[NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee
Garth Bruen at Knujon.com
gbruen at knujon.com
Wed Dec 14 17:20:50 UTC 2011
Thanks. I'm concerned that this does not specifically reference ALAC's
statement on the program which is the subject of the hearings.
The letter might lead with "At-Large did not (was not asked/invited?) to
testify, and was not referenced by Pritz in the list of constituent groups
who contribute to ICANN consensus. However, our previous current stand on
the new gTLD program is/can be found..."
Comments about Dyson's statements are important to correct the record, but
the message should be on point with the subject matter.
From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:00 PM
To: <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "ALAC Working List"
<alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Cc: "ICANN AtLarge Staff" <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
Subject: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy &
> Dear all,
> there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding
> hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate
> Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing
> by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec
> 14th -- i.e. today).
> Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept
> comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included below.
> Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler,
> NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the
> Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via
> two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller.
> Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but
> rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in
> ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it
> will be archived in our ALAC correspondence.
> We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of
> Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton,
> should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the
> witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what
> gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is
> required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige.
> Kind regards,
> On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote :
>> An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling
>> of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines.
>> There are two different hearings
>> 1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation
>> <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8)
>> After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send
>> comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14
>> 2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee
>> (to be held Dec 14)
>> After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to
>> send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting)
>> So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate
>> hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before
>> Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in
>> the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing
>> this Wednesday.
>> We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee
>> after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content
>> of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate
More information about the NA-Discuss