[NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda

Mon Nov 24 17:46:35 EST 2008

Nick,

Beau drafted a Statement and that Statement couldn't be ratified owing to a lack of quorum.  Thereafter Staff put up a seven day ratification vote on the Statement.  Only 9 members bothered to vote.  In keeping with ALAC tradition there was no substantive discussion of the issues therein.  

Nowhere in the Statement does it indicate what the ALAC proposes as next steps in the process.  The Statement fails to indicate which amendments are acceptable and which are deficient or what processes should be used to implement the proposed amendements.  In short, the Statement fails to offer sufficient guidance to the ALAC's GNSO liaison.  

Yes, these matters could be discussed at tomorrow's ALAC meeting, but the aganeda seems to be filled with navel-gazing exercises that will doubtless eat up the allotted meeting time.

--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart at icann.org> wrote:

> From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda
> To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>, "Robert Guerra" <lists at privaterra.info>, "Beau Brendler" <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, 4:57 PM
> For the sake of clarity, the most recent ALAC statement on
> the RAA Amendments was ratified on 14th September of this
> year. As you were one of the contributors to the drafting,
> Danny, and considering how recently this was approved,
> I'm surprised that you are unaware of what the
> ALAC's position is.
> 
> You may read the statement at
> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/correspondence/correspondence-14sep.htm.
> 
> 
> On 24/11/2008 16:15, "Danny Younger"
> <dannyyounger at yahoo.com> 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.icann.org/2008q4/004938.html
> >
> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q4/004939.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------
> > >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
> > >------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------
> 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
> ------
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> Director for At-Large
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88
> USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637
> Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44
> Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68
> email: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
> Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight:
> nashtonhart at mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart
> Online Bio:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart