[ALAC] ALAC action regarding IRTP-B Draft Report

Cheryl Langdon-Orr langdonorr at gmail.com
Fri Mar 11 19:49:50 UTC 2011

Thank you Silvia and Alan  I would like  the ALAC  to put in the short
statement as you have outlined / proposed, especially in the light of
the education / outreach to registrants issues  which *IS* an outcome
of the PEDNR work we have done...  So  if it is possible for the draft
of such a brief statement to be prepared  for ALAC to discuss (and I
trust endorse) in our meeting(s)  next week  I will most happily put
that forward as a motion...    Or second it if Sylvia wishes to put


On 12/03/2011, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 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:
>>Dear all:
>>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
>>Kind Regards,
> -----------------------------
> Alan's comments...
> 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.
> 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: http://st.icann.org/alac

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

More information about the ALAC mailing list