[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Business Constituency on the RAA Amendments

Mon Dec 15 13:41:37 EST 2008

Beau,

The motion pointed to (which one should note has not actually been 
made and will likely not be) does not include the final line in the 
e-mail I sent to Council - "Obviously these two motions can be 
combined into one, but I thought it cleaner to separate them."  You 
can certainly fault my judgement on this, but that is how I saw it.

The motion that Chuck sent (which had a first step of sending staff 
and registrars back to talk about how to proceed) had both concepts 
in the same motion. As it evolved, several other people thought that 
they should be separated.

Since I have been publicly chastised for speaking on behalf of 
At-Large when there is not a formal, cast-in-concrete approved 
position taken, and of "advancing your own personal agenda at 
[At-Large] expense", I have kept my mouth shut on this.  Avri is 
under no such constraint.

As you will note from the page you pointed to, Chuck's motion is now 
long-gone, replaced by Tim's motions, which are roughly equivalent to 
mine. These evolved based on several days of discussion (which I did 
not participate in, either on my own behalf or making statements on 
behalf of ALAC).

Assuming the motion comes to the table on Thursday (the next GNSO 
meeting), I will pass on the results of our vote. Unfortunately, only 
7 of 15 members have voted so far. Based on the vote so far, the 
result will be to request that the GNSO defer the decision.

Alan

At 15/12/2008 12:33 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
>Yes, I did say that: "And that needs to be followed by a more 
>comprehensive RAA review, preferable in reasonable chunks so that 
>the entire review/revision does not get bogged down until the next millennium."
>
>But that is not reflected in the first part of your motion to the 
>GNSO. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions
>Why is the motion being split into two parts? Why not just one 
>motion that attempts to codify that additional amendments to the RAA 
>are necessary?
>
>Avri Doria seems to be speaking more on behalf of the user community 
>than we are.
>________________________________________
>From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
>[na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan 
>Greenberg [alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:55 AM
>To: At-Large Worldwide
>Cc: NA Discuss
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Business Constituency on the 
>RAA   Amendments
>
>I can neither defend nor explain the RAA process up to now. I passed
>on the question because it was asked by the Chair of the GNSO. It was
>not required that they get our permission, the question was asked as
>a courtesy.
>
>For the record, the statement that Danny sent was not a formal
>Business Constituency statement, but one made on the sender's own
>behalf. I am not privy to the internal discussions of the BC, so I do
>not know if it is the feeling of all.
>
>Beau, also for the record, on Nov 24th, you said:
>
> >As for the broader question about the RAA amendments themselves, we
> >did provide a fairly detailed statement that the ALAC signed off on
> >in September. I believe Alan's comment: "The position that I have
> >taken within the GNSO is that ALAC wants to see the already
> >agreed-upon RAA changes put in place immediately (since sooner would
> >require a Wayback machine with more functionality than our current
> >one). And that needs to be followed by a more comprehensive RAA
> >review, preferable in reasonable chunks so that the entire
> >review/revision does not get bogged down until the next millennium,"
> >is accurate of where we left things with the RAA.
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>At 15/12/2008 08:56 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
> >Here's what I don't get:
> >
> >We (the ALAC) produced a statement on the RAA that was sent up the
> >pipeline on the deadlines given out to us. The ALAC voted on (and
> >for) the statement.
> >
> >We received no formal response to that statement that I am aware of.
> >Granted, my attentions have been elsewhere for large chunks of time
> >since June, but I have tried to pay attention to those things I have
> >agreed to help out on, so if there has been a formal response, my apologies.
> >
> >But how can we now be talking about approving the package of
> >amendments as it stands? With no formal response to our statement?
> >Is it because the possibility of a PDP negating all the good work
> >done so far on the RAA is being held over our heads? Sounds like a
> >negotiating tactic to me. I don't think we should bite.
> >
> >By the way I agree with Danny, what the BC is saying makes good
> >sense, even if it's too late for us.
> >
> >Beau Brendler
> >________________________________________
> >From: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >[at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan
> >Greenberg [alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
> >Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:04 PM
> >To: At-Large Worldwide
> >Cc: NA Discuss
> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Business Constituency on the RAA Amendments
> >
> >Danny, I am a moderately rational person who can think.  My current
> >role on the GNSO Council is primarily that of Liaison to the ALAC. I
> >was asked a question about how would the ALAC react to the ICANN
> >staff proposal. My job was to answer if I knew the answer and pass
> >the question on if not. I have done that.
> >
> >I'm sorry if you don't like the message, but I was just the messenger.
> >
> >If there was a widespread belief on the ALAC that it was nonsense to
> >approve the current package of amendments, then it is too bad that it
> >was not stated. I did not create the concept of the current vote. I
> >did re-word it so it made more sense (and removed the phrase that you
> >as "it sucks").
> >
> >At 12/12/2008 07:59 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
> > >"The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and
> > >the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them
> > >wholesale?  Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do
> > >that?  In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants
> > >done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say.
> > >
> > >Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which 
> of the RAA
> > >amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus
> > >if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now?  The group could then
> > >suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan 
> for sequenced
> > >requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address
> > >any and all identified open issues.  Meanwhile the Board would understand
> > >which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those,
> > >and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their
> > >issues with the RAA will be addressed."
> > >
> > >http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05902.html
> > >
> > >This approach makes a lot more sense than what the ALAC is currently
> > >voting upon.  Alan, please take note.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >At-Large mailing list
> >At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-li 
> sts.icann.org
> >
> >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> >***
> >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.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >At-Large mailing list
> >At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-li 
> sts.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
>------
>
>***
>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.