Yes, I did say that: "And that needs to be followed by a more comprehensive RAA review, preferable in reasonable chunks so that the entire review/revision does not get bogged down until the next millennium." But that is not reflected in the first part of your motion to the GNSO. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions Why is the motion being split into two parts? Why not just one motion that attempts to codify that additional amendments to the RAA are necessary? Avri Doria seems to be speaking more on behalf of the user community than we are. ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:55 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Business Constituency on the RAA Amendments I can neither defend nor explain the RAA process up to now. I passed on the question because it was asked by the Chair of the GNSO. It was not required that they get our permission, the question was asked as a courtesy. For the record, the statement that Danny sent was not a formal Business Constituency statement, but one made on the sender's own behalf. I am not privy to the internal discussions of the BC, so I do not know if it is the feeling of all. Beau, also for the record, on Nov 24th, you said:
As for the broader question about the RAA amendments themselves, we did provide a fairly detailed statement that the ALAC signed off on in September. I believe Alan's comment: "The position that I have taken within the GNSO is that ALAC wants to see the already agreed-upon RAA changes put in place immediately (since sooner would require a Wayback machine with more functionality than our current one). And that needs to be followed by a more comprehensive RAA review, preferable in reasonable chunks so that the entire review/revision does not get bogged down until the next millennium," is accurate of where we left things with the RAA.
Alan At 15/12/2008 08:56 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
Here's what I don't get:
We (the ALAC) produced a statement on the RAA that was sent up the pipeline on the deadlines given out to us. The ALAC voted on (and for) the statement.
We received no formal response to that statement that I am aware of. Granted, my attentions have been elsewhere for large chunks of time since June, but I have tried to pay attention to those things I have agreed to help out on, so if there has been a formal response, my apologies.
But how can we now be talking about approving the package of amendments as it stands? With no formal response to our statement? Is it because the possibility of a PDP negating all the good work done so far on the RAA is being held over our heads? Sounds like a negotiating tactic to me. I don't think we should bite.
By the way I agree with Danny, what the BC is saying makes good sense, even if it's too late for us.
Beau Brendler ________________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:04 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] Business Constituency on the RAA Amendments
Danny, I am a moderately rational person who can think. My current role on the GNSO Council is primarily that of Liaison to the ALAC. I was asked a question about how would the ALAC react to the ICANN staff proposal. My job was to answer if I knew the answer and pass the question on if not. I have done that.
I'm sorry if you don't like the message, but I was just the messenger.
If there was a widespread belief on the ALAC that it was nonsense to approve the current package of amendments, then it is too bad that it was not stated. I did not create the concept of the current vote. I did re-word it so it made more sense (and removed the phrase that you as "it sucks").
At 12/12/2008 07:59 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
"The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say.
Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be addressed."
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05902.html
This approach makes a lot more sense than what the ALAC is currently voting upon. Alan, please take note.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.