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

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

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 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.

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 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

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>