I guess that I had read the questions somewhat differently from most others who have commented here. If that is all they are asking, I am not at all sure I want to be leading the reply effort. Moreover, I am not even sure that they asked some of the right questions. I believe that this is a case of a broken (or not yet invented) model and not an implementation problem. So yes, we should be told why our advice is being rejected, and we should be given a mechanism to understand how the Board arrived at some decision. And that is surely part of the overall answer. But there are other questions asked. For example, how can the diverse communities work together to provide input. At least one of the examples they use is flawed, in that the At-Large contribution to the STI was severely hampered at the very end of the process, changing the planned two active participants to one. Some of us have spent untold hours with the aftermath of the JAS group administrative nightmare, another of the examples that is referenced. And then the horrible public relations related to the GNSO trying to figure out how joints groups should function. So we are far from understanding how to do this effectively. Unspoken is the real question of how can the Board understand the diverse needs and ideas of the community and make GOOD decisions. I believe that the answer dose not solely lie in how to write reports that represents everyone's views, while making sure that they are sufficiently short to ensure that all Board members actually read. This mode of tossing papers over brick walls does not work well, and I don't think that minor refinements will fix it. Getting comprehensible positions from very diverse groups, and doing it quickly and with very few resources is not easy. Communicating the outcomes is arguably even harder. And having those outcomes and the logic supporting them understood by the Board is harder still. Just as dialogue is part of the answer to the first steps, it must also be part of the answer in communicating with the Board. Not just talking at one another. Dialogue. Alan At 03/10/2012 09:46 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Roberto,
adding to Cheryl's note, I also refer you to the At-Large Improvements Final Report, specifically section 13.3: "Processes between SOs, ACs and the Board need to be developed/ strengthened to provide feedback on how the ALACs advice has been considered and used."
This was marked as Superceded & with a Watching Brief and points to recommendation 7 of the Final Recommendations of the ATRT. To re-open the discussion at square 1, that is, "how should the Board receive input and advice outside the public comment process", is indeed not a particularly efficient way of addressing the problem when many of the answers to recommendation 6 are probably found in recommendation 7 of that same ATRT document.
Our Improvements final report submitted to the SIC is probably a good document to point at. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-14jun12-en.htm
Alan being the pen-holder, I hope we will not be tasked with spending too much time on this. I would recommend that our Statement points to all of the aforementioned documents to minimise our work in this process.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 03/10/2012 13:50, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Roberto what you propose 're the requirements for Board explanations around decisions taken in a way that shows how community input was considered and for more effective and timely feedback is in keeping with what the ATRT heard was desired by the Community and with what we recommended... so I see this as an opportunity to build on that and indeed try to give such change its proper momentum...
On Oct 3, 2012 9:39 PM, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Evan's analysis but disagree on the conclusions. I will submit a personal comment - will work on it over the weekend. The concept that I would like to express is that the problem is not so much the way the input is collected, but what happens afterwards. Namely, for each given community statement there should be a thorough explanation on why the Board has disregarded it, if this is the case (as it often is). Let's be clear: there might be very good reasons for the Board not taking into account community input, and I personally remember discussions when I was on the Board on how to include community input in decisions. However, as an individual community member who has no access to complete records of Board discussions, I find the feedback from the Board not thorough enough to make me confident that all Directors have even read the comments before deliberating. I think we should not waste the opportunity to put some comments on record, even if I agree that we have bigger fish to fry at this point in time. Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan Leibovitch Inviato: mercoledì 3 ottobre 2012 09:25 A: At-Large Worldwide Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Board solicitation of input on how it should receive input and advice
On 2 October 2012 23:40, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I call your attention to a recently opened Public Comment in which the ICANN Board solicits input on how it should receive input and advice in making its decisions.
*Dear sirs,*
*Thoroughly and transparently.*
*Sincerely,* *The ALAC*
I have been asked by Olivier to lead the development of an ALAC contribution, supported by Cheryl.
I add this to the never-ending pile of diversionary ICANN procedural time wasters, especially in regard to ALAC advice.
Our methods for providing advice are fine, and for us to refine internally. The Board's methods for considering that advice stink; however they are not within the scope of this soliticitation. They don't even know the right question to ask; instead all we have, really, is a public comment process to talk about public comment processes, the height of absurdity. As such, the reply I've suggested above should be more than sufficient.
The boundless capacity of the Board to waste its community volunteers' time is truly something to behold.
- Evan
The public comment description can be found at
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/input-advice-function-24se p12-en.htm .
Input should preferably be made to the At-Large Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/K5AoAg. If anyone cannot cannot access the Wiki to submit comments, please submit your comments to this list WITH AN EXPLICIT REQUEST TO POST TO THE WIKI at the start of the message. The comment period ends shortly after the ICANN meeting. I normally have abundant time to work on such statement en route to ICANN meetings, but in this case my flight time is under an hour, so my work-methods must change. PLEASE your thoughts by the end of the day (wherever you are) next Tuesday, October 9th. Hopefully draft will be prepared for discussion and then decision during the ICANN week.
Alan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org