ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
Alan and Wendy, Thanks for your work on this document. Allow me to point out what still is missing. We need some emphasis on the obligation of ALAC members to act to decertify non-participating ALSs. At this point, that's the vast bulk of those that have been certified. I would guess that probably close to 90% do not participate at all in any exchange of dialogue. The ICANN Bylaws tell us that "Decisions to certify or decertify an At-Large Structure shall be made as decided by the ALAC in its Rules of Procedure". Unfortunately, whoever drafted the rules of procedure must have thought that they were crafting a document for the United Nations General Assembly, so, of course, no decertification process is outlined within. You're not going to be viewed as an accountable body if you continue to carry this much noncontributing dead wood on your membership roster. At the major GNSO conference that was just held in LA on new gTLD implementation considerations, how many ALSs had their reps in attendance (either remotely or in person)? Just two. That's rather pathetic when the ALAC claims to have 100 or so ALSs signed up. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I agree about decertification, although I am not at all sure that lack of participation should be the driving issue. Before I decertify ALSs for lack of participation, I would like to see some info and stats about how the RALOs are drawing them into the discussions. On participation in the gTLD session, I think that this may a bit too far removed from most ALSs, particularly since the announced topic was how to implement the existing GNSO proposals (and not re-opening the discussion on the proposals). Alan At 12/04/2008 03:41 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan and Wendy,
Thanks for your work on this document. Allow me to point out what still is missing.
We need some emphasis on the obligation of ALAC members to act to decertify non-participating ALSs.
At this point, that's the vast bulk of those that have been certified. I would guess that probably close to 90% do not participate at all in any exchange of dialogue.
The ICANN Bylaws tell us that "Decisions to certify or decertify an At-Large Structure shall be made as decided by the ALAC in its Rules of Procedure".
Unfortunately, whoever drafted the rules of procedure must have thought that they were crafting a document for the United Nations General Assembly, so, of course, no decertification process is outlined within.
You're not going to be viewed as an accountable body if you continue to carry this much noncontributing dead wood on your membership roster.
At the major GNSO conference that was just held in LA on new gTLD implementation considerations, how many ALSs had their reps in attendance (either remotely or in person)? Just two. That's rather pathetic when the ALAC claims to have 100 or so ALSs signed up.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ 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://atlarge.icann.org
Greetings everyone! I would be careful about decertification of non-participating ALSs, instead I would rather think about a mechanism that can help us improve the process/situation and there are a number of comments/ideas I want to share here: 1. There are parts of the world from where it is hard to get organizations interested to join ALS. e.g. We have now finally an organization from Romania that applied (APTI), but if I am to speak in general about the region I come from, it is difficult to get people in: the community is not ready yet, lack of awareness vis-a-vis those issues we are discussing about at ICANN level, etc. It is much more difficult to get organizations in compared to decertifying them:)! 2. Once we have new ALSs 'on board' there should be an "accommodation phase" (from 1-3 months max): period during which new ALSs go through the reports, reading the vast amount of information, participate in their first teleconferences, etc. 3. After the 'accommodation phase', ALSs can/might be asked to submit brief reports on a monthly basis emphasizing 2 aspects: their contribution to RALOs discussion/policy issues/working groups, etc. AND their 'home' related news: an event they organized, a publication they made, or anything else the organization did in connection to any user related issues/policy/problems, etc. 4. If any ALS fails to report 3 months in turn, then we can discuss about decertification of this certain ALS. If at this point, as Danny said "I would guess that probably close to 90% do not participate at all in any exchange of dialogue" than, we definitely need a mechanism in place that would involve a greater participation of the ALSs in the dialogue. Do we know what are the main reasons these organizations are hesitant to any involvement: - How have we asked them (any survey done?, any interviews conducted or anything else), - What are the challenges that ALSs might face in regards to the issues being discussed and the way they might get invovled into these discussions? - How many reports have we received from ALSs so far? - How many and what kind of complaints have we received from ALSs? etc. I think before we start discussing about the decertification, we should assess what can still be done/improved. Any ideas are welcome ... Have a great weekend ahead everyone, as ever, Veronica -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:24:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy I agree about decertification, although I am not at all sure that lack of participation should be the driving issue. Before I decertify ALSs for lack of participation, I would like to see some info and stats about how the RALOs are drawing them into the discussions. On participation in the gTLD session, I think that this may a bit too far removed from most ALSs, particularly since the announced topic was how to implement the existing GNSO proposals (and not re-opening the discussion on the proposals). Alan At 12/04/2008 03:41 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan and Wendy,
Thanks for your work on this document. Allow me to point out what still is missing.
We need some emphasis on the obligation of ALAC members to act to decertify non-participating ALSs.
At this point, that's the vast bulk of those that have been certified. I would guess that probably close to 90% do not participate at all in any exchange of dialogue.
The ICANN Bylaws tell us that "Decisions to certify or decertify an At-Large Structure shall be made as decided by the ALAC in its Rules of Procedure".
Unfortunately, whoever drafted the rules of procedure must have thought that they were crafting a document for the United Nations General Assembly, so, of course, no decertification process is outlined within.
You're not going to be viewed as an accountable body if you continue to carry this much noncontributing dead wood on your membership roster.
At the major GNSO conference that was just held in LA on new gTLD implementation considerations, how many ALSs had their reps in attendance (either remotely or in person)? Just two. That's rather pathetic when the ALAC claims to have 100 or so ALSs signed up.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ 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://atlarge.icann.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://atlarge.icann.org
To make it clear (just in case it was not), my position is not too different from Veronica's but in my view, getting ALSs up to be active has to be a RALO responsibility, aided by information and best-practices funneled through the ALAC. That notwithstanding, the ALAC needs to get the decertification PROCESS developed and on the books so that we can act when necessary. Alan At 13/04/2008 04:36 AM, Veronica Cretu wrote:
Greetings everyone!
I would be careful about decertification of non-participating ALSs, instead I would rather think about a mechanism that can help us improve the process/situation and there are a number of comments/ideas I want to share here:
1. There are parts of the world from where it is hard to get organizations interested to join ALS. e.g. We have now finally an organization from Romania that applied (APTI), but if I am to speak in general about the region I come from, it is difficult to get people in: the community is not ready yet, lack of awareness vis-a-vis those issues we are discussing about at ICANN level, etc. It is much more difficult to get organizations in compared to decertifying them:)!
2. Once we have new ALSs 'on board' there should be an "accommodation phase" (from 1-3 months max): period during which new ALSs go through the reports, reading the vast amount of information, participate in their first teleconferences, etc. 3. After the 'accommodation phase', ALSs can/might be asked to submit brief reports on a monthly basis emphasizing 2 aspects: their contribution to RALOs discussion/policy issues/working groups, etc. AND their 'home' related news: an event they organized, a publication they made, or anything else the organization did in connection to any user related issues/policy/problems, etc. 4. If any ALS fails to report 3 months in turn, then we can discuss about decertification of this certain ALS.
If at this point, as Danny said "I would guess that probably close to 90% do not participate at all in any exchange of dialogue" than, we definitely need a mechanism in place that would involve a greater participation of the ALSs in the dialogue.
Do we know what are the main reasons these organizations are hesitant to any involvement: - How have we asked them (any survey done?, any interviews conducted or anything else), - What are the challenges that ALSs might face in regards to the issues being discussed and the way they might get invovled into these discussions? - How many reports have we received from ALSs so far? - How many and what kind of complaints have we received from ALSs? etc.
I think before we start discussing about the decertification, we should assess what can still be done/improved.
Any ideas are welcome ...
Have a great weekend ahead everyone, as ever, Veronica
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:24:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
I agree about decertification, although I am not at all sure that lack of participation should be the driving issue. Before I decertify ALSs for lack of participation, I would like to see some info and stats about how the RALOs are drawing them into the discussions.
On participation in the gTLD session, I think that this may a bit too far removed from most ALSs, particularly since the announced topic was how to implement the existing GNSO proposals (and not re-opening the discussion on the proposals).
Alan
At 12/04/2008 03:41 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan and Wendy,
Thanks for your work on this document. Allow me to point out what still is missing.
We need some emphasis on the obligation of ALAC members to act to decertify non-participating ALSs.
At this point, that's the vast bulk of those that have been certified. I would guess that probably close to 90% do not participate at all in any exchange of dialogue.
The ICANN Bylaws tell us that "Decisions to certify or decertify an At-Large Structure shall be made as decided by the ALAC in its Rules of Procedure".
Unfortunately, whoever drafted the rules of procedure must have thought that they were crafting a document for the United Nations General Assembly, so, of course, no decertification process is outlined within.
You're not going to be viewed as an accountable body if you continue to carry this much noncontributing dead wood on your membership roster.
At the major GNSO conference that was just held in LA on new gTLD implementation considerations, how many ALSs had their reps in attendance (either remotely or in person)? Just two. That's rather pathetic when the ALAC claims to have 100 or so ALSs signed up.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ 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://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org
In a first place I agree with Veronica, on the other side I need to be insistent with the necesity to improve the communication of issues treated by ICANN, in order to fulfill this I consider very important to give at ALS`s translated documents. Nobody can participate if don`t know what happend. The largest community around the world don`t talk english. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar > Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:36:29 +0200> From: VeronicaC@diplomacy.edu> To: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy> > Greetings everyone! > > I would be careful about decertification of non-participating ALSs, instead > I would rather think about a mechanism that can help us improve the > process/situation and there are a number of comments/ideas I want to share > here: > > 1. There are parts of the world from where it is hard to get organizations > interested to join ALS. e.g. We have now finally an organization from > Romania that applied (APTI), but if I am to speak in general about the > region I come from, it is difficult to get people in: the community is not > ready yet, lack of awareness vis-a-vis those issues we are discussing about > at ICANN level, etc. It is much more difficult to get organizations in > compared to decertifying them:)!> > 2. Once we have new ALSs 'on board' there should be an "accommodation phase" > (from 1-3 months max): period during which new ALSs go through the reports, > reading the vast amount of information, participate in their first > teleconferences, etc.> 3. After the 'accommodation phase', ALSs can/might be asked to submit brief > reports on a monthly basis emphasizing 2 aspects: their contribution to > RALOs discussion/policy issues/working groups, etc. AND their 'home' related > news: an event they organized, a publication they made, or anything else the > organization did in connection to any user related issues/policy/problems, > etc. > 4. If any ALS fails to report 3 months in turn, then we can discuss about > decertification of this certain ALS. > > If at this point, as Danny said "I would guess that probably close to 90% do > not participate at all in any exchange of dialogue" than, we definitely need > a mechanism in place that would involve a greater participation of the ALSs > in the dialogue. > > Do we know what are the main reasons these organizations are hesitant to any > involvement: > - How have we asked them (any survey done?, any interviews conducted or > anything else), > - What are the challenges that ALSs might face in regards to the issues > being discussed and the way they might get invovled into these discussions? > - How many reports have we received from ALSs so far? > - How many and what kind of complaints have we received from ALSs? > etc. > > I think before we start discussing about the decertification, we should > assess what can still be done/improved. > > Any ideas are welcome ... > > Have a great weekend ahead everyone,> as ever,> Veronica > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> To: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:24:10 -0400> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of > Interest Policy> > > I agree about decertification, although I am not at all sure that > lack of participation should be the driving issue. Before I decertify > ALSs for lack of participation, I would like to see some info and > stats about how the RALOs are drawing them into the discussions.> > On participation in the gTLD session, I think that this may a bit too > far removed from most ALSs, particularly since the announced topic > was how to implement the existing GNSO proposals (and not re-opening > the discussion on the proposals).> > Alan> > At 12/04/2008 03:41 PM, Danny Younger wrote:> >Alan and Wendy,> >> >Thanks for your work on this document. Allow me to> >point out what still is missing.> >> >We need some emphasis on the obligation of ALAC> >members to act to decertify non-participating ALSs.> >> >At this point, that's the vast bulk of those that have> >been certified. I would guess that probably close to> >90% do not participate at all in any exchange of> >dialogue.> >> >The ICANN Bylaws tell us that "Decisions to certify or> >decertify an At-Large Structure shall be made as> >decided by the ALAC in its Rules of Procedure".> >> >Unfortunately, whoever drafted the rules of procedure> >must have thought that they were crafting a document> >for the United Nations General Assembly, so, of> >course, no decertification process is outlined within.> >> >You're not going to be viewed as an accountable body> >if you continue to carry this much noncontributing> >dead wood on your membership roster.> >> >At the major GNSO conference that was just held in LA> >on new gTLD implementation considerations, how many> >ALSs had their reps in attendance (either remotely or> >in person)? Just two. That's rather pathetic when> >the ALAC claims to have 100 or so ALSs signed up.> >> >> >> >__________________________________________________> >Do You Yahoo!?> >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around> >http://mail.yahoo.com> >> >_______________________________________________> >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://atlarge.icann.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://atlarge.icann.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://atlarge.icann.org _________________________________________________________________ Descargá ya gratis y vivà la experiencia Windows Live. http://www.descubrewindowslive.com/latam/index.html
Danny I know quite a few people who would have loved to participate, but it's impossible to attend physically, and very difficult to attend telephonically. ICANN certainly wasn't going to make call outs to even 10s of people in the Caribbean and Latin America. There was no webcast that was advertised, nor was interpretation offered, at least that I saw. It was also during work hours (for me at least). I know I can't tell my company- hey, I can't work today because I want to attend a teleconference on something that has no relevance to the job they pay me for. So - how was this made easy for people in Latin America and the Caribbean to participate? Quoting Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>:
At the major GNSO conference that was just held in LA on new gTLD implementation considerations, how many ALSs had their reps in attendance (either remotely or in person)? Just two. That's rather pathetic when the ALAC claims to have 100 or so ALSs signed up.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ 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://atlarge.icann.org
-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
It was also during work hours (for me at least). I know I can't tell my company- hey, I can't work today because I want to attend a teleconference on something that has no relevance to the job they pay me for. So - how was this made easy for people in Latin America and the Caribbean to participate?
And, for ALSes in Asai-Pacific, it was late night (for Australia and Pacific Islands even after midnight). How could we volunteers participate the tele-conferences actively at that time? Remember we all have a day-time job. Hong
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
carlos aguirre -
Danny Younger -
Hong Xue -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Veronica Cretu