You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 12 Current »

Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Comments
Close 
Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

20 February 2019

ADOPTED

13Y, 0A, 1N

13 February 2019

19 February 2019

20 February 2019

24 February 2019


Hide the information below, please click here 


FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 




FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.



DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) appreciate the opportunity to participate in the public comment on Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews. The ALAC understands that the specific reviews are a critical part of the accountability framework put in place as part of the IANA transition and that with some experience now behind us, it’s important to carefully define the process and the roles of the various players including the ICANN community, ICANN ORG and the ICANN Board. The ALAC appreciates the work that has gone into these updates and considers them essential for the health of these accountability mechanisms and ICANN itself. While there are some concerns about the potential for too much process associated with these already challenging reviews, it is the view of the ALAC that this level of specificity is necessary to prevent misunderstandings and missteps by any of the parties involved in the review. Scope should be well defined within the confines of bylaws and review teams should be free to pursue their mandate within that scope. Accordingly, the ALAC would like to voice our strong support for these updates to the Operating Standards for Specific Reviews.

  • No labels