Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Dear Izumi,

Hoping I can help you have better understanding about the relations
between ALOC and "Assistance Group", let me share my similar 
frustration about double structure which deal with the same issue 
and exist at the same time out of dubious reason.

WG-Review   vs   Review Task Force

WG-Review could not be controlled neither by NC nor by ICANN staff.
Review TF was controlled by a core group of NC and ICANN staff.

Both entities dealt with DNSO Reform and both produced the report.

Only Review TF report was presented to the Board and the community. 
Review TF report generously incorporated part of WG-Review report 
as quotes here and there which TF chair felt appropriate like the facilitator 
of Assistance Group of At-large. 

The best solution I can think of with respect to this unnecessary
double structure is to make it simple to let people have better 
understanding therefore volunteers can concentrate on their efforts
without designed distraction.

YJ

> Quite honestly, I have been bit confused.
> 
> I am aware that I am on the ALOC, and I am aware that I was asked to be part
> of the "assistance group".
> 
> I was not so clear about the relationship between the two.
> 
> I was also not so clear about the position of the "Version 3.0".
> 
> While the interaction between Hans and Denise helped me to understand these
> relationships, it is still bit confusing.
> 
> There are at least two different tracks. One is ALOC and another is 
> "assistance group"
> and these two have no formal relationship at all. Am I right?  Though this 
> assistance
> group members are mostly from ALOC members, selected and asked by Denise to
> join and who agreed to join.
> 
> ALOC contniues its effort of organizing AtLarge, including providing inputs 
> to ERC
> and ICANN Board on ALAC or AtLarge in general.
> 
> The "assistance group" has specific task of creating implementation plan of ALAC
> to submit to ERC.
> 
> But some people feel that this small "assitance group" is an attempt to
> effectively "take over" or undermine the ALOC work. According to Denise,
> it is NOT intended so, but that is not yet persuasive.
> 
> "ALOC Draft 3.0" is, according to Hans the result of teamwork approved by
> all the ALOC members, but according to Denise it is not.
> 
> With all the hectic timeline, while I have been travelling or working a lot,
> with many different threads of e-mail postings on different lists, it is quite
> confusing for non-native English speaker like me. And I assume I am not
> the only one.
> 
> I appreciate if someone could clarify these issues to reach better mutual
> understanding.
> 
> many thanks,
> 
> izumi
> 
> 
> At 13:49 02/07/25 -0400, Hans Klein wrote:
> 
> >Denise works with us to facilitate our processes.  Substantive work is the 
> >responsibility of the ALOC members.
> >
> >Version 3.0 is a team product of the ALOC and enjoys the support of 
> >numerous ALOC members.  Indeed, I don't recall any expressions of 
> >disapproval. I believe it represents the consensus of the ALOC.
> >
> >If I interpret Denise's comments correctly, the newly created "ERC 
> >assistance group" (from which Sotiris Sotiropoulos and I were excluded) 
> >will soon replace the ALOC as the "voice of the user."  Sigh!
> >
> >Hans
> >
> >
> >
> >At 09:34 AM 7/25/2002 -0700, Denise Michel ALSC wrote:
> >>This is *not* the "latest version" or "Version 3.0" or a "Proposed Final 
> >>Draft" of the "At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC)
> >>Submission to the..ERC..On the Design of An At Large Advisory Committee 
> >>(ALAC)."  Hans Klein added these titles, along with a "Preamble" and 
> >>"Part I" to an *outline of approaches/issues* that needed to be 
> >>considered by the ERC's "assistance group" in order to draft 
> >>implementation details for an ALAC.  Any ideas this list's participants 
> >>have on how to structure an ALAC, of course, are welcome.  However, the 
> >>point of this limited ERC assistance group is to quickly provide 
> >>*detailed recommendations* on an ALAC for public (your) consideration.
> >>
> >>Hans may wish to slap some rhetoric on an outline and call it a 
> >>potential implementation plan, but that does not make it so. When the 
> >>assistance group issues its submission to the ERC, it will be a detailed 
> >>proposal for establishing an ALAC on which anyone interested can comment, 
> >>change, build upon.  It will not be, nor is it intended to be, a 
> >>reflection of the views of all ALOC member organizations or even all of 
> >>the ALOC members themselves.
> >>
> >>Denise
> >>
> >>Denise Michel
> >>coordinator@at-large.org
> >
> >
> >                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> >                  Asia Network Research
> >                         www.anr.org
> >                              &
> >  GLOCOM /Institute for HyperNetwork Society
> >
> >         << Writing the Future of the History >> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>