[alac] RE: Clarification of my request to the ALAC

["Roberto Gaetano" <alac_liaison@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ed,

> "The proposal I heard yesterday of publishing the rules of the process for 
> appeal on ALAC's website seems very good to me."
>
> It's not just a good idea, it's the law: Article IV, Section 3.13 of the 
> Bylaws requires, "The IRP operating procedures, and all petitions, claims, 
> and declarations, shall be posted on the Website when they become 
> available."

Let me explain the context of my sentence.
It is obviously required that these documents appear on ICANN's website. 
What I was commenting on was the suggestion of an ALAC member to post the 
material *also* on ALAC's web site (which is not, as far as I know, required 
by Bylaws).

> "It is in order that ALAC takes action in asking the Board for more 
> transparency, publication of the rules for appeal, and what else. It is not 
> in order to push the individual case of Ed, regardless whether we think 
> he's right or wrong."
>
> To clarify my request: I am *not* asking the ALAC to take any position on 
> the merits of my request for a stay, or my request for independent review, 
> or to say how the Board should vote.
>
> I am only asking ALAC to say that my requests should be *properly 
> considered* according to the rules in the Bylaws:
>
> (1) The Board should *consider* and vote yes or no on my request for a 
> stay.
>
> (2) The Board should begin a policy development process to choose an IRP 
> provider and adopt procedures for all requests for independent review (not 
> just my request).

This is where we disagree.
(1) The Board has decided to go forward with .travel. This means to me a 
rejection of the request to stay (but I am not a lawyer). To reopen this 
question with the Board would mean exactly what I state we should not do: 
take a position on the merit of a decision on a specific case. This was the 
sense of my second point, as could be expressed by a non-native-English 
speaker.
(2) The Board has already selected an IRP, specifically the International 
Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association. This 
decision appears in the minutes of the Board meeting of 2004-04-19. The 
procedures to be used are the ones published on their web site 
(http://www.adr.org/International). The point is that there is little 
information on ICANN's web site on this, and therefore ALAC should ask for 
providing more publicity to the procedure. This was the sense of my first 
point, again as could be expressed by a non-native-English speaker.

Regards,
Roberto GAETANO
ALAC
ICANN BoD Liaison

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963