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.
At the last ALAC meeting, I suggested to draft a statement for endorsement by the ALAC during the ongoing Public Comment period on the "Reconsideration Request 10-1 Recommendation". Useful links: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#recon-request http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/palage-request-10feb10-en .htm http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws-iii-5-proposed-amendment-19apr10-en.p df Draft ALAC Statement on Reconsideration Request 10-1 Recommendation The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) supports the proposed bylaw changes to shorten the time between the end of the Board meetings and the publication of the resolutions passed and of the preliminary report. Unfortunately, the proposed bylaw changes did not take into account the following suggestion: In addition, it is specifically requested that the staff briefing papers that are provided to the ICANN Board in advance of their Board meeting be publicly posted on the ICANN website in connection with the proposed Agenda seven (7) days before a meeting of the Board. The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) strongly supports this proposition as it was stated in the Joint ALAC-NCUC Statement on Transparency of Staff Documents (https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/27_april_2010:2010042 2212437-0-26811/original/rdg-Draft%20ALAC-NCUC%20Statement%20on%20Transparen cy%20of%20Staff%20Documents.pdf). Furthermore The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) wants to emphasize: While ICANN deserves credit for creating public forums to receive public comment, ICANN has fallen woefully short of timely processing these comments; the need to have not only a Summary/Analysis of the comments of the public forum comments but also how and why a comment was taken into account by staff to amend the initial document. Versailles 6th May 2010. The draft statement can be found at Can staff add this statement to the Wiki? Thanks Comments on the statement please! Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33
While I fully agree it is important to highlight the need to make staff briefing papers and advisories public before the Board meeting, we might wish to make an exception in regard of certain personnel matters. Other than that, I support the general sentiments expressed. Best, Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Sébastien Bachollet Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 8:06 AM To: 'ALAC Working List' Cc: future-trans-account@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC] Draft ALAC Statement on Reconsideration Request 10-1 Recommendation At the last ALAC meeting, I suggested to draft a statement for endorsement by the ALAC during the ongoing Public Comment period on the "Reconsideration Request 10-1 Recommendation". Useful links: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#recon-request http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/palage-request-10feb10-en .htm http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws-iii-5-proposed-amendment-19apr10-en.p df Draft ALAC Statement on Reconsideration Request 10-1 Recommendation The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) supports the proposed bylaw changes to shorten the time between the end of the Board meetings and the publication of the resolutions passed and of the preliminary report. Unfortunately, the proposed bylaw changes did not take into account the following suggestion: "In addition, it is specifically requested that the staff briefing papers that are provided to the ICANN Board in advance of their Board meeting be publicly posted on the ICANN website in connection with the proposed Agenda seven (7) days before a meeting of the Board." The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) strongly supports this proposition as it was stated in the Joint ALAC-NCUC Statement on Transparency of Staff Documents (https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/27_april_2010:2010042 2212437-0-26811/original/rdg-Draft%20ALAC-NCUC%20Statement%20on%20Transparen cy%20of%20Staff%20Documents.pdf). Furthermore The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) wants to emphasize: * "While ICANN deserves credit for creating public forums to receive public comment, ICANN has fallen woefully short of timely processing these comments"; * the need to have not only a Summary/Analysis of the comments of the public forum comments but also how and why a comment was taken into account by staff to amend the initial document. Versailles 6th May 2010. The draft statement can be found at Can staff add this statement to the Wiki? Thanks Comments on the statement please! Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33 _______________________________________________ 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
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
SAMUELS,Carlton A -
Sébastien Bachollet