Dear Olivier:
Thankyou. Noted, but only just now. There are a major threshold issues. Particularly for those of us who are already spending a large part of the available time on other ICANN issues.
- I do not quite understand where the document that we are invited to comment on is coming from. Is that a staff draft or and ALAC draft or something else?
- I dipped into the Westlake report, but my printer managed pages 137 to 161 before stopping, not more, so I am really not the much wiser.
(These monster documents really play to the criticism that the staff is trying to bury the issues in unmanageable detail.)
More generally, I consider that much of the CWG and CCWG attack on the ICANN Board's accountability can be traced back to self-interested and indefensible GNSO positions which the Board has endorsed uncritically on the basis of 'bottom up' policy developoment. Several aspects of the new gTLD program which have proved to be unsustainable and indefensible can be traced back to positions espoused by the Registry and Registrar community.
Regarding the structure of GNSO, I can only say that the NCUC etc. members, although claiming Civil Society affiliation have serially failed to identify and support the public interest or to rein in the commercial objectives of the Registries and Registrars. Nom-com and other liaisons with GNSO appear not to have the necessary leverage.
ICANN's primary responsibility is the regulation of the conditions of fair competition in the DNS market. It has become clear that the community will not get anything like that from GNSO as presently structured.
I trust that this is clear and useful
Regards
CW
PS: Now, how to distill my concerns into 'comments' into the document) Well, I regret that simply in terms of understanding how to manage the word-processing, I am convinced that I would waste a lot of time, failing.
(Why do we use these complicated Google-esque re-drafting methods? They disenfranchise those who have never succeeded in using them.)
On 22 Jul 2015, at 18:50, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <
ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Hello all,
just a kind reminder, a few hours away from the At-Large Comments
closing.
I have heard in corridors that some people were concerned about the
lack of overall review of the GNSO's structure and most of the
recommendations focussed on GNSO Working Groups and small
adjustments rather than taking a serious look at the GNSO's
bicameral structure. Yet, I have not seen any actual written
confirmation of this concern here. Could you please all take a short
moment to write your concerns, if any, that should be part of an
overall comment that falls outside the (narrow) scope of the actual
recommendations made by Westlake Consultants?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/07/2015 08:00, Olivier MJ
Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Hello all,
of particular interest, is identifying what is *missing* from the
Review. Suggestions welcome.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/07/2015 03:00, ICANN At-Large
Staff wrote:
Dear All,
Please
submit any
comments on
the workspace
using the
comments
function by 22
July 2015
23:59 UTC.
Regards,
Heidi
Ullrich,
Silvia
Vivanco, Ariel
Liang, Gisella
Gruber,
Nathalie
Peregrine and
Terri Agnew
ICANN
Policy Staff
in support of
ALAC
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org