[alac] Your comment to the ALAC

["Denise Michel" <denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl,

I don't know what happend to the comment you sent to the ALAC (which address
did you use?), but I will add your comment (below) on the ALAC's draft
criteria and guidelines to the forum archive.  My email to Danny Younger
addresses other questions you raised, and I have included it below.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Denise Michel
michel@xxxxxxxxx

Danny,

All ALAC members have been, and continue to be, accessible through the
posted email address <alac-comments@xxxxxxxxx>.  This address was assigned
when the Interim ALAC members were appointed to immediately route ALAC email
to Committee members.  It was not publicized as a publicly archived email
address, however, and individuals' emails are not posted publicly without
notice.  Individuals have been encouraged to send their substantive comments
on pending ALAC-related issues to <forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and have been
notified that emails sent to this address will be publicly posted.  When
emails are actually sent to this address, they will be posted -- look for a
link on the ALAC's homepage under the "Comment Forum"
(http://alac.icann.org/) (none have been received as of this morning).

You (and the few others who sent substantive comments to the ALAC via the
non-publicly archived email list) were encouraged to re-send the emails to
the forum address to ensure that you wanted your email publicly archived.
If you find this too burdensome, please send me an email directly and let me
know which of your emails you want posted and they will appear on the ALAC's
website.  (I realize that you enjoy publicly posting your emails, but that
is not the case with everyone, and we need to respect other individual's
desire to contact the Committee, and to offer comments, privately.)

The comment period for draft At-Large Structure criteria/process and RALO
guidelines has been extended.  Comments received by the ALAC on this
document that are not publicly archived will be summarized, and a summary
will be posted on the ALAC's comment forum.

Thank you for your continued interest.

Denise Michel
michel@xxxxxxxxx
...............................................................

My comment - Was Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments
To: ga@xxxxxxxx
Subject: My comment - Was Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments
From: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <k96aavsrluvs0onurvo2d6osfktl96ba9q@xxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxx

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> ...and the things we still have to do (such as getting
> the archival of comments up and running).

Because the apparently is no place for people to view the comments, here's
what I sent in...

                --karl--


This message contains various items, all of which concern the "Proposed
Criteria and Accreditation Process for At-Large Structures, and Proposed
Guidelines for Regional At-Large Organizations' (RALOs) Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with ICANN Draft for Public Comment 9 April 2003".

First: Where is the public posting of the comments?  It appears that it
has not been established.

Without there being public posting of comments *while* the discussion
period is open there is no ability for the development of ideas through
the exchange of ideas.  Without the public being able to see the postings
as they occur the whole idea of informed public comment is crippled, if
not rendered a mockery.


Second: The first point under "Proposed minimum criteria for an At-Large
Structure (ALS)" says "...relates to ICANN's technical management
responsibilities for the Internet's domain name and address system..."

I find this linkage of an ALS to "technical" matters to be disingenuous -
ICANN rarely, if ever, deals with technical matters.  ICANN is primarily a
body that deals with legal, social, economic, and business regulatory
matters that have no meaningful relationship to any technical matter
whatsoever.

None of ICANN's other "stakeholders" are obligated to demonstrate that
their concerns or representative organizations arise out of a technical
foundation.  This completely artifical limitation of a "technical"
relationship should not be imposed on those of the internet community or
upon any organizations they chose to represent their views.


Third:  Worthy as many of the criteria are (such as the requirement that
ALS's disclose funding to reveal any conflicts), no similar criteria are
imposed on ICANN's other "stakeholders".  Unless and until such criteria
are imposed equally on all other ICANN "stakeholders" and their
constituent organizations it is unfair to impose these conditions on those
in the internet community or upon any organizations they chose to
represent their views.

                --karl--
                Karl Auerbach
                Elected Director for North America
                Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
                (ICANN)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+pkyD1vJeUn0EFVoRAk4LAJ9C7Ntnyq3remwSaZ0urei4Ie8LRgCfYJtq
oKXspAR+U3NVwCKBMULqUbI=
=+J1k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@xxxxxxxx list.
Send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxx to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html