[At-Large] Board solicitation of input on how it should receive input and advice

[Carlton Samuels]

I so too understand Evan's response because there is little or no room to
quibble his analysis.

So a big +1 here.

We know for controversial issues, some would say the formal public comment
period is not enough. At least not enough to allow the debaters to run out
of steam.   With consideration of an elastic public comment period, a
little slack has been added and to my mind , it is the best a rational
person could expect.

The ALAC can and does offer advice to the board outside of the public
comment period. How that is collected is pretty clear and we know the
process works.

Here's the problem. We keep throwing things over the fence and save a few
notable times since Steve, nothing comes back over to us.

Zilch.

The Board deliberations is like the Curia choosing the next Pope. Well,
almost. At least we get that smoke signal thing from that Vatican chimney.

If at this stage, with all that experience and expertise and after all that
is said, the Board need us to tell them how to be more open about their
decision-making process, then something is amiss.

- Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> 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.
> >
>
>
> *Dear sirs,*
>
> *Thoroughly and transparently.*
>
> *Sincerely,*
> *The ALAC*
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > The public comment description can be found at
> >
> >
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/input-advice-function-24sep12-en.htm
> > .
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
>
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>