ALAC Review / Comment Periods
I thought I would make a point here which might be helpful with respect to the timing of making statements about the draft ALAC Review report. The consultation going on now is so that the draft may be publicly discussed in Paris, for those who feel that something is missing (as in you said something to the review which you believe has been left out), and this text hasn't been reviewed by the Board, the ALAC Review Committee, or anyone else. This is not to say that comments aren't welcome - on the contrary, as you know I'm always asking for the community to comment more, not less :). I just want to make sure everyone understands that the report will have a full comment period after it is finalised. This is the first of two comment periods on the report and I'm sure any next steps after the report will similarly be posted for public comment too, just as you have seen with the GNSO Review. I've also made a request that this comment period be lengthened, as translations will not be ready until only a few days before the present comment period is meant to end, and without translations many in AFRALO and LACRALO will be unable to respond on an equal basis to everyone else. If you feel that the comment period is too short - do comment in that vein to the comment address and let Westlake know in Paris (for those of you who are going to be in Paris). Of course, the point made that any NARALO perspectives which are made clear can only help NARALO members attending Paris is IMHO entirely relevant, FWIW. I hope these comments are helpful - that's certainly the intent. On 18/06/2008 21:13, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote: Hello fellow NARALOites, I have heard from a number of our RALO members on the issue of the draft report, but far from everyone and not even a majority. I believe this issue is important, because if accepted as-is the proposed changes will diminish the role of At-Large in ICANN goings-on at a time when this role requires enhancement. All the well-intentioned policy work we can do will be impeded or "consensus-ed" into the ground, with no real clout at the Board level. Those who have spoken on the issue that I have heard from have all been critical, but this is far from a widespread protest. I would like to know whether there is interest in having a NARALO position on the draft report before the Paris meeting. Having this would help guide your representatives there (myself, Darlene, Beau and Robert) on the inevitable discussions on the issue that will take place. Perhaps we may even be able to prod the global ALAC into action of its own. I have no problem writing a initial position to post for endorsement -- but it would reflect my own deep negative reaction which has already been described on this list. My time is very limited, however, and I would prefer not to start this if no interest exists in creating a regional position. If interest does exist, I can draft a brief statement (preferably working with others who would like to help) and see if, with any suggested modifications, it can be accepted by NARALO through consensus by Sunday morning. Is this reasonable? Is a statement desirable? I find it very unnerving that there has been ZERO reaction on the global ALAC list except for Izumi's brief comment. If ALAC is not interested in staking out a membership-based position then I think NARALO needs to step up. What does everyone else think? Feel free to reply privately, if that is appropriate for you, and I can incorporate your comments anonymously. Even if there is no consensus on a region-wide point of view, all input is helpful. - 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 NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 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 and all, I agree with the sentament. But in parctice, as has been repeatedly demonstrated withing the NARALO and the ALAC it is clear that there is significant desire for selective censorship of interested parties, myself and our members especially it seems, to be able to remark and comment openly and freely on the ALAC and NARALO forums as you well know Nick. Such does not boad well for the whole ALAC idea... Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I thought I would make a point here which might be helpful with respect to the timing of making statements about the draft ALAC Review report.
The consultation going on now is so that the draft may be publicly discussed in Paris, for those who feel that something is missing (as in you said something to the review which you believe has been left out), and this text hasn't been reviewed by the Board, the ALAC Review Committee, or anyone else.
This is not to say that comments aren't welcome - on the contrary, as you know I'm always asking for the community to comment more, not less :). I just want to make sure everyone understands that the report will have a full comment period after it is finalised. This is the first of two comment periods on the report and I'm sure any next steps after the report will similarly be posted for public comment too, just as you have seen with the GNSO Review.
I've also made a request that this comment period be lengthened, as translations will not be ready until only a few days before the present comment period is meant to end, and without translations many in AFRALO and LACRALO will be unable to respond on an equal basis to everyone else.
If you feel that the comment period is too short - do comment in that vein to the comment address and let Westlake know in Paris (for those of you who are going to be in Paris).
Of course, the point made that any NARALO perspectives which are made clear can only help NARALO members attending Paris is IMHO entirely relevant, FWIW.
I hope these comments are helpful - that's certainly the intent.
On 18/06/2008 21:13, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello fellow NARALOites,
I have heard from a number of our RALO members on the issue of the draft report, but far from everyone and not even a majority.
I believe this issue is important, because if accepted as-is the proposed changes will diminish the role of At-Large in ICANN goings-on at a time when this role requires enhancement. All the well-intentioned policy work we can do will be impeded or "consensus-ed" into the ground, with no real clout at the Board level.
Those who have spoken on the issue that I have heard from have all been critical, but this is far from a widespread protest.
I would like to know whether there is interest in having a NARALO position on the draft report before the Paris meeting. Having this would help guide your representatives there (myself, Darlene, Beau and Robert) on the inevitable discussions on the issue that will take place. Perhaps we may even be able to prod the global ALAC into action of its own.
I have no problem writing a initial position to post for endorsement -- but it would reflect my own deep negative reaction which has already been described on this list. My time is very limited, however, and I would prefer not to start this if no interest exists in creating a regional position. If interest does exist, I can draft a brief statement (preferably working with others who would like to help) and see if, with any suggested modifications, it can be accepted by NARALO through consensus by Sunday morning.
Is this reasonable? Is a statement desirable? I find it very unnerving that there has been ZERO reaction on the global ALAC list except for Izumi's brief comment. If ALAC is not interested in staking out a membership-based position then I think NARALO needs to step up.
What does everyone else think? Feel free to reply privately, if that is appropriate for you, and I can incorporate your comments anonymously. Even if there is no consensus on a region-wide point of view, all input is helpful.
- 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 NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 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 ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
At 10:56 19/06/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I thought I would make a point here which might be helpful with respect to the timing of making statements about the draft ALAC Review report.
The consultation going on now is so that the draft may be publicly discussed in Paris, for those who feel that something is missing (as in you said something to the review which you believe has been left out), and this text hasn't been reviewed by the Board, the ALAC Review Committee, or anyone else.
This is not to say that comments aren't welcome - on the contrary, as you know I'm always asking for the community to comment more, not less :). I just want to make sure everyone understands that the report will have a full comment period after it is finalised. This is the first of two comment periods on the report and I'm sure any next steps after the report will similarly be posted for public comment too, just as you have seen with the GNSO Review.
Dear Nick, the document(s) we got are big documents which are not proposed in an easy to work on way (not a mail, not a wiki). The first thing I used to do with that kind of document is to port them to a workable format (which usually means to go line by line from a PDF ASCII copy to a Open Office text, then to a wiki format if I want to work on it with other france@large experts or members, as we did for the IDN report I gave the URL yesterday). We are half the way through with many other important things to do, due to the revamp of our strategy after our non-accreditation and our recent press-release with a fundamental france@large meeting on July 2nd. We are extremely attentive to this document we have not yet started discussing since we will discuss the ATLAX project on July 2nd, and want to understand how it will stand in comparison to ALAC.
I've also made a request that this comment period be lengthened, as translations will not be ready until only a few days before the present comment period is meant to end, and without translations many in AFRALO and LACRALO will be unable to respond on an equal basis to everyone else.
This is a key issue. Comment period should start when all the material to be considered is available. I do not understand why you do not mention EURALO, APRALO, NARALO in your comment. When only considering the French Language, it is an administrative language in these RALO.
If you feel that the comment period is too short - do comment in that vein to the comment address and let Westlake know in Paris (for those of you who are going to be in Paris).
We certainly will individually as france@large had adopted that position. I take the opportunity to underline that we have not received your answer in French to our accreditation. This language problem is a way to for ICANN to measure the difficulty of what we call multilinguistics (the practical support of the linguistic diversity) they obviously have not fully understood as the IDNC propositions show it.
Of course, the point made that any NARALO perspectives which are made clear can only help NARALO members attending Paris is IMHO entirely relevant, FWIW. I hope these comments are helpful - that's certainly the intent.
Nick, we take your comment as helpful. We have not even fully read the main document and just perused the first one. What strikes me is that it does not interest me. I mean by this that it considers the interest of ALAC for ICANN, but not for @larges. Most of the ALAC problem is that participants are "ICANN professionnals". I did not even found a definition of what is an "@large" and an anlysis of its different types and motivations. But I may be wrong as, frankly we had no time to read the document. I just regret that ICANN must pay external consultant to explain it about the @large they throw away seven years ago, and they seem to want to enregiment into a strategic plan. jfc
Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
I thought I would make a point here which might be helpful with respect to the timing of making statements about the draft ALAC Review report.
I would like to add that there are two different parts in this work. The first one is the external reviewer compiling their review and making some recommendations for future developments. The second one is the Board - first through its dedicated committee, then through the Board Governance Committee and finally through the Board itself - discussing the report with the ICANN community and understanding whether the recommendations are really sound, and whether and how they should be implemented, or whether something entirely different should be done. I see it unlikely that the ALAC Review WG could eventually recommend something completely different from the conclusions of the review, but this is certainly not impossible. The ALAC Review WG has organized two different events in Paris, which more or less correspond to the two parts above; the first one is aimed at supplying Westlake with final comments on their text so that they can remove the "draft" label from their report, while the second one is the beginning of the subsequent WG discussion process: http://par.icann.org/en/23jun08/workshop/at-large-review http://par.icann.org/en/25jun08/workshop/bgc-at-large-review We hope to see participation in both events, but their scope is fundamentally different and I hope that appropriate comments will be made for each of the sessions. Personally, I do not have final comments yet, but my first impression is that, even if the recommendations are reasonable, there was not much effort in exploring radical changes to ICANN's basic architecture; however, possibly that lies outside of the mandate of an external reviewer of a single structure on the ICANN map, while it's more of a discussion for the Board itself; so it might become a more prominent theme in the second phase of the process. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Vittorio and all, Thank you for actually stating the crux of the central problem with ICANN. Too much process, too far removed from users, and resulting in bad superseded policy nonconsensual decisions of impracticality. When this is addressed in removing levels of process and users of whatever sort have the practical right to self determination within and from without the ICANN structure, than and only than will more reasoned practical policy be determined and effected. As the ICANN process you nicely outline in brief below, stands now governments, and special interests groups have far too much say so in determining policy decisions, many of which have clearly shown to no work or serve the user community well and were forewarned of such. Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
I thought I would make a point here which might be helpful with respect to the timing of making statements about the draft ALAC Review report.
I would like to add that there are two different parts in this work.
The first one is the external reviewer compiling their review and making some recommendations for future developments.
The second one is the Board - first through its dedicated committee, then through the Board Governance Committee and finally through the Board itself - discussing the report with the ICANN community and understanding whether the recommendations are really sound, and whether and how they should be implemented, or whether something entirely different should be done.
I see it unlikely that the ALAC Review WG could eventually recommend something completely different from the conclusions of the review, but this is certainly not impossible.
The ALAC Review WG has organized two different events in Paris, which more or less correspond to the two parts above; the first one is aimed at supplying Westlake with final comments on their text so that they can remove the "draft" label from their report, while the second one is the beginning of the subsequent WG discussion process:
http://par.icann.org/en/23jun08/workshop/at-large-review
http://par.icann.org/en/25jun08/workshop/bgc-at-large-review
We hope to see participation in both events, but their scope is fundamentally different and I hope that appropriate comments will be made for each of the sessions.
Personally, I do not have final comments yet, but my first impression is that, even if the recommendations are reasonable, there was not much effort in exploring radical changes to ICANN's basic architecture; however, possibly that lies outside of the mandate of an external reviewer of a single structure on the ICANN map, while it's more of a discussion for the Board itself; so it might become a more prominent theme in the second phase of the process.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ 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
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
At 16:56 20/06/2008, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Personally, I do not have final comments yet, but my first impression is that, even if the recommendations are reasonable, there was not much effort in exploring radical changes to ICANN's basic architecture; however, possibly that lies outside of the mandate of an external reviewer of a single structure on the ICANN map, while it's more of a discussion for the Board itself; so it might become a more prominent theme in the second phase of the process.
Vittorio, I think we should carefully study the document. Most of the work I did on its formating etc/ yesterday night was destryoyed. I hope I can do it again and start a wiki page to permit a better review. I will not be here on the 25 being tied in a French NGOs/UN meeting for the UNESCO sept meeting. However, my discussion today with Wolf, the positions expressed by Paul Twomey about the Public Trust/Common Good being seen by ICANN as only in relation to the Market, where non-English readers, poor people and absantees had to fight their own fight to show they are interested, makes me feel there is a cultural divide between us and the Australian Team (I think I fight their fight for a long :-)) So there is again an efficiency problem, the same as we discussed a long ago (Was it when you were at the Vienna meeting?). Before lobbying for a change at the BoD level which can drain on our meager ressources and enthusiasm, I suggest we carefully consider if what the Review accepts to leave us with, cannot be far better used that they think. This is why I wish to read the whole document in detail. jfc
participants (4)
-
Jeffrey A. Williams -
JFC Morfin -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Vittorio Bertola