of groups that may or may not be legitimate only then
> > later to rule them out. What needs to transpire are a number of
> > actions, activities and events that attract ALSs (and users, for that
> > matter) into ALAC. Paramount among these is to demonstrate that there
> is an actual purpose to being in ALAC.
> >
> > We have been working very hard to organize the Summit – a global
> > meeting of all ALSs to come to one place together.
> >
> > We also note that it is very important for us to continue our
> outreach
> > work to recruit more new ALSs, and also explore ways to setup a
> > mechanism where individuals who have keen interest in ICANN policy
> > areas while she or he may not have strong interest in joining any of
> > the existing ALSs with good reasons.
> >
> > We also hope that ICANN continue to provide sufficient resources for
> > our outreach.
> > *5. ALAC should develop strategic and operational plans (including
> > performance criteria and cost information) as part of ICANN's
> planning
> > process *
> >
> > We agree that it is of our highest priority to develop Strategic and
> > Operational Plans as suggested in WG Report in a proactive manner. We
> > like to work out the specific details in coming months. We also note
> > and support that in the Independent Review Report, there were two
> > recommendations It needs to be conducted in the loop of policy
> > formation and discussion at the initial phase, not forced to run
> > hither and yon trying to comment on 15 different consultations at
> > once. Most critical to strategic planning is making priorities, and
> > these priorities need to be in concert with the priorities of users.
> >
> >
> > *6. More effort needs to be put into developing accurate cost models
> > for At Large activity *
> >
> > Together with the Recommendation 4 of the Independent Review Report
> > *"ICANN should implement on activity-based costing system",* we
> > support the idea of having cost model based on AtLarge activities. In
> > fact, we advocate more transparency than current budget information
> on
> > AtLarge activities. We also like to see clear distinction be made
> > between specific AtLarge related costs and general ICANN out reach
> > activity costs which benefits all ICANN constituencies, not specific
> to AtLarge.
> >
> > We also agree with the comments of BGC WG Report on the
> Recommendation
> > 5 of the Independent Review Report - while we need sufficient
> resource
> > support to ALAC activities, we like leave specific ways on how to
> > allocate the budget to the negotiation between ALAC Chair and ICANN
> staff.
> >
> > *7. ALAC should be encouraged to make its own choice of tools for
> > collaborative work *
> >
> > We agree with this.
> >
> > *8. The public comment period should be kept at 30 days except in
> > special circumstances, in which case ALAC may request an extension to
> > 45 days *
> >
> > With regard to the policy advice work of the ALAC itself, the
> > committee points out that the very nature of the multi-layer,
> > bottom-up process within the At-Large requires more time to elaborate
> > positions. Therefore, we ask for 8-week period as a standard practice
> and 4 to 6 weeks as a fast-track.
> >
> > The 30 day comment period would be difficult to match as we cannot
> > conduct adequate bottom-up consultations with translation which is
> > critical to reach out our global At-Large Community. Short circuiting
> > a large part of the community is against the very nature of the At-
> Large.
> >
> > *9. ICANN should strengthen its translation processes.*
> >
> > We cannot agree more. While we appreciate that considerable resources
> > are allocated for the translation of major languages (Spanish, French
> > regularly and Arabic and Chinese occasionally), there are many other
> > people on the globe who's language are not translated and we do not
> > call for more translations per se, but more consideration be made in
> > conducting our business (meetings, email exchange and other
> > communication) for these
> > people.* *
> >
> > *Relationship with other ICANN entities*
> >
> > *10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice
> > and concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes *
> >
> > *11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns
> > of the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN
> > entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice
> *
> >
> > The ALAC agrees that it should be the main channel for individual
> > Internet users - from novices to experts, who may or may not be
> domain
> > name registrants - to participate in the ICANN policy making
> > processes, noting its bottom-up representation process contributes to
> > its legitimacy. * [A definition can be added here or as footnote on
> > Individual Internet users]***
> >
> > At the same time, the ALAC thinks there is some merit to have
> Internet
> > users, including individuals, but also academia, domain name
> > registrants and small businesses, acting in their own capacity, to be
> represented in GNSO.
> >
> > *12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be strengthened
> > both within *
> >
> > *ALAC for the development of policy advice and within SOs for
> > requesting input *
> >
> > *from ALAC on policy issues *
> >
> > Regarding the strengthening of processes for providing advice on
> > policy the ALAC welcomes the suggestion to improve the interactions
> > between SOs and the ALAC. We appreciate the WG report have proposed
> the following new practice:
> >
> > *The WG therefore recommends that the policy development processes of
> > the GNSO, the ccNSO and the ASO be changed so that At Large input is
> > required as part of the process. In addition to requiring this input,
> > there should be the requirement that this input is acknowledged and
> > taken into consideration. Similar acknowledgement should come from
> the
> > Board when ALAC presents advice to the Board. This is not to say that
> > whatever advice At Large provides must be followed, but rather that
> > the advice should be considered. If the advice is not followed in the
> > development of the policy, a response should be sent to At Large with
> > an explanation, or an explanation should be provided in the policy
> > document. *
> >
> >  We also like to ask the Board to implement a similar mechanism used
> > to respond to the GAC advice. Below is the bylaws on that matter.
> >
> > *Section 2. SPECIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEES*
> >
> > *j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public
> policy
> > matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and
> > adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to
> > take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory
> > Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the
> > reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The Governmental
> > Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith
> > and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable
> > solution.*
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > --
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-
> lists.ica
> > nn.org
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
> > http://st.icann.org/alac

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DraftALAC Response to ALAC Review WG Nov 4-JAM-sbt.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 40448 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20081104/2a1c24e4/attachment-0001.doc>