http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760 BBC reports Heathrow now reopened … CW On 12 Jul 2013, at 19:11, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:

Well, i am stuck in london, flights suspended. Due to fire R

Inviato da iPhone

Il giorno 12.07.2013, alle ore 18:09, "sandra hoferichter" <info@hoferichter.eu> ha scritto:

...

Dear all, my plane in Leipzig was delayed and I had no chance to catch the connecting flight to Johannesburg. So I am still at home and have the ticket rescheduled for tomorrow, there was no other option today all planes are overbooked. Unfortunately I will arrive late afternoon only, an miss the ALAC working day. I see you on Monday then, hopefully in the ICANN academy session. Wish you a first fruitful day!

Best Sandra

(Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any misspelling.) _______________________________________________ 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

---

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

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13/msg00010.... Good evening: Has At Large responded to this comment? (I do not know how to access the <forum.icann.org> Lists. Please advise.) CW

Hi CW: To add to Olivier's response, if you read the details of the ALAC Statement you'd see how much it tried to be 'even handed'; we intended a sleek racehorse but came out with a camel. That we had a consensus view is itself remarkable since some of us took the position from early that the ALAC should not respond and sit on its hands here. But the consensus was for a statement and so we have. Me personally, I do believe the GAC overreached in several areas. Some of us have always believed that a) the GAC intervention and ICANN's positive response actually raise the a legal question of equal protection of the laws, the case of treatment of old gTLDS vs. new gTLDs b) the standard that is being proposed as practically administrative law is too uncertain to be consistently enforced c) the choice of strings that are held to higher scrutiny is likely arbitrary given the sliding scale rationale on which the decision is based. The PICs are a case in point. Sure, ICANN has given itself some elbow room by the near unanimous consent to the Registry Accreditation Agreement 2013. I however have a strong suspicions that before we are done, some aggrieved party will file suit in US District Court for one or other cause. You should also read the US GAC representative's statement surrounding the GAC Safeguards. IMO, likely the best example of a diplomatic note liberally interpreted to say 'wheel and come again' as I've seen for awhile. Make no mistake, it was a shot across the bow, which brings to the fore further evidence of the unsettled positions in the GAC partnership. Another example is the matter of so-called closed generic strings. That is a can of worms and will likely be the test of the 'public interest' claim as ever seen. For to my mind, saying they are not in the public interest when the business models are yet unknown is contrary to reason and good judgment. Especially when the entire DNS system is built on the proposition that an arbitrary string of characters is indeed property; voicing once more the complaint of the French King when advised that France was disinherited by Treaty from the spoils of the New World happened on by Cristobal Colon; "Am I not a Christina and a price?". Think of it, ICANN says a select set of [declared] strings at the first level are owned free and clear by someone, legal or natural person. The entire DNS ecosystem also affirms any string at the second level, hitherto known or unknown, is also owned by that same person, legal or natural. This then puts into context the 'non-exhaustive' list of strings - meaning such as they are, hitherto known and unknown - the GAC is prepared to give early warning and inveigh against. I tell you now I don't know how all this will turn out except to note I'm intrigued by this very interesting conundrum. Plain and simple, I am troubled by any governmental action that says its intent is to protect from harm, absent demonstrable harm. In my view, such a priori actions with the force of law are odious to natural justice and does violence to reason. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:

Dear Christopher,

the ALAC did not respond to the comments made specifically by the commenter in this message. However, the ALAC did issue a Statement on the GAC Advice. You can find it at: https://community.icann.org/x/NQp-Ag

You can follow all ALAC policy development on: https://community.icann.org/x/bwFO

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 12/07/2013 20:36, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:

...

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13/msg00010....

...

Good evening:

Has At Large responded to this comment? (I do not know how to access the <forum.icann.org> Lists. Please

advise.)

...

CW

_______________________________________________ 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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

_______________________________________________ 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

Sure Tim. So long as you note this is my personal view and not that of the ALAC. Best, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:19 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>wrote:

SNIP

...

Plain and simple, I am troubled by any governmental action that says its intent is to protect from harm, absent demonstrable harm. In my view, such a priori actions with the force of law are odious to natural justice and does violence to reason.

May I use this quote in the Public Forum? it is awesome!

-- Cheers,

McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ 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