[ALAC] ALAC action regarding IRTP-B Draft Report
evan at telly.org
Fri Mar 11 15:19:03 UTC 2011
Hi Alan. Thanks for the detailed and informative analysis.
On 11 March 2011 09:54, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
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
I agree with you fully on this. The first condition is especially applicable
when we believe that a recommendation is in the public interest but may be
opposed by vested interests.
> 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.
I'm not comfortable with this. As ALAC matures, and as my own awareness
within it has progressed, I am coming to see registrants and end-users as
different constituencies with different needs and priorities. The more one
studies the situation, the more divergent those needs and priorities reveal
themselves to be.
In my personal opinion at this time, ALAC owes no more obligation to
registrants than it does to registrars or registries. This is a job of
ICANN itself, which already has education programs in place for its other
financially interested stakeholders. That ICANN under-informs registrants --
because it does not have a *direct* financial relationship with them --
should not be At-Large's burden.
For this reason, I would advise heeding your conditional recommendation to
make no comment (though I don't know what the "very bad message" would be if
ALAC disagreed with the WG by asserting that registrant education is not
> 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.
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org
More information about the ALAC