Summit WG3, and the ALAC position on gTLD guidebook
Hello, As a result of some very intense and constructive effort, the Summit Working Group #3 produced a concise yet substantive commentary on the new-gTLD applicant guidebook. I note that the agenda for the next ALAC meeting lists deadlines for a number of issues which have requested community feedback, including the gTLD guidebook which indicates a deadline of April 13. It would be appreciated if ALAC could discuss the issues presented as WG3's declaration at the Summit, with an eye towards adopting it as official ALAC policy and presenting such policy as timely comment to those working in the guidebook. The Summit WG3 considered a number of issues not reflected in current ALAC policy (such as the role of At-Large in the creation of the "Independent Objector"), and in one case recommends a reconsideration of one particular aspect of existing ALAC policy (the idea of a "phased-in" rollout of gTLDs). Given the large number of issues on the ALAC agenda for its March 24 meeting, I am concerned that ALAC may accidentally bypass by the excellent work of this WG in developing policy that I believe should be advanced, well in advance of the stated comment deadline. I know that at least I -- and I am certain, other WG3 members -- will be available and capable of advancing the provisions of the declaration. But I am not certain that the limited time available at the meeting will be sufficient, and postponement until a future ALAC meeting may mean bypassing the April deadline. What is the best way to proceed, now that I have brought this issue to ALAC's attention? It's not too soon for ALAC to start putting the Summit deliverables into use. Evan Leibovitch NARALO Chair WG3 Rapporteur PS: Is it correct to assume that the five working groups at the Summit will evolve into standing ALAC committees (or fill ones that had been dormant)?
Summit WGs morphing into "standing ALAC committees"! Now there's an idea! By this action, we demonstrate a breath and depth to At-Large engagement. It has my full support. Way to go, Evan! Carlton On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello,
As a result of some very intense and constructive effort, the Summit Working Group #3 produced a concise yet substantive commentary on the new-gTLD applicant guidebook.
I note that the agenda for the next ALAC meeting lists deadlines for a number of issues which have requested community feedback, including the gTLD guidebook which indicates a deadline of April 13.
It would be appreciated if ALAC could discuss the issues presented as WG3's declaration at the Summit, with an eye towards adopting it as official ALAC policy and presenting such policy as timely comment to those working in the guidebook.
The Summit WG3 considered a number of issues not reflected in current ALAC policy (such as the role of At-Large in the creation of the "Independent Objector"), and in one case recommends a reconsideration of one particular aspect of existing ALAC policy (the idea of a "phased-in" rollout of gTLDs).
Given the large number of issues on the ALAC agenda for its March 24 meeting, I am concerned that ALAC may accidentally bypass by the excellent work of this WG in developing policy that I believe should be advanced, well in advance of the stated comment deadline.
I know that at least I -- and I am certain, other WG3 members -- will be available and capable of advancing the provisions of the declaration. But I am not certain that the limited time available at the meeting will be sufficient, and postponement until a future ALAC meeting may mean bypassing the April deadline.
What is the best way to proceed, now that I have brought this issue to ALAC's attention? It's not too soon for ALAC to start putting the Summit deliverables into use.
Evan Leibovitch NARALO Chair WG3 Rapporteur
PS: Is it correct to assume that the five working groups at the Summit will evolve into standing ALAC committees (or fill ones that had been dormant)?
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Evan, Summit Participants and At-Large... Let me assure you, we (ALAC) will NOT be bypassing or overlooking the issues and work coming out of the Summit and it's WG's activities and indeed you will note the item is listed in the Agenda (please note the minimal amount of time allocated for many of the Standing Agenda Items as they are often there for pro-forma and community informational reasons and *not* for substantive discussion for the very reason that the ALAC needs to discuss how to best capitalize on this great asset we all have created within the Summit WG's and the Declaration documentation here is my take on how it should go however.... 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... Here is what I will be proposing to the meeting on that second point... that we adopt the following procedure with respect to the five Summit statements: 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. You may ask => "Why am I suggesting that the statements be out for public comment before they become official ALAC Advisories?" 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. (after all two of the ALAC members were, due to Visa issues, not able to even attend!) 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. The benefit of doing the process is simple, I believe: the statement is then clearly the result of a bottom-up process which permitted all voices in At-Large to be heard, and that adds considerable weight to the Summit Declaration AND allied WG outputs => and to respond to Carlton here I'd be delighted indeed if the energy, activity, productivity and membership of the Summit WG's can be morphed across to the set of standing (and indeed ad-hoc) ALAC WG's =>which is why that topic too is {again} on our ALAC Agenda :-) 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. The Declaration is being translated now, and we should have it back shortly, which will also give us translations of the statements it contains of course. 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. 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. We should have a plan to propose to the community in the coming days in these respects, likely in time frame where it will also be ready for the ALAC meeting on Tuesday. CLO 2009/3/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>
Hello,
As a result of some very intense and constructive effort, the Summit Working Group #3 produced a concise yet substantive commentary on the new-gTLD applicant guidebook.
I note that the agenda for the next ALAC meeting lists deadlines for a number of issues which have requested community feedback, including the gTLD guidebook which indicates a deadline of April 13.
It would be appreciated if ALAC could discuss the issues presented as WG3's declaration at the Summit, with an eye towards adopting it as official ALAC policy and presenting such policy as timely comment to those working in the guidebook.
The Summit WG3 considered a number of issues not reflected in current ALAC policy (such as the role of At-Large in the creation of the "Independent Objector"), and in one case recommends a reconsideration of one particular aspect of existing ALAC policy (the idea of a "phased-in" rollout of gTLDs).
Given the large number of issues on the ALAC agenda for its March 24 meeting, I am concerned that ALAC may accidentally bypass by the excellent work of this WG in developing policy that I believe should be advanced, well in advance of the stated comment deadline.
I know that at least I -- and I am certain, other WG3 members -- will be available and capable of advancing the provisions of the declaration. But I am not certain that the limited time available at the meeting will be sufficient, and postponement until a future ALAC meeting may mean bypassing the April deadline.
What is the best way to proceed, now that I have brought this issue to ALAC's attention? It's not too soon for ALAC to start putting the Summit deliverables into use.
Evan Leibovitch NARALO Chair WG3 Rapporteur
PS: Is it correct to assume that the five working groups at the Summit will evolve into standing ALAC committees (or fill ones that had been dormant)?
_______________________________________________ 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)
[ 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
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
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)
As my reply was relevant to more than just one of the Summit WG's I sent it to the participants list *instead* of the reply only to the WG3 list... and as it goes to the what I would expect needs to be a wrap up meeting or action by the Summit WG I do not think that was a redundant action rather an inclusive one... Not all subscribers to either of those lists are also subscribed to the At-Large list... My intention was certainly NOT to be discourteous or to proliferate your (or indeed any of our) cross posting woes... On this matter of conduct please remember to instruct your Reps in the ALAC (or call for your RALO to do so formally) to bring up my actions and capabilities or inefficiencies as Chair of the ALAC at the next or any future meeting under AOB or with an Urgency Motion... To your other points please note I took the time to outline how important and indeed how very much I intended, to try and work with the energy and enthusiasm within the ALS reps after the Summit, and ensure that the work of ALL the Summit WG's became endorsed as ALAC Policy in the most iron clad way I could think of, it saddens me that you felt this is some sort of diversionary tactic, but I can't help it if you and your RALO or WG3 see that attempt at inclusion and accountability was me or the ALAC trying to be obstructionist, if that is a widespread view => well there's not much I can do about that is there... The Board certainly has the Summit declaration and a staff generated synopsis/ executive Summary of the key points was also requested and distributed to the Board as well I have not seen this of course but perhaps we could ask our ALAC Board liaison to outline for us what it contains, and what note the Board may intend to make of it, and nothing the ALAC does now or in the future would or should effect the importance of that excellent Summit outcome... However I doubt that the energy and enthusiasm would be maintained and built on, if the ALAC either did NOT formalize any sort of adoption of the WG Statements as becoming endorsed as ALAC Statements we are I believe both making that point... Nor would it be served if the WG model that ALAC has and post Summit needs to revitalize with the involvement of all those now keen and capable of contributing => again that is exactly what I thought I was saying... The Board, and other AC's and SO's within ICANN will continue to ask for ALAC Statements and input on matters (yes there is also public comment calls etc., and yes the ALS's, RALO's and Individuals should, could and I trust now post summit WILL feed directly into those processes... But it is the proper integration of this landmark work that the Summit has produced into future ALAC Statements that I understood you to be asking for (at least with respect to the outcomes of WG3) and it is a way to do that, that I choose to send in reply to you email, rather than keep until our meeting next week, particularly when you seemed concerned that we might skip over the item in the Agenda... If I've wasted either your time or your bandwidth I regret that, but I'm happy to now ask the other WG's to send their specific advice to our ALAC meeting on this matter, either via their Reps or by response to the lists this message is going to i.e. At-Large or Summit participants (and with regard to the later until I'm advised otherwise I do not believe is redundant it is rather the only list that includes all Summit participants) to assist the individuals in the ALAC in their deliberations on this matter on Tue 24th... CLO 2009/3/20 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>
[ 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
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
Um, public advisories via ALAC to the Board, eh....all the elements of good politics.......em, I like that even more! Fully endorsed. Carlton On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi Evan, Summit Participants and At-Large... Let me assure you, we (ALAC) will NOT be bypassing or overlooking the issues and work coming out of the Summit and it's WG's activities and indeed you will note the item is listed in the Agenda (please note the minimal amount of time allocated for many of the Standing Agenda Items as they are often there for pro-forma and community informational reasons and *not* for substantive discussion for the very reason that the ALAC needs to discuss how to best capitalize on this great asset we all have created within the Summit WG's and the Declaration documentation here is my take on how it should go however....
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...
Here is what I will be proposing to the meeting on that second point... that we adopt the following procedure with respect to the five Summit statements:
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.
You may ask => "Why am I suggesting that the statements be out for public comment before they become official ALAC Advisories?" 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. (after all two of the ALAC members were, due to Visa issues, not able to even attend!)
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.
The benefit of doing the process is simple, I believe: the statement is then clearly the result of a bottom-up process which permitted all voices in At-Large to be heard, and that adds considerable weight to the Summit Declaration AND allied WG outputs => and to respond to Carlton here I'd be delighted indeed if the energy, activity, productivity and membership of the Summit WG's can be morphed across to the set of standing (and indeed ad-hoc) ALAC WG's =>which is why that topic too is {again} on our ALAC Agenda :-)
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.
The Declaration is being translated now, and we should have it back shortly, which will also give us translations of the statements it contains of course.
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.
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.
We should have a plan to propose to the community in the coming days in these respects, likely in time frame where it will also be ready for the ALAC meeting on Tuesday.
CLO
2009/3/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>
Hello,
As a result of some very intense and constructive effort, the Summit Working Group #3 produced a concise yet substantive commentary on the new-gTLD applicant guidebook.
I note that the agenda for the next ALAC meeting lists deadlines for a number of issues which have requested community feedback, including the gTLD guidebook which indicates a deadline of April 13.
It would be appreciated if ALAC could discuss the issues presented as WG3's declaration at the Summit, with an eye towards adopting it as official ALAC policy and presenting such policy as timely comment to those working in the guidebook.
The Summit WG3 considered a number of issues not reflected in current ALAC policy (such as the role of At-Large in the creation of the "Independent Objector"), and in one case recommends a reconsideration of one particular aspect of existing ALAC policy (the idea of a "phased-in" rollout of gTLDs).
Given the large number of issues on the ALAC agenda for its March 24 meeting, I am concerned that ALAC may accidentally bypass by the excellent work of this WG in developing policy that I believe should be advanced, well in advance of the stated comment deadline.
I know that at least I -- and I am certain, other WG3 members -- will be available and capable of advancing the provisions of the declaration. But I am not certain that the limited time available at the meeting will be sufficient, and postponement until a future ALAC meeting may mean bypassing the April deadline.
What is the best way to proceed, now that I have brought this issue to ALAC's attention? It's not too soon for ALAC to start putting the Summit deliverables into use.
Evan Leibovitch NARALO Chair WG3 Rapporteur
PS: Is it correct to assume that the five working groups at the Summit will evolve into standing ALAC committees (or fill ones that had been dormant)?
_______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ Summit-wg mailing list Summit-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/summit-wg_atlarge-lists.ican...
Summit WG URL: https://st.icann.org/Summit-wg
participants (4)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Evan Leibovitch -
Thompson, Darlene