Darlene couple of quick points because I doubt any more of my energy to this matter will result in anything posative as a result... 1. the WG's we have in place and the Ad-hoc ones we (the ALAC) form are meant to work to bring to the ALAC discussions and by definition therefore input into the items on our Agenda that are for either decision or discussion... The role of the ALAC is to provide outcomes from our Meetings and activities, that take into account, in a regionally balanced way, views of At-Large specifically from our ALS's/RALO structures... That role is mandated either by Bylaw or resolution to certain things at this stage and therefore our meetings need to be meetings of the whole but Yes our Policy Development processes require an ALAC lead in each WG etc., but the input needs to be generated well beyond 15 people and to engage the ALS's (really what I though the whole Summit was trying to do as a key objective) perhaps I'm in error on many things at the moment... 2. Regarding "Lack of Leadership" issues in the ALAC => Post Summit we are looking forward not backwards as this was I assume you all will agree a watershed moment for At-Large... And the Summit record shows what ALAC Members were indeed involved in what WG's and other Summit activities so there is no need for guesswork or supposition... The ALAC Agenda item to review our existing ALAC WG's role purpose constituency is to do exactly what you stated ensure a spread of responsibility and role sharing amongst the ALAC (we do not distinguish between RALO and NomCom appointees in this) 3. I have gone on (rather too long I expect in other messages about how much I agree with Evan, you and I would hope 99.99% of the Summit participants that we need to build and nurture the energy and momentum from the summit and NOT to stifle it at all... That said if there is, in the future (whilst I am Chair) a failure to get this outcome or indeed if the RALO's and ALS's are not so appropriately involved and aware of what the ALAC and the Regional Reps within it are doing, then it most certainly will have been *a failure of my leadership skill set* and of me in the roll of Chair at this important time of transition (referring here to the ALAC Review outcome possibilities) so I believe you should (indeed you all should) see that I do take it personally as part of my Job description (I'm sure I mentioned at some point in Cairo that it should read " the Buck Stops Here") if ALAC fails => then I will most certainly have FAILED as well... That is of course another Very Good Reason why there is recall options in our rules... because the system should never have a single point of failure. CLO 2009/3/20 Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca>
You know, perhaps what ALAC needs to do is to break itself up into working groups for each of the items on its agenda. Assign people to head them up and make them responsible for TIMELY responses.
I totally agree with Evan that we ABSOLUTELY CANNOT let the momentum that we have achieved piffle out because of lack of leadership at the ALAC level.
Cheryl, when I say "lack of leadership" I don't mean you. You do an amazing level of work. It just needs to be evenly distributed out to the rest of the ALAC. If there are ALAC members that are NOT involved in WGs, then their RALOs need to know about it because it means they are not doing the work that they were elected to do.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:23 PM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] Summit WG3, and the ALAC position on gTLD guidebook
[ By the way ... as someone who receives far too much cross-posted mail, I am intrigued to understand the thought process behind taking my original message and cross subscribing it to a number of redundant mailing lists without permission. That is conduct I expect from Jeffrey Williams, not from the ALAC chair; if you want to widen the audience of a discussion it's the most basic courtesy to ask first. ]
Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
1. We need to establish that there is unanimous agreement within the ALAC (because that is an important 'statement' in itself) as to how the excellent work output of our Summit is to be taken forward into future ALAC Statements and work... 2. ALAC needs to agree on a timely and transparent process by which this is to be done...
ALAC moves at a slow trot at best -- especially when held up against the accelerated pace we were able to witness at the Summit. It was a massive undertaking and we had a huge level of participation. You have people here who are energized and eager to help churn policy -- more importantly, many people doing so for the first time.
DO NOT LET THIS OPPORTUNITY WASTE by creating a dragged out process to integrate their work into ALAC proper. There are many within my RALO who already believe that ALAC is an obstacle rather than a catalyst, and I am urging ALAC to help me prove them wrong.
The answer is that I believe we want to ensure that to the maximum extent possible, in my utopia, all ALAC Advisories which are adopted should incorporate the views of the entire community to the extent that is humanly possible in any given circumstance; and as you know, each statement was drafted by a group of people from the community, but due to the available time during the Summit it was not possible for the wider community to review and provide input. There was much discussion within the WG3 mailing list that would have easily incorporated the offline input of anyone not in attendance.
I urge you not to risk the dwindling passion of those who have been active, in order to accommodate those who have not cared.
(after all two of the ALAC members were, due to Visa issues, not able to even attend!)
Given a real world in which sometimes even achieving a quorum seems a difficult feat at ALAC meetings, having an event with only two regrets is hardly a source of complaint.
1. As soon as the Declaration incorporating the statements is back, we post the individual statements for comment by the whole At-Large community, for a reasonable amount of time (taking into account the public comment windows). 2. The officers of each working group take the comments received and incorporate them into the statements. 3. The ALAC then vote to ratify them as Advisories to the Board.
"As soon as the Declaration is back"? From where? The envelope given to Paul Twomey? The Summit declarations have been available -- at least in English -- from the day they were delivered. What is anyone waiting for? If the stumbling block is translations then say so. But some progress should have already been made.
The procedure I'm suggesting is basically the same as what has been done in the past if a working group in At-Large produced a draft statement.
Of course, this "draft statement" is already in the hands of ICANN's board and management as a *final* declaration of the Summit, a collaboration that has brought together more (and more-diverse) At-Large people working on policy than has ever been assembled. If there are instances (such as WG3's) where an expedited integration process is required because of looming deadlines, there must be room for some accommodation.
The one open question is the scope of application of Working Group 2's statement - if it did not incorporate the new drafts from the PSC which are now out for public comment, then it seems that we would want WG2's members to review that new text and make any amendments that they think appropriate in light of the new text, and then allow the community to comment on the resulting revised text.
I can't speak for WG2. I can say that WG3 worked with documents that were introduced to us on the first day of the summit so we considered our work to be fairly timely. In the case of WG2 -- as a standing committee it would have an ongoing mandate to stay on top of the progress of documents and policies, not just a Summit snapshot.
It is my intention that this process should be discussed during the ALAC meeting and deadlines for comment set at that time, so that we can move forward as quickly as possible.
I await a timeline that will allow for the WG3 statement be submitted as ALAC policy in time for the April deadline.
With respect to the working groups themselves, what I am discussing with staff is the modalities by which we can constitute them as standing committees - this is especially important, for example, for WG1 in connection with the ongoing ALAC review process, and for WG2 as we head towards the conclusion of the JPA - one could easily come up with similar examples for the other working groups too of course.
Um, why are you undertaking this yourself? Should the WGs themselves not be involved, or at least invited? And why does staff need to be involved? Does ALAC not know enough about its own workings to understand how to integrate the WGs? All that is needed is -- at most -- a method to evolve the specific targets of the WGs into slightly more-generic standing committee topics.
No need to make this more complex than required.
- Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)