On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Bill:
As you addressed the question in the first paragraph to me, I'm replying, but as I didn't compose the staff summary Rob is really the better person to say what was intended by the paragraph in question, so I've copied him in.
That said, I don't believe that Rob intended (or that what he wrote actually suggests) characterises everything she said as being from ALAC - in fact it is made quite clear that her comment is a compilation of the previously-expressed views of the ALAC, and
not an Advisory.
Here's the language:
Finally, although the majority of comments were strongly in support of returning to the original NCUC Charter version, ALAC favored the SIC‟s NCSG Charter that, “best meets the aims of the new GNSO Model and the Boards criteria, which we support, and believe
is (with the additional version changes as at July 19th ) being essentially met.” Continuing in this vein, ALAC noted, “Maturity and development of the new design GNSO and specifically the parity and viability of the User House will benefit greatly with the
„fresh start‟ this Charter in our opinion provides and it should be noted that in it we can see that the opinions and views brought forward in our processes, activities and meetings on the matter have been recognised, heard and considered.” [p.10]
Two commenters did not concur with the majority view. ALAC said, “At each of the User House Meetings since Cairo the ALAC has advised a lack of support and various concerns about the NCUC developed NCSG Charter version.” [p. 11]
Whatever Rob intended, I think most people would read "ALAC favored the SIC's NCSG Charter" as meaning that ALAC favored the SIC's NCSG Charter, etc.
I would also note that whilst it is not mentioned, Alan's statement to the consultation period seems salutary in respect of understanding more clearly what the issues were with the previous comments made on previous drafts by the ALAC with respect to your third
paragraph.
Alan's statement
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00069.html "reiterate[s] that these comments are consistent with formal statements made by the ALAC over the last year." I don't see a formally approved statement at
http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence.
I do see in the previous comment period a message from Alan
http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html that says "The following comment has
the explicit support of a number of ALAC members, but has not yet been subjected to a formal ALAC vote. It does reflect the comments that have been made by ALAC members in recent months [checking the list record, about a handful]. The ALAC is divided on
the support of the proposal submitted by Robin Gross of the NCUC. Some members feel that although there are some problems with the proposal, it generally addresses their concerns, and in particular, the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a
very good move in the right direction. Problems notwithstanding, the proposal should receive Board approval. Others feel that the issues still outstanding are sufficient to withhold Board support at this time."
It is not obvious how "ALAC favored the SIC's NCSG Charter" can be deemed "consistent with" the earlier "The ALAC is divided on the support of the proposal submitted by Robin Gross of the NCUC..." especially given the lack of discussion, much less consensus
or a formal position, on the SIC's NCSG Charter. But no matter, we all understand where we are here.