[At-Large] [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization

Ariel Liang ariel.liang at icann.org
Wed Jul 22 19:34:06 UTC 2015

Hello Christopher and All,

The Statement on this public comment is drafted by Olivier Crepin Leblond.
Once it is final, it will be submitted to the public comment as a Statement
from the ALAC. The ALAC will also conduct a ratification vote for it.

If you have any comment on this draft Statement, kindly post it in its wiki
workspace here for higher visibility and easier reference:
https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw. If you are unable to post in the wiki,
kindly contact me. 

You may find the draft Statement under ŒFIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED¹ in the
aforementioned wiki workspace.

Thank you,

From:  Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
Date:  Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 3:00 PM
To:  Olivier Crepin  Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Cc:  "alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large
Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC
Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting

Dear Olivier: 

Thankyou. Noted, but only just now. There are a major threshold issues.
Particularly for those of us who are already spending a large part of the
available time on other ICANN issues.

- I do not quite understand where the document that we are invited to
comment on is coming from. Is that a staff draft or and ALAC draft or
something else?

- I dipped into the Westlake report, but my printer managed pages 137 to 161
before stopping, not more, so I am really not  the much wiser.
  (These monster documents really play to the criticism that the staff is
trying to bury the issues in unmanageable detail.)

More generally, I consider that much of the CWG and CCWG attack on the ICANN
Board's accountability can be traced back to self-interested and
indefensible GNSO positions which the Board has endorsed uncritically on the
basis of 'bottom up' policy developoment. Several aspects of the new gTLD
program which have proved to be unsustainable and indefensible can be traced
back to positions espoused by the Registry and Registrar community.

Regarding the structure of GNSO, I can only say that the NCUC etc. members,
although claiming Civil Society affiliation have serially failed to identify
and support the public interest or to rein in the commercial objectives of
the Registries and Registrars.  Nom-com and other liaisons with GNSO appear
not to have the necessary leverage.

ICANN's primary responsibility is the regulation of the conditions of fair
competition in the DNS market. It has become clear that the community will
not get anything like that from GNSO as presently structured.

I trust that this is clear and useful



PS: Now, how to distill my concerns into 'comments' into the document) Well,
I regret that simply in terms of understanding how to manage the
word-processing, I am convinced that I would waste a lot of time, failing.
(Why do we use these complicated Google-esque re-drafting methods? They
disenfranchise those who have never succeeded in using them.)

On 22 Jul 2015, at 18:50, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
> just a kind reminder, a few hours away from the At-Large Comments closing.
> I have heard in corridors that some people were concerned about the lack of
> overall review of the GNSO's structure and most of the recommendations
> focussed on GNSO Working Groups and small adjustments rather than taking a
> serious look at the GNSO's bicameral structure. Yet, I have not seen any
> actual written confirmation of this concern here. Could you please all take a
> short moment to write your concerns, if any, that should be part of an overall
> comment that falls outside the (narrow) scope of the actual recommendations
> made by Westlake Consultants?
> Kindest regards,
> Olivier
> On 16/07/2015 08:00, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> of particular interest, is identifying what is *missing* from the Review.
>> Suggestions welcome.
>> Kindest regards,
>> Olivier
>> On 16/07/2015 03:00, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote:
>>> Dear All, 
>>> Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be
>>> made on the draft ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic
>>> Names Supporting Organization <https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw>  in
>>> preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process.
>>> The current draft, as well as additional information on the Public Comment,
>>> can be found on the wiki workspace here:
>>> <https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw> https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw.
>>> Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by
>>> 22 July 2015 23:59 UTC.
>>> Regards,
>>> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie
>>> Peregrine and Terri Agnew
>>> ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
>>> E-mail:  <mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org> staff at atlarge.icann.org
>>> Facebook:  <https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge>
>>> www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge <http://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge>
>>> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20150722/b54313ad/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5086 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20150722/b54313ad/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the At-Large mailing list