ALAC action regarding IRTP-B Draft Report
At the last ALAC meeting, Sylvia and I were asked to investigate whether we believed that an ALAC statement on the draft IRTP-B report is warranted. Sylvia responded (on time, as opposed to this reply) and inserted here followed by mine. As you will see, we disagree somewhat in philosophy, but not in outcome. At 03/03/2011 09:52 AM, sylvia@internautabrasil.org wrote:
Dear all:
It´s always a good idea ALAC make a comment for all the issues.
I´ve read the Executive Summary and it seems we have a hard work did it for the WG. ( nao seria to do for? )
The nine recommendations has specifics solutions for almost all the situations.
I think this is a so technical issue (for me, at least) and we need to believe in the WG´s members criteria.
As far as I know, it is hard to believe that members from our ALSes have more to add to the WG report.
But on the other hand, I think Alan could have another view.
My two cents.
Alan, I´m sure you can help me with your knowledge
Kind Regards,
Sylvia
----------------------------- Alan's comments... I guess I disagree with Sylvia on her first point. I don't think that the ALAC should comment on issues unless: - we strongly support the issue(s) and want to make sure that other's disagreeing do not kill it/them. - we oppose part or all of the recommendations and want to see them changed. Or we support them but want to see a substantive improvement in the recommendations. In this particular case, a comment IS warranted based on Rec. 2 which suggests that the ALAC has a part to play in Registrant education. I agree with the intent, and it is in fact in line with a similar recommendation in the PEDNR report. If the ALAC is willing to commit to such work, then we should comment and say so. If we are going to provide such an assurance, then we should also give a general statement of support for all of the recommendations. If the ALAC is not willing to make such a commitment, we should simply be silent on this report. A comment with a refusal to participate would send a very bad message, and issuing a statement with silence on the issue of ALAC support would be similarly bad. A response on Rec. 1 is also warranted, but I suspect that we are not in a position to do this. The report asks specific questions. Since no one from At-Large was involved in this WG in a substantive way (other than Baudouin Schombe who was representing NCUC), and I suspect we have no one who is a real expert on IRTP and in particular Registrar business operations, I don't think that we should even attempt to answer the questions. I think that this corresponds to Sylvia's comment that there is probably little to be gained by going out with a general At-Large call for comments. I find it unfortunate that we are in that position. If there is support for a statement as I have outlined above, I am willing to draft such a short statement for approval by the ALAC. Alan
Hi Alan. Thanks for the detailed and informative analysis. Comments below On 11 March 2011 09:54, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: I don't think that the ALAC should comment on issues unless:
- we strongly support the issue(s) and want to make sure that other's disagreeing do not kill it/them. - we oppose part or all of the recommendations and want to see them changed. Or we support them but want to see a substantive improvement in the recommendations.
I agree with you fully on this. The first condition is especially applicable when we believe that a recommendation is in the public interest but may be opposed by vested interests.
In this particular case, a comment IS warranted based on Rec. 2 which suggests that the ALAC has a part to play in Registrant education. I agree with the intent, and it is in fact in line with a similar recommendation in the PEDNR report. If the ALAC is willing to commit to such work, then we should comment and say so.
I'm not comfortable with this. As ALAC matures, and as my own awareness within it has progressed, I am coming to see registrants and end-users as different constituencies with different needs and priorities. The more one studies the situation, the more divergent those needs and priorities reveal themselves to be. In my personal opinion at this time, ALAC owes no more obligation to registrants than it does to registrars or registries. This is a job of ICANN itself, which already has education programs in place for its other financially interested stakeholders. That ICANN under-informs registrants -- because it does not have a *direct* financial relationship with them -- should not be At-Large's burden. For this reason, I would advise heeding your conditional recommendation to make no comment (though I don't know what the "very bad message" would be if ALAC disagreed with the WG by asserting that registrant education is not At-Large's responsibility). - Evan
If we are going to provide such an assurance, then we should also give a general statement of support for all of the recommendations.
If the ALAC is not willing to make such a commitment, we should simply be silent on this report. A comment with a refusal to participate would send a very bad message, and issuing a statement with silence on the issue of ALAC support would be similarly bad.
A response on Rec. 1 is also warranted, but I suspect that we are not in a position to do this. The report asks specific questions. Since no one from At-Large was involved in this WG in a substantive way (other than Baudouin Schombe who was representing NCUC), and I suspect we have no one who is a real expert on IRTP and in particular Registrar business operations, I don't think that we should even attempt to answer the questions. I think that this corresponds to Sylvia's comment that there is probably little to be gained by going out with a general At-Large call for comments. I find it unfortunate that we are in that position.
If there is support for a statement as I have outlined above, I am willing to draft such a short statement for approval by the ALAC.
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: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Thank you Silvia and Alan I would like the ALAC to put in the short statement as you have outlined / proposed, especially in the light of the education / outreach to registrants issues which *IS* an outcome of the PEDNR work we have done... So if it is possible for the draft of such a brief statement to be prepared for ALAC to discuss (and I trust endorse) in our meeting(s) next week I will most happily put that forward as a motion... Or second it if Sylvia wishes to put it. CLO On 12/03/2011, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At the last ALAC meeting, Sylvia and I were asked to investigate whether we believed that an ALAC statement on the draft IRTP-B report is warranted. Sylvia responded (on time, as opposed to this reply) and inserted here followed by mine. As you will see, we disagree somewhat in philosophy, but not in outcome.
At 03/03/2011 09:52 AM, sylvia@internautabrasil.org wrote:
Dear all:
It´s always a good idea ALAC make a comment for all the issues.
I´ve read the Executive Summary and it seems we have a hard work did it for the WG. ( nao seria to do for? )
The nine recommendations has specifics solutions for almost all the situations.
I think this is a so technical issue (for me, at least) and we need to believe in the WG´s members criteria.
As far as I know, it is hard to believe that members from our ALSes have more to add to the WG report.
But on the other hand, I think Alan could have another view.
My two cents.
Alan, I´m sure you can help me with your knowledge
Kind Regards,
Sylvia
----------------------------- Alan's comments...
I guess I disagree with Sylvia on her first point. I don't think that the ALAC should comment on issues unless:
- we strongly support the issue(s) and want to make sure that other's disagreeing do not kill it/them. - we oppose part or all of the recommendations and want to see them changed. Or we support them but want to see a substantive improvement in the recommendations.
In this particular case, a comment IS warranted based on Rec. 2 which suggests that the ALAC has a part to play in Registrant education. I agree with the intent, and it is in fact in line with a similar recommendation in the PEDNR report. If the ALAC is willing to commit to such work, then we should comment and say so.
If we are going to provide such an assurance, then we should also give a general statement of support for all of the recommendations.
If the ALAC is not willing to make such a commitment, we should simply be silent on this report. A comment with a refusal to participate would send a very bad message, and issuing a statement with silence on the issue of ALAC support would be similarly bad.
A response on Rec. 1 is also warranted, but I suspect that we are not in a position to do this. The report asks specific questions. Since no one from At-Large was involved in this WG in a substantive way (other than Baudouin Schombe who was representing NCUC), and I suspect we have no one who is a real expert on IRTP and in particular Registrar business operations, I don't think that we should even attempt to answer the questions. I think that this corresponds to Sylvia's comment that there is probably little to be gained by going out with a general At-Large call for comments. I find it unfortunate that we are in that position.
If there is support for a statement as I have outlined above, I am willing to draft such a short statement for approval by the ALAC.
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: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
Dear Cheryl and all, I think it's a great opportunity to highlight the importance of having a intereaccion higher among registrars and ALSes (users), as there are a sea of deep water between us. I Will be happy to make the motion that the ALAC could make a statement supporting the 9 recommendations of the WG but with emphasis on recommendation 2. Regards, Sylvia _________________________________________________________ Sylvia Herlein Leite Secretaria FLUI - www.fuilatin.org LACRALO-ALAC Member Latin America & Caribbean At-Large Regional Organization sylvia@internautabrasil.org -----Mensagem original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Cheryl Langdon-Orr Enviada em: sexta-feira, 11 de março de 2011 16:50 Para: ALAC Working List Assunto: Re: [ALAC] ALAC action regarding IRTP-B Draft Report Thank you Silvia and Alan I would like the ALAC to put in the short statement as you have outlined / proposed, especially in the light of the education / outreach to registrants issues which *IS* an outcome of the PEDNR work we have done... So if it is possible for the draft of such a brief statement to be prepared for ALAC to discuss (and I trust endorse) in our meeting(s) next week I will most happily put that forward as a motion... Or second it if Sylvia wishes to put it. CLO On 12/03/2011, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At the last ALAC meeting, Sylvia and I were asked to investigate whether we believed that an ALAC statement on the draft IRTP-B report is warranted. Sylvia responded (on time, as opposed to this reply) and inserted here followed by mine. As you will see, we disagree somewhat in philosophy, but not in outcome.
At 03/03/2011 09:52 AM, sylvia@internautabrasil.org wrote:
Dear all:
It´s always a good idea ALAC make a comment for all the issues.
I´ve read the Executive Summary and it seems we have a hard work did it for the WG. ( nao seria to do for? )
The nine recommendations has specifics solutions for almost all the situations.
I think this is a so technical issue (for me, at least) and we need to believe in the WG´s members criteria.
As far as I know, it is hard to believe that members from our ALSes have more to add to the WG report.
But on the other hand, I think Alan could have another view.
My two cents.
Alan, I´m sure you can help me with your knowledge
Kind Regards,
Sylvia
----------------------------- Alan's comments...
I guess I disagree with Sylvia on her first point. I don't think that the ALAC should comment on issues unless:
- we strongly support the issue(s) and want to make sure that other's disagreeing do not kill it/them. - we oppose part or all of the recommendations and want to see them changed. Or we support them but want to see a substantive improvement in the recommendations.
In this particular case, a comment IS warranted based on Rec. 2 which suggests that the ALAC has a part to play in Registrant education. I agree with the intent, and it is in fact in line with a similar recommendation in the PEDNR report. If the ALAC is willing to commit to such work, then we should comment and say so.
If we are going to provide such an assurance, then we should also give a general statement of support for all of the recommendations.
If the ALAC is not willing to make such a commitment, we should simply be silent on this report. A comment with a refusal to participate would send a very bad message, and issuing a statement with silence on the issue of ALAC support would be similarly bad.
A response on Rec. 1 is also warranted, but I suspect that we are not in a position to do this. The report asks specific questions. Since no one from At-Large was involved in this WG in a substantive way (other than Baudouin Schombe who was representing NCUC), and I suspect we have no one who is a real expert on IRTP and in particular Registrar business operations, I don't think that we should even attempt to answer the questions. I think that this corresponds to Sylvia's comment that there is probably little to be gained by going out with a general At-Large call for comments. I find it unfortunate that we are in that position.
If there is support for a statement as I have outlined above, I am willing to draft such a short statement for approval by the ALAC.
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: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) _______________________________________________ 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: http://st.icann.org/alac
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Evan Leibovitch -
sylvia＠internautabrasil.org