On 16/02/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:

Thanks Nick,

I'm sure none of us volunteered so that we could be publicly accused of
negligence without getting a public opportunity to respond. I don't
appreciate your further disparagements here. If any member of the public
has further questions about the Ombudsman's investigation, I hope they
will feel free to invite our further responses.

Moreover, I have already made suggestions to the full committee and to
the public about improving the ALAC's ALS approval process.  I have yet
to see your report, but I look forward to offering similar substantive
discussion of that.

*WENDY*

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Wendy, I'd like to hope that the report can be discussed in a sober and
> constructive environment, free of inflammatory language and incorrect
> information. I can understand why there are members of the Committee,
> especially those longer-serving members like yourself who have now  been
> through their THIRD investigation by the Ombudsman of ALS Applications
> handling in less than two years, who are upset at the moment.
>
> However, I would urge you to channel the emotion of the moment into more
> positive activities than an unhappy continuation of finger-pointing. There
> is a potential for constructive results to come from the investigation but
> only if the lessons which are to be learnt from it are learnt, which will
> not occur if the discussion about the contents of the report is held in an
> emotional or perjorative way which is unfortunately what a number of your
> comments lends themselves to.
>
> Spending more time in an 'us vs. them' debate also, frankly, is wasted
> energy. Since you have been appointed to represent the community, I would
> suggest to you that you take the high ground - not by trying to blame
> others
> but by trying to improve the system which you personally are a part of.
>
> As mentioned it is also very unfortunately the *THIRD* investigation of the
> Committee by the Ombudsman relating to handling of ALS applications. No
> other community has faced even *ONE* investigation of this kind. I would
> strongly suggest to you that the community as a whole is hardly likely to
> accept "it is the staff's fault again" as a response to the third
> investigation of the same thing.
>
> As I have suggested to the ALAC as a whole, rather than continuing to point
> fingers or alleging misconduct by the Ombudsman - who is hardly likely to
> reach conclusions without evidence - it would be more productive for the
> community as a whole for lessons to be learnt from this - THIRD -
> investigation and the process improved. Lets move on and make lemonade from
> the lemons, as the phrase (mostly!) goes.
>
> As you are aware, in hopes of helping to generate some lemonade, I am
> drafting a submission to the Committee - which I am sure it will choose to
> share with the Community as a whole - to give the ALS community and the
> RALOs a much greater role in the approval of new applications for ALS
> accreditation since it seems to me that the most fundamental right of a
> constituency is for it to choose its membership, and to make the current
> process more transparent and accountable to the community as a whole would
> seem to me to be an obvious and constructive improvement. Since I know you
> to be a passionate advocate for transparency and accountability I'm sure
> you'll agree with the principle.
>
> As I have said to the Committee on more than one occasion, I am sure all of
> you didn't volunteer your time in order to process large amounts of
> membership applications and related documentations, but rather to work on
> policy, and I'm sure that's equally true of the community as a whole.
>
> On 15/02/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
>>
>> It appears that the Ombudsman's "report" has been posted publicly.  Here
>> is my personal response:
>>
>> The Ombudsman is quick to extol the virtues of Ombudsmanship (Report,
>> p.15), but slow to put them into practice.  He praises the flexibility
>> and equitable alternatives open to an ombudsman, as distinct from a
>> court of law, then treats the At-Large Advisory Committee like the
>> hostile target of a grand jury investigation with no opportunity to
>> respond. Using selective quotation from interim drafts circulated on
>> internal lists, he paints a skewed picture of the Committee's processes
>> and conclusions, and therefore misses some of the key facts in the
>> dispute.
>
> The Committee does not deny responsibility for some delays.  At the same
>> time, the Committee was often barred from more rapid response by its
>> ICANN-appointed staff, who unilaterally blocked Committee publication of
>> vote results and then sent notifications to applicants without offering
>> the Committee any opportunity to review or correct them.
>
> There are indeed problems to be addressed in the ALAC's functions, many
>> of them deep structural problems in ICANN's construction of the ALAC,
>> but the Ombudsman's determination that the Committee must be publicly
>> shamed unfortunately misses the opportunity to make progress in
>> resolving any of them.
>
>

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/