[NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda

[Danny Younger]

Alan,

The Board was told by Kurt Pritz that the only way forward on the RAA amendments was by way of a consensus policy approach as outlined in section 4.3.4 of the contract.  This is clearly incorrect.  The Board has other options.  It can exercise its right to put through an updated agreement, and it can exercise its right to selectively put through amendments that technically are not "updates" by way of the amendments/waiver clause.

I have never argued for unilaterally adopting the entire package of proposed amendments; I have only argued that recourse to the consensus policy approach by itself is far too time consuming, and that we need to get an explanation from Staff as to why they have not advised the board of the other options available under the current contract.

--- 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, 3:23 PM
> Danny, I understand that all items are not ideal for
> everyone.
> 
> But I am having trouble reconciling your demand for an
> explanation of why the Board did not exercise one of their
> means of unilaterally putting the amendments into force and
> instead sent them to the GNSO.  If you wanted the Board to
> act, is that not the same as the GNSO approving them as a
> group?
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 24/11/2008 11:43 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
> > 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
> > > > > >------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> >