Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC
Dominik, Re: "There is nothing difficult here. The ALAC will express the statement it stands for and the board will vote." I think that you misunderstand the powers of the ALAC. While the ALAC as an advisory committee has a duty to investigate issues, to report its findings and to tender recommendations, its one and only "power" is the ability to ask a Supporting Organization to launch a PDP. Yes, the ALAC can issue Statements that haven't even been voted upon by ALAC members (such as the JPA statement and the Joint GNSO Improvements statement), but the Board is not required to respond to those Statements or to vote upon them. Usually, those Statements are simply ignored (for a variety of reasons). The Board has no bylaws-mandated obligation to respond to the ALAC; it must however (per the bylaws)respond to the GAC and must find a mutually acceptable solution on an issue should GAC and Board views diverge. The bylaws make it clear that the ALAC is the retarded sibling in the family that can only make suggestions to others as to the policy that should be followed, and the Supporting Organizations are at liberty to totally disregard that advice if they so choose. Accordingly, I see nothing wrong in the ALAC taking a firm position (as opposed to entering into compromise mode) if it decides to properly investigate an issue and tender findings/recommendations -- unfortunately, the ALAC has never once conducted a thorough investigation of anything (unlike the SSAC that takes its responsibilities just a tad more seriously). If you really want to help shape DNS policy by way of articulating firm positions, then either find yourself a home in one of the GNSO constituencies, or act in concert with others to launch a new constituency (in view of the possibilities afforded in the "revised" GNSO). That's where the real work will be getting done. Have a nice weekend, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Danny Younger wrote:
If you really want to help shape DNS policy by way of articulating firm positions, then either find yourself a home in one of the GNSO constituencies, or act in concert with others to launch a new constituency (in view of the possibilities afforded in the "revised" GNSO). That's where the real work will be getting done.
Good. So you do agree on the fact that to create a Registrant Constituenct in the GNSO is a far better option than to create a Registrant Advisory Committee, that will be, in your own words, another "retarded sibling in the family that can only make suggestions to others as to the policy that should be followed"? Cheers, Roberto
Roberto, I never cease to be amazed by your ability to twist the plain meaning of words. As the bylaws spell out both the structure and powers of Advisory Committees, the key to formulating a properly functioning AC lies in the language selected to reside within the bylaws. A new advisory committee can be created with a narrow remit on registrant issues with the capability to produce stellar results. The degree to which such a new AC will be viewed as a "retarded sibling" will solely depend upon how the Board chooses to populate such a body and how the Board chooses to empower such an AC. Roberto, I am sure that you recall the almost total lack of policy discussions within the IDNO (which should remind you of the the current state of the EURALO). Some constituent efforts are not necessarily superior to that which may be accomplished within an AC environment (like within the SSAC). By the way, this does not need to be an either/or proposition. You will note that non-commercials orgs populate an AC and a GNSO constituency currently. best regards, Danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
If you really want to help shape DNS policy by way of articulating firm positions, then either find yourself a home in one of the GNSO constituencies, or act in concert with others to launch a new constituency (in view of the possibilities afforded in the "revised" GNSO). That's where the real work will be getting done.
Good. So you do agree on the fact that to create a Registrant Constituenct in the GNSO is a far better option than to create a Registrant Advisory Committee, that will be, in your own words, another "retarded sibling in the family that can only make suggestions to others as to the policy that should be followed"?
Cheers, Roberto
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Roberto, Absolutely. I support and encouarage creating such a constituency but I in a wider plan as decribed in the 3-group model in the joint statement. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@icann.org] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 2:09 PM To: 'Danny Younger'; Dominik Filipp Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC Danny Younger wrote:
If you really want to help shape DNS policy by way of articulating firm positions, then either find yourself a home in one of the GNSO constituencies, or act in concert with others to launch a new constituency (in view of the possibilities afforded in the "revised" GNSO). That's where the real work will be getting done.
Good. So you do agree on the fact that to create a Registrant Constituenct in the GNSO is a far better option than to create a Registrant Advisory Committee, that will be, in your own words, another "retarded sibling in the family that can only make suggestions to others as to the policy that should be followed"? Cheers, Roberto
Danny, If ALAC's statements are of minor importance or can be ingnored by the board, why then was the ALAC's statement on domain tasting modified nearly at last minute towards the draft motion logic? If, furthermore, the AGP elimination was previously supported by even Business Constituency in the first place. What that significant happened that influenced the previously held ALAC stronger position? I, in contrast, think the ALAC statement is very important for keeping decorum and alibi for the board. Especially as regards such a sensitive problem like domain tasting is. Danny, I am not talking about bylaws, papers and such things. I am talking about real people. ALAC is me, you and everybody else interested in ICANN public matters. ALAC will be as strong as strong will be its members. Ok, Danny, fine. Then I ask ALAC office issue a suggestion reconsidering its final statement in favour of AGP elimination and open it for public deliberation? Please support the motion. Thanks Dominik -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:20 AM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC Dominik, Re: "There is nothing difficult here. The ALAC will express the statement it stands for and the board will vote." I think that you misunderstand the powers of the ALAC. While the ALAC as an advisory committee has a duty to investigate issues, to report its findings and to tender recommendations, its one and only "power" is the ability to ask a Supporting Organization to launch a PDP. Yes, the ALAC can issue Statements that haven't even been voted upon by ALAC members (such as the JPA statement and the Joint GNSO Improvements statement), but the Board is not required to respond to those Statements or to vote upon them. Usually, those Statements are simply ignored (for a variety of reasons). The Board has no bylaws-mandated obligation to respond to the ALAC; it must however (per the bylaws)respond to the GAC and must find a mutually acceptable solution on an issue should GAC and Board views diverge. The bylaws make it clear that the ALAC is the retarded sibling in the family that can only make suggestions to others as to the policy that should be followed, and the Supporting Organizations are at liberty to totally disregard that advice if they so choose. Accordingly, I see nothing wrong in the ALAC taking a firm position (as opposed to entering into compromise mode) if it decides to properly investigate an issue and tender findings/recommendations -- unfortunately, the ALAC has never once conducted a thorough investigation of anything (unlike the SSAC that takes its responsibilities just a tad more seriously). If you really want to help shape DNS policy by way of articulating firm positions, then either find yourself a home in one of the GNSO constituencies, or act in concert with others to launch a new constituency (in view of the possibilities afforded in the "revised" GNSO). That's where the real work will be getting done. Have a nice weekend, Danny ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
participants (3)
-
Danny Younger -
Dominik Filipp -
Roberto Gaetano