September 2009 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] Community Call with Board Liaison Candidates
by Wendy Seltzer Sept. 17, 2009

Sept. 17, 2009

I will be unable to make the call on Sunday, as I will be running a marathon. I completed the doodle earlier thinking that was for the unique call. I trust that ALAC knows my platform from previous discussions and work, and invite you to use the wonderful connectivity of the Internet to ask any further questions that will help you make your decisions. --Wendy At Large Staff wrote: > Dear All, > > > > As set out in the 2009 Board Election Process < > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?board_liaison_process_2009> > > (EN only), a special purpose teleconference shall be arranged not earlier > than Friday, 18th September and not later than Sunday, 20th September at > which the candidates for Board Liaison as forwarded from the RALOs to the > ALAC shall be provided an equal length of time to speak about their > candidature. The ALAC Chair will determine the length of time each > candidate will speak prior to the start of the call. This will be followed > by a question and answer period during which community members may ask > questions of the candidates. The call will also include an explanation of > the election process for the board liaison as well as the implications for > this position following the Board's decision of 27th August 2009 for the > At-Large community to select a voting director to the Board. > > > > So as to make the call at a time convenient for as many regions as possible, > the call is scheduled for Sunday, 20th September at 18:00 UTC > > (11:00 PDT/14:00 EDT/15:00 Buenos Aires/19:00 CEST/04:00 Sydney on Monday, > 21st September). > > > > This call shall be recorded and transcribed and conducted in English, > Spanish, and French through the use of interpreters. > > Further call details will be sent out shortly. > > > > We recognize that this time may not be suitable for everyone in all regions, > especially those in the Eastern hemisphere. Therefore, in order to ensure > that as many people within the At-Large community are able to be on a call > with the Board Liaison candidates, a Doodle is being offered for a potential > additional call on Saturday, 19th September at times more suitable for > people living in the Eastern hemisphere if there is sufficient demand. > Please only respond to the Doodle if you are unable to participate in the > call scheduled for Sunday, 20th September at 18:00 UTC. This call will be > recorded and transcribed and conducted in English only. The Doodle is > available here: > > http://www.doodle.com/s7yzrhfdi7t7qkz5. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White > ICANN At-Large Staff > email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Final Call for Review of At-Large Board Liaison Candidate Statements for Completeness
by ICANN At Large Staff Sept. 17, 2009

Sept. 17, 2009

Dear Board Liaison candidates, Further to Cheryl’s message earlier today we would like to ask all of you to review your election pages linked to http://www.atlarge.icann.org/elections/2009 and ensure that all the required information is complete. All candidates with the exception of Sivasubramanian Muthusamy have submitted information related to the the four requirements listed under the Board elections Process page: 1. An acceptance of the Nomination to the position 2. A brief biography 3. A statement of Interest 4. A conflict of interest statement We draw to your attention that acceptance of the nomination, per the process, does automatically mean that you agree to all the commitments listed at https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?board_liaisons_election_2009_commi… . Please do read this carefully to ensure you understand the commitments your candidature entails if you have not already done so. We draw to your attention point 4 above, whichg refers directly to the ICANN Conflicts of Interest Policy outlined under http://www.icann.org/en/committees/coi/coi-policy-04mar99.htm . Among the requirements of that policy is a Statement setting forth all business and other affiliations which relate in any way to the business and other affiliations of ICANN and an acknowledgement that the candidate: (a) Has received a copy of the conflicts of interest policy; (b) Has read and understands the policy; (c) Has agreed to comply with the policy; and (d) Understands that the Corporation is a charitable organization and that in order to maintain its US-government federal tax exemption it must engage primarily in activities that accomplish one or more of its tax-exempt purposes. Simply noting that you agree to comply with the policy would, for example, only answer the second of these four points. If you have no conflicts, you would need to explicitly state that this is the case. If you are in need of any help or have any question, please feel free to ask, we will answer if we can, though if the question requires a subjective answer and/or involves interpretation of the intention of the question or obligation, we are likely to need to copy the Chair in our reply so that she can decide on the question definitively. Finally, on behalf of the staff, we wish to thank you for your willingness to serve the community in this demanding post. The multistakeholder process of ICANN only works if volunteers like you continue to give of your time and energy. -- Regards, ICANN At-Large Staff Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber- White email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] VOTE RESULTS: NomCom 2009/2010 Appointment Balloting
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

Hello all, I would like for Staff to please explain the voting results in cases where more tha one person stood for the position. In the results as posted below, one might conclude that Cintra and Glenn received the majority of votes and were thus the elected representatives. Yet I am informed that this not the case, and that the *lowest* percentages displayed here indicates the winner. Please explain the process and confirm the winners of this election. It's VERY unclear based on a reasonable reading of the staff email. Thanks! - Evan At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear all, > > With 12 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the recent NomCom 2009/2010 > Appointment Balloting we can confirm that the results are quorate. The > balloting was anonymous. > > [...] > > 4. At-Large Delegate to the NomCom from Latin-America and the Caribbean > Who should be the At-Large Delegate to the NomCom from Latin-America and the > Caribbean? Please vote for candidates in order of preference with 1 (the > first click made) being your first choice and 2 your second. > > LACRALO recommended José as regional NomCom Delegate > > As at Poll close: Monday 14 September 2009 23:59 UTC > Number of voters: 12 · Electorate size: 15 · Percentage voted: 80.00 > > Ranked by smallest sum of votes > > José Ovidio Salgueiro 15 (41.67%) > Cintra Sooknanan: 21 (58.33%) > > > ******************* > > 5. At-Large Delegate to the NomCom from North America > Who should be the At-Large delegate to the NomCom from North America? Please > vote for candidates in order of preference with 1 (the first click made) > being your first choice and 2 your second. > > NARALO recommended Eduardo as regional NomCom Delegate > > As at Poll close: Monday 14 September 2009 23:59 UTC > Number of voters: 12 · Electorate size: 15 · Percentage voted: 80.00 > > Ranked by smallest sum of votes > > Eduardo Diaz: 12 (33.33%) > Glenn McKnight: 24 (66.67%) > > [...]

4 4

follow up on the Inter-constituency meeting suggestion.
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Sept. 14, 2009

Sept. 14, 2009

Hello CLO, Though stated as an independent introductory statement to the ALAC comments on the 3rd Revison of the Draft Implementation Plan http://bit.ly/idnmeeting this has also been mentioned at an ALAC meeting, though not formally discussed nor voted upon as an ALAC suggestion. The rationale and the logistics of the inter-constituency meetings are more clearly explained as below: *The suggestion is to have inter-constituency meetings during Seoul where ccNSO, GNSO and its commercial and non-commercial constituencies, GAC, ALAC, SSAC as also Board Representatives, Staff designated for IDNs, finance and administration committees, IETF, external advisory / support groups, IDN user groups otherwise not part of the ICANN organization and invited experts could all gather together in one room on a suitable day during the Seoul Meeting to discuss all pending issues related to IDN implementation. The purpose is to bring together view points from the different constituencies / support organizations / experts to reconcile the most important issues that could consume time if discussed in different rooms. The inter-constituency meetings could be visualized as happening in the main room on a certain day (or half - a - day) which is relatively a light day for most constituencies, who could also be free to concurrently have their sessions on any other topic that may require to be discussed within their constituencies, but after assigning enough responsible participants to the proposed inter-constituency meetings. This could also be an opportunity for various IDN working groups to report on their work for consolidation. * I had earlier requested your help as ALAC chair to take the suggestion for inter-constituency meetings at Seoul to discuss IDN's and you had helpfully said that you might bring this up at the meeting of Chairs. I understand that ICANN schedules are drawn up well in advance, but at the same time I do not wish to assume that it is too late to fit this in. On my part, apart from raising this at the alac meeting and at the ccNSO PDP meeting, I did not think it appropriate to take further steps. But if you could allow me, I can write to the AC / SO chairs to convey this suggestion and explore if there is a greater interest in this. Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

2 1

[Fwd: Comments on New gTLD Program]
by At-Large Staff Sept. 10, 2009

Sept. 10, 2009

Dear All: Below you will find a note from Rod Beckstrom thanking the community for its comments on new gTLDs. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Comments on New gTLD Program Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:41:02 -0700 From: Rod Beckstrom <rod_beckstrom(a)icann.org> To: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for your thoughtful comments regarding the introduction of new generic top-level domain names into the market place. We are considering your comments, along the many others we have received, in the context of the development of the next version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, preparations for which are advancing and is scheduled to be published prior to the ICANN meeting in Seoul. As you will appreciate, the New gTLD Program is a significant undertaking and we are progressing step by step to ensure that all the sectors in the community are provided an opportunity to contribute, and all potential issues are understood and resolved before launching what will surely be a substantial shift in the domain name system. While we still have work ahead of us, we are confident that with your and the Internet community’s continuing participation, the New gTLD Program will be launched in a manner that enhances competition and choice for Internet users, broadens regional participation through the introduction of IDNs and community based TLDs, and protects the rights and interests of all. Again, thank you for your participation in the process and if you have any further questions regarding the introduction of new gTLDs, please send these to newgtld(a)icann.org. Yours sincerely, Rod Rod Beckstrom President & CEO ICANN -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

NomCom delegate elections
by jsalgueiro＠cantv.net Sept. 9, 2009

Sept. 9, 2009

I'd like to know the RALOS choices for their delagates before voting. I wont like to vote against them. I only know the choice of LACRALO and I'm not sure if everyone else knows it. Jose Ovidio Salgueiro -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint

7 6

Re: [ALAC] NomCom delegate elections
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 9, 2009

Sept. 9, 2009

The problem for ALAC members is not likely for the regions that have only one candidate listed, but for those that have two! Alan At 09/09/2009 11:18 AM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Hi Jose, > >this is just to confirm that EURALO nominated and will strongly support >Olivier Crepin-Leblond as their delegate for/at the NomCom. > >Best, > >Wolf >EURALO chair > > >jsalgueiro(a)cantv.net wrote Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:44: > >I'd like to know the RALOS choices for their delagates before voting. I > >wont like to vote against them. I only know the choice of LACRALO and I'm > >not sure if everyone else knows it. > > > > > >Jose Ovidio Salgueiro > > >comunica-ch >phone +41 79 204 83 87 >Skype: Wolf-Ludwig >www.comunica-ch.net > >Digitale Allmend >http://blog.allmend.ch - > >EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation >http://euralo.org > >_______________________________________________ >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

3 3

[Fwd: Toronto Regional Registry/Registrar Event]
by At-Large Staff Sept. 8, 2009

Sept. 8, 2009

Dear NARALO and ALAC Members: The email below may be of interest. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Toronto Regional Registry/Registrar Event Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:25:22 -0700 From: Craig Schwartz <craig.schwartz(a)icann.org> To: evan(a)telly.org <evan(a)telly.org> CC: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org>, Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org>, Tim Cole <Tim.Cole(a)icann.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, Stacy Hoffberg <stacy.hoffberg(a)icann.org> Dear Evan, Stacy Hoffberg shared with me your email about the recent gTLD Registry/ICANN-Accredited Registrar event in Toronto that included your request for a response from ICANN staff about the nature of the event. I hear your concerns and frustrations and agree that ICANN could have done a better job of sharing this information with the community. In the future, ICANN will post an announcement on our website with specifics about dates, times and locations of the regional events and make it clearer what purposes the meetings serve. The genesis of these events was the need for ICANN to share with its contracted parties information about how they could better understand different aspects of their agreements, to help ensure contractual compliance by them. The meetings don’t serve a policy-making function like the international ICANN meetings, a fact that may not be obvious from the postings made about them. These events involve a narrowly targeted audience and are not intended to be secret. As such, and in the spirit of transparency, the materials presented at the event have been posted for public information. May I say, perhaps belatedly but nevertheless sincerely, that we’re sorry we didn’t close the loop with you about your request to attend, especially after you helped provide advice on the venue for the meeting. We really do appreciate the help! If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 202.429.2703; if you’d rather I call on ICANN’s dime, let me know and I’ll ring you. Sincerely, Craig _______________________ Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN 1875 I Street, NW, Suite 501 Washington, DC 20006 Office +1 202.429.2703 www.icann.org -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Why is ICANN holding secret meetings with registrars/registries?
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 8, 2009

Sept. 8, 2009

Hello all, On Saturday it came to my attention that ICANN held a secret meeting for registrars and registries in Toronto. Why do I claim it was secret? Because there was no advance notice of the meeting on ICANN's website, and the results were published only after the meeting was over. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-25aug09-en.htm Living in Toronto, I was actually consulted back in March about local hotels; at the time I explicitly asked to be invited to observe. That's how I know there was no advance notice of the meeting, I was routinely checking after the hotel inquiry. And I certainly received no notice of the meeting, let alone an invitation. Who knows how many other meetings like this have happened, without notice before (or may be even after) they took place? Now... why is it that what At-Large does is always under the microscope, our requests for funding for regional and outreach meetings denied, and others are welcome to sit in on our proceedings, but the same rules don't apply to contracted parties? This would have been a perfect opportunity to co-host a NARALO meeting, with ICANN already having booked favourable room rates etc. At very least, I (and others) should have been offered the courtesy to attend as observers. I explicitly recall at the Summit, that the registrar people who inserted themselves into our working group dicussions were quiet explicit that their meetings were as publicly accesible as ours. Apparently that claim was a lie. I am extremely angry over this in a want-to-get-the-Ombudsman-involved way; I request a response from ICANN staff and I am asking for ALAC's support in this inquiry. As it is unlikely that At-Large staff were aware of this meeting either, I am asking for its help in identifying the source of this clandestine activity. We are owed an explanation of why some ICANN constituencies get to have secret, private regional meetings but others do not get to have regional meetings -- private or public -- at all. - Evan

7 13

June 2010 ICANN meeting
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2009

Sept. 5, 2009

I may have missed an announcement on any ALAC/At-Large list, but at its Aug 27th meeting, the Board decided to hold the June meeting next your in Brussels (June 20-25, 2010). Also of interest, they also decided not to decrease the size of the Board at this time, but would review in three years. Alan

2 1