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