[NA-Discuss] NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery

[Joly MacFie]

The GAC have already come out against DA,

the GAC is concerned that the potential risks associated with the digital
> archery and batching mechanisms may outweigh the benefits. In light of
> ICANN’s decision to initiate digital archery on 8 June 2012, *the GAC
> advises the Board* to consult with the community as a matter of urgency
> to consider ways to improve its assessment and delegation processes in
> order to minimise the downside risks and uncertainty for applicants.
> In line with the concerns raised by the community, this should include a
> focus on competition and fairness with delegation timing.


 Source:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfW8Auik6tLt.pdf

More:
http://domainincite.com/9494-delays-likely-as-governments-demand-gtld-timetable-rethink

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1 at gov.nu.ca>wrote:

> I agree with Evan and I would certainly support a meeting with NCUC to
> discuss this matter if there is any kind of action that can be taken.  Like
> Evan, I find hand-wringing and complaining to be a waste of my valuable
> time.  If it is a strategy meeting with actions to move forward, then I'm
> all for it.
>
> D
>
> Darlene A. Thompson
> Community Access Program Administrator
> Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP
> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
> Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
> Phone:  (867) 975-5631
> Fax:  (867) 975-5610
> E-mail:  dthompson at gov.nu.ca
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:
> na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:23 PM
> To: Beau Brendler
> Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery
>
> I warmly extend greetings from the ALAC liaison to the NCSG (ie, me).
>
> There is a formal ALAC/NCSG meeting on Monday.
>
> One, the NCUC is considering the fairness of digital archery as an issue.
> > From what I heard on yesterday's NARALO call, we don't consider it a
> > public-interest issue (which, as you know, I disagree with, in other
> > words, I agree with the NCUC.
> >
>
> There is a difference between agreement in sentiment and agreement in
> tactics.
>
> I don't know of ANYONE who disagrees with the sentiment "digital archery
> is dumb, and in practical use no better than a lottery than choosing order
> of processing". The issue is what to do about it.
>
> The Board has already indicated that it is continuing with DA but may in
> fact (and in response to community reaction) toss the results and try
> something different. In fact, I've already suggested two alternative
> methods, though one of them may attract gaming attempts<
> http://diggy.wordpress.com/2007/03/07/how-to-win-a-jellybean-counting-contest/
> >
> .
>
> What wasn't resolved in NARALO, though was:
> - how the prioritization of various applications -- let alone its method
> -- was a matter of public interest
> - what At-Large should be doing and is able to do (beyond call attention
> to the reputation botch)
>
> Having a dicussion with the NCUC so we can agree about how awfully ICANN
> botched DA may relieve stress, but doesn't in itself offer any constructive
> recommendations going forward. We can stress the need to look at the only
> two existing categories of applicants -- IDNs and community -- as deserving
> of priority in any new batching system. But unless we have something new or
> novel to add, we'd just be adding to the existing cacophony of protest.
>
> Now... do you have a plan to come out of such discussion with a specific
> action item? If so I'm certainly open to change my mind. There is some
> flexibility in the NCSG/ALAC agenda, but I myself an averse to simple joint
> complaint sessions without an end game.
>
>
> Two, the NCUC is planning for Toronto.
> >
>
> There is certainly an opportunity for joint outreach here.
>
> And: Can we get with them on Toronto and possibly plan something together?
> > We did do some joint event planning in San Francisco, which resulted
> > in the well-attended Internet Town Hall.
> >
>
> While attendance was good, I don't consider the Town Hall to have been
> very effective in actually creating any go-forward policy strategy useful
> for ICANN. Lost of aired grievances and collective hand wringing, zero
> action items resulting. There was debating on which speakers had more
> credibility than others when discussing Internet access blocking in Africa.
> And most of it was about issues far outside ICANN's realm. So if the target
> is doing another meeting like what happened in SF, I'm personally not
> interested and would not attend. We're not IGF.
>
>
> > Just a thought -- strength in numbers.
> >
>
> Collecting the numbers, and then not doing anything with the result,
> provided a sense of frustration and wasted opportunity that I'd say in
> hindsight to have been worse than never having been teased at all.
>
> - Evan
> ------
> 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
> ------
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-