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

[Evan Leibovitch]

OK.

I had thought that once the vote started, the draft being voted on was set
in stone.

The changes Olivier suggests are all reasonable. I'm pressed for time today
but will try to do the changes.

- Evan


On 13 November 2014 14:34, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

>  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 <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
> ICANN51"
> -> 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​
>
>


-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56