[At-Large] R: Board solicitation of input on how it should receive input and advice

Wed Oct 3 21:07:37 UTC 2012

Your points are well made Alan and your focus on DIALOG approach gets a
"here here!"  from me as s direction for our response...
On Oct 4, 2012 7:00 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> I guess that I had read the questions somewhat
> differently from most others who have commented
> here. If that is all they are asking, I am not at
> all sure I want to be leading the reply effort.
>
> Moreover, I am not even sure that they asked some of the right questions.
>
> I believe that this is a case of a broken (or not
> yet invented) model and not an implementation
> problem. So yes, we should be told why our advice
> is being rejected, and we should be given a
> mechanism to understand how the Board arrived at
> some decision. And that is surely part of the overall answer.
>
> But there are other questions asked. For example,
> how can the diverse communities work together to
> provide input. At least one of the examples they
> use is flawed, in that the At-Large contribution
> to the STI was severely hampered at the very end
> of the process, changing the planned two active
> participants to one. Some of us have spent untold
> hours with the aftermath of the JAS group
> administrative nightmare, another of the examples
> that is referenced. And then the horrible public
> relations related to the GNSO trying to figure
> out how joints groups should function. So we are
> far from understanding how to do this effectively.
>
> Unspoken is the real question of how can the
> Board understand the diverse needs and ideas of
> the community and make GOOD decisions. I believe
> that the answer dose not solely lie in how to
> write reports that represents everyone's views,
> while making sure that they are sufficiently
> short to ensure that all Board members actually
> read. This mode of tossing papers over brick
> walls does not work well, and I don't think that minor refinements will
> fix it.
>
> Getting comprehensible positions from very
> diverse groups, and doing it quickly and with
> very few resources is not easy. Communicating the
> outcomes is arguably even harder. And having
> those outcomes and the logic supporting them
> understood by the Board is harder still. Just as
> dialogue is part of the answer to the first
> steps, it must also be part of the answer in
> communicating with the Board. Not just talking at one another. Dialogue.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 03/10/2012 09:46 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> >Dear Roberto,
> >
> >adding to Cheryl's note, I also refer you to the At-Large Improvements
> >Final Report, specifically section 13.3:
> >"Processes between SOs, ACs and the Board need to be developed/
> >strengthened to provide feedback on how the ALAC’s advice has been
> >considered and used."
> >
> >This was marked as Superceded & with a Watching Brief and points to
> >recommendation 7 of the Final Recommendations of the ATRT. To re-open
> >the discussion at square 1, that is, "how should the Board receive input
> >and advice outside the public comment process", is indeed not a
> >particularly efficient way of addressing the problem when many of the
> >answers to recommendation 6 are probably found in recommendation 7 of
> >that same ATRT document.
> >
> >Our Improvements final report submitted to the SIC is probably a good
> >document to point at.
> >http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-14jun12-en.htm
> >
> >Alan being the pen-holder, I hope we will not be tasked with spending
> >too much time on this. I would recommend that our Statement points to
> >all of the aforementioned documents to minimise our work in this process.
> >
> >Kind regards,
> >
> >Olivier
> >
> >
> >On 03/10/2012 13:50, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
> > > Roberto  what you propose 're the requirements for Board explanations
> > > around decisions taken in a way that shows how community input was
> > > considered and for more effective and timely  feedback is in keeping
> with
> > > what the ATRT  heard was desired by the Community and with what we
> > > recommended... so I see this as an opportunity to build on that and
> indeed
> > > try to give such change  its proper momentum...
> > >
> > > On Oct 3, 2012 9:39 PM, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >> I agree with Evan's analysis but disagree on the conclusions.
> > >> I will submit a personal comment - will work on it over the weekend.
> > >> The concept that I would like to express is that the problem is not so
> > > much
> > >> the way the input is collected, but what happens afterwards. Namely,
> for
> > >> each given community statement there should be a thorough explanation
> on
> > > why
> > >> the Board has disregarded it, if this is the case (as it often is).
> > >> Let's be clear: there might be very good reasons for the Board not
> taking
> > >> into account community input, and I personally remember discussions
> when I
> > >> was on the Board on how to include community input in decisions.
> However,
> > > as
> > >> an individual community member who has no access to complete records
> of
> > >> Board discussions, I find the feedback from the Board not thorough
> enough
> > > to
> > >> make me confident that all Directors have even read the comments
> before
> > >> deliberating.
> > >> I think we should not waste the opportunity to put some comments on
> > > record,
> > >> even if I agree that we have bigger fish to fry at this point in time.
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> R.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Messaggio originale-----
> > >> Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> [mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan
> > >> Leibovitch
> > >> Inviato: mercoledì 3 ottobre 2012 09:25
> > >> A: At-Large Worldwide
> > >> Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Board solicitation of input on how it should
> > > receive
> > >> input and advice
> > >>
> > >> On 2 October 2012 23:40, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I call your attention to a recently opened Public Comment in which
> the
> > >>> ICANN Board solicits input on how it should receive input and advice
> > >>> in making its decisions.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> *Dear sirs,*
> > >>
> > >> *Thoroughly and transparently.*
> > >>
> > >> *Sincerely,*
> > >> *The ALAC*
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> I have been asked by Olivier to lead the development of an ALAC
> > >>> contribution, supported by Cheryl.
> > >>>
> > >> I add this to the never-ending pile of diversionary ICANN procedural
> time
> > >> wasters, especially in regard to ALAC advice.
> > >>
> > >> Our methods for providing advice are fine, and for us to refine
> > > internally.
> > >> The Board's methods for considering that advice stink; however they
> are
> > > not
> > >> within the scope of this soliticitation. They don't even know the
> right
> > >> question to ask; instead all we have, really, is a public comment
> process
> > > to
> > >> talk about public comment processes, the height of absurdity. As
> such, the
> > >> reply I've suggested above should be more than sufficient.
> > >>
> > >> The boundless capacity of the Board to waste its community volunteers'
> > > time
> > >> is truly something to behold.
> > >>
> > >> - Evan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> The public comment description can be found at
> > >>>
> > >>>
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/input-advice-function-24se
> > >>> p12-en.htm
> > >>> .
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Input should preferably be made to the At-Large Wiki at
> > >>> https://community.icann.org/x/K5AoAg. If anyone cannot cannot access
> > >>> the Wiki to submit comments, please submit your comments to this list
> > >>> WITH AN EXPLICIT REQUEST TO POST TO THE WIKI at the start of the
> > > message.
> > >>> The comment period ends shortly after the ICANN meeting. I normally
> > >>> have abundant time to work on such statement en route to ICANN
> > >>> meetings, but in this case my flight time is under an hour, so my
> > >>> work-methods must change. PLEASE your thoughts by the end of the day
> > >>> (wherever you are) next Tuesday, October 9th. Hopefully draft will be
> > >>> prepared for discussion and then decision during the ICANN week.
> > >>>
> > >>> Alan
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> At-Large mailing list
> > >>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > >>>
> > >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Evan Leibovitch
> > >> Toronto Canada
> > >>
> > >> Em: evan at telly dot org
> > >> Sk: evanleibovitch
> > >> Tw: el56
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> At-Large mailing list
> > >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > >>
> > >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> At-Large mailing list
> > >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > >>
> > >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > At-Large mailing list
> > > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > >
> > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >
> >
> >--
> >Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> >http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >At-Large mailing list
> >At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>