Before I start, note that I could not see any reason for this thread being on the ALAC-Internal list and have moved my reply to the public list. A few comments: 1. As I previously noted, I really cannot get that excited about whether we temporarily shelve an inactive WG or shut it down. I have a slight preference for the latter, but there is really no difference. Regardless of the name of the process, we will preserve the work spaces, history and mailing lists. 2. For ongoing WGs, I believe that we need a clearly stated mission. I suspect a "charter" may be overkill (but see my next point). I would not want to set too high a barrier to starting a WG. And for some WGs, it is not clear that we want to specify outcomes ahead of time. 3. On membership, we have always been VERY open. For WG/SC with specific tasks assigned by the ALAC (such as Finance & Budget, Outreach & Engagement or the CROPP_RT, it makes sense to limit "membership" and voting rights and have required regional representation and balance. For other WGs, is there a real need to have all that? Alan At 15/05/2016 08:58 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
It is easy to just close WGs and just start up new ones when required, but where does it leave the original intent of the first WG? You also lose a lot of the history which reviving enables you to continue with - assuming you can access this history on the community wiki.
Our new At-Large website lists all WGs and links to their workspaces. But some of these workspace pages are embarrassingly out of date, the page is filled with a list of WG members who never turn/ed up and monthly report spaces are empty.
I am suggesting a reorganisation of these workspaces and a review of some of our current WG practices to include the following:
1. In keeping with Tijani's suggestion, the establishment of WGs should follow a simple At-Large WG Charter with its mission, specific rules, members and outcomes clearly stated, and with initially prescribed time-framed outputs - so everyone knows what they are there for and some indication of who long this commitment is required for. Some WGs already have Charters, others don't. Outputs can change over time too, depending on the type of WG.
2. A monthly report on the workspace could simply be a table listing the meeting date and a brief summary of the decisions made. Meeting notes can be linked here Any interested new participants can therefore view the WGs history in relation to its purpose, and also understand what stage of the WGs life-cycle they are entering into.
3. WGs should consist of Members (1 or 2 from each region - one is Chair) who must be active or be replaced. It was raised as an ALAC metric that ALAC members should be actively reporting to their RALOs about the WGs they are in and encouraging participation.
4. Other Non-Member Participants in WG meetings should be acknowledged in the meeting notes and their ALS or other affiliation recorded (for WG metrics).
5. Once all the outputs related to the original purpose of the WG have been achieved, a final report of its achievements should be submitted and the WG can then be closed legitimately.
6. If another similar WG is to be formed, then the final report of the former WG's activities could be linked to the new workspace, to give some acknowledgement of the work that has already been done in that area.
Perhaps we need a WG on At-Large WGs and Workspaces, etc :-)
Maureen
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Vanda Scartezini <<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>vanda at scartezini.org> wrote:
Liked the approach. Just end the group and when needed create another group with the same name -, specially because probably persons will not be the same.
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159 # 1004 01311-200 Sao Paulo/SP Brazil Phone: + 55 11 3266-6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181-1464
On 5/14/16, 6:50 PM, "<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>alac-internal-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Alan Greenberg" <<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>alac-internal-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
I find the discussion about whether a WG should be "archived" so it can be revived or shut down is rather academic. Typically those in the former category have no formal mission or charter, no chair and no active members. So all we are going to revive at some unspecified time in the future is the name. And we have no rule saying we cannot re-use a name. Both paths lead to the same end.
Being somewhat pedantic, I will note that in another part of my life, I interact a lot with Archives. Things that are archived are by definition records from the past that are not going to be changed or reactivated. So technically we do want to archive records of closed WGs to preserve the history, but that might not be the best name for a WG that we really think will live once more.
Alan
At 14/05/2016 01:28 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
I think the important point is that "archived" means it can be revived when the circumstances are right. Most of our "on-hold" WGs are in the same situation except that they already have an identified chair and active members who can resume once we get back to some sort of "normality" (if there is such a thing in ICANN ?)
M On 14/05/2016 3:36 am, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah I discuss my interest to get involved sometime ago with Olivier (though not necessarily as chair) but could still stick my head out to wear the hat if it comes to that. For now what I am saying is that we could leave it packed but not deleted based on post transition activities of CSC (don't know how heavy it will be)
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 14 May 2016 10:43, "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
Yay Seun! Does that mean you would be interested in Chairing the Technical Issues WG? I am sure that those who have been interested enough to stick with the team would love to get their show back on the road. You can get more info from Olivier.
Pity about the joint NCSG-ALAC group not getting off the ground. Perhaps with different (NCSG) personnel things may have progressed normally.
M
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Maureen, I also initially thought that both groups were going to have similar views as well as it concerns the transition but after participating on the NCSG discussions (during the early times) it became obvious that interest differ significantly. It's definitely a +1 from me as well. However if the NCSG makes a move in future, we can be sure to reconsider and a new WG can always be setup as may be required.
That said, I am quite interested in the "Technical Issues WG" I think we may not want to kill it yet, considering that we may have a CSC liaison post-transition, it could then be the home to discuss those issues related to names IANA operations.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 13 May 2016 2:33 a.m., "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Leon > > Actually that was the only one that volunteered closure. The explanation > in more detail was... > > The WG which you have referred to below was born dead. When CWG IANA & CCWG > Accountability were started, there were hopes that the ALAC and NCSG would > have similar view on the public interest. Unfortunately NCSG's choice of > representatives like Milton Mueller and Robin Gross, meant that any > dialogue was completely impossible from the outset. > > I'd suggest we close this one as it has not only done nothing but will > likely never be able to do anything. > > > Maureen > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:59 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < > leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote: > > > Dear Maureen, > > > > Thanks for this very useful document. I support your suggestions. The > only > > one I have doubt about is the joint At-Large-NCSG WG. Should we try to > give > > it a last chance before burying it? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > León > > > > > El 12/05/2016, a las 2:34 p.m., Maureen Hilyard < > > maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> escribió: > > > > > > Hi Alan > > > > > > A request was made at our last ALT meeting to look into 10 WGs which > had > > > been inactive for some time. > > > > > > In my report, a very brief statement and a recommendation has been made > > for > > > each, but the overall recommendation is that 6 should be reinstated as > > > ACTIVE or ON-HOLD for the reasons given; 2 are to be closed; and 2 are > to > > > be archived and revived if required in the future. > > > > > > The 2 WGs recommended for closure are: > > > (1) the joint At-Large-NCSG WG which never really got started and > > > (2) the Study group re: use of names for countries and territories) > > having > > > completed its objective and a CCWG being subsequently formed in which > > > At-Large is represented. > > > > > > The 2 WGs recommended for archiving and if required in the future can > be > > > resurrected to deal with related matters. Neither have identified > Chairs > > or > > > active members, but were considered to be important enough that they > are > > > able to be revived if needed. These are the Technical Issues WG and the > > > At-Large new gTLDs WG > > > > > > My report is attached. > > > > > > Maureen > > > <INACTIVE-PASSIVE WGs > > Report.docx>_______________________________________________ > > > ALAC-Internal mailing list > > > ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >
> > > > > > ALAC Wiki: > > >
> > > > > > At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC-Internal mailing list > > ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > > > ALAC Wiki: > > >
> > > > At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Internal mailing list > ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > ALAC Wiki: >
> > At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org > _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org
ALAC Wiki:
At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org
ALAC Wiki:
At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org
ALAC Wiki:
At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/list info/alac-internal>ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
ALAC Wiki:
At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list
<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
ALAC Wiki:
At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org