ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [alac] Proposed process for At Large Structure applications
  • From: Esther Dyson <edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:45:37 -0400

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





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy