[atlarge-discuss] Re: [aloc] Proposed Final Draft of ALOC Submission (Vers. 3.0)

["Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>]

The rhetoric:
At-Large Organizing Committee:
"bottom-up efforts to organize At-Large mechanisms"
"meaningful, informed participation in ICANN by a full range of Internet users"
"Their work [committee members] will be public, facilitated [!!] by Denise 
Michel,"
http://www.at-large.org/at-large-organizing-committee.htm

The reality:
see Denise's veto of our work, below, combined with the selective exclusion 
of participants from the new ERC committee.

Sheesh!

Hans






At 04:22 PM 7/25/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>As I mentioned, all ALOC members' input will continue to be solicited.  If
>you want to solicit your organization's input on an ALAC please do so.  But
>I would ask that if you circulate the ALAC outline, you represent it
>accurately.  Please don't add your preamble and introduction and call it an
>"ALOC document," or even a version of the assistance group's document.  It's
>neither.
>
>I am particularly concerned about your addition of broad policy statements
>to what is supposed to be an ALAC implementation document.  I respect your
>right to suggest it as an addition, but please don't represent it as part of
>our ALAC implementation document.  That is presumptuous and premature.
>Personally, I think your text is ill-advised and should not be included.
>
>And, BTW, my opinion does matter.  I am not (as you say) your "facilitator"
>in this matter.  As one of the people the ERC asked to convene the
>assistance group to draft the document, I share a large burden of the
>responsibility for submitting a substantive proposal -- and I am drafting
>it.  It's way too confusing having multiple people re-writing, editing and
>re-naming documents and suggesting new release processes.  So please respect
>the process, and I, in turn, will continue to solicit any substantive work
>you would like to submit.
>
>The ERC has a process by which they want small groups of people crafting
>papers for public consideration. It's their call.  The assistance group is
>not a replacement for the ALOC.  Think of it as a drafting subcommittee --
>the product of which the ALOC can react to individually or as a group.
>
>Denise
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
>To: <aloc@at-large.org>
>Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:31 PM
>Subject: Re: [aloc] Proposed Final Draft of ALOC Submission (Vers. 3.0)
>
>
>
>Dear Denise,
>
>Aren't you being a little hard on me? :-)
>
>ALOC members made good progress in developing an interim document by the
>requested July 26 deadline.  (It if a "final" version of an "interim"
>report.)
>
>It seems to have usefully "squared the circle" by acknowledging support for
>an At Large while working within the Blueprint.
>
>It *did* get widespread support (and no opposition!)  I can re-post
>people's emails, if anyone wants.
>
>We could circulate the report to our various constituencies.  That would
>strengthen ties to the larger user community.
>
>The reduction of the ALOC to an ERC-chosen "assistance group" limits
>participation.  I still hope to be allowed to participate.
>
>I hope we can maintain a forum here that encourages participation.  I am
>feeling a little bit cowed, and I fear that others do as well.
>
>Hans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 11:11 AM 7/25/2002 -0700, Denise Michel wrote:
> >We don't seem to be communicating, Hans, so foregive my bluntness:
> >
> >1.  "We" are not writing an interim report.  The assistance group (listed
> >below) has been asked to -- and will -- by Aug. 16, provide the ERC with a
> >detailed proposal for establishing an ALAC.  I understand you may not like
> >the ERC's approach, in which case I suggest you take it up with them.
> >Esther Dyson
> >Denise Michel
> >Gabriel Piñeiro
> >Tommi Karttaavi
> >Peter M. Shane
> >Núria de la Fuente Teixidó
> >Edmundo Valenti
> >Vittorio Bertola
> >Izumi Aizu
> >2.   "We" are not "close to finalizing" anything.  The assistance group is
> >just beginning its work and a majority of its members have not had an
> >opportunity to address the substance of the outline.  Furthermore, your
> >characterization of this text as having "widespread expressions of
> >support" from committee members is a gross exaggeration.
> >
> >3.  I will write this report, and I will do so in very close consultation
> >with group members, unless another group member volunteers to spend the
> >100s of hours it will take to consult with members and draft this document
> >(in which case I would be happy to help them).
> >
> >4.  The additional comments that need to be made on this outline and the
> >issues that need to be addressed and decided upon are too numerous to list
>
> >here.  **The text to which you refer is not a report and it is not "ready
> >for distribution."**  We do not have closure and we will not for some time.
> >
> >5.  If you are done with your contributions to this document, however,
> >feel free to spend your time elsewhere and I will let you know when the
> >group reaches closure.
> >
> >Denise
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Hans Klein"
> ><<mailto:hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
> >To: "Denise Michel"
> ><<mailto:denisemichel@sbcglobal.net>denisemichel@sbcglobal.net>
> >Cc: <<mailto:aloc@at-large.org>aloc@at-large.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:28 AM
> >Subject: Re: [aloc] Proposed Final Draft of ALOC Submission (Vers. 3.0)
> >
> >
> >Denise,
> >
> >With all due respect, I don't believe it is fully appropriate for you to be
> >writing the report.  You are our *facilitator*.  While I recognize that you
> >have done good substantive work, ultimate responsibility for what this
> >committee says lies with its members.
> >
> >We are now in the process of writing an interim report.  Actually, we seem
> >close to finalizing it.  This will be an invaluable tool in our
> >consultations with our respective home organizations.
> >
> >To summarize our work so far, we are using a 2-part approach in which we 1)
> >note the wide support for elected At Large directors and then 2) offer
> >implementation details compatible with the ERC Blueprint.  This two-part
> >approach allows us to make an immediate contribution to the ERC without
> >giving the impression that we support the elimination of the At Large.
> >
> >This approach has attracted both useful input and widespread expressions of
> >support from committee members.
> >
> >Once we have finalized this document, we can:
> >          deliver it to the ERC
> >          post it on our web site
> >          make a brief announcement
> >          each of us distribute it to our home constituents
> >          begin accepting feedback
> >
> >As there seem to be no further comments, the report (version 3.0) seems
> >ready for distribution.  I suggest that we declare closure on this document
> >by midnight tonight (Thursday, July 25, Pacific Standard Time).
> >
> >Hans
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >At 06:57 AM 7/25/2002 -0700, Denise Michel wrote:
> > >I'm drafting a status report including key points for submission to the
> > >ERC/posting.  We no longer have a June 26 deadline and we do not have a
> > >"final draft."  We have a starting point for internal discussion on how
>to
> > >craft workable implementation details for an ALAC.
> > >
> > >The point of this limited ERC assistance group process is to provide
> > >*detailed recommendations* on an ALAC for consideration by the ERC and
>the
> > >public.  Key points need to be discussed and expanded upon, including the
> > >Role and Responsibilities, Structure/Membership, Involvement w/ Board,
> > >At-Large Structure Designation/Development, "At-Large Structures"
>Criteria,
> > >ALAC Composition, and ALAC Funding and Staffing.  Also, it is important
>also
> > >to hear the perspectives of Gabriel Piñeiro,  Tommi Karttaavi, Esther
>Dyson,
> > >Núria de la Fuente Teixidó, Edmundo Valenti, and Izumi Aizu.
> > >
> > >This document will not, nor is it intended to, reflect the views of all
>ALOC
> > >member organizations or even all of the ALOC members themselves.  It will
>be
> > >a detailed proposal for establishing an ALAC on which anyone interested
>can
> > >comment, change, build upon.
> > >
> > >  Denise
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Hans Klein"
> > <<mailto:hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
> > >To: <<mailto:aloc@at-large.org>aloc@at-large.org>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 9:33 PM
> > >Subject: [aloc] Proposed Final Draft of ALOC Submission (Vers. 3.0)
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear ALOC Members,
> > > >
> > > > We have put a lot of work into this document so that it can be ready
>by
> > >the
> > > > June 26 deadline.  I think we can still make that deadline.
> > > >
> > > > The version distributed by Vittorio (ver.2.1) included input by him,
> > > > Denise, and me.  Additional editorial changes were suggested by Peter
> > >Shane
> > > > and Esther Dyson (see below.)  I added those additional changes and
> > > > formatted the document a bit more nicely.  (See attached.)
> > > >
> > > > I propose we treat this "Version 3.0" as our final draft.  Everyone
> > should
> > > > read it and make any additional comments so that we can make closure
> > > > soon.  We can then submit it to the ERC and post it on the web
> > > > site.  Again, we should be able to make the June 26 deadline.
> > > >
> > > > Note that this is not a final report, but just a "first status repot"
>as
> > > > requested by the ERC:
> > > >
> >
><http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/status-report-15jul02.htm>http:
>//www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/status-report-15jul02.htm
> > > > So we don't have to go over this with a fine toothed comb.
> > > >
> > > > I do suggest we ask for feedback from the broader Internet community.
> > > >
> > > > Hans
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ADDITIONAL EDITORIAL CHANGES:
> > > >
> > > > From: Peter Shane
><<mailto:pshane@andrew.cmu.edu>pshane@andrew.cmu.edu>
> > > > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:26:13 -0400
> > > > Subject: [ALOC-discuss] Reflections
> > > > Having said all that, and speaking for myself, I like Hans'
>suggestions
> > > > regarding Denise's draft.  I would also add the following final
>sentence
> > >to
> > > > his preamble:  "In that spirit, we also urge the ERC and ICANN to
>proceed
> > > > on these issues along a timetable that permits sufficient time for the
> > > > At-Large Structures within ALOC to engage in genuine deliberation with
> > > > their constituencies on these important issues."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --On Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:10 PM -0400 Esther Dyson
> > > > <<mailto:edyson@edventure.com>edyson@edventure.com> wrote:
> > > > We should state that there is widespread support for elections,
>because
> > > > that is true, but we should also give advice on what the committee
>should
> > > > do and how it should operate within ICANN *now.*
> > > >
> > > > ###


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de