AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

  • No labels

9 Comments

  1. Alberto Soto

    Dear, this is the opinion of LACRALO:

     

    We agree with what Vanda has pointed out. Particularly, we suggest to follow the advise of adding one sentence to the chapter procedures.

     

    In this respect, we support the suggestion already done. This means:

     

    " Add to any criteria under consideration an impact analysis on the efficiency, efficacy and costs related to substantives processes that ICANN shall be transparent and accountable to its community"

    1. Alan Greenberg

      I would suggest that you provide the exact wording that you want, and note exactly where in the charter it belongs.

      1. Fatima Cambronero

        Alan, Alberto,

         

        This was a comment raised by Alejandro Pisanty in the LACRALO mailing list. Maybe he can provide the information about in which part of the Charter this text should be added.

         

        Fatima

         

         

  2. Alberto Soto

    We are already in contact with Alexander. That view was supported by several members of LACRALO. We hope to answer in time.

    thanks!

  3. Glenn McKnight

    The  document is  pretty comprehensive and  I applaud the authors.  Not  sure on one point  

    How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested?

    What mechanisms  did you suggest on degrees on this  above.

  4. Alan Greenberg

    I note that the GNSO today approved the Charter without amendment.

    Since this comment period is already closed, and the chances of they GNSO going back ad amending the charter after-the-fact is unlikely, I would suggest that the ALAC simply vote on the original charter.

     

  5. Alberto Soto

    I agree. Unfortunately those who were responsible for drafting, did not arrive on time.  

    1. Fatima Cambronero

      Alan, I understood your point. I would like to make a clarification: this comment was sent to the ALAC mailing list twice: one by Vanda and one by Alberto before the deadline. But yesterday Tijani said that he didn't receive any relevant comment. Alberto pointed out again this comment and the comment was copied in the AC chat. And after that, the suggestion to copy the comment in the Wiki was made.

      I can understand that you cannot add amendments to avoid having a different version of the Charter than the GNSO have approved. Also, in principle I can accept that argument.

      Besides I would suggest that in the future we improve the mechanisms to receive the comments from our RALOs and ALSs, especially when they are made within the open period to receive comments.

      Thanks.

      Fatima

      1. Alan Greenberg

        Fatima, I welcome suggestions on how to do this better in the future.

        Alan