[ALAC] Summit WG3, and the ALAC position on gTLD guidebook

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Hi Evan, Summit Participants and At-Large...
Let me assure you, we (ALAC) will NOT be bypassing or overlooking the issues
and work coming out of the Summit and it's WG's activities and indeed you
will note the item is listed in the Agenda (please note the minimal amount
of time allocated for many of the Standing Agenda Items as they are often
there for pro-forma and community informational reasons and *not* for
substantive discussion for the very reason that the ALAC needs to discuss
how to best capitalize on this great asset we all have created within the
Summit WG's and the Declaration documentation here is my take on how it
should go however....

1. We need to establish that there is unanimous agreement within the ALAC
(because that is an important 'statement' in itself) as to how the excellent
work output of our  Summit is to  be taken forward into future ALAC
Statements and work...
2. ALAC needs to agree on a timely and transparent process by which this is
to be done...

Here is what I will be proposing to the meeting on that second point...
that we adopt the following procedure with respect to the five Summit
statements:


   1. As soon as the Declaration incorporating the statements is back, we
   post the individual statements for comment by the whole At-Large community,
   for a reasonable amount of time (taking into account the public comment
   windows).
   2. The officers of each working group take the comments received and
   incorporate them into the statements.
   3. The ALAC then vote to ratify them as Advisories to the Board.


You may ask => "Why am I suggesting that the statements be out for public
comment before they become official ALAC Advisories?" The answer is that I
believe we want to ensure that to the maximum extent possible, in my utopia,
all ALAC Advisories which are adopted should incorporate the views of the
entire community to the extent that is humanly possible in any given
circumstance; and as you know, each statement was drafted by a group of
people from the community, but due to the available time during the Summit
it was not possible for the wider community to review and provide input.
(after all two of the ALAC members were, due to Visa issues, not able to
even attend!)

The procedure I’m suggesting is basically the same as what has been done in
the past if a working group in At-Large produced a draft statement.

The benefit of doing the process is simple, I believe: the statement is then
clearly the result of a bottom-up process which permitted all voices in
At-Large to be heard, and that adds considerable weight to the Summit
Declaration AND allied WG outputs => and to respond to Carlton here I'd be
delighted indeed if the energy, activity, productivity and membership of the
Summit WG's can be morphed across to the set of standing (and indeed ad-hoc)
ALAC WG's =>which is why that topic too is {again} on our ALAC Agenda :-)

The one open question is the scope of application of Working Group 2’s
statement – if it did not incorporate the new drafts from the PSC which are
now out for public comment, then it seems that we would want WG2’s members
to review that new text and make any amendments that they think appropriate
in light of the new text, and then allow the community to comment on the
resulting revised text.

The Declaration is being translated now, and we should have it back shortly,
which will also give us translations of the statements it contains of
course.

It is my intention that this process should be discussed during the ALAC
meeting and deadlines for comment set at that time, so that we can move
forward as quickly as possible.

With respect to the working groups themselves, what I am discussing with
staff is the modalities by which we can constitute them as standing
committees – this is especially important, for example, for WG1 in
connection with the ongoing ALAC review process, and for WG2 as we head
towards the conclusion of the JPA – one could easily come up with similar
examples for the other working groups too of course.

We should have a plan to propose to the community in the coming days in
these respects, likely in time frame where it will also be ready for the
ALAC meeting on Tuesday.

CLO


2009/3/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>

> Hello,
>
> As a result of some very intense and constructive effort, the Summit
> Working Group #3 produced a concise yet substantive commentary on the
> new-gTLD applicant guidebook.
>
> I note that the agenda for the next ALAC meeting lists deadlines for a
> number of issues which have requested community feedback, including the
> gTLD guidebook which indicates a deadline of April 13.
>
> It would be appreciated if ALAC could discuss the issues presented as
> WG3's declaration at the Summit, with an eye towards adopting it as
> official ALAC policy and presenting such policy as timely comment to
> those working in the guidebook.
>
> The Summit WG3 considered a number of issues not reflected in current
> ALAC policy (such as the role of At-Large in the creation of the
> "Independent Objector"), and in one case recommends a reconsideration of
> one particular aspect of existing ALAC policy (the idea of a
> "phased-in" rollout of gTLDs).
>
> Given the large number of issues on the ALAC agenda for its March 24
> meeting, I am concerned that ALAC may accidentally bypass by the
> excellent work of this WG in developing policy that I believe should be
> advanced, well in advance of the stated comment deadline.
>
> I know that at least I -- and I am certain, other WG3 members -- will be
> available and capable of advancing the provisions of the declaration.
> But I am not certain that the limited time available at the meeting will
> be sufficient, and postponement until a future ALAC meeting may mean
> bypassing the April deadline.
>
> What is the best way to proceed, now that I have brought this issue to
> ALAC's attention? It's not too soon for ALAC to start putting the Summit
> deliverables into use.
>
> Evan Leibovitch
> NARALO Chair
> WG3 Rapporteur
>
> PS: Is it correct to assume that the five working groups at the Summit
> will evolve into standing ALAC committees (or fill ones that had been
> dormant)?
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>



-- 
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)