[NA-Discuss] Dotless domains

[Evan Leibovitch]

On a general note, in the ICANN context I would strongly disagree with the
assertion that the presence of good information necessarily means that the
Board as a whole is well informed.
The POTENTIAL to be well informed exists; whether that potential is
realized is quite a different matter.

ICANN is informed by many bodies offering a broad diversity of views, and
obviously some of the information it receives is counter to what At-Large
would consider "good". It is notable that direction from ICANN's gTLD
supporting organization (ie, the industry input) *must* be heeded (ie, can
only be rejected by a super-majority of the Board); however, input from its
ACs is purely optional and can be (and often is) disregarded at whim
(without even an explanation, except in the case of the GAC).

IMO, the state of WHOIS offers another example of where AC advice has been
poorly accepted because of industry resistance. Many such examples exist,
unfortunately for the public interest.

ICANN -- and the DNS -- would be a far different environment had its AC
input been taken as conscientiously and seriously as its industry input.

- Evan


On 10 June 2013 11:32, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> Eric, I would agree that the Board already has good advice from the SSAC.
> However, it appears that the Board, having received this advice, may not be
> following it. There may be value in the ALAC being vocally supportive of
> the SSAC work -- without re-inventing it -- and informing the Board that in
> ALAC's view going against SSAC053 is against the public interest.
>
> If the Board had fully heeded its AC's advice we would not be having this
> discussion, and the Board would have trusted the SSAC advice rather than
> needing third-party consultation and evaluation. At very least it would
> have deferred the issue until the current round has been delegated (which
> is what my original point was about).
>
>
> On 10 June 2013 11:19, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
>
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> I suggest that the first issue to consider is whether the Board is in
>> possession of the best advice on the subject from some other AC, and
>> if so, is further advice from another AC, ALAC in particular, can in
>> fact inform the Board.
>>
>> In my view, the Board already has the best advice on the subject from
>> an AC and no communication from another AC can in fact inform an
>> already informed Board.
>>
>> Eric Brunner-Williams
>> Eugene, Oregon
>> ------
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>>
>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>> ------
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
>
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
>
>


-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56