[NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda

Mon Nov 24 18:28:08 EST 2008

Alan, 

Recently we have seen two different approaches utilized within the GNSO:  

1).  on some policy initiatives (such as the tranfers issues) we have seen policy recommendations emerge as discrete units -- the topic is broken down into sections, each with its own WG, and policy recommendations emerge on a one-by-one basis.

2).  on other policy matters (example:  the contractual conditions PDP) we see the GNSO dealing with recommendations as a package (with an up-or-down vote on the entirety of the recommendations instead of one by one).

As neither the transcript nor the recording of the GNSO wrap-up session is Cairo is available that dealt with the RAA topic, I have no way of knowing in what manner the GNSO resolved to move forward on the issue.

Can you shed any light on this?  

--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda
> To: "Robert Guerra" <lists at privaterra.info>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe at consumer.org>, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 5:50 PM
> 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
> > > > > > > > >------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> 
> 
>       
> 
> ------
> 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
> ------