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

Tue Jan 8 17:46:00 UTC 2013

Dear Evan,
Dear Alan,

I agree with Alan for several reasons:

1. considering our Statement to be both ALAC Advice to the Board and to
the WG.
I believe that it does not play in our favour to mix the messages
together and would recommend that we always stick to one goal at a time
- hence one target at the time. In the present case, we have a input in
the form of a Statement. This input has been requested by a GNSO working
group and I think we should be grateful for this.

2. Playing an Advisory Role.
But pushing our advice down the throat of the working group as "Advice"
with a capital A would not be wise diplomatically as it unbalances the
multi-stakeholder system which we are so fond of. I agree with Alan that
at this stage we can strongly voice our concerns, and I am happy to note
that exactly the question of whether IOC/RC should be separated into IOC
& RC has been asked - so I am quite satisfied that this question is
exactly in the consultation due to our past efforts and the efforts of
others to emphasize this separation.
We can indeed play an advisory role after this PDP is over. We can write
to the Board. We can write to the GAC, since I believe that the initial
batching of IOC and RC might have originated at GAC level.

But now is the time for contributing to the multi-stakeholder model.
If the blind continue to lead the blind on this issue, we'll have time
to shout when it goes to the Board, if shouting is indeed needed.

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 08/01/2013 15:31, Alan Greenberg 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)
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html