[ALAC] Draft ALAC comment on IRTP-B

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Wed Aug 10 00:30:41 UTC 2011


Thanks for your comments, Alan.
For the record, I have also posted Eric's comments in reply to earlier
comments.

May I urge other ALAC members to please read through the comments; this
is really a potential policy shift and I see opposition to it at the
moment, whilst reconciliation of some of those comments with prior
advice. Before we decide on filing, and therefore before 12:00 UTC on
11th August 2011, we need to establish consensus -- we as in all of
ALAC, not just me.
If no consensus is reached on specific segments, then I suggest filing a
comment only for the segments which we have consensus on.
Warm regards,

Olivier

On 09/08/2011 23:55, Alan Greenberg wrote :
> For those who are not reading the wiki minute by minute, I may add 
> some other comments of substance later if I have the time, but have 
> asked one question echoed below.
>
> Alan
> =================
> Recommendation #8: The WG recommends standardizing and clarifying 
> WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status. The goal of 
> these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it 
> can be changed. Based on discussions with technical experts, the WG 
> does not expect that such a standardization and clarification of 
> WHOIS status messages would require significant investment or changes 
> at the registry/registrar level. The WG recommends that ICANN staff 
> is asked to develop an implementation plan for community 
> consideration which ensures that a technically feasible approach is 
> developed to implement this recommendation.
>
> Comment: Recommendation #8 offers no benefits to registrants other 
> than bulk registrants (domainers) and the segment of the registrar 
> market engaged primarily in bulk transfer (domainer servicing 
> registrars), and is therefore not in the public interest and not 
> supported by the ALAC.
>
> How does standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages relate to 
> bulk transfers?
>
>
> At 09/08/2011 04:51 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
>> Indeed!  Noted Alan => the following text *opinion from me*  is also in the
>> Comments  section of the wiki page (along with a LOT more from me) as well,
>>  but I have sent it here to the Working List for completeness and our
>> (particularly ALAC's) attention... both in its relevance to this specific
>> matter/topic  and for more general application / note and I would suggest
>> future codification into some sort of SoP....
>>
>> If and when  piece of ALAC Advice given/published as Statement and/or Public
>> Comment  contradicts  in whole OR Part any previous Advice it should NOT  go
>> to vote without  going through an "informed" ALAC  discussion on the
>> point(s)  that it contradicts/changes  =>
>>
>> ALACs' (and their Opinions) do change  sure they need to!  BUT it is because
>> they change  (in terms of both personne and opinion/reaction to current
>> conditions etc.,)  that a *'Statement / Position Change'* needs to be not
>> only fully discussed and IF required suitably  agreed to then BOTH the
>> change and the rationale for it (and arguably the process used for that
>> changes development) should be *highlighted* in the Staff Intro /cover sheet
>>  if not/also in the main body of the text where the 'New View' is
>> listed/outlined...
>>
>> Anything else means we are subject to WAY to much critisism  for an AC  to
>> be taken seriously....  Changes  in ALAC  (in fact *any* AC Advice)  needs
>> to be fully trackable  and AUDIT-ABLE as part of our own and ICANN wide
>> A&T...
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
>> (CLO)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 August 2011 03:04, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> I call your attention to a comment I have just made on the proposed
>>> ALAC comment on the IRPT-B report. See
>>> https://community.icann.org/x/ZAFLAQ.
>>>
>>> Specifically, I note that this new comment is an effective reversal
>>> of a previous ALAC position. I have no problem with the ALAC doing
>>> that, but it if done, it should be with full awareness.
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>> t *any*
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> _______________________________________________
> 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html




More information about the ALAC mailing list