[At-Large] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC and .HEALTH

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Thu Mar 7 20:41:00 UTC 2013


On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>  
> While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as  they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world.
> 
> Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people.
> 
>  
> So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope?  The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
> 
> 
> Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one.
>  

These references all speak of ALAC ability to file a Community Objection on behalf of an ALS for harm done to itself as a community.

https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/Blue+Sky+Exercise
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000573.html
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000588.html
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000634.html
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000635.html
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000643.html

In terms of ALAC Meeting transcripts:

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.01.24+Transcription+-+EN

Avri Doria:                              Yes and I want to thank Dev for doing that.  I wanted to add just a couple of points and a question to you all as ALAC.  First of all Dev has been putting an amazing amount of work into this.  This is still a draft that the intention is within the next week or two within the group to get it to a stable point where it can be sent to the RALOs for further review and a review cycle and an update cycle.  So, I just wanted to make sure that I said that. 

                                                In terms of the beginning of this there was a discussion over the scope of community objection.  And the scope of community objection ranges from the very narrow interpretation of it's only if it's the ALAC community, the At-Large community, that's being targeted by the application.  There's a slightly wider view that sort of says it’s not just ALAC or At-Large, it's any of the components of the At-Large so to speak the RALOs and the ALSs. 

                                                The most expansive region of it is as At-Large responsible for the user community as it faces ICANN policy implementation etc. that basically championing any of those in an At-Large relevant topic area should be included.  Now this is a question that the Working Group itself can't really answer.  It's a question A for you all to sort of say what understanding does ALAC as an advisory committee have on this.  And then probably a secondary step if you take anything other than the most narrow interpretation is confirming that, stating that, declaring that, in any way that is appropriate to ALAC making its point and declaring if understanding of what ALAC community is. 

                                                The last point I wanted to make is that on some of these things there's still some technical issues that we're following-up for all of that to be there.  We obviously are on a crash course to get this done because it has to go through the review cycle, the upset cycle, and basically go through whatever approval cycle it needs to go through before the objection process starts.  So before that end of April date when all the applications are announced and I assume the approval and notification to ICANN or its staff as to what it is you're doing needs to happen before that.  So thanks.

--- 

I currently can't find the place where I got the answer I interpreted as " we will cross that bridge when we get there".  Certainly those specific words were not said, but what I recall being said, but can't find it the message, that we can deal with this issue later if we need to. 


Then again, I can't find any answer to my question fo ALAC of Jan 24.  Also I find that:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.02.28+-+Transcription+-+EN  is empty, so it is hard to check.

I am not sure if I brought it up in the December meeting (I think I might have), but https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+20.12.11+Transcription+EN  is also empty.

In any case the fragments I have found in this brief search indicate:

a. it was an issue in the Wg
b. the prevailing opinion was that the scope should include ALS community harm in scope
c. there was uncertainty about a wider scope that that
d. there seems to be no answer on the issue of wider scope, leaving that issue open for you all to deal with now.

 I will keep looking, but given the press for time, wanted to pass on what I could find


In sad that bringing this up angers some of you enough to make scary noises in my direction.  But I think it is important that any decision that ALAC makes be fully informed.  In this case, being fully informed means understanding that this Objection may not be in scope for ALAC to make.

avri



On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>  
>> While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as  they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world.
>> 
> Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people.
> 
>  
>> So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope?  The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
>> 
> 
> Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one.
>  
>> Well the bridge stands in front of you and I suggest you give it serious consideration before approving these objections.
> 
> Um, exactly who here is not taking this seriously?
> 
> (If only all the issues in ICANN attracted such attention and thought. But this one, because money is at stake, is somehow more special? Pfftt.)
> 
>  
>> I personally agree with their note, and do not think ALAC has standing to object i this case.
>> 
> I started as also being a champion of laissez faire. The more time goes on, the more I am inclined to support the objections. The counter arguments have been far from convincing.
> 
>  
>> I wish I had thought of it yesterday when NARALO was discussing the issue,
> 
> 
> Why? The point had already been made, and NARALO chose not to advance the objection. However, three other regions did.
>  
>> Also, of course, when you write a letter, you include all the possible arguments.  There is not time for serialization. I think deriding them for that reason is a bit much.
>> 
> You're right, I guess, in that there are much better reasons for derision.
> 
>  
>> I advise great care in your next steps.
> 
> IMO this wording constitutes a threat -- unless you have ANY evidence that this issue is being addressed without care anywhere in the community.
> 
> The implication -- that agreeing with the objections is somehow not giving the issue sufficient care and attention -- is offensive,
> 
>  
>> Those who indicated this Objection might actually injure ALAc's reputation might have had good reason to say what they said.  It may begin to look like ALAC is being manipulated by a bitter past applicant who did not apply this time, who has not argued that there is a community, and is not an ALS member.
> 
> And I might be inclined to say "screw it, the Internet will not fall over if one controversial string is held up for a round while the various parties work it out.". That does not harm our reputation one shred.
> 
> In fact, I am being more inclined to say that with each email I see on the matter.
> 
>  - Evan



On 7 Mar 2013, at 12:12, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> Curious choice of recipients for the letter. I understand Olivier and Dev,
> but why me and Avri?
> 
> Oh well, I'm sufficiently fascinated: "You don't have standing to object.
> But just in case you DO.... "
> 
> Precious.
> 
> - Evan (via mobile)





More information about the At-Large mailing list