Richard has asked, "With such limited input does this report truly represent the ALAC's position?" I find myself asking the very same question. Sadly, I have not noticed any discussion of the GAC Scorecard on the ALAC Discussion list, and I have to wonder if perhaps 2/3 of the ALAC hasn't even seen the document currently under discussion. I would venture that if the ALAC is unable to have these Scorecard matters properly discussed in a transparent fashion on their own mailing list, then perhaps the ALAC should take a pass on offering any advice at this time before it totally destroys whatever remains of its limited credibility. There are several parts of the draft statement that I find troubling, but for the sake of expediency, let me just point to the very first issue to catch my attention -- the topic of TLD blocking. I am not aware of a public record of any ALAC discussion on this matter, yet a viewpoint is being put forth that purports to speak for all of us. So, I have to ask, is this the ALAC's formal position and if so where is it documented, or is it merely Evan's position? Some of us are rightfully worried about the possibility of collateral damage associated with widescale blocking activities. The GAC prudently called for studies on the topic and the SSAC has already agreed to form a working group to develop a more thorough report on the implications of blocking. The prudent course of action would have been for the ALAC to reserve judgment until such time as the SSAC arrives at its conclusions on blocking; instead, as I see it, the ALAC appears poised to issue an opinion without the benefit of either a wide-ranging discussion or a set of researched facts at its disposal. The limited input is a real concern, and it serves to taint whatever advice the ALAC will ultimately tender. --- On Fri, 3/25/11, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> wrote:

From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Edits and comments to NARALO/ ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Friday, March 25, 2011, 7:59 PM

It would be good to see a substantive discussion of the many points raised by Antony in his recent post - most of which I agree with.     

There doesn't seem to be a broad ALAC dialogue on this very important report.   Some of the items in the report do not appear logical,  and other items seem to represent changes in GNSO policy recommendations. 

If accepted, the report's recommendations will significantly delay new TLDs as extensive new processes and language will have to be developed for the Applicant Guidebook. A prime example is the implementation of a fair mechanism to introduce TLDs in limited rounds.  In 2 years discussion of that topic I have not yet heard an implementation proposal that wouldn't favor well funded, technologically savvy or politically connected applicants.

With such limited input does this report truly represent the ALAC's position?

Regards

Richard Tindal ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------