Proposal for Creating an At-Large Review WG Implementation Plan
Dear ALAC and Community members: As you know, a number of agenda items from the meeting of the 28th will be addressed at a special session of the ALAC (date to be chosen by doodle). We would like to propose the following for consideration at that time, as an outline of how to begin to give effect to the Board's resolution to adopt the recommendations of the At-Large Review Working Group's Final Report. 1. Staff will create a document showing the recommendations, at a high level. 2. Underneath each major recommendation, the staff would propose an initial list of those activities or improvements to processes which seem relevant. 3. Staff would propose relative priority to each, at a high level ('near term' - 3-6 months; 'medium term' - 6-9 months; 'longer term - 9 months or longer). We would do under the premise that the community does not want to spend a majority of its time or energy engaged in process improvements, and that it is therefore important the work undertaken is not to the detriment to the community's other priorities, but rather is complementary to them. 3. All of the above would then be provided for the At-Large community to review, for a 30-day period. During that time, the community members could propose the addition of new subjects, deletion or modification of existing subjects, ask questions and provide any other comments they think relevant. 4. During the comment period, special purpose teleconferences would be organised for community members to gather and discuss all of the above, and provide additional input and ideas. 5. At the end of the comment period, a new version of the document would be produced incorporating the views expressed. This could then be subjected to a vote of the ALAC; at the same time, the staff could begin to look at the resourcing of the various initiatives. The objective of all this is that we would have, in good time for the Seoul meeting, a high-level plan for implementation of the review working group proposals which the Board approved. This, in turn, could then be the subject of discussions at the face-to-face meetings in Seoul. It is worth noting that the Board has frequently directed plans of this type to general ICANN public comment periods, and it may wish to do so in this instance - though there is no certainty that it would do so. The procedure outlined above is not meant to suggest that we staffers wish to set the agenda for the improvements - on the contrary, we believe that would be precisely the wrong way to proceed. We believe it is essential that At-Large feel the programme of work ultimately undertaken is to its benefit and serves its interests. That is only possible if At-Large is in the 'driving seat' with respect to the entire programme. We have proposed originating a draft as we know that it is often easier to get the 'creative juices flowing' on an issue if there is a 'strawman' proposal to review, rather than simply handing a large group of people distributed throughout the world a blank sheet of paper. -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
participants (1)
-
Nick Ashton-Hart