Re: [alac] Proposed process for At Large Structure applications

[Izumi AIZU <izumi@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Vittorio, some comments follow.

And shouldn't we set a target date for the closure of this online discussion?
How about in one week or two, not waiting for Carthage meeting.

The rest seems reasonable to me. My answers to questions will be sent
in a separate e-mail.

izumi

At 17:37 03/10/02 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> As discussed in the conf call... this is a proposal of a review and 
> approval process for At Large Structure applications:
>
>
> 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 comment

Are we making reception notice to applicants already submitted?

> 3. (<= 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!


                     >>> Izumi Aizu <<<
                 Asia Network Research
                        www.anr.org
 GLOCOM /Institute for HyperNetwork Society
        << Writing the Future of the History >>