[NA-Discuss] ALAC Comments on the GAC Scorecard
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Sun Mar 27 20:24:25 UTC 2011
With respect, I do think you may have miscast my suggestion contained in the
final paragraph...and in so doing, alter fundamentally what I was saying.
Many processes reverentially agreed by good people give wrong, even
abhorrent, results. I really was not saying..or even suggesting.... that
the process - any process - in this context is stopped or reversed purely
because one disagrees.
My position is really more prosaic; it is to caution that because the idea
did not prevail for this or any process, it is necessarily wrong and thus a
candidate to be banished from 'polite' discourse here forward.
Apropos, the tribulations of one Galileo Galilei... it took the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith until almost the end of the 20th Century to
acknowledge the fact and truth of heliocentrism.......
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 2:55 PM, <na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to
> na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> na-discuss-owner at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re: DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard (Carlton Samuels)
> 2. Re: DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard (Avri Doria)
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:17:50 -0500
> From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard
> To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Cc: na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <AANLkTi=BHb0AXzmrznEfERfRJFakSsdJacoAGA8XQAdX at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Dear Colleagues:
> It is not unusual for a draft of an ALAC Statement to come from the pen and
> intuit of a few; someone[s] has[ve] to start the work, usually with the
> understanding that they draw on their own sense of the community's temper
> and interests.
> Furthermore, it is not unusual for this said statement to be substantially
> rephrased, once subject to scrutiny of the At-Large community in general
> the full ALAC slate; every draft statement must be circulated for comment
> and regions may direct their representatives' concern to the entire
> statement or, specific areas of it.
> Finally, consensus in this context does not mean we all agree on all
> matters. Rather it means that there is substantial agreement across the
> board by a wide cross-section of the At-Large community.
> For example, I don't particularly like the tabulation format because I am
> inclined to believe that there is a psychology at work as part of any
> communique. That aside, I am in favour of emphasizing the issues that are
> a) very important to the At-Large b) The issues on which we are apart from
> the protagonists. The wholesale adoption of a format from one protagonist
> sends a certain message that is, in my view, best avoided. But this is
> just me and my sensitivities displayed, crafted from my years of active
> observation in places where I'm actively hobbled by one or other reason but
> yet a participant in all kinds of political manoeuvres.
> Reasonable people can agree to disagree, agreeably. But I must insist,
> vehemently, that I have long rejected the doctrine of inerrancy, whether
> propagated for or on behalf of the Bishop of Rome, the ICANN Board or, for
> that matter, the GNSO.
> Kind regards,
> Carlton Samuels
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:00 PM, <
> na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > wrote:
> > Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to
> > na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > na-discuss-owner at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..."
> > Today's Topics:
> > 1. Call for comments on NTIA NOI for the IANA functions -
> > deadline 23 March (Eric Brunner-Williams)
> > 2. Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC
> > scorecard (Antony Van Couvering)
> > 3. Re: Edits and comments to NARALO/ ALAC position statement on
> > GAC scorecard (Richard Tindal)
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:28:35 -0700
> > From: Antony Van Couvering <avc at avc.vc>
> > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position
> > statement on GAC scorecard
> > To: "na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org Discuss"
> > <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > Message-ID: <30E785AA-D2DB-4C8A-8B29-F3C398B9A762 at avc.vc>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> > Hi everyone,
> > I'm writing in regard to the paper put together by Evan Liebovitch and
> > others (
> > which I find to be problematic on many fronts. The paper purports to be
> > response by NARALO/ALAC to the GAC scorecard. In reality, however, it is
> > the point of view of just a few individuals, and in my view seriously
> > misrepresents the points of view of many ALAC participants. My responses
> > are not as organized or concise as they might be, but I note the March 25
> > deadline for comments. I am sure there are errors of grammar and
> > and in some cases (hopefully very few) of sense.
> > (Note: For all intents and purposes, my "constituency" within ICANN is as
> > member of NARALO. Although my company wishes to provide services to new
> > gTLD applicants, it is not a member of the registry constituency
> > or the business constituency (refused.) As a North American resident, as
> > longtime NARALO commenter and participant, and as an otherwise "homeless"
> > participant (no stakeholder group will have me) in the ICANN process, I
> > would like to offer my thoughts and amendments.)
> > There are many points in this document that I agree with, and many where
> > DISAGREE (in caps throughout for ease of reference). The document is
> > thorough and well-drafted, but I don't believe it should be put out as
> > for reasons that I lay out below.
> > I offer my thoughts with a constructive spirit to try to present the
> > with a document that truly represents consensus and has the broad support
> > the ALAC community. Where I have referenced outside materials, I have
> > references in brackets and capital letters.
> > Antony Van Couvering
> > ++++++++++
> > I. THIS PAPER SHOULDN'T BE COMMUNICATED WITHOUT CONSENSUS
> > This document should not be put as an ALAC document, even with caveats,
> > until there is some certainty that it approximates the point of view of
> > members. From what I have seen -- and I would be happy to be corrected
> > the only inputs have come from one NARALO member and one EURALO member,
> > a couple of other small comments.
> > The document notes:
> > "It must be emphasised that, because of the extremely compressed timeline
> > allowed for this response, ALAC has not received the broad At-Large
> > community feedback and buy-in that such a statement would normally
> > While its authors have solicited comment and ALAC endorsement, this
> > statement is still subject to review and possible refinement pending
> > At-Large distribution."
> > So, as it stands, it is the work of just a few people. I don't see the
> > value of putting out a position paper that doesn't represent the views of
> > NARALO or ALAC, in fact it may be harmful. If this position paper
> > represent an ALAC consensus, or note the areas of consensus and
> > non-consensus, then it shouldn't be published.
> > One of the areas where ALAC has been very useful (and consistent) is in
> > insistence on consensus and transparency. The ALAC statement of Nov 2010
> > [A] says: "In order to ensure that the entire At-Large community had the
> > opportunity to review the five statements, and for their perspectives to
> > taken into account, the ALAC resolved upon a process of consultation and
> > amendment for the statements by resolution at its 24th March 2009
> > teleconference. As a result, the Summit Working Group statement was
> > for public comments by the At-Large community on 1st April, closing on
> > April. The New GTLD Working Group then amended the statement to
> > comments received."
> > It strikes me that the above statement is a good method for achieving
> > consensus, whereas a position authored by just a few, without
> > is not.
> > II. AREAS OF AGREEMENT / CONCERN / DISAGREEMENT
> > The paper makes some good points but also puts forward positions that not
> > only disagree with the previous hard-fought community consensus, they in
> > some cases disagree with previous ALAC consensus positions. As the ALAC
> > said recently [B], "we have serious concerns regarding what we consider
> > be backwards steps from areas of community consensus." It is important
> > we respect the community consensus, and the Guidebook, which has been
> > through years of examination, does represent that consensus, even if it
> > doesn't represent the views of ALAC 100%.
> > To the paper itself:
> > 1. Section entitled "Thematic Response." The draft paper says: "ALAC has
> > always had significant challenges regarding both the processes taken to
> > produce the current Applicant Guidebook (AG) as well as its result." I
> > don't think this is entirely true. For one thing, one of the loudest
> > to initiate the current process came from the ALAC, stemming directly
> > the flawed sponsorship round, of which .XXX is the last progeny. [C]
> > In that report, and in subsequent statements, ALAC has emphasized to
> > that policy should be the result of consultations and consensus from the
> > whole community. Given that the guidebook represents close to 3 years
> > continual discussion, which has drawn out all the arguments pro and con,
> > which was initiated by the GNSO and examined closely by every
> > advisory committee, and stakeholder group, this process better represents
> > rough consensus among the entire community than any other ICANN policy
> > proposed.
> > 2. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper purports to have ALAC agreeing
> > with the GAC to eliminate Module 6, the "morality clause." It claims
> > in Mexico City, the ALAC said that "ICANN's obsession with a judicial,
> > adversarial process provides a barrier to legitimate objections and
> > expense to TLD applicants defending against trivial, unsustainable
> > objections." I agree that the morality clause is very silly [D], but it
> > pays to be careful about what we're talking about, and assertions that
> > not sustainable when examined. I DISAGREE with the conclusion.
> > First, the ALAC said nothing in Mexico City about obsessions by ICANN
> > adversarial procedures. [E] For another, that's not what the procedure
> > outlined in the Guidebook does. Finally, although the GAC did say that
> > wanted to jettison Module 6, that's not where they ended up after meeting
> > with the Board. Recall that the scorecard has now been the subject of
> > several intensive meetings between the GAC and the Board, and both sides
> > have modified their positions. The GAC indicated in Brussels that its
> > concern relates to requiring governments to use this objection process.
> > Board and GAC therefore agreed that it would be consistent with GAC
> > to leave the provision for Limited Public Interest Objections in the
> > Guidebook for general purposes, but the GAC (as a whole) would not be
> > obligated to use the objection process in order to give advice. There
> > should not be the implementation of an entirely new objection procedure
> > is a complete turn-around from what !
> > is already in place, esp. when the GAC and the Board seem to have
> > an accommodation.
> > 3. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "The public interest is
> > best served by being reasonably liberal in string acceptance, lest ICANN
> > drawn into unfamiliar territory of content-based judgements." I am in
> > complete agreement with this.
> > 4. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "The global
> > public interest is badly served in being deprived of a TLD string (and a
> > potential community focal point) simply because of the perceived insult
> of a
> > small number of national governments. The Internet does not exist to only
> > provide information that pleases everyone." I am in complete agreement
> > this.
> > 5. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "As a replacement we
> > endorse Scorecard #2.1 with the following conditions: A similar objection
> > mechanism must exist for non-governmental organisations to launch
> > (either a better-resourced branch of ALAC, a revised version of the
> > Independent Objector, or something similar)." DISAGREE. I note this
> > statement calls for complete removal of ONLY the objection procedure
> > on ?limited public interest.? The objection procedures that have been
> > developed based on communty consensus should not be replaced with the GAC
> > proposal for String Review. The current AGB objection procedure is a
> > necessary part of the process. We disagree that the ALAC or any other
> > should have an objection mechanism that is not agreed upon by the
> > or currently defined in the AGB.
> > 6. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 2): "2. The GAC
> > other bodies able to raise objections) should satisfy the broader
> > that objections it will raise -- as a global advisory body -- reflect a
> > reasonable consensus between members and do not just reflect the whim of
> > small number of advocates." I support the concept that any advice from
> > GAC must be based on a GAC consensus position. Individual governments
> > able to use the public comment period and the objection procedure as a
> > of voicing their concern.
> > 7. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (points 6 and 7): "All
> > objection processes must be transparent; specifically, anonymous
> > are explicitly NOT allowed; The Board must have ultimate decision making
> > authority with the unimpeded right to override objection advice." I am
> > complete agreement with these important points.
> > 8. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 8): "Split
> > -- in which even rough consensus between the GAC, ALAC and other
> > stakeholders is impossible -- should weigh in favour of approving the
> > under objection. Globally blocking a TLD string on public interest
> > requires, in our view, consensus that the very existence of the string
> > damages the public interest." DISAGREE. This particular point
> > the very reason that there should not be a multi-party review for the
> > objection procedure. Finding agreement between the GAC/ALAC/Other
> > stakeholders will impede the objection process. Objections should be
> > by one party per one application, and reviewed by one evaluator.
> > 9. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 9): "In agreeing
> > with Scorecard #12, we also believe that it is simple common sense to be
> > able to alert TLD applicants, as early in the application process as
> > possible, to potential objections." DISAGREE. I oppose implementing any
> > new procedure. The current process allows sufficient time for applicants
> > mediate with objectors.
> > 10. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 9): "Applicants,
> > having entered such good-faith negotiations with potential objectors,
> > be able to make minor changes to their applications in order to comply
> > a negotiated settlement." I DISAGREE. There should be no changes to an
> > application after submission; to do so brings up an entire set of
> > complications -- for instance, should the changed application then be
> > re-evaluated?
> > 11. Theme 2 - trademarks. Generally, I have trouble with the sentence
> > that says: "We support many of the Scorecard's name-protection measures
> > which are consistent with the STI consensus recommendations and even a
> > that go beyond." Does this mean that the paper supports those GAC
> > that are consistent with the STI, but not others? Or does it mean that
> > supports all the GAC measures, many of which are consistent with the STI?
> > Which are which? In many of the points regarding trademarks, I DISAGREE
> > with the positions taken by this paper
> > In general, I support the guidebook on the following points (with
> > -- I agree with the guidebook, that all trademarks for nations and
> > supranations shall be accepted into the Trademark Clearinghouse. A date
> > acceptance cut-off will not be utilized, as this rewards bad actors from
> > previous rounds.
> > -- There should be a Sunrise OR IP Claims, but not both. Having both is
> > redundant and circular, and imposes significant costs on registry
> > which will be passed onto registrants.
> > -- Trademarks for IP Claims or Sunrise must be an exact match. Going
> > beyond exact matches is unworkable and gives ICANN more discretionary
> > power than any currently accepted TM law might. There shall be no
> > requirement for post-launch IP Claims.
> > -- Registries shall have discretion to restrict eligibility of
> > based on objective criteria reasonably related to the purpose of the TLD
> > such as evidence of use, or class of goods and services (e.g. .shoe could
> > restrict Sunrise to only trademark registrations that show use in
> > shoe-related class of goods and services).
> > -- There shall be no requirement for post-launch Sunrise TM Claims.
> > -- Each trademark registration must be supported by evidence of use in
> > order to be the basis of a URS complaint
> > 12. The paper says, in regard to the URS: "A successful complainant
> > have first right of refusal for transfer (#6.2.12)." DISAGREE This goes
> > against the STI recommendation (as a side note, any time ALAC is going
> > against community consensus, it should be noted.) In agreement with
> > IRT/STI, I do not support the right of first refusal transfer of names
> > URS complainants. The Uniform Rapid Suspension service is specifically
> > that, suspension in order to stop the resolution of a domain name that is
> > harmful or infringing. Any domain transfer should be awarded through the
> > UDRP.
> > 13. Expanding the URS beyond exact matches. DISAGREE. This is very
> > ice, for a few reasons. First, the obvious issues with free speech:
> > extending the URS beyond exact matches is problematic and impedes freedom
> > speech, for example ?wal-martsucks.tld?. Second, many brand names are
> > of common words. Would the huge bank "ING" be able to object to any
> > or participle containing the letters "ing"?
> > 14. The paper says, "In regard to Consumer Protection measures as stated
> > Scorecard #6.4 (except for #6.4.4, see below), ALAC strongly agrees with
> > GAC positions." DISAGREE. For one thing, it is inappropriate to say
> > the ALAC agrees or disagrees with anything absent proper consensus, let
> > along saying that it "strongly agrees." The GAC position, I feel,
> > from a lack of understanding of what a registry does; this may be true of
> > anyone who hasn't run a registry, including some ALAC members.
> > The GAC's positions 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 are ill-informed of the actual
> > function. The GAC scorecard 4.1 states: ?Amend the "Maintain an abuse
> > of contact" paragraph in the DAG to include government agencies which
> > address consumer protection.?
> > All registry operators already must provide an abuse point of contact
> > (within the registry administration staff). The public face of this POC
> > an email, abuse at registry.TLD. The contact person then acts upon or
> > notifies the appropriate party of any required action. The GAC scorecard
> > seems to call for a listing of government agencies which address consumer
> > protection which would be published on the registry website. This
> > is outside the registry operator's purview. 4.2 states: ?A registry
> > operator must assist law enforcement, government agencies and agencies
> > endorsed by governments with their enquiries about abuse complaints
> > concerning all names registered in the TLD, including taking timely
> > as required, to resolve abuse issues."
> > This demand is acceptable with the condition that registry operators
> > provide reasonable assistance to law enforcement (both civil and
> > consistent with applicable national law. Registry operators should not
> > required to provide any proprietary data without a legitimate, legal
> > request, in order to prevent violation of national privacy laws.
> > 15. Theme 3 - Categories. The paper says, "Despite widespread community
> > request, ICANN has not budged from its long-standing position of only two
> > categories of applications -- "regular" and "community". This is despite
> > fact that GNSO policy on gTLDs allows for categorization, and indeed
> > for differential pricing for different categories (another policy
> > conveniently overlooked in all versions of the AG to date). The GAC
> > Scorecard, in our view, simply adds one more strong voice to the need for
> > categorization beyond what now exists. While arguments have been made --
> > should be heeded -- about the concern that categorizatioin mechanisms
> > be subverted for financial gain (also known as "gamed"), ALAC holds the
> > that such concerns are not sufficient to resist implementation of new
> > necessary categories. Even if gaming succeeds, in our view it is
> > to let a few applications "slip through the cracks" than to deny the
> > service and innovation pos!
> > sible through creating a small number of new categories."
> > VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE on nearly every point. Categories are implicity
> > problematic and despite what the authors have written and what ALAC might
> > feel on the subject, they have been rejected by the entire community time
> > and time again. The designation of more categories beyond ?Community?
> > ?Generic? raises more problems than it could possibly solve.
> > 16. The paper says, "In principle, we endorse the GAC position of wanting
> > special status for TLD names which indicate entire sectors which may be
> > subject to regulation (such as .bank, .pharma, .lawyer). DISAGREE. I
> > support the Board position and strongly disagree WITH allowing special
> > status for certain regulated sectors. There are no proprietary rights to
> > such words. The admission that ?we are unclear about what form? and ?how
> > ..to verify and enforce? clearly presents the problem of creating Special
> > Categories. These concerns are dealt with through the 5 processes
> > in the Applicant Guidebook, and the position taken by the paper's authors
> > creates new rights where none existed before -- in contravention of
> > adopted ALAC positions taken with full ALAC consensus. The GAC proposal
> > unnecessary as the underlying concern is already addressed by the
> > mechanisms: (a) The GAC objection process (advice); (b) Background
> > checks/vetting of applicants; (c) !
> > Community objection procedures; (d) Malicious activity controls; (e) IO
> > Objections; (f) Public comment; and (g) Board?s ability to reject an
> > application per Module 5.1.
> > 17. Geographic Names -- broadly, I support the position taken by the
> > It says, "We agree with the ICANN Board response of relying on
> > pre-determined names." If geographical names beyond country names are to
> > protected, they must come from an internationally recognized
> > list. I note that this discussion is for protection at the SECOND level.
> > The GAC should NOT be able to unilaterally designate a word as
> > Many geographic names are also generic terms, as aptly described by
> > member Bruce Tonkin's .MARS illustration. Does Mars the planet have a
> > better right to mars.TLD than Mars the chocolate bar? What if the
> > don't care? This problem is dealt with through the TM clearinghouse, URS
> > and UDRP procedures.
> > 18. Assistance for disadvantaged applicants. This is a very important
> > topic, and my company has been active in supplying funds to developing
> > ccTLDs because I believe that the Internet as a whole does better with
> > and diverse participation. The JAS WG has established that ?NEED? is the
> > primary selective for applicant support. I fully supports the JAS WG
> > proposal and Board's affirmation of, a matching system where providers of
> > support and services would be matched with applicants that qualify based
> > need. I do NOT support the GAC proposal that applications from a
> > region should be granted greater consideration for support, because this
> > not indicative of need, but only of geography.
> > 19. Operational readiness. The paper states, "We would note that only
> > vested interests within ICANN are pushing for a massive round of
> > simultaneous applications and approvals. We would advise a more staggered
> > approach, with a steady timetable of approvals and delegations."
> > Apart from the gratuitous editorializing (most ICANN participants have
> > vested interest, including many in ALAC), this statement goes squarely
> > against the GNSO policy and in addition flies in the face of all the
> > science, and sober representations by technical people in the community.
> > The root is monitored by everyday by multiple parties all around the
> > Delegation rate scenarios have been modeled and tested. There is no
> > technical basis for limiting the number of new TLDs to be added to the
> > The Board did note, personnel capacity will limit the possibility of
> > processing more than 1000 new TLDs/year. As noted by Steve Crocker,
> > 1000 TLDs annually to the root is !
> > similar to adding a drop of water into a liter-sized bottle.
> > 20. Business and Market Considerations. The paper states, "ICANN should
> > not be in the business of evaluating business models beyond the
> > sustainability of the plans," and ""public benefit" declarations within
> > applications will be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to
> > substantial modification (and difficulty of enforcement)
> > Completely agree.
> > 21. Cross ownership. The paper states, "the requirement to use ICANN
> > accredited registrars and to not self-distribute could jeopardize TLDs
> > will have a specific regional focus or those using less common scripts or
> > languages" and "There should be viable ways for single registrant TLDs to
> > operate effectively." Completely agree.
> > 22. Due diligence on applicants. I think the Board and the GAC actually
> > agree on this topic, although the GAC wants to have "extra" checks that
> > are however unable to define. I support that ICANN should make screening
> > effective as possible. ICANN is willing to meet with law enforcement and
> > other experts to ensure that all available expertise is focused on this
> > issue. (ICANN notes however that there is no consistent definition of
> > criminal behavior across multiple jurisdictions, and the existing
> > Applicant Guidebook consciously targets "crimes of trust".) I agree with
> > ALAC that drug crimes seem completely off-topic in this context.
> > References:
> > [A]
> > [B]
> > [C] ALAC position on 2003 sponsored TLDs.
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/gtld-com/Arc00/msg00039.html
> > [D] Blog post by Antony Van Couvering.
> > http://www.namesatwork.com/blog/2008/10/30/icanns-morality-memo
> > [E] "Statement on New gTLDs Applications Process v2,"
> > ------------------------------
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:59:40 -0700
> > From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal at me.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Edits and comments to NARALO/ ALAC position
> > statement on GAC scorecard
> > To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > Message-ID: <93B4629C-7DC1-4A6A-BCEB-8107369E4515 at me.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> > It would be good to see a substantive discussion of the many points
> > by Antony in his recent post - most of which I agree with.
> > There doesn't seem to be a broad ALAC dialogue on this very important
> > report. Some of the items in the report do not appear logical, and
> > items
> > seem to represent changes in GNSO policy recommendations.
> > If accepted, the report's recommendations will significantly delay new
> > as extensive new processes and language will have to be developed for the
> > Applicant Guidebook.
> > A prime example is the implementation of a fair mechanism to introduce
> > in limited rounds. In 2 years discussion of that topic I have not yet
> > an implementation proposal that wouldn't favor well funded,
> > savvy or politically connected applicants.
> > With such limited input does this report truly represent the ALAC's
> > position?
> > Regards
> > Richard Tindal
> > ------------------------------
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:27:17 -0400
> From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard
> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Message-ID: <B76885D7-7889-4644-AF77-BAF257CE1F71 at ella.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> On 27 Mar 2011, at 14:17, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> > Reasonable people can agree to disagree, agreeably. But I must insist,
> > vehemently, that I have long rejected the doctrine of inerrancy, whether
> > propagated for or on behalf of the Bishop of Rome, the ICANN Board or,
> > that matter, the GNSO.
> It is not a doctrine of inerrancy and to put it that way is quite
> There was a process, one that many At-large members participated in.
> This process had an outcome that the Board then approved.
> That is the foundation on which this program is being created,
> and the time for criticizing that outcome that is long long past.
> To constantly go back and try to change things that you did not prevail on
> several years ago or sometimes did not even a viewpoint on, and to use that
> as a way to put a halt to the beginning of the new gTLD program is indeed a
> problem and is something that I find a bit dubious.
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 53, Issue 28
More information about the NA-Discuss