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

[Alan Greenberg]

Two points:

1. It is unclear at this moment if the GNSO will or will not pass 
such a motion.

2. I strongly disagree regarding Whois, and request that you defer 
discussion of this until I arrive (I am at the GNSO wrap-up now).

Alan

At 28/06/2012 04:57 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>I would support this statement.  I would also remain true to 
>substance and remind them that we regret the renewal without the 
>thick WHOIS requirement.
>
>Don't see why we should back away now.  Afterall, it was the 
>substantive point of departure of our previous statement.  We should 
>not let this slide.
>
>- Carlton
>
>==============================
>Carlton A Samuels
>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>=============================
>
>
>On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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>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
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>