At a meeting last night between myself (in my capacity as APRALO REP to the ALAC & therefore as an ALAC Member) and the APRALO secretariat, the issue of submission of outcomes from this ALAC Mailing List as well as the 'measurement' of activity and contributions to these activities was discussed at considerable length... From an initial APRALO perspective (and it will be on our Agenda for wider community discussion at our Monthly APRALO Teleconf next week as well), it appears that aspects of assumptions made and 'errors in interpretation' and understanding of both purpose and mechanisms of list activity here have occurred from our perspective... These will not be remedied now, nor is any retrospective action being called for or suggested... *BUT* we will be calling for a clarification of process, purpose and activity contribution measures and metrics to be used, for all the ALAC mailing lists outreach activities and Working Groups... Why?? You might ask well... I was under the impression that this and other WG Lists of the ALAC (and the APRALO was therefore informed) that activities here were a way of ALS RALO and wider community interest (if that exists) to contribute to discussion and reach where possible a consensus view to go to the Board from the ALAC and At Large further that Vittorio (on behalf of ALAC) had taken the lead in much of the drafting of original documentation for discussion points to be developed from.... Naturally that still means that individual and organisational output from this list or influenced by this list activities should happen AND be encouraged and the suggestion Bret made below is encouraged and we will also discuss this at our APRALO... Not only am I (yes and ALAC member!!) been on and reading the list activities (and had no issues to raise or dissent to contribute that was not being discussed by other non ALAC voices here) but APRALO also had a lead representative allocated to be on this list form our relevant WG and if he had seen an issue with or counterpoint to points raised or discussion had he would have contributed that on our behalf... Lack or list noise or postings from sectors of our community, does not in all cultures mean complacency it can mean compliance or agreement in principle... You might be interested to note here for example that APRALO motions and proposals are put up at our meetings placed out on the WIKI or List for comment and in the ABSENCE of any Comment or supported suggestions Edit or Alteration go ahead as passed by consensus from those accessing the site and the list(s) when a deadline time and date for final discussion has passed... SO some of us work in a system where differences of opinion and direction are discussed but agreement is not seen as requiring comment or list affirmation. Vittorio, I had and I suspect others of us (particularly us newbie's) on the ALAC had expected that list activities would contribute to if not formulate the final ALAC response at this stage on this topic... And with the advise that John was doing a final Draft I again assumed that was to be utilisable by the ALAC. This misinterpretation on my part will be raised as an example of a communication and process / expectations mismatch issue in the ALAC workshop on Sunday Oct 28th. Clearly others and those actively involved in the discussion and drafting processes here were NOT of the same opinion... APRALO will be asking that this outreach activity and contributory list activities undertaking by ALAC in the future have clearer and jointly understood and agreed on objectives and outcomes... We will ask for this to be discussed in LA in some of the ALAC's formal sessions, but my personal hope is that texts of such value as this could be strengthened by the list subscribers and the organisations they represent being listed and forwarded IN ADDITION to the suggestion below and to any official transcript from this lists activities under whatever 'authorship' the majority decided on... And indeed that such a version go as suggested earlier by Nick I think to the Chairman of the Board as reflected by the position of ALAC with the Board... As an aside regarding the privacy rights issues discussed earlier, those of you with interest in this area may wish to note that Australia is currently undertaking two relevant reviews -> Review of Australian Privacy law (http://www.alrc.gov.au/media/2007/mr1207_privacy.html ) and specifically re the IP and trade Marks arena -> Development of the Madrid System - Request for Comment on the Future of the Madrid Protocol http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/news/Developement%20of%20the%20Madrid%20S ystem%20-%20Request%20for%20Comment%20on%20the%20Future%20of%20the%20Madrid% 20Protocol%20September%202007.pdf Finally may I (now I have taken up your valuable time in reading this missive) also mention my personal and the ISOC-AU (as an ALS)'s support for the less litigious approach to disputes referred to by Danny as we (and me as a Demand Class Director of auDA and a public interest rep who contributed to the development of these policies), are very satisfied with the results and outcomes of these policies to date... You might also note that we have just finishing our review (public comments close today) of the auDRP as well... see http://auda.org.au/reviews/audrp-2007/ Kindest Regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr APRALO rep to ALAC 2007-2009 -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2007 9:21 AM To: Bret Fausett Cc: At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] RAA comments Bret Fausett ha scritto:
I don't know whether the ALAC, as the ALAC, will submit anything, but please feel free to submit comments to ICANN yourselves, on your own behalf or on behalf of your ALS organization, by sending an email to raa-consultation@icann.org. You might copy the text of the draft John and Vittorio prepare and then say something like, "The comments below were developed on the At Large Advisory Committee mailing lists and are supported by [name of your ALS]."
I would like to know whether the ALAC does or does not plan to submit the comment as a Committee - first, because this might come up in Board discussions, and second, because then I might be submitting the text in individual capacity. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------