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

[Carlton Samuels]

Um, public advisories via ALAC to the Board, eh....all the elements of good
politics.......em, I like that even more!

Fully endorsed.

Carlton

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr
<langdonorr at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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)
> _______________________________________________
> Summit-wg mailing list
> Summit-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/summit-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> Summit WG URL: https://st.icann.org/Summit-wg
>