Olivier, thanks for this summary and additonal arguments. The opportunity to work forward with lessons learned from evidence seems ripe. It could be in the benefit of the ALAC's image as well. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com] Enviado el: jueves, 23 de enero de 2014 11:17 Hasta: At-Large Worldwide CC: ALAC Working List Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC Dear Evan, On 23/01/2014 10:01, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
In the past when I tried to get ALAC to convey deep concerns about the state of the gTLD program -- concerns that called for radical change to improve the public interest component of the expansion -- I got shot down by my own community.
Have a look at this statement I drafted in 2011<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31164161>that never made it for ALAC consideration, let alone a vote. Specifically, read the comments that together (IMO) induce a chilling effect on calls for anything more than superficial change.
At the time, the assertions you made were not fully supported by documentary evidence of intent and result so we were probably quite cautious with any allegations. With time, and as processed in the AG are being implemented, it is becoming clearer that the Applicant Guidebook contains failings and flaws that do not serve the public interest. At the time, the very concept of "public interest" was being challenged, if you remember. Now of course, all of these events and rulings are providing us with very valuable feedback for the next round of applications. If ICANN really is serious about the public interest, they will need to analyse the rulings and find out what went wrong. I am particularly concerned with the narrow definition of "community", "Internet community", "end user community" - or in fact as their lack of definition. Referring to the ICANN Bylaws, the ALAC's scope should be defined in a way that the "community' element would be accepted by legal rulings. Yet the ICC examiner's ruling is that the Community needs to be clearly delineated (as the AG asks) in such a narrow sense that the ALAC really does not represent anything or anyone. I am troubled that this interpretation is *exactly* the interpretation of the applicants who responded to the ALAC's objection by challenging the ALAC itself. (whether this is ethical or not, I don't blame them for it, it is entirely fair game - play the system you're given and make use of its flaws) The ALAC asked for the possibility to file objections and after much hard work, it was given that chance and provided with a gun and ammunition. But was the ammunition all blanks? Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ 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