If it were so easy to make a distinction between wordsmithing and policy development, I might agree to keep wordsmithing off the public list. In reality, however, most of ALAC policy discussion also takes place at the last minute, and so taking these late-stage discussions off the public list effectively closes the public out of the real ALAC decisionmaking. I therefore recommend that all such discussions take place on *the* public list (and not on one of a series of sub-lists either, by which discussion can be fragmented such that interested members find out only once a decision has been taken). --Wendy Jacqueline Morris wrote:
Hi Robert I think we are all agreed on the principles of transparency and openness, as we have agreed every time that this issue is brought up. But there has to be practicality as well.
To follow up on Darlene's post, it might be interesting to find out from the members of the public list if they'd like to have the 40 or so emails that came out in the last 2 days about 2 paragraphs in the document in their mailboxes. The majority of the subscribers to the list are just reading, and many of them are in the developing world and some have very little and very expensive connectivity, that they really didn't want to waste on downloading loads of emails that discuss the difference between "advocate" and "prefer" - There were multiple emails only on that one word yesterday (several were from me, mea culpa)
It might be more reasonable to have the wordsmithing done separately and posted online (archive) for people to see if they wanted to, and not cluttering up the mailboxes of the subscribers to the main public list - as is done with the working groups. Or Cheryl's suggestion to post the wordsmithing submissions along with the final document on the wiki Or use a wiki and not an email list (that is what they were designed for - collaborative document creation)
Jacqueline
On Dec 6, 2007 10:57 AM, Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
A private discussion to wordsmith a public policy, isn't really a transparent process.
The larger At-Large community should be able to both see the discussions taking place and also contribute in all steps of the process. I stand by my statement that only - confidential - matters should be discussed on the internal ALAC list. All other discussions, especially items related to policy should be public.
Might I suggest second the process called for by Jean, that being that a document be drafted (and agreed by both ALAC and the larger at-large community) to define what specific items are for the internal list. Having a well defined policy will make it clear what indeed to be privately discussed, and what by default should be open and public.
regards
Robert
On 6-Dec-07, at 7:33 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Didn't the ALAC agree to this ages ago? And haven't all the policy issues been discussed on the public list? If you're talking about final wordsmithing on a document for 24-48 hours after a month in discussion on the public list, I don't see that as being a violation of transparency and openness. More a practical way to finally get a document finished and approved by ALAC to send out in time! Jacqueline
From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 15:17 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ...
I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list.
Any support on this matter would be most welcome.
regards,
Robert