[ALAC] Follow-up on the ALAC Advice to the Board regarding PICs

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Nov 13 19:34:03 UTC 2014

Evan, I believe that all (or most) of the changes 
that Olivier is suggesting are cosmetic and do 
not at all change the intent or meaning of the 
statement. If I had more time, I probably would 
have caught most last night. Please try to make 
these changes and I will get it reported (and a 
formal note of explanation to the ALAC) when I return in a few hours.


At 13/11/2014 01:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

>On 13 November 2014 11:28, Olivier MJ 
>Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl at gih.com>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 PDP).
>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.​
>​- Evan​

More information about the ALAC mailing list