July 2009 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Comment on NCSG Charters
by Alan Greenberg July 31, 2009

July 31, 2009

Adam, on the Euro-Discuss list, you had the following quote, and I think (but am not sure) that it is the one that you quoted during the ALAC meeting this week. " We also may differ from some of the current constituencies on how the GNSO should evolve after the new structure is implemented. As noted in the BGC report, the process for forming new constituencies has been in the By-Laws as long as the GNSO has existed. But it has never happened, presumably due to the (real or perceived) heavy burden of ³self-forming² and then ongoing management. Within the new structure, it may be even more difficult, due to a potential for the existing constituencies to believe that they can represent all viewpoints, thus eliminating the need for new constituencies." And goes on to make comments about how constituencies can be created without the barriers we've seen in the past. By summarizing the next part in one sentence eliminates some of the key issues. It says: So expecting a group to self-form and become a new GNSO constituency is expecting a lot. If it is to happen at all, there are several things that must facilitate this: . ICANN (and the stakeholder groups) will have to make it as easy as possible to create and operate new constituencies. The requirements they must meet must be reasonable and applied with consistency. . These new entities must feel comfortable that they will be able to participate in the Policy Development Process as discretely identifiable bodies, at a level comparable to (and not subservient to) the long-established players (of course factoring in size). Without that guarantee, there is little reason for them to make the considerable effort needed to enter into GNSO processes. . The new addition level of hierarchy moving from GNSO->¨Constituency to GNSO->¨Stakeholder Group¨Constituency (or as per the consensus proposal GNSO->¨House->¨Stakeholder Group->¨Constituency) must be managed to minimize the need for additional complexity and additional volunteer effort. Thin layers will be, in our opinion, absolutely mandatory. If the above can be accomplished within the new Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, the non-commercial rebirth envisioned in section 5.3 of the BGC report may actually happen. The second bullet is crucial. In my mind (and I don't expect to alter your views or those of the NCUC folks who drafted it), the NCUC-proposed NCSG charter does not come close to satisfying the second bullet. I believe that charter sets too high a threshold to getting the views of a new constituency to be voiced on Council. The SIC-proposed charter addresses this by allowing the Board to select some Councillors until such time as the new players in the NCSG can participate in the drafting of the longer-term rules for selecting councillors. That is absolutely key to attracting those new people into the game. By having the flat model that was proposed by the NCUC, you have the need to a small new constituency (or interest group) to convince others that their ideas merit support, a potentially difficult thing to do it those ideas do not support the established thinking (and I am reminded on the radically differing views on Whois by those who advocate privacy and those who are looking at consumer protection issues). The SIC proposal also removed the possibility of capture, and issue that did not arise until the early NCSG charter drafts (and one that is present in the CyberSecurity draft as well). I honestly don't know if that issue was raised in a formal ALAC statement (I haven't had the chance to check), but it was continually raised in public and private discussions with the NCUC. In the end, once everyone is at the table, the final NCSG charter may look very similar to the NCUC proposal, and if some that is fine. As long as any new constituencies have had a chance to participate in the discussion. Alan

2 1

[Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010]
by At-Large Staff July 31, 2009

July 31, 2009

Dear ALAC Members: Below please find a note prepared by the staff in order to help inform discussion in At-Large on how to allocate the travel funds available in this fiscal year. When the ALAC Executive Committee met at the end of the Sydney meeting, Steve and Kevin joined them and a discussion about travel was held; one of the take-aways was that the staff would look at the available pool of funds and see what options could be envisaged that stretched those funds as far as possible to (in particular) ensure that each RALO could hold a General Assembly each year. There will be a pair of teleconferences shortly with Kevin, Steve, the At-Large staff, and any of you and the wider At-Large community who wish to attend in order to discuss travel support for this coming fiscal year; as you will see in the below time is of the essence to come to a decision on who to fund, what for, and how. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:50:44 +0200 From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr>, Vanda Scartezini UOL <vanda(a)uol.com.br>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson(a)icann.org>, Steve Antonoff <steve.antonoff(a)icann.org>, Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org> CC: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Dear Cheryl, Vanda, Alan, and Sebastien: In order to help inform ALAC's discussions about how travel support funds allocated to the At-Large community can be used to support both RALO General Assemblies and ICANN Meeting attendance, Steve, Kevin, Heidi and I have had a few conversations and Kevin and Steve have run the numbers against a couple of scenarios. As you know, currently ICANN’s budget and travel guidelines provide for 15 At-Large members and 10 RALO representatives (two from each RALO) for travel to each of the three ICANN meetings. This support includes air travel, hotel, and per diems. We offer two alternatives to the current arrangement in order to be able to fund a portion of the General Assemblies: Option 1: * Support 15 At-Large members and 5 RALO representatives (one from each RALO) for travel each ICANN meeting (to include the same air, hotel, per diem support as before). * Fund five General Assemblies annually (one for each RALO) under the following terms and conditions: o ICANN would support up to 40% of RALO members not to exceed a total of 10 members for each General Assembly as follows: o Site for the General Assembly decided in consultation with ICANN to ensure that the site chosen is economically viable within available resources, whilst facilitating participation by ALSes. o ICANN would pay for a meeting room at the hotel o ICANN would pay for “remote participation” set up as necessary o Round trip lowest cost economy air fare for supported travelers o Two nights hotel accommodations (to include tax but not incidentals) for supported travelers o Two days of per diem per supported traveler (per diem to be established based on approved location in the same method as per diems are established for ICANN meetings) Option 2: * Support 15 At-Large members and NO RALO members for travel to each ICANN meeting (to include the same air, hotel and per diem as before). * Fund five General Assemblies annually (one for each RALO) under the following terms and conditions: * ICANN would support up to 80% of the RALO members not to exceed a total of 20 members for each General Assembly as follows: o Site for the General Assembly decided in consultation with ICANN to ensure that the site chosen is economically viable within available resources, whilst facilitating participation by ALSes. o ICANN would pay for a meeting room at the hotel o ICANN would pay for “remote participation” set up as necessary o Round trip lowest cost economy air fare for supported travelers o Two nights hotel accommodations (to include tax but not incidentals) for supported travelers o Two days of per diem per supported traveler (per diem to be established based on approved location in the same method as per diems are established for ICANN meetings) It is our understanding that the RALO’s may look to coordinate their General Assemblies with other meetings in their regions to maximize participation and lower costs – while this is perfectly acceptable to ICANN, it would not be required. It is of course possible to think of other options, however, with the Seoul meeting upcoming ICANN needs to have the list of approved travellers imminently, and the choices made about the above necessarily impact that list. At the same time, arranging regional GAs requires advance notice from the time at which a city and date is chosen. For these reasons, we recommend that you choose one of the above options. Some additional points to consider: * Some regions are larger than others, and this impacts on the number of travellers but also the amount of advance preparation time required to arrange meetings. We would suggest therefore that the larger RALOs organise their GAs for later in the fiscal year. * We propose that the Staff work with the Secretariats of the RALOs, and the ALAC Finance Subcommittee, to help establish the list of GA locations and prospective dates ASAP in order to ensure we can allocate meeting organisation resources. We believe that we would need considerable advance notice (8 weeks or more) in order to organise a GA, from the point at which a city and date is decided upon. * To help facilitate this process, ICANN is working on a draft form which would be used for proposing the date, city and country, and other elements of a GA; we will forward this in due course and in the meantime work informally. * The question has been asked about incoming NomCom appointees to ALAC, and whether or not these would be funded to attend the Seoul meeting from the At-Large travel support 'bucket'. The answer is that this is funded separately, and the new appointees will be able to attend the Seoul meeting. * We understand that the terms of five members of ALAC (from those directly elected) expire at the close of the Seoul meeting. The funding for the new appointees to come to Seoul would have to come from At-Large travel funds. If the community chooses to support travel for additional Seoul attendees for those newly-elected members of ALAC whose terms begin at the close of the Seoul meeting as well as those members whose term expires at the close of Seoul, that would negatively impact the proposal above, and we would have to reduce the level of support for regional GAs downwards, probably quite considerably. Please review and of course feel free to discuss all this in the broader At-Large community as you see fit, and let us know as quickly as possible what conclusions you come to. Of course, if there are any questions, let us know and we'll be happy to try and answer them. -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

4 5

Re: [ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010]
by Beau Brendler July 30, 2009

July 30, 2009

I like the general assemblies idea The summit was a more effective policymaking activity than ALAC, so a similar function should figure prominently in future ALAC ops -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Jul 30, 2009 3:55 PM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010] > >Alan Greenberg wrote: >> The meeting was not held to decide on the fate of RALOs or their >> budgets. I was a wrap-up to make sure that the results of the weeks's >> meetings were followed up on and that there were no omissions in the >> various "to be done" lists. We asked Kevin and Steve to join us to >> make sure we understood the current travel situation and tried to >> cover things to improve the Seoul meeting. >> >> I have said in public (probably to you as well as others) that if this >> is indeed the situation for this budget year, perhaps it is too late >> to change it, but we still need to try to fix it in future years. I >> spend quite a while on Saturday morning talking to Kevin about the >> budget analysis I did last fall, to try to make sure that he >> understood that this year's At-Large budget is not a continuation of >> the status-quo, but a cut. (For the record, I did this as the person >> who had spent the most time on travel budget issues over the last two >> years, and not as a ExCom member - my discussions predated my taking >> on that role.) He said he would go home and root around to understand >> what happened. I plan to talk to him this week to find out if I was >> successful. > >Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation -- though I still think it would >have helped had there been a wider audience for that session. > >What do you think about my idea for biennial general assemblies as a way >to meet the ICANN budget folks half-way? > >- Evan > > >_______________________________________________ >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

Proposal for Creating an At-Large Review WG Implementation Plan
by Nick Ashton-Hart July 29, 2009

July 29, 2009

Dear ALAC and Community members: As you know, a number of agenda items from the meeting of the 28th will be addressed at a special session of the ALAC (date to be chosen by doodle). We would like to propose the following for consideration at that time, as an outline of how to begin to give effect to the Board's resolution to adopt the recommendations of the At-Large Review Working Group's Final Report. 1. Staff will create a document showing the recommendations, at a high level. 2. Underneath each major recommendation, the staff would propose an initial list of those activities or improvements to processes which seem relevant. 3. Staff would propose relative priority to each, at a high level ('near term' - 3-6 months; 'medium term' - 6-9 months; 'longer term - 9 months or longer). We would do under the premise that the community does not want to spend a majority of its time or energy engaged in process improvements, and that it is therefore important the work undertaken is not to the detriment to the community's other priorities, but rather is complementary to them. 3. All of the above would then be provided for the At-Large community to review, for a 30-day period. During that time, the community members could propose the addition of new subjects, deletion or modification of existing subjects, ask questions and provide any other comments they think relevant. 4. During the comment period, special purpose teleconferences would be organised for community members to gather and discuss all of the above, and provide additional input and ideas. 5. At the end of the comment period, a new version of the document would be produced incorporating the views expressed. This could then be subjected to a vote of the ALAC; at the same time, the staff could begin to look at the resourcing of the various initiatives. The objective of all this is that we would have, in good time for the Seoul meeting, a high-level plan for implementation of the review working group proposals which the Board approved. This, in turn, could then be the subject of discussions at the face-to-face meetings in Seoul. It is worth noting that the Board has frequently directed plans of this type to general ICANN public comment periods, and it may wish to do so in this instance - though there is no certainty that it would do so. The procedure outlined above is not meant to suggest that we staffers wish to set the agenda for the improvements - on the contrary, we believe that would be precisely the wrong way to proceed. We believe it is essential that At-Large feel the programme of work ultimately undertaken is to its benefit and serves its interests. That is only possible if At-Large is in the 'driving seat' with respect to the entire programme. We have proposed originating a draft as we know that it is often easier to get the 'creative juices flowing' on an issue if there is a 'strawman' proposal to review, rather than simply handing a large group of people distributed throughout the world a blank sheet of paper. -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] [ALAC-Internal] Draft Statement on IDN Fast Track Proposal v3
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy July 28, 2009

July 28, 2009

Hello, While incorporating comments in the draft comment statement, in the context of "ALAC raises the following comments with a view to contribute to the process of evolving the Plan further as a complete Plan so as to ensure that IDN TLDs are smoothly implemented globally without technical or policy related implementation issues and seamlessly integrated in the domain name system. At the same time ALAC empathizes that all that needs to be examined needs to be examined expeditiously as expressed in the opinion within that 'Fast-track IDN ccTLDs must be implemented as planned, i.e. in Q4 of 2009 as the latest, to meet the "pressing need" of non-ASCII user community", I have added the following statement contextually. "With the view to expeditiously complete the IDN related tasks, it is proposed that ICANN incorporates in its agenda for the Seoul meeting a full day of meetings to focus on IDNs, scheduled as inter-constituency meetings attended by invited experts, staff and finance committees to resolve all pending issues related to IDN Policy and pave way for implementation." The statement with changes is at page https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy. Apart from non-substantive, structural changes in the process of merging comments with the original draft comment statement, the above addition related to focused inter-constituency meetings on IDN TLDs at the next ICANN meeting is an important addition that DID NOT form part of the draft comment while it was open for alac comments during the last 7 days. Added contextually to reconcile the need for urgency and the necessity for the required further work. I hope this is permissible post comment period, and be accepted as part of the statement to vote. Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello CLO, > > I have incorporate the comments and prepared a more concise comment as the > ALAC comment on the 3rd revision of the Draft Implementation Plan for IDN > ccTLDs. This is at page > https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy. > > By a copy of this message to staff I am requesting that this may please be > copied to the alac docs page and anywhere else as may be required or emailed > to initiate the voting process. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < > isolatedn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Mathias, >> >> Thanks. >> >> Will work on this today. And send you a revision incorporating comments in >> a few hours. >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Matthias Langenegger < >> matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Siva, >>> >>> According to the At-Large Policy Development schedule, the final draft of >>> the At-Large Comment on the Draft Implementation Plan for IDN ccTLD Fast >>> Track Process Revision 3 is due today. Did you receive a response to your >>> Email from Wednesday and did you have a chance to revise the Draft >>> Statement? As soon as we receive the final Draft Statement from you we will >>> start the ALAC vote on the document. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Matthias Langenegger >>> At-Large Coordination Officer >>> Internet Association for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> Phone: +41 79 644 65 35 >>> Skype: matthiaslangenegger >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: idn-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ >>> idn-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian >>> Muthusamy [isolatedn(a)gmail.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 6:21 AM >>> To: ALAC Internal List >>> Cc: Bart Boswinkel; Tina Dam; idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC-Internal] Draft Statement on IDN Fast Track >>> Proposal v3 >>> >>> Hello CLO >>> >>> The revised draft incorporating comments is due tomorrow (9th July) and >>> the >>> statement has to go to alac vote tomorrow. Apart from incorporating >>> comments, should any of the nine points need to be DELETED ? >>> >>> Please advise. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>> >>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >>> isolatedn(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Hello Tina >>> > >>> > The points raised in point 7,8,9 in the ALAC draft comment in >>> reference to >>> > the absence of links to documents etc. are general, minor observations, >>> and >>> > to be taken as a suggestion for maintaining the completeness of the >>> draft >>> > implementation report. It was NOT implied that this is a serious >>> omission, >>> > nor implied that there was any reason for any intent. >>> > >>> > The draft comments may please NOT be seen as directed to IDN staff, and >>> > certainly there was no misunderstanding about staff / working groups >>> that >>> > would have compiled the third revison of the plan on which the draft >>> > comments were prepared. >>> > >>> > Thank you >>> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> > IDN liaision. >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart < >>> > nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Dear IDN Working Group and ALAC members: >>> >> >>> >> Tina Dan at ICANN had a look at the draft statement, and thought I >>> should >>> >> advise you of the following, which she thinks may be a >>> misunderstanding: >>> >> >>> >> In 7-8-9, where it appears the ALAC is understanding the Module 7 >>> revision >>> >> to be that there are no outstanding issues. In fact all outstanding >>> issues >>> >> related to financial considerations, relationship between ICANN and >>> manager, >>> >> and variant management are still outstanding, hence the supporting >>> papers. >>> >> We simply provided supporting papers as opposed to keeping these long >>> >> discussions in Module 7. >>> >> It is correct that we did not add link to the supporting papers in the >>> >> Draft Implementation Plan. This was difficult to do because of the >>> posting >>> >> deadlines and instead we posted all papers together at: >>> >> http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31may09-en.htm >>> >> I hope this is of use to you. Of course if you have any questions >>> related >>> >> to the above, I'm sure Tina would be happy to help. >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >>> >> >>> >> Director for At-Large >>> >> >>> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >> >>> >> Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 >>> >> >>> >> USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 >>> >> >>> >> Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>> >> >>> >> Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 >>> >> >>> >> email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org >>> >> >>> >> Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / >>> Skype: >>> >> nashtonhart >>> >> >>> >> Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> ALAC-Internal mailing list >>> >> ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… >>> >> >>> >> ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >>> >> At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IDN-WG mailing list >>> IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… >>> >>> IDN WG Wiki: >>> https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy >>> >> >> >

3 5

ALAC and ALAC Liaison Position Description
by Alan Greenberg July 28, 2009

July 28, 2009

As discussed at our meeting in Sydney, work is progressing on setting up policies to ensure active participation of ALAC members. There were two decisions that came out of that meeting (according to my notes): 1. We need a comprehensive Position Description before we can work on the policy on how to enforce it. 2. We should continue work on this as a committee-of-the-whole (that is, the entire ALAC). At the request of the Chair, ICANN staff were asked to draft an initial Position Description (PD). It was reviewed at the last ExCom meeting (following some extensive discussion on this and other lists). Three changes were made: 1. A change was made to ensure that the PD was aligned with the recommendations of the ALAC Review Report as accepted by the ICANN Board. 2. A section on recommendation to the Nominating Committee was removed as it contained errors in fact, and because recommendations to the NomCom, although very important, do not belong in the PD. 3. Sections were numbered to make it easier to comment on particular parts. The revised PD can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi/index.cgi?draft_alac_pd. Please review this document and add comments at the bottom (I have already added my initial comments there). To make sure that everyone is commenting on the same document, PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE PD ITSELF, even if you have editing rights. If you agree with someone else's comments, please say so. If you disagree with any of the original text or someone else's comments, please also say so. Periodically, I or staff will merge the comments into the document to make it easier to read. Please note that this document is just the PD, not the policy on how we will try to enforce it. That policy is needed, but let's not confuse the two. This document may be and should be shared within your RALOs (hopefully we will soon have translations that will facilitate this). If there are comments from within the RALOs, it would be useful to know to what extent they are supported by RALO leadership and the regional ALAC members. Alan

1 0

Draft statement on registrant rights responsibilities
by Evan Leibovitch July 24, 2009

July 24, 2009

Prepared by staff at the request of a joint ALAC/GNSO effort https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?draft_summary_of_registrant_righ… Remember, this is simply a list of what already exists, not of what additional we might want to be there. - Evan

1 0

registrar issues (from /.)
by Gareth Shearman July 22, 2009

July 22, 2009

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/22/2023247/Registrars-Still-Ignoring-I… Gareth Shearman

1 0

Draft ALAC Statement on the IIC - The Way Forward
by ICANN AtLarge Staff July 19, 2009

July 19, 2009

Dear All, As per Sébastien Bachollet's request please find attached the Draft ALAC Statement on the document entitled "Improving Institutional Confidence - The Way Forward" which was published by the President's Strategy Committee on May 31st. This Draft Statement should have sent to you on July 1st but Sébastien was on holidays during the last couple of days and experienced problems when he tried to access his files remotely. A revised version of the Draft Statement incorporating all comments received on the attached version by the members of the ALAC and the Working Group on the Future Structure of ICANN ill be posted in early August for full community feedback. Please comment on the current version by responding to this email. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July
by Alan Greenberg July 17, 2009

July 17, 2009

Two comments: At 14/07/2009 07:49 PM, carlos aguirre wrote: > >Another Question: Why EX Comm is currently >formed by Nom Comm appointees, and no by RALO >representatives?, Nom Comm appointees are better >user representatives than RALO representatives? I don`t think so. First, my understanding is that both Cheryl and Sébastien are elected by their RALOs and are not NomCom appointees. Second, all four officers positions were filled by candidates who were not opposed - two from RALOs, two from NomCom. And if they had been opposed, whoever was elected would have been selected by the majority of voters, as democracy dictates. NomCom appointees are not de facto better user representatives than RALO representatives, but perhaps not de facto worse either. At 14/07/2009 08:19 PM, Andres Piazza wrote: >About the last part, I don´t think that anyone could disagree with, for >example, ALAN´s words. But this is not an easy matter to raise. Firstly, >because some of the analysis are made in quantity matters, but not with a >complete vision. I share many of the comments but be carefull, who is who to >be jugdamental to the performance of other ALAC Members? > >Specially RALO Leaders! Are we in a position to say something so strongly >about ALAC Members from our region? The whole RALO elected them, not just >ourselves. And also, they or some other person could also come with some >criticism with the role of one of us, RALO leaders. And they could use many >different criteria to analyze that (for example: "What are RALO Leaders from >that region that hardly can encourage 1 or 2 ALS rep to be involved in >remote participation during the meeting?. I put this example because FOR ME, >in LACRALO, a lot of work is done in private emails, chats, calls, with >members from the region to encourage, answer doubts, and etc etc, more that >to be in some particular WG providing what is just my personal opinion). I >could continue the whole night providing examples, but is not the sense. > >I´m not saying that this "performance discussion" shouldn´t be raised, but >just to be careful and not to put this as an argument against other idea >that has been displayed. I guess we may have a different vision here. In my mind, RALO leaders are elected by their ALSs to take responsibility for their RALO. That is what leadership is all about. I agree that this is potentially a very difficult job. It is not easy to formally assess performance in cases such as this, and particularly when the person being assessed is a colleague. But that is the job that RALO leaders have been given, and they must use all of their skills to try to understand how effective their ALAC representatives are. And they will no doubt have to talk to other ALAC members to try to make this assessment. It is important (in my mind) to differentiate between someone who is working effectively within the RALO, and someone who is working well within the ALAC. You can have one without the other (in both directions). So should we be careful in both setting up the rules and then carrying them out? Most certainly! But ignoring the responsibility should not be one of the options. Alan

8 12