ALAC vote on RAA now open -- and it sucks
So who do we have to thank for the totally biased language below?!! The phrasing of Point #3 is an insult to everyone that has worked hard to draw attention to the great many flaws in the proposed RAA amendments package. On what basis was the determination made: "but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it"? That's a bunch of crap. The Board liaison did not bring forward that viewpoint, nor is there a record of correspondence with any Board members to assert that such is a board position.
From the ALAC Archives:
"At the last ALAC meeting, it was decided to put the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA package to an online vote. The online vote will remain open until Thursday, 18 December at 2359 UTC. Each member of the ALAC will shortly receive a private email with their voting credentials and a link to the online vote. They will be asked to choose between the following options: 1) Recommend the GNSO to defer because the briefing is required to understand the context 2) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current package, with the possibility of further work on amendments on issues remaining continues 3) Recommend the GNSO to reject the amendments package and start from square one, but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it 4) Abstain There's nothing more disgusting than the bald attempt to force through a position vis-a-vis poorly drafted available choices. It's contemptible.
That text was posted in error. I called this to the attention of staff as soon as I saw it. It has been replaced (prior to anyone voting). The four options now read: 1) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future. 2) Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package. 3) Recommend that the GNSO defer the decision until such time that the ALAC can be properly briefed on the current position by ICANN staff 4) Abstain Alan At 11/12/2008 10:58 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
So who do we have to thank for the totally biased language below?!!
The phrasing of Point #3 is an insult to everyone that has worked hard to draw attention to the great many flaws in the proposed RAA amendments package. On what basis was the determination made: "but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it"? That's a bunch of crap. The Board liaison did not bring forward that viewpoint, nor is there a record of correspondence with any Board members to assert that such is a board position.
From the ALAC Archives:
"At the last ALAC meeting, it was decided to put the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA package to an online vote. The online vote will remain open until Thursday, 18 December at 2359 UTC. Each member of the ALAC will shortly receive a private email with their voting credentials and a link to the online vote. They will be asked to choose between the following options:
1) Recommend the GNSO to defer because the briefing is required to understand the context
2) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current package, with the possibility of further work on amendments on issues remaining continues
3) Recommend the GNSO to reject the amendments package and start from square one, but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it
4) Abstain
There's nothing more disgusting than the bald attempt to force through a position vis-a-vis poorly drafted available choices. It's contemptible.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Alan, Perhaps you can explain why this vote only puts forward options to accept/reject/defer a complete "package" of amendments? The ALAC can indeed recommend adopting certain amendments while rejecting other amendments. You have unnecessarily limited the field of available choices. The GNSO is not obligated to vote up or down on a total package and neither is the ALAC -- the amendments can be ratified or rejected on an individual basis. If you want to handle this properly, why don't you get some discussion started with the ALAC members on each of the individual amendments. It would be nice to hear some discussion once in a while by Committee members, don't you think? --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC vote on RAA now open -- and it sucks To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:58 AM That text was posted in error. I called this to the attention of staff as soon as I saw it. It has been replaced (prior to anyone voting). The four options now read:
1) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future.
2) Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package.
3) Recommend that the GNSO defer the decision until such time that the ALAC can be properly briefed on the current position by ICANN staff
4) Abstain
Alan
At 11/12/2008 10:58 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
So who do we have to thank for the totally biased language below?!!
The phrasing of Point #3 is an insult to everyone that has worked hard to draw attention to the great many flaws in the proposed RAA amendments package. On what basis was the determination made: "but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it"? That's a bunch of crap. The Board liaison did not bring forward that viewpoint, nor is there a record of correspondence with any Board members to assert that such is a board position.
From the ALAC Archives:
"At the last ALAC meeting, it was decided to put the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA package to an online vote. The online vote will remain open until Thursday, 18 December at 2359 UTC. Each member of the ALAC will shortly receive a private email with their voting credentials and a link to the online vote. They will be asked to choose between the following options:
1) Recommend the GNSO to defer because the briefing is required to understand the context
2) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current package, with the possibility of further work on amendments on issues remaining continues
3) Recommend the GNSO to reject the amendments package and start from square one, but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it
4) Abstain
There's nothing more disgusting than the bald attempt to force through a position vis-a-vis poorly drafted available choices. It's contemptible.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.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 ------
Danny, unless I (and others I have talked to) misunderstood what Kurt Pritz said at the Thursday GNSO meeting in Cairo, it is all or nothing. Any other package (subset or superset) will require a full-blown GNSO PDP. And my reading is that some of the terms in this package (sucg as enforcement and re-certification on registrar sale) are not terms that are within scope for a GNSO PDP. I personally do not completely understand why this particular package can be addressed by the "old" consensus definition, but any new package requires a full PDP, but that is what has been said. It makes some sense if you believe that the current package was derived based on wide community consultation (which is one of the steps of the old process). I know that some people believe that consultation process was flawed, but I am simply presenting the options that were (I think) given to the GNSO. If I got the message wrong, then I apologize and I will ask the GNSO to defer a decision based on my sending the wrong message to At-Large. Alan At 11/12/2008 12:16 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
Perhaps you can explain why this vote only puts forward options to accept/reject/defer a complete "package" of amendments? The ALAC can indeed recommend adopting certain amendments while rejecting other amendments. You have unnecessarily limited the field of available choices.
The GNSO is not obligated to vote up or down on a total package and neither is the ALAC -- the amendments can be ratified or rejected on an individual basis. If you want to handle this properly, why don't you get some discussion started with the ALAC members on each of the individual amendments. It would be nice to hear some discussion once in a while by Committee members, don't you think?
--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC vote on RAA now open -- and it sucks To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:58 AM That text was posted in error. I called this to the attention of staff as soon as I saw it. It has been replaced (prior to anyone voting). The four options now read:
1) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future.
2) Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package.
3) Recommend that the GNSO defer the decision until such time that the ALAC can be properly briefed on the current position by ICANN staff
4) Abstain
Alan
At 11/12/2008 10:58 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
So who do we have to thank for the totally biased language below?!!
The phrasing of Point #3 is an insult to everyone that has worked hard to draw attention to the great many flaws in the proposed RAA amendments package. On what basis was the determination made: "but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it"? That's a bunch of crap. The Board liaison did not bring forward that viewpoint, nor is there a record of correspondence with any Board members to assert that such is a board position.
From the ALAC Archives:
"At the last ALAC meeting, it was decided to put the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA package to an online vote. The online vote will remain open until Thursday, 18 December at 2359 UTC. Each member of the ALAC will shortly receive a private email with their voting credentials and a link to the online vote. They will be asked to choose between the following options:
1) Recommend the GNSO to defer because the briefing is required to understand the context
2) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current package, with the possibility of further work on amendments on issues remaining continues
3) Recommend the GNSO to reject the amendments package and start from square one, but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it
4) Abstain
There's nothing more disgusting than the bald attempt to force through a position vis-a-vis poorly drafted available choices. It's contemptible.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.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 ------
Alan, It matters little what Kurt Pritz said at Cairo -- ICANN Staff does not call the shots -- this is supposed to be a bottom-up organization in which the stakeholders have the voice. All or nothing is not how the GNSO has managed its policy development process thus far. The transfers policy work is just one example of how a large package got broken down into more managable bits, each with its own PDP. Further, you are well aware that even if the ICANN Counsel determines that a PDP is not in scope, his opinion can be overridden by the Council (which is what effectively happened in the Contractual Conditions PDP). If you want to press forward, start by demanding that Staff put together the briefing that the ALAC requested. You have seen that ICANN can throw together a briefing in short notice when it wants to -- see the "Outrageous" thread -- the ALAC is getting screwed by Staff and shouldn't put up with this type of BS. In the meantime, a request to defer GNSO action until we (and other intrerested GNSO parties) have had a briefing is certainly not out of line. --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC vote on RAA now open -- and it sucks To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 12:26 PM Danny, unless I (and others I have talked to) misunderstood what Kurt Pritz said at the Thursday GNSO meeting in Cairo, it is all or nothing. Any other package (subset or superset) will require a full-blown GNSO PDP. And my reading is that some of the terms in this package (sucg as enforcement and re-certification on registrar sale) are not terms that are within scope for a GNSO PDP.
I personally do not completely understand why this particular package can be addressed by the "old" consensus definition, but any new package requires a full PDP, but that is what has been said. It makes some sense if you believe that the current package was derived based on wide community consultation (which is one of the steps of the old process). I know that some people believe that consultation process was flawed, but I am simply presenting the options that were (I think) given to the GNSO.
If I got the message wrong, then I apologize and I will ask the GNSO to defer a decision based on my sending the wrong message to At-Large.
Alan
At 11/12/2008 12:16 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
Perhaps you can explain why this vote only puts forward options to accept/reject/defer a complete "package" of amendments? The ALAC can indeed recommend adopting certain amendments while rejecting other amendments. You have unnecessarily limited the field of available choices.
The GNSO is not obligated to vote up or down on a total package and neither is the ALAC -- the amendments can be ratified or rejected on an individual basis. If you want to handle this properly, why don't you get some discussion started with the ALAC members on each of the individual amendments. It would be nice to hear some discussion once in a while by Committee members, don't you think?
--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC vote on RAA now open -- and it sucks To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:58 AM That text was posted in error. I called this to the attention of staff as soon as I saw it. It has been replaced (prior to anyone voting). The four options now read:
1) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future.
2) Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package.
3) Recommend that the GNSO defer the decision until such time that the ALAC can be properly briefed on the current position by ICANN staff
4) Abstain
Alan
At 11/12/2008 10:58 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
So who do we have to thank for the totally biased language below?!!
The phrasing of Point #3 is an insult to everyone that has worked hard to draw attention to the great many flaws in the proposed RAA amendments package. On what basis was the determination made: "but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it"? That's a bunch of crap. The Board liaison did not bring forward that viewpoint, nor is there a record of correspondence with any Board members to assert that such is a board position.
From the ALAC Archives:
"At the last ALAC meeting, it was decided to put the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA package to an online vote. The online vote will remain open until Thursday, 18 December at 2359 UTC. Each member of the ALAC will shortly receive a private email with their voting credentials and a link to the online vote. They will be asked to choose between the following options:
1) Recommend the GNSO to defer because the briefing is required to understand the context
2) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current package, with the possibility of further work on amendments on issues remaining continues
3) Recommend the GNSO to reject the amendments package and start from square one, but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it
4) Abstain
There's nothing more disgusting than the bald attempt to force through a position vis-a-vis poorly drafted available choices. It's contemptible.
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site:
------ 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 ------
------ 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 ------
Our opinion of how the ALAC would like to see the GNSO address the RAA was sought and we are in the process of giving it. We do not have a vote on the GNSO, and presumably the Council will follow whatever path it chooses, which may well be to reject the current "package" and start one or more PDPs. The GNSO can initiate a PDP which is out of scope (requiring a larger threshold to initiate and for the Board to ratify). However, in this case, my understanding (which may be wrong), is that the policy is still bounded by the terms of RAA section 4.2 which lists the topics eligible for consensus policies. Regarding a staff briefing, I certainly hope that our displeasure at missing the agreed-to deadline was duly noted by staff. Alan At 11/12/2008 12:52 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
It matters little what Kurt Pritz said at Cairo -- ICANN Staff does not call the shots -- this is supposed to be a bottom-up organization in which the stakeholders have the voice.
All or nothing is not how the GNSO has managed its policy development process thus far. The transfers policy work is just one example of how a large package got broken down into more managable bits, each with its own PDP. Further, you are well aware that even if the ICANN Counsel determines that a PDP is not in scope, his opinion can be overridden by the Council (which is what effectively happened in the Contractual Conditions PDP).
If you want to press forward, start by demanding that Staff put together the briefing that the ALAC requested. You have seen that ICANN can throw together a briefing in short notice when it wants to -- see the "Outrageous" thread -- the ALAC is getting screwed by Staff and shouldn't put up with this type of BS.
In the meantime, a request to defer GNSO action until we (and other intrerested GNSO parties) have had a briefing is certainly not out of line.
--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC vote on RAA now open -- and it sucks To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 12:26 PM Danny, unless I (and others I have talked to) misunderstood what Kurt Pritz said at the Thursday GNSO meeting in Cairo, it is all or nothing. Any other package (subset or superset) will require a full-blown GNSO PDP. And my reading is that some of the terms in this package (sucg as enforcement and re-certification on registrar sale) are not terms that are within scope for a GNSO PDP.
I personally do not completely understand why this particular package can be addressed by the "old" consensus definition, but any new package requires a full PDP, but that is what has been said. It makes some sense if you believe that the current package was derived based on wide community consultation (which is one of the steps of the old process). I know that some people believe that consultation process was flawed, but I am simply presenting the options that were (I think) given to the GNSO.
If I got the message wrong, then I apologize and I will ask the GNSO to defer a decision based on my sending the wrong message to At-Large.
Alan
At 11/12/2008 12:16 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
Perhaps you can explain why this vote only puts forward options to accept/reject/defer a complete "package" of amendments? The ALAC can indeed recommend adopting certain amendments while rejecting other amendments. You have unnecessarily limited the field of available choices.
The GNSO is not obligated to vote up or down on a total package and neither is the ALAC -- the amendments can be ratified or rejected on an individual basis. If you want to handle this properly, why don't you get some discussion started with the ALAC members on each of the individual amendments. It would be nice to hear some discussion once in a while by Committee members, don't you think?
--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC vote on RAA now open -- and it sucks To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:58 AM That text was posted in error. I called this to the attention of staff as soon as I saw it. It has been replaced (prior to anyone voting). The four options now read:
1) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future.
2) Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package.
3) Recommend that the GNSO defer the decision until such time that the ALAC can be properly briefed on the current position by ICANN staff
4) Abstain
Alan
At 11/12/2008 10:58 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
So who do we have to thank for the totally biased language below?!!
The phrasing of Point #3 is an insult to everyone that has worked hard to draw attention to the great many flaws in the proposed RAA amendments package. On what basis was the determination made: "but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it"? That's a bunch of crap. The Board liaison did not bring forward that viewpoint, nor is there a record of correspondence with any Board members to assert that such is a board position.
From the ALAC Archives:
"At the last ALAC meeting, it was decided to put the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA package to an online vote. The online vote will remain open until Thursday, 18 December at 2359 UTC. Each member of the ALAC will shortly receive a private email with their voting credentials and a link to the online vote. They will be asked to choose between the following options:
1) Recommend the GNSO to defer because the briefing is required to understand the context
2) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current package, with the possibility of further work on amendments on issues remaining continues
3) Recommend the GNSO to reject the amendments package and start from square one, but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it
4) Abstain
There's nothing more disgusting than the bald attempt to force through a position vis-a-vis poorly drafted available choices. It's contemptible.
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site:
------ 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 ------
------ 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 ------
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
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
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Danny Younger