[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy

[Thompson, Darlene]

I *SO* agree with Jacqueline on this.

How can we punish or even expect anything at all out of ALSs that
haven't been educated.  This should be our major thrust right now if we
actually want community involvement.

D

Darlene A. Thompson
Community Access Program Administrator
Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP
P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
Phone:  (867) 975-5631
Fax:  (867) 975-5610
E-mail:  dthompson at gov.nu.ca
 
-----Original Message-----
From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Jacqueline A. Morris
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:03 PM
To: Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart
Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework
andConflicts of Interest Policy

Evan
IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed documents,

brochures etc to explain issues to the public.  I have to say that I
haven't 
read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that.
I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the
document.

 I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if
we 
haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely 
manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE
we 
ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info
out to 
their members, they cannot do what we ask of them.
So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do 
would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for 
discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that
includes 
a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the 
background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then
they 
can try to comment.
And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period
of 
time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it.

Jacqueline
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM
To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart at icann.org>
Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" 
<na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework
and 
Conflicts of	Interest Policy

>
> I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and
> debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN
staff
> of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve.
>
> Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of
> which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my
> biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so
much
> the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me)
> destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it 
> exists.
>
> ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill --
> their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste
extremely
> scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more
> internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the
> public to them.
>
> The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we
are
> already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish
> "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful
inclination
> towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued
> ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large 
> serves.
>
> To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that
> out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and
to
> every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very
> difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and
> uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough
to
> learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over
> themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and
attract
> high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and
> censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive!
>
> I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to
> substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest
> (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral
to
> our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and
this
> was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN
> constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy
> wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others.
> It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be
> "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect
> many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and
require
> significant background information supplied in the local street
language.
>
> It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we
> are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical
> background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest
sin
> will be to have turned nothing into nothing.
>
> I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already
> has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That
ALAC
> still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own
> image appears to indicate that:
> 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity
> 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually
> serve its mandate
> 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it 
> serves
> 4) all of the above
>
> Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and
> their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back.
> Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending
> ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by
a
> committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one
> person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise.
>
> Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional
obligations.
> On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can
be
> handled with common sense and discretion.
>
> I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with
> procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the
public
> and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that
education.
> Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it,
> and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted.
>
> Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_
ALAC
> activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could
> survive such a drought without entropy or implosion.
>
> Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as
> NARALO chair.
>
> - Evan
>
>
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists
.icann.org
> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/
> ------
> 


------
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists
.icann.org
Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/
------