<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [At-Large] Public Forum presentation - draft



Vittorio,
Why don't you raise the issue with the Board?
RG
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:alac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Vittorio Bertola
> Sent: 29 March 2007 12:25
> To: Nick Ashton-Hart
> Cc: Interim ALAC
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Public Forum presentation - draft
> 
> I am moving this to the public list, because it is very important.
> 
> We can discuss on words, but your interpretation of the text 
> of the PDP that would require the GNSO Council to approve a 
> request for an Issue Report by an Advisory Committee is not 
> what was agreed in year 2002. It was explicitly said that we 
> were advisory, but we'd have the unilateral right (of course 
> to be used with care) to put things on the GNSO agenda. 
> I have even checked this with a GNSO guru during the break, 
> who said that there's no way that it can be differently from 
> this - we just need to phrase the request correctly.
> 
> If the ICANN staff stays with that interpretation, and if it 
> is confirmed by the GNSO, I would like to raise the issue 
> with the other ACs and with the Board to understand whether 
> this is actually the intent of ICANN at the political level.
> 
> Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
> > Your interpretation does not square with the ICANN GC. Note 
> the word 
> > 'request' in 1(c). Further, you do not request ICANN Staff for an 
> > issues report; you send a request to the GNSO as per 1(c).
> > 
> > On 29/03/07, *Izumi AIZU* <iza@xxxxxxx <mailto:iza@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > 
> >     Yes, I looked at 1 c. already, as follows,
> > 
> >     1 c. /Advisory Committee Initiation./ An Advisory Committee may
> >     raise an issue for policy development by action of such 
> committee to
> >     commence the PDP, and transmission of that request to the GNSO 
> > Council
> > 
> >     The "transmission of that request" implies to the 
> commence of PDP,
> >     but NOT issue report IMHO. So, this does not prevent us from
> >     requesting ICANN Staff for Issue Report. Otherwise, 
> there is little
> >     room for any advisory committee  - I cannot imagine GAC 
> accepts this
> >     and ask GNSO council to reuqest Issue report  or RSSAC 
> or SSAC does...
> > 
> >     izumi
> > 
> >     2007/3/29, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >     <mailto:nashton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
> > 
> >         Look at 1(c). Then look at 2....
> > 
> >         On 29/03/07, *Vittorio Bertola* < vb@xxxxxxxxxx
> >         <mailto:vb@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > 
> >             Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
> >>  Note one error below of process. Quite important not to
> >             misstate the process...
> >>
> >> >However, there is  a need for more concrete information to
> >             prove these
> >> >problems actually exist and are affecting the ordinary
> >             users and their
> >> >experience in using the Internet. Therefore ALAC is
> >             drafting a formal
> >> >request shortly to ask ICANN staff to prepare an Issue
> >             Report. At the same
> >>
> >>  This above statement is the problem. What ALAC can do is
> >             ask the GNSO
> >>  Council to ask for an Issues Report to be prepared.
> > 
> >             Huh? If you go to
> >             http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA
> >             <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA>, point
> >             2, it says that upon the request of "a properly 
> supported
> >             motion from an
> >             Advisory Committee", staff will create an Issue Report,
> >             which will then
> >             go to the GNSO council together with a recommendation on
> >             whether or not
> >             to start a PDP. You clarified a few mails ago 
> that according
> >             to Dan "a
> >             properly supported motion" is one that the 
> majority of the
> >             ALAC approved
> >             in a formal vote.
> > 
> >             I don't know how that can be read differently - 
> are you sure
> >             that you
> >             mean what you wrote? I thought Maria had said 
> that the GNSO
> >             council
> >             needs to approve the starting of a PDP, not the 
> creation of
> >             an issue report.
> >             --
> >             vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] 
> bertola.eu  
> 
> -- 
> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l
> ists.icann.org
> 
> www.alac.icann.org
> www.icannalac.org


_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

www.alac.icann.org
www.icannalac.org