GNSO working group
Hi Cheryl, The purpose of the roll call was to get ALAC members to focus on policy work; having listened to the last ALAC teleconference wherein policy matters received the usual amount of attention (almost none) I deemed this to be a reasonable approach to solicit a response. Candidly, the limited (almost non-existent) participation of ALAC members in the prior RAA WG was more than disappointing, and frankly, I didn't want to see a repeat performance as we are faced with major issues that require substantive thought and commentary. The new gTLD recommendations have been under discussion within the community for the last twenty months and follow on the heals of known problems that have been discussed since November of 2000 and that have received significant media attention on a world-wide basis. One would expect ALAC members to be sufficiently informed about matters that have been under the microscope for the last seven years, and one would expect them to be able to prepare remarks on the topic reflecting the concerns of the user community. I look forward to whatever comments the ALAC members choose to provide on new gTLDs. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
Thank you for your clarification Danny, some minor points in reply are raised below...<CLO> -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2007 8:42 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: GNSO working group Hi Cheryl, The purpose of the roll call was to get ALAC members to focus on policy work; having listened to the last ALAC teleconference wherein policy matters received the usual amount of attention (almost none) I deemed this to be a reasonable approach to solicit a response. <CLO>If you are referring to the transcript of the October 9th Meeting then NO Policy discussion could be discussed or actioned as there was not a quorum of existing ALAC at that meeting and the newly appointed ALAC members who did attend do not take up their role until the close of the AGM at LA. As ad hoc Chair of that meeting (which was the first held under our new ROP's) I can assure you we were VERY careful to follow proper process, so the opportunity was taken to better inform our new NomCom appointed Members who were in attendance, about the action items in the AGENDA... You should note however that work is also done between meetings online in both subcommittee structures and by the ALAC as a whole so please also refer to any reports of those outcomes which are also available on other pages of the ALAC Wiki Candidly, the limited (almost non-existent) participation of ALAC members in the prior RAA WG was more than disappointing, and frankly, I didn't want to see a repeat performance as we are faced with major issues that require substantive thought and commentary. <CLO> I certainly hear what you are saying on this point... As you know I personally responded to that working group re this matter; And yes I also agree *most sincerely* that we MUST focus on POLICY (as we must note do many of the recently appointed and longer serving ALAC Members who make up the ALAC at the moment {and do remember RALO elected representatives from ALS's etc., have only been coming on board in the last (less than 12 month) of this process} and that we have spent far too much time involved in process matters)... But you can look backward and just identify our faults (and there are no doubt many) OR you can learn from them and improve... I believe this very WG process we are now in is a real and genuine effort at doing just that. And how we best ensure this only gets better as we move into the ALAC structure that will exist after LA is a least 'One more piece of Policy' that we will need to agree upon and forward in our ALAC Face to Face meetings there. The new gTLD recommendations have been under discussion within the community for the last twenty months and follow on the heals of known problems that have been discussed since November of 2000 and that have received significant media attention on a world-wide basis. One would expect ALAC members to be sufficiently informed about matters that have been under the microscope for the last seven years, and one would expect them to be able to prepare remarks on the topic reflecting the concerns of the user community. <CLO> I thought I made clear, but perhaps I did not, that it was the At-Large community and internet users stakeholders (via the RALO's and ALS's that need some small time (I suspect) to make their input that is our most important aspect of this process in my opinion, at least. ALAC Members no doubt do have clear opinions (I know I do) but we need to outreach to the community to actually ascertain input not just assume that my no doubt biased views from my ccTLD experience are reflective of all the concerns the community (again in my case Australia) may have... I need the ALS in Australia to come to their own consensus opinion as a Member of that community just as I need all the ALS's contributing to the APRALO (whom I represent along with Izumi) to do the same... I also have the right and indeed the responsibility to make input into their processes as well. I look forward to whatever comments the ALAC members choose to provide on new gTLDs. <CLO>So do I and we will be following the time plan put out by the Chair of ALAC, Jacqueline over the weekend: 1) Timeframe of ad-hoc WG: ends on Thursday 25 Oct. (2) Links to reference documents are provided (3) The 20 GNSO new gTLD recommendations are cited (4) WG members will each draft comments on whatever issues they might have with certain recommendations (5) Initial comments due by 22 October (6) First draft of Final Document (incorporating all comments) by 23 October (7) Final Document by 25 October (8) ALAC reviews WG effort in LA and provides Statement to accompany the Final Document for transmission to the ICANN board. So some of the ALAC may choose to leave their particular comments to be any of the appropriate stages listed therein... Kindest regards, CLO ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
Cheryl, Re: "But you can look backward and just identify our faults (and there are no doubt many) OR you can learn from them and improve..." There is another option. One can realisticly assess the ALAC and come to the self-evident conclusion that ALAC experiment in participation-instead-of-representation is an abject failure that should be terminated. The ALAC has been given ample time to get their act together (five years). The ALAC has failed. Miserably. Let this experiment end, and use your postive energies to launch a different experiment -- perhaps one that focuses on the representation to which we are entitled. All ALSs can be encouraged to join their fellow non-commercial organizations in the NCUC, so no real harm will be occasioned by the demise of the ALAC. I'd suggest going back to the recommendations of the At-Large Study Committee (ALSC), creating an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO) and seating directors on the ICANN Board -- if you recall, that was their consensus-based recommendation (that the ALAC didn't have the guts to pursue). Perhaps you will have the courage to do the right thing. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
Final from me on this matter (I hope) until we discuss these issues further (and indeed we should discuss them) in LA are, interspaced below... -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2007 10:15 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: GNSO working group Cheryl, Re: "But you can look backward and just identify our faults (and there are no doubt many) OR you can learn from them and improve..." There is another option. One can realisticly assess the ALAC and come to the self-evident conclusion that ALAC experiment in participation-instead-of-representation is an abject failure that should be terminated. <CLO> You know we are going to have to agree to disagree here. At least at this point in time :-) The ALAC has been given ample time to get their act together (five years). The ALAC has failed. Miserably. Let this experiment end, and use your postive energies to launch a different experiment -- perhaps one that focuses on the representation to which we are entitled. <CLO> I am of the opinion that, and I suspect many of my fellow 'newbie's' in the ALAC now here as a result of the new ALS and RALO appointment mechanisms may also agree, it is also more than valid to let this current FORM of the 'experiment' have a REAL chance to run its course, and then succeed or fail on the merits of its performance... This has not had the chance to happen - Though I certainly understand some of your frustrations and criticisms of past performances. It is also my observation that criticism is always plentiful it is actions to make changes for the better that we so often lack. All ALSs can be encouraged to join their fellow non-commercial organizations in the NCUC, so no real harm will be occasioned by the demise of the ALAC. <CLO> I agree that if an ALS sees the NCUC as an opportunity for their input into ICANN process and policy development, they indeed should join that constituency, as well as a RALO and I would certainly encourage them to do so to widen their input opportunities if nothing else. I'd suggest going back to the recommendations of the At-Large Study Committee (ALSC), creating an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO) and seating directors on the ICANN Board -- if you recall, that was their consensus-based recommendation (that the ALAC didn't have the guts to pursue). <CLO> yes I remember those recommendations quite well, as to why they did not gain acceptance at that time? Well several theories are easy to come up with, but I believe we need to work effectively in whatever structure we are afforded and we need to give ALAC the chance to try and do that. Perhaps you will have the courage to do the right thing. <CLO> my courage has little to do with it, it's the At-Large Community that needs a voice and it is it, via ALAC or otherwise, that needs to find a way to make itself best heard... And indeed listened to... I look forward to seeing you in LA and indeed to getting some WG policy input together before then... CLO ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
Last comment on this topic. Did the ccTLDs choose to "work effectively in whatever structure they were afforded"? No, they did not. They seceded from the DNSO and formed their own Supporting Organization. They recognized that their community warranted having direct representation on the ICANN Board and they acted to make it so. By pursuing this ALAC/RALO/ALS nonsense instead of creating a situation where the user community has direct board-level representation, ALAC members are doing nothing more than serving to perpetuate the ongoing disenfranchisement of the user community. Cheryl, if the Board was listening to the ALAC, then I might understand your reticence to abandon an experiment gone bad, but there is no empirical evidence to be had to demonstrate that the Board pays any attention to ALAC remarks whatsoever. Just consider the last Statement that the ALAC sent through to the Public Comment forum on the Budget. ALAC asked for registrar level transaction fees to be applied to the Add Grace period so that domain tasting activities could be curtailed. Did anyone on the board even acknowledge the recommendation, or even bother to offer the courtesy of a response? Of course not, they just ratified the budget, allowed domain tasting to continue, and paid no attention to the ALAC recommendation -- by the way, the ALAC comment was the only public comment so it certainly wasn't overlooked by accident. The ALAC is a powerless and ignored artificial construct. I fail to understand why you strive to defend a tool that offers no practical utility. Follow the lead of the ccTLDs that acted in their own interest. Fight for the representation that you have been denied. At ICANN's inception the At-Large was promised seats on half of the ICANN Board, and now the ALAC willingly and meekly accepts zero seats -- you should all be ashamed. regards, Danny --- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
Final from me on this matter (I hope) until we discuss these issues further (and indeed we should discuss them) in LA are, interspaced below...
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2007 10:15 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: GNSO working group
Cheryl,
Re: "But you can look backward and just identify our faults (and there are no doubt many) OR you can learn from them and improve..."
There is another option.
One can realisticly assess the ALAC and come to the self-evident conclusion that ALAC experiment in participation-instead-of-representation is an abject failure that should be terminated.
<CLO> You know we are going to have to agree to disagree here. At least at this point in time :-)
The ALAC has been given ample time to get their act together (five years). The ALAC has failed. Miserably.
Let this experiment end, and use your postive energies to launch a different experiment -- perhaps one that focuses on the representation to which we are entitled.
<CLO> I am of the opinion that, and I suspect many of my fellow 'newbie's' in the ALAC now here as a result of the new ALS and RALO appointment mechanisms may also agree, it is also more than valid to let this current FORM of the 'experiment' have a REAL chance to run its course, and then succeed or fail on the merits of its performance... This has not had the chance to happen - Though I certainly understand some of your frustrations and criticisms of past performances. It is also my observation that criticism is always plentiful it is actions to make changes for the better that we so often lack.
All ALSs can be encouraged to join their fellow non-commercial organizations in the NCUC, so no real harm will be occasioned by the demise of the ALAC.
<CLO> I agree that if an ALS sees the NCUC as an opportunity for their input into ICANN process and policy development, they indeed should join that constituency, as well as a RALO and I would certainly encourage them to do so to widen their input opportunities if nothing else.
I'd suggest going back to the recommendations of the At-Large Study Committee (ALSC), creating an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO) and seating directors on the ICANN Board -- if you recall, that was their consensus-based recommendation (that the ALAC didn't have the guts to pursue).
<CLO> yes I remember those recommendations quite well, as to why they did not gain acceptance at that time? Well several theories are easy to come up with, but I believe we need to work effectively in whatever structure we are afforded and we need to give ALAC the chance to try and do that.
Perhaps you will have the courage to do the right thing.
<CLO> my courage has little to do with it, it's the At-Large Community that needs a voice and it is it, via ALAC or otherwise, that needs to find a way to make itself best heard... And indeed listened to...
I look forward to seeing you in LA and indeed to getting some WG policy input together before then...
CLO
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ha scritto:
Final from me on this matter (I hope) until we discuss these issues further (and indeed we should discuss them) in LA are, interspaced below...
I'd like to add my opinion on this matter, as it's not a new discussion :) The interim ALAC was tasked with one main task, that of forming the RALOs; it decided to start dealing with policies immediately, because that was thought necessary to establish its credibility and motivate people to participate. The final ALAC has only one main task: producing policy advice. The organizational stuff, elections, secretariats etc., should just be a routine running in the background and occupying a share as little as possible of the energies. One can discuss to which extent the ALAC members have to write policy recommendations themselves, or whether they have to be facilitators of a broader communication. Possibly it's both. However, the ad personam funding for ALAC members is being provided exactly to allow some people from the At Large community to work on policy on a fair level with all other constituencies, where employees pay at least the expenses (by the way, Danny, that's usually true of the NCUC as well - of course universities and NGOs usually are poorer employers, but still most NCUC members do ICANN as part of their professional activities). So, the point of spending the money is facilitating the work of policy advocates on behalf of the At Large, and nothing else. Bottom line, the ALAC members can't get staff support, paid conference calls, the travel money, the hotel room, paid dinners, 75$ a day, and then expect that most of the work is voluntarily done by someone else in the community who's not getting any of that. That's not a reasonable expectation, and it's also quite unfair. An ALAC member who does not lead or at least contribute significantly to the development of any policy statement is a bad investment of the public's money, and a useless ALAC member. Finally, I recognize Evan's point on the fact that many people are new to this environment and that there is a lack of good sources of information, but new people can still do as all of us did when starting - read a lot, make stupid questions, try for yourself, write down and teach to others what you are learning. Showing interest in actual policy issues would be enough. Start working, and that will encourage help and more work by others. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
The purpose of the roll call was to get ALAC members to focus on policy work; having listened to the last ALAC teleconference wherein policy matters received the usual amount of attention (almost none) I deemed this to be a reasonable approach to solicit a response. Perhaps this can be attributed to a matter of growing pains.
We are clearly in a transitional period in which we have an ALAC that was created to oversee the initial formation of ALSs and RALOs, now dealing with the fact that the _initial_ job is done and its role is changing. For the At-Large system to work, ALAC needs to evolve into a co-ordinating and leadership role, and it will fail if ALAC members (as opposed to members of RALOs) are called on to do all of the policy heavy lifting. I would hope that the role of ALAC would be of stewardship of the process rather than having to do everything itself. It doesn't help the matter of stability that all of this comes under review soon. What _can_ survive the ALAC review, that badly need to be created, are methods and channels through which: 1) Publicly understandable information is collected and distributed to RALO members (and staff is sufficiently held accountable for producing it) 2) RALO members are engaged to find people can come forward who are interested in the various policy areas and create the various WGs 3) The RALO members are able to comment and participate in any draft opinions produced by the WGs 4) Resulting opinions are submitted to appropriate contacts within ICANN Many of these processes are well established in many of ICANN's other constituencies; those conventions, with the exception of (4), will not work in At-Large. As I have said before, At-Large is not NCUC; it is critical to avoid assumptions about the motivations and skill levels of RALO members, based on what exists within ICANN's other constituencies. It is also critical not to panic, or demand haste for its own sake. The fact that the whole At-Large is incapable of appropriately commenting on the immediate issues of the day is mostly a matter of ICANN staff's inability to respond appropriately to community needs. (And no, Nick, this is not a personal attack ... if you're overloaded then you should be given appropriate support; At-Large should not be held hostage to painfully slow hiring process. Indeed, there are certainly things that are assumed to be done by Staff that the community can do faster and/or less expensively.) The recent demands of some that At-Large be ready to respond immediately to ICANN's issues are just ludicrous. The community is still feelings its way, and many transitions are taking place (some fighting inertia more than others). If there's a complaint about how much money has been spent so far with so little apparent progress, don't blame At-Large since we have no say on how it's spent. If the community is ever given the chance to participate and offer efficiencies, everyone may be pleasantly surprised -- from my own experience I think most ALSs would prefer as little bureaucracy as possible. In the meantime ... if some At-Large members (especially outside ALAC) are able to comment appropriately on the issues of the day, that's a happy bonus but should not be assumed. Most of At-Large is still very new to all this, and the ICANN veterans amongst us need to adjust to a very different reality than they are used to. We all still have much to learn. - Evan
Thanks Evan for the useful suggestions. At Large currently consists of people with different levels of knowledge, experience and expertise in the issues, and what I would love to see is the ones who have more help along the ones who have less experience in the discussions. But there are many that I know are experts in the issues who are not yet stepping up to participate, and this is frustrating. I'm sure that it also frustrates the ones who are stepping up a lot, like Danny. The GNSO WG seems to have sparked some interest as there are many people signing up according to Nick, so let's see. One thing that has been happening in some ALSes is that they have been developing primers for the members - the members of the ALS who understand more about an issue have been developing explanatory documents for the others. What might be useful is if the RALOs can create a clearinghouse of these, so that the burden of all these documents does not fall on the single At Large Staff person. And these documents are already in the language of the ALS, so we may already have among us translated material that can help other ALSes both in the RALO and in other RALOs. We can help ourselves. Maybe the Secretariats can explore this in their meetings. Most of the ALAC members and ex-members have taken on issue areas to lead, so this structure suggestion is already being tested. We shall see. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 19:34 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO working group
The purpose of the roll call was to get ALAC members to focus on policy work; having listened to the last ALAC teleconference wherein policy matters received the usual amount of attention (almost none) I deemed this to be a reasonable approach to solicit a response. Perhaps this can be attributed to a matter of growing pains.
We are clearly in a transitional period in which we have an ALAC that was created to oversee the initial formation of ALSs and RALOs, now dealing with the fact that the _initial_ job is done and its role is changing. For the At-Large system to work, ALAC needs to evolve into a co-ordinating and leadership role, and it will fail if ALAC members (as opposed to members of RALOs) are called on to do all of the policy heavy lifting. I would hope that the role of ALAC would be of stewardship of the process rather than having to do everything itself. It doesn't help the matter of stability that all of this comes under review soon. What _can_ survive the ALAC review, that badly need to be created, are methods and channels through which: 1) Publicly understandable information is collected and distributed to RALO members (and staff is sufficiently held accountable for producing it) 2) RALO members are engaged to find people can come forward who are interested in the various policy areas and create the various WGs 3) The RALO members are able to comment and participate in any draft opinions produced by the WGs 4) Resulting opinions are submitted to appropriate contacts within ICANN Many of these processes are well established in many of ICANN's other constituencies; those conventions, with the exception of (4), will not work in At-Large. As I have said before, At-Large is not NCUC; it is critical to avoid assumptions about the motivations and skill levels of RALO members, based on what exists within ICANN's other constituencies. It is also critical not to panic, or demand haste for its own sake. The fact that the whole At-Large is incapable of appropriately commenting on the immediate issues of the day is mostly a matter of ICANN staff's inability to respond appropriately to community needs. (And no, Nick, this is not a personal attack ... if you're overloaded then you should be given appropriate support; At-Large should not be held hostage to painfully slow hiring process. Indeed, there are certainly things that are assumed to be done by Staff that the community can do faster and/or less expensively.) The recent demands of some that At-Large be ready to respond immediately to ICANN's issues are just ludicrous. The community is still feelings its way, and many transitions are taking place (some fighting inertia more than others). If there's a complaint about how much money has been spent so far with so little apparent progress, don't blame At-Large since we have no say on how it's spent. If the community is ever given the chance to participate and offer efficiencies, everyone may be pleasantly surprised -- from my own experience I think most ALSs would prefer as little bureaucracy as possible. In the meantime ... if some At-Large members (especially outside ALAC) are able to comment appropriately on the issues of the day, that's a happy bonus but should not be assumed. Most of At-Large is still very new to all this, and the ICANN veterans amongst us need to adjust to a very different reality than they are used to. We all still have much to learn. - 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1073 - Release Date: 10/16/2007 08:22 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1073 - Release Date: 10/16/2007 08:22
participants (5)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Vittorio Bertola