Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-LT] Process for deciding on wether to issue a Public Comment Statement
Thanks Olivier. See further comments below. At 21/06/2017 03:23 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Alan,
thanks for launching this important discussion. Please be so kind to find my responses interspersed in your text:
On 20/06/2017 05:49, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Going forward, I would like to suggest the following process be followed. Note that there are several questions embedded.
- When a new PC is posted (or for other reason we may need to do a statement), a brief message should be sent by Staff to the normal ALAC list saying that a new PC (or other) is open giving the subject and asking for input (to be sent to the same list) on whether we need to issue a statement, why, and offers to participate in the process.
What is the "normal" ALAC list? Is this the ALAC working list or is this the At-Large worldwide list? Or ALAC announce? If the former, then you are willingly restricting the ability for calling for a Statement, to the 15 member ALAC plus regional leads plus a flurry of other people - but are effectively taking out of the equation the rest of the At-Large Community. Except if this call for input is related to the RALOs.
alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org, the standard working ALAC list that also includes most past ALAC members and regional leaders is what I meant. The wider community was to be consulted once we decided to actually do a statement. However, since I wrote this, I found out that once the wiki space is created, we already send a message to ALAC-Announce (ALAC, regional leaders, ALS reps), so we will continue to do that. But also see my previous message about sending too many messages to that list...
- If there is an ALAC meeting soon, their will be a discussion on whether to issue a statement.
Excellent.
- If there is an ALT soon, the issue will be discussed during that meeting.
Excellent.
- If there is neither within a week or less, then the ALT needs to consider the issue by e-ail or Skype.
I agree with the ALT being most active, thus being able to consider the issue.
- If it is not obvious from the subject whether a statement is necessary, someone from the ALT or Advisors must review the documentation and make a recommendation generally within a week.
- Once an ALT decision is taken, a message should be sent to the ALAC list by Staff saying that the ALT is recommending that there be no statement issued and that anyone who disagrees should quickly state why they thought a statement is needed (ie why user input is required in this case) and identify who is willing to work on the statement.
I understand the intent. Does this change the nature of the ALT? I am asking this because if the ALT is formally solicited to make a recommendation, could this be seen as a top down process for deciding if a Statement is to be drafted?
Just the opposite. Currently the ALT often decides to not do a statement and that is that. Now I am treating this as a recommendation to the ALAC with an opportunity for ALAC members (and others) to disagree.
- QUESTION: Once a decision is taken either by the ALAC during a meeting, or by the ALAC by accepting the ALT recommendation, do we need to (or want to) send out a message to ALAC-Announce that eith no statement will be issued, or asking for input if a statement is warranted?
How else would you communicate with the wider At-Large membership?
As in my previous e-mail in response to Leon, my question is really how many checkpoints along the way do we keep them informed.
- QUESTION: I think that this entire process can largely be handled by Staff, but I think that there should be an ALT member who takes responsibility. Who is willing to 5take this on?
That's of course only if you decide that it is the ALT' job to make decisions on this. Could you not appoint a policy tracking person on the ALAC, irrespective of whether they are ALT or not?
ALT member is to shepherd the process and make sure it keeps moving. No formal decisions involved. It could well be a non-ALT ALAC member, but I was trying to keep this simple. Thanks for the detailed questions. Alan
Kindest regards,
Olivier
Dear Alan, thanks for your kind response. Answers below: On 21/06/2017 15:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:
On 20/06/2017 05:49, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Going forward, I would like to suggest the following process be followed. Note that there are several questions embedded.
- When a new PC is posted (or for other reason we may need to do a statement), a brief message should be sent by Staff to the normal ALAC list saying that a new PC (or other) is open giving the subject and asking for input (to be sent to the same list) on whether we need to issue a statement, why, and offers to participate in the process.
What is the "normal" ALAC list? Is this the ALAC working list or is this the At-Large worldwide list? Or ALAC announce? If the former, then you are willingly restricting the ability for calling for a Statement, to the 15 member ALAC plus regional leads plus a flurry of other people - but are effectively taking out of the equation the rest of the At-Large Community. Except if this call for input is related to the RALOs.
alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org, the standard working ALAC list that also includes most past ALAC members and regional leaders is what I meant. The wider community was to be consulted once we decided to actually do a statement.
However, since I wrote this, I found out that once the wiki space is created, we already send a message to ALAC-Announce (ALAC, regional leaders, ALS reps), so we will continue to do that.
But also see my previous message about sending too many messages to that list...
Yes that's the dilemma. On the one hand, we want to provide anyone with the ability to flag an issue and ask that the ALAC (the organisation) issues a Statement. On the other we are faced with too many emails flooding the ALAC Announce mailing list. In fact, we are often faced with ALS representatives unsubscribing from that mailing list, which effectively cuts them out altogether from being useful or implicated at all in ICANN and At-Large policy. I wanted to alert you to another pilot which we are pioneering at EURALO - the targeted request for commenting, based on the database of ALS skills which we have established last year. We have taken the ALAC announcement for the recent public consultations on (a) human rights WS2 topic and (b) WHOIS topic and forwarded them, with a personalised note to the ALSes that had indicated they had a particular interest in this issue. As a result, of the 3 ALSes that were interested in Human Rights, all 3 responded and indeed one of the reps, Bastiaan Goslings, ended up holding the pen on this one. This is a 100% response rate. Of the 12 or 13 ALSes that were interested in WHOIS, 8 or 9 responded and contributed or are in the process of contributing to drafting and/or commenting on the current draft. This is a 66-70% response rate! Agreed, the process for targeted consultation is labour intensive. But this is a pilot that EURALO will present to other RALOs. In the short term, I do not know if ultimately RALO leaders will take on the responsibility to do something similar in their RALOs. In the long term, I remind you that this is one step closer to the designing of an automated system that would perform such targeted requests as part of a Policy Management Process System, as described in the ATLAS II recommendations. We have received indications from ICANN's CIO that he would be interested in considering a blueprint for this, and the current manual pilot is just a proof of concept from which I would be happy to ultimately drafts process plans with the help of the Technical Task Force. Kindest regards, Olivier
Hello all, On 21/06/2017 17:07, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Agreed, the process for targeted consultation is labour intensive. But this is a pilot that EURALO will present to other RALOs. In the short term, I do not know if ultimately RALO leaders will take on the responsibility to do something similar in their RALOs. In the long term, I remind you that this is one step closer to the designing of an automated system that would perform such targeted requests as part of a Policy Management Process System, as described in the ATLAS II recommendations. We have received indications from ICANN's CIO that he would be interested in considering a blueprint for this, and the current manual pilot is just a proof of concept from which I would be happy to ultimately drafts process plans with the help of the Technical Task Force.
...and Dev reminded me of all of the follow-up work of At-Large Improvements work team D that came out of the first At-Large Review: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/2951129/WT+D+SF+slides_ver+... Some of it was implemented, but the bulk of it, the PRC was not. Perhaps worth considering in our discussions? Kindest regards, Olivier
Hello Alan, This seem like a discussion happening somewhere else and ALAC list just got copied in one of the responses. Perhaps this was in error? If no then it may be good to have a background on this (assuming you require feedback from the members of alac working list. Overall based on the subject of the thread and the content there-of, I think it's a good thing to consider. Regards On 21 Jun 2017 4:07 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Thanks Olivier. See further comments below.
At 21/06/2017 03:23 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Alan,
thanks for launching this important discussion. Please be so kind to find my responses interspersed in your text:
On 20/06/2017 05:49, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Going forward, I would like to suggest the following process be followed. Note that there are several questions embedded.
- When a new PC is posted (or for other reason we may need to do a statement), a brief message should be sent by Staff to the normal ALAC list saying that a new PC (or other) is open giving the subject and asking for input (to be sent to the same list) on whether we need to issue a statement, why, and offers to participate in the process.
What is the "normal" ALAC list? Is this the ALAC working list or is this the At-Large worldwide list? Or ALAC announce? If the former, then you are willingly restricting the ability for calling for a Statement, to the 15 member ALAC plus regional leads plus a flurry of other people - but are effectively taking out of the equation the rest of the At-Large Community. Except if this call for input is related to the RALOs.
alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org, the standard working ALAC list that also includes most past ALAC members and regional leaders is what I meant. The wider community was to be consulted once we decided to actually do a statement.
However, since I wrote this, I found out that once the wiki space is created, we already send a message to ALAC-Announce (ALAC, regional leaders, ALS reps), so we will continue to do that.
But also see my previous message about sending too many messages to that list...
- If there is an ALAC meeting soon, their will be a discussion on whether to issue a statement.
Excellent.
- If there is an ALT soon, the issue will be discussed during that meeting.
Excellent.
- If there is neither within a week or less, then the ALT needs to consider the issue by e-ail or Skype.
I agree with the ALT being most active, thus being able to consider the issue.
- If it is not obvious from the subject whether a statement is necessary, someone from the ALT or Advisors must review the documentation and make a recommendation generally within a week.
- Once an ALT decision is taken, a message should be sent to the ALAC list by Staff saying that the ALT is recommending that there be no statement issued and that anyone who disagrees should quickly state why they thought a statement is needed (ie why user input is required in this case) and identify who is willing to work on the statement.
I understand the intent. Does this change the nature of the ALT? I am asking this because if the ALT is formally solicited to make a recommendation, could this be seen as a top down process for deciding if a Statement is to be drafted?
Just the opposite. Currently the ALT often decides to not do a statement and that is that. Now I am treating this as a recommendation to the ALAC with an opportunity for ALAC members (and others) to disagree.
- QUESTION: Once a decision is taken either by the ALAC during a meeting, or by the ALAC by accepting the ALT recommendation, do we need to (or want to) send out a message to ALAC-Announce that eith no statement will be issued, or asking for input if a statement is warranted?
How else would you communicate with the wider At-Large membership?
As in my previous e-mail in response to Leon, my question is really how many checkpoints along the way do we keep them informed.
- QUESTION: I think that this entire process can largely be handled by Staff, but I think that there should be an ALT member who takes responsibility. Who is willing to 5take this on?
That's of course only if you decide that it is the ALT' job to make decisions on this. Could you not appoint a policy tracking person on the ALAC, irrespective of whether they are ALT or not?
ALT member is to shepherd the process and make sure it keeps moving. No formal decisions involved. It could well be a non-ALT ALAC member, but I was trying to keep this simple.
Thanks for the detailed questions. Alan
Kindest regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji