I have seen no comments on this statement. I would like to hope that this means there has been no violent objection to it. I leave it to the Chair to instruct staff to start the vote as suggested, or hold off. Alan At 05/05/2010 01:00 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
To: ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Draft ALAC Statement on the GNSO Prioritization Process Recommendations
At the last ALAC meeting, I was requested to draft a statement for endorsement by the ALAC during the ongoing Public Comment period on the "New GNSO Council Work Prioritization Process Recommendations" - http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#wp.
In summary, the recommendations describe in detail the process to be used by the GNSO to prioritize its work. This document does not discuss how the results of this process will be used in the policy development management process - that is the next thing to consider.
The recommendations discuss how GNSO Council "members" will participate in the prioritization effort. The ALAC Liaison is not formally a Council "member", but the Bylaws call for the Liaison to be granted all privileges of members, with the explicit exception of making and seconding motions, and voting. So my assumption was that the Liaison *would* participate.
I verified this with the current chairs of the GNSO Council and the Work Team that drafted the recommendations.
The draft statement can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?gnso_prioritization_recommendati....
The comment period ends on Sunday, May 16. Subject to the agreement of the ALAC Chair, and I would suggest that we discuss this on the list, and assuming there is general agreement with the statement, that it (or a modification of it) be put to a 5-day vote beginning on Monday, May 10. This will allow the vote to end and the statement posted to the formal ICANN Public Comments no later than Friday, May 14. We could have a longer vote, or have it end on the weekend, but that would mean that our staff would have to handle this during the weekend. Given that I do not expect that it will be a controversial issue, I see no reason to do this.
Comments on the statement please!
Alan
PS I also am working on a second statement on the GNSO Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) Final Consolidated Recommendations. You should have that shortly.