[ga] Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC vote on RAA now open -- and itsucks

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all,

  Nicely outlined and stated.  But utterly a waste of band width.  The
ALAC has as you know well, been willing as Alan has already clearly
stated again, kow-tow to the GNSO council or the ICANN staff.  In other
terms, lying with dogs you will very likely get fleas.  Pretty simple concept.

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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC vote on RAA now open -- and it 
> > sucks
> > To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "NA Discuss" 
> > <na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Alan Greenberg
> > <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC vote on
> > RAA now open -- and it sucks
> > > > To: "At-Large Worldwide"
> > <at-large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "NA
> > Discuss" <na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > >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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > >
> > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> > > > ------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------
> > NA-Discuss mailing list
> > NA-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> > ------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827