[ALAC] RES: ALAC action regarding IRTP-B Draft Report

sylvia at internautabrasil.org sylvia at internautabrasil.org
Sun Mar 13 08:21:20 UTC 2011


Dear Cheryl and all,
I think it's a great opportunity to highlight the importance of having a
intereaccion higher among registrars and ALSes (users), as there are a sea
of deep water between us. I Will be happy to make the motion that the ALAC
could make a statement supporting the 9 recommendations of the WG but with
emphasis on recommendation 2. 
Regards, 
Sylvia
_________________________________________________________
Sylvia Herlein Leite   
Secretaria FLUI - www.fuilatin.org
LACRALO-ALAC Member
Latin America & Caribbean At-Large Regional Organization
sylvia at internautabrasil.org
 
 


-----Mensagem original-----
De: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 11 de março de 2011 16:50
Para: ALAC Working List
Assunto: Re: [ALAC] ALAC action regarding IRTP-B Draft Report

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
it.

CLO



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,
>>
>>Sylvia
>
> -----------------------------
> 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
(CLO)

_______________________________________________
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




More information about the ALAC mailing list