Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Statements
Alan, I look at the other examples around us in order to evaluate the "effectiveness" of correspondence. The GAC sents a thoughtful Statement to the ICANN board and receives a 24-page response from the ICANN Chairman of the Board. What type of response do ALAC Statements usually obtain? At least with regard to the GAC Statements the ICANN Board knows that the documents submitted are the result of a community-wide process that leads up to a consensus formulation. Draft documents are evaluated at the local level, there is discussion on language revisions held at a working group level and those revisions are typically brought to the full membership for final ratification during a plenary. Contrast that process to what usually happens in the ALAC world where there is almost never any awareness of proposed ALAC statements at the ALS level, where proposed ALAC Statements are never discussed at the RALO level, and where discussion regarding these Statements is almost never present on the ALAC's own discussion list. The makeshift approach used by the ALAC to promulgate Statements has to be replaced -- it has outlived any usefulness that it might once have had.
Danny, three points: Methodology used to formulate policy and advice: No argument - it needs to be made far more robust. Board feedback: This comparison can only go so far. Should the Board give us feedback? Yes, even the Board-approved report on the ALAC review said so. Are we there now? No. When submitting statements to the Board, we used to get nothing back. Now we tend to at least receive an acknowledgement that it was received - far from satisfactory. I would like to think that as the quality of our advice increases, so will the feedback, but I am pragmatic enough to know that it is not that simple. Comparison with the GAC: We are both technically "Board Advisory Committees", but let us be realistic - we are not at the same level. Even the Bylaws demonstrate that. The Board can unilaterally remove ANY director and Liaison by a 3/4 vote. Except for the GAC Liaison, where the best that they can do is with a 3/4 vote ask the GAC to remove the Liaison. But if the GAC does not, the Liaison stays. And the AoC will strengthen the position of the GAC even more. Alan At 11/10/2009 08:55 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
I look at the other examples around us in order to evaluate the "effectiveness" of correspondence. The GAC sents a thoughtful Statement to the ICANN board and receives a 24-page response from the ICANN Chairman of the Board. What type of response do ALAC Statements usually obtain?
At least with regard to the GAC Statements the ICANN Board knows that the documents submitted are the result of a community-wide process that leads up to a consensus formulation. Draft documents are evaluated at the local level, there is discussion on language revisions held at a working group level and those revisions are typically brought to the full membership for final ratification during a plenary.
Contrast that process to what usually happens in the ALAC world where there is almost never any awareness of proposed ALAC statements at the ALS level, where proposed ALAC Statements are never discussed at the RALO level, and where discussion regarding these Statements is almost never present on the ALAC's own discussion list.
The makeshift approach used by the ALAC to promulgate Statements has to be replaced -- it has outlived any usefulness that it might once have had.
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Danny Younger