Snapshot of Etherpad taken from http://willyou.typewith.me/p/BlueSky%20-%20Objection%20Process
Updated from Etherpad: 4 Dec 1600 UTC
Blue sky exercise - questions, possible requirements and possible solutions
- Is the At-Large objection process a review of all applications (simlar to the reported GAC process) or an exception process where only applications that are raised by the community (by the At-Large Community)
<CLO> My first thought on this choice is the latter => a Community Objection raised by the At-Large ( or can it be at-large??? why not?) Internet Users if it is At-Large then we should probably also consider a minimum (or threshhold of support { X # of ALSes or Regions etc., in favour of the 'Objection on behalf of a/the [identified] Community ) that sort of thing... BUT that is a first reaction I can see where a parallel to GAC review plans might also work but then why not let them be Pro-Active from their 'unique POV and we ( ALAC and At-Large) act as conduit for genuine Community concerns that has may not fit the GAC 'filter' Yes that might be Re-active but ... ... ...)
- <avri> I would think that the GAC perspective will be rather different from a At-Large perspective. The GAC perspective will be controlled by natinal laws and sensitivites. I do not know exactly what will motivate At-Large objections, but I do not expect they will map to national law and especilly national sensitivities.
- Is there estimate of how many applicatons we expect to be subject to At-Large objection process or objection process review
- <CLO> nope not to my knowledge but I would have thought the number reasonable low like N=<3-5 or so
- Are there, or should there be, tools to aid in the process.
- <CLO> yup and they need to be accessable accountable and transparant....
- if so what sort of tools?
- <CLO> darn good question => in this we must consider MUCH more...
