[NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda

[Danny Younger]

Alan,

As I, and doubtless others, have no idea what position the ALAC has adopted with respect to the RAA amendments, could we trouble you to articulate the official position, and the specific actions that the ALAC will support in the GNSO?

Many of us have major issues with a lot of the amendments and we don't want to see these put through on a blanket basis.  It's bad enough that Staff is in bed with the registrars;  we don't need to have the ALAC pushing an ill-considered program that gives the registrars everything that they want while the views of the rest of the community are routinely ignored.

Danny

--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda
> To: dannyyounger at yahoo.com, "Robert Guerra" <lists at privaterra.info>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe at consumer.org>
> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 8:19 AM
> Although not answering any of Danny's questions (but
> acknowledging 
> where were are today with the RAA amendments being punted
> to the 
> GNSO), I do note that as ALAC Liaison, I am taking what I
> hope will 
> be successful action to fast-path the first round of RAA
> amendments 
> through the GNSO and forwarded to the Board for quick
> approval.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 24/11/2008 07:14 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
> >Dear North American reps to the ALAC:
> >
> >The entire point of having a RALO is so that grassroots
> input may be 
> >brought to the attention of the ALAC.  There were
> several items that 
> >I raised that have not made it onto the ALAC Agenda for
> tomorrow's meeting:
> >
> >1.  the failure to inaugurate a comprehensive review of
> registrar 
> >accreditation processes
> >2.  a request for a formal explanation from ICANN Staff
> as to why 
> >(1) invoking the amendments and waivers clause in the
> RAA may not be 
> >pursued and (2) why an updated RAA agreement may not be
> substituted. 
> >As both of these options are permitted by contract, we
> need to know 
> >why Staff has chosen not to pursue this viable course
> of action.
> >3.  a response to users that have posted comments to
> the RAA-WG.
> >
> >As reps for the NARALO you have a duty to raise the
> issues that have 
> >been brought forth by the membership and to place these
> issues on 
> >the agenda if they merit discussion, otherwise there is
> no point 
> >whatsoever in having these RALO structures or an ALAC.
> >
> >see my orginal comments at
> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q4/004938.html
> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q4/004939.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------
> >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
> >------