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

["Denise Michel ALSC" <dmichel@atlargestudy.org>]

This is not helpful, Hans.  I'm not "vetoing" your work and a "new ERC
committee" has not been created.  An assistance group has been temporarily
formed to draft an ALAC implementation proposal for everyone's consideration
(just as Becky Burr's group is drafting a document on accountability and
Rita Rodin's group is drafting a document on names policy process).  I know
it's a little complicated, but bear with me.

The assistance group drafting the ALAC proposal, which I am a part of, is
*not* the At-Large Organizing Committee, which I am facilitating.  Everyone
is welcome to submit their ideas on whether an ALAC should exist or how it
should be structured -- send them directly to the ERC and copy me if you'd
like.  I may or may not agree with your ideas, but ultimately it's the Board
that will accept or "veto" them. You're also welcome to tell the ERC what
you think about their assistance group process.

Denise

Denise Michel
dmichel@atlargestudy.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
To: <aloc@at-large.org>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [aloc] Proposed Final Draft of ALOC Submission (Vers. 3.0)



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