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>>