[NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda

Mon Nov 24 18:40:21 EST 2008

I have already tried to shed light on what happened at that session 
(but note there was NO decision - just a presentation by Kurt Pritz 
followed by a discussion). Please see my (now) previous e-mails and 
also the wiki for tomorrow's ALAC meeting.

But you don't have to take my word for it. There *IS* a recording of 
that meeting. It is pointed to in the GNSO master calendar in the 
standard way, but for your convenience, it is at 
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/20081106-GNSO-wrap-up.mp3. Note that the 
volume is pretty low and there are a few seconds of silence before 
Kurt starts, but it is completely intelligible.

Alan

At 24/11/2008 06:28 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
>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
> > ------
>
>
>