[ALAC] Follow-up on the ALAC Advice to the Board regarding PICs
evan at telly.org
Thu Nov 13 18:57:53 UTC 2014
On 13 November 2014 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> Dear Alan,
> thank you for this. I realise that time is of the essence, so will be
> short in my comments:
> 1. This is a formal follow-up Advice from the ALAC.
Maybe this is hair-splitting, but it is more as background to existing
advice -- caused by the Board's need for more information -- rather than
new independent Advice.
ALAC has long had to deal with different classifications of what it votes
on. As this document itself contains no recommended courses of action
itself, I would not call it Advice.
As such, when
> mentioning names etc. it should be better if a certain level of
> formality is upheld. When citing names, please cite the full name:
> "The heightened protection measures announced by Fadi, at the start of
> -> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and
> CEO Fadi Chehadé, at the start of ICANN51"
> [...other generally-sensible edits ...]
Believe me, Olivier, given more time there is much that could have been
refined, added, and maybe even taken out. Notably, more time would have
enabled direct answers to the illogical Registry response that PICs can
only be fixed through a PDP (as the PICs themselves were not created by a
But doing even a usable statement able to actually be effective has been a
fight against time, which is the reason the voting period is so
compressed. Similarly, consultation with the gTLD WG was also compressed
(and was not helped when the email thread started by my urgently asking the
WG to review the original draft was hijacked for an unrelated purpose :-P ).
The Board is **now** considering its response to our Advice from ICANN51.
To say this "backgrounder" was done expediently is an understatement. In
the time it would take to incorporate your edits (and others that would be
considered), the document will have been rendered nearly useless by not
getting to the Board in time. Your indulgence is appreciated.
OTOH, if there is anything FACTUALLY (rather than stylistically) wrong
with the doc, that needs addressing.
More information about the ALAC