[ALAC] ALAC action regarding IRTP-B Draft Report
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Mar 11 14:54:36 UTC 2011
At the last ALAC meeting, Sylvia and I were asked
to investigate whether we believed that an ALAC
statement on the draft IRTP-B report is
warranted. Sylvia responded (on time, as opposed
to this reply) and inserted here followed by
mine. As you will see, we disagree somewhat in philosophy, but not in outcome.
At 03/03/2011 09:52 AM, sylvia at internautabrasil.org wrote:
>It´s always a good idea ALAC make a comment for all the issues.
>I´ve read the Executive Summary and it seems we
>have a hard work did it for the WG. ( nao seria to do for? )
>The nine recommendations has specifics solutions
>for almost all the situations.
>I think this is a so technical issue (for me, at
>least) and we need to believe in the WG´s members criteria.
>As far as I know, it is hard to believe that
>members from our ALSes have more to add to the WG report.
>But on the other hand, I think Alan could have another view.
>My two cents.
>Alan, I´m sure you can help me with your knowledge
I guess I disagree with Sylvia on her first
point. I don't think that the ALAC should comment on issues unless:
- we strongly support the issue(s) and want to
make sure that other's disagreeing do not kill it/them.
- we oppose part or all of the recommendations
and want to see them changed. Or we support them
but want to see a substantive improvement in the recommendations.
In this particular case, a comment IS warranted
based on Rec. 2 which suggests that the ALAC has
a part to play in Registrant education. I agree
with the intent, and it is in fact in line with a
similar recommendation in the PEDNR report. If
the ALAC is willing to commit to such work, then we should comment and say so.
If we are going to provide such an assurance,
then we should also give a general statement of
support for all of the recommendations.
If the ALAC is not willing to make such a
commitment, we should simply be silent on this
report. A comment with a refusal to participate
would send a very bad message, and issuing a
statement with silence on the issue of ALAC support would be similarly bad.
A response on Rec. 1 is also warranted, but I
suspect that we are not in a position to do this.
The report asks specific questions. Since no one
from At-Large was involved in this WG in a
substantive way (other than Baudouin Schombe who
was representing NCUC), and I suspect we have no
one who is a real expert on IRTP and in
particular Registrar business operations, I don't
think that we should even attempt to answer the
questions. I think that this corresponds to
Sylvia's comment that there is probably little to
be gained by going out with a general At-Large
call for comments. I find it unfortunate that we are in that position.
If there is support for a statement as I have
outlined above, I am willing to draft such a
short statement for approval by the ALAC.
More information about the ALAC