Discussions should be transparent / Open ...
I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list. Any support on this matter would be most welcome. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
I strongly support transparency of ALAC discussions. Letting members of the public read and participate in the discussions helps to educate them and us about the issues, and it's part of the outreach ALAC owes the at-large public. Transparency in ALAC's work helps me as board liaison to encourage the Board to be more open in its communications. We also speak with a stronger voice to the board when ALAC communications are backed by an open archive of the discussions that led to decision. Thanks, --Wendy Robert Guerra wrote:
I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list.
Any support on this matter would be most welcome.
-- 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/
Support +1 RG _____ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, 05 December 2007 20:17 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ... I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list. Any support on this matter would be most welcome. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
Me too. Policy issues must be bottom up, hence full open! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br P Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." _____ De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Roberto Gaetano Enviada em: quarta-feira, 5 de dezembro de 2007 19:17 Para: 'Robert Guerra'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Assunto: Re: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ... Support +1 RG _____ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, 05 December 2007 20:17 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ... I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list. Any support on this matter would be most welcome. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
I would like ALAC to come up with a written policy about when a topic can be discussed on the internal list rather than the public one. There should be a very limited set of reasons. At 2:17 PM -0500 12/5/07, Robert Guerra recently said:
I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list.
Any support on this matter would be most welcome.
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <<mailto:rguerra@privaterra.ca>rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
_______________________________________________ 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
Didn’t the ALAC agree to this ages ago? And haven’t all the policy issues been discussed on the public list? If you’re talking about final wordsmithing on a document for 24-48 hours after a month in discussion on the public list, I don’t see that as being a violation of transparency and openness. More a practical way to finally get a document finished and approved by ALAC to send out in time! Jacqueline From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 15:17 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ... I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list. Any support on this matter would be most welcome. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <HYPERLINK "mailto:rguerra@privaterra.ca"rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 21:29 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 21:29
A private discussion to wordsmith a public policy, isn't really a transparent process. The larger At-Large community should be able to both see the discussions taking place and also contribute in all steps of the process. I stand by my statement that only - confidential - matters should be discussed on the internal ALAC list. All other discussions, especially items related to policy should be public. Might I suggest second the process called for by Jean, that being that a document be drafted (and agreed by both ALAC and the larger at- large community) to define what specific items are for the internal list. Having a well defined policy will make it clear what indeed to be privately discussed, and what by default should be open and public. regards Robert On 6-Dec-07, at 7:33 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Didn’t the ALAC agree to this ages ago? And haven’t all the policy issues been discussed on the public list? If you’re talking about final wordsmithing on a document for 24-48 hours after a month in discussion on the public list, I don’t see that as being a violation of transparency and openness. More a practical way to finally get a document finished and approved by ALAC to send out in time! Jacqueline
From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 15:17 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ...
I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list.
Any support on this matter would be most welcome.
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 21:29
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 21:29
Hi Robert I think we are all agreed on the principles of transparency and openness, as we have agreed every time that this issue is brought up. But there has to be practicality as well. To follow up on Darlene's post, it might be interesting to find out from the members of the public list if they'd like to have the 40 or so emails that came out in the last 2 days about 2 paragraphs in the document in their mailboxes. The majority of the subscribers to the list are just reading, and many of them are in the developing world and some have very little and very expensive connectivity, that they really didn't want to waste on downloading loads of emails that discuss the difference between "advocate" and "prefer" - There were multiple emails only on that one word yesterday (several were from me, mea culpa) It might be more reasonable to have the wordsmithing done separately and posted online (archive) for people to see if they wanted to, and not cluttering up the mailboxes of the subscribers to the main public list - as is done with the working groups. Or Cheryl's suggestion to post the wordsmithing submissions along with the final document on the wiki Or use a wiki and not an email list (that is what they were designed for - collaborative document creation) Jacqueline On Dec 6, 2007 10:57 AM, Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
A private discussion to wordsmith a public policy, isn't really a transparent process.
The larger At-Large community should be able to both see the discussions taking place and also contribute in all steps of the process. I stand by my statement that only - confidential - matters should be discussed on the internal ALAC list. All other discussions, especially items related to policy should be public.
Might I suggest second the process called for by Jean, that being that a document be drafted (and agreed by both ALAC and the larger at-large community) to define what specific items are for the internal list. Having a well defined policy will make it clear what indeed to be privately discussed, and what by default should be open and public.
regards
Robert
On 6-Dec-07, at 7:33 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Didn't the ALAC agree to this ages ago? And haven't all the policy issues been discussed on the public list? If you're talking about final wordsmithing on a document for 24-48 hours after a month in discussion on the public list, I don't see that as being a violation of transparency and openness. More a practical way to finally get a document finished and approved by ALAC to send out in time! Jacqueline
From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 15:17 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ...
I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list.
Any support on this matter would be most welcome.
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 21:29
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 21:29
_______________________________________________ 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
If it were so easy to make a distinction between wordsmithing and policy development, I might agree to keep wordsmithing off the public list. In reality, however, most of ALAC policy discussion also takes place at the last minute, and so taking these late-stage discussions off the public list effectively closes the public out of the real ALAC decisionmaking. I therefore recommend that all such discussions take place on *the* public list (and not on one of a series of sub-lists either, by which discussion can be fragmented such that interested members find out only once a decision has been taken). --Wendy Jacqueline Morris wrote:
Hi Robert I think we are all agreed on the principles of transparency and openness, as we have agreed every time that this issue is brought up. But there has to be practicality as well.
To follow up on Darlene's post, it might be interesting to find out from the members of the public list if they'd like to have the 40 or so emails that came out in the last 2 days about 2 paragraphs in the document in their mailboxes. The majority of the subscribers to the list are just reading, and many of them are in the developing world and some have very little and very expensive connectivity, that they really didn't want to waste on downloading loads of emails that discuss the difference between "advocate" and "prefer" - There were multiple emails only on that one word yesterday (several were from me, mea culpa)
It might be more reasonable to have the wordsmithing done separately and posted online (archive) for people to see if they wanted to, and not cluttering up the mailboxes of the subscribers to the main public list - as is done with the working groups. Or Cheryl's suggestion to post the wordsmithing submissions along with the final document on the wiki Or use a wiki and not an email list (that is what they were designed for - collaborative document creation)
Jacqueline
On Dec 6, 2007 10:57 AM, Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
A private discussion to wordsmith a public policy, isn't really a transparent process.
The larger At-Large community should be able to both see the discussions taking place and also contribute in all steps of the process. I stand by my statement that only - confidential - matters should be discussed on the internal ALAC list. All other discussions, especially items related to policy should be public.
Might I suggest second the process called for by Jean, that being that a document be drafted (and agreed by both ALAC and the larger at-large community) to define what specific items are for the internal list. Having a well defined policy will make it clear what indeed to be privately discussed, and what by default should be open and public.
regards
Robert
On 6-Dec-07, at 7:33 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Didn't the ALAC agree to this ages ago? And haven't all the policy issues been discussed on the public list? If you're talking about final wordsmithing on a document for 24-48 hours after a month in discussion on the public list, I don't see that as being a violation of transparency and openness. More a practical way to finally get a document finished and approved by ALAC to send out in time! Jacqueline
From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 15:17 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ...
I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list.
Any support on this matter would be most welcome.
regards,
Robert
Why not simply have a list that is publicly archived and available for all to see. That is what the GNSO does, and it seems to work just fine. Too bad "alac@..." is already used for this list - it would have been the perfect name. To the extent that there is occasionally traffic that needs to be private or unrelated to ICANN activities (I recently posted a message asking if other ALAC members were planning to be a tourist for a few days after the Delhi meeting), we can have a separate and non-archived list that is truly used only for those sensitive or social/non-ICANN issues. Or we can skip having a new list and just use direct mail. Alan
I heartily endorse this. Bret On Dec 6, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Why not simply have a list that is publicly archived and available for all to see. That is what the GNSO does, and it seems to work just fine.
-- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html -------------------------------------
I will second Alan's proposal regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 6-Dec-07, at 4:53 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unverified key: 12/06/07 at 16:53:13
I heartily endorse this.
Bret
On Dec 6, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Why not simply have a list that is publicly archived and available for all to see. That is what the GNSO does, and it seems to work just fine.
Fine I'll put it onto the Agenda for Tuesday as a formal motion then... :-) CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Friday, 7 December 2007 9:24 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ... I will second Alan's proposal regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 6-Dec-07, at 4:53 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unverified key: 12/06/07 at 16:53:13
I heartily endorse this.
Bret
On Dec 6, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Why not simply have a list that is publicly archived and available for all to see. That is what the GNSO does, and it seems to work just fine.
_______________________________________________ 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
Perhaps we all (and particularly our Vice Chair) note the following from next Tuesdays ALAC meeting Agenda https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?11_december_2007 Other Matters From Previous Meetings 1. Working Practices of the Committee 1. Use of alac-internal and public alac lists for working AND PLEASE NOTE: this item was listed for discussion as point #1 at our FIRST meeting of the ALAC since LA and our restructure / membership... But that this item along with many others were not covered off once we lost the quorum due to the unusable phone bridge issues... CLO From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Friday, 7 December 2007 1:57 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ... A private discussion to wordsmith a public policy, isn't really a transparent process. The larger At-Large community should be able to both see the discussions taking place and also contribute in all steps of the process. I stand by my statement that only - confidential - matters should be discussed on the internal ALAC list. All other discussions, especially items related to policy should be public. Might I suggest second the process called for by Jean, that being that a document be drafted (and agreed by both ALAC and the larger at-large community) to define what specific items are for the internal list. Having a well defined policy will make it clear what indeed to be privately discussed, and what by default should be open and public. regards Robert On 6-Dec-07, at 7:33 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: Didn't the ALAC agree to this ages ago? And haven't all the policy issues been discussed on the public list? If you're talking about final wordsmithing on a document for 24-48 hours after a month in discussion on the public list, I don't see that as being a violation of transparency and openness. More a practical way to finally get a document finished and approved by ALAC to send out in time! Jacqueline From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 15:17 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ... I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list. Any support on this matter would be most welcome. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 21:29 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 21:29
I agree and also think that final "word-smithing" on documents can be held on the public lists, too. Having said that, cudos to all that worked so hard at getting the Domain Tasting document in on time and this e-mail should in no way be seen as derogatory to those people. It's a general statement. I will, however, always support transparency. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 975-6510 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:17 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ... I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list. Any support on this matter would be most welcome. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
I didn't see the handling of Domain Tasting statement as violation of transparency etc, and also agree with Jacqueline that final wordsmith can be done at internal list, provided almost all substantive discussion was done on the open public list. It also may relate to how "ALAC statement" as such is formulated and released. In ideal situation, or for formal resolution, there will be "final call" - to send the latest draft and ask for every 15 committee member - 10 of whom represent RALOs (at least in theory), and 5 NomCom designated representative of wider community 15 members will say YES or NO within, say 24 hours, if majority of 15 say YES, then it becomes formal. Well, that is calling for Votes. HOWEVER, making statements do not work this way in reality. Usually, the final draft will be sent, asking for any "strong" descents, otherwise it is adopted by silent majority. BUT, if it is sent to "public list", there is a risk of not making the final closure in time, or there is some vague procedure issue still remain. I don't know how to address this in a perfect way. I know it still can be done, but having dobule track, one in public and one for internal wordsmith, is not that bad way, to me. I do not see there has been no real intention to hide anything. Just a metter of efficiency. OR, was there any specific example of making final twist only on internal list? I did not see it. I thought Alan has posted all the drafts to the public list untli end. izumi 2007/12/6, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca>:
I agree and also think that final "word-smithing" on documents can be held on the public lists, too.
Having said that, cudos to all that worked so hard at getting the Domain Tasting document in on time and this e-mail should in no way be seen as derogatory to those people. It's a general statement.
I will, however, always support transparency.
Darlene
Darlene A. Thompson
Community Access Program Administrator
Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP
c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0
Phone: (867) 975-6531
Fax: (867) 975-6510
dthompson@gov.nu.ca ------------------------------
*From:* alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Guerra *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:17 PM *To:* At-Large Worldwide *Subject:* [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ...
I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list.
Any support on this matter would be most welcome.
regards,
Robert
---
Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca>
Managing Director, Privaterra
Tel +1 416 893 0377
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Izumi, Please do not take anything that I said to mean that I thought that there was any kind of intention to hide anything and I truly do not think that anything was "twisted" on the internal list. I also do not think that it was intentional to "hide" any of the conversation. I think it was completely unintentional and only because of the time crunch that everybody was under. I, too, do not have any perfect way to address this and yes, Alan did post the final draft to the public list. Or, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people on the public list don't want their e-mail in-boxes flooded with e-mails that are mainly word-smithing (I know I sure got a ton of them over the last couple of days). Anyways, I'm going to stop rambling now. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 975-6510 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: izumiaizu@gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:11 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Robert Guerra; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ... I didn't see the handling of Domain Tasting statement as violation of transparency etc, and also agree with Jacqueline that final wordsmith can be done at internal list, provided almost all substantive discussion was done on the open public list. It also may relate to how "ALAC statement" as such is formulated and released. In ideal situation, or for formal resolution, there will be "final call" - to send the latest draft and ask for every 15 committee member - 10 of whom represent RALOs (at least in theory), and 5 NomCom designated representative of wider community 15 members will say YES or NO within, say 24 hours, if majority of 15 say YES, then it becomes formal. Well, that is calling for Votes. HOWEVER, making statements do not work this way in reality. Usually, the final draft will be sent, asking for any "strong" descents, otherwise it is adopted by silent majority. BUT, if it is sent to "public list", there is a risk of not making the final closure in time, or there is some vague procedure issue still remain. I don't know how to address this in a perfect way. I know it still can be done, but having dobule track, one in public and one for internal wordsmith, is not that bad way, to me. I do not see there has been no real intention to hide anything. Just a metter of efficiency. OR, was there any specific example of making final twist only on internal list? I did not see it. I thought Alan has posted all the drafts to the public list untli end. izumi 2007/12/6, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca >: I agree and also think that final "word-smithing" on documents can be held on the public lists, too. Having said that, cudos to all that worked so hard at getting the Domain Tasting document in on time and this e-mail should in no way be seen as derogatory to those people. It's a general statement. I will, however, always support transparency. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 975-6510 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:17 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Discussions should be transparent / Open ... I've repeatedly been raising the issue - that in fact the ALAC internal list should be for confidential matters, while all discussions (especially policy) should take place on the more open and transparent public at-large list. Any support on this matter would be most welcome. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra < rguerra@privaterra.ca <mailto:rguerra@privaterra.ca> > Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 _______________________________________________ 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
On 2007-12-06 23:11:16 +0900, Izumi Aizu wrote:
HOWEVER, making statements do not work this way in reality. Usually, the final draft will be sent, asking for any "strong" descents, otherwise it is adopted by silent majority. BUT, if it is sent to "public list", there is a risk of not making the final closure in time, or there is some vague procedure issue still remain. I don't know how to address this in a perfect way.
The way these things get usually done is that the chair declares consensus based on the strength of objections. If strong objections remain, a minority opinion is included in the document. That's not rocket science, and it's not a new invention, either. (This discussion is *so* 2003...)
I know it still can be done, but having dobule track, one in public and one for internal wordsmith, is not that bad way, to me.
I see some risks and no real benefit. -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
participants (13)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bret Fausett -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Izumi AIZU -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Jacqueline Morris -
Jean Armour Polly -
Robert Guerra -
Roberto Gaetano -
Thomas Roessler -
Thompson, Darlene -
Vanda Scartezini UOL -
Wendy Seltzer