[ALAC] Letter re NARALO/Grogan discussion in Dublin

[Alan Greenberg]

Thanks for catching those. As usual, your proof-reading is superb!

I have fixed them!

Alan

At 22/11/2015 06:39 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
>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 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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>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>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
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>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/a04dbbc4/attachment.html>