August 2010 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for your review
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 24, 2010

Aug. 24, 2010

Just a quick note that (based on the last version sent by Liz inclusive of the changes proposed by Avri) ALAC at its meeting earlier today and subject to a possible change of date or change to "a report" as opposed to a date of final report by Sept 13) endorsed the Draft Tor's, and will revisit any subsequent additions.edits or changes made between this version and any final, if required for specific additional endorsement / acceptance. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 25 August 2010 03:10, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > > Any opposition to Avri's addition? > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-soac-mapo(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@icann.org] On > > Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 11:12 AM > > To: soac-mapo > > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for > > your review > > > > > > > > On 23 Aug 2010, at 18:31, Liz Gasster wrote: > > > > > <Rec6 TOR updated as of 23 Aug 2300 UTC.doc> > > > > I am personally mostly fine with tis version of the ToR. > > > > While I understand and accept the idea of removing the word > > preliminary, it does leave the ToR sort of dangling as to what happens > > after this report. but not stating what happens after this report, it > > makes it seem as if that is the end of the story. > > > > And it may be. > > > > Perhaps adding something like the following, in addition to removing > > preliminary, would help: > > > > After submission of the report, the CWG will review what, if anything, > > remains to be done on the defined tasks and will communicate that to > > the ALAC, GAC and GNSO council. > > > > (note i put the 3 in alphabetical order which is something i recommend > > for elsewhere in the report) > > > > a. > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [soac-mapo] Revised Recommendation 6 Charter Terms of Reference -- 24 August version
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 24, 2010

Aug. 24, 2010

Thanks Liz ALAC this replaces the link not yet added version we discussed and endorsed at our meeting earlier today... Staff can you make the changes from Agenda to this one Noting that the date 13 Sept will be reviewed to a new date in the final and pages of comments marked to be deleted will be gone in the final version ( you might be able to get a final mark up from Liz before replacement if the date discussion etc., is finalized by later today) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 25 August 2010 03:56, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> wrote: > All, > > > > Please see a revised draft charter. The “track changes” reflect > suggestions made by Stéphane and Avri since yesterday’s call. This version > also includes links to the ALAC and NCUC statements (thanks Robin and > Evan). > > > > No other changes have been made. Please also see the remaining comments at > the end of the document. In particular it would be helpful if those who > made those comments can review them to see whether further edits are needed > to the Charter or whether additional issues need to be discussed by the > group. > > > > As always, please let me know if I’ve missed anything. > > > > Thanks! Liz > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 24, 2010

Aug. 24, 2010

Adam, you may well be right about the correct tactic being to at this point make the case to continue the Liaison. In that case, we need to be building the salient piece of advice to the Board REALLY QUICKLY. I know that I and others would certainly support this, but the question is can we make a case for a majority of Board members to accept it. And certainly the partial answer is that we won't know if we don't try. But I do think that there is some danger of Directors who do not like the idea of a voting At-Large director rejecting the Bylaws if they see and alternative, so we do need to keep that in mind also. BTW, I don't equate not having a Liaison with no longer being a Board Advisory Committee. Alan At 22/08/2010 03:45 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >Alan, I don't agree we are facing an either or situation: we do not >have to choose between having a voting director and liaison, we can >and should argue for both. > >That there will be a voting director for at large is certain, the >board will not go back on that decision now. But the liaison >position is not gone and trying to keep it is important to the future >of ALAC's ability to provide advice to the board and community. >Unlike the supporting organizations, and even GAC, the bylaws do not >require ICANN to take At Large's advice. The new director can >certainly represent user interests, but we know they cannot be our >representative on the board. > >Suggest that the bylaws amendments you have drafted go forward, >except that we do not accept the sections deleting the liaison. We >can provide text to explain why (I've written some before on this >list.) > >In addition to weakening At Large/ALAC's ability to provide >advice/recommendations to the board, if we loose the board advisory >role the supporting organizations we currently have liaisons with may >re-consider those relationships. I know some constituencies have >already mentioned this. > >And I think it's mistaken to think that once the at large director is >in place we can return to arguing for the (then lost) liaison role >and even the second director position the At Large review >recommended. The board will consider that part of the review done, I >can't see them reopening the process. Won't happen, at least not >until the next review, many years from now. > >I think it's important the RALOs discuss this and come back with advice. > >Adam > > > > > >Well, the Board resolution on which this is all based was very clear > >about replacing the Liaison with the voting Board member. If our > >intent is to turn back the clock and go back to just a Liaison (as > >some people indeed feel would be best and have since the start of > >these discussions), then this is a good time to raise the issue. If > >we really want the voting Board member, then my inclination is to get > >that put in place and then based on experience, try to argue for > >putting back the Liaison (presumably instead of a second voting > >Board member). > > > >I just don't see how we could get both at the same time at this > >moment. There are certainly some Board members who want to see the > >voting position go forward, and no doubt some who would prefer the > >status quo. I don't think there are many who would buy one voting and > >one liaison at this time. > > > >It's not a perfect situation, but that is how I read things. We need > >to make up our minds which is more important and go for it. > > > >My personal opinion is that At-Large would be better served by a > >Liaison, but that Internet user community is better served by a good > >voting Board member. > > > >Alan > > > >At 21/08/2010 08:25 PM, Hong Xue wrote: > > > >>Thanks to Alan for the comprehensive comments. Another issue that > >>has been raised in Brussels but not sufficiently discussed ever > >>since is whether we want to advocate to keep the Board liaison along > >>with the selected At-Large Board Member. To my memory, draft bylaws > >>replace the liaison with the Board member. We may wish to comment on > >>this specific point as well. > >> > >>Hong > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Alan Greenberg > >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >>While drafting my comments on the draft Bylaws associated with the > >>At-Large Director, I realized that we will need to formally put our > >>selection procedures into the ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP). > >> > >>I have done a first draft which can be found at > >><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27>https://st.ican > n.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27. > >>I am also attaching a PDF version for your convenience. > >> > >>The current RoP (Rev10) is pointed to at > >><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure>https://st > .icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. > >> > >>The new draft rule includes Rationale's for some of the sub-rules. > >>These rationales would not be part of the final rule, but are there > > >to explain what I am proposing. > >> > >>With a few exceptions, the draft corresponds to the process that has > >>been agreed upon and has been given to the Board SIC. They are > >>specified in general terms, to allow the process to be refined based > >>on what we learn during this current process, and without having to > >>formally alter the RoP each time. > >> > >>There are two new parts that I am suggesting. > >> > >>First, although we have had some general discussions about proxy > >>voting, we have never agreed on any rules, and we never discussed > >>this in the context of the At-Large Director selection process. I am > >>suggesting that we allow proxies *IF* we come up with some general > >>rules (applicable for all votes) or if we develop some for the > >>Director selection process only. Essentially this rule says that > >>proxies are allowed *IF* we define exactly how they will work. If we > >>do this, it will ensure that we do not disenfranchise some RALOs. > >> > >>Second, our voting methodology said that we will use random > >>selection in the case of a tie. I think that it would be a really > >>poor outcome if we end up selecting our Director by a random > >>selection. I am proposing that if there is a tie, that the vote can > >>be held a second time which would allow some voters to alter their > >>vote. This *may* reduce the need for random selection. > >> > >>I am suggesting that we discuss this on the list and schedule a vote > >>for the next ALAC meeting. I suggest that staff take any messages > >>posted to the list and add them as comments to the wiki. If we > >>cannot come to closure in the remaining time, the vote could be > >>delayed, but it is important that we have the rule in place sometime > >>in the near future. > >> > >>To adopt a new rule or change existing rules, it takes a 2/3 vote of > >>all ALAC members who are voting in that ballot. > >> > >>I look forward to hearing comments on this. > >> > >>Alan > >>_______________________________________________ > >>ALAC mailing list > >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >>ALAC Working Wiki: <http://st.icann.org/alac>http://st.icann.org/alac > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>Dr. Hong Xue > >>Professor of Law > >>Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > >>Beijing Normal University > >><http://iipl.org.cn/>http://iipl.org.cn/ > >>19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > >>Beijing 100875 China > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >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 > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] VOTE RESULT: APRALO Vote on Recommended ALAC Delegate to the NomCom
by Hong Xue Aug. 24, 2010

Aug. 24, 2010

Dear All, This is to inform you that the APRALO has made its recommendation regarding its regional representative to the Nomination Committee through a voting by ALSes. Please see the following announcement. APRALO therefore recommends that Dr. V.C. Vivekanandan be the regional representative to the Nomination Committee for the term running from the end of the 2010 AGM to the end of the 2011 AGM, and wishes ALAC consider our regional recommendation timely. Regards Hong Xue Chair of APRALO On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>wrote: > Dear All, > > > > With 8 out of 18 ALS representatives having participated in the recent vote > > on the recommended APRALO ALAC Delegate to the NomCom, we can confirm that > the result > > was quorate. > > > > ************ > > Number of voters: 8 · Group size: 18 · Percentage voted: 44.44 > > Question: Who should APRALO recommend that the ALAC appoint as the NomCom > > representative from the Asia, Australasia and Pacific Islands Region, for a > > term running from the end of the 2010 AGM to the end of the 2011 AGM? > > > > Dr. V.C. Vivekanandan: 7 (87.50%) > > Siranush Vardanyan: 1 (12.50%) > > Abstain: 0 (0.00%) > > > > ************ > > You may review the result independently under: > > https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=1273jw4B8Wy5I2YkxZTZTCFP > > > > We thank both nominees for their participation in the selection process. > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, > Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström > ICANN At-Large Staff > > > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 23, 2010

Aug. 23, 2010

Two thoughts... First, although I support the concept of keeping a Liaison, I will note that even with a Liaison, and I should add some VERY impressive ones, we have not met our targets of being treated with sufficient respect (if I may use that term to reflect a number of other things as well). So simply having that position filled has not proven to be the magic answer. Second, I note the SoI includes the following two questions in section C: 4. Provide a statement about what you would contribute in the At-Large selected ICANN Board Director position to the At-Large Community: 5. Please describe specifically how and why you will be able to advance, at the ICANN Board, the interests of the At-Large Community and the broader global community of Internet end-users. It is up to the BCEC and then the electorate to select someone who they believe WILL support the interests of At-Large as well as the general user community. Of course, a Board member can only do that when he or she believes it is also in the interests of ICANN, but those two sets of interests are not necessarily at odds with each other. Make sure that your representatives on the BCEC and then the electors know what we want. Alan At 23/08/2010 01:27 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I share Adam's fear that, with the creation of the >At-Large-appointed Director and elimination of Liaison, there is a >possibility that ALAC's own work as a policy-development body will >slide into far less relevance than it has now (and that bar is >already very low). With nobody on the Board charged with advancing >ALAC positions or relaying to ALAC the Board's feedback, we are >technically at the same advisory level as any other group submitting >public comments through those official mechanisms.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 22, 2010

Aug. 22, 2010

Well, the Board resolution on which this is all based was very clear about replacing the Liaison with the voting Board member. If our intent is to turn back the clock and go back to just a Liaison (as some people indeed feel would be best and have since the start of these discussions), then this is a good time to raise the issue. If we really want the voting Board member, then my inclination is to get that put in place and then based on experience, try to argue for putting back the Liaison (presumably instead of a second voting Board member). I just don't see how we could get both at the same time at this moment. There are certainly some Board members who want to see the voting position go forward, and no doubt some who would prefer the status quo. I don't think there are many who would buy one voting and one liaison at this time. It's not a perfect situation, but that is how I read things. We need to make up our minds which is more important and go for it. My personal opinion is that At-Large would be better served by a Liaison, but that Internet user community is better served by a good voting Board member. Alan At 21/08/2010 08:25 PM, Hong Xue wrote: >Thanks to Alan for the comprehensive comments. Another issue that >has been raised in Brussels but not sufficiently discussed ever >since is whether we want to advocate to keep the Board liaison along >with the selected At-Large Board Member. To my memory, draft bylaws >replace the liaison with the Board member. We may wish to comment on >this specific point as well. > >Hong > > > > >On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >While drafting my comments on the draft Bylaws associated with the >At-Large Director, I realized that we will need to formally put our >selection procedures into the ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP). > >I have done a first draft which can be found at ><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27>https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27. >I am also attaching a PDF version for your convenience. > >The current RoP (Rev10) is pointed to at ><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure>https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. > >The new draft rule includes Rationale's for some of the sub-rules. >These rationales would not be part of the final rule, but are there >to explain what I am proposing. > >With a few exceptions, the draft corresponds to the process that has >been agreed upon and has been given to the Board SIC. They are >specified in general terms, to allow the process to be refined based >on what we learn during this current process, and without having to >formally alter the RoP each time. > >There are two new parts that I am suggesting. > >First, although we have had some general discussions about proxy >voting, we have never agreed on any rules, and we never discussed >this in the context of the At-Large Director selection process. I am >suggesting that we allow proxies *IF* we come up with some general >rules (applicable for all votes) or if we develop some for the >Director selection process only. Essentially this rule says that >proxies are allowed *IF* we define exactly how they will work. If we >do this, it will ensure that we do not disenfranchise some RALOs. > >Second, our voting methodology said that we will use random >selection in the case of a tie. I think that it would be a really >poor outcome if we end up selecting our Director by a random >selection. I am proposing that if there is a tie, that the vote can >be held a second time which would allow some voters to alter their >vote. This *may* reduce the need for random selection. > >I am suggesting that we discuss this on the list and schedule a vote >for the next ALAC meeting. I suggest that staff take any messages >posted to the list and add them as comments to the wiki. If we >cannot come to closure in the remaining time, the vote could be >delayed, but it is important that we have the rule in place sometime >in the near future. > >To adopt a new rule or change existing rules, it takes a 2/3 vote of >all ALAC members who are voting in that ballot. > >I look forward to hearing comments on this. > >Alan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: <http://st.icann.org/alac>http://st.icann.org/alac > > > > >-- >Dr. Hong Xue >Professor of Law >Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) >Beijing Normal University ><http://iipl.org.cn/>http://iipl.org.cn/ >19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street >Beijing 100875 China

4 5

ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 22, 2010

Aug. 22, 2010

While drafting my comments on the draft Bylaws associated with the At-Large Director, I realized that we will need to formally put our selection procedures into the ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP). I have done a first draft which can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27. I am also attaching a PDF version for your convenience. The current RoP (Rev10) is pointed to at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. The new draft rule includes Rationale's for some of the sub-rules. These rationales would not be part of the final rule, but are there to explain what I am proposing. With a few exceptions, the draft corresponds to the process that has been agreed upon and has been given to the Board SIC. They are specified in general terms, to allow the process to be refined based on what we learn during this current process, and without having to formally alter the RoP each time. There are two new parts that I am suggesting. First, although we have had some general discussions about proxy voting, we have never agreed on any rules, and we never discussed this in the context of the At-Large Director selection process. I am suggesting that we allow proxies *IF* we come up with some general rules (applicable for all votes) or if we develop some for the Director selection process only. Essentially this rule says that proxies are allowed *IF* we define exactly how they will work. If we do this, it will ensure that we do not disenfranchise some RALOs. Second, our voting methodology said that we will use random selection in the case of a tie. I think that it would be a really poor outcome if we end up selecting our Director by a random selection. I am proposing that if there is a tie, that the vote can be held a second time which would allow some voters to alter their vote. This *may* reduce the need for random selection. I am suggesting that we discuss this on the list and schedule a vote for the next ALAC meeting. I suggest that staff take any messages posted to the list and add them as comments to the wiki. If we cannot come to closure in the remaining time, the vote could be delayed, but it is important that we have the rule in place sometime in the near future. To adopt a new rule or change existing rules, it takes a 2/3 vote of all ALAC members who are voting in that ballot. I look forward to hearing comments on this. Alan

5 6

Re: [ALAC] [soac-mapo] OK, so what happens next?
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 18, 2010

Aug. 18, 2010

Please see my (minor additional comments <CLO> inline below Chucks as well) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 19 August 2010 06:26, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > > Please see my responses below Avri. > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:18 AM > > To: Gomes, Chuck > > Cc: soac-mapo(a)icann.org > > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] OK, so what happens next? > > Importance: High > > > > Hi, > > > > Once the list discuses this ToR, will it be sent to the 3 chartering > > organizations (GNSO Council, ALAC and GAC) for approval? > [Gomes, Chuck] Because of the very late timing of this relative to the > new gTLD process, I am hoping that the ToR can be accepted in a rapid > and less formal manner. If all three organizations have to formally > approve the ToR, then that would likely take a month or two just to do > that before we could start discussions. The plan is to send the initial > draft to this list not later than tomorrow for discussion on the list > and hopefully in a call to be scheduled next week. I think it will be > easier for list participants to judge the approach once you see the > initial draft ToR and encourage you to comment after reading it. > <CLO> I will be asking ALAC to endorse the ToR's at our meeting Tue any way > > > [Gomes, Chuck] > And is it > > correct to assume that it is the 3 chairs who are creating the > original > > TOR? Or is this something being produced by some other entity. > [Gomes, Chuck] To get a jump start on the ToR and hopefully help us > start discussing the implementation issues more quickly, the three of us > are creating the first draft. > <CLO> Yup > > > > Also what does it mean to be a key participant. I ask especially > > relevant to the GNSO. How are these key participants being > designated? > [Gomes, Chuck] Probably a poor use of terms, but essentially the leaders > of the three organizations and some ICANN staff were invited to > participate in an evaluation of the draft ToR. Staff was invited for > support purposes. > <CLO> I asked the ALAC ExCom to join me in this for example > > > > > Finally, are the 3 SOAC chairs, planing to act as the co-chairs of > this > > group? > [Gomes, Chuck] The draft ToR calls for the three chairs or their > designees to co-chair the discussion team. > <CLO> Yes and we also ask for the AC/SO to appoint a Liaison etc., (another matter for our ALAC Agenda Tue) in keeping with the draft WG Procedures under consideration in the GNSO at the moment... <CLO> I finally want to point out that not only should all those on the SOAC-mapo list be assumed to be a WG participant (subject to thier confirmation etc., but that we also need to reach out to At-Large and of course further into the GNSO Constituencies to encourage more keen involvement as well as be joined by the GAC (who may join as a whole I believe) so do spread the word that a call for WG / DC Membership => either confirmation or addition I assume will be going out as well and needs to be promulgated widely... IMO > > > > thanks > > > > a. > > > > On 16 Aug 2010, at 14:49, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > > > > Please note the following next steps for this discussion group. > > > > > > 1. An initial version of draft Terms of Reference (ToR) will be sent > > to > > > this list by Thursday for list discussion. > > > > > > 2. A Doodle poll will be sent to this list to attempt to determine > > the > > > best meeting time possible for a weekly call; please respond to this > > > right away because we will try to have the first call as early as > > > possible next week. > > > > > > 3. A primary objective will be to finalize the ToR next week so that > > the > > > group may begin the real work promptly. > > > Action items: > > > > > > Glen - please send a list of the list subscribers to Cheryl, > > > Heather and I so that we can validate that key participants have > been > > > added. > > > > > > Gisella - please initiate a Doodle poll on this list, avoiding > > > conflicting GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO meetings; provide time options on > > Monday, > > > Tuesday & Wednesday; please include the 20:30 UTC time on Mondays if > > > there are not conflicts. > > > > > > Cheryl - please ensure that the collaborative work space is > > > implemented and announced on this list. > > > > > > Chuck > >

1 0

LACRALO recommendation for ALAC appointed representative from LACRALO to NomCom
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Aug. 16, 2010

Aug. 16, 2010

Dear all, LACRALO recommends to ALAC that José Ovidio Salgueiro, our representative from LACRALO serving on the Nominating Committee (NomCom) from 2009-2010, be re-appointed to NomCom for another term. There were no other nominations for this position from LACRALO and José Ovidio Salgueiro has accepted his nomination. Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh LACRALO Secretariat

1 0

Comments on the At-Large Director Bylaw revisions
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 16, 2010

Aug. 16, 2010

I posted some comments on the Bylaw revisions today. For those who may be interested, they are attached here. Alan

4 4