[NA-Discuss] Domain tasting -- epilogue(?)

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hello everyone,

At least many of you have been following and participating in the debate
on the global At-Large list (and occasionally diverted into the ALAC's
internal list) on the issue of Domain Tasting.

The stance taken at last month's NARALO conference call was strong,
clear, and dare I say even courageous given the motherhood statements
that existed in the draft position. Our call to eliminate the add-grade
period (AGP) is now part of the official ALAC document which resides at
this URL:
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/gnso-liaison/attachments/domain_tasting_documents:20071206203659-0-11802/files/05-12-2007-Domain-Tasting-Statement.pdf
I find it extremely unfortunate that ALAC could not itself take a strong
anti-AGP stand, but the final outcome was -- to me -- much better than
original drafts that tried to marginalize the position.

There are some lingering issues, resulting from the debate,  that I
would like to address:


1) Some At-Large constituents have contacted me about the possibility of
NARALO submitting its own position paper to GNSO independently of ALAC's
submission. Personally I am not convinced this is now required, given
that the final ALAC document reasonably captures and identifies our
position. However, I think we need to at least be aware of the request.
How strong is the need for us to create our own document?


2) One particular part of the discussions disturbed me greatly -- the
assertion by Alan that ALAC has adopted a position of "silence means
consent". Given the lack of input that ALAC usually gets for its
initiatives -- and the (IMO) lack of effort it makes to reach out to
extract the public point of view -- I find this position to be harmful
to the whole At-Large process. I would rather ALAC honestly admit to not
having enough feedback on issues, to reporting that it speaks on behalf
of a community that has been silent. To me, the "silence equals
agreement" position is indefensible and damages the reputation of ALAC
-- and indeed ICANN -- amongst the public it is trying to reach.

I would like to ask our ALAC representatives to consider this issue.
Perhaps a subsequent discussion within NARALO is called for, but I would
personally like our reps to officially ask ALAC to end any policy,
formal or informal, of "silence means consent". Perhaps some here --
including non-ALAC reps with some history -- can offer why this policy
exists in the first place. I would like to especially hear from anyone
with a view that this policy needs to stay in place; I honestly don't
understand any rationale except for disguising the inability to actually
discern the grassroots viewpoint.


3) I'm not certain that the planned vote by ALAC to post internal policy
related mail to a public website is sufficient to overturn a culture of
secrecy. There are too many on ALAC who simply don't have the mindset
that it is a completely public organization for which extremely few
issues (mainly personal/personnel issues) should be in-camera.

I'm not sure how to address this but I can be certain that it's
affecting our credibility. Robert can be singled out for doing an
exemplary job of trying to confront this, but I'm wondering if the
necessary change in culture is really happening -- or if there is
anything we can do about it.


4) Issues have been raised about addressing public complaints or
interest to get involved. While I agree that ALAC itself is not equipped
to be a consumer ombudsman within ICANN, perhaps we should start
thinking of ways to enable/force it within ICANN. What does everyone think?


5) So that we do not get caught in making and defending positions at the
last minute, are there any issues listed at
http://icann.org/public_comment/ that warrant our specific work? The
only one pressing on deadlines is the issue of single-letter
second-level domains (ie. a.com or x.asia).


- Evan