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!