Alan Greenberg wrote:
I have some substantive comments, but first, I must point out that the document says a vote will be taken during the April teleconference, I presume that the plan is actually for May.
I am attaching a copy of the draft document with my COMMENTS inserted (you may have to turn on displaying of Comment Balloons to see them). Some are purely editorial, but most are substantive.
Overall, I find this document far too long, and too bureaucratic. Providing an 11 page document to tell people what is expected of them seems like a way to guarantee that it is not read. On the other hand, the major participation requirements are at times glossed over where they should be more descriptive. I nevertheless have addressed the document as it stands.
I find the Conflict of Interest procedures overly complex. Yes, we must make sure we are not perceived as serving some other master, but we are an advisory committee, not a policy-making body. The GNSO, which *is* a policy making body has less onerous rules.
I must admit that I am troubled that I found so much to comment on, and I haven't seen any other comments from ALAC members (unless they came in while I was in transit the last 24 hours). Am really that out of touch with everyone else?
Thanks Alan, I posted my brief comments -- which align with yours (in the email, I haven't reviewed the doc yet because the comments don't show up in OpenOffice) -- to the list/wiki March 31: This document appears to be largely a compilation of procedural complexities that do little to make ALAC more accountable to the at-large public. I don't think we need more rules, we need a better set of reporting mechanisms to coordinate with the public. I too have seen no other comments from ALAC members. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/