MOU Draft Changes
Hi all, I have gone through the MOU again and have made the changes as per Sylvia Caras's suggestions and Nick Ashton-Hart's replies to her and the Staff suggestions. These changes mainly pertain to wording changes in Clauses 4.7 and 4.8 and as well to the deletion of Clause 6.5. These should probably be reviewed at your earliest convenience so that you can let Brett know if these are OK with your group or not. These can be found at: Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
Clause 4.7 of the proposed MOU deals with what is viewed by some NARALO members as an ICANN obligation to perform periodic impact analyses. I disagree. This is not ICANN's obligation; this is an ALAC obligation. Advisory Committees (such as the ALAC) have one primary duty: to "report their findings and recommendations to the Board". This duty requires the Committee to perform research in order to obtain findings that in the aggregate will lead to recommendations. For an example of proper research/scholarship leading to the presentation of findings/recommendations see http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ssac-documents.htm It is up to the NARALO to set forth their findings regarding how North American users will be impacted by any proposed policy. Just as the constituencies in the GNSO prepare impact statements to be appended to a PDP, so too should the NARALO detail how any proposed policy will impact those within their geographical region. This is the NARALO's job, your job -- not ICANN's job. I would view it as ideal if ICANN would commit to directing its Supporting Organizations to conduct a periodic review of ICANN consensus policies (none of which have a sunset date and many which do require an overhaul), but this is a policy recommendation (not an "obligation" on ICANN's part). ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
In case it is useful to know this, there is nothing stopping any region from proposing a research project of the sort Danny references - if funding is required, there is an existing procedure for the At- Large community to request funds for community projects and this is certainly something that research of this kind could fall under. On 18 Jun 2007, at 16:37, Danny Younger wrote:
Clause 4.7 of the proposed MOU deals with what is viewed by some NARALO members as an ICANN obligation to perform periodic impact analyses. I disagree. This is not ICANN's obligation; this is an ALAC obligation.
Advisory Committees (such as the ALAC) have one primary duty: to "report their findings and recommendations to the Board". This duty requires the Committee to perform research in order to obtain findings that in the aggregate will lead to recommendations.
For an example of proper research/scholarship leading to the presentation of findings/recommendations see http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ssac-documents.htm
It is up to the NARALO to set forth their findings regarding how North American users will be impacted by any proposed policy. Just as the constituencies in the GNSO prepare impact statements to be appended to a PDP, so too should the NARALO detail how any proposed policy will impact those within their geographical region.
This is the NARALO's job, your job -- not ICANN's job.
I would view it as ideal if ICANN would commit to directing its Supporting Organizations to conduct a periodic review of ICANN consensus policies (none of which have a sunset date and many which do require an overhaul), but this is a policy recommendation (not an "obligation" on ICANN's part).
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
From the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 7 June 2007:
"Domain Name Tasting Issues Report -- Bruce Tonkin commented that the key issue was to have clear terms of reference to start the Policy Development Process (PDP) and suggested that if constituencies or Council members considered going ahead with the process they should draft a proposed terms of reference for consideration by the Council at its meeting in San Juan, or alternatively the Council may request that staff conduct further fact finding and research before initiating a PDP." As the ALAC has initiated the request for an Issues Report on this topic, it would likely be prudent to have the ALAC's GNSO Liaison put forward a suggestion regarding possible Terms of Reference for the GNSO to consider. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
participants (3)
-
Danny Younger -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Thompson, Darlene