[ALAC] Letter re NARALO/Grogan discussion in Dublin

[Eduardo Diaz]

Agree with letter (even though I am not ALAC at the moment). There are a
couple of formatting issues with the letter: the subject and the section #3.

-ed

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 6:51 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> As many of you are aware, Allen Grogan, ICANN's Chief Contract
> Compliance Officer participated in the NARALO meeting at ICANN 54.
> Some of his answers were deemed less than satisfactory, and Garth is
> recommending that we send a letter to ICANN as a result. I concur.
>
> If you wish to review the actual interaction, you can listen to it at
> http://audio.icann.org/meetings/dublin2015/naralo-19oct15-en.mp3,
> minutes 7:45 - 17:40.
>
> You can find Garth's draft letter and both my redline and clean
> revision attached to Item 7 of the ALAC Agenda at
> https://community.icann.org/x/3rZYAw.
>
> Aside from formatting and minor stylistic changes, the more
> substantive changes are:
>
> - I have tried to reduce the more confrontational or personal
> aspects. As an example, I have removed asking Grogan to restate the
> goals of compliance, I have asked for ICANN to clarify its position.
>
> - removal of statement that consumer trust in general was a major
> focus of the Affirmation of Commitments. Consumer trust is a focus,
> but specifically from the point of view of the New gTLD program and
> how the growth in the TLD name space will impact consumers. There is
> one more general reference in the introduction, but it is hard to say
> that this is a major focus.
>
> - removal of the reverence to consumer trust being a major focus of
> the IANA transition. In my mind, other than the fact that consumer
> trust presumes the DNS stays working, it is not an issue and was not
> mentioned during the CWG deliberations. For the CCWG-Accountability,
> it is an issue only in that the AoC is being moved into the Bylaws,
> and the AoC words need to be faithfully carried over (and I have
> pointed out one place where that was not done properly). But as with
> Whois, consumer trust itself has not been a discussion item at all.
>
> In the latter two cases, inclusion of the items, I think, weakens the
> letter as the points would be harder to defend. I really want to make
> this letter bullet-proof so it cannot be ignored on a technicality or
> judgement-call.
>
> The ALT has already reviewed the revised draft and supports it.
>
> My aim is to approve the revised letter, or a variation of it during
> the ALAC meeting on Tuesday. If you have any comments, please send
> them to the list prior to the meeting, if possible.
>
> Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20151122/c1eeba99/attachment.html>