Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review / Comment Periods

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

Nick and all,

  I agree with the sentament.  But in parctice, as has been repeatedly 
demonstrated withing the
NARALO and the ALAC it is clear that there is significant desire for selective 
censorship
of interested parties, myself and our members especially it seems, to be able 
to remark
and comment openly and freely on the ALAC and NARALO forums as you well know
Nick.  Such does not boad well for the whole ALAC idea...

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

> I thought I would make a point here which might be helpful with respect to 
> the timing of making statements about the draft ALAC Review report.
>
> The consultation going on now is so that the draft may be publicly discussed 
> in Paris, for those who feel that something is missing (as in you said 
> something to the review which you believe has been left out), and this text 
> hasn't been reviewed by the Board, the ALAC Review Committee, or anyone else.
>
> This is not to say that comments aren't welcome - on the contrary, as you 
> know I'm always asking for the community to comment more, not less :). I just 
> want to make sure everyone understands that the report will have a full 
> comment period after it is finalised. This is the first of two comment 
> periods on the report and I'm sure any next steps after the report will 
> similarly be posted for public comment too, just as you have seen with the 
> GNSO Review.
>
> I've also made a request that this comment period be lengthened, as 
> translations will not be ready until only a few days before the present 
> comment period is meant to end, and without translations many in AFRALO and 
> LACRALO will be unable to respond on an equal basis to everyone else.
>
> If you feel that the comment period is too short - do comment in that vein to 
> the comment address and let Westlake know in Paris (for those of you who are 
> going to be in Paris).
>
> Of course, the point made that any NARALO perspectives which are made clear 
> can only help NARALO members attending Paris is IMHO entirely relevant, FWIW.
>
> I hope these comments are helpful - that's certainly the intent.
>
> On 18/06/2008 21:13, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello fellow NARALOites,
>
> I have heard from a number of our RALO members on the issue of the draft
> report, but far from everyone and not even a majority.
>
> I believe this issue is important, because if accepted as-is the
> proposed changes will diminish the role of At-Large in ICANN goings-on
> at a time when this role requires enhancement. All the well-intentioned
> policy work we can do will be impeded or "consensus-ed" into the ground,
> with no real clout at the Board level.
>
> Those who have spoken on the issue that I have heard from have all been
> critical, but this is far from a widespread protest.
>
> I would like to know whether there is interest in having a NARALO
> position on the draft report before the Paris meeting. Having this would
> help guide your representatives there (myself, Darlene, Beau and Robert)
> on the inevitable discussions on the issue that will take place. Perhaps
> we may even be able to prod the global ALAC into action of its own.
>
> I have no problem writing a initial position to post for endorsement --
> but it would reflect my own deep negative reaction which has already
> been described on this list. My time is very limited, however, and I
> would prefer not to start this if no interest exists in creating a
> regional position. If interest does exist, I can draft a brief statement
> (preferably working with others who would like to help) and see if, with
> any suggested modifications, it can be accepted by NARALO through
> consensus by Sunday morning.
>
> Is this reasonable? Is a statement desirable? I find it very unnerving
> that there has been ZERO reaction on the global ALAC list except for
> Izumi's brief comment. If ALAC is not interested in staking out a
> membership-based position then I think NARALO needs to step up.
>
> What does everyone else think? Feel free to reply privately, if that is
> appropriate for you, and I can incorporate your comments anonymously.
> Even if there is no consensus on a region-wide point of view, all input
> is helpful.
>
> - Evan
>
> ------
> 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
> ------
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> Director for At-Large
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88
> USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637
> Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44
> Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68
> email: nick.ashton-hart@xxxxxxxxx
> Win IM: ashtonhart@xxxxxxxxxxx / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@xxxxxxx / Skype: 
> nashtonhart
> Online Bio:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
> ------
> 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
> ------

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"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