[ALAC] Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs

SAMUELS,Carlton A carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm
Thu Jan 13 22:40:37 UTC 2011

In this environment, it is always useful to stay with principle and on message of principle in these matters.  I would just say "since we are not apprised of  a sufficient reason for a closed meeting, we would strongly recommend the default open meeting. At the minimum, we should expect interested parties accommodated as observers".

If you like, you might further remind the participants of the several commitments to transparency in all dealings affirmed to the AoC.

The parsing as to who qualifies to enter the pearly gates - this is the 'solomonic' reference, ala King Solomon of Biblical fame  - comes across as unctuous...maybe even special pleading by its select representation described; Tijani's point, btw.


From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:18 PM
To: SAMUELS,Carlton A
Cc: ALAC Working List
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs

Hello Carlton,

thanks for your kind comments - my answers below.

Le 13/01/2011 15:36, SAMUELS,Carlton A a écrit :
I'm presuming the back channel work to reach the GAC has failed, yes?   Assuming it is the case, then to my mind much of the preamble might not be necessary; I think distillation is the watchword here, especially if you go with "is made with agreement of the ALAC"; it a slightly different take on the ALAC statement.  Should be best advised to just *state* the issue of concern and say what the ALAC-supported posture is.

If it is the case the back channel contact was successful but the conversation inconclusive, then  being 'solomonic' about it comes across as wishy-washy.  State the principle that ALAC supports, inclusive of the circumstance where the ALAC would support a variant action, acknowledge that this meeting *might* require the exception and reiterate a clear position on why the ALAC would find the exception acceptable.

The "back-channel" work to reach the GAC has not failed, but when speaking to GAC members informally, one actually speaks to... individual GAC members. If you wish to speak to the GAC as a whole, a more united voice to the GAC Chair obviously gives more weight to our argument than an informal channel.
This statement is structured in order for it to be directly cut/pasted for comment to all GAC members. I very much welcome alternative text if parts of it appear "wishy-washy" - that's why I am asking for your input. That said, I don't wish to make it too long an email. Everyone knows what At-Large stands for.
Also - we're not only aiming this letter at the GAC: the ICANN Board also has a say in this. Will the two tango in private or in public?

As for this meeting requiring the exception - the exception would be for the meeting to be closed. The default, as interpreted from the Bylaws  is for the meeting to be open.

Kind regards,



Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3377 - Release Date: 01/13/11

More information about the ALAC mailing list