For the record, regarding the two approaches. The General Contractual Conditions PDP (which incidentally was conducted despite being ruled out of scope), was completed just after I joined the GNSO, so I am really not an expert on it. However, the general feeling seem to have been that it was not one of the more successful PDPs (but that could just be a poor reading by me). The IRTP discussions, broken down into small bites, was done to address some of the past problems. It was felt that if the a problem was small and self-contained, that a PDP could be undertaken quickly and effectively. If all of the IRTP issues had been bundled into one PDP, it may well have taken forever, and (as you imply) a concern with one part might cause the entire thing to be voted down. It is my guess (but only that), that if and when the RAA comes up for a policy development discussion in the GNSO, it will be addressed more in the way of the IRTP. Alan At 24/11/2008 06:28 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
Recently we have seen two different approaches utilized within the GNSO:
1). on some policy initiatives (such as the tranfers issues) we have seen policy recommendations emerge as discrete units -- the topic is broken down into sections, each with its own WG, and policy recommendations emerge on a one-by-one basis.
2). on other policy matters (example: the contractual conditions PDP) we see the GNSO dealing with recommendations as a package (with an up-or-down vote on the entirety of the recommendations instead of one by one).
As neither the transcript nor the recording of the GNSO wrap-up session is Cairo is available that dealt with the RAA topic, I have no way of knowing in what manner the GNSO resolved to move forward on the issue.
Can you shed any light on this?
--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda To: "Robert Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org>, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 5:50 PM Given those three choices, I support "B" as long as the process fully accords with the contract definition of that which consitutes a "Consensus Policy":
4.3.1 "Consensus Policies" are those specifications or policies established based on a consensus among Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (a) action of the ICANN Board of Directors establishing the specification or policy, (b) a recommendation, adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is delegated, that the specification or policy should be established, and (c) a written report and supporting materials (which must include all substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy.
--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "Robert Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 4:35 PM Danny, there is a discussion going on in parallel on the meaning of what Kurt told the Board and the GNSO.
For the moment, I am asking a hypothetical question: If you have to choose between three options, which of these do you select?
A. ICANN adopts (through some relatively expedient means, but not a full PDP) the current list of RAA amendments (with whatever flaws it may have), and then starts a policy development process (with whatever outcome it may bring) on further amendments. B. We start a policy development process (with whatever outcome it may bring). C. Do absolutely nothing at this point.
Alan
At 24/11/2008 03:44 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
The Board was told by Kurt Pritz that the only way forward on the RAA amendments was by way of a consensus policy approach as outlined in section 4.3.4 of the contract. This is clearly incorrect. The Board has other options. It can exercise its right to put through an updated agreement, and it can exercise its right to selectively put through amendments that technically are not "updates" by way of the amendments/waiver clause.
I have never argued for unilaterally adopting the entire package of proposed amendments; I have only argued that recourse to the consensus policy approach by itself is far too time consuming, and that we need to get an explanation from Staff as to why they have not advised the board of the other options available under the current contract.
--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "Robert Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 3:23 PM Danny, I understand that all items are not ideal for everyone.
But I am having trouble reconciling your demand for an explanation of why the Board did not exercise one of their means of unilaterally putting the amendments into force and instead sent them to the GNSO. If you wanted the Board to act, is that not the same as the GNSO approving them as a group?
Alan
At 24/11/2008 11:43 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
There are some amendments which are simply not acceptable. Let's consider a specific example cited in my own public comments as well as in the comments of the IPC and the US DOC:
"Also, Registrar shall either (1) include in the database the name and postal address, e-mail address, and voice telephone number provided by the customer of any privacy service or licensee of any proxy registration service offered or made available by Registrar or its affiliate companies in connection with each registration or (2) display a conspicuous notice to such customers at the time an election is made to utilize such privacy or proxy service that their data is not being escrowed."
The second clause in this amendment must be eliminated as it is antithetical to the interest of all registrants.
These amendments must be debated by the ALAC one-by-one so that specific language changes can be introduced as required. Those that require no changes, that are useful, may be introduced either by way of the amendments and waivers clause or by way of the Right to Substitute Updated Agreement Clause... but this should apply only to those amendments that enjoy broad consensus-based support and which haven't been subject to any posted objections.
It would be appropriate for the ALAC to do a line-by-line examination of all the amendments and to reach a collective determination as to which are supported as is, which must be modified, and which must be totally rejected (of course, the underlying assumption is that ALAC members will actually engage in on-line discussion which is probably a bad assumption to be making).
I have to take issue with your use of the phrase "already agreed-upon RAA changes" as I have seen no evidence of agreement on specific amendments in the very few comments made at ALAC sessions. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you meant in this phrase...
Thanks, Danny
--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda > To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "Robert Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> > Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 10:59 AM > Danny, my understanding was that there was general belief > that the proposed RAA amendments were woefully inadequate > and incomplete, but that in their own right, they would be > useful. Since your 2nd questions focuses on finding out why > the Board has not already taken the unilateral paths that > you believe viable to enact the revised RAA, I would assume > that you support this position. > > The position that I have taken within the GNSO is that ALAC > wants to see the already agreed-upon RAA changes put in > place immediately (since sooner would require a Wayback > machine with more functionality than our current one). And > that needs to be followed by a more comprehensive RAA > review, preferable in reasonable chunks so that the entire > review/revision does not get bogged down until the next > millennium. > > If you or others feel that this is not a reasonable > position to take, please provide specific guidance. > > Alan > > At 24/11/2008 10:15 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > > Alan, > > > > As I, and doubtless others, have no idea what position > the ALAC has adopted with respect to the RAA amendments, > could we trouble you to articulate the official position, > and the specific actions that the ALAC will support in the > GNSO? > > > > Many of us have major issues with a lot of the > amendments and we don't want to see these put through on > a blanket basis. It's bad enough that Staff is in bed > with the registrars; we don't need to have the ALAC > pushing an ill-considered program that gives the registrars > everything that they want while the views of the rest of the > community are routinely ignored. > > > > Danny > > > > --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > > From: Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda > > > To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "Robert > Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info>, "Brendler, > Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> > > > Cc: "NA Discuss" > <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 8:19 AM > > > Although not answering any of Danny's > questions (but > > > acknowledging > > > where were are today with the RAA amendments > being punted > > > to the > > > GNSO), I do note that as ALAC Liaison, I am > taking what I > > > hope will > > > be successful action to fast-path the first round > of RAA > > > amendments > > > through the GNSO and forwarded to the Board for > quick > > > approval. > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 24/11/2008 07:14 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > > > >Dear North American reps to the ALAC: > > > > > > > >The entire point of having a RALO is so that > grassroots > > > input may be > > > >brought to the attention of the ALAC. There > were > > > several items that > > > >I raised that have not made it onto the ALAC > Agenda for > > > tomorrow's meeting: > > > > > > > >1. the failure to inaugurate a comprehensive > review of > > > registrar > > > >accreditation processes > > > >2. a request for a formal explanation from > ICANN Staff > > > as to why > > > >(1) invoking the amendments and waivers > clause in the > > > RAA may not be > > > >pursued and (2) why an updated RAA agreement > may not be > > > substituted. > > > >As both of these options are permitted by > contract, we > > > need to know > > > >why Staff has chosen not to pursue this > viable course > > > of action. > > > >3. a response to users that have posted > comments to > > > the RAA-WG. > > > > > > > >As reps for the NARALO you have a duty to > raise the > > > issues that have > > > >been brought forth by the membership and to > place these > > > issues on > > > >the agenda if they merit discussion, > otherwise there is > > > no point > > > >whatsoever in having these RALO structures or > an ALAC. > > > > > > > >see my orginal comments at > > > >
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.i
> cann.org/2008q4/004938.html > > > >
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.i
> cann.org/2008q4/004939.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------ > > > >NA-Discuss mailing list > > > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > >
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarg
> e-lists.icann.org > > > > > > > >Visit the NARALO online at > http://www.naralo.org > > > >------ > > > > > >
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------