Re: [ALAC] Draft Statement on the questions from IGO/INGO PDP WG
Still do not agree. With respect to the GNSO, your opinion is not technically correct, in that the GNSO has never had that question on the table. The GNSO (correctly) delegated the question to a DT which chose not to pursue that due to lack of interest among its members. I was the only one to raise it with no other real support. The present PDP WG *IS* considering this as one of the possibilities and the questions being answered specifically give an opening for us to answer in the way we did. To dream that this set of answers is going to come to the attention of the Board really has no basis. They have remanded the subject to the GNSO (and taken flack from the GAC as a result). There is already enough controversy about whether the GAC has an advisory role to play over the GNSO and its working groups, which is, I think hurting the working relationship between the two. I don't think it serves any good purpose to have that kind of antagonism aimed at ALAC as well. Perhaps others can weigh in on this. Alan At 07/01/2013 11:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here is my rationale.
In continuing to advocate the separation of the RCRC and IOC, we are answering an unasked (or, to be specific, assumed already answered) question. This statement takes the opportunity of the WG solicitation to again advise the whole community of what we see to (still) be a critical mistake. In that sense, I see this as *both* Board advice and response to the WG.
IMO the GNSO has generally seen the splitting of the IOC and RCRC issues as either out of scope or pointless in the face of Board pressure. Thus the audience for continued advocacy on this matter remains the Board, and as such this submission is reasonably stated as advice while it also answers the WG's questions.
Stating the position as advice also emphasises our continuing alarm over an issue that the Board believes to be settled with community consent.
- Evan (via mobile) On 2013-01-08 10:10 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Not really sure about that. This is a reply to the PDP WG giving out thoughts on the various questions they are asking to help guide the way to some outcome. As one of many stakeholders participating in the WG, I don't think we really have an "advisory" role to the WG (as if we were an external "expert" brought in to advise). When we at some later time we comment on the outcome of the PDP (if we actually get that far) when the Board puts the recommendation out for public comment, they we can play a advisory role.
Alan
At 07/01/2013 11:25 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
One thing I just noticed.
Given the nature of the document - one of explicit advice, not belief - we should change all instances of "believes" to "advises".
- Evan (via mobile) On 2013-01-08 4:32 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: Thanks on both counts. Typo fixed. Alan At 07/01/2013 04:01 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
I have read the document and agree with it.
By the way, there is a small typo in the last sentence in question 4. It should be "the" ALAC is particularly...".
-ed
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Carlton Samuels <<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> carlton.samuels@gmail.com>wrote:
I read the submissions in their entirety. So far as I see, they conform to previously public positions taken by the ALAC in context, all of which had my support. My positions remain, unchanged.
I do not think these positions require a formal vote.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
The PDP WG on special protection for IGO/INGO names has requested that ACs and SOs submit comments on a number of questions related to special protections of IGO/INGO names.
Evan and I were asked to draft a statement for the consideration and possible approval of the ALAC and it can be found at
<https://community.icann.org/x/**5IFQAg>https://community.icann.org/x/**5IFQAg<;
https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg>.
Input was requested to be submitted by 08 January 2013, but there should be no problem with getting it in a bit later.
Evan is travelling at the moment, but his contributions were substantive and the document has his support. We both believe that it conforms well to positions previously taken by the ALAC.
I am not sure if Olivier wants to subject this statement to a formal ALAC vote. In my mind, it does not need a formal vote, but we do need to ensure that it (or what it gets revised to) does conform to general ALAC feelings. So please post your comments to the Wiki.
A copy is attached here for your convenience.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
I share Alan's perspectives here. I think the Board well understand why the ALAC and others advocate the distinctions we offer. But the nature of the politics - and likely concerns re optics - have served to stiffen the Board's resolve to stay the course. Throwing the matter back into the GNSO's lap is a pro forma gesture, unlikely to produce new results. The ALAC is already on record. Even if they see this Q & A - and I doubt very much they will! - it will not make a difference. Keep the powder dry for another day. No need to get into a head butting contest with so little as reward. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
Still do not agree.
With respect to the GNSO, your opinion is not technically correct, in that the GNSO has never had that question on the table. The GNSO (correctly) delegated the question to a DT which chose not to pursue that due to lack of interest among its members. I was the only one to raise it with no other real support. The present PDP WG *IS* considering this as one of the possibilities and the questions being answered specifically give an opening for us to answer in the way we did.
To dream that this set of answers is going to come to the attention of the Board really has no basis. They have remanded the subject to the GNSO (and taken flack from the GAC as a result).
There is already enough controversy about whether the GAC has an advisory role to play over the GNSO and its working groups, which is, I think hurting the working relationship between the two. I don't think it serves any good purpose to have that kind of antagonism aimed at ALAC as well.
Perhaps others can weigh in on this.
Alan
At 07/01/2013 11:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here is my rationale.
In continuing to advocate the separation of the RCRC and IOC, we are answering an unasked (or, to be specific, assumed already answered) question. This statement takes the opportunity of the WG solicitation to again advise the whole community of what we see to (still) be a critical mistake. In that sense, I see this as *both* Board advice and response to the WG.
IMO the GNSO has generally seen the splitting of the IOC and RCRC issues as either out of scope or pointless in the face of Board pressure. Thus the audience for continued advocacy on this matter remains the Board, and as such this submission is reasonably stated as advice while it also answers the WG's questions.
Stating the position as advice also emphasises our continuing alarm over an issue that the Board believes to be settled with community consent.
- Evan (via mobile) On 2013-01-08 10:10 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Not really sure about that. This is a reply to the PDP WG giving out thoughts on the various questions they are asking to help guide the way to some outcome. As one of many stakeholders participating in the WG, I don't think we really have an "advisory" role to the WG (as if we were an external "expert" brought in to advise). When we at some later time we comment on the outcome of the PDP (if we actually get that far) when the Board puts the recommendation out for public comment, they we can play a advisory role.
Alan
At 07/01/2013 11:25 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
One thing I just noticed.
Given the nature of the document - one of explicit advice, not belief - we should change all instances of "believes" to "advises".
- Evan (via mobile) On 2013-01-08 4:32 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: Thanks on both counts. Typo fixed. Alan At 07/01/2013 04:01 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
I have read the document and agree with it.
By the way, there is a small typo in the last sentence in question 4. It should be "the" ALAC is particularly...".
-ed
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Carlton Samuels <<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> carlton.samuels@gmail.com>wrote:
I read the submissions in their entirety. So far as I see, they conform to previously public positions taken by the ALAC in context, all of which had my support. My positions remain, unchanged.
I do not think these positions require a formal vote.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
The PDP WG on special protection for IGO/INGO names has requested that ACs and SOs submit comments on a number of questions related to special protections of IGO/INGO names.
Evan and I were asked to draft a statement for the consideration and possible approval of the ALAC and it can be found at
<https://community.icann.org/x/**5IFQAg> https://community.icann.org/x/**5IFQAg<;
https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg>.
Input was requested to be submitted by 08 January 2013, but there should be no problem with getting it in a bit later.
Evan is travelling at the moment, but his contributions were substantive and the document has his support. We both believe that it conforms well to positions previously taken by the ALAC.
I am not sure if Olivier wants to subject this statement to a formal ALAC vote. In my mind, it does not need a formal vote, but we do need to ensure that it (or what it gets revised to) does conform to general ALAC feelings. So please post your comments to the Wiki.
A copy is attached here for your convenience.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
< https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
<
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential
and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org> http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: < https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
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...)
On 2013-01-08 9:42 PM, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
I share Alan's perspectives here.
OK, I understand and am willing to concede the point to Alan. But I'm unsure of one thing...
I think the Board well understand why the ALAC and others advocate the distinctions we offer. But the nature of the politics - and likely concerns re optics - have served to stiffen the Board's resolve to stay the course.
It was my takeaway that the optics of blending the IOC and RCRC would be a net negative. The GAC internal politics might be sated but the public would simply see ICANN being gamed (again) by special interests. On the other hand, maybe this is as it should be... continuing to feed my expectations that the TLD expansion will be a public debacle and most of these hard-fought protections simply won't matter. - Evan
Dear Evan, Dear Alan, I agree with Alan for several reasons: 1. considering our Statement to be both ALAC Advice to the Board and to the WG. I believe that it does not play in our favour to mix the messages together and would recommend that we always stick to one goal at a time - hence one target at the time. In the present case, we have a input in the form of a Statement. This input has been requested by a GNSO working group and I think we should be grateful for this. 2. Playing an Advisory Role. But pushing our advice down the throat of the working group as "Advice" with a capital A would not be wise diplomatically as it unbalances the multi-stakeholder system which we are so fond of. I agree with Alan that at this stage we can strongly voice our concerns, and I am happy to note that exactly the question of whether IOC/RC should be separated into IOC & RC has been asked - so I am quite satisfied that this question is exactly in the consultation due to our past efforts and the efforts of others to emphasize this separation. We can indeed play an advisory role after this PDP is over. We can write to the Board. We can write to the GAC, since I believe that the initial batching of IOC and RC might have originated at GAC level. But now is the time for contributing to the multi-stakeholder model. If the blind continue to lead the blind on this issue, we'll have time to shout when it goes to the Board, if shouting is indeed needed. Kind regards, Olivier On 08/01/2013 15:31, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Still do not agree.
With respect to the GNSO, your opinion is not technically correct, in that the GNSO has never had that question on the table. The GNSO (correctly) delegated the question to a DT which chose not to pursue that due to lack of interest among its members. I was the only one to raise it with no other real support. The present PDP WG *IS* considering this as one of the possibilities and the questions being answered specifically give an opening for us to answer in the way we did.
To dream that this set of answers is going to come to the attention of the Board really has no basis. They have remanded the subject to the GNSO (and taken flack from the GAC as a result).
There is already enough controversy about whether the GAC has an advisory role to play over the GNSO and its working groups, which is, I think hurting the working relationship between the two. I don't think it serves any good purpose to have that kind of antagonism aimed at ALAC as well.
Perhaps others can weigh in on this.
Alan
At 07/01/2013 11:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here is my rationale.
In continuing to advocate the separation of the RCRC and IOC, we are answering an unasked (or, to be specific, assumed already answered) question. This statement takes the opportunity of the WG solicitation to again advise the whole community of what we see to (still) be a critical mistake. In that sense, I see this as *both* Board advice and response to the WG.
IMO the GNSO has generally seen the splitting of the IOC and RCRC issues as either out of scope or pointless in the face of Board pressure. Thus the audience for continued advocacy on this matter remains the Board, and as such this submission is reasonably stated as advice while it also answers the WG's questions.
Stating the position as advice also emphasises our continuing alarm over an issue that the Board believes to be settled with community consent.
- Evan (via mobile) On 2013-01-08 10:10 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Not really sure about that. This is a reply to the PDP WG giving out thoughts on the various questions they are asking to help guide the way to some outcome. As one of many stakeholders participating in the WG, I don't think we really have an "advisory" role to the WG (as if we were an external "expert" brought in to advise). When we at some later time we comment on the outcome of the PDP (if we actually get that far) when the Board puts the recommendation out for public comment, they we can play a advisory role.
Alan
At 07/01/2013 11:25 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
One thing I just noticed.
Given the nature of the document - one of explicit advice, not belief - we should change all instances of "believes" to "advises".
- Evan (via mobile) On 2013-01-08 4:32 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: Thanks on both counts. Typo fixed. Alan At 07/01/2013 04:01 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
I have read the document and agree with it.
By the way, there is a small typo in the last sentence in question 4. It should be "the" ALAC is particularly...".
-ed
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Carlton Samuels <<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> carlton.samuels@gmail.com>wrote:
I read the submissions in their entirety. So far as I see, they conform to previously public positions taken by the ALAC in context, all of which had my support. My positions remain, unchanged.
I do not think these positions require a formal vote.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote: The PDP WG on special protection for IGO/INGO names has requested that ACs and SOs submit comments on a number of questions related to special protections of IGO/INGO names.
Evan and I were asked to draft a statement for the consideration and possible approval of the ALAC and it can be found at
<https://community.icann.org/x/**5IFQAg>https://community.icann.org/x/**5IFQAg<;
https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg>.
Input was requested to be submitted by 08 January 2013, but there should be no problem with getting it in a bit later.
Evan is travelling at the moment, but his contributions were substantive and the document has his support. We both believe that it conforms well to positions previously taken by the ALAC.
I am not sure if Olivier wants to subject this statement to a formal ALAC vote. In my mind, it does not need a formal vote, but we do need to ensure that it (or what it gets revised to) does conform to general ALAC feelings. So please post your comments to the Wiki.
A copy is attached here for your convenience.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received
this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
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...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond