ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC

  • To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, NA Discuss <na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx, gnso-improvements-report-2008@xxxxxxxxx, icann-board@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:32:16 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Danny and all,

  I agree fully.  Further the document that was attached
is in a format that is conducive to transmitting malware
and spyware.  And further still, it largely does not 
reflect the actual Internet community where users are 
by far the largest segment, yet have no predominant or for
that matter ANY direct voice, and no vote on issues or process.  

  Whomever drafted this document is demonstrating clearly
a lack of experience, knowledge, knowledge in history of the
formation of ICANN, the principals of the MOU, and a decided
incoherence of the current reality of policy determination
and subsequent implementation as well as oversight and compliance
of same and existing policy which has been repeatedly abused
by registries and registrars predominantly at the expense of
users and registrants alike.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Apr 23, 2008 6:02 AM
>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>, NA Discuss 
>Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC
>The ALAC has participated in a joint statement without
>any consultative engagement with its own membership; 
>such behavior should not be countenanced -- the final
>Statement is posted here:
>--- Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a
>> document being drafted on
>> a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some
>> sort of "public"
>> representation that has come up with some very
>> strange conclusions. Here
>> is an early draft of the document:
>> A more recent version of the draft has essentially
>> gutted ALAC's role
>> and calls for some sort of direct participation by
>> ALSs. The truly
>> amazing thing is that this is being advanced as
>> having the support of
>> ALAC itself! 
>> Compounding the problem is that the closing of
>> public comments is this
>> week -- and the fact that the document is still in
>> flux!! How can "the
>> public" adequately address a moving target in this
>> manner?
>> Frankly, not only the document but the process that
>> has produced it is
>> flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now
>> heard from Beau and
>> Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC list
>> -- why is it being
>> debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact with
>> me). I am asking one
>> or more of you to help craft a NARALO position that
>> we can submit this
>> week. I will do my best to help but I will likely be
>> incapacitated for
>> most of the rest of this week because of surgery.
>> Both the document (at least in its current form) and
>> the process that
>> developed it IMO should not be submitted as
>> something with widespread --
>> let alone universal -- public support. Can some
>> folks here please get
>> together to draft something upon which NARALO can
>> get a consensus
>> statement and submit before the deadline?
>> Thanks!
>> - Evan
>> ------
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>> ------
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>Be a better friend, newshound, and 
>know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
>ALAC mailing list
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy