[ALAC] Next round in the battle of letters regarding PICs

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Dec 11 04:51:14 UTC 2014

Well, there is no way to know if Thomas would have sent his letter 
reminding the Board of unanswered GAC advice without our action, but 
in the absence of knowledge, we can take credit.  ;-)

On the Board, I think that you are being a bit unfair. They deserve 
all the knocks for not doing things properly when the issues first 
arose, and for allowing critical contracts to be signed creating the 
potentially uneven playing field.

However, now that we are where we are, it is not just an issue of who 
do you love more. They have placed themselves in a VERY difficult 
position (and as I said I have little sympathy), but if I was in a 
position to "fix" things, I am not at all sure exactly how I would go 
about doing that.

I too hope to be pleasantly surprised, but if I am, it will be 
because they have worked there way through a complex maze.


At 10/12/2014 11:35 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>I would like to think that the ALAC motion taken in LA has been the 
>catalyst for this flurry of activity on an issue so many in ICANN 
>thought (hoped?) was dead.
>The letters we have seen lately on the Public Interest Commitments 
>issue simply re-enforce what we saw in the Public Comment Process on 
>it -- it's the domain industry versus the rest of the world.
>We now have what is actually a moment of unusual clarity at ICANN. 
>The lines have rarely been drawn this sharply, on a matter that at 
>its core directly concerns public trust in the domain name system.
>At a time when it is under more global scrutiny than ever, the ICANN 
>Board is now forced to reveal its true loyalties between the public 
>interest (in this case, a coalition of governments, registrants and 
>end users) and the industry it is supposed to be regulating.
>In its decision, ICANN will tell the world -- which is already 
>watching its every move with scepticism -- to whom it is ultimately 
>accountable, and whether the term "multistakeholder" actually means something.
>I await the Board's response. I hope to be surprised but do not expect to be.
>- Evan
>On 10 December 2014 at 21:51, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

More information about the ALAC mailing list