ALAC Requirements for the 2010 AoC Reviews
As requested at the last ALAC and ExCom meetings, I have drafted the document of ALAC requirements for the upcoming Affirmation of Commitments Reviews. It consists of three parts: - Number of seats - Time it will take us to do the endorsements - Additional requirements for applicants seeking our endorsement The first part was largely drafted by Cheryl, and the last part by me. The time estimate is sufficiently liberal that we should not have a problem making it. Due to severe time constraints, Cheryl asked me to forward them to Janis Karklins and the executives of the other SOs and ACs. I will do that at about 05:00 UTC on Friday (about 5 hours from now). However, the cover note will say that it is still under ALAC review. The reason for the tight deadline is that all parties have agreed that we need to get the announcement out very quickly if we are to allow sufficient time to receive applications. For the additional applicant requirements, I have followed the pattern that we agreed upon for the first review selection, adapting the two questions to the new reviews. For both reviews, we are asking that the applicant explain why they are in a position to participate in the specific review, and why they feel they can properly represent At-Large. The latter issue is particularly important for the Whois review, where At-Large is not at all unified with respect to privacy issues. Since we do not yet know how many people we will have on the reviews, it will be very important to understand the perspectives of those who we endorse. In addition, based on a review of what the GNSO is thinking about asking their applicants, I (with Cheryl's approval) have added two additional requirements. - An attestation that they will be able and willing to commit substantial time to the review - A question asking if the applicant will be representing anyone else if selected, and if so, who. I am not sure whether a positive answer is good or bad - perhaps either, depending on who the other party is. But it certainly is important to know. If there is some error or omission that Cheryl and I failed to catch, please let us know by replying by 20:00 UTC on Friday. Alan
I support Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33
-----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg Envoyé : vendredi 28 mai 2010 03:43 À : ALAC Working List Objet : [ALAC] ALAC Requirements for the 2010 AoC Reviews
As requested at the last ALAC and ExCom meetings, I have drafted the document of ALAC requirements for the upcoming Affirmation of Commitments Reviews.
It consists of three parts: - Number of seats - Time it will take us to do the endorsements - Additional requirements for applicants seeking our endorsement
The first part was largely drafted by Cheryl, and the last part by me. The time estimate is sufficiently liberal that we should not have a problem making it.
Due to severe time constraints, Cheryl asked me to forward them to Janis Karklins and the executives of the other SOs and ACs. I will do that at about 05:00 UTC on Friday (about 5 hours from now). However, the cover note will say that it is still under ALAC review. The reason for the tight deadline is that all parties have agreed that we need to get the announcement out very quickly if we are to allow sufficient time to receive applications.
For the additional applicant requirements, I have followed the pattern that we agreed upon for the first review selection, adapting the two questions to the new reviews. For both reviews, we are asking that the applicant explain why they are in a position to participate in the specific review, and why they feel they can properly represent At- Large.
The latter issue is particularly important for the Whois review, where At-Large is not at all unified with respect to privacy issues. Since we do not yet know how many people we will have on the reviews, it will be very important to understand the perspectives of those who we endorse.
In addition, based on a review of what the GNSO is thinking about asking their applicants, I (with Cheryl's approval) have added two additional requirements. - An attestation that they will be able and willing to commit substantial time to the review - A question asking if the applicant will be representing anyone else if selected, and if so, who. I am not sure whether a positive answer is good or bad - perhaps either, depending on who the other party is. But it certainly is important to know.
If there is some error or omission that Cheryl and I failed to catch, please let us know by replying by 20:00 UTC on Friday.
Alan
I'm just getting a chance to review the statement. FWIW, I fully support it. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 8:43 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] ALAC Requirements for the 2010 AoC Reviews As requested at the last ALAC and ExCom meetings, I have drafted the document of ALAC requirements for the upcoming Affirmation of Commitments Reviews. It consists of three parts: - Number of seats - Time it will take us to do the endorsements - Additional requirements for applicants seeking our endorsement The first part was largely drafted by Cheryl, and the last part by me. The time estimate is sufficiently liberal that we should not have a problem making it. Due to severe time constraints, Cheryl asked me to forward them to Janis Karklins and the executives of the other SOs and ACs. I will do that at about 05:00 UTC on Friday (about 5 hours from now). However, the cover note will say that it is still under ALAC review. The reason for the tight deadline is that all parties have agreed that we need to get the announcement out very quickly if we are to allow sufficient time to receive applications. For the additional applicant requirements, I have followed the pattern that we agreed upon for the first review selection, adapting the two questions to the new reviews. For both reviews, we are asking that the applicant explain why they are in a position to participate in the specific review, and why they feel they can properly represent At-Large. The latter issue is particularly important for the Whois review, where At-Large is not at all unified with respect to privacy issues. Since we do not yet know how many people we will have on the reviews, it will be very important to understand the perspectives of those who we endorse. In addition, based on a review of what the GNSO is thinking about asking their applicants, I (with Cheryl's approval) have added two additional requirements. - An attestation that they will be able and willing to commit substantial time to the review - A question asking if the applicant will be representing anyone else if selected, and if so, who. I am not sure whether a positive answer is good or bad - perhaps either, depending on who the other party is. But it certainly is important to know. If there is some error or omission that Cheryl and I failed to catch, please let us know by replying by 20:00 UTC on Friday. Alan
Alan, Excellent work , as always ! Patrick On 28 May 2010, at 03:42, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As requested at the last ALAC and ExCom meetings, I have drafted the document of ALAC requirements for the upcoming Affirmation of Commitments Reviews.
It consists of three parts: - Number of seats - Time it will take us to do the endorsements - Additional requirements for applicants seeking our endorsement
The first part was largely drafted by Cheryl, and the last part by me. The time estimate is sufficiently liberal that we should not have a problem making it.
Due to severe time constraints, Cheryl asked me to forward them to Janis Karklins and the executives of the other SOs and ACs. I will do that at about 05:00 UTC on Friday (about 5 hours from now). However, the cover note will say that it is still under ALAC review. The reason for the tight deadline is that all parties have agreed that we need to get the announcement out very quickly if we are to allow sufficient time to receive applications.
For the additional applicant requirements, I have followed the pattern that we agreed upon for the first review selection, adapting the two questions to the new reviews. For both reviews, we are asking that the applicant explain why they are in a position to participate in the specific review, and why they feel they can properly represent At-Large.
The latter issue is particularly important for the Whois review, where At-Large is not at all unified with respect to privacy issues. Since we do not yet know how many people we will have on the reviews, it will be very important to understand the perspectives of those who we endorse.
In addition, based on a review of what the GNSO is thinking about asking their applicants, I (with Cheryl's approval) have added two additional requirements. - An attestation that they will be able and willing to commit substantial time to the review - A question asking if the applicant will be representing anyone else if selected, and if so, who. I am not sure whether a positive answer is good or bad - perhaps either, depending on who the other party is. But it certainly is important to know.
If there is some error or omission that Cheryl and I failed to catch, please let us know by replying by 20:00 UTC on Friday.
Alan<ALAC-requirements.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
-- Patrick Vande Walle Please note my new mobile number: +32 497636476 Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu Facebook: http://facebook.vande-walle.eu LinkedIn: http://linkedin.vande-walle.eu
Thanks (he says, blushing). Alan At 29/05/2010 01:42 PM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
Alan,
Excellent work , as always !
Patrick
On 28 May 2010, at 03:42, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As requested at the last ALAC and ExCom meetings, I have drafted the document of ALAC requirements for the upcoming Affirmation of Commitments Reviews.
It consists of three parts: - Number of seats - Time it will take us to do the endorsements - Additional requirements for applicants seeking our endorsement
The first part was largely drafted by Cheryl, and the last part by me. The time estimate is sufficiently liberal that we should not have a problem making it.
Due to severe time constraints, Cheryl asked me to forward them to Janis Karklins and the executives of the other SOs and ACs. I will do that at about 05:00 UTC on Friday (about 5 hours from now). However, the cover note will say that it is still under ALAC review. The reason for the tight deadline is that all parties have agreed that we need to get the announcement out very quickly if we are to allow sufficient time to receive applications.
For the additional applicant requirements, I have followed the pattern that we agreed upon for the first review selection, adapting the two questions to the new reviews. For both reviews, we are asking that the applicant explain why they are in a position to participate in the specific review, and why they feel they can properly represent At-Large.
The latter issue is particularly important for the Whois review, where At-Large is not at all unified with respect to privacy issues. Since we do not yet know how many people we will have on the reviews, it will be very important to understand the perspectives of those who we endorse.
In addition, based on a review of what the GNSO is thinking about asking their applicants, I (with Cheryl's approval) have added two additional requirements. - An attestation that they will be able and willing to commit substantial time to the review - A question asking if the applicant will be representing anyone else if selected, and if so, who. I am not sure whether a positive answer is good or bad - perhaps either, depending on who the other party is. But it certainly is important to know.
If there is some error or omission that Cheryl and I failed to catch, please let us know by replying by 20:00 UTC on Friday.
Alan<ALAC-requirements.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
-- Patrick Vande Walle Please note my new mobile number: +32 497636476 Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu Facebook: http://facebook.vande-walle.eu LinkedIn: http://linkedin.vande-walle.eu
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Patrick Vande Walle -
SAMUELS,Carlton A -
Sébastien Bachollet