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

[Alan Greenberg]

I greatly dislike cross-posting, but since the last two posters did 
cross-post, I feel that this statement needs to go to the same audience.

As anyone who read my comments knows, I'd onto support the document 
as drafted. However, in fairness to those that did draft it, I do not 
believe that it says ANYTHING about taking action against ALSs (for 
whatever reason).

It was Danny Younger who suggested this, saying that in his opinion, 
it was something that should have been included.

I agree with some of Evan's comments, but let's be careful in who we 
attribute things two, especially when done in such a strong manner.

Alan (who did read the document and notes that it and the existing 
Rules of Procedure do frown on such actions)

At 13/04/2008 04:03 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
>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.

><<Remaining text omitted for brevity>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20080413/e992368a/attachment.html