Danny, I am a moderately rational person who can think. My current role on the GNSO Council is primarily that of Liaison to the ALAC. I was asked a question about how would the ALAC react to the ICANN staff proposal. My job was to answer if I knew the answer and pass the question on if not. I have done that. I'm sorry if you don't like the message, but I was just the messenger. If there was a widespread belief on the ALAC that it was nonsense to approve the current package of amendments, then it is too bad that it was not stated. I did not create the concept of the current vote. I did re-word it so it made more sense (and removed the phrase that you as "it sucks"). At 12/12/2008 07:59 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
"The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say.
Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be addressed."
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05902.html
This approach makes a lot more sense than what the ALAC is currently voting upon. Alan, please take note.