Greetings everyone! I tried to send my few comments on the ALAC Draft Accountability Framework before the deadline ... but I failed due to some connectivity related problems. I hope it is not too late for them still:)! Attached are the few comments made, overall, I agree with Alan, the document is too long and I see it being somehow divided into 3 main parts with max of 7 pages for the whole doc. The doc should have: 1. Requirements of all ALAC members; 2. Monitorization of ALAC members/Officers/Liasons activity: code of conduit included; 3. Assesment and Evaluation of the ALAC members/Liasons/Officers results and Follow up;
From my personal perspective the At Large Community Conflicts of Interest Policy should not be included into this Document. I see it as smth separate. Basically, this part makes the entire document look a bit too long and with bureocratic 'nuances'.
Otherwise, in general, the content of the document is fine and it clearly proves that much effort and energy has been put in place to compile this document for ALAC/At Large. Thank you all, as ever, Veronica -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:58:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy 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/ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org