ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
Dear Community members: The ALAC decided at their last meeting to request the staff to draft up a comprehensive Accountability Framework, which the ALAC Executive Committee was to review and amend at its meeting this month. The Chair proposed to the ExComm that at the same time a Conflicts of Interest Policy should be prepared as this was a natural accompaniment to the Accountability Framework. he ExComm has reviewed these two texts, and the ALAC is now to review the draft from 1 April until 11th April - comments from the wider At-Large community are of course welcomed. Any comments received are then to be incorporated and the resulting text will be on the agenda for adoption at the next ALAC Teleconference, in May. The URL for the text is as follows. In order to save bandwidth for those who do not have broadband, the text has not been attached to this message: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:200803311... French and Spanish translation will be available once they are ready. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Community members:
The ALAC decided at their last meeting to request the staff to draft up a comprehensive Accountability Framework, which the ALAC Executive Committee was to review and amend at its meeting this month. The Chair proposed to the ExComm that at the same time a Conflicts of Interest Policy should be prepared as this was a natural accompaniment to the Accountability Framework.
he ExComm has reviewed these two texts, and the ALAC is now to review the draft from 1 April until 11th April - comments from the wider At-Large community are of course welcomed.
Any comments received are then to be incorporated and the resulting text will be on the agenda for adoption at the next ALAC Teleconference, in May.
The URL for the text is as follows. In order to save bandwidth for those who do not have broadband, the text has not been attached to this message: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:200803311...
For those whose time is more valuable than a couple extra KB of download, I repeat my request that texts be INCLUDED as below: AL.ALAC/EX.0308/1/2.Rev1 ORIGINAL: English DATE: 27th March 2008 STATUS: DRAFT at-large ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK FOR ALAC MEMBERS Introductory Note by the Staff This document is the Accountability Framework for Members of the At-Large Advisory Committee. It is in draft form. The At-Large Advisory Committee resolved that the At-Large staff should prepare this document during its 11th March 2008 teleconference. It is to be reviewed by the Executive Committee of the ALAC at their 26th March 2008 teleconference, and then presented for the review and comments of the whole ALAC startiing on 31st March 2008. Comments will be taken up to 11th April 2008, at which point the ICANN Staff will provide a revised version incorporating comments received to the ALAC for discussion and a vote during their April monthly teleconference. Note on Translations The original version of this document is the English text, which will upon publication be available at http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/. The process of gaining agreement on the contents of the original text was conducted in English. Where a difference of interpretation exists or is perceived to exist between a non-English edition of this document and the original text, the original shall prevail. [End of Introduction] At-Large Advisory Committee Accountability Framework for Members This document is substantially a compilation of requirements of ALAC members that are to be found in several places. It is produced partly to ensure there is transparency in the obligations which Members of the ALAC have to each other and to the At-Large Community, but also as an exercise to ensure that obligations are kept up-to-date and provide a foundation for RALOs to use in developing Accountability Frameworks for their officers and members as they think relevant and helpful. In the text below, the source from which the requirement is drawn is noted as follows: ALAC Self-Review (ASR) – The then-Interim ALAC adopted a Self-Review of its work in November 2006. ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP) – Formal Rules of Procedure were adopted by the ALAC in October 2007. Following the indicator is the number of the Rule in question. Chair’s Statements (CS) – These obligations were announced by the Chair of the ALAC during meetings, and not objected to by Members, during Meetings of the ALAC New Proposals (NP) – These are new accountability elements proposed as a part of the drafting of this document. Bold Text – proposed new text which connects previously separate elements, or which provides enforcement or other provisions Strikethrough – text in the original source that is to be deleted. Requirements of All ALAC Members 1.(ASR) (RoP 21.1) Committee Members are expected to Actively Participate in all aspects of the committee’s work by: a.(ASR) (RoP 21.3) Reading and commenting in [the ALAC] online forums; b.(ASR) (RoP 21.4, 21.9) Following the ALS Certification process and voting in all ALS votes (abstentions count as a vote for this obligation) c.Meeting Participation (Telephonic) i.(ASR) (RoP 21.9) Participating in at least 2/3 of ALAC conference calls in any six month period ii.(RoP 21.5) Participating in ALAC Conference Calls d.Meeeting Participation (Face-to-Face) i.(ASR) (RoP 21.9) Attending at least one physical ALAC meeting in any 9 month period ii.(RoP 21.6) Attending physical ALAC meetings at ICANN Meetings; e.(RoP 21.7) Providing feedback on any ICANN vs At-Large Community matters/issues whenever asked to / needed; f.(ASR) (RoP 21.8) Serving as a liaison to the public g.(RoP 21.9) Completing at least one feedback survey on At-Large Community issues/matters in any 6-month period. 2.(ASR) (RoP 21.10) For ordinary ALAC members, in case of failure to meet the requirements obligations provided in this Accountability Framework, the Chair will: a.(NP) privately notify the Member that they are not living up to their obligations, and inform them that they need to do so within thirty (30) days or further action will be taken; b. If after thirty days, the Member remains in breach of his or her obligations, the Chair shall privately encourage the member to resign. c.If this does not happen by 14 (fourteen) days from that communication, the Chair will formally notify the entity responsible for appointing the member, and a message MAY be copied to the public ALAC At-Large worldwide list, and ask that the appointment is be immediately reconsidered. 3.(NP) Members shall send thir apologies in advance to the relevant list when unable to attend any meeting, telephonic or otherwise, where they would be expected to attend, excepting unusual and rare circumstances which prevent them doing so. 4.(NP) Members are expected to attend not less than ¾ of all teleconference meetings of their RALO in any six-month period. 5.(CS) Members shall participate as an ALAC Issue Coordinator in at least one Policy Working Group, and as a member in at least one Internal / Administrative Working Group. a.(NP) “Participation” with respect to these commitments shall mean: i.(NP) Regular attendance at the meetings of the working groups of which they are a member – defined as not less than 2/3 of the meetings of working groups in any six-month period; ii.(NP) Routinely contributing substantively to Working Groups, which shall include reading relevant documents and contributing substantively to any drafting efforts that are required to fulfil the mandate of the working group; iii.(NP) When unable to participate in a meeting, providing apologies in advance; iv.(NP) Where a working group requires membership from each RALO, helping to recruit participants as necessary. b.(NP) Active articipation is integral to Membership of the At-Large Advisory Committee and failure to live up to the obligations in this section 5 on a routine basis shall in itself be sufficient grounds for the Chair to invoke Section 2 of the Accountability Framework. 6.(NP) Where a Member of ALAC receives travel support from ICANN or any other entity to attend a meeting related to the business of the At-Large community, he or she shall ensure that he is available and participating throughout the entire time span of the meeting. It brings the entire committee into disrepute where a Member of ALAC uses community travel funds to attend a meeting and then engages in ‘tourism’. 7.(NP) Members that receive travel support shall at all times ensure that they abide by all policies and procedures related to the same. Ignorance of a provision of such a policy, where the Member was provided reasonable opportunities to know of the provision, shall not be accepted as a valid reason for failing to abide by this provision of the Accountability Framework. 8. (NP) Failure to abide by the obligations in Section 6 and 7 of this Accountability Framework shall result in an immediate call by the Chair of ALAC for the resignation of the Member. If the Member fails to do so within 14 days, the Chair shall request the body that appointed the Member to vacate the appointment forthwith, and of the circumstances which led the chair to make this request. Requirements of ALAC Officers 9.(RoP 2.6) They shall accept to serve on behalf of the At-Large Community by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, but also recognizing difference and enabling different opinions to be shared; 10.(RoP 2.7) They shall accept, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, to put the collective views of the Committee always in front of their own. 11.(RoP 3.7) All officers have a duty of performing their roles with diligence and loyalty to the Committee, and are bound to meet the minimum participation requirements set forth in [RoP) rule 21. In case of failure to do so, the Chair shall call a vote of recall. 12.(RoP 3.1) a conflict of interest statement must be filed when an ALAC Member presents himself or herself as a candidate for an officer position. Requirements of ALAC Liaisons to Other Bodies of ICANN 1.(RoP 21.6) Attending physical […] meetings of the bodies to which the person is liaison at ICANN meetings. 2.(NP) Attending at least 2/3 of the telephonic meetings of the bodies to which the person is a liaision in any six-month period. 3.(RoP 5, bullet 1) … participate dilligently (meaning, on a continuing and steady basis) in the meetings and activities of the body he/she is a liaison to, on mailing lists, and in relevant policy debates and fora related to the same. 4.(RoP 5.2) a conflict of interest statement must be filed when any person presents himself or herself as a candidate for a liaison position. 5.(RoP 5, bullet 2) To communicate and advocate the positions of the ALAC to such body; 6.(RoP 5, bullet 3) To report to the ALAC the current and upcoming activities of the body he/she is liaison to, as far as this is possible under the timing and confidentiality constraints of such body; 7.(RoP 5, bullet 4) When this is possible under such constraints, the liaison shall ask to the ALAC for advance instructions on matters that are going to be discussed by such body. 8.(RoP 5.3) a person may not serve two different liaision positions at the same time 9.(RoP 3.7) All liaisons have a duty of performing their roles with diligence and loyalty to the Committee, and are bound to meet the minimum participation requirements set forth in (RoP) rule 21. In case of failure to do so, the Chair shall call a vote of recall invoke Section 2 of ‘Requirements of All ALAC Members’ above. Code of Conduct (RoP 22) As representatives of the At-Large community, Members are expected to adhere to a high standard of behaviour. They shall abide without exception by the Code of Conduct. It applies to their conduct in any At-Large forum, whether face-to-face, telephonic, or via email, whether private or public in nature. In addition, Members shall at all times act in a way that is respectful, reasonable, exhibits common courtesy and professional demeanour. 1.(RoP 22.1) The ALAC discussion lists and its other online collaborative spaces serve two purposes. They are where we discuss ICANN-related policy issues and attend to administrative tasks related to the management of ALAC. 2.(RoP 22.2) Content that is acceptable in our online collaborative spaces is defined as: 3.(RoP 22.3) Discussion on ICANN-related policy issues, 4.(RoP 22.4) Discussion of ALAC administrative matters, 5.(RoP 22.5) Announcements of conferences, events, or activities related to ICANN matters. 6.(RoP 22.6) Inappropriate postings include: 7.(RoP 22.7) Unsolicited bulk e-mail, 8.(RoP 22.8) Discussion of subjects unrelated to ICANN policy, meetings, activities, or technical concerns, 9.(RoP 22.9) Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject, 10.(RoP 22.10) Postings libellous being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others, 11.(RoP 22.11) Postings that are, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person, 12.(RoP 22.12) Postings that violate an obligation of confidentiality, 13.(RoP 22.13) Postings that violate the privacy of others, 14.(RoP 22.14) Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not related to ICANN matters. 15.(RoP 22.15) The ALAC Chair is empowered to suspend or restrict a person's posting rights when the content that person has posted is inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse. The Chair defines and determines inappropriate content on a case-by-case basis. Our definitions are not limited to this list. If the Chair suspends posting rights or deletes a comment or link, he will say so and explain why. When determining the duration of the suspension, the Chair is required to take into account the overall nature of the postings by an individual and whether particular postings are an aberration or typical. 16.(RoP 22.16) Occasionally, a participant may engage in what amounts to a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the consensus-driven process. Typically, these attacks are made by repeatedly posting messages that are off-topic, inflammatory, or otherwise counter-productive, and the Chair may choose to revoke the participant's posting rights. In contrast, good faith disagreement is a healthy part of the consensus-driven process. For example, if the group is unable to reach consensus, this is an acceptable, albeit unfortunate, outcome; however, if that group fails to achieve consensus because it is being continuously disrupted, then the disruption constitutes an abuse of the consensus-driven process. Interactions of this type are fundamentally different from "the lone voice of dissent" in which a participant expresses a view that is discussed but does not achieve consensus. In other words, individual bad faith should not trump community goodwill. At-Large Community Conflicts of Interest Policy This document is based upon the Conflicts of Interest Policy of of ICANN, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/committees/coi/coi-policy-04mar88.htm. The COI Policy of Transparency International was also a source of inspiration for this draft – that document can be found at http://www.transparency.org/about_us/organisation/conflict_interest. 1. Applicability 1.1 This policy applies, except as otherwise stated, to certain persons in leadership positions associated with the At-Large Community (“At-Large Community”), including but not limited to the members of the At-Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”), and those elected to a leadership position in or by any Regional At-Large Organisation (“RALO”). 1.2 This policy sets minimum standards. Individual conflict of interest policies developed by RALOs should be congruent with this policy. 1.3 Where a conflict between this Policy and the ICANN Conflict of Interest Policy arises, the Conflicts Committee as defined in this text shall forthwith present options that will bring the two policies into congruence to the relevant body of the At-Large Community. 2. Definitions 2.1 Compensation. "Compensation" includes direct and indirect remuneration as well as gifts or favors that are substantial in nature. 2.2 Family. The "family" of any individual shall include only his or her spouse; his or her siblings and their spouses; his or her ancestors; and his or her descendants and their spouses. 2.3 Financial Interest. A person has a "financial interest" if the person has, directly or indirectly, through business, investment or family: (a) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in any entity with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or (b) A compensation arrangement with the Corporation or with any entity or individual with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or (c) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which the Corporation is negotiating a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or (d) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity whose business or operation has been or will be directly affected by a decision or action of the Corporation. 2.4 At-Large Officer. "At-Large Officer" shall mean all Members of the At-Large Advisory Committee, all officers or members of governing bodies of RALOs, as well as officers and members of Working Groups and Subcommittees of the At-Large Advisory Committee. 2.5 Interested Person. "Interested Person" shall mean either: (a) Any person currently being compensated by the Corporation for services rendered to it within the previous 11 months, whether as a full- or part-time employee, independent contractor, or otherwise, or (b) Any person whose family member, as defined in Section 2.2, is currently being compensated by the Corporation for services rendered to it within the previous 11 months, whether as a full- or part-time employee, independent contractor, or otherwise, or; c) Any person currently or within the previous 11 months who serves or served in any capacity whether compensated or non-compensated, in any entity that may be benefited or harmed by, is dependent upon, or may be affected by, decisions of the Corporation or the policies developed by the stakeholder community participating in ICANN’s policy development work, of which the At-Large community is one part. 2.6 Corporation. “Corporation” shall mean the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). 2.6 At-Large Community. “At-Large Community” shall mean the entire At-Large Community, composed of the At-Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”), the officers or members of governing bodies or structures related to the five Regional At-Large Organisations (“RALOs”), and all Members of the RALOs as defined in each of their Operating Principles, Bylaws, Memoranda of Understanding with ICANN, or other equivalent constitutive documents. 3. Statements of Conflicts of Interest 3.1 To administer and monitor compliance with this policy, the most senior member of the Corporation’s At-Large staff, along with the currently serving Chair and Vice-Chairs of the At-Large Advisory Committee, shall constitute a Conflicts Committee. 3.2 The Conflicts Committee shall require a statement from each At-Large Officer not less frequently than once a year setting forth all business and other affiliations that relate in any way to the business and other activities of the Corporation. 3.3 It is obligatory upon all Interested Persons, or any person in the At-Large Community as defined, who believes there is a conflict of interest, or who suspects that a conflict of interest might exist, to report the same to the Conflicts Committee as soon as they become aware, or suspect, that such a conflict exists. 3.4 The Conflicts Committee shall cause to be kept a public record of all disclosures received available upon the At-Large community website. Where there are personal safety or similar serious concerns about full publicity, parts or even the whole of the declaration should be submitted to the ICANN Director of At-Large who shall hold it, and act upon it as appropriate, in confidence. 3.5 Where the Conflicts Committee has received a report from any person as provided in clauses 5.4 or 3.3, it shall then seek promptly to establish whether or not the reported potential or actual conflict exists, and shall at all times keep the identity of the person who reported the possible conflict confidential, unless they have unanimously come to the conclusion that the report was knowingly false or deliberately defamatory, in which they shall disclose the same as they shall judge most suitable. 4. Duty to Abstain or Recuse from Participation in Debates 4.1 No Interested Person shall vote on, or participate in discussions or deliberations related to, any matter in which he or she has an interest. 4.2 In the event of such an abstention or recusal, the Interested Person shall state the reason for the same, which shall be noted in the minutes of the relevant proceedings. 5. Disclosure Obligations 5.1 When requested by the Conflicts Committee (not less frequently than once per calendar year) each At-Large Officer shall promptly submit a statement to the Committee setting forth all business and other affiliations that relate in any way to the business and other affiliations of the Corporation. 5.2 With respect to any particular matter, each At-Large Officer shall disclose to the Conflicts Committee any matter that could reasonably be considered to make the person an "Interested Person” as defined above. 5.3 It shall be incumbent upon each At-Large Officer to report to the Conflicts Committee any circumstance that would reasonably be interpreted by any third party to cause them to become an Interested Person as soon as such a circumstance becomes known, without being requested to make such a disclosure. 5.4 If any At-Large Officer becomes aware of a situation that would, in their judgment, cause another At-Large Officer to become an Interested Person, they are obligated to report the same to the Conflicts Committee forthwith. Any other person may act similarly if they have reason to believe a situation that warrants such a report exists. 6. No Compensation, Privileged Information Provisions 6.1 At-Large Officers, or companies or other organisations with which such are currently affiliated, (whether paid or unpaid) may not receive Compensation of any kind from the Corporation, save for expenses reimburseable for travel and expenses associated with attendance at events or meetings organised by or for the Corporation or in support of activities related to the same. 6.2 At-Large Officers, or companies or other organizations with which such members are currently affiliated may not not utilize privileged information obtained during their tenure as At-Large Officers for personal gain, and shall also remain at all times sensitive to the perception that they might be utilizing said information in such a way. 6.3 No At-Large Officer shall accept any gift, entertainment, loan or anything else of value from any organisation or individual if it could be reasonably construed or perceived that the gift is motivated by a wish to influence the At-Large community in the holistic sense. 7. Violations of the Conflicts of Interest Policy 7.1 If the Conflicts Committee has reasonable cause to believe that an At-Large officer has failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest, it shall inform that person of the basis for such belief and afford the At-Large Officer an opportunity to explain the alleged failure to disclose. 7.2 If, after hearing the response of the At-Large Officer and making such further investigation as may be warranted in the circumstances, the Conflicts Committee determines that the member has in fact failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest, it shall recommend to relevant deliberative body of the At-Large Community appropriate disciplinary and corrective action. 7.3 The violation of this conflicts of interest policy is a serious matter and may constitute cause for the recall of an At-Large Officer from their position, if the At-Large Officer is a member of the At-Large Advisory Committee, under the procedures provided in Rule 11 of the ALAC Rules of Procedure. 7.4 Violation of this conflicts of interest policy on the part of an At-Large Officer who is not a member of the At-Large Advisory Committee may constitute cause for recall under the procedures relevant to the body of which the At-Large Officer is a member. 8. Records of Proceedings 8.1 The minutes of the Conflicts Committee shall contain: (a) The names of At-Large Officers found to be Interested Persons; the nature of the interest; any action taken to determine whether a conflict of interest was present; and the decision of the Conflicts Committee as to whether a conflict of interest in fact existed. (b) The names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes relating to the actual or potential conflict of interest; the content of the discussion; and a record of any votes taken in connection therewith. 8.2 In connection with a conflict of interest, the minutes of any meeting concerned shall contain the names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes relating to the matter for which any member of the body in question was an Interested Person; note the recusal of abstention related to the conflict of interest; the content of the discussion related thereto; and a record of any votes taken in connection therewith. 9. Annual Statements Each At-Large Officer shall annually sign a statement that affirms that such person: a) Has received a copy of the conflicts of interest policy; b) Has read and understands the policy; c) Has agreed to comply with the policy. 10. Periodic Reviews The Conflicts Committee shall periodically consider whether and how this Conflicts of Interest Policy should be revised or amended to better meet its objectives. In connection with any periodic review conducted by the Conflicts Committee it shall cause a report to be provided to all At-Large Officers related thereto.
Hi Wendy Please don't x-post all this text - took forever for me to download the multiple messages (as one whose valuable time is wasted waiting for large emails to download on a non-broadband connection :) ). Maybe At Large can have a high-bandwidth list and a low-bandwidth list! Sign me up for the low bandwidth one. Jacqueline PS - I snipped it so that I won't have to download a lot again when it hits the list. Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Community members:
The ALAC decided at their last meeting to request the staff to draft up a comprehensive Accountability Framework, <snip> In order to save bandwidth for those who do not have broadband, the text has not been attached to this message: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:200803311...
For those whose time is more valuable than a couple extra KB of download, I repeat my request that texts be INCLUDED as below:
<snip>
At Large Staff (NICK) - this goes for you too - the Word file was attached after the email said it wouldn't be. :( Jacqueline Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Hi Wendy Please don't x-post all this text - took forever for me to download the multiple messages (as one whose valuable time is wasted waiting for large emails to download on a non-broadband connection :) ). Maybe At Large can have a high-bandwidth list and a low-bandwidth list! Sign me up for the low bandwidth one. Jacqueline PS - I snipped it so that I won't have to download a lot again when it hits the list. Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Community members:
The ALAC decided at their last meeting to request the staff to draft up a comprehensive Accountability Framework, <snip> In order to save bandwidth for those who do not have broadband, the text has not been attached to this message: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:200803311...
For those whose time is more valuable than a couple extra KB of download, I repeat my request that texts be INCLUDED as below:
<snip>
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
This document appears to be largely a compilation of procedural complexities that do little to make ALAC more accountable to the at-large public. I don't think we need more rules, we need a better set of reporting mechanisms to coordinate with the public. Thanks, --Wendy
On 2008-03-31 11:49:47 -0700, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
he ExComm has reviewed these two texts, and the ALAC is now to review the draft from 1 April until 11th April - comments from the wider At-Large community are of course welcomed.
I think this is really lacking a requirement that each ALAC member respond to at least 2/3 of all messages received through the alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org mailing lists, within no more than 2 days after receipt of such a message. Regards, -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
I have some substantive comments, but first, I must point out that the document says a vote will be taken during the April teleconference, I presume that the plan is actually for May. I am attaching a copy of the draft document with my COMMENTS inserted (you may have to turn on displaying of Comment Balloons to see them). Some are purely editorial, but most are substantive. Overall, I find this document far too long, and too bureaucratic. Providing an 11 page document to tell people what is expected of them seems like a way to guarantee that it is not read. On the other hand, the major participation requirements are at times glossed over where they should be more descriptive. I nevertheless have addressed the document as it stands. I find the Conflict of Interest procedures overly complex. Yes, we must make sure we are not perceived as serving some other master, but we are an advisory committee, not a policy-making body. The GNSO, which *is* a policy making body has less onerous rules. I must admit that I am troubled that I found so much to comment on, and I haven't seen any other comments from ALAC members (unless they came in while I was in transit the last 24 hours). Am really that out of touch with everyone else? Alan At 31/03/2008 02:49 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Community members:
The ALAC decided at their last meeting to request the staff to draft up a comprehensive Accountability Framework, which the ALAC Executive Committee was to review and amend at its meeting this month. The Chair proposed to the ExComm that at the same time a Conflicts of Interest Policy should be prepared as this was a natural accompaniment to the Accountability Framework.
he ExComm has reviewed these two texts, and the ALAC is now to review the draft from 1 April until 11th April - comments from the wider At-Large community are of course welcomed.
Any comments received are then to be incorporated and the resulting text will be on the agenda for adoption at the next ALAC Teleconference, in May.
The URL for the text is as follows. In order to save bandwidth for those who do not have broadband, the text has not been attached to this message: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:200803311...
French and Spanish translation will be available once they are ready. -- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
Alan Greenberg wrote:
I have some substantive comments, but first, I must point out that the document says a vote will be taken during the April teleconference, I presume that the plan is actually for May.
I am attaching a copy of the draft document with my COMMENTS inserted (you may have to turn on displaying of Comment Balloons to see them). Some are purely editorial, but most are substantive.
Overall, I find this document far too long, and too bureaucratic. Providing an 11 page document to tell people what is expected of them seems like a way to guarantee that it is not read. On the other hand, the major participation requirements are at times glossed over where they should be more descriptive. I nevertheless have addressed the document as it stands.
I find the Conflict of Interest procedures overly complex. Yes, we must make sure we are not perceived as serving some other master, but we are an advisory committee, not a policy-making body. The GNSO, which *is* a policy making body has less onerous rules.
I must admit that I am troubled that I found so much to comment on, and I haven't seen any other comments from ALAC members (unless they came in while I was in transit the last 24 hours). Am really that out of touch with everyone else?
Thanks Alan, I posted my brief comments -- which align with yours (in the email, I haven't reviewed the doc yet because the comments don't show up in OpenOffice) -- to the list/wiki March 31: This document appears to be largely a compilation of procedural complexities that do little to make ALAC more accountable to the at-large public. I don't think we need more rules, we need a better set of reporting mechanisms to coordinate with the public. I too have seen no other comments from ALAC members. --Wendy -- 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/
At 12/04/2008 02:58 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Thanks Alan, I posted my brief comments -- which align with yours (in the email, I haven't reviewed the doc yet because the comments don't show up in OpenOffice) -- to the list/wiki March 31:
Sorry about that. The review was done at 36000 ft, and the other methods I normally use which do not rely on arcane WORD feature were just not practical.
This document appears to be largely a compilation of procedural complexities that do little to make ALAC more accountable to the at-large public. I don't think we need more rules, we need a better set of reporting mechanisms to coordinate with the public.
I did see your first comments. I don't completely agree. There were a few places where new rules were needed. But I think that to be effective, they need to be presented in a far more concise and clear way. I am honestly less concerned with reporting to the pubic that with getting active effective participation. The threat of reporting poor performance is a stick approach that I would prefer not to need.
I too have seen no other comments from ALAC members.
Given the potential impact of this document if approved, I would like to have seen comments, even if only of the form "I agree completely with everything in the document". Alan
--Wendy
-- 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/
Greetings everyone! I tried to send my few comments on the ALAC Draft Accountability Framework before the deadline ... but I failed due to some connectivity related problems. I hope it is not too late for them still:)! Attached are the few comments made, overall, I agree with Alan, the document is too long and I see it being somehow divided into 3 main parts with max of 7 pages for the whole doc. The doc should have: 1. Requirements of all ALAC members; 2. Monitorization of ALAC members/Officers/Liasons activity: code of conduit included; 3. Assesment and Evaluation of the ALAC members/Liasons/Officers results and Follow up;
From my personal perspective the At Large Community Conflicts of Interest Policy should not be included into this Document. I see it as smth separate. Basically, this part makes the entire document look a bit too long and with bureocratic 'nuances'.
Otherwise, in general, the content of the document is fine and it clearly proves that much effort and energy has been put in place to compile this document for ALAC/At Large. Thank you all, as ever, Veronica -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:58:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy Alan Greenberg wrote:
I have some substantive comments, but first, I must point out that the document says a vote will be taken during the April teleconference, I presume that the plan is actually for May.
I am attaching a copy of the draft document with my COMMENTS inserted (you may have to turn on displaying of Comment Balloons to see them). Some are purely editorial, but most are substantive.
Overall, I find this document far too long, and too bureaucratic. Providing an 11 page document to tell people what is expected of them seems like a way to guarantee that it is not read. On the other hand, the major participation requirements are at times glossed over where they should be more descriptive. I nevertheless have addressed the document as it stands.
I find the Conflict of Interest procedures overly complex. Yes, we must make sure we are not perceived as serving some other master, but we are an advisory committee, not a policy-making body. The GNSO, which *is* a policy making body has less onerous rules.
I must admit that I am troubled that I found so much to comment on, and I haven't seen any other comments from ALAC members (unless they came in while I was in transit the last 24 hours). Am really that out of touch with everyone else?
Thanks Alan, I posted my brief comments -- which align with yours (in the email, I haven't reviewed the doc yet because the comments don't show up in OpenOffice) -- to the list/wiki March 31: This document appears to be largely a compilation of procedural complexities that do little to make ALAC more accountable to the at-large public. I don't think we need more rules, we need a better set of reporting mechanisms to coordinate with the public. I too have seen no other comments from ALAC members. --Wendy -- 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://atlarge.icann.org
Agree with Alan, in fact would go much further, the framework really is a very unusual document. Seems for forget that ALAC members are volunteers, offers them little respect, instead treating them as children who aren't to be trusted. It has the ALAC adopting a more detailed and lengthy conflict of interest than the board. Why? Concentrates power at the tip if the pyramid rather than with RALO, ALS and users: ALAC members don't serve the chair and staff, they are appointed either by the RALOs or the NomCom. They are appointed under conditions set by their respective RALOs and the NomCom, if necessary it is those groups that should be instigating recall. The framework seems to be asserting authority over the RALOs (and less concern to me, NomCom), which is obviously not how it should be. For sure develop guidelines on what constitutes expected level service by an ALAC member, and inform the RALO (NomCom?) if standards are not met (in fact, inform the RALO when standards are met!) It's not clear to me that the chair has the authority to sack (recall) anyone. As Alan noted (and I think both he and I mentioned when the rules of procedures document was being drafted) the NomCom does not have a recall process, though such has been suggested during the NomCom review. NomCom could replace someone during the first year of their two year term, but not the second. The framework seems to suggest that during meetings ALAC members will be on call 24 hours/day. Takes no account of ALAC members participation in the ICANN community, whether to learn, just be part of the broader process or because some RALOs might want their members to participate in other ICANN activities. ALAC's already isolated, often stuck away in some cheap hotel down the street and otherwise occupied with its own meetings. Some of the text about travel is just petty. The term officer is unclear. The code of conduct is excessive, how about replacing it with: ALAC members should work in a collegial and cooperative manner. The end. Really is a bizarre document. Best, Adam
I have some substantive comments, but first, I must point out that the document says a vote will be taken during the April teleconference, I presume that the plan is actually for May.
I am attaching a copy of the draft document with my COMMENTS inserted (you may have to turn on displaying of Comment Balloons to see them). Some are purely editorial, but most are substantive.
Overall, I find this document far too long, and too bureaucratic. Providing an 11 page document to tell people what is expected of them seems like a way to guarantee that it is not read. On the other hand, the major participation requirements are at times glossed over where they should be more descriptive. I nevertheless have addressed the document as it stands.
I find the Conflict of Interest procedures overly complex. Yes, we must make sure we are not perceived as serving some other master, but we are an advisory committee, not a policy-making body. The GNSO, which *is* a policy making body has less onerous rules.
I must admit that I am troubled that I found so much to comment on, and I haven't seen any other comments from ALAC members (unless they came in while I was in transit the last 24 hours). Am really that out of touch with everyone else?
Alan
At 31/03/2008 02:49 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Community members:
The ALAC decided at their last meeting to request the staff to draft up a comprehensive Accountability Framework, which the ALAC Executive Committee was to review and amend at its meeting this month. The Chair proposed to the ExComm that at the same time a Conflicts of Interest Policy should be prepared as this was a natural accompaniment to the Accountability Framework.
he ExComm has reviewed these two texts, and the ALAC is now to review the draft from 1 April until 11th April - comments from the wider At-Large community are of course welcomed.
Any comments received are then to be incorporated and the resulting text will be on the agenda for adoption at the next ALAC Teleconference, in May.
The URL for the text is as follows. In order to save bandwidth for those who do not have broadband, the text has not been attached to this message: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:200803311...
French and Spanish translation will be available once they are ready. -- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:AL-ALAC-EXC-0308-1-2#5660D9.doc (WDBN/«IC») (005660D9) _______________________________________________ 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
Adam Peake wrote:
The code of conduct is excessive, how about replacing it with: ALAC members should work in a collegial and cooperative manner. The end.
Really is a bizarre document.
Seconded! --Wendy
ALAC and the @Large community would be benefited from the "Robustness Principle" enounced by Jon Postel in RFC 1122: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" Best regards, Sebastian -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Domingo, 13 de Abril de 2008 12:25 p.m. To: Adam Peake Cc: At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy Adam Peake wrote:
The code of conduct is excessive, how about replacing it with: ALAC members should work in a collegial and cooperative manner. The end.
Really is a bizarre document.
Seconded! --Wendy _______________________________________________ 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1376 - Release Date: 13/04/2008 01:45 p.m. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1378 - Release Date: 15/04/2008 09:12 a.m.
On 2008-04-14 00:13:22 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
It has the ALAC adopting a more detailed and lengthy conflict of interest than the board. Why?
...
Really is a bizarre document.
Very much so. It makes me worry that the current ALAC leadership circle is confusing actual leadership and a game of nomic. -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
I read it and it's not a lot different than what my own organization requires its employees to read and sign. Perhaps I'm in the minority but, though long and bureaucratic, it outlines minimum expectations. Sure, some of them are common sense and common courtesy, but ALAC is multilingual and multicultural, so it needs to be spelled out somewhere. My only comment is that I do not take loyalty oaths, so I cannot sign anything that contains language that amounts to swearing loyalty to a committee, which went out with Lavrenti Beria et al, etc. So my hope is we can agree to what's in here and move on to the substantive work we all would prefer to be engaged in. Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sat 4/12/2008 7:10 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy I have some substantive comments, but first, I must point out that the document says a vote will be taken during the April teleconference, I presume that the plan is actually for May. I am attaching a copy of the draft document with my COMMENTS inserted (you may have to turn on displaying of Comment Balloons to see them). Some are purely editorial, but most are substantive. Overall, I find this document far too long, and too bureaucratic. Providing an 11 page document to tell people what is expected of them seems like a way to guarantee that it is not read. On the other hand, the major participation requirements are at times glossed over where they should be more descriptive. I nevertheless have addressed the document as it stands. I find the Conflict of Interest procedures overly complex. Yes, we must make sure we are not perceived as serving some other master, but we are an advisory committee, not a policy-making body. The GNSO, which *is* a policy making body has less onerous rules. I must admit that I am troubled that I found so much to comment on, and I haven't seen any other comments from ALAC members (unless they came in while I was in transit the last 24 hours). Am really that out of touch with everyone else? Alan At 31/03/2008 02:49 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Community members:
The ALAC decided at their last meeting to request the staff to draft up a comprehensive Accountability Framework, which the ALAC Executive Committee was to review and amend at its meeting this month. The Chair proposed to the ExComm that at the same time a Conflicts of Interest Policy should be prepared as this was a natural accompaniment to the Accountability Framework.
he ExComm has reviewed these two texts, and the ALAC is now to review the draft from 1 April until 11th April - comments from the wider At-Large community are of course welcomed.
Any comments received are then to be incorporated and the resulting text will be on the agenda for adoption at the next ALAC Teleconference, in May.
The URL for the text is as follows. In order to save bandwidth for those who do not have broadband, the text has not been attached to this message: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:200803311...
French and Spanish translation will be available once they are ready. -- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
*** Scanned
I would agree with Beau in that I have issue with loyalty oaths.. I would suggest that mention of that word be stricken and replaced with something far more appropriate given the variety of organizations and affiliations we all have. I had to look up Beau's reference to Lavrenti Beria http://www.multied.com/BIO/people/beria.html Soviet strongman Lavrenti Pavlovich Beria began his political career during the Russian Revolution. He later directed the secret police in Georgia and in 1938 was appointed by Stalin as the first Commissar for foreign relations, and the head of the NKVD, the predecessor of the KGB. Beria was one of the most feared men in the Soviet Union. After the death of Stalin, many believed that Beria would attempt to take over. Instead, he was arrested and executed. regards Robert On 14-Apr-08, at 11:18 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
I read it and it's not a lot different than what my own organization requires its employees to read and sign.
Perhaps I'm in the minority but, though long and bureaucratic, it outlines minimum expectations. Sure, some of them are common sense and common courtesy, but ALAC is multilingual and multicultural, so it needs to be spelled out somewhere.
My only comment is that I do not take loyalty oaths, so I cannot sign anything that contains language that amounts to swearing loyalty to a committee, which went out with Lavrenti Beria et al, etc.
So my hope is we can agree to what's in here and move on to the substantive work we all would prefer to be engaged in.
Beau Brendler
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sat 4/12/2008 7:10 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
I have some substantive comments, but first, I must point out that the document says a vote will be taken during the April teleconference, I presume that the plan is actually for May.
I am attaching a copy of the draft document with my COMMENTS inserted (you may have to turn on displaying of Comment Balloons to see them). Some are purely editorial, but most are substantive.
Overall, I find this document far too long, and too bureaucratic. Providing an 11 page document to tell people what is expected of them seems like a way to guarantee that it is not read. On the other hand, the major participation requirements are at times glossed over where they should be more descriptive. I nevertheless have addressed the document as it stands.
I find the Conflict of Interest procedures overly complex. Yes, we must make sure we are not perceived as serving some other master, but we are an advisory committee, not a policy-making body. The GNSO, which *is* a policy making body has less onerous rules.
I must admit that I am troubled that I found so much to comment on, and I haven't seen any other comments from ALAC members (unless they came in while I was in transit the last 24 hours). Am really that out of touch with everyone else?
Alan
At 31/03/2008 02:49 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Community members:
The ALAC decided at their last meeting to request the staff to draft up a comprehensive Accountability Framework, which the ALAC Executive Committee was to review and amend at its meeting this month. The Chair proposed to the ExComm that at the same time a Conflicts of Interest Policy should be prepared as this was a natural accompaniment to the Accountability Framework.
he ExComm has reviewed these two texts, and the ALAC is now to review the draft from 1 April until 11th April - comments from the wider At-Large community are of course welcomed.
Any comments received are then to be incorporated and the resulting text will be on the agenda for adoption at the next ALAC Teleconference, in May.
The URL for the text is as follows. In order to save bandwidth for those who do not have broadband, the text has not been attached to this message: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:200803311...
French and Spanish translation will be available once they are ready. -- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
*** Scanned
_______________________________________________ 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
I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN staff of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve. Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it exists. ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste extremely scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the public to them. The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we are already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful inclination towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large serves. To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and to every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough to learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and attract high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive! I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral to our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and this was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and require significant background information supplied in the local street language. It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest sin will be to have turned nothing into nothing. I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That ALAC still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own image appears to indicate that: 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually serve its mandate 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it serves 4) all of the above Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by a committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise. Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional obligations. On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can be handled with common sense and discretion. I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the public and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that education. Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted. Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ ALAC activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could survive such a drought without entropy or implosion. Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as NARALO chair. - Evan
Evan IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed documents, brochures etc to explain issues to the public. I have to say that I haven't read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that. I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the document. I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if we haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE we ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info out to their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that includes a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then they can try to comment. And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period of time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. Jacqueline -------------------------------------------------- From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN staff of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve.
Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it exists.
ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste extremely scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the public to them.
The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we are already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful inclination towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large serves.
To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and to every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough to learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and attract high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive!
I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral to our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and this was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and require significant background information supplied in the local street language.
It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest sin will be to have turned nothing into nothing.
I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That ALAC still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own image appears to indicate that: 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually serve its mandate 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it serves 4) all of the above
Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by a committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise.
Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional obligations. On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can be handled with common sense and discretion.
I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the public and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that education. Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted.
Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ ALAC activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could survive such a drought without entropy or implosion.
Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as NARALO chair.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
Hi Jacqueline,
I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if we haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE we ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info out to their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. Exactly. Anyone who needs more information on this POV is invited to consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In%2C_Garbage_Out
So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that includes a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then they can try to comment.
Absolutely agreed. The status quo is for staff to tell us "there's a consultation on issue XYZ and you need to respond by ...". This approach may work for constituencies that have their own (paid) research resources and vested interests to protect. It fails miserably for the public, which is never going to read the current version of consultation documents and also has a far more complex (and thus slower) task of educating and soliciting input. Also consider that this level of information requirement, the reactive one, is only part of what is needed. There will be -- there ARE -- instances in which ALAC needs to initiate the development of backgrounders for issues of public interest that are not (yet) on ICANN's agenda -- front-running, to offer just the latest example.
And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period of time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. We're certainly nowhere near that level of readiness, and I can't think of any ALAC priority more important than getting there. There's lots of time to worry about non-performing ALSs because it will take many, many months before sane performance metrics can even exist. Right now, defining metrics is a premature distraction. It also sends a clear defeatist message that ALAC is more interested in assigning blame for failure than in achieving success.
I prefer not to convey such an attitude. - Evan
Evan. Very clear your position, I agree with you. 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 17:03:50 -0400> From: evan@telly.org> To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com> CC: Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy> > Hi Jacqueline,> > I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if> > we haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a> > timely manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue> > BEFORE we ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get> > this info out to their members, they cannot do what we ask of them.> Exactly. Anyone who needs more information on this POV is invited to> consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In%2C_Garbage_Out> > > So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to> > do would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for> > discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that> > includes a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know> > what the background is to the document that is sent out for comment.> > And then they can try to comment.> > Absolutely agreed.> > The status quo is for staff to tell us "there's a consultation on issue> XYZ and you need to respond by ...". This approach may work for> constituencies that have their own (paid) research resources and vested> interests to protect. It fails miserably for the public, which is never> going to read the current version of consultation documents and also has> a far more complex (and thus slower) task of educating and soliciting input.> > Also consider that this level of information requirement, the reactive> one, is only part of what is needed. There will be -- there ARE --> instances in which ALAC needs to initiate the development of> backgrounders for issues of public interest that are not (yet) on> ICANN's agenda -- front-running, to offer just the latest example.> > > And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a> > period of time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something> > about it.> We're certainly nowhere near that level of readiness, and I can't think> of any ALAC priority more important than getting there. There's lots of> time to worry about non-performing ALSs because it will take many, many> months before sane performance metrics can even exist. Right now,> defining metrics is a premature distraction. It also sends a clear> defeatist message that ALAC is more interested in assigning blame for> failure than in achieving success.> > I prefer not to convey such an attitude.> > - Evan> > > _______________________________________________> 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 GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar
I greatly dislike cross-posting, but since the last two posters did cross-post, I feel that this statement needs to go to the same audience. As anyone who read my comments knows, I'd onto support the document as drafted. However, in fairness to those that did draft it, I do not believe that it says ANYTHING about taking action against ALSs (for whatever reason). It was Danny Younger who suggested this, saying that in his opinion, it was something that should have been included. I agree with some of Evan's comments, but let's be careful in who we attribute things two, especially when done in such a strong manner. Alan (who did read the document and notes that it and the existing Rules of Procedure do frown on such actions) At 13/04/2008 04:03 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Evan IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed documents, brochures etc to explain issues to the public. I have to say that I haven't read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that. I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the document.
I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if we haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE we ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info out to their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that includes a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then they can try to comment. And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period of time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it.
Jacqueline -------------------------------------------------- From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN staff of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve.
Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it exists.
ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste extremely scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the public to them.
<<Remaining text omitted for brevity>>
Alan Greenberg wrote:
I greatly dislike cross-posting, but since the last two posters did cross-post, I feel that this statement needs to go to the same audience. Sorry. It was just that the original doc went to the ALAC list as well as _all_ the RALO lists. The only ones I'm able to post to are ALAC and NA.
As anyone who read my comments knows, I'd onto support the document as drafted. ???
However, in fairness to those that did draft it, I do not believe that it says ANYTHING about taking action against ALSs (for whatever reason).
It was Danny Younger who suggested this, saying that in his opinion, it was something that/ should/ have been included.
My rant was multi-faceted, though, and clearly directed against the original document as well as the subsequent discussions. I deliberately kept individuals out of my comment because it was directed at the groupthink indicated by the document and discussion more than any specific contribution. Perhaps some elements of my commentary -- such as that ALAC has no business at this time reworking (and bloating) conflict of interest guidelines -- were more subtly stated than others. :-) - Evan
And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period of time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it.
Maybe if we've heard nothing from an ALS for a year, we should take them off the list. But I entirely agree that this is among the least urgent actions for the ALAC. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Perhaps I can provide a bit of additional information which might be of use: Firstly, on the policy backgrounders. We have not given up on this initiative. The initial drafts that were received were not found to be suitable on a number of levels. As a result, we are having new drafts done by a different writer. I know that the production of these documents is a long-standing and critical need and I can only apologise for the fact that we do not have them for you yet. Getting them done is a priority not just for me, but for Denise and for Doug. Secondly, lest anyone misunderstand the application of the proposed Accountability Framework: It is intended to apply only to ALAC members and elected community leaders and liaisons, not to individual ALSes or their representatives. ALAC could not bind the RALO leaders without their consent; therefore, in order for it to apply to the RALO leaders the RALOs would have to ratify them for that purpose. It may also be worth noting that many of the provisions of the framework already apply to ALAC due to their being included in the Rules of Procedure that the ALAC adopted last year. On 13/04/2008 22:03, "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: Evan IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed documents, brochures etc to explain issues to the public. I have to say that I haven't read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that. I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the document. I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if we haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE we ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info out to their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that includes a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then they can try to comment. And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period of time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. Jacqueline -------------------------------------------------- From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN staff of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve.
Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it exists.
ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste extremely scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the public to them.
The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we are already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful inclination towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large serves.
To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and to every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough to learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and attract high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive!
I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral to our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and this was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and require significant background information supplied in the local street language.
It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest sin will be to have turned nothing into nothing.
I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That ALAC still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own image appears to indicate that: 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually serve its mandate 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it serves 4) all of the above
Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by a committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise.
Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional obligations. On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can be handled with common sense and discretion.
I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the public and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that education. Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted.
Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ ALAC activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could survive such a drought without entropy or implosion.
Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as NARALO chair.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
-- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
I *SO* agree with Jacqueline on this. How can we punish or even expect anything at all out of ALSs that haven't been educated. This should be our major thrust right now if we actually want community involvement. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:03 PM To: Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy Evan IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed documents, brochures etc to explain issues to the public. I have to say that I haven't read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that. I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the document. I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if we haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE we ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info out to their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that includes a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then they can try to comment. And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period of time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. Jacqueline -------------------------------------------------- From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN
staff
of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve.
Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it exists.
ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste extremely scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the public to them.
The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we are already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful inclination towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large serves.
To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and to every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough to learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and attract high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive!
I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral to our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and this was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and require significant background information supplied in the local street language.
It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest sin will be to have turned nothing into nothing.
I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That ALAC still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own image appears to indicate that: 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually serve its mandate 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it serves 4) all of the above
Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by a committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise.
Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional obligations. On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can be handled with common sense and discretion.
I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the public and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that education. Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted.
Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ ALAC activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could survive such a drought without entropy or implosion.
Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as NARALO chair.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org
Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
participants (14)
-
Adam Peake -
Alan Greenberg -
Brendler, Beau -
carlos aguirre -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
John Levine -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Robert Guerra -
Sebastian Ricciardi -
Thomas Roessler -
Thompson, Darlene -
Veronica Cretu -
Wendy Seltzer