[alac] Re: [governance] Response to Izumi's comments
At 02:16 19-08-05 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
Izumi: here are my responses to your points. Please forward to the ALAC list.
it seems this discussion leads nowhere. It will be good to try to first clear things among yourselves, and then come to the list. As someone pointed out, not everyone can read tens of messages every day here.
Having said that, I need to reaffirm some things:
>Besides, while GAC has more authority in >that they could formally request ICANN Board >to explain in case the Board >does not follow GAC advice, ALAC has no such authority.
Milton, you keep to make such small, "unimportant" differences. However, when you put them all together, they form one big, important difference.
>I do not support treating the GAC chair and DOC interventions as one >combination. To me, they are of separate nature.
Again - you name a blame on someone, who is not even a member of this list, an "unimportant" thing... But on the other hand you asume as facts something that's "obvious". Ask anyone who believes in God if God exists, and he or she will tell you "But it's obvious". When saying that something is "obvious", that may be obvious to you only, as a true believer in the world conspiracy.
The language could treat them separately.
>Again, I do not agree. They expressed their legitimate concerns >and asked to take more time (delay the decision), but not to reverse >it, at least explicitly. I do not believe that this will directly lead to a >radical change of government position at ICANN per se.
outside ICANN. The Family Research Council has zero participation in ICANN, but it has had more infliuence in this area than ALAC and NCUC combined.
Is this a real argument? Did ALAC and NCUC requested from ICANN more time for this discussion? Were they turned down??
>>We believe that Board's willingness to entertain this last-minute >>intervention, while no doubt intended to be an act of accommodation and >>flexibility, could damage the fairness, credibility and stability of
Again, just words. ICM said they would happily respond to all questions. So, they accepted the delay, but Milton didn't. Who has better understanding of their interests, and what would be, in your words, the obvious conclusion?
>I agree that most GAC members neglected until the last minute
Why not? Why do you judge the way GAC works? It's not the NCUC, it's the GAC; they can decide and excuse themselves from whatever they wish. Same with the other constituencies.
>The Board can, if they so choose, >just ignore them if they think it is the right way, or they can listen to >this last-minute request if that makes more sense. I don't see much >procedural problem.
>My understanding of the Board resolution on this is that they >instructed the staff to enter negotiation with the registry for terms >and conditions, but that does not mean that they approved the result >of the negotiation. Depending on the outcome of the negotiation, the >Board is free to judge yes or no.
Actually, ICM has said, "please do not take decision, we wish to address all questions which may emerge in the meantime".
As a member of the IG group here, I support Izumi.
The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of the Internet Society - Bulgaria (http://www.isoc.bg), or any other organizations, associated with or related to the author.
This note is not legal advice. If it was, it would come with an invoice.