Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC and .HEALTH
On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world.
Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people.
So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope? The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one.
These references all speak of ALAC ability to file a Community Objection on behalf of an ALS for harm done to itself as a community. https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/Blue+Sky+Exercise http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000573.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000588.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000634.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000635.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000643.html In terms of ALAC Meeting transcripts: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.01.24+Transcription+-+... Avri Doria: Yes and I want to thank Dev for doing that. I wanted to add just a couple of points and a question to you all as ALAC. First of all Dev has been putting an amazing amount of work into this. This is still a draft that the intention is within the next week or two within the group to get it to a stable point where it can be sent to the RALOs for further review and a review cycle and an update cycle. So, I just wanted to make sure that I said that. In terms of the beginning of this there was a discussion over the scope of community objection. And the scope of community objection ranges from the very narrow interpretation of it's only if it's the ALAC community, the At-Large community, that's being targeted by the application. There's a slightly wider view that sort of says it’s not just ALAC or At-Large, it's any of the components of the At-Large so to speak the RALOs and the ALSs. The most expansive region of it is as At-Large responsible for the user community as it faces ICANN policy implementation etc. that basically championing any of those in an At-Large relevant topic area should be included. Now this is a question that the Working Group itself can't really answer. It's a question A for you all to sort of say what understanding does ALAC as an advisory committee have on this. And then probably a secondary step if you take anything other than the most narrow interpretation is confirming that, stating that, declaring that, in any way that is appropriate to ALAC making its point and declaring if understanding of what ALAC community is. The last point I wanted to make is that on some of these things there's still some technical issues that we're following-up for all of that to be there. We obviously are on a crash course to get this done because it has to go through the review cycle, the upset cycle, and basically go through whatever approval cycle it needs to go through before the objection process starts. So before that end of April date when all the applications are announced and I assume the approval and notification to ICANN or its staff as to what it is you're doing needs to happen before that. So thanks. --- I currently can't find the place where I got the answer I interpreted as " we will cross that bridge when we get there". Certainly those specific words were not said, but what I recall being said, but can't find it the message, that we can deal with this issue later if we need to. Then again, I can't find any answer to my question fo ALAC of Jan 24. Also I find that: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.02.28+-+Transcription+... is empty, so it is hard to check. I am not sure if I brought it up in the December meeting (I think I might have), but https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+20.12.11+Transcription+EN is also empty. In any case the fragments I have found in this brief search indicate: a. it was an issue in the Wg b. the prevailing opinion was that the scope should include ALS community harm in scope c. there was uncertainty about a wider scope that that d. there seems to be no answer on the issue of wider scope, leaving that issue open for you all to deal with now. I will keep looking, but given the press for time, wanted to pass on what I could find In sad that bringing this up angers some of you enough to make scary noises in my direction. But I think it is important that any decision that ALAC makes be fully informed. In this case, being fully informed means understanding that this Objection may not be in scope for ALAC to make. avri On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world.
Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people.
So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope? The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one.
Well the bridge stands in front of you and I suggest you give it serious consideration before approving these objections.
Um, exactly who here is not taking this seriously?
(If only all the issues in ICANN attracted such attention and thought. But this one, because money is at stake, is somehow more special? Pfftt.)
I personally agree with their note, and do not think ALAC has standing to object i this case.
I started as also being a champion of laissez faire. The more time goes on, the more I am inclined to support the objections. The counter arguments have been far from convincing.
I wish I had thought of it yesterday when NARALO was discussing the issue,
Why? The point had already been made, and NARALO chose not to advance the objection. However, three other regions did.
Also, of course, when you write a letter, you include all the possible arguments. There is not time for serialization. I think deriding them for that reason is a bit much.
You're right, I guess, in that there are much better reasons for derision.
I advise great care in your next steps.
IMO this wording constitutes a threat -- unless you have ANY evidence that this issue is being addressed without care anywhere in the community.
The implication -- that agreeing with the objections is somehow not giving the issue sufficient care and attention -- is offensive,
Those who indicated this Objection might actually injure ALAc's reputation might have had good reason to say what they said. It may begin to look like ALAC is being manipulated by a bitter past applicant who did not apply this time, who has not argued that there is a community, and is not an ALS member.
And I might be inclined to say "screw it, the Internet will not fall over if one controversial string is held up for a round while the various parties work it out.". That does not harm our reputation one shred.
In fact, I am being more inclined to say that with each email I see on the matter.
- Evan
On 7 Mar 2013, at 12:12, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Curious choice of recipients for the letter. I understand Olivier and Dev, but why me and Avri?
Oh well, I'm sufficiently fascinated: "You don't have standing to object. But just in case you DO.... "
Precious.
- Evan (via mobile)
Dear Avri, I recall at some point that you had made a declaration of conflict of interest on gTLD matters and had advised the ALAC that you were contracted to help .gay I note that AFILIAS is one of the applicants of .Health Please advise whether AFILIAS is also the applicant of .gay Thank you. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world.
Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people.
So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope? The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one.
These references all speak of ALAC ability to file a Community Objection on behalf of an ALS for harm done to itself as a community.
https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/Blue+Sky+Exercise http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000573.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000588.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000634.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000635.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000643.html
In terms of ALAC Meeting transcripts:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.01.24+Transcription+-+...
Avri Doria: Yes and I want to thank Dev for doing that. I wanted to add just a couple of points and a question to you all as ALAC. First of all Dev has been putting an amazing amount of work into this. This is still a draft that the intention is within the next week or two within the group to get it to a stable point where it can be sent to the RALOs for further review and a review cycle and an update cycle. So, I just wanted to make sure that I said that.
In terms of the beginning of this there was a discussion over the scope of community objection. And the scope of community objection ranges from the very narrow interpretation of it's only if it's the ALAC community, the At-Large community, that's being targeted by the application. There's a slightly wider view that sort of says it’s not just ALAC or At-Large, it's any of the components of the At-Large so to speak the RALOs and the ALSs.
The most expansive region of it is as At-Large responsible for the user community as it faces ICANN policy implementation etc. that basically championing any of those in an At-Large relevant topic area should be included. Now this is a question that the Working Group itself can't really answer. It's a question A for you all to sort of say what understanding does ALAC as an advisory committee have on this. And then probably a secondary step if you take anything other than the most narrow interpretation is confirming that, stating that, declaring that, in any way that is appropriate to ALAC making its point and declaring if understanding of what ALAC community is.
The last point I wanted to make is that on some of these things there's still some technical issues that we're following-up for all of that to be there. We obviously are on a crash course to get this done because it has to go through the review cycle, the upset cycle, and basically go through whatever approval cycle it needs to go through before the objection process starts. So before that end of April date when all the applications are announced and I assume the approval and notification to ICANN or its staff as to what it is you're doing needs to happen before that. So thanks.
---
I currently can't find the place where I got the answer I interpreted as " we will cross that bridge when we get there". Certainly those specific words were not said, but what I recall being said, but can't find it the message, that we can deal with this issue later if we need to.
Then again, I can't find any answer to my question fo ALAC of Jan 24. Also I find that:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.02.28+-+Transcription+... is empty, so it is hard to check.
I am not sure if I brought it up in the December meeting (I think I might have), but https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+20.12.11+Transcription+EN is also empty.
In any case the fragments I have found in this brief search indicate:
a. it was an issue in the Wg b. the prevailing opinion was that the scope should include ALS community harm in scope c. there was uncertainty about a wider scope that that d. there seems to be no answer on the issue of wider scope, leaving that issue open for you all to deal with now.
I will keep looking, but given the press for time, wanted to pass on what I could find
In sad that bringing this up angers some of you enough to make scary noises in my direction. But I think it is important that any decision that ALAC makes be fully informed. In this case, being fully informed means understanding that this Objection may not be in scope for ALAC to make.
avri
On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world.
Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people.
So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope? The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one.
Well the bridge stands in front of you and I suggest you give it serious consideration before approving these objections.
Um, exactly who here is not taking this seriously?
(If only all the issues in ICANN attracted such attention and thought. But this one, because money is at stake, is somehow more special? Pfftt.)
I personally agree with their note, and do not think ALAC has standing to object i this case.
I started as also being a champion of laissez faire. The more time goes on, the more I am inclined to support the objections. The counter arguments have been far from convincing.
I wish I had thought of it yesterday when NARALO was discussing the issue,
Why? The point had already been made, and NARALO chose not to advance the objection. However, three other regions did.
Also, of course, when you write a letter, you include all the possible arguments. There is not time for serialization. I think deriding them for that reason is a bit much.
You're right, I guess, in that there are much better reasons for derision.
I advise great care in your next steps.
IMO this wording constitutes a threat -- unless you have ANY evidence that this issue is being addressed without care anywhere in the community.
The implication -- that agreeing with the objections is somehow not giving the issue sufficient care and attention -- is offensive,
Those who indicated this Objection might actually injure ALAc's reputation might have had good reason to say what they said. It may begin to look like ALAC is being manipulated by a bitter past applicant who did not apply this time, who has not argued that there is a community, and is not an ALS member.
And I might be inclined to say "screw it, the Internet will not fall over if one controversial string is held up for a round while the various parties work it out.". That does not harm our reputation one shred.
In fact, I am being more inclined to say that with each email I see on the matter.
- Evan
On 7 Mar 2013, at 12:12, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Curious choice of recipients for the letter. I understand Olivier and Dev, but why me and Avri?
Oh well, I'm sufficiently fascinated: "You don't have standing to object. But just in case you DO.... "
Precious.
- Evan (via mobile)
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Oh Dear Sala, Thank you so much for your very kind note. It has been so long since we last spoke. I did indeed make a SoI declaration of part time employment by dotgay LLC.. dotgay LLC is the Community applicant for .gay. Would that the RG had been as solicitous of defending our Gay Community as it was of defending the so called health community - we actually have many community members who sent in comments indicating how harmful the standard applications for .gay and .lgbt were to the Gay Community. I guess when it comes to taking up the cause of communities attacked by Standard Applications, the Gay community was not quite good enough for the RG. Or maybe we did not lobby the RG. I know I stayed away from the RG completely so as not to possibly affect its decisions in behalf of the dotgay Community. Perhaps you can understand why I find the reasoning behind this community objection so baffling and hard to comprehend. As for Affilias. If anything as a standard applicant for .lgbt (not ,gay but they are confusingly similar, aren't they?) they are a competitor of my employer. If I were to act on my part time employer's interest, I should be convincing the ALAC to nail them and file the Objection. Of course they were not put in the same contention set as .gay, so I am not sure there is any relation at all at this point between .gay and .lgbt. But what I was trying to do, is show that ALAC has 2 problems with this Objection. Not because I love my competitor and wish to do undo them as I would have them do unto dotgay, but because I think it is the right thing to do. Had the RG suggested a limited interest objection on the basis of danger to the health consumer, who knows, you might have had a real winner of an argument to make. Instead, in my view, you have an industry masquerading as a community pushing the ALAC beyond its proper scope. I beleive in the At-Large. I am a director at an ALS. I put in a lot of time and effort on At-Large issues. I want to see At-Large grow and become a genuine representative of the global user's interest. But in this case, I find these ALAC objections improper and risky. So I dared to speak out. Also as the chair of the group that created the Objection procedure, I felt it was my duty to call out the unresolved scope issue which I had tried to discuss twice with ALAC to no avail. But I thank you for the ad hominem attack against my arguments. In fact not just against arguments but against presentation of the fact of dialogues I had with ALAC over the scope of ALAC Objections. Do you really dispute the fact of the quote because you think that Afilias might be involved with .gay (wrongly) and I am involved with .gay and that somehow i am presenting facts because i am part of some evil gay cabal? In any case, I always find ad-hominem attacks so comforting and reassuring. So, with all due respect, I thank you kindly for the effort you took to reassure me that I had a point. Wishing you all the best with the kindest regards, avri On 8 Mar 2013, at 21:35, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
Dear Avri,
I recall at some point that you had made a declaration of conflict of interest on gTLD matters and had advised the ALAC that you were contracted to help .gay
I note that AFILIAS is one of the applicants of .Health
Please advise whether AFILIAS is also the applicant of .gay
Thank you.
Kind Regards, Sala
Dear Avri, Thank you for your response. I wanted to understand the motivations of all those making comments in relation to dot health. This was simply a request for clarification and not an attack. Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Oh Dear Sala,
Thank you so much for your very kind note. It has been so long since we last spoke.
I did indeed make a SoI declaration of part time employment by dotgay LLC.. dotgay LLC is the Community applicant for .gay. Would that the RG had been as solicitous of defending our Gay Community as it was of defending the so called health community - we actually have many community members who sent in comments indicating how harmful the standard applications for .gay and .lgbt were to the Gay Community. I guess when it comes to taking up the cause of communities attacked by Standard Applications, the Gay community was not quite good enough for the RG. Or maybe we did not lobby the RG. I know I stayed away from the RG completely so as not to possibly affect its decisions in behalf of the dotgay Community. Perhaps you can understand why I find the reasoning behind this community objection so baffling and hard to comprehend.
As for Affilias. If anything as a standard applicant for .lgbt (not ,gay but they are confusingly similar, aren't they?) they are a competitor of my employer. If I were to act on my part time employer's interest, I should be convincing the ALAC to nail them and file the Objection. Of course they were not put in the same contention set as .gay, so I am not sure there is any relation at all at this point between .gay and .lgbt.
But what I was trying to do, is show that ALAC has 2 problems with this Objection. Not because I love my competitor and wish to do undo them as I would have them do unto dotgay, but because I think it is the right thing to do. Had the RG suggested a limited interest objection on the basis of danger to the health consumer, who knows, you might have had a real winner of an argument to make. Instead, in my view, you have an industry masquerading as a community pushing the ALAC beyond its proper scope. I beleive in the At-Large. I am a director at an ALS. I put in a lot of time and effort on At-Large issues. I want to see At-Large grow and become a genuine representative of the global user's interest. But in this case, I find these ALAC objections improper and risky. So I dared to speak out. Also as the chair of the group that created the Objection procedure, I felt it was my duty to call out the unresolved scope issue which I had tried to discuss twice with ALAC to no ! avail.
But I thank you for the ad hominem attack against my arguments. In fact not just against arguments but against presentation of the fact of dialogues I had with ALAC over the scope of ALAC Objections. Do you really dispute the fact of the quote because you think that Afilias might be involved with .gay (wrongly) and I am involved with .gay and that somehow i am presenting facts because i am part of some evil gay cabal?
In any case, I always find ad-hominem attacks so comforting and reassuring. So, with all due respect, I thank you kindly for the effort you took to reassure me that I had a point.
Wishing you all the best with the kindest regards,
avri
On 8 Mar 2013, at 21:35, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
Dear Avri,
I recall at some point that you had made a declaration of conflict of interest on gTLD matters and had advised the ALAC that you were contracted to help .gay
I note that AFILIAS is one of the applicants of .Health
Please advise whether AFILIAS is also the applicant of .gay
Thank you.
Kind Regards, Sala
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Please advise whether AFILIAS is also the applicant of .gay
I'm not Avri, but I happen to have copies of all of the gTLD applications here copied from the ICANN web site. There are four competing applications for .gay, numbers 1-1713-23699, 1-1086-79087, 1-1255-4825, and 1-1039-47682. None of the four applications are from Afilias, nor do any of the applications appear to use Afilas as the back end registry provider. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Thanks for this John. Sent from my iPad On Mar 9, 2013, at 4:39 PM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Please advise whether AFILIAS is also the applicant of .gay
I'm not Avri, but I happen to have copies of all of the gTLD applications here copied from the ICANN web site. There are four competing applications for .gay, numbers 1-1713-23699, 1-1086-79087, 1-1255-4825, and 1-1039-47682.
None of the four applications are from Afilias, nor do any of the applications appear to use Afilas as the back end registry provider.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly _______________________________________________ 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
participants (4)
-
Avri Doria -
John R. Levine -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro -
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro