[NA-Discuss] On the Cost Application

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Mon Apr 4 00:21:32 UTC 2011

Just so's you know Avri and FWIW, you may not transpose Alan's comments to
all of ALAC. Record my exception.

In as much as I shall not subscribe to the doctrine of inerrancy, comfort of
a few Board members will never be a consideration for any advice I will
offer as a member of ALAC.

In fact, I see my role as diametrically opposed; to afflict the comfortable,
as necessary.

Personalities differ and sometimes on the road to consensus you must go
along to get along. I sometimes agree to changes in language not because I
wish to change my opinion but rather to, in my judgment, make my opinion
more embraceable by my colleagues who are less comfortable with.....shall we
say...emotive language or controversy.

Boards are constituted of men and women who can be and sometimes are,
wrong-headed. I am ever willing to say so when I think so. The ALAC's
advice, as offered, must be driven by principles that  can stand on their
own and informed by our constituency.


Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*

> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:46:25 -0400
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] The TLD-less NYC
> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Message-ID: <20110403144755.B56483B4C at mailscan1.ncs.mcgill.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> I can't speak on behalf of ALAC, but I can say why I opposed the
> "look at the 100k item" initially in the WG and later supported the
> ALAC recommendation to exclude it from the new Charter.
> I strongly believe that reductions in this component are warranted
> for some select group of disadvantaged applicants. But I believe that
> if ICANN does this, it will be from a willingness to help such
> applicants (or perhaps more important, their planned TLDs). This is
> for two reasons:
> - the original development of the $100k involved, among other things,
> a complex statistically-based simulation of various possibilities.
> Even if it was incorrectly done, we are not likely to be able to
> identify the flaw in any post-analysis that we can do;
> - I believe that there are Board members who are more likely to
> reject our entire package if questioning the $100k is a major component.
> Alan
>  ------------------------------
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:35:18 +0000
> From: avri at ella.com
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] The TLD-less NYC
> To: "NARALO Discussion List" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
> > - I believe that there are Board members who are more likely to reject
> our entire package if
> > questioning the $100k is a major component.
> Well far be it for me to second guess ALAC, but I do not believe that
> bottom-up organizations should be second guessing the powers that be when
> deciding what to recommend.  Self censorship often censors more than might
> be disapproved of by the powers that be.  Of course I figure that to the JAS
> WG, ALAC is a components of the relative opacity that is the powers that be
> in ALAC.
> Second guessing a few month ago would have had us leave any price
> reductions out of the recommendations, whereas after a bit of persistence,
> including showing the GNSO recommendations that allowed differential
> pricing, we may now be approach the possibility of approved price reductions
> for some applicants.
> Like wise persistance in pointing out that the cost neutrality, as
> recommended by the GNSO was for the application program, and not for all
> previous charges or expectations of possible future risk.  Persistence in
> this vein might also achieve results.
> a.

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list