Re: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods
Unfortunately this is not a new problem. And it's not limited to ALAC -- I have seen the NCSG having to respond with similar, ridiculous turnaround deadlines set by the GNSO. Here as there, it's as if volunteers are expected to drop whatever they are doing in order to comment on ICANN business, whether trivial or significant. I do not know what a solution would be. Some of the more cynical among us might assume bureaucratic intent on the part of ICANN? Analogous in some way to the old attorney's trick of burying one's opponent in a blizzard of paperwork the night before a hearing? We should thank Danny for raising this point so dramatically. It is a fundamental flaw in the system. One possible way of working within it is to firmly designate subject experts on a broad range of topics and delegate to them, with trust, the duty of drafting a core response as soon as the request is made, then giving the community a chance to comment on it, rather than just opening it up broadly and hoping someone comes forward with something to say. -----Original Message-----
From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> Sent: May 31, 2011 2:57 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, 'Seth Greene' <Seth.Greene@icann.org> Cc: "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods
I think that Danny has raised an excellent point and I would like to hear from staff on this issue.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:51 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods
As of late, I have noticed that when a Call for Comments is issued to the at-large community, the time-frame for providing comments in response to the Call is far from sufficient. Below I have listed the last eight Call for Comment cycles (announcement dates and comment closure dates are shown); the available time for comments can at best be described as a few days. A few days is simply not enough time for most individuals, and I can't imagine that organizational entities would take any comfort in the present arrangement. It would be appreciated if something could be done to improve the present situation.
1. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team
Announced 01 April Deadline 03 April
2. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Framework for the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget
Announced 04 April Deadline 04 April
3. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Proposed Final Report
Announced 20 April Deadline 22 April
4. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement to the ICANN Board on the RAA Negotiations
Announced 22 April Deadline 29 April
5. Call for Comments: JAS WG Second Milestone Report
Announced 08 May Deadline 09 May
6. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Proposal for Renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement
Announced 11 May Deadline 15 May
7. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on Academia Representation on NomCom
Announced 20 May Deadline 25 May
8. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on eG8 Forum
Announced 20 May Deadline 22 May
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I do not know what a solution would be. Some of the more cynical among us might assume bureaucratic intent on the part of ICANN? Analogous in some way to the old attorney's trick of burying one's opponent in a blizzard of paperwork the night before a hearing?
A fairly straightforward solution would be to require that all comment periods be at least 15 (or whatever) days from the announcement date, that no action can be taken on a document until the comment period is over, and if that means they'll miss some other deadline, tough noogies. I expect that in most cases, the underlying problem is that whoever was preparing the document was just as disorganized as we are, they ran late, and they're trying to make it up by cutting the comment period short. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
This issue was of course also recognized, discussed at length and recommendations made to address / rectify in the ALAC review process with considerable opportunity for changes and improvements expected from the implementation of the recommendations from Work Team D and to a lesser extent Work Team C... see the reports at https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/At-Large+Improvements+Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/At-Large+Improvements+Workspace> In the wider ICANN context you should of course also note the relevant recommendations (again yet to be implemented) to the ICANN Board from the ATRT... Also in terms of planning and processes that currently aim to better engage RALO's, ALSes and Individuals the PAD tool may need to be better accessed and utilized by the Regional Leadership (I also note here some RALO's {e.g. LACRALO} are also more effectively pushing to their list(S) announcents from ICANN and ALAC about Policy Development and Calls for Public Comment. Also recently (and inclusive of those listed by Danny)where a draft statement is prepared by a liaison or WG these have been 'worked up' ON the wiki allowing for ongoing input from community during that process and well before it goes to ALAC comment stage again perhaps whomever holds the distribution and Policy Dev / input outreach role in any given Region might be encouraged to subscribe to page changes on the wiki where these drafts are developed to ensure their lists are aware of this earlier (pre comment) work in the interim i.e. before implementation of the recommendations referenced above... So I guess I'm saying the issue is serious, IS recognized and the solutions are a 'work in progress' but ARE progressing... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 1 June 2011 05:29, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> wrote:
Unfortunately this is not a new problem. And it's not limited to ALAC -- I have seen the NCSG having to respond with similar, ridiculous turnaround deadlines set by the GNSO. Here as there, it's as if volunteers are expected to drop whatever they are doing in order to comment on ICANN business, whether trivial or significant.
I do not know what a solution would be. Some of the more cynical among us might assume bureaucratic intent on the part of ICANN? Analogous in some way to the old attorney's trick of burying one's opponent in a blizzard of paperwork the night before a hearing?
We should thank Danny for raising this point so dramatically. It is a fundamental flaw in the system.
One possible way of working within it is to firmly designate subject experts on a broad range of topics and delegate to them, with trust, the duty of drafting a core response as soon as the request is made, then giving the community a chance to comment on it, rather than just opening it up broadly and hoping someone comes forward with something to say.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> Sent: May 31, 2011 2:57 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, 'Seth Greene' < Seth.Greene@icann.org> Cc: "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" < na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods
I think that Danny has raised an excellent point and I would like to hear from staff on this issue.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:51 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods
As of late, I have noticed that when a Call for Comments is issued to the at-large community, the time-frame for providing comments in response to the Call is far from sufficient. Below I have listed the last eight Call for Comment cycles (announcement dates and comment closure dates are shown); the available time for comments can at best be described as a few days. A few days is simply not enough time for most individuals, and I can't imagine that organizational entities would take any comfort in the present arrangement. It would be appreciated if something could be done to improve the present situation.
1. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team
Announced 01 April Deadline 03 April
2. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Framework for the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget
Announced 04 April Deadline 04 April
3. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Proposed Final Report
Announced 20 April Deadline 22 April
4. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement to the ICANN Board on the RAA Negotiations
Announced 22 April Deadline 29 April
5. Call for Comments: JAS WG Second Milestone Report
Announced 08 May Deadline 09 May
6. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Proposal for Renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement
Announced 11 May Deadline 15 May
7. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on Academia Representation on NomCom
Announced 20 May Deadline 25 May
8. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on eG8 Forum
Announced 20 May Deadline 22 May
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
My two cents: This problem is structural, and central to the way ICANN operates. The Board and senior staff set various agendas in the most top-down of manners, and the stakeholders must then scramble to be heard in the time allotted to the issue. It's too hard to tell if this is deliberately designed to keep stakeholders (especially volunteer ones) off-balance, or simply as a convenience matter of keeping things neat and tidy at the Board level. I can say from multiple first-hand experiences that attempts to advance user issues that are not presently on the Board's plate (or in sync with its timetable) are impolitely brushed aside -- deferred until never. Only the GAC seems to have the leverage to override this rebuke, and even then its engagement is hardly welcomed with open arms. I am no more fan of the time-lines than anyone, and can only defend them by saying that had these windows not been what they were, policy advice that we believed needed to be heard ... would not be at all. The best we can ask for is to ask for as much community participation _before_ the fact, to participate in policy *before* the dreaded comment-reply window is invoked. The new Future Challenges working group of ALAC is an attempt to reverse this course, and to stop our being in panic-reaction mode all the time. Its seed comes from Jean-Jaques Subrenat, a former ICANN Board member who is now an ALAC representative from Europe. Jean-Jaques brings to this effort some much-needed understanding of ICANN Board internals. Even so, based on history this WG will encounter some present challenges as well ... but it still needs to be done. - Evan On 31 May 2011 15:29, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> wrote:
Unfortunately this is not a new problem. And it's not limited to ALAC -- I have seen the NCSG having to respond with similar, ridiculous turnaround deadlines set by the GNSO. Here as there, it's as if volunteers are expected to drop whatever they are doing in order to comment on ICANN business, whether trivial or significant.
I do not know what a solution would be. Some of the more cynical among us might assume bureaucratic intent on the part of ICANN? Analogous in some way to the old attorney's trick of burying one's opponent in a blizzard of paperwork the night before a hearing?
We should thank Danny for raising this point so dramatically. It is a fundamental flaw in the system.
One possible way of working within it is to firmly designate subject experts on a broad range of topics and delegate to them, with trust, the duty of drafting a core response as soon as the request is made, then giving the community a chance to comment on it, rather than just opening it up broadly and hoping someone comes forward with something to say.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> Sent: May 31, 2011 2:57 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, 'Seth Greene' < Seth.Greene@icann.org> Cc: "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" < na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods
I think that Danny has raised an excellent point and I would like to hear from staff on this issue.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:51 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods
As of late, I have noticed that when a Call for Comments is issued to the at-large community, the time-frame for providing comments in response to the Call is far from sufficient. Below I have listed the last eight Call for Comment cycles (announcement dates and comment closure dates are shown); the available time for comments can at best be described as a few days. A few days is simply not enough time for most individuals, and I can't imagine that organizational entities would take any comfort in the present arrangement. It would be appreciated if something could be done to improve the present situation.
1. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team
Announced 01 April Deadline 03 April
2. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Framework for the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget
Announced 04 April Deadline 04 April
3. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Proposed Final Report
Announced 20 April Deadline 22 April
4. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement to the ICANN Board on the RAA Negotiations
Announced 22 April Deadline 29 April
5. Call for Comments: JAS WG Second Milestone Report
Announced 08 May Deadline 09 May
6. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Proposal for Renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement
Announced 11 May Deadline 15 May
7. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on Academia Representation on NomCom
Announced 20 May Deadline 25 May
8. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on eG8 Forum
Announced 20 May Deadline 22 May
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Hi again, My sincere apologies for having twice misspelled the name of Jean-*Jacques*Subrenat. - Evan On 31 May 2011 16:50, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
My two cents:
This problem is structural, and central to the way ICANN operates. The Board and senior staff set various agendas in the most top-down of manners, and the stakeholders must then scramble to be heard in the time allotted to the issue. It's too hard to tell if this is deliberately designed to keep stakeholders (especially volunteer ones) off-balance, or simply as a convenience matter of keeping things neat and tidy at the Board level.
I can say from multiple first-hand experiences that attempts to advance user issues that are not presently on the Board's plate (or in sync with its timetable) are impolitely brushed aside -- deferred until never. Only the GAC seems to have the leverage to override this rebuke, and even then its engagement is hardly welcomed with open arms.
I am no more fan of the time-lines than anyone, and can only defend them by saying that had these windows not been what they were, policy advice that we believed needed to be heard ... would not be at all. The best we can ask for is to ask for as much community participation _before_ the fact, to participate in policy *before* the dreaded comment-reply window is invoked.
The new Future Challenges working group of ALAC is an attempt to reverse this course, and to stop our being in panic-reaction mode all the time. Its seed comes from Jean-Jaques Subrenat, a former ICANN Board member who is now an ALAC representative from Europe. Jean-Jaques brings to this effort some much-needed understanding of ICANN Board internals. Even so, based on history this WG will encounter some present challenges as well ... but it still needs to be done.
- Evan
On 31 May 2011 15:29, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> wrote:
Unfortunately this is not a new problem. And it's not limited to ALAC -- I have seen the NCSG having to respond with similar, ridiculous turnaround deadlines set by the GNSO. Here as there, it's as if volunteers are expected to drop whatever they are doing in order to comment on ICANN business, whether trivial or significant.
I do not know what a solution would be. Some of the more cynical among us might assume bureaucratic intent on the part of ICANN? Analogous in some way to the old attorney's trick of burying one's opponent in a blizzard of paperwork the night before a hearing?
We should thank Danny for raising this point so dramatically. It is a fundamental flaw in the system.
One possible way of working within it is to firmly designate subject experts on a broad range of topics and delegate to them, with trust, the duty of drafting a core response as soon as the request is made, then giving the community a chance to comment on it, rather than just opening it up broadly and hoping someone comes forward with something to say.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> Sent: May 31, 2011 2:57 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, 'Seth Greene' < Seth.Greene@icann.org> Cc: "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" < na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods
I think that Danny has raised an excellent point and I would like to hear from staff on this issue.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:51 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods
As of late, I have noticed that when a Call for Comments is issued to the at-large community, the time-frame for providing comments in response to the Call is far from sufficient. Below I have listed the last eight Call for Comment cycles (announcement dates and comment closure dates are shown); the available time for comments can at best be described as a few days. A few days is simply not enough time for most individuals, and I can't imagine that organizational entities would take any comfort in the present arrangement. It would be appreciated if something could be done to improve the present situation.
1. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team
Announced 01 April Deadline 03 April
2. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Framework for the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget
Announced 04 April Deadline 04 April
3. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Proposed Final Report
Announced 20 April Deadline 22 April
4. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement to the ICANN Board on the RAA Negotiations
Announced 22 April Deadline 29 April
5. Call for Comments: JAS WG Second Milestone Report
Announced 08 May Deadline 09 May
6. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Proposal for Renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement
Announced 11 May Deadline 15 May
7. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on Academia Representation on NomCom
Announced 20 May Deadline 25 May
8. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on eG8 Forum
Announced 20 May Deadline 22 May
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
participants (4)
-
Beau Brendler -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Evan Leibovitch -
John R. Levine