[ALAC] Compliance complaint

[Alan Greenberg]

At 12/03/2014 11:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:


>On Mar 12, 2014 8:33 PM, "Alan Greenberg" 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >
> > I am assuming that the lack of a reply from Olivier means we have 
> heard nothing back.
> >
> > Compliance has already they don't want to spend the time with us 
> going over the same presentation that they will give in the public 
> session, so focusing on our proposal for a new submission tool 
> seems appropriate.
>
>I agree, partially.
>
>The submission tool issue is important, but only part of a larger 
>conversation about ICANN's approach towards third-party 
>whistleblowers, consumer groups, state regulators, etc. Improving 
>the submission tool is necessary but not sufficient.

No not sufficient, but a mechanism by which one can submit a CLASS of 
infractions without necessarily identifying them one-by-one will 
result in a quantum change.


>And then there is still the issue of backlogs of complaints, which 
>cannot be brushed aside if they remain unresolved. This isn't like a 
>bankruptcy; ICANN can't just absolve itself of responsibility 
>because it has upgraded the contract.
>
>Even if action can't be taken because an older fraudulent act didn't 
>violate an old RAA, these issues still needs closure as a matter of 
>salvaging trust.
>
>It will be interesting to know how much of the above will be covered 
>in the public Compliance session.

Probably none. That is why I said that our wantin to discuss this 
meshes well with not previewing the public meeting with us.