Serious problems with the ALAC
I have to admit to being awfully frustrated with the ALAC as an organization. In mid-October, ICANN asked for public comment on its proposed transparency and accountability framework. About the same time, I volunteered to coordinate comments on this. I started an ALAC wiki page on the subject. I notified the ALAC of my interest and posted the URL of the wiki page. I wrote the wiki page. I sent the URL of the wiki page to the ALAC. *Three times.* I raised the issue when we were in Los Angeles together. Two times during the LA public forums, Vint Cerf asked for public comments on transparency and accountability. He said it was important because such comments would become part of the JPA discussions with the USDOC in 2008. On November 8th, four days before the deadline, I *again* reminded the ALAC that the comment period was closing and pointed to the wiki page. The wiki page started on October 18th and the comment deadline closed on November 12th. In the month before the closing date, most of the work to prepare an ALAC comment was done. The ALAC had to do nothing more than review the document, approve or revise it, and post it. Since the time I volunteered and drafted the wiki page, the ALAC has held two conference calls and met in person for a week. Yet, the ALAC did nothing at all. You didn't even say, "no, we don't agree with that, we'll draft something else." This is deeply disappointing and points to serious problems with the ALAC as an organization. You need to find ways of working against deadlines, using the energy of people willing to contribute, and paying attention to the evolution of ICANN's ongoing work. Consider this a vote of no confidence in the current ALAC. Bret https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? alac_comments_on_accountability_and_transparency_frameworks_and_principl es_for_consultation -- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html -------------------------------------
I hope ALAC is seriously considering the recent posts by Bret and Danny. These are both people who have been doing a great deal to support the interests of individual Internet users, and both are frustrated with the lack of visible progress from the ALAC. I hope ALAC can take these messages as constructive criticisms and move forward from them. One of the things I've seen while sitting with the Board is ICANN's similarity to other organizations we've all worked with: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Those who make noise persistently get attention and often response, while those who don't don't. Sure, there are places that doesn't hold, but much of ICANN's work is outside of .com and .xxx votes. So ALAC needs to be the squeaky wheel for individual Internet users. That means that where it identifies individual users' interests, ALAC has to be speaking up at every public comment period, intervening at every public forum, asking for direct meetings and briefings, and honing its arguments. It should be easy to point to the ALAC positions on any given topic -- and hard to ignore it. Where ALAC hasn't identified the interest or interests of individuals, it must at least make the issues more visible to the wider at-large public and get out of the way to give others a better chance to express their views. Better still, use ALAC's resources to work with those who are finding issues (such as Bret and Danny). ALAC needs to track the open issues and comment periods, particularly <http://www.icann.org/public_comment/>. All of these represent issues the GNSO or Board will be asked to decide. Can ALAC request or make an "individual impact statement" for each -- and then go on to formulate proposals for improving or minimizing that impact? If ALAC can't do this for individual Internet users, please help to identify why not, so we can at least make clear recommendations for improvement in the ALAC review. Thanks, --Wendy Bret Fausett wrote:
I have to admit to being awfully frustrated with the ALAC as an organization.
In mid-October, ICANN asked for public comment on its proposed transparency and accountability framework. About the same time, I volunteered to coordinate comments on this. I started an ALAC wiki page on the subject. I notified the ALAC of my interest and posted the URL of the wiki page. I wrote the wiki page. I sent the URL of the wiki page to the ALAC. *Three times.* I raised the issue when we were in Los Angeles together. Two times during the LA public forums, Vint Cerf asked for public comments on transparency and accountability. He said it was important because such comments would become part of the JPA discussions with the USDOC in 2008. On November 8th, four days before the deadline, I *again* reminded the ALAC that the comment period was closing and pointed to the wiki page.
The wiki page started on October 18th and the comment deadline closed on November 12th. In the month before the closing date, most of the work to prepare an ALAC comment was done. The ALAC had to do nothing more than review the document, approve or revise it, and post it. Since the time I volunteered and drafted the wiki page, the ALAC has held two conference calls and met in person for a week. Yet, the ALAC did nothing at all. You didn't even say, "no, we don't agree with that, we'll draft something else."
This is deeply disappointing and points to serious problems with the ALAC as an organization. You need to find ways of working against deadlines, using the energy of people willing to contribute, and paying attention to the evolution of ICANN's ongoing work. Consider this a vote of no confidence in the current ALAC.
Bret
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?alac_comments_on_accountability_and_tran...
-- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html
-- 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/
Wendy, As a recent ALAC member and one who consciously decided to become an ex-member(partly out of frustration), I've got a few things to share on this subject, but I'll try to be very brief for a starter. 1. There is a wide spectrum of issues ALAC can be potentially involved in, almost any ICANN issue. ALAC is not gNSO or ccNSO with well-defined issues and interests that it can zoom in on with a disciplined agenda. 2. GAC is almost like ALAC in that the range of issues they deal with can be very broad ('public policy', what isn't for some governments?). But their task is easier for two reasons: A. Many GAC members come in with well-developed positions formulated at 'home'. B. Most GAC members probably enjoy the services of staff who can do a lot of their homework, and being a GAC member is probably part of their paid job. 3. Standing up at ICANN meetings or making individual contributions in comment periods is not what ALAC is about as a COMMITTEE. 4. Frankly, with the range of issues, the diversity of interests(and indifferences) of ALAC members, dearth of research-staff support, and the volunteer status of ALAC members, I don't know how ALAC can become an effective body. 5. That said, I'm not totally pessimistic. I believe a good task for ALAC and for the upcoming review panel is to spend a lot of time on just this issue: How to have an effective ALAC or better, how to have an effective at-large representation. There was a lot of naive optimism and propaganda about how the formation of RALOs will make ALAC work better. I don't think there's been much difference, and I'm afraid the achievement and celebration of RALO institution will become a cause for indulgence. Rgds, Siavash
I hope ALAC is seriously considering the recent posts by Bret and Danny. These are both people who have been doing a great deal to support the interests of individual Internet users, and both are frustrated with the lack of visible progress from the ALAC. I hope ALAC can take these messages as constructive criticisms and move forward from them.
One of the things I've seen while sitting with the Board is ICANN's similarity to other organizations we've all worked with: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Those who make noise persistently get attention and often response, while those who don't don't. Sure, there are places that doesn't hold, but much of ICANN's work is outside of .com and .xxx votes. So ALAC needs to be the squeaky wheel for individual Internet users.
That means that where it identifies individual users' interests, ALAC has to be speaking up at every public comment period, intervening at every public forum, asking for direct meetings and briefings, and honing its arguments. It should be easy to point to the ALAC positions on any given topic -- and hard to ignore it. Where ALAC hasn't identified the interest or interests of individuals, it must at least make the issues more visible to the wider at-large public and get out of the way to give others a better chance to express their views. Better still, use ALAC's resources to work with those who are finding issues (such as Bret and Danny).
ALAC needs to track the open issues and comment periods, particularly <http://www.icann.org/public_comment/>. All of these represent issues the GNSO or Board will be asked to decide. Can ALAC request or make an "individual impact statement" for each -- and then go on to formulate proposals for improving or minimizing that impact? If ALAC can't do this for individual Internet users, please help to identify why not, so we can at least make clear recommendations for improvement in the ALAC review.
Thanks, --Wendy
Bret Fausett wrote:
I have to admit to being awfully frustrated with the ALAC as an organization.
In mid-October, ICANN asked for public comment on its proposed transparency and accountability framework. About the same time, I volunteered to coordinate comments on this. I started an ALAC wiki page on the subject. I notified the ALAC of my interest and posted the URL of the wiki page. I wrote the wiki page. I sent the URL of the wiki page to the ALAC. *Three times.* I raised the issue when we were in Los Angeles together. Two times during the LA public forums, Vint Cerf asked for public comments on transparency and accountability. He said it was important because such comments would become part of the JPA discussions with the USDOC in 2008. On November 8th, four days before the deadline, I *again* reminded the ALAC that the comment period was closing and pointed to the wiki page.
The wiki page started on October 18th and the comment deadline closed on November 12th. In the month before the closing date, most of the work to prepare an ALAC comment was done. The ALAC had to do nothing more than review the document, approve or revise it, and post it. Since the time I volunteered and drafted the wiki page, the ALAC has held two conference calls and met in person for a week. Yet, the ALAC did nothing at all. You didn't even say, "no, we don't agree with that, we'll draft something else."
This is deeply disappointing and points to serious problems with the ALAC as an organization. You need to find ways of working against deadlines, using the energy of people willing to contribute, and paying attention to the evolution of ICANN's ongoing work. Consider this a vote of no confidence in the current ALAC.
Bret
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?alac_comments_on_accountability_and_tran...
-- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html
-- 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
Dear Brett, Wendy and Shiavash, On behalf of the current ALAC and particularly its newly appointed officers, thank you all for your insightful and considered commentary, observation(s) and suggestions, particularly as they put so much historical context into what we must currently review and analyse, if we are to benefit in the best way possible from our ALAC Review period... Desired outcomes are often easier to identify than a clear pathway, mutually agreeable and effective way to finding how to action them, and I for one am excited by this very prospect... Most importantly we need to be aware that in the limited time that our volunteers have to offer, not only do we need to assist them in every way possible, we most importantly need to *action* ALAC endorsement (or whatever is the outcome / reaction) *and publically recognise and appreciate* the work they have done, and this was clearly not the case in the issue Brett's email of the 21st November, originally raised... But of greatest concern to me right now is that whilst there can be no acceptable excuses (perhaps a number of reasons) but no good excuses, for such important matters to have not made it into any previous ALAC Agenda, (and with the clarity of hindsight, many of us would have handled this and various other matters in a different way), new mechanisms are now agreed to, and are starting to be put into place... Further, we have to recognise that the efforts by Brett need not in any way be seen as wasted:- As an Advisory Committee of the ICANN Board, we have unique opportunity to exercise our ability to comment outside of public commentary deadlines, and on this matter I propose that we do exactly that: -> create an endorsed document built upon this work of At-Large, and transmit such to the Board as an Advisory. We also need to prioritise, and right now we have a number of time critical activities and demands: - So you guessed it it's time to allocate a task and responsibility... Our Deputy Chair, Vanda Scartezini indicated her keen interest in the process and outcomes of the ALAC Review, from the moment she was on board, and I can't imagine a better qualified and experienced person to take the ALAC lead position on this vital subject. To that end unless there are objections from the ALAC I propose that:- 1) under Vanda's lead the ALAC firstly take the Wiki page, work and list activity on the matter of the ICANN transparency and accountability framework and create post haste a suitable Advisory and or ALAC Statement on this topic for formal endorsement and transmission to the Board. 2) that for this purpose Vanda be able to request any assistance or reasonable resources to assist her in this process, from either within ALAC, the RALO's and ALS's or from the wider At-Large Community. 3) that as a follow on from this reparatory matter of urgency, i) at our next Teleconference on December 11th, a mechanism is agreed to whereby, an interim method and tool for project and activity tracking and resource management (which was agreed in LA we see as one mechanism for addressing these workload distribution and follow up problems) - and yes we realise that new web page design will offer us other tools but we need something working right now... is created. ii) that a ALAC SC is formed to ensure that current and future activities and work are timetabled into this; And iii)further, that an analysis on the track record of previous ALAC work activities is reviewed and in some way measured, so that some performance metrics of our new work practices mechanism(s) as well as any future modification of it after our review, can be measured... And iv) that such a tool and any of its associated collaborative spaces are, most importantly, easily navigated to from out ALAC Web front page, and that specific work collaboration spaces, supporting documents and progress reports are easily linked to any particular activity. And v) That in the February 2008 ICANN Meeting a report on this internal ALAC activity and work practices review is presented. Your comments and reactions to the Public List on this matter please.... CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Siavash Shahshahani Sent: Monday, 26 November 2007 3:21 AM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: Kieren McCarthy; ALAC At-Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] Serious problems with the ALAC Wendy, As a recent ALAC member and one who consciously decided to become an ex-member(partly out of frustration), I've got a few things to share on this subject, but I'll try to be very brief for a starter. 1. There is a wide spectrum of issues ALAC can be potentially involved in, almost any ICANN issue. ALAC is not gNSO or ccNSO with well-defined issues and interests that it can zoom in on with a disciplined agenda. 2. GAC is almost like ALAC in that the range of issues they deal with can be very broad ('public policy', what isn't for some governments?). But their task is easier for two reasons: A. Many GAC members come in with well-developed positions formulated at 'home'. B. Most GAC members probably enjoy the services of staff who can do a lot of their homework, and being a GAC member is probably part of their paid job. 3. Standing up at ICANN meetings or making individual contributions in comment periods is not what ALAC is about as a COMMITTEE. 4. Frankly, with the range of issues, the diversity of interests(and indifferences) of ALAC members, dearth of research-staff support, and the volunteer status of ALAC members, I don't know how ALAC can become an effective body. 5. That said, I'm not totally pessimistic. I believe a good task for ALAC and for the upcoming review panel is to spend a lot of time on just this issue: How to have an effective ALAC or better, how to have an effective at-large representation. There was a lot of naive optimism and propaganda about how the formation of RALOs will make ALAC work better. I don't think there's been much difference, and I'm afraid the achievement and celebration of RALO institution will become a cause for indulgence. Rgds, Siavash
I hope ALAC is seriously considering the recent posts by Bret and Danny. These are both people who have been doing a great deal to support the interests of individual Internet users, and both are frustrated with the lack of visible progress from the ALAC. I hope ALAC can take these messages as constructive criticisms and move forward from them.
One of the things I've seen while sitting with the Board is ICANN's similarity to other organizations we've all worked with: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Those who make noise persistently get attention and often response, while those who don't don't. Sure, there are places that doesn't hold, but much of ICANN's work is outside of .com and .xxx votes. So ALAC needs to be the squeaky wheel for individual Internet users.
That means that where it identifies individual users' interests, ALAC has to be speaking up at every public comment period, intervening at every public forum, asking for direct meetings and briefings, and honing its arguments. It should be easy to point to the ALAC positions on any given topic -- and hard to ignore it. Where ALAC hasn't identified the interest or interests of individuals, it must at least make the issues more visible to the wider at-large public and get out of the way to give others a better chance to express their views. Better still, use ALAC's resources to work with those who are finding issues (such as Bret and Danny).
ALAC needs to track the open issues and comment periods, particularly <http://www.icann.org/public_comment/>. All of these represent issues the GNSO or Board will be asked to decide. Can ALAC request or make an "individual impact statement" for each -- and then go on to formulate proposals for improving or minimizing that impact? If ALAC can't do this for individual Internet users, please help to identify why not, so we can at least make clear recommendations for improvement in the ALAC review.
Thanks, --Wendy
Bret Fausett wrote:
I have to admit to being awfully frustrated with the ALAC as an organization.
In mid-October, ICANN asked for public comment on its proposed transparency and accountability framework. About the same time, I volunteered to coordinate comments on this. I started an ALAC wiki page on the subject. I notified the ALAC of my interest and posted the URL of the wiki page. I wrote the wiki page. I sent the URL of the wiki page to the ALAC. *Three times.* I raised the issue when we were in Los Angeles together. Two times during the LA public forums, Vint Cerf asked for public comments on transparency and accountability. He said it was important because such comments would become part of the JPA discussions with the USDOC in 2008. On November 8th, four days before the deadline, I *again* reminded the ALAC that the comment period was closing and pointed to the wiki page.
The wiki page started on October 18th and the comment deadline closed on November 12th. In the month before the closing date, most of the work to prepare an ALAC comment was done. The ALAC had to do nothing more than review the document, approve or revise it, and post it. Since the time I volunteered and drafted the wiki page, the ALAC has held two conference calls and met in person for a week. Yet, the ALAC did nothing at all. You didn't even say, "no, we don't agree with that, we'll draft something else."
This is deeply disappointing and points to serious problems with the ALAC as an organization. You need to find ways of working against deadlines, using the energy of people willing to contribute, and paying attention to the evolution of ICANN's ongoing work. Consider this a vote of no confidence in the current ALAC.
Bret
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?alac_comments_on_accountability_and_tran sparency_frameworks_and_principles_for_consultation
-- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html
-- 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir ----------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
participants (4)
-
Bret Fausett -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Siavash Shahshahani -
Wendy Seltzer