[alac] Proposed process for At Large Structure applications
As discussed in the conf call... this is a proposal of a review and approval process for At Large Structure applications: 1. [Applicant] Sends application to als@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2. [Staff] Notifies reception to ALAC (and RALO once it exists)
Verifies whether application is formally complete:
if not, asks the applicant to correct it => (1)
if yes, publicly announces reception of the application
and publishes it on the website for public comment3. (<= 2 weeks) [Reviewer] Reviews application, contacting applicant to ask for more information if necessary, trying to get third party confirmations if doubts arise, etc.; may send updates or ask directions to the Committee if felt necessary [Committee] May send to the reviewer suggestions or questions to be asked to the applicant 4. [Reviewer] Sends review and summary of public comments to ALAC 5. [ALAC Chair] Unless objections arise, calls the vote 6. (<= 3 days) [Committee] Casts a vote by e-mail 7. [ALAC Chair] Calls the result of the vote on the public list [Staff] Notifies applicant, notifies RALO, updates databases and mailing lists, etc. Questions: - is 2 weeks a reasonable time for the review? - should the reviewer be an ICANN staff person, or should he/she be a Committee member (perhaps from the same Region as the applicant) chosen by rotation? Or perhaps a group composed by staff + members from the Region? - should there be a recommendation with the report, or just a report? - should the report and/or recommendation of the reviewer be confidential to Committee members, or public? - is 3 days a reasonable time for voting? (also, to approve do we need 2/3 of those who vote, or 2/3 of all members?) - should individual votes be public or private? Comments welcome - please express your opinion on the process and questions, and feel free to propose changes. -- .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu.org http://bertola.eu.org/ <-- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblog!
|