At 12/04/2008 02:58 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
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:
Sorry about that. The review was done at 36000 ft, and the other methods I normally use which do not rely on arcane WORD feature were just not practical.
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 did see your first comments. I don't completely agree. There were a few places where new rules were needed. But I think that to be effective, they need to be presented in a far more concise and clear way. I am honestly less concerned with reporting to the pubic that with getting active effective participation. The threat of reporting poor performance is a stick approach that I would prefer not to need.
I too have seen no other comments from ALAC members.
Given the potential impact of this document if approved, I would like to have seen comments, even if only of the form "I agree completely with everything in the document". Alan
--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/