Jeff, Re: "If you view the current structure as having the pendulum swing too far in favor of the contracted parties..." That's certainly how I view it. For instance, how many registry/registrar regional sessions have been sponsored/supported by ICANN over the years? Has ICANN ever once sponsored a session just for the non-contracted parties? ICANN continues to operate as a Guild Manager favoring certain groups over others, and by now we're all getting pretty sick of it. Perhaps in the upcoming 2008 North American Regional Registry/Registrar Gathering in New Orleans next week, you can ask your peers to offer up a suitable counter-proposal that would better position the pendulum. regards, Danny --- "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> wrote:

It is of course no surprise that the same document which purports to "strike a balance" has ensured that the GNSO Council could always obtain a Supermajority Vote without ever even involving the Registries and or Registrars (who by no coincidence could actually be bound by their decisions).

It is also no coincidence that no registries or registrars were even asked to participate in the process to come up with the new structure. It is extremely telling of how the signatories plan on conducting policy in the future ... namely, without the involvement of the registries and registrars.

If you view the current structure as having the pendulum swing too far in favor of the contracted parties, the solution is NOT to swing the pendulum completely the opposite way, but rather to find some common ground. That did not happen here......

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services &

Business Development

NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us

-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:09 AM To: Danny Younger Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC

What a farce.

Whether or not the document is any good, I saw no consultation with ALAC that would support the claim that "The attached document is a unique collaboration of the joint users groups represented within ICANN today: The At-Large Advisory Committee The Commercial and Business Users Constituency The Intellectual Property Constituency The Internet Service and Connection Providers Constituency The Non-Commercial Users Constituency."

--Wendy

Danny Younger wrote:

...

Evan,

The ALAC has participated in a joint statement without any consultative engagement with its own membership; such behavior should not be countenanced -- the final Statement is posted here:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html

...

regards, Danny

--- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

...

Hello everyone,

For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a document being drafted on a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some sort of "public" representation that has come up with some very strange conclusions. Here is an early draft of the document:

http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/Position%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20R

eform.pdf

...

...

A more recent version of the draft has essentially gutted ALAC's role and calls for some sort of direct participation by ALSs. The truly amazing thing is that this is being advanced as having the support of ALAC itself!

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00413.html

...

...

Compounding the problem is that the closing of public comments is this week -- and the fact that the document is still in flux!! How can "the public" adequately address a moving target in this manner?

Frankly, not only the document but the process that has produced it is flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now heard from Beau and Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC list -- why is it being debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact with me). I am asking one or more of you to help craft a NARALO position that we can submit this week. I will do my best to help but I will likely be incapacitated for most of the rest of this week because of surgery.

Both the document (at least in its current form) and the process that developed it IMO should not be submitted as something with widespread -- let alone universal -- public support. Can some folks here please get together to draft something upon which NARALO can get a consensus statement and submit before the deadline?

Thanks!

- Evan

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists

.icann.org

...

...

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

________________________________________________________________________

____________

...

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

...

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists

.icann.org

...

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

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann

.org

=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ