<html>
<body>
Thanks for catching those. As usual, your proof-reading is
superb!<br><br>
I have fixed them!<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 22/11/2015 06:39 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.<br><br>
-ed<br><br>
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 6:51 PM Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>As many of you are aware, Allen Grogan, ICANN's Chief Contract
<dd>Compliance Officer participated in the NARALO meeting at ICANN 54.
<dd>Some of his answers were deemed less than satisfactory, and Garth is
<dd>recommending that we send a letter to ICANN as a result. I
concur.<br>
<dd>If you wish to review the actual interaction, you can listen to it
at
<dd>
<a href="http://audio.icann.org/meetings/dublin2015/naralo-19oct15-en.mp3">
http://audio.icann.org/meetings/dublin2015/naralo-19oct15-en.mp3</a>,
<dd>minutes 7:45 - 17:40.<br>
<dd>You can find Garth's draft letter and both my redline and clean
<dd>revision attached to Item 7 of the ALAC Agenda at
<dd><a href="https://community.icann.org/x/3rZYAw">
https://community.icann.org/x/3rZYAw</a>.<br>
<dd>Aside from formatting and minor stylistic changes, the more
<dd>substantive changes are:<br>
<dd>- I have tried to reduce the more confrontational or personal
<dd>aspects. As an example, I have removed asking Grogan to restate the
<dd>goals of compliance, I have asked for ICANN to clarify its
position.<br>
<dd>- removal of statement that consumer trust in general was a major
<dd>focus of the Affirmation of Commitments. Consumer trust is a focus,
<dd>but specifically from the point of view of the New gTLD program and
<dd>how the growth in the TLD name space will impact consumers. There is
<dd>one more general reference in the introduction, but it is hard to
say
<dd>that this is a major focus.<br>
<dd>- removal of the reverence to consumer trust being a major focus of
<dd>the IANA transition. In my mind, other than the fact that consumer
<dd>trust presumes the DNS stays working, it is not an issue and was not
<dd>mentioned during the CWG deliberations. For the CCWG-Accountability,
<dd>it is an issue only in that the AoC is being moved into the Bylaws,
<dd>and the AoC words need to be faithfully carried over (and I have
<dd>pointed out one place where that was not done properly). But as with
<dd>Whois, consumer trust itself has not been a discussion item at
all.<br>
<dd>In the latter two cases, inclusion of the items, I think, weakens
the
<dd>letter as the points would be harder to defend. I really want to
make
<dd>this letter bullet-proof so it cannot be ignored on a technicality
or
<dd>judgement-call.<br>
<dd>The ALT has already reviewed the revised draft and supports it.<br>
<dd>My aim is to approve the revised letter, or a variation of it during
<dd>the ALAC meeting on Tuesday. If you have any comments, please send
<dd>them to the list prior to the meeting, if possible.<br>
<dd>Alan<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>ALAC mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>