Wendy, Alan, and all, I agree with both you and Alan's observations below. It irritatingly clear that a tiny few are interested in severely limiting open and transparent participation in this forum as well as by any other user. However this has been to a large degree, the general attitude of the ICANN board sense it's conception. Ergo Wendy, your remarks regarding an overriding interest in "procedural complexities that do little to make ALAC more accountable to the at-large public", ring particularly true and far to loud. Such does not speak well to accountability, if it speaks to it at all... -----Original Message-----

From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> Sent: Apr 12, 2008 11:58 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> 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/

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