Re: [At-Large] ALAC submission to the RAA consultation
I have seen your postings. I think these comments are referring to the number of ALSes participating in the discussion rather than suggesting that none at all have participated. On 13 Sep 2007, at 21:09, Seth M. Reiss wrote:
Nick
Trouble is, even though Randy and I made the effort the review and give our sincere input respecting Vittorio's drafts, those commenting on the lack of ALS input seem to have missed our participation entirely! I wonder if only we can see the messages we post??? A new technological innovation perhaps?
Seth
From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:57 PM To: RJGlass | America@Large Cc: Vittorio Bertola; seth.reiss@lex-ip.com; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC submission to the RAA consultation
All the regions are collaborating together on the RAA WG to put a statement together, which is what Vittorio is speaking of below.
On 12 Sep 2007, at 21:06, RJGlass | America@Large wrote:
Hi,
I thought the NARALO put something in or was working toward doing so.
I don't know if this is the same discussion, please clarify.
Thanks, Randy
On 9/12/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote: All,
I (and the working group) are still waiting to know who will take over the responsibility of finalizing the ALAC submission to the consultation on the revision of the RAA.
Pardon me if I insist, but it is very important that the ALAC submits its contribution in the next few days (the formal deadline was September 10). With the collective input of the group, I already drafted a 7- page document which is almost complete - there is the need for a few hours' work of revision incorporating the last round of comments, and then for formal approval by the ALAC with whatever procedure the ALAC wants to apply (I had asked for information about the procedure weeks ago, but I don't think I had any reply).
Given that the ALAC wants to mark a sharp change of direction, I do not think that it would be useful for me to continue leading this effort - it would not bring to anything that the ALAC can agree with. Unfortunately, apart from a few replies by Jacqueline, no ALAC member is participating to this working group or has submitted any comments on this issue, so there is no natural candidate. Perhaps the new Board liaison can spare a few hours of her time in the next 2-3 days to take care of this?
Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
-- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 email: nashton@consensus.pro Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Hi All, As I mentioned before the last ALAC teleconf, ccNSO was to have its teleconf a day after ALAC's, so here's a summary of what transpired there. The entire meeting was devoted to IDNs, specially what to do in the light of LACTLD's failure to endorse the fast-track option for IDN ccTLDs. 1. ccNSO is going to pursue a full-fledged PDP for IDN ccTLDs. This may take several years, but it is necessary. To this end, an Issues Report will be prepared by Bart Boswinkel to be circulated before the next ccNSO teleconference(Oct 2). 2. In view of the strong desire/need expressed by some countries/territories to have a national IDN TLD within a short span of time(before or at least not too much later than the implementation of IDN gTLDs), two proposals are on the table, one for a fast-track interim PDP and another for an interim approach spearheaded by ccNSO and GAC (hopefully endorsed by the Board). 3. The first proposal above does not seem to stand much of a chance. 4. The second proposal (referred to as IDNC hereafter, C=Committee)envisages two stages: A. In the first stage the chairs of ccNSO and GAC will try to ascertain the existence of a desire for a fast-track approach and will try to estimate the number of ccTLDS/territories with such a desire (current estimate is about 25). B. Assuming the above need is ascertained and the number of cc's is not so large as to undermine the normal PDP engagement, a committee will be formed of ccNSO and GAC with representatives from ALAC and gNSO to draft a proposal for the Board to consider. There has not as yet been a substantive discussion of IDNC. Further discussion is scheduled for Oct 2. Regards Siavash, ALAC liaison to ccNSO
DNSSEC HOWTO, a tutorial in disguise Olaf Kolkman http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/dnssec_howto/dnssec_howto.pdf
participants (3)
-
Khaled KOUBAA -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Siavash Shahshahani