[NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda

Mon Nov 24 11:43:45 EST 2008

Alan,

There are some amendments which are simply not acceptable.  Let's consider a specific example cited in my own public comments as well as in the comments of the IPC and the US DOC:

"Also, Registrar shall either (1) include in the database the name and postal address, e-mail address, and voice telephone number provided by the customer of any privacy service or licensee of any proxy registration service offered or made available by Registrar or its affiliate companies in connection with each registration or (2) display a conspicuous notice to such customers at the time an election is made to utilize such
privacy or proxy service that their data is not being escrowed."

The second clause in this amendment must be eliminated as it is antithetical to the interest of all registrants.

These amendments must be debated by the ALAC one-by-one so that specific language changes can be introduced as required.  Those that require no changes, that are useful, may be introduced either by way of the amendments and waivers clause or by way of the Right to Substitute Updated Agreement Clause... but this should apply only to those amendments that enjoy broad consensus-based support and which haven't been subject to any posted objections.

It would be appropriate for the ALAC to do a line-by-line examination of all the amendments and to reach a collective determination as to which are supported as is, which must be modified, and which must be totally rejected (of course, the underlying assumption is that ALAC members will actually engage in on-line discussion which is probably a bad assumption to be making).

I have to take issue with your use of the phrase "already agreed-upon RAA changes" as I have seen no evidence of agreement on specific amendments in the very few comments made at ALAC sessions.  Perhaps you could elaborate on what you meant in this phrase...

Thanks,
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, 10:59 AM
> Danny, my understanding was that there was general belief
> that the proposed RAA amendments were woefully inadequate
> and incomplete, but that in their own right, they would be
> useful. Since your 2nd questions focuses on finding out why
> the Board has not already taken the unilateral paths that
> you believe viable to enact the revised RAA, I would assume
> that you support this position.
> 
> 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.
> 
> If you or others feel that this is not a reasonable
> position to take, please provide specific guidance.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 24/11/2008 10:15 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
> > 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.i
> cann.org/2008q4/004938.html
> > >
> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.i
> cann.org/2008q4/004939.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >------
> > > >NA-Discuss mailing list
> > > >NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >
> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarg
> e-lists.icann.org
> > > >
> > > >Visit the NARALO online at
> http://www.naralo.org
> > > >------
> > 
> > 
> >