[ALAC] Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting

[Alan Greenberg]

Thanks TiTi. I think it important that we not include Whois. The 
rationale was explained in the analysis of comments, and I believe 
that it weakens this particular statement to raise it. The Board has 
the right to take decisions, but to do so with transparency.

Alan


At 28/06/2012 01:23 AM, Titi Akinsanmi wrote:
>It does smack of overt heavy handedness. An oversight? Or just disregard?
>
>I support just a statement but would include the particular issue of 
>the thick who is requirement being left out to reiterate an going 
>need for transparency and openness.
>
>You can count this as my virtual vote/support.
>
>TT
>
>www.omoba.co.uk
>
>On 28 Jun 2012, at 12:48 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> > You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com
> > contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not
> > relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were
> > pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will
> > enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on
> > the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois
> > was not added as a requirement.
> >
> > There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result.
> >
> > There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com
> > agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum.
> >
> > It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at
> > last Saturdays Board meeting.
> >
> > The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure.
> > The statement will not question the content of the contract, but
> > rather just the process that has been followed.
> >
> > Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on
> > the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO
> > substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that
> > the ALAC pass this motion.
> >
> > =================
> >
> > The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment
> > with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23
> > June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement:
> > 
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2.
> >
> > ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some
> > time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum
> > agenda tomorrow.  Although we were aware that the .com agreement was
> > on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the
> > agreement at its closed session.
> >
> > This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action.
> > The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable
> > at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is
> > therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest
> > standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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)