Second ALAC Organizational Review: Difference between revisions

Line 49:

===Public Comment===

There were fifteen comments in response to the draft report. The reaction to the more provocative recommendations (random selection of the ALAC board seat and abandonment of working groups) was largely negative, while there was broad support among the commenters regarding strengthening and diversifying outreach activities.<ref name="draftpc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-atlarge-review-draft-report-10apr17-en.pdf Staff Report on public comment proceeding], April 10, 2017</ref> The ALAC in particular strongly objected to several recommendations, as well as the implementation of the Empowered Membership Model, which it found to be contrary to the reality of work within ICANN and the RALOs.<ref name="draftpc" />

ITEMS presented its draft report at [[ICANN 58]] in Copenhagen.<ref>[https://icann58copenhagen2017.sched.com/event/9no7/at-large-review-workshop-with-independent-examiner-items ICANN 58 Archive - ALAC2 Review Workshop with ITEMS], March 15, 2017</ref> The session began with a demonstration of routes into ALAC participation under the Empowered Membership Model.<ref name="presotranscript">[https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/f2/I58CPH_Wed15Mar2017-At%20Large%20Review-Workshop%20with%20Independent%20Examiner%20%28ITEMS%29-en.pdf ICANN 58 Archive - Transcript - ALAC2 Review Workshop with ITEMS], March 15, 2017</ref> The demonstration was met with objections and interjections, and comments after the demo indicated that there may be a disconnect between ITEMS's expectations regarding the operation of RALOs and reality. In a subsequent working session of the ALAC2 Review Working Party, [[Holly Raiche]] reported the following interaction with [[Tom MacKenzie]] of the ITEMS team:

<blockquote>I would like to just pass on a really interesting comment made to me by Tom last night at the gala when I started to talk about the different characteristics and priorities of the RALOs and why it might be difficult to have a uniform set of rules for At-Large membership. He said to me, which I guess surprised me or maybe it shouldn’t have, that, when he realized the different ways in which the RALOs operate, “Well, in that case, the EMM model won’t work.”<ref name="wptranscript">[https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/6f/I58CPH_Tue14Mar2017-At-Large%20Review%20Working%20Party%20meeting-en.pdf ICANN 58 Archive - Transcript - ALAC2 Review Working Party Meeting], March 14, 2017</ref></blockquote> Other members commented on interactions with the ITEMS team and an overall impression that the draft report might see substantial changes.<ref name="wptranscript" />

There were also fifteen written comments submitted in response to the draft report. The reaction to the more provocative recommendations (random selection of the ALAC board seat and abandonment of working groups) was largely negative, while there was broad support among the commenters regarding strengthening and diversifying outreach activities.<ref name="draftpc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-atlarge-review-draft-report-10apr17-en.pdf Staff Report on public comment proceeding], April 10, 2017</ref> The ALAC in particular strongly objected to several recommendations, as well as the implementation of the Empowered Membership Model, which it found to be contrary to the reality of work within ICANN and the RALOs.<ref name="draftpc" />

==Final Report==

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 ===Public Comment===
-There were fifteen comments in response to the draft report. The reaction to the more provocative recommendations (random selection of the ALAC board seat and abandonment of working groups) was largely negative, while there was broad support among the commenters regarding strengthening and diversifying outreach activities.<ref name="draftpc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-atlarge-review-draft-report-10apr17-en.pdf Staff Report on public comment proceeding], April 10, 2017</ref> The ALAC in particular strongly objected to several recommendations, as well as the implementation of the Empowered Membership Model, which it found to be contrary to the reality of work within ICANN and the RALOs.<ref name="draftpc" />
+ITEMS presented its draft report at [[ICANN 58]] in Copenhagen.<ref>[https://icann58copenhagen2017.sched.com/event/9no7/at-large-review-workshop-with-independent-examiner-items ICANN 58 Archive - ALAC2 Review Workshop with ITEMS], March 15, 2017</ref> The session began with a demonstration of routes into ALAC participation under the Empowered Membership Model.<ref name="presotranscript">[https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/f2/I58CPH_Wed15Mar2017-At%20Large%20Review-Workshop%20with%20Independent%20Examiner%20%28ITEMS%29-en.pdf ICANN 58 Archive - Transcript - ALAC2 Review Workshop with ITEMS], March 15, 2017</ref> The demonstration was met with objections and interjections, and comments after the demo indicated that there may be a disconnect between ITEMS's expectations regarding the operation of RALOs and reality. In a subsequent working session of the ALAC2 Review Working Party, [[Holly Raiche]] reported the following interaction with [[Tom MacKenzie]] of the ITEMS team:
+<blockquote>I would like to just pass on a really interesting comment made to me by Tom last night at the gala when I started to talk about the different characteristics and priorities of the RALOs and why it might be difficult to have a uniform set of rules for At-Large membership. He said to me, which I guess surprised me or maybe it shouldn’t have, that, when he realized the different ways in which the RALOs operate, “Well, in that case, the EMM model won’t work.”<ref name="wptranscript">[https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/6f/I58CPH_Tue14Mar2017-At-Large%20Review%20Working%20Party%20meeting-en.pdf ICANN 58 Archive - Transcript - ALAC2 Review Working Party Meeting], March 14, 2017</ref></blockquote> Other members commented on interactions with the ITEMS team and an overall impression that the draft report might see substantial changes.<ref name="wptranscript" />
+There were also fifteen written comments submitted in response to the draft report. The reaction to the more provocative recommendations (random selection of the ALAC board seat and abandonment of working groups) was largely negative, while there was broad support among the commenters regarding strengthening and diversifying outreach activities.<ref name="draftpc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-atlarge-review-draft-report-10apr17-en.pdf Staff Report on public comment proceeding], April 10, 2017</ref> The ALAC in particular strongly objected to several recommendations, as well as the implementation of the Empowered Membership Model, which it found to be contrary to the reality of work within ICANN and the RALOs.<ref name="draftpc" />
 ==Final Report==