[NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda

[Alan Greenberg]

Danny, there is a discussion going on in parallel on the meaning of 
what Kurt told the Board and the GNSO.

For the moment, I am asking a hypothetical question: If you have to 
choose between three options, which of these do you select?

A. ICANN adopts (through some relatively expedient means, but not a 
full PDP) the current list of RAA amendments (with whatever flaws it 
may have), and then starts a policy development process (with 
whatever outcome it may bring) on further amendments.
B. We start a policy development process (with whatever outcome it may bring).
C. Do absolutely nothing at this point.

Alan


At 24/11/2008 03:44 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
>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
> > > > > > >------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>