2007/3/29, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton@consensus.pro>:
My point was that Izumi had seemed to suggest that 1(c) could be skipped and an issues report requested from the staff. This is not the way it works; the issues report is requested from the GNSO, who then direct staff to create one.
from the staff, or from an advisory commmtee? I did not suggest to skip 1 c at all. I said I read it. I am fine to move this to public list and also discuss in our meeting. izumi Honestly, this is obviously becoming a very long and probably confusing
thread - quite possibly even for some of us contributing to it - may I suggest that we actually just discuss this at the meeting later this afternoon? In front of all the ALSes and the whole committee? And the result can then be posted.
On 29/03/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
I am moving this to the public list, because it is very important.
We can discuss on words, but your interpretation of the text of the PDP that would require the GNSO Council to approve a request for an Issue Report by an Advisory Committee is not what was agreed in year 2002. It was explicitly said that we were advisory, but we'd have the unilateral right (of course to be used with care) to put things on the GNSO agenda.
I have even checked this with a GNSO guru during the break, who said that there's no way that it can be differently from this - we just need to phrase the request correctly.
If the ICANN staff stays with that interpretation, and if it is confirmed by the GNSO, I would like to raise the issue with the other ACs and with the Board to understand whether this is actually the intent of ICANN at the political level.
Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
Your interpretation does not square with the ICANN GC. Note the word 'request' in 1(c). Further, you do not request ICANN Staff for an issues report; you send a request to the GNSO as per 1(c).
On 29/03/07, *Izumi AIZU* <iza@anr.org <mailto:iza@anr.org>> wrote:
Yes, I looked at 1 c. already, as follows,
1 c. /Advisory Committee Initiation./ An Advisory Committee may raise an issue for policy development by action of such committee to commence the PDP, and transmission of that request to the GNSO Council
The "transmission of that request" implies to the commence of PDP, but NOT issue report IMHO. So, this does not prevent us from requesting ICANN Staff for Issue Report. Otherwise, there is little room for any advisory committee - I cannot imagine GAC accepts this and ask GNSO council to reuqest Issue report or RSSAC or SSAC does...
izumi
2007/3/29, Nick Ashton-Hart < nashton@consensus.pro <mailto:nashton@consensus.pro>>:
Look at 1(c). Then look at 2....
On 29/03/07, *Vittorio Bertola* < vb@bertola.eu <mailto:vb@bertola.eu>> wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
Note one error below of process. Quite important not to misstate the process...
However, there is a need for more concrete information to prove these problems actually exist and are affecting the ordinary users and their experience in using the Internet. Therefore ALAC is drafting a formal request shortly to ask ICANN staff to prepare an Issue Report. At the same
This above statement is the problem. What ALAC can do is ask the GNSO Council to ask for an Issues Report to be prepared.
Huh? If you go to http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA < http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA>, point 2, it says that upon the request of "a properly supported motion from an Advisory Committee", staff will create an Issue Report, which will then go to the GNSO council together with a recommendation on whether or not to start a PDP. You clarified a few mails ago that according to Dan "a properly supported motion" is one that the majority of the ALAC approved in a formal vote.
I don't know how that can be read differently - are you sure that you mean what you wrote? I thought Maria had said that the GNSO council needs to approve the starting of a PDP, not the creation of an issue report. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu
-- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
-- -- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org