Agree with letter (even though I am not ALAC at the moment). There are a couple of formatting issues with the letter: the subject and the section #3.

-ed

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 6:51 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:

As many of you are aware, Allen Grogan, ICANN's Chief Contract

Compliance Officer participated in the NARALO meeting at ICANN 54.

Some of his answers were deemed less than satisfactory, and Garth is

recommending that we send a letter to ICANN as a result. I concur.

If you wish to review the actual interaction, you can listen to it at

http://audio.icann.org/meetings/dublin2015/naralo-19oct15-en.mp3,

minutes 7:45 - 17:40.

You can find Garth's draft letter and both my redline and clean

revision attached to Item 7 of the ALAC Agenda at

https://community.icann.org/x/3rZYAw.

Aside from formatting and minor stylistic changes, the more

substantive changes are:

- I have tried to reduce the more confrontational or personal

aspects. As an example, I have removed asking Grogan to restate the

goals of compliance, I have asked for ICANN to clarify its position.

- removal of statement that consumer trust in general was a major

focus of the Affirmation of Commitments. Consumer trust is a focus,

but specifically from the point of view of the New gTLD program and

how the growth in the TLD name space will impact consumers. There is

one more general reference in the introduction, but it is hard to say

that this is a major focus.

- removal of the reverence to consumer trust being a major focus of

the IANA transition. In my mind, other than the fact that consumer

trust presumes the DNS stays working, it is not an issue and was not

mentioned during the CWG deliberations. For the CCWG-Accountability,

it is an issue only in that the AoC is being moved into the Bylaws,

and the AoC words need to be faithfully carried over (and I have

pointed out one place where that was not done properly). But as with

Whois, consumer trust itself has not been a discussion item at all.

In the latter two cases, inclusion of the items, I think, weakens the

letter as the points would be harder to defend. I really want to make

this letter bullet-proof so it cannot be ignored on a technicality or

judgement-call.

The ALT has already reviewed the revised draft and supports it.

My aim is to approve the revised letter, or a variation of it during

the ALAC meeting on Tuesday. If you have any comments, please send

them to the list prior to the meeting, if possible.

Alan

_______________________________________________

ALAC mailing list

ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)