My comments inline below:

From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 23:06
To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [At-Large] IMPORTANT: YOUR POSITIONS ON PRESSING POLICY ISSUES

The issues I put on the agenda on the Wiki follow, along with my thoughts on them.

1. Status of ALAC Review.

My recollection is that the review was scheduled to start just after the review of the NomCom. The report on the NomCom has now been issued but still no word on our review. What is happening?

We should get the announcement of the consultant to carry out the review this week.

2. ALAC/At-Large and the Board Governance Committee proposed GNSO Improvements.

There are three issues related to this new document.

1. There is a discussion on whether At Large should be represented on the GNSO which ends with the statement that users could participate in the commercial or non-commercial groups "depending on how they viewed their registration". Surely the BGC understands that not all users have there own registrations. Something over 1 billion of then are just "users".

2. The argument is made that since the ALAC/At-Large exists to advise the Board, they do not need a presence on the GNSO. This presumes that it is adequate to be reactive to GNSO policy drafts. In reality, inputs received during comment periods do not have a good record of making it into next revisions unless there are strong advocates for it. The move to working groups which can include individuals may help this, but a vote on the GNSO council will still be an effective mechanism for helping to ensure that end user needs are addressed during the policy creation process instead of after.

3. The new Board Governance Committee proposal does not mention Liaisons, apparently because the BGC did not see any reason to change things. But the report does explicitly say that there should be regular contact between the various SO     and the ALAC and mentions telephone conference calls between the Chairs. If such calls make sense, certainly the corresponding Liaison should also be included.

3. New gTLD concerns. Recent comments and others.

We need to say something regarding whether the ALAC is endorsing the document submitted by Danny. Either yes we will, or no we won't, or we will be meeting later in the week to decide whether to endorse some or all of the comments.

WE convened the wg led by Danny, so yes, we should review the report and endorse it.

4. Board perception of way forward on gTLD proposal.

I would like to hear the Board thoughts on how they think this process will proceed.

OK

Alan


At 28/10/2007 07:45 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:

FOR TUESDAY'S ICANN BOARD MEETING

Please send to this list at your earliest convenience the position you believe ALAC should take on the following topics:

gTLDS
WHOIS
IDNs (we will make reference to the existing documentation)
IPV4 and IPV6
Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs)
domain tasting
geoTLDs

Izumi and I will coordinate these so that we can give the board advice on each topic.

It's OK if you don't have a particular opinion on a topic. Just send us the ones you believe ALAC should advocate for on behalf of users.

We will send out a draft final document to you once we have a chance to coordinate them.
_______________________________________________
ALAC-Internal mailing list
ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists.icann.org

ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
ALAC Official: http://alac.icann.org
ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02