Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

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

26 July 2019

ADOPTED

14Y, 0N, 0A

24 July 2019

26 July 2019

26 July 2019

30 July 2019

26 July 2019

AL-ALAC-ST-0719-01-01-EN

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).

Submitted by Alan Greenberg, 24 July 2019 22:07 UTC

Spelling correction: 25 July 2029 02:29 (Thanks Olivier)


The ALAC supported the current version of the ICANN Bylaws Section 18.7(a) and 18.7(b), but understands that it has now proven to be difficult to implement.

The ALAC agrees that the proposed change preserves the intent of the original Fundamental Bylaw and supports the change.

Subject to any new information being brought to the ALAC’s attention, the current intention is that the ALAC will support this Fundamental Bylaw change when it is presented to the Empowered Community.

4 Comments

  1. I would support the amendment.

    The current Bylaws was trying to ensure that the review not be done PURELY by ccNSO members, but included those (a shrinking number!) who do not choose to be affiliated with the ccNSO. Apparently implementation is not easy and I think the wording proposed will ensure openess without the constraints of having to get a volunteer who meets a variety of qualifications and willing to devote the time from a limited subset of ccTLDs.

  2. I believe that the ALAC SHOULD comment and say that based on our current understanding, when this proposed Bylaw is proposed to the Empowered Community, the ALAC will support it.

    This allows us to change our position if new information comes to light, but makes it clear that we do support the change. Although such a comment is not required under the Bylaws, it is important that we state our position at this time.

  3. Draft comment posted as requested.