[ALAC-LT] URGENT Statement on P&I Bylaws
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Tue Sep 15 19:30:09 UTC 2015
please be so kind to find my comments in-line:
On 15/09/2015 18:17, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> I was charged to write the statement on the Policiy and Implementation
> Bylaws in full accordance with the ALAC's previous statement on the
> The statement was due last Friday, but unfortunately I could not get
> it done. Marika has been informed that it is coming and what the gist
> is, but we need to formally submit this ASAP.
> Please comment if anything is radically wrong with the following.
> ALAC and At-large representatives were very active in the Policy and
> Implementation Working Group and the ALAC supports the recommendations.
> The ALAC nonetheless has two concerns that have been raised throughout
> the WG processes.
> 1. All GNSO processes allow participation from all communities, and
> so in theory can equitably balance all issues. However, given that
> contracted parties have a very large stake in GNSO policy decision
> outcomes, they are in a position to, and often funded for significant
This last sentence need grammatical revision: they are in a position to
> Those representing the public interest are less able to participate on
> the same level.
You might wish to revise this: "those representing the public interest"
-- as this is likely to be dismissed as a single constituency cannot
purport to *represent* the public interest. Nit pickers will defy you
that the public interest is not defined but you can fight this back.
However "representing the public interest" sounds self-selected. May I
suggest "Constituencies acting directly in relation to supporting the
public interest" or something to that extent.
> Accordingly, it is possible for the WG participation to be unbalanced.
> Moreover, within the GNSO Council, the two contracted Stakeholder
> Groups acting in unison can block a super-majority approval of any
Suggest: Contracted House Stakeholder Groups
> prospective recommendation. As a result, the ALAC has concerns that if
> an issue were to arise where the public interest and the needs of
> users is in conflict with the needs of contracted parties, the GNSO
> may not be able to arrive at an equitable solution.
> 2. Although the principle of referring all policy-like issues
> encountered during implementation back to the GNSO for resolution
> supports the concept of the GNSO being THE gTLD policy body, the ALAC
> is concerned that for complex implementations such as the new gTLD
> process and future directory services solutions, the number of such
> referrals may unreasonably elongate the overall implementation process.
THE gTLD policy body
Upper-case letters do not translate well in documents. May I suggest:
"the only gTLD policy body" or "the sole policy body" or "the one and
only policy body".
> As stated above, the ALAC supports the recommended processes, but
> ADVISES the Board to carefully
Wow -- do we have to write ADVISES all in uppercase now? I thought
"Advises" was enough using uppercase A.
> monitor both issues to ensure that user and public interests are
> appropriately considered and that the implementation of complex policy
> can be accomplished in reasonable time-frames.
More information about the ALAC-ExCom