Letter re NARALO/Grogan discussion in Dublin
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
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+(ALA...)
Thanks for your attention to detail Eduardo Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Sender: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:39:29 To: Alan Greenberg<alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; ALAC<alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Letter re NARALO/Grogan discussion in Dublin _______________________________________________ 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...)
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Eduardo Diaz -
gbruen＠knujon.com