[Euro-board] [GTLD-WG] WG: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: Re: URGENT-ALAC statement on IRTP report

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Evan,

I have found the side by side comparison very helpful - thank you.
Clearly, both your version and Patrick's version are similar in 
essence. The interesting thing I am noticing is the cultural 
difference playing here: whereas Europeans are softer and more 
diplomatic in their approach, North Americans are sharper and, should 
I say, more agressive in tone.
Both approaches have much merit. My prefernece would lean towards the 
more agressive tone, an appreciation probably triggered by a mix of 
anglo-saxon & gallic attitudes. :-)
It would be good to hear from others, especially those who have much 
experience in ICANN diplomacy. The comment period end on the 6th May 
but futher comments can be left until 24th May (although we really 
need this thing out by the 6th).
REMINDER: *** This is a vital point relating to the Camel's Nose ***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%27s_nose

Regards,

O.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org>
To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com>
Cc: <gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "Euro Board" 
<euro-board at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [Euro-board] WG: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: Re: 
URGENT-ALAC statement on IRTP report


>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am sorry it took me so long to respond.
>
> I have suggested some edits to Patrick's document on the Wiki. You 
> are
> welcome to use them or reject them, in which case simply revert back 
> to
> the last one Patrick did.
>
> My changes were two-fold. In some cases I wanted to be more direct 
> and
> assertive ("must" instead of "should"). My largest changes are in 
> the
> preamble, in which I wanted to be more direct in noting the complete
> lack of transparency in the IRTP process -- the summary rejection of
> willing At-Large participants, the short reaction times, and the 
> lack of
> any participation by those to be affected. These are all points 
> Patrick
> made, I just wanted to make the statement sharper, that the entire
> process by which the IRTP has operated is a reversal of ICANN's 
> goals of
> transparency and inclusiveness.
>
> I also added what I believed to be some clarity to the comments 
> about
> the methods of takedown notices, without changing Patrick's intent. 
> (For
> instance, I think that "expiry" has a more definite meaning --
> especially to the lawyers -- than "sunset").
>
>
> Patrick's original (Version 7):
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_name=draft_statements_related_to_irt_s_remit_from_at_large;revision_id=20090504185107
>
> My edits (Version 8):
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_name=draft_statements_related_to_irt_s_remit_from_at_large;revision_id=20090505162319
>
> Side-by-side comparison:
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=draft_statements_related_to_irt_s_remit_from_at_large&mode=source&new_revision_id=20090505162319&old_revision_id=20090504185107
>
> I hope my edits are acceptable to Patrick and the rest of the WG. If 
> not
> and the preference is for the original, that's OK too. I just hope 
> I've
> been able to help.
>
> By the way.... is there are reason why this statement is on the GNSO
> section of the website and not ALAC's?
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
>