[NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda

Mon Nov 24 17:50:59 EST 2008

Given those three choices, I support "B" as long as the process fully accords with the contract definition of that which consitutes a "Consensus Policy":

4.3.1 "Consensus Policies" are those specifications or policies established based on a consensus among Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (a) action of the ICANN Board of Directors establishing the specification or policy, (b) a recommendation, adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is delegated, that the specification or policy should be established, and (c) a written report and supporting materials (which must include all substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy.

--- 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, 4:35 PM
> 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
> > > > > > > >------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> >