Hello all, We don't get around it. We can't.We have no effect on the GNSO. But under the authority mandated in the ICANN bylaws, ALAC has the ability -- arguably an obligation -- to communicate to the Boards directly when it encounters ICANN activity that goes against the public good. And in perfect bottom-up fashion, this is how it's supposed to work. Discussions happening in the regions that percolate up to become global assertions of the public interest. Especially in a case in which Avri and Eric find common ground. :-) I would fully support ALAC's escalation if it can be suitably informed of the issues by those here who are knowledgeable on it. - Evan On 9 May 2011 10:03, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:

Hi Eric,

On 9 May 2011, at 09:46, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

...

If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow.

Not that we have a great record of working together, but I would be interested in seeing some telling and convincing comment made.

My problem is that the contract itself and the contractual conditions recommended by the GNSO give a presumption of renewal (I argued against it in the Task Force but as usual, was not successful it getting it removed). How do we get around that?

a.

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56