[At-Large] {Disarmed} Re: Public Forum presentation - draft

[Izumi AIZU]

2007/3/29, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>:
>
> My point was that Izumi had seemed to suggest that 1(c) could be skipped
> and an issues report requested from the staff. This is not the way it works;
> the issues report is requested from the GNSO, who then direct staff to
> create one.


from the staff, or from an advisory commmtee? I did not suggest to skip
1 c at all. I said I read it.

I am fine to move this to public list and also discuss in our meeting.

izumi


Honestly, this is obviously becoming a very long and probably confusing
> thread - quite possibly even for some of us contributing to it - may I
> suggest that we actually just discuss this at the meeting later this
> afternoon? In front of all the ALSes and the whole committee? And the result
> can then be posted.
>
> On 29/03/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu> wrote:
> >
> > I am moving this to the public list, because it is very important.
> >
> > We can discuss on words, but your interpretation of the text of the PDP
> > that would require the GNSO Council to approve a request for an Issue
> > Report by an Advisory Committee is not what was agreed in year 2002. It
> > was explicitly said that we were advisory, but we'd have the unilateral
> > right (of course to be used with care) to put things on the GNSO agenda.
> >
> > I have even checked this with a GNSO guru during the break, who said
> > that there's no way that it can be differently from this - we just need
> > to phrase the request correctly.
> >
> > If the ICANN staff stays with that interpretation, and if it is
> > confirmed by the GNSO, I would like to raise the issue with the other
> > ACs and with the Board to understand whether this is actually the intent
> > of ICANN at the political level.
> >
> > Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
> > > Your interpretation does not square with the ICANN GC. Note the word
> > > 'request' in 1(c). Further, you do not request ICANN Staff for an
> > issues
> > > report; you send a request to the GNSO as per 1(c).
> > >
> > > On 29/03/07, *Izumi AIZU* <iza at anr.org <mailto:iza at anr.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Yes, I looked at 1 c. already, as follows,
> > >
> > >     1 c. /Advisory Committee Initiation./ An Advisory Committee may
> > >     raise an issue for policy development by action of such committee
> > to
> > >     commence the PDP, and transmission of that request to the GNSO
> > Council
> > >
> > >     The "transmission of that request" implies to the commence of PDP,
> > >     but NOT issue report IMHO. So, this does not prevent us from
> > >     requesting ICANN Staff for Issue Report. Otherwise, there is
> > little
> > >     room for any advisory committee  - I cannot imagine GAC accepts
> > this
> > >     and ask GNSO council to reuqest Issue report  or RSSAC or SSAC
> > does...
> > >
> > >     izumi
> > >
> > >     2007/3/29, Nick Ashton-Hart < nashton at consensus.pro
> > >     <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>:
> > >
> > >         Look at 1(c). Then look at 2....
> > >
> > >         On 29/03/07, *Vittorio Bertola* < vb at bertola.eu
> > >         <mailto:vb at bertola.eu>> wrote:
> > >
> > >             Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
> > >>  Note one error below of process. Quite important not to
> > >             misstate the process...
> > >>
> > >> >However, there is  a need for more concrete information to
> > >             prove these
> > >> >problems actually exist and are affecting the ordinary
> > >             users and their
> > >> >experience in using the Internet. Therefore ALAC is
> > >             drafting a formal
> > >> >request shortly to ask ICANN staff to prepare an Issue
> > >             Report. At the same
> > >>
> > >>  This above statement is the problem. What ALAC can do is
> > >             ask the GNSO
> > >>  Council to ask for an Issues Report to be prepared.
> > >
> > >             Huh? If you go to
> > >             http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA
> > >             < http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA>, point
> > >             2, it says that upon the request of "a properly supported
> > >             motion from an
> > >             Advisory Committee", staff will create an Issue Report,
> > >             which will then
> > >             go to the GNSO council together with a recommendation on
> > >             whether or not
> > >             to start a PDP. You clarified a few mails ago that
> > according
> > >             to Dan "a
> > >             properly supported motion" is one that the majority of the
> > >             ALAC approved
> > >             in a formal vote.
> > >
> > >             I don't know how that can be read differently - are you
> > sure
> > >             that you
> > >             mean what you wrote? I thought Maria had said that the
> > GNSO
> > >             council
> > >             needs to approve the starting of a PDP, not the creation
> > of
> > >             an issue report.
> > >             --
> > >             vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu
> >
> > --
> > vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> > -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Regards,
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> PO Box 32160
> London N4 2XY
> United Kingdom
> UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
> USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
> Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
> mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
> Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com / Skype:
> nashtonhart
> Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
>



-- 
                      >> Izumi Aizu <<

             Institute for HyperNetwork Society
             Kumon Center, Tama University
                             * * * * *
              << Writing the Future of the History >>
                               www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070329/3640ebf9/attachment.html