[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.
Alan
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.
>
>
>
>âMaybe 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.â
>
>
>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
>ICANN51"
>-> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and
>CEO Fadi Chehadé, at the start of ICANN51"
>â
>
>
>
>[...other generally-sensible edits ...]â
>
>
>
>âBelieve 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
>âagainst 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.
>
>âOTOH, if there is anything FACTUALLY (rather
>than stylistically) wrong with the doc, that needs addressing.â
>
>
>â- Evanâ
More information about the ALAC
mailing list