[NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda

Mon Nov 24 18:59:53 EST 2008

Thanks Alan,

This is a very helpful pointer.

--- 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
> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 6:40 PM
> 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
> > > ------
> > 
> > 
> >