No, I am fulfilling a commitment I made several weeks ago at the last GNSO meeting. I made it very clear that I was submitting the motion (I cannot actually move it since I have no status to do that) based on my saying I would work with Chuck, and along the way we realized that we had somewhat different views and decided to submit both for Council's consideration. I made it painfully clear that this was NOT an ALAC recommendation, and that I would pass on the ALAC position once I had it. I have no "personal agenda" here. I have never claimed to be an RAA expert. That does not mean I don't have moderately well-informed opinions. But I have just been passing on what was discussed in the GNSO and attempting to pass back what I understand to be the ALAC position. That is the role that I have been asked to fulfill. Once it became clear that what I thought was an ALAC consensus position might be in error, I have made several attempts to get the ALAC to clarify its position. I had volunteered to work on a motion for the GNSO based on the briefing we received from staff, and I did my best to meet that commitment. Period. If you or anyone want to read that as advancing a personal position, I can't stop you, but that has not been my intent. I have rather high standards of ethical behaviour and of meeting commitments that I make, and I do my best to follow them. Alan At 11/12/2008 03:39 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
in advance of the ALAC vote you have already submitted a motion on the RAA amendments to the GNSO Council for consideration -- http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05881.html
-- it seems to me like you are advancing your own personal agenda at our expense.
Danny