[At-Large] Procedure for WG output

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

Putting my process hat on, might I suggest something like the  
following as a possible procedure for development and approval of  
Working Group output? Obviously what procedure the community agrees  
to is entirely up to you all, but in the interests of gaining  
agreement on a basic procedure here you go:

1) Working Group members develop an output statement/intervention/ 
submission. Since each region is to have at least one member on each  
Working Group, it would be most helpful if those members could  
introduce the working group to the points of view that the region in  
question has on the subject. There will also be one (or more) ALAC  
members on each WG, so these should be reflecting their colleagues'  
views on the subject to the WG.

2) Once the WG has finished a draft, this is sent by regional  
secretariats to the regions for approval. The mechanism used is a No  
Objections Procedure (which means if no objections are registered,  
the document is presumed to be acceptable. Any objections should  
contain the following elements and be sent to the regional list:

a) The exact portion of the text which is objectionable.
b) What the issue is and whether it is a strongly-held objection, a  
comment, or an objection which should not hold up approval (mild  
objection)
c) What the proposed modification to the specific portion of the text  
is.

A properly formed objection would need to be composed of all three  
elements. In general, each region would have 10 days to make any such  
objections known.

3) Upon completion of the regional reviews, the working group would  
synthesise any objections received to try to create a consolidated,  
completed draft. It should be clear what amendments have been  
received in the text. As a part of creating this synthesis, the  
Secretariats of all the regions would collaborate to ensure that the  
resulting text would not itself be objectionable to their respective  
region.

4) The synthesis text would be given to the ALAC for a 10 day period  
for review. This would also be on a No-Objections Procedure. It would  
be hoped that ALAC members would not raise objections to portions of  
the text which were not objected to by any RALO or ALS.

5) The text would then be communicated to the relevant body or person  
labelled clearly as the position of the At-Large Community as a whole.

Notes:

Obviously, the members of the Working Group should be working with  
their regions, and ALAC members on Working Groups should be working  
with their ALAC colleagues at the same time, so that the views of all  
interested parties should to the extent possible be reflected in the  
text finalised in step 1. Clearly, the more effective this pre- 
finalisation consultation is, the less likely that WG output will be  
hung up in the regions or in ALAC.

On 19 Aug 2007, at 21:28, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> If the submission is to be labeled as coming from the ALAC, it really
> needs to be seen by the committee, at the very least for
> comments/objections if not for a vote.
>
> Assuming that all those who are interested are subscribed is not
> valid, at least in my case. Perhaps you could send out the current
> draft. The purpose should be primarily for information, although I
> presume that if someone finds some glaring error or omission it could
> be pointed out. But review from outside the working group should not
> be taken as an opportunity for the wider community to start the
> discussions all over again. From that point, you are correct that if
> they wanted to participate they should have from the start.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 19/08/2007 02:58 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> as I am working on the output of the "RAA revision" working group,  
>> I am
>> wondering what is the procedure to finalize the document. I think  
>> that,
>> once consensus is reached in the WG, the document could be  
>> immediately
>> released, as participation is open and I would expect any ALAC or ALS
>> members that are interested in contributing to be already  
>> subscribed to
>> the WG. In any case, the deadline for submission is September 10,  
>> so I
>> would like to know in advance whether the document needs to go  
>> through
>> further procedures or approval once agreed upon by the WG, not to  
>> miss
>> the deadline.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu    
>> <--------
>> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/   
>> <--------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- 
>> lists.icann.org
>>
>> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
>> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- 
> lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org