I would support this statement. I would also remain true to substance and remind them that we regret the renewal without the thick WHOIS requirement. Don't see why we should back away now. Afterall, it was the substantive point of departure of our previous statement. We should not let this slide. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois was not added as a requirement.
There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result.
There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum.
It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at last Saturdays Board meeting.
The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. The statement will not question the content of the contract, but rather just the process that has been followed.
Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that the ALAC pass this motion.
=================
The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2 .
ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the agreement at its closed session.
This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)