[ALAC] Draft Statement on the questions from IGO/INGO PDP WG

Tue Jan 8 04:59:14 UTC 2013

Here is my rationale.

In continuing to advocate the separation of the RCRC and IOC, we are
answering an unasked (or, to be specific, assumed already answered)
question. This statement takes the opportunity of the WG solicitation to
again advise the whole community of what we see to (still) be a critical
mistake. In that sense, I see this as *both* Board advice and response to
the WG.

IMO the GNSO has generally seen the splitting of the IOC and RCRC issues as
either out of scope or pointless in the face of Board pressure. Thus the
audience for continued advocacy on this matter remains the Board, and as
such this submission is reasonably stated as advice while it also answers
the WG's questions.

Stating the position as advice also emphasises our continuing alarm over an
issue that the Board believes to be settled with community consent.

- Evan (via mobile)
On 2013-01-08 10:10 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

>  Not really sure about that. This is a reply to the PDP WG giving out
> thoughts on the various questions they are asking to help guide the way to
> some outcome. As one of many stakeholders participating in the WG, I don't
> think we really have an "advisory" role to the WG (as if we were an
> external "expert" brought in to advise). When we at some later time we
> comment on the outcome of the PDP (if we actually get that far) when the
> Board puts the recommendation out for public comment, they we can play a
> advisory role.
>
> Alan
>
> At 07/01/2013 11:25 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> One thing I just noticed.
>
> Given the nature of the document - one of explicit advice, not belief - we
> should change all instances of "believes" to "advises".
>
> - Evan (via mobile)
> On 2013-01-08 4:32 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>  Thanks on both counts. Typo fixed.  Alan
>
> At 07/01/2013 04:01 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
> >I have read the document and agree with it.
> >
> >By the way, there is a small typo in the last sentence in question 4. It
> >should be "the" ALAC is particularly...".
> >
> >-ed
> >
> >On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Carlton Samuels
> >< carlton.samuels at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > I read the submissions in their entirety.  So far as I see, they
> conform to
> > > previously public positions taken by the ALAC in context, all of which
> had
> > > my support.  My positions remain, unchanged.
> > >
> > > I do not think these positions require a formal vote.
> > >
> > > -Carlton
> > >
> > > ==============================
> > > Carlton A Samuels
> > > Mobile: 876-818-1799
> > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> > > =============================
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Alan Greenberg <
> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > The PDP WG on special protection for IGO/INGO names has requested
> that
> > > ACs
> > > > and SOs submit comments on a number of questions related to special
> > > > protections of IGO/INGO names.
> > > >
> > > > Evan and I were asked to draft a statement for the consideration and
> > > > possible approval of the ALAC and it can be found at
> > > > https://community.icann.org/x/**5IFQAg<
> > > https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg>.
> > > > Input was requested to be submitted by 08 January 2013, but there
> should
> > > be
> > > > no problem with getting it in a bit later.
> > > >
> > > > Evan is travelling at the moment, but his contributions were
> substantive
> > > > and the document has his support. We both believe that it conforms
> well
> > > to
> > > > positions previously taken by the ALAC.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure if Olivier wants to subject this statement to a formal
> ALAC
> > > > vote. In my mind, it does not need a formal vote, but we do need to
> > > ensure
> > > > that it (or what it gets revised to) does conform to general ALAC
> > > feelings.
> > > > So please post your comments to the Wiki.
> > > >
> > > > A copy is attached here for your convenience.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
> >subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
> >addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
> >disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email
> by
> >mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
> >_______________________________________________
> >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)
>
>