Re: [ALAC] Follow-up on the ALAC Advice to the Board regarding PICs
Evan, I believe that all (or most) of the changes that Olivier is suggesting are cosmetic and do not at all change the intent or meaning of the statement. If I had more time, I probably would have caught most last night. Please try to make these changes and I will get it reported (and a formal note of explanation to the ALAC) when I return in a few hours. Alan At 13/11/2014 01:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 13 November 2014 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Alan,
thank you for this. I realise that time is of the essence, so will be short in my comments:
1. This is a formal follow-up Advice from the ALAC.
âMaybe this is hair-splitting, but it is more as background to existing advice -- caused by the Board's need for more information -- rather than new independent Advice.
ALAC has long had to deal with different classifications of what it votes on. As this document itself contains no recommended courses of action itself, I would not call it Advice.â
As such, when mentioning names etc. it should be better if a certain level of formality is upheld. When citing names, please cite the full name: "The heightened protection measures announced by Fadi, at the start of ICANN51" -> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, at the start of ICANN51" â
[...other generally-sensible edits ...]â
âBelieve me, Olivier, given more time there is much that could have been refined, added, and maybe even taken out. Notably, more time would have enabled direct answers to the illogical Registry response that PICs can only be fixed through a PDP (as the PICs themselves were not created by a PDP).
But doing even a usable statement able to actually be effective has been a fight âagainst time, which is the reason the voting period is so compressed. Similarly, consultation with the gTLD WG was also compressed (and was not helped when the email thread started by my urgently asking the WG to review the original draft was hijacked for an unrelated purpose :-P ).
The Board is **now** considering its response to our Advice from ICANN51. To say this "backgrounder" was done expediently is an understatement. In the time it would take to incorporate your edits (and others that would be considered), the document will have been rendered nearly useless by not getting to the Board in time. Your indulgence is appreciated.
âOTOH, if there is anything FACTUALLY (rather than stylistically) wrong with the doc, that needs addressing.â
â- Evanâ
OK. I had thought that once the vote started, the draft being voted on was set in stone. The changes Olivier suggests are all reasonable. I'm pressed for time today but will try to do the changes. - Evan On 13 November 2014 14:34, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Evan, I believe that all (or most) of the changes that Olivier is suggesting are cosmetic and do not at all change the intent or meaning of the statement. If I had more time, I probably would have caught most last night. Please try to make these changes and I will get it reported (and a formal note of explanation to the ALAC) when I return in a few hours.
Alan
At 13/11/2014 01:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 13 November 2014 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Alan,
thank you for this. I realise that time is of the essence, so will be short in my comments:
1. This is a formal follow-up Advice from the ALAC.
​Maybe this is hair-splitting, but it is more as background to existing advice -- caused by the Board's need for more information -- rather than new independent Advice.
ALAC has long had to deal with different classifications of what it votes on. As this document itself contains no recommended courses of action itself, I would not call it Advice.​
As such, when mentioning names etc. it should be better if a certain level of formality is upheld. When citing names, please cite the full name: "The heightened protection measures announced by Fadi, at the start of ICANN51" -> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, at the start of ICANN51" ​
[...other generally-sensible edits ...]​
​Believe me, Olivier, given more time there is much that could have been refined, added, and maybe even taken out. Notably, more time would have enabled direct answers to the illogical Registry response that PICs can only be fixed through a PDP (as the PICs themselves were not created by a PDP).
But doing even a usable statement able to actually be effective has been a fight ​against time, which is the reason the voting period is so compressed. Similarly, consultation with the gTLD WG was also compressed (and was not helped when the email thread started by my urgently asking the WG to review the original draft was hijacked for an unrelated purpose :-P ).
The Board is **now** considering its response to our Advice from ICANN51. To say this "backgrounder" was done expediently is an understatement. In the time it would take to incorporate your edits (and others that would be considered), the document will have been rendered nearly useless by not getting to the Board in time. Your indulgence is appreciated.
​OTOH, if there is anything FACTUALLY (rather than stylistically) wrong with the doc, that needs addressing.​
​- Evan​
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Thanks Alan, Olivier and Evan, I agree with the proposed changes suggested by Olivier. Best regards, León
El 13/11/2014, a las 13:44, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> escribió:
OK.
I had thought that once the vote started, the draft being voted on was set in stone.
The changes Olivier suggests are all reasonable. I'm pressed for time today but will try to do the changes.
- Evan
On 13 November 2014 14:34, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Evan, I believe that all (or most) of the changes that Olivier is suggesting are cosmetic and do not at all change the intent or meaning of the statement. If I had more time, I probably would have caught most last night. Please try to make these changes and I will get it reported (and a formal note of explanation to the ALAC) when I return in a few hours.
Alan
At 13/11/2014 01:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 13 November 2014 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Alan,
thank you for this. I realise that time is of the essence, so will be short in my comments:
1. This is a formal follow-up Advice from the ALAC.
​Maybe this is hair-splitting, but it is more as background to existing advice -- caused by the Board's need for more information -- rather than new independent Advice.
ALAC has long had to deal with different classifications of what it votes on. As this document itself contains no recommended courses of action itself, I would not call it Advice.​
As such, when mentioning names etc. it should be better if a certain level of formality is upheld. When citing names, please cite the full name: "The heightened protection measures announced by Fadi, at the start of ICANN51" -> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, at the start of ICANN51" ​
[...other generally-sensible edits ...]​
​Believe me, Olivier, given more time there is much that could have been refined, added, and maybe even taken out. Notably, more time would have enabled direct answers to the illogical Registry response that PICs can only be fixed through a PDP (as the PICs themselves were not created by a PDP).
But doing even a usable statement able to actually be effective has been a fight ​against time, which is the reason the voting period is so compressed. Similarly, consultation with the gTLD WG was also compressed (and was not helped when the email thread started by my urgently asking the WG to review the original draft was hijacked for an unrelated purpose :-P ).
The Board is **now** considering its response to our Advice from ICANN51. To say this "backgrounder" was done expediently is an understatement. In the time it would take to incorporate your edits (and others that would be considered), the document will have been rendered nearly useless by not getting to the Board in time. Your indulgence is appreciated.
​OTOH, if there is anything FACTUALLY (rather than stylistically) wrong with the doc, that needs addressing.​
​- Evan​
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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...>
Okay - so we are not voting. I also agree with the proposals suggested by Evan - when he manages the time to incorporate the changes, and the changes suggested by Olivier Holly On 14 Nov 2014, at 6:54 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Alan, Olivier and Evan,
I agree with the proposed changes suggested by Olivier.
Best regards,
León
El 13/11/2014, a las 13:44, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> escribió:
OK.
I had thought that once the vote started, the draft being voted on was set in stone.
The changes Olivier suggests are all reasonable. I'm pressed for time today but will try to do the changes.
- Evan
On 13 November 2014 14:34, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Evan, I believe that all (or most) of the changes that Olivier is suggesting are cosmetic and do not at all change the intent or meaning of the statement. If I had more time, I probably would have caught most last night. Please try to make these changes and I will get it reported (and a formal note of explanation to the ALAC) when I return in a few hours.
Alan
At 13/11/2014 01:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 13 November 2014 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Alan,
thank you for this. I realise that time is of the essence, so will be short in my comments:
1. This is a formal follow-up Advice from the ALAC.
​Maybe this is hair-splitting, but it is more as background to existing advice -- caused by the Board's need for more information -- rather than new independent Advice.
ALAC has long had to deal with different classifications of what it votes on. As this document itself contains no recommended courses of action itself, I would not call it Advice.​
As such, when mentioning names etc. it should be better if a certain level of formality is upheld. When citing names, please cite the full name: "The heightened protection measures announced by Fadi, at the start of ICANN51" -> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, at the start of ICANN51" ​
[...other generally-sensible edits ...]​
​Believe me, Olivier, given more time there is much that could have been refined, added, and maybe even taken out. Notably, more time would have enabled direct answers to the illogical Registry response that PICs can only be fixed through a PDP (as the PICs themselves were not created by a PDP).
But doing even a usable statement able to actually be effective has been a fight ​against time, which is the reason the voting period is so compressed. Similarly, consultation with the gTLD WG was also compressed (and was not helped when the email thread started by my urgently asking the WG to review the original draft was hijacked for an unrelated purpose :-P ).
The Board is **now** considering its response to our Advice from ICANN51. To say this "backgrounder" was done expediently is an understatement. In the time it would take to incorporate your edits (and others that would be considered), the document will have been rendered nearly useless by not getting to the Board in time. Your indulgence is appreciated.
​OTOH, if there is anything FACTUALLY (rather than stylistically) wrong with the doc, that needs addressing.​
​- Evan​
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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...)
Just a clarification. I am not changing to reflect the addition comments (vis PDPs), which is additional substance. The modifications will only be regarding Olivier's minor grammatical and clarification proposals. I would *like* to put the substantive changes in, but they're not appropriate given the timelines. And since the changes are not of substance but just grammar and clarity, I'm not sure the vote itself has been suspended. - Evan On 13 November 2014 15:28, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Okay - so we are not voting. I also agree with the proposals suggested by Evan - when he manages the time to incorporate the changes, and the changes suggested by Olivier
Holly On 14 Nov 2014, at 6:54 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Alan, Olivier and Evan,
I agree with the proposed changes suggested by Olivier.
Best regards,
León
El 13/11/2014, a las 13:44, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> escribió:
OK.
I had thought that once the vote started, the draft being voted on was set in stone.
The changes Olivier suggests are all reasonable. I'm pressed for time today but will try to do the changes.
- Evan
On 13 November 2014 14:34, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Evan, I believe that all (or most) of the changes that Olivier is suggesting are cosmetic and do not at all change the intent or meaning of the statement. If I had more time, I probably would have caught most last night. Please try to make these changes and I will get it reported (and a formal note of explanation to the ALAC) when I return in a few hours.
Alan
At 13/11/2014 01:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 13 November 2014 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Alan,
thank you for this. I realise that time is of the essence, so will be short in my comments:
1. This is a formal follow-up Advice from the ALAC.
​Maybe this is hair-splitting, but it is more as background to existing advice -- caused by the Board's need for more information -- rather than new independent Advice.
ALAC has long had to deal with different classifications of what it votes on. As this document itself contains no recommended courses of action itself, I would not call it Advice.​
As such, when mentioning names etc. it should be better if a certain level of formality is upheld. When citing names, please cite the full name: "The heightened protection measures announced by Fadi, at the start of ICANN51" -> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, at the start of ICANN51" ​
[...other generally-sensible edits ...]​
​Believe me, Olivier, given more time there is much that could have been refined, added, and maybe even taken out. Notably, more time would have enabled direct answers to the illogical Registry response that PICs can only be fixed through a PDP (as the PICs themselves were not created by a PDP).
But doing even a usable statement able to actually be effective has been a fight ​against time, which is the reason the voting period is so compressed. Similarly, consultation with the gTLD WG was also compressed (and was not helped when the email thread started by my urgently asking the WG to review the original draft was hijacked for an unrelated purpose :-P ).
The Board is **now** considering its response to our Advice from ICANN51. To say this "backgrounder" was done expediently is an understatement. In the time it would take to incorporate your edits (and others that would be considered), the document will have been rendered nearly useless by not getting to the Board in time. Your indulgence is appreciated.
​OTOH, if there is anything FACTUALLY (rather than stylistically) wrong with the doc, that needs addressing.​
​- Evan​
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac < 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...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Thanks Evan - And Alan - has the vote been suspended or, based on what Evan is saying, do we vote? Thanks Holly On 14 Nov 2014, at 7:34 am, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Just a clarification.
I am not changing to reflect the addition comments (vis PDPs), which is additional substance. The modifications will only be regarding Olivier's minor grammatical and clarification proposals.
I would *like* to put the substantive changes in, but they're not appropriate given the timelines.
And since the changes are not of substance but just grammar and clarity, I'm not sure the vote itself has been suspended.
- Evan
On 13 November 2014 15:28, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Okay - so we are not voting. I also agree with the proposals suggested by Evan - when he manages the time to incorporate the changes, and the changes suggested by Olivier
Holly On 14 Nov 2014, at 6:54 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Alan, Olivier and Evan,
I agree with the proposed changes suggested by Olivier.
Best regards,
León
El 13/11/2014, a las 13:44, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> escribió:
OK.
I had thought that once the vote started, the draft being voted on was set in stone.
The changes Olivier suggests are all reasonable. I'm pressed for time today but will try to do the changes.
- Evan
On 13 November 2014 14:34, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Evan, I believe that all (or most) of the changes that Olivier is suggesting are cosmetic and do not at all change the intent or meaning of the statement. If I had more time, I probably would have caught most last night. Please try to make these changes and I will get it reported (and a formal note of explanation to the ALAC) when I return in a few hours.
Alan
At 13/11/2014 01:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 13 November 2014 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Alan,
thank you for this. I realise that time is of the essence, so will be short in my comments:
1. This is a formal follow-up Advice from the ALAC.
​Maybe this is hair-splitting, but it is more as background to existing advice -- caused by the Board's need for more information -- rather than new independent Advice.
ALAC has long had to deal with different classifications of what it votes on. As this document itself contains no recommended courses of action itself, I would not call it Advice.​
As such, when mentioning names etc. it should be better if a certain level of formality is upheld. When citing names, please cite the full name: "The heightened protection measures announced by Fadi, at the start of ICANN51" -> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, at the start of ICANN51" ​
[...other generally-sensible edits ...]​
​Believe me, Olivier, given more time there is much that could have been refined, added, and maybe even taken out. Notably, more time would have enabled direct answers to the illogical Registry response that PICs can only be fixed through a PDP (as the PICs themselves were not created by a PDP).
But doing even a usable statement able to actually be effective has been a fight ​against time, which is the reason the voting period is so compressed. Similarly, consultation with the gTLD WG was also compressed (and was not helped when the email thread started by my urgently asking the WG to review the original draft was hijacked for an unrelated purpose :-P ).
The Board is **now** considering its response to our Advice from ICANN51. To say this "backgrounder" was done expediently is an understatement. In the time it would take to incorporate your edits (and others that would be considered), the document will have been rendered nearly useless by not getting to the Board in time. Your indulgence is appreciated.
​OTOH, if there is anything FACTUALLY (rather than stylistically) wrong with the doc, that needs addressing.​
​- Evan​
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Hello all, as I've said, they're light edits for clarity. As long as the edits to not change the intent or meaning of the sentence, I don't believe a re-vote is needed. Typos & grammar fall in this category. Kind regards, Olivier On 13/11/2014 20:44, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
OK.
I had thought that once the vote started, the draft being voted on was set in stone.
The changes Olivier suggests are all reasonable. I'm pressed for time today but will try to do the changes.
- Evan
On 13 November 2014 14:34, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Evan, I believe that all (or most) of the changes that Olivier is suggesting are cosmetic and do not at all change the intent or meaning of the statement. If I had more time, I probably would have caught most last night. Please try to make these changes and I will get it reported (and a formal note of explanation to the ALAC) when I return in a few hours.
Alan
At 13/11/2014 01:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 13 November 2014 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Alan,
thank you for this. I realise that time is of the essence, so will be short in my comments:
1. This is a formal follow-up Advice from the ALAC.
​Maybe this is hair-splitting, but it is more as background to existing advice -- caused by the Board's need for more information -- rather than new independent Advice.
ALAC has long had to deal with different classifications of what it votes on. As this document itself contains no recommended courses of action itself, I would not call it Advice.​
As such, when mentioning names etc. it should be better if a certain level of formality is upheld. When citing names, please cite the full name: "The heightened protection measures announced by Fadi, at the start of ICANN51" -> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, at the start of ICANN51" ​
[...other generally-sensible edits ...]​
​Believe me, Olivier, given more time there is much that could have been refined, added, and maybe even taken out. Notably, more time would have enabled direct answers to the illogical Registry response that PICs can only be fixed through a PDP (as the PICs themselves were not created by a PDP).
But doing even a usable statement able to actually be effective has been a fight ​against time, which is the reason the voting period is so compressed. Similarly, consultation with the gTLD WG was also compressed (and was not helped when the email thread started by my urgently asking the WG to review the original draft was hijacked for an unrelated purpose :-P ).
The Board is **now** considering its response to our Advice from ICANN51. To say this "backgrounder" was done expediently is an understatement. In the time it would take to incorporate your edits (and others that would be considered), the document will have been rendered nearly useless by not getting to the Board in time. Your indulgence is appreciated.
​OTOH, if there is anything FACTUALLY (rather than stylistically) wrong with the doc, that needs addressing.​
​- Evan​
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
I agree. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 13, 2014 3:57:00 PM EST, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Hello all,
as I've said, they're light edits for clarity. As long as the edits to not change the intent or meaning of the sentence, I don't believe a re-vote is needed. Typos & grammar fall in this category. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 13/11/2014 20:44, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
OK.
I had thought that once the vote started, the draft being voted on was set in stone.
The changes Olivier suggests are all reasonable. I'm pressed for time today but will try to do the changes.
- Evan
On 13 November 2014 14:34, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Evan, I believe that all (or most) of the changes that Olivier is suggesting are cosmetic and do not at all change the intent or meaning of the statement. If I had more time, I probably would have caught most last night. Please try to make these changes and I will get it reported (and a formal note of explanation to the ALAC) when I return in a few hours.
Alan
At 13/11/2014 01:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 13 November 2014 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
<ocl@gih.com
<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Alan,
thank you for this. I realise that time is of the essence,
so
will be short in my comments:
1. This is a formal follow-up Advice from the ALAC.
​Maybe this is hair-splitting, but it is more as background to existing advice -- caused by the Board's need for more information -- rather than new independent Advice.
ALAC has long had to deal with different classifications of what it votes on. As this document itself contains no recommended courses of action itself, I would not call it Advice.​
As such, when mentioning names etc. it should be better if a certain level
of
formality is upheld. When citing names, please cite the full name: "The heightened protection measures announced by Fadi, at
the
start of ICANN51" -> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, at the start of ICANN51" ​
[...other generally-sensible edits ...]​
​Believe me, Olivier, given more time there is much that could have been refined, added, and maybe even taken out. Notably,
more
time would have enabled direct answers to the illogical Registry response that PICs can only be fixed through a PDP (as the PICs themselves were not created by a PDP).
But doing even a usable statement able to actually be effective has been a fight ​against time, which is the reason the voting period is so compressed. Similarly, consultation with the gTLD
WG
was also compressed (and was not helped when the email thread started by my urgently asking the WG to review the original
draft
was hijacked for an unrelated purpose :-P ).
The Board is **now** considering its response to our Advice from ICANN51. To say this "backgrounder" was done expediently is an understatement. In the time it would take to incorporate your edits (and others that would be considered), the document will have been rendered nearly useless by not getting to the Board in time. Your indulgence is appreciated.
​OTOH, if there is anything FACTUALLY (rather than stylistically) wrong with the doc, that needs addressing.​
​- Evan​
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Holly Raiche -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond