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

Sun Apr 13 17:29:50 EDT 2008

You are wrong. I have loads of emails and other requests for exactly what I 
suggested. It is needed.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 5:07 PM
To: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>; "Evan Leibovitch" 
<evan at telly.org>; "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>; <aheineman at ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework 
andConflicts of	Interest Policy

> Jacque and all,
>
>  I and our members totally disagree.  The users KNOW what
> the issues that impact them are, and many know where and how
> those issues are either created, were created, can be addressed
> of fixed, and significant detail regarding many if not most of those
> issues.  Ergo, it is the ALAC leadership that need desprately to
> do the listening, and reacting to the issues the user/public has, not
> the other way around.
>
>  Secondly I, and all of our members disagree that a simple two or
> three page document generated by those that seemingly are not
> willing to listen to users/public issues regarding the managment of
> the Internet, is sufficient.  The old  addage "The devil is the
> details" is why the users/public needs details in order to make
> truly informed decisions as to how and what THEY wish done accordingly.
>
>  You have to remember, that a ligitimate organization's leaders
> and staff, work FOR it's members!
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>
>>Sent: Apr 13, 2008 1:03 PM
>>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>, 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
>>
>>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/
>>> ------
>>>
> Regards,
>
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>   Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
> My Phone: 214-244-4827Regards,
>
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>   Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
> My Phone: 214-244-4827
> 