Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS applications
May I suggest that the fastest way to conclude a vote on this appliication is actually to take the vote in the Lisbon meetings. On 21/03/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
At 03:13 AM 3/21/2007, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
These larger questions you reference are important, but if you do not
deal
with the question at hand pretty quickly, then the likelihood of another Ombudsman investigation of ALS applications is a real possibility.
Fine.
Just to clarify -- I'm prepared to withstand challenge from the ombudsman on his reinterpretation of our substantive criteria for evaluating ALS applicants. The responsibility for defining those falls squarely on ALAC, consistent with the Bylaws, and so long as we have a rational, reasoned basis for our application of those criteria, he has no power to change that, even at the vociferous complaint of a denied applicant.
In order not to give applicants a claim of "undue delay," however, I move that we open and conduct a new vote ASAP (since we have already heard objections, we're past the point of a no objections approval of this applicant).
--Wendy
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
There are other applications that have long been *mature* (DD+regional advices). Shall we count how many we can vote in Lisbon on Sunday Meeting? Hong On 3/21/07, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote:
May I suggest that the fastest way to conclude a vote on this appliication is actually to take the vote in the Lisbon meetings.
On 21/03/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
At 03:13 AM 3/21/2007, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
These larger questions you reference are important, but if you do
not deal
with the question at hand pretty quickly, then the likelihood of another Ombudsman investigation of ALS applications is a real possibility.
Fine.
Just to clarify -- I'm prepared to withstand challenge from the ombudsman on his reinterpretation of our substantive criteria for evaluating ALS applicants. The responsibility for defining those falls squarely on ALAC, consistent with the Bylaws, and so long as we have a rational, reasoned basis for our application of those criteria, he has no power to change that, even at the vociferous complaint of a denied applicant.
In order not to give applicants a claim of "undue delay," however, I move that we open and conduct a new vote ASAP (since we have already heard objections, we're past the point of a no objections approval of this applicant).
--Wendy
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
-- -- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
participants (2)
-
Hong Xue -
Nick Ashton-Hart