[At-Large] R: Board solicitation of input on how it should receive input and advice
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
Wed Oct 3 11:16:00 UTC 2012
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
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.
Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan
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.
*Thoroughly and transparently.*
> 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.
> The public comment description can be found at
> 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.
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Em: evan at telly dot org
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large