Re: [At-Large] Public Forum presentation

On 29/03/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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/  <--------

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