[ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.

[Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro]

@ Evan, I am of the understanding that the call for feedback that Alan was
after was specifically for the GNSO lot. [This is not to stop other SOs,
ACs and other constituencies (including cross constituencies) from
implementing or participating in the process. I am interpreting the GNSO's
actions as them taking responsibility of things that they need to do in
order. I noted how the Report referred to the swiftness with which they
undertook certain studies after GAC made calls for these.] This is not to
be interpreted as me defending GNSO but rather my understanding of the
context within which Alan is making his call for feedback from the ALAC.

Kind Regards,
Sala

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> On 4 September 2012 22:05, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
>
> The original ALAC statement on the report said we want it all. Period. The
> > statement the ALAC made last week said that again, and added that six of
> > the Recs are really high priority (in our mind) and that there was no
> > reason the Board could not act quickly (and without GNSO creating a line
> of
> > policy).
> >
> > As a follow-up, it was suggested that we not just address the whether we
> > believe that GNSO policy development is needed on the other 10. The
> > document addresses that.
> >
>
> Again, I understand this. I am simply offering the opinion that adding the
> minutiae at this level weakens our core point that *we want it all*.
>
> As I said, I am not disagreeing with the work that you have done, along
> with Carlton's and Rinalia's additions. I just submit that this research is
> more of a followup or appendix to the core statement than part of it. It's
> supporting documentation offering suggestions on how to follow our advice,
> but it's not the advice itself. I assert that there is a clear distinction
> between core advice and its supporting documentation.
>
> The critical issue is that we (like many others) keep on talking about the
> > strength of the multi-stakeholder model.
> >
>
> I can't put words in the mouths of others. When I speak, it's on the
> advantages of being multi-stakeholder in general. That said, I am no fan of
> the current ICANN implementation which makes following industry advice
> mandatory but non-conflicted public interest advice optional.
>
> Here we are advocating (for the most part) that the Board can ignore the
> > bulk of the stakeholders and just act (presumably with a comment period
> > first). So we need to make our case that the circumstances reasonably
> allow
> > such direct action.
> >
>
> I guess, then. we have a fundamental difference on what constitutes "the
> bulk of stakeholders". In my mind ICANN has largely ignored the bulk of its
> stakeholders as long as it has existed. What now exists in the GNSO is a
> self-selected group of insiders that resists newcomers (let alone outreach)
> and uses its undue influence to sway ICANN in ways that do not serve the
> public good. The very fact that we even need to have a "debate" on having
> robust WHOIS serves a stark evidence of this reality.
>
> - Evan
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>



-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851