Wendy, I'd like to hope that the report can be discussed in a sober and constructive environment, free of inflammatory language and incorrect information. I can understand why there are members of the Committee, especially those longer-serving members like yourself who have now been through their THIRD investigation by the Ombudsman of ALS Applications handling in less than two years, who are upset at the moment. However, I would urge you to channel the emotion of the moment into more positive activities than an unhappy continuation of finger-pointing. There is a potential for constructive results to come from the investigation but only if the lessons which are to be learnt from it are learnt, which will not occur if the discussion about the contents of the report is held in an emotional or perjorative way which is unfortunately what a number of your comments lends themselves to. Spending more time in an 'us vs. them' debate also, frankly, is wasted energy. Since you have been appointed to represent the community, I would suggest to you that you take the high ground - not by trying to blame others but by trying to improve the system which you personally are a part of. As mentioned it is also very unfortunately the *THIRD* investigation of the Committee by the Ombudsman relating to handling of ALS applications. No other community has faced even *ONE* investigation of this kind. I would strongly suggest to you that the community as a whole is hardly likely to accept "it is the staff's fault again" as a response to the third investigation of the same thing. As I have suggested to the ALAC as a whole, rather than continuing to point fingers or alleging misconduct by the Ombudsman - who is hardly likely to reach conclusions without evidence - it would be more productive for the community as a whole for lessons to be learnt from this - THIRD - investigation and the process improved. Lets move on and make lemonade from the lemons, as the phrase (mostly!) goes. As you are aware, in hopes of helping to generate some lemonade, I am drafting a submission to the Committee - which I am sure it will choose to share with the Community as a whole - to give the ALS community and the RALOs a much greater role in the approval of new applications for ALS accreditation since it seems to me that the most fundamental right of a constituency is for it to choose its membership, and to make the current process more transparent and accountable to the community as a whole would seem to me to be an obvious and constructive improvement. Since I know you to be a passionate advocate for transparency and accountability I'm sure you'll agree with the principle. As I have said to the Committee on more than one occasion, I am sure all of you didn't volunteer your time in order to process large amounts of membership applications and related documentations, but rather to work on policy, and I'm sure that's equally true of the community as a whole. On 15/02/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
It appears that the Ombudsman's "report" has been posted publicly. Here is my personal response:
The Ombudsman is quick to extol the virtues of Ombudsmanship (Report, p.15), but slow to put them into practice. He praises the flexibility and equitable alternatives open to an ombudsman, as distinct from a court of law, then treats the At-Large Advisory Committee like the hostile target of a grand jury investigation with no opportunity to respond. Using selective quotation from interim drafts circulated on internal lists, he paints a skewed picture of the Committee's processes and conclusions, and therefore misses some of the key facts in the dispute.
The Committee does not deny responsibility for some delays. At the same
time, the Committee was often barred from more rapid response by its ICANN-appointed staff, who unilaterally blocked Committee publication of vote results and then sent notifications to applicants without offering the Committee any opportunity to review or correct them.
There are indeed problems to be addressed in the ALAC's functions, many
of them deep structural problems in ICANN's construction of the ALAC, but the Ombudsman's determination that the Committee must be publicly shamed unfortunately misses the opportunity to make progress in resolving any of them.
-- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart