[ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)

Thu Apr 16 11:02:00 EDT 2009

Carlos wrote:

"I'm concern about the NCUC proposal because is very complicated to understand, and this means the continuity of the old participants."

My sentiments exactly. Trying to explain that charter to consumer groups, for me, is a non-starter.
________________________________________
From: carlos aguirre [carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:25 AM
To: Brendler, Beau; Adam Peake; alan greenberg
Cc: lista publica de ALAC
Subject: RE: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG  Charter(s)

I,m concern about the NCUC proposal because is very complicated to understand, and this means the continuity of the old participants.
 On the other side I agree with Patrick in his comments and I want to add my serious concern about our political capacity in the emergency. I think NCUC made their bussines, and we only saw the train pass thru.

I assume my fault part of this, but we have an actively, and -de facto- ExCom which they should have seen this before.

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar<http://www.sitioderecho.com.ar/>
http://ar.ageiadensi.org<http://www.densi.com.ar/>

> From: Brenbe at consumer.org
> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:21:36 -0400
> CC: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
>
> I think Adam is on-target here:
>
> "Let's go through the NCUC
> proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can
> either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps
> better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake,
> Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves."
>
> I have spoken separately to Robin and Brendan and others and they know their charter's not perfect, but I think they are genuinely looking for help in improving it. I am of course willing to help out with going through it and making suggestions.
>
> Per Adam's comment to staff, I know that Heidi and Nick have been trying to do outreach to consumer groups, at least on behalf of the consumer constituency if not one of the charters...which is much appreciated.
> ________________________________________
> From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:16 AM
> To: Alan Greenberg
> Cc: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
>
> Alan: thanks for sending a comment
> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00025.html>. I
> think it's fair, appreciate your efforts on all our behalf.
>
> There's a lot to respond to in quite a few messages, busy day today
> and tomorrow likely worse, sorry I haven't time. So just this:
>
>
> >Beau, as I understand it, the Board will accept or reject presumably
> >based on the their own perspective and the input received from the
> >public comments. The only opportunity for change is if the Board
> >rejects. If they accept, it is (until a change is required or
> >forced) cast in concrete.
>
>
> I suspect you are right, but this is something to check.
>
> If I am reading the commercial stakeholder's charter correctly
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/commercial-sg-transitional-charter-28feb09.pdf>
> (btw: no mention of individuals, and we know some of the
> constituencies give individuals no rights other than to observe),
> then it is not complete, the last item there states "The Final
> Charter Process The process to develop a Final Charter shall consider
> a number of additional matters." What's going on here? Doesn't this
> indicate there's an opportunity to do more work?
>
> Two things: if the process is open to further comment --I hope it
> is-- then seeking to make modifications to the non-commercial
> proposals would be a good option. I suggest we only address the NCUC
> proposal, the other has little support. If the process is closed as
> you suggest, as ALAC can provide advice to the board as it wishes,
> can't we anyway suggest whatever we think best? In both situations
> we can say there should be a further review process and specify areas
> of the NCUC proposal that need to be resolved.
>
> If we can take this route of extra comment, then let's be specific
> with our questions to the NCUC (example: verification of individuals,
> potential for capture by individuals... I know there's much more, but
> this is pretty specific and addressable.) Let's go through the NCUC
> proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can
> either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps
> better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake,
> Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves.
>
> And ICANN has to begin supporting the outreach. It's unrealistic to
> think the NCUC alone could find members from "educational, research,
> and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of
> academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial
> organizations etc". It's managed a few, but some of these are groups
> ICANN itself has had great difficulty engaging with. I know some NCUC
> members have tried, I've done a bit myself with no luck. Outreach of
> this kind needs ICANN's support.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> >Alan
> >
> >At 15/04/2009 07:26 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
> >>I feel like I have something of a conflict of interest, since I
> >>have a constituency proposal before the community for consumers. I
> >>can go as far as to say I have some concerns with both charters
> >>that I hope will be ironed out during the public comment and review
> >>process.
> >>
> >>________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>
> ***
> Scanned
>
> **
> This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

________________________________
Con Messenger podés ver si llegaron correos nuevos ¡Conocé todo lo nuevo del Messenger 2009!<http://www.nuevomessenger2009.com/>
***
Scanned

**
This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.