Re: [At-Large] My condolences
At 28/03/2010 10:46 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
If the Board wants to "redeem" itself, it will work with At-Large to help deal with our loss of a conduit once the transition happens from official liaison to Board member. Once that transition is complete, At-Large's ability to initiate policy as a constituency will be severely reduced. We will be reduced to reacting through conventional public comment mechanisms. Perhaps At-Large PDP needs its own board-blessed PDP process?
I disagree about our being reduced to only interacting in Public Comment periods. First, we are still a Board Advisory Committee. We need to ensure that when we "advise" the Board, it really is substantive. And given that, we need to *AGAIN* point out that feedback is a necessary part of the process. Not having a Liaison takes all of their excuses away, which at some level, is a good thing. That being said, I would not depreciate the impact of public comment period comments on issues that are not immediately at the stage of a Board decision. These days, they are listened to and a lot harder to ignore than even a year ago. Alan
On 28 March 2010 23:38, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
First, we are still a Board Advisory Committee.
But all Board Advisory Committees are not created equal. It's my understanding that the Board *must* respond to GAC advisories but under no similar obligation with regard to ALAC.
Not having a Liaison takes all of their excuses away, which at some level, is a good thing.
May be. But with neither a Board liaison nor a requirement for it to respond to ALAC initiatives, this seems the worst of both worlds. - Evan
On 28 March 2010 23:38, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
First, we are still a Board Advisory Committee.
But all Board Advisory Committees are not created equal. It's my understanding that the Board *must* respond to GAC advisories but under no similar obligation with regard to ALAC.
Not having a Liaison takes all of their excuses away, which at some level, is a good thing.
May be. But with neither a Board liaison nor a requirement for it to respond to ALAC initiatives, this seems the worst of both worlds.
Very much agree. We, and I mean all SO/AC not just ALAC, really need that feedback loop of how advice has been taken into consideration, and if not taken up why not. We've been asking for years. And to move forward with the discussion we had with the NCUC about a joint resolution regarding access to staff briefings to the board., which I hope I have the final text of: "ICANN's transparency commitment demands the adoption of a principle of default openness for all Board communications except in those specific instances where it is overridden, in writing, by the principle of personal privacy or an explicit requirement for confidentiality. It is especially critical that the contributions of supporting organizations and advisory committees be presented to the Board accurately and completely. While we appreciate the need for staff to summarize matters that are often complex, we must stress the importance of ensuring that these summaries accurately report the relevant facts and positions. Openness and public review will minimize inaccuracies, facilitating the role of staff while enhancing public confidence in the Board's decision-making process. We request that the Board change its policy so that all briefing documents are made publicly accessible in advance of presentation, except for those for which explicit legitimate reason is given in writing for the requirement of confidentiality." We should move forward with this. Adam
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (3)
-
Adam Peake -
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch