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

Tue Jan 8 16:11:52 UTC 2013

I share Alan's perspectives here.

I think the Board well understand why the ALAC and others advocate the
distinctions we offer. But the nature of the politics - and likely concerns
re optics - have served to stiffen the Board's resolve to stay the course.
Throwing the matter back into the GNSO's lap is a pro forma gesture,
unlikely to produce new results.

The ALAC is already on record. Even if they see this Q & A - and I doubt
very much they will! - it will not make a difference. Keep the powder dry
for another day. No need to get into a head butting contest with so little
as reward.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

> Still do not agree.
>
> With respect to the GNSO, your opinion is not technically correct, in
> that the GNSO has never had that question on the table. The GNSO
> (correctly) delegated the question to a DT which chose not to pursue
> that due to lack of interest among its members. I was the only one to
> raise it with no other real support. The present PDP WG *IS*
> considering this as one of the possibilities and the questions being
> answered specifically give an opening for us to answer in the way we did.
>
> To dream that this set of answers is going to come to the attention
> of the Board really has no basis. They have remanded the subject to
> the GNSO (and taken flack from the GAC as a result).
>
> There is already enough controversy about whether the GAC has an
> advisory role to play over the GNSO and its working groups, which is,
> I think hurting the working relationship between the two. I don't
> think it serves any good purpose to have that kind of antagonism
> aimed at ALAC as well.
>
> Perhaps others can weigh in on this.
>
> Alan
>
> At 07/01/2013 11:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> >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"
> ><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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"
> >><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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
> >> ><<mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com> 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: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799
> >> > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> >> > > =============================
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Alan Greenberg
> >> <<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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<
> >>
> >> > > 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
> >> > > > <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)
> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > 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)
> >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >*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
> >> ><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)
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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)
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>