At 12/03/2014 11:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

On Mar 12, 2014 8:33 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

...

I am assuming that the lack of a reply from Olivier means we have

heard nothing back.

...

Compliance has already they don't want to spend the time with us

going over the same presentation that they will give in the public session, so focusing on our proposal for a new submission tool seems appropriate.

I agree, partially.

The submission tool issue is important, but only part of a larger conversation about ICANN's approach towards third-party whistleblowers, consumer groups, state regulators, etc. Improving the submission tool is necessary but not sufficient.

No not sufficient, but a mechanism by which one can submit a CLASS of infractions without necessarily identifying them one-by-one will result in a quantum change.

And then there is still the issue of backlogs of complaints, which cannot be brushed aside if they remain unresolved. This isn't like a bankruptcy; ICANN can't just absolve itself of responsibility because it has upgraded the contract.

Even if action can't be taken because an older fraudulent act didn't violate an old RAA, these issues still needs closure as a matter of salvaging trust.

It will be interesting to know how much of the above will be covered in the public Compliance session.

Probably none. That is why I said that our wantin to discuss this meshes well with not previewing the public meeting with us.