October 2009 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

ALAC/At-Large Performance Management
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

The ALAC has now adopted the Position Description (PD) for ALAC members and Liaisons (http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-PD) Despite satisfaction that it has been approved, I must admit some disappointment at the low voter turnout. I now submit the following discussion paper on how to ensure that the PD is effective. The document is based on the principles I presented in Sydney and modified based on the comments received prior to and at that meeting. It has also drawn very significantly from the policy proposed by Carlos Aguirre. This document will be presented and discussed on Tuesday in Seoul, with the intent of deciding on the principles and to be followed soon thereafter with a formal policy for discussion and approval. Any comments via e-mail or in person received sufficiently prior to the meeting will be incorporated in the presentation. A machine-translated version in French and Spanish will be sent soon. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] NCUC Response to Board Letter
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

Dear Robin: Thanks for your note. Firstly, I think it is important to state that contrary to the subject line of your email, I am not trying to stir up anything. It seems to me that it is not helpful to assume the worst with respect to the motivations of others, as it is my experience that one is likely to be wrong far more often than one is right, which is unfortunately the case here. You and I have known and worked with one another for almost ten years now, much longer than I have been involved in ICANN. During that time, I cannot think of any point at which we have suggested that the other persons motivations were anything other than as stated "on the tin." Having reviewed your letter of 18th August 2009, I note that you have said in your point 3: "Third, because of the danger of locking in a suboptimal structure, we ask you not to approve any new Constítuencies under the SIC and ICANN staff-imposed transitional NCSG charter until the ongoing debates over the status of Constituencies and their role in the NCSG is resolved next year." I think it is therefore fair to say that where I said: "... the NCUC had asked the Board to refrain from approving any new GNSO Constituencies for the two year Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Transition period. ..." I should have said: "... the NCUC had asked the Board to refrain from approving any new GNSO Constituencies until "the ongoing debates over the status of Constituencies and their role in the NCSG is resolved next year"" As that would have precisely quoted you and what you said. I am therefore happy to apologise for the above, which I hope you will accept; I have copied the same two mailing lists that the original email was sent to in order to ensure that everyone who received the original has received this reply. As I think my reply to the NCUC-Discuss list will bounce, I would be glad if you forwarded this note to that list too. On a personal note, I look forward to seeing you in Seoul, and hope your travels are as comfortable as is possible on such a long flight. From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Sent: 21 October 2009 15:54 To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Alan Greenberg; William Drake; at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Rod Beckstrom Subject: NCUC Response to Board Letter & why is staff trying to stir up trouble again? Nick: I note you mis-state NCUC's position saying that we asked the board for no constituencies to be created for 2 years on the ALAC list: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2… That is simply not true. Staff continuing to repeat these divisive untrue statements, especially after having been told they are wrong is very frustrating and counter-productive to everyone. NCUC was also concerned that the Board believed that untruth since it was in that letter that you mention. Therefore NCUC sent a response to the board to the letter you cite in hopes of clearing up the misperception (that you are trying to re-muddy here). Would you please be so kind as to forward to the ALAC list where you just mis-quoted NCUC's position the attached NCUC response to clear up this misperception? Thank you, Robin

2 1

FW: NCUC Response to Board Letter
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

Dear Community members: Robin has reminded me that I didn't forward the PDF containing the NCUC response to the letter referenced in earlier emails; here it is. From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Sent: 21 October 2009 18:42 To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Alan Greenberg; William Drake; at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Rod Beckstrom; At-Large Advisory Committee Subject: Re: NCUC Response to Board Letter Thank you for your clarification, Nick. I'm sure you did not intend to cause further confusion and perpetuate misperceptions about NCUC's position. I'll ask again: Would you please forward NCUC's letter (attached again) that tries to clear up this misperception to the ALAC list? Thank you, Robin

1 0

Quiero ser tu amigo en Quepasa.com
by carlos aguirre Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

1 0

Face-to-Face time requested with CEO Rod Beckstrom in Seoul
by At-Large Staff Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Dear Members: It is our sad duty to let you know that we've been informed that it will not be possible to arrange time for Rod Beckstrom to meet with the ALAC during the Seoul meeting. Of course, you will be seeing the members of the Board at breakfast on Thursday morning and we have not heard of any impediment at this time which will prevent his attendance at that time. In the happy circumstance that his schedule opens up, we will of course let you know. --- Regards, At-Large Staff Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Dear Danny, Beau, Roberto, Alan and other list members: As many of you have recognized in recent posts on this list, the GNSO Improvements implementation process is not yet at a steady state. Transition efforts are still ongoing, especially with respect to the GNSO Non-Commercial and Commercial Stakeholder Groups' (NCSG, CSG) charters. During the email conversation on this topic, it is clear that there's a desire to get together face-to-face to discuss, in particular, matters related to the appointment of the three GNSO Council members appointed by the Board. Me and my colleagues are happy to facilitate the face-to-face meeting in Seoul that you have requested between new constituency advocates and members of the Board's Structural Improvements Committee. We'll get back to you with proposed times and dates when this could take place (with as few conflicts as possible of course). On the subject of Seoul meetings, you may have noted that a public session to discuss GNSO Improvements matters with Board members is now scheduled for Wednesday (28 October) at 1600 local time in the Crystal Ballroom. We encourage all of you traveling to Seoul who are interested in these issues to attend that session. If you are not traveling to Seoul, perhaps you would like to send specific questions to be asked at the Wednesday session to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. We will try to present a number of submitted questions at the session and will plan to have a transcript and recording of the session available soon after the meeting. With respect to constituency formation, some of you may not have noticed the recent letter from ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom and Chair Peter Dengate-Thrush to NCUC Chair Robin Gross that directly addresses the issue of new GNSO Constituencies that you have been discussing. Among several requests, the NCUC had asked the Board to refrain from approving any new GNSO Constituencies for the two year Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Transition period. In responding to the NCUC request, the Board advises the NCUC as follows: "The Board is not in a position to refrain from approving new Constituencies assigned to the NCSG during the two year NCSG transition period. The Board has committed to processing pending applications and has already indicated its intention to have new Constituencies formed with the assistance of the three GNSO Councilors from the NCSG appointed by the Board at its meeting on 30 September. The Board believes that the addition of these new perspectives will broaden and deepen the structural discussions and, potentially, enable fresh new consensus to emerge. We also note that the Board's decision to double the current number of non-commercial seats on the Council was predicated upon the creation of a NCSG in which other diverse, international Constituencies participate along with the current NCUC." A copy of the letter can be found on the ICANN website's Board correspondence page at this link - http://www.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gross-06oct09-en.pdf Staff continues to be available to discuss new constituency formation matters with existing and prospective new constituency proponents to help them make the best use of their resources and to discuss potential recruiting and other support matters unique to prospective new constituencies. Please send a note to Rob Hoggarth at robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org<mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org> if you would like to talk about that process. Finally - for those coming to Seoul, I look forward to seeing you all soon. --- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Inc. (ICANN) http://www.atlarge.icann.org Tel: +33 450 40 46 88 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 Fax: +41 22 594 85 44 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [Fwd: Bylaw-based conflict between your position on the GNSO Council and ALAC Board Liaison overlapping - ACTION NEEDED]
by At-Large Staff Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Dear Wendy: Thank you very much for your prompt reply. After consultations internally, we can confirm that there is no procedural or Bylaw-related impediment to proceeding as you suggest. However, it will be necessary for you to inform the GNSO Council of your situation and that, in particular, you will not be participating in any vote the Council takes until you take your seat after the close of the Seoul meeting. We've been asked to suggest to you that you also inform the NCUC of the situation if you have not already done so, though we are not aware of an obligation for you to do so. -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: 19 October 2009 14:26 To: John Jeffrey; Daniel Halloran; Nick Ashton-Hart; Diane Schroeder Subject: [Fwd: Bylaw-based conflict between your position on the GNSO Council and ALAC Board Liaison overlapping - ACTION NEEDED] I will defer my start on the GNSO Council until after the conclusion of the Seoul meeting. --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Bylaw-based conflict between your position on the GNSO Council and ALAC Board Liaison overlapping - ACTION NEEDED Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:28:37 +0200 From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Reply-To: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> To: <wendy(a)seltzer.com> CC: <vanda(a)uol.com.br>, "'cheryl langdon-orr,'" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org> Dear Wendy, cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vanda Scartezini, ALAC Members, Daniel Halloran Esq., At-Large Secretariat I hope this finds you well. As you know, you have accepted a position on the incoming GNSO Council, which will be seated on Wednesday 28th October. At the same time, your term as ALAC Board Liaison doesn't end until 30th October. With regret, it is my duty to inform you that the Bylaws prohibit a member of the Board, including liaisons, from serving on any other AC or SO council at the same time. For further information, you may consult Article VI, s4,(2) at http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#VI. You will therefore need to notify the General Counsel's office of your resignation as ALAC Board Liaison, with effect on or before the time the GNSO Council meeting opens on Wednesday 28th October. As a related matter, you may wish to let the members of ALAC know which meeting you will attend, the Board or the GNSO, should Board meetings and GNSO Council meetings conflict before your GNSO Council term begins, between Saturday 24th October and the end of Tuesday, 27th. --- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Inc. (ICANN) http://www.atlarge.icann.org Tel: +33 450 40 46 88 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 Fax: +41 22 594 85 44 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/ashtonhart -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?
by William Drake Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Hi Dominik On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:26 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote: > Bill, > > I see some points be more clarified for those not sitting inside > ICANN. If I understand well, the NCUC viewpoint presented by you is > that the NCUC in the new charter supports democratic election of > councilor seats in the GNSO council and those elected councilors > will have obviously voting right exactly as they have it now (the > NCUC has three seats). The difference between NCUC and some At-Large > presented positions is only in a way how the councilors will be > nominated or elected, democratically or hard wired. In other words, > there is no doubt or discussion but a general consensus between the > NCUC and At-Large on the basic fact that NCSG constituency should > have voting councilor seats in the GNSO council in any way. > Am I right? Yes, absolutely. As I said yesterday in response to Roberto, > Agreed. As far as I can tell, everyone sees the 'powers' fairly > similarly, except that NCUC thinks council seats should be filled by > elections, SIC thinks the EC should just hash out the allocation of > seats (which to us sounds like a recipe for trench warfare), and > some in ALAC feel there should be hard wiring. Hopefully we can > have a focused discussion on the relative merits of these approaches > and the trajectories/scenarios they may point to in order to move > this to another level. That's it. We think hard wiring will result in fragmentation within self-regarding silos, with people treating the NCSG as a mere shell within which they can pursue their stand alone agendas rather than feeling an incentive to work with the broader civil society community. And once you get to more than six constituencies, you'd have to start monkeying around with formula for division of the spoils. It is often the case that noncommercial interests and viewpoints are in a distinct minority in the council as they are in ICANN more generally, so encouraging fragmentation is just a recipe for staying powerless, in my view. And as I've said, democratic elections would probably yield the same sort of distribution of council seats anyway, unless a constituency is constitutionally screwed up (e.g. if the consumer group is populated by groups with corporate members who have entirely different agendas) or just a vehicle for a few non-geographically diverse folks, or the candidate is personally impossible to work with, etc. I can't see CS people who work on say privacy not supporting a good candidate from a solid constituency who's advocating positions that are broadly appealing to other CS people. In other civil society networks I participate in--- the iG caucus in the IGF, the CSISAC in OECD, etc---mutual support and broadly shared visions have been more than sufficient to bind people together and produce elections to leadership positions that were non- divisive (without every faction demanding "it's" rep, although here that'd be more of a priority I guess). I can't see any reason the same level of trust and collaboration couldn't prevail in NCSG, other than the generally dysfunctional, trust-free culture that seems to pervade in ICANN. And the SIC's model is even worse, they have the executive committee somehow just "working it out" amongst itself, which will just transfer the fragmentation and competition into a more intensive and divisive process. Whatever one's perspective on the options is, it ought to be the case that we can have a reasoned, adult conversation about how each would likely play out, and it's costs and benefits. We did that internally in NCUC and came to the view that elections were the best way forward. But we've not had the opportunity for a similar conversation with the board/SIC, or with ALAC for that matter. Hopefully we're about to do that with the former now, but re: the latter, there's no NCUC-ALAC meeting scheduled, so I guess it's a matter of talking over beers. Whether that'll be sufficient I don't know, but it's all we can manage, I guess. And BTW, as a member of the council, can I just add that it's slightly puzzling to me that people should be fighting over this particular "prize." If done properly, it's a ton of work, much of it on procedural arcana (my bandwidth has unfortunately been largely absorbed with restructuring hijinks, looking forward to getting past that eventually and having more to work on the substantive policy issues). But I guess ICANN should be happy that folks are just dying to get in there and do it... Bill

2 1

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Officer and Liaison Elections
by Adam Peake Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Congratulations to all, it's a good team. Looking forward to working with you. Best, Adam At 1:06 PM +0200 10/21/09, Sébastien Bachollet wrote: >May I congratulate Cheryl, Alan and Carlton on their elections as Chair, >Vice-chair and Rapporteur as well as Patrick, James, Rudi and Alan as SSAC, >IDN, ccNSO and gNSO Liaisons. > >Hopping that this team will enhance the current work done in this period >post JPA and post review of the ALAC. > >I will do my best to participate also. > >All the best > >Sébastien Bachollet >Président d'honneur - Isoc France >sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr >www.egeni.org >www.isoc.fr > > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- >> lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg >> Envoyé : mercredi 21 octobre 2009 03:38 >> À : ALAC Working List; At-Large Worldwide >> Objet : [ALAC] ALAC Officer and Liaison Elections >> >> Nominations closed on Monday and all of those >> nominated have now either accepted or declined. >> >> In all cases, there remains only one candidate >> for each of the Officer and Liaison positions. >> >> I am not quite clear on whether the results are >> now "official" or if some specific process must >> be followed, but it would appear that all >> nominated and accepted candidates will be elected by acclamation. >> >> Hoping I have not ignored some due process, I >> therefore congratulate Cheryl, Sébastien and >> Carlton on their elections as Chair, Vice-chair >> and Rapporteur as well as Patrick, James and Rudi >> as SSAC, IDN and ccNCS Liaisons. >> >> I do note that the position of >> NCUC/MCSG/User-House Liaison received no >> nominations, but that is reasonable given that we >> will be having the discussion in Seoul on exactly who we will be >> liaising with. >> >> Alan >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- >> lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Officer and Liaison Elections
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Bill is the Liaison FRM NCUC. The slot in discussion is our person being a Liaison with them. With Bill, it is easy to get the hats mixed up! ;-) Alan At 21/10/2009 06:46 AM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Not sure whether I missed something but as far as >I understood, Bill was suggested as Liaison some >weeks ago already. And as a non-ALAC member >I couldn't nominate him "officially". > >Best, >Wolf

1 0