At 11:48 AM -0400 10/15/07, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Adam Peake wrote:
I didn't ask ALS to disclose details of their structures, In fact, you did. On October 7 your mail (Message ID <p06240804c3362fc0a332@[192.168.0.2]>) included this:
"All ALS will "Post on the Internet (on the ALAC's website or elsewhere) publicly-accessible, current information about the ALS's goals, structure, description of constituent group(s)/membership [including how to join the group], working mechanisms, leadership, and contact(s)."
Evan, apologies, you're right of course, I did write those words. I was inelegantly (and it turns out not accurately) trying to say that I wasn't the original author, they are part of the "Minimum criteria for an At-Large Structure" document you agreed to when becoming an accredited ALS (or perhaps I've just got this all completely wrong and those criteria aren't really criteria at all, or you and others didn't have to agree to them, or some such...) I added "[including how to join the group]", which is what you do describe in your application. I didn't/don't understand why you have a problem with doing what it seems to me you signed on to do. Can't you put up a page to let your membership know their organization is an ALS? A link to ALAC, tell them what an ALS is, what ALAC is, there's enough information around to cut and paste. A bunch of Linux users and people interested in FOSS. You'd expect most would have knowledge of the DNS, some might even be interested enough in ICANN and ALAC to start reading any simple sets of links you gave them. I agree you're waiting for substantive information, agree it's not your job to write it, but you could at least make an effort to do something. Adam
My suggestions were twofold, (1) to make sure information about policies processes flowed to the ALS (ALAC delegate's responsibility), (2) the ALS had a means of disseminating that information, asking for comment on it, and a means to provide any comment back to the ALAC (and from there whatever policy process might be going on.) Agreed... and this is the order in which the process should take place. Any policy initiative for which ICANN is soliciting the advice of At-Large requires supporting data _first_.
We're waiting.
For example, Nick's just told us about the new "news-backgrounders" that are being produced. These should be getting out to the ALS, being presented on your websites. No, Nick didn't "just" tell us... that exact same information was conveyed to NARALO at the San Juan meeting, which was many months ago. Given that most journalists work on deadlines measured in hours and days rather than months, the speed of this process is unacceptable. If ICANN wants timely feedback it has an obligation to provide timely information. And ALAC has a primary role in pressing for this to happen.
We're waiting.
I'm suggesting your task as an ALS officer is to make sure that information received is made available to your members and others. First something has to be received.
We're waiting.
- Evan