Thank you Evan for sharing this concern. We will continue work together to make our opinion heard and taken into account via any way we agree on! Best, Fatimata On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 15 November 2010 11:19, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed Michael, I'm certainly expecting the next ICANN Meeting in Cartegena to be "very interesting indeed" and also trust that we as an At-Large Community and ALAC can be called upon to give what support and 'voice to opinion' on a number of issues I hope and trust will be raised...
"Voice an opinion" takes many forms. It can be a meek statement in a public comment forum, an easily-ignored letter to the Board, or it can be the kind of forceful stand that Robin and Cheryl did to help kill the IRT.
In this case I think we really need to consider a strategy that results in the latter. We've laid the groundwork in the ALAC statement on the Rec6 report, and we owe it to the community we claim to speak for, to follow through.
- Evan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
On 15 November 2010 23:09, Michael Palage <mike@palage.com> wrote:
Evan,
I share your concerns and just wanted to point out the irony of one of
the
first proposed changes in AGv5:
This Applicant Guidebook is the implementation of Board approved consensus policy concerning the introduction of new gTLDs, and has been revised extensively via public comment and consultation over a two-year period.
While some potential applicants continue to hold out hope that the AG will be finalized next month, the more likely reality is that the ICANN community will have a front row seat to the BIGGEST game of chicken between the ICANN Board and the GAC. Unfortunately, at this late stage ICANN staff (Kurt Pritz) has pretty much tuned out any further changes to the AG from the private sector.
It is now up to the GAC to hold the line and bring about any substantive changes. In fact I would predict some of the fireworks to be on a scale not seen since the good old days of 1999-2000. Although no one will discuss it publicly, this game of chicken will also tie into the IANA contract which expires Sept 30, 2011.
The next 6-12 months should prove very interesting.
Best regards,
Michael
-----Original Message----- From: gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 3:15 AM To: ICANN GTLD WG list; ICANN ALAC list Subject: [GTLD-WG] ICANN staff repudiates community call for change on Morality & Public Order
Hello everyone,
In the latest version of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, ICANN staff has essentially screwed its community.
Despite broad agreement reached across members of the GAC, GNSO and At-Large on issues related to Morality and Public Order -- and a report that was unanimously endorsed by ALAC -- ICANN staff have explicitly rejected all of our basic requests. Literally, only the most cosmetic -- changing the name from "Morality and Public Order" to "Limited Public Interest" -- approach was taken.
The sub-contracted Dispute Resolution Service Provider -- now renamed the Dispute Resolution Administrartor -- still exists, and many, many other changes have been rejected. Not ignored, but explicitly rejected by staff.
Here is the redlined version of the new document:
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-dispute-resolution-procedures
-redline-12nov10-en.pdf< http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-dispute-resolution-procedures...
And here is the staff "explanatory notes"
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-morality-public-or
der-12nov10-en.pdf< http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-morality-public-or...
This is awful on so many levels. It asserts staff supremacy over the bottom up process. It repudiates everything that ICANN claims to want in its improvements of Accountability and Transparency. It asserts that on any disagreement between staff and community, that staff should prevail.
I am REALLY REALLY upset over this. This is an instance in which the GAC and ALAC were united in opposition to this completely odious piece of
policy,
and staff have literally shrugged it off in the name is "risk management". The only risk I see is the risk to ICANN policy staff making a mockery of every principle ICANN *claims* to want to uphold.
I am angry enough to want ALAC to go beyond merely announcing its displeasure to the Board. I encourage everyone to real Milton Mueller's blog entry at
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/11/14/4679990.htmlwhi
le contemplating what action to take.
If we don't stand up for this, what is there to stand up for? ICANN created At-Large to provide input on some of its most important policy and -- now that we have provided it, in concert with other ICANN stakeholders -- its staff have laughed it off.
How strongly is At-Large going to fight this disgrace? What are the candidates for Director going to propose? Where would the ATRT stand on a process by which stakeholders can be stopped in their tracks by staff, which has threatened to drag out the process longer should we complain and make us the scapegoats of all the TLD applicants waiting for their chance?
This is truly disgusting.
- Evan _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
_______________________________________________ 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: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- Fatimata Seye Sylla