Thanks. I'm concerned that this does not specifically reference ALAC's statement on the program which is the subject of the hearings. The letter might lead with "At-Large did not (was not asked/invited?) to testify, and was not referenced by Pritz in the list of constituent groups who contribute to ICANN consensus. However, our previous current stand on the new gTLD program is/can be found..." Comments about Dyson's statements are important to correct the record, but the message should be on point with the subject matter. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:00 PM To: <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "ALAC Working List" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: "ICANN AtLarge Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee
Dear all,
there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec 14th -- i.e. today). Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included below.
Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler, NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller.
Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it will be archived in our ALAC correspondence.
We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton, should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote :
An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines.
There are two different hearings
1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14
2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee
<http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> (to be held Dec 14) After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting)
So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing this Wednesday.
We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate committee.