[ALAC] Draft ALAC comment on IRTP-B

[Alan Greenberg]

For those who are not reading the wiki minute by minute, I may add 
some other comments of substance later if I have the time, but have 
asked one question echoed below.

Alan
=================
Recommendation #8: The WG recommends standardizing and clarifying 
WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status. The goal of 
these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it 
can be changed. Based on discussions with technical experts, the WG 
does not expect that such a standardization and clarification of 
WHOIS status messages would require significant investment or changes 
at the registry/registrar level. The WG recommends that ICANN staff 
is asked to develop an implementation plan for community 
consideration which ensures that a technically feasible approach is 
developed to implement this recommendation.

Comment: Recommendation #8 offers no benefits to registrants other 
than bulk registrants (domainers) and the segment of the registrar 
market engaged primarily in bulk transfer (domainer servicing 
registrars), and is therefore not in the public interest and not 
supported by the ALAC.

How does standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages relate to 
bulk transfers?


At 09/08/2011 04:51 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
>Indeed!  Noted Alan => the following text *opinion from me*  is also in the
>Comments  section of the wiki page (along with a LOT more from me) as well,
>  but I have sent it here to the Working List for completeness and our
>(particularly ALAC's) attention... both in its relevance to this specific
>matter/topic  and for more general application / note and I would suggest
>future codification into some sort of SoP....
>
>If and when  piece of ALAC Advice given/published as Statement and/or Public
>Comment  contradicts  in whole OR Part any previous Advice it should NOT  go
>to vote without  going through an "informed" ALAC  discussion on the
>point(s)  that it contradicts/changes  =>
>
>ALACs' (and their Opinions) do change  sure they need to!  BUT it is because
>they change  (in terms of both personne and opinion/reaction to current
>conditions etc.,)  that a *'Statement / Position Change'* needs to be not
>only fully discussed and IF required suitably  agreed to then BOTH the
>change and the rationale for it (and arguably the process used for that
>changes development) should be *highlighted* in the Staff Intro /cover sheet
>  if not/also in the main body of the text where the 'New View' is
>listed/outlined...
>
>Anything else means we are subject to WAY to much critisism  for an AC  to
>be taken seriously....  Changes  in ALAC  (in fact *any* AC Advice)  needs
>to be fully trackable  and AUDIT-ABLE as part of our own and ICANN wide
>A&T...
>
>Cheryl Langdon-Orr
>(CLO)
>
>
>
>On 10 August 2011 03:04, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> > I call your attention to a comment I have just made on the proposed
> > ALAC comment on the IRPT-B report. See
> > https://community.icann.org/x/ZAFLAQ.
> >
> > Specifically, I note that this new comment is an effective reversal
> > of a previous ALAC position. I have no problem with the ALAC doing
> > that, but it if done, it should be with full awareness.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki:
> > 
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
>t *any*
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)