[NA-Discuss] On the RAA issue - forwarded
avri at ella.com
Mon Apr 25 10:32:15 UTC 2011
The reason it might concern Internet Joe, is that what is being discussed among other things is Registrant rights and responsibilities and User protections, both for commercial and non commercial Registrants and Users, i.e. both regular Internet Joe and his Mom and Pop business; that is largely what the RAA is about.
As for the Contracted House Postiion, I responded to that in a comment to blog entry.
Finally, when has any advisory committee, including ALAC, needed special leave to give advice to the Board, or as Kieren put it, to stick its oar in? This is not a one side of the GNSO versus another part of the GNSO issue, though that is certainly where the last skirmish took place. the At-large took part in the WG whose recommendations were ignored by the Council based on the Contracted party's voting position and the Registrar Stakeholder Group's decisions to not accept outside 'interference'. This is an issue of the Contracted parties against the entire community. To cast it as an internal GNSO issue is to diminish the importance of what is going on. It is a serious process issue that the Board needs to be advised about.
On 25 Apr 2011, at 11:41, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> On 25/04/2011 09:23, Kieren McCarthy wrote :
>> As such, It would have far greater impact if you acknowledged the statement
>> put out by the Contracted House, and then explained why, in the ALAC's view,
>> this was not sufficient to pull away from allowing other stakeholders to
>> view the process.
> Statement found on:
> Kind regards,
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
More information about the NA-Discuss