[NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard

[Beau Brendler]

My apologies, Richard. I see you left Neustar in 2008. You're no longer SVP at Demand Media after the eNom acquisition? I was going by your LinkedIn profile.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal at me.com>
>Sent: Mar 29, 2011 4:35 PM
>To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>, NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC	position statement on GAC scorecard
>
>I am not an executive at a registry, registrar or any other company.  i am currently unemployed and have been for 18 months
>
>My main concern with the ALAC Scorecard paper is that it asks for a fundamental restructuring of the applicant selection process -  i.e.  it asks for a method whereby applications will be 'limited'.    This is not something the GAC have asked for in their Scorecard,  and in my opinion it would require at least nine months of policy and drafting work to try and find an equitable procedure for such limitation.   
>
>As there has been no plan to limit in the last three versions of the AG I think there are more potential applicants than whatever limitation number is decided.  Simply put,  this limitation mechanism would need to find a rationale way for us to decide that the .NYC application (say) was allowed proceed,  and the .PARIS application (say) was not.
>
>'Limitation' is a position the ALAC is free to endorse, but it's not clear to me that ALAC members appreciate the implication of the recommendation.   Does general ALAC membership understand that this recommendation is not requested by the GAC and would substantially delay AG approval? 
>
>Thanks
>
>Richard
>
>
>
>
>On Mar 29, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Beau Brendler wrote:
>
>> In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users." 
>> 
>> I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
>>> Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM
>>> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position	statement on GAC scorecard
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position?  Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of?
>>> 
>>> Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency?
>>> 
>>> with kind regards,
>>> a.
>>> 
>>> On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about
>>>> any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial
>>>> volunteer time into the details.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------
>>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>>> 
>>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>>> ------
>> 
>> ------
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>> 
>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>> ------
>