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

Wed Oct 3 20:55:38 UTC 2012

I guess that I had read the questions somewhat 
differently from most others who have commented 
here. If that is all they are asking, I am not at 
all sure I want to be leading the reply effort.

Moreover, I am not even sure that they asked some of the right questions.

I believe that this is a case of a broken (or not 
yet invented) model and not an implementation 
problem. So yes, we should be told why our advice 
is being rejected, and we should be given a 
mechanism to understand how the Board arrived at 
some decision. And that is surely part of the overall answer.

But there are other questions asked. For example, 
how can the diverse communities work together to 
provide input. At least one of the examples they 
use is flawed, in that the At-Large contribution 
to the STI was severely hampered at the very end 
of the process, changing the planned two active 
participants to one. Some of us have spent untold 
hours with the aftermath of the JAS group 
administrative nightmare, another of the examples 
that is referenced. And then the horrible public 
relations related to the GNSO trying to figure 
out how joints groups should function. So we are 
far from understanding how to do this effectively.

Unspoken is the real question of how can the 
Board understand the diverse needs and ideas of 
the community and make GOOD decisions. I believe 
that the answer dose not solely lie in how to 
write reports that represents everyone's views, 
while making sure that they are sufficiently 
short to ensure that all Board members actually 
read. This mode of tossing papers over brick 
walls does not work well, and I don't think that minor refinements will fix it.

Getting comprehensible positions from very 
diverse groups, and doing it quickly and with 
very few resources is not easy. Communicating the 
outcomes is arguably even harder. And having 
those outcomes and the logic supporting them 
understood by the Board is harder still. Just as 
dialogue is part of the answer to the first 
steps, it must also be part of the answer in 
communicating with the Board. Not just talking at one another. Dialogue.

Alan

At 03/10/2012 09:46 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>Dear Roberto,
>
>adding to Cheryl's note, I also refer you to the At-Large Improvements
>Final Report, specifically section 13.3:
>"Processes between SOs, ACs and the Board need to be developed/
>strengthened to provide feedback on how the ALAC’s advice has been
>considered and used."
>
>This was marked as Superceded & with a Watching Brief and points to
>recommendation 7 of the Final Recommendations of the ATRT. To re-open
>the discussion at square 1, that is, "how should the Board receive input
>and advice outside the public comment process", is indeed not a
>particularly efficient way of addressing the problem when many of the
>answers to recommendation 6 are probably found in recommendation 7 of
>that same ATRT document.
>
>Our Improvements final report submitted to the SIC is probably a good
>document to point at.
>http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-14jun12-en.htm
>
>Alan being the pen-holder, I hope we will not be tasked with spending
>too much time on this. I would recommend that our Statement points to
>all of the aforementioned documents to minimise our work in this process.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Olivier
>
>
>On 03/10/2012 13:50, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
> > Roberto  what you propose 're the requirements for Board explanations
> > around decisions taken in a way that shows how community input was
> > considered and for more effective and timely  feedback is in keeping with
> > what the ATRT  heard was desired by the Community and with what we
> > recommended... so I see this as an opportunity to build on that and indeed
> > try to give such change  its proper momentum...
> >
> > On Oct 3, 2012 9:39 PM, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> 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
> >> deliberating.
> >> 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.
> >> Cheers,
> >> R.
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Messaggio originale-----
> >> Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> [mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan
> >> Leibovitch
> >> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> *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-24se
> >>> p12-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
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>--
>Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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