Opps, sent from wrong address first time around. Hi, First apologies for forwarding the last message to the whole At-Large list, I fumble fingered thew address. I meant to copy the ALAC list as those are the voters. Second: The secretariat has graciously fixed the content issue with the Feb 12 meeting transcript https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31169021/20120228_ALAC-en.p... In that transcript, the following appears: Avri Doria: ... The other pending issue in all of that is the issue I brought up last time I spoke on it, and I don’t know if I was supposed to do anything beyond it like send an email confirming it; but there was the whole issue of the scope when it comes to community-based objections, which is one of the two types that ALAC can make. And we talked about it last time that the scope went from very narrow – meaning something that affected ALAC – to slightly wider, something that affected the RALOs and ALSes; to something wider, something that affected anything that ALSes could care about in terms of their local community, etc. So now that’s something that was sent as a scope question to you all. We’ve had in our last meeting one recommendation that sort of said there’s really no reason to reply to that because ALAC will have to approve whether to make an objection on each individual case and that the decision will be made at that point. Now, I think that might be a little late to not have a guideline from ALAC on what the scope is and certainly that’s not— [background conversation] Avri Doria: Anyhow, I think I’m just about finished. So anyway, that’s where we’re at. You’ll have something to review all things being equal, and I still have a pending question for you all; whether you— [background conversation] Avri Doria: Thank you. [background conversation] Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay, go ahead Avri. Avri Doria: I think I’m actually done. I spoke for quite a while going into this late time of the meeting, so I guess if there’s questions… In going back to At-Large New gTLD WG meetings: In https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+gTLDs+WG++06-02-2012+Transcr... Avri Doria: Okay great, thank you. Okay, anything else on grounds for objection? I’m just reading it as I go along. Okay, any issue with moving on to “Who can file an objection to a gTLD application?” Okay, in that one, as summarized there’s a repeating of what are the objections. Then there’s the “ALAC only has standing to object if you feel the application is of limited public (inaudible) objections or on community grounds if ALAC/At-Large is the community that is explicitly or implicitly targeted.” Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Avri, I have a comment on that. Avri Doria: Okay. Dev Anand Teelucksingh: For those who are looking at this, this is part of the first set of notes I did for the night of January 20, 2012. So I forgot to update the notes which I did… If you go down to the “Overview Summary of Draft Objection Process,” I did mention the concerns regarding community grounds – that discussion is ongoing as to what extent the ALAC is standing to object to it, etc. So that is further down on the page. I just forgot to update the earlier text. In https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+gTLDs+WG+13-02-2012+Transcri... one finds the following in a longer exchange: Alan Greenberg: Thank you. On that last issue, we really don’t have to worry about what the scope is until the time comes to start formulating objections. It doesn’t even have to be, our procedure doesn’t change based on what the scope is so there’s plenty of time to do that. We need not to forget it but there’s plenty of time. At this point, I think I have covered the ground that shows that the issue was discussed both in the group and in ALAC. and while I still can't produce the 'smoking gun' that indicates this issue will be dealt with when we get there, I think the lack of any quotable solution indicates the possibility that this issue remains to be decided by you all. Again, apologies for fumble fingering and for the info dump. I remain available to answer any question anyone may have on this issue. avri Begin forwarded message:
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC and .HEALTH Date: 7 March 2013 15:41:00 EST To: ICANN ALAC Executive Commitee list <alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: At-Large GTLD WG List <gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world.
Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people.
So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope? The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one.
These references all speak of ALAC ability to file a Community Objection on behalf of an ALS for harm done to itself as a community.
https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/Blue+Sky+Exercise http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000573.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000588.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000634.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000635.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000643.html
In terms of ALAC Meeting transcripts:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.01.24+Transcription+-+...
Avri Doria: Yes and I want to thank Dev for doing that. I wanted to add just a couple of points and a question to you all as ALAC. First of all Dev has been putting an amazing amount of work into this. This is still a draft that the intention is within the next week or two within the group to get it to a stable point where it can be sent to the RALOs for further review and a review cycle and an update cycle. So, I just wanted to make sure that I said that.
In terms of the beginning of this there was a discussion over the scope of community objection. And the scope of community objection ranges from the very narrow interpretation of it's only if it's the ALAC community, the At-Large community, that's being targeted by the application. There's a slightly wider view that sort of says it’s not just ALAC or At-Large, it's any of the components of the At-Large so to speak the RALOs and the ALSs.
The most expansive region of it is as At-Large responsible for the user community as it faces ICANN policy implementation etc. that basically championing any of those in an At-Large relevant topic area should be included. Now this is a question that the Working Group itself can't really answer. It's a question A for you all to sort of say what understanding does ALAC as an advisory committee have on this. And then probably a secondary step if you take anything other than the most narrow interpretation is confirming that, stating that, declaring that, in any way that is appropriate to ALAC making its point and declaring if understanding of what ALAC community is.
The last point I wanted to make is that on some of these things there's still some technical issues that we're following-up for all of that to be there. We obviously are on a crash course to get this done because it has to go through the review cycle, the upset cycle, and basically go through whatever approval cycle it needs to go through before the objection process starts. So before that end of April date when all the applications are announced and I assume the approval and notification to ICANN or its staff as to what it is you're doing needs to happen before that. So thanks.
---
I currently can't find the place where I got the answer I interpreted as " we will cross that bridge when we get there". Certainly those specific words were not said, but what I recall being said, but can't find it the message, that we can deal with this issue later if we need to.
Then again, I can't find any answer to my question fo ALAC of Jan 24. Also I find that: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.02.28+-+Transcription+... is empty, so it is hard to check.
I am not sure if I brought it up in the December meeting (I think I might have), but https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+20.12.11+Transcription+EN is also empty.
In any case the fragments I have found in this brief search indicate:
a. it was an issue in the Wg b. the prevailing opinion was that the scope should include ALS community harm in scope c. there was uncertainty about a wider scope that that d. there seems to be no answer on the issue of wider scope, leaving that issue open for you all to deal with now.
I will keep looking, but given the press for time, wanted to pass on what I could find
In sad that bringing this up angers some of you enough to make scary noises in my direction. But I think it is important that any decision that ALAC makes be fully informed. In this case, being fully informed means understanding that this Objection may not be in scope for ALAC to make.
avri
On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world.
Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people.
So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope? The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one.
Well the bridge stands in front of you and I suggest you give it serious consideration before approving these objections.
Um, exactly who here is not taking this seriously?
(If only all the issues in ICANN attracted such attention and thought. But this one, because money is at stake, is somehow more special? Pfftt.)
I personally agree with their note, and do not think ALAC has standing to object i this case.
I started as also being a champion of laissez faire. The more time goes on, the more I am inclined to support the objections. The counter arguments have been far from convincing.
I wish I had thought of it yesterday when NARALO was discussing the issue,
Why? The point had already been made, and NARALO chose not to advance the objection. However, three other regions did.
Also, of course, when you write a letter, you include all the possible arguments. There is not time for serialization. I think deriding them for that reason is a bit much.
You're right, I guess, in that there are much better reasons for derision.
I advise great care in your next steps.
IMO this wording constitutes a threat -- unless you have ANY evidence that this issue is being addressed without care anywhere in the community.
The implication -- that agreeing with the objections is somehow not giving the issue sufficient care and attention -- is offensive,
Those who indicated this Objection might actually injure ALAc's reputation might have had good reason to say what they said. It may begin to look like ALAC is being manipulated by a bitter past applicant who did not apply this time, who has not argued that there is a community, and is not an ALS member.
And I might be inclined to say "screw it, the Internet will not fall over if one controversial string is held up for a round while the various parties work it out.". That does not harm our reputation one shred.
In fact, I am being more inclined to say that with each email I see on the matter.
- Evan
On 7 Mar 2013, at 12:12, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Curious choice of recipients for the letter. I understand Olivier and Dev, but why me and Avri?
Oh well, I'm sufficiently fascinated: "You don't have standing to object. But just in case you DO.... "
Precious.
- Evan (via mobile)
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org