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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

As my reply was relevant to more than just one of the Summit WG's I sent it
to the participants list *instead* of the reply only to the WG3 list...  and
as it goes to the what I would expect needs to be a wrap up meeting or
action by the Summit WG I do not think that was a redundant action rather an
inclusive one...
Not all subscribers to either of those lists are also subscribed to the
At-Large list... My intention was certainly NOT to be discourteous or to
proliferate your (or indeed any of our) cross posting woes...  On this
matter of conduct please remember to  instruct your Reps in the ALAC (or
call for your RALO to do so formally) to bring up my actions and
capabilities or inefficiencies as Chair of the ALAC at the next or any
future meeting under AOB or with an Urgency Motion...

To your other points please note I took the time to outline how important
and indeed how very much I intended, to try and work with the energy and
enthusiasm within the ALS reps after the Summit, and ensure that the work of
ALL the Summit WG's became endorsed as ALAC Policy in the most iron clad way
I could think of, it saddens me that you felt this is some sort of
diversionary tactic, but I can't help it if you and your RALO or WG3 see
that attempt at inclusion and accountability was me or the ALAC trying to be
obstructionist, if that is a widespread view => well there's not much I can
do about that is there...

The Board certainly has the Summit declaration and a staff generated
synopsis/ executive Summary of the key points was also requested and
distributed to the Board as well I have not seen this of course but perhaps
we could ask our ALAC Board liaison to outline for us what it contains, and
what note the Board may intend to make of it, and nothing the ALAC does now
or in the future would or should effect the importance of that excellent
Summit outcome...

However  I doubt that the energy and enthusiasm would be maintained and
built on, if the ALAC either did NOT formalize any sort of adoption of the
WG Statements as becoming endorsed as  ALAC Statements we are I believe both
making that point...  Nor would it be served if the WG model that ALAC has
and post Summit needs to revitalize with the involvement of all those now
keen and capable of contributing => again that is exactly what I thought I
was saying...

The Board, and other AC's and SO's within ICANN will continue to ask for
ALAC Statements and input on matters (yes there is also public comment calls
etc.,  and yes the ALS's, RALO's and Individuals should, could and I trust
now post summit WILL feed directly into those processes... But it is the
proper integration of this landmark work that the Summit has produced into
future ALAC Statements that I understood you to be asking for (at least with
respect to the outcomes of WG3) and it is a way to do that, that I choose to
send in reply to you email, rather than keep until our meeting next week,
particularly when you seemed concerned that we might skip over the item in
the Agenda...

If I've wasted either your time or your bandwidth I regret that, but I'm
happy to now ask the other WG's to send their specific advice to our ALAC
meeting on this matter, either via their Reps or by response to the lists
this message is going to i.e. At-Large or Summit participants (and with
regard to the later until I'm advised otherwise I do not believe is
redundant it is rather the only list that includes all Summit participants)
to assist the individuals in the ALAC in their deliberations on this matter
on Tue 24th...


CLO



2009/3/20 Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>

>
>
> [ By the way ... as someone who receives far too much cross-posted mail, I
> am intrigued to understand the thought process behind taking my original
> message and cross subscribing it to a number of redundant mailing lists
> without permission. That is conduct I expect from Jeffrey Williams, not from
> the ALAC chair; if you want to widen the audience of a discussion it's the
> most basic courtesy to ask first. ]
>
>
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
>
> 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...
>
>
> ALAC moves at a slow trot at best -- especially when held up against the
> accelerated pace we were able to witness at the Summit. It was a massive
> undertaking and we had a huge level of participation. You have people here
> who are energized and eager to help churn policy -- more importantly, many
> people doing so for the first time.
>
> DO NOT LET THIS OPPORTUNITY WASTE by creating a dragged out process to
> integrate their work into ALAC proper. There are many within my RALO who
> already believe that ALAC is an obstacle rather than a catalyst, and I am
> urging ALAC to help me prove them wrong.
>
> 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.
>
> There was much discussion within the WG3 mailing list that would have
> easily incorporated the offline input of anyone not in attendance.
>
> I urge you not to risk the dwindling passion of those who have been active,
> in order to accommodate those who have not cared.
>
> (after all two of the ALAC members were, due to Visa issues, not able to
> even attend!)
>
>
> Given a real world in which sometimes even achieving a quorum seems a
> difficult feat at ALAC meetings, having an event with only two regrets is
> hardly a source of complaint.
>
>
>
>    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.
>
>
> "As soon as the Declaration is back"? From where? The envelope given to
> Paul Twomey? The Summit declarations have been available -- at least in
> English -- from the day they were delivered. What is anyone waiting for? If
> the stumbling block is translations then say so. But some progress should
> have already been made.
>
>
>  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.
>
>
> Of course, this "draft statement" is already in the hands of ICANN's board
> and management as a *final* declaration of the Summit, a collaboration that
> has brought together more (and more-diverse) At-Large people working on
> policy than has ever been assembled. If there are instances (such as WG3's)
> where an expedited integration process is required because of looming
> deadlines, there must be room for some accommodation.
>
>  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.
>
>
> I can't speak for WG2. I can say that WG3 worked with documents that were
> introduced to us on the first day of the summit so we considered our work to
> be fairly timely. In the case of WG2 -- as a standing committee it would
> have an ongoing mandate to stay on top of the progress of documents and
> policies, not just a Summit snapshot.
>
>  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.
>
>
> I await a timeline that will allow for the WG3 statement be submitted as
> ALAC policy in time for the April deadline.
>
>
>  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.
>
>
> Um, why are you undertaking this yourself? Should the WGs themselves not be
> involved, or at least invited?
> And why does staff need to be involved? Does ALAC not know enough about its
> own workings to understand how to integrate the WGs?
> All that is needed is -- at most -- a method to evolve the specific targets
> of the WGs into slightly more-generic standing committee topics.
>
> No need to make this more complex than required.
>
> - Evan
>



-- 
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)