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>>