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

[Esther Dyson <edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've been following the discussion, happy with the answers...
5 days, recommendation public unless there's reason for part to be private 
(though discussions may well be private), 2 reviewers, etc..

Esther

At 11:37 AM 10/2/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> 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 comment
>
> 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!



Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com

see my new blog (finally!) at
http://release4.blogspot.com/

Release 1.0 - the first good look
at technology that matters