[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC vote on RAA now open -- and it sucks

[Alan Greenberg]

Danny, unless I (and others I have talked to) misunderstood what Kurt 
Pritz said at the Thursday GNSO meeting in Cairo, it is all or 
nothing. Any other package (subset or superset) will require a 
full-blown GNSO PDP. And my reading is that some of the terms in this 
package (sucg as enforcement and re-certification on registrar sale) 
are not terms that are within scope for a GNSO PDP.

I personally do not completely understand why this particular package 
can be addressed by the "old" consensus definition, but any new 
package requires a full PDP, but that is what has been said. It makes 
some sense if you believe that the current package was derived based 
on wide community consultation (which is one of the steps of the old 
process). I know that some people believe that consultation process 
was flawed, but I am simply presenting the options that were (I 
think) given to the GNSO.

If I got the message wrong, then I apologize and I will ask the GNSO 
to defer a decision based on my sending the wrong message to At-Large.

Alan

At 11/12/2008 12:16 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
>Alan,
>
>Perhaps you can explain why this vote only puts forward options to 
>accept/reject/defer a complete "package" of amendments?  The ALAC 
>can indeed recommend adopting certain amendments while rejecting 
>other amendments.  You have unnecessarily limited the field of 
>available choices.
>
>The GNSO is not obligated to vote up or down on a total package and 
>neither is the ALAC -- the amendments can be ratified or rejected on 
>an individual basis.  If you want to handle this properly, why don't 
>you get some discussion started with the ALAC members on each of the 
>individual amendments.  It would be nice to hear some discussion 
>once in a while by Committee members, don't you think?
>
>
>
>--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC vote on RAA now open -- 
> and it sucks
> > To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "NA 
> Discuss" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:58 AM
> > That text was posted in error. I called this to the
> > attention of
> > staff as soon as I saw it. It has been replaced (prior to
> > anyone
> > voting). The four options now read:
> >
> > 1) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package,
> > with the
> > possibility of further policy development in the future.
> >
> > 2) Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA
> > package.
> >
> > 3) Recommend that the GNSO defer the decision until such
> > time that
> > the ALAC can be properly briefed on the current position by
> > ICANN staff
> >
> > 4) Abstain
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 11/12/2008 10:58 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
> > >So who do we have to thank for the totally biased
> > language below?!!
> > >
> > >The phrasing of Point #3 is an insult to everyone that
> > has worked hard to
> > >draw attention to the great many flaws in the proposed
> > RAA
> > >amendments package.  On what basis was the
> > determination made: "but
> > >the ICANN Board would probably not accept it"?
> > That's a bunch of
> > >crap.  The Board liaison did not bring forward that
> > viewpoint, nor
> > >is there a record of correspondence with any Board
> > members to assert
> > >that such is a board position.
> > >
> > > >From the ALAC Archives:
> > >
> > >"At the last ALAC meeting, it was decided to put
> > the ALAC recommendation to
> > >the GNSO on the RAA package to an online vote. The
> > online vote will remain
> > >open until Thursday, 18 December at 2359 UTC. Each
> > member of the ALAC will
> > >shortly receive a private email with their voting
> > credentials and a link to
> > >the online vote. They will be asked to choose between
> > the following options:
> > >
> > >1) Recommend the GNSO to defer because the briefing is
> > required to
> > >understand the context
> > >
> > >2) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current package,
> > with the
> > >possibility of further work on amendments on issues
> > remaining continues
> > >
> > >3) Recommend the GNSO to reject the amendments package
> > and start
> > >from square one, but the ICANN Board would probably not
> > accept it
> > >
> > >4) Abstain
> > >
> > >There's nothing more disgusting than the bald
> > attempt to force
> > >through a position vis-a-vis poorly drafted available
> > choices.  It's
> > >contemptible.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >At-Large mailing list
> > >At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- 
> lists.icann.org
> > >
> > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ------
> > NA-Discuss mailing list
> > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > 
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> > ------
>
>
>