October 2011 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] "What's At Stake" gTLD conference
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 20, 2011

Oct. 20, 2011

It's seeming highly likely that numerous issues -- notably the issue of applicant support in developing countries -- may demand a committment to multiple rounds. The ICANN Board committed at the last meeting to establishing a fund -- and seeding that fund with $2M -- for this purpose. Notwithstanding community (ie, GNSO, GAC and ALAC, expressed through the JAS WG report) concerns about the validity of this as an effective tactic, it exists as a commitment. And there is no way on earth that an independent foundation to administer such a fund could be enabled in time to form and have its personnel, structure and funding ready for this winter's round. So one may discern that event back in Singapore, the Board envisioned a subsequent round while it enabled this one. Plenty of details and community fedeback is left TBD, but the collective mindset of the Board seemed clear. Timing? No clue. I'm quite happy with "it's ready when it's ready", a theme that has driven most Internet innovation these days. - Evan PS: Having worked deeply in the Linux community during the height of Microsoft's intense opposition to anything open source, I think I have a well developed sense of the difference between FUD, legitimate concern and petty rumor-mongering. Little of what we've seen here is FUD, and it's no surprise that different advisors offer different advice. Indeed, these days I'm far more concerned with reverse-FUD (ratings agencies saying everything is fine when indeed there SHOULD be fear) than the original. On 20 October 2011 17:10, Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> wrote: > FUD sucks and hurts everyone and there's far too much of it in this > industry. On the other hand, ignoring reality isn't very helpful either. > > Looking at the realities of ICANN's processes, the studies that the GAC > wants done *after* all new TLDs have been in operation for a while, etc. -- > what do people here think is a reasonable estimate for when Round 2 happens? > > I'm asked by potential clients, "When will we see Round 2"? What should I > answer? > > I don't say "now or never," but I do tell them I don't think we'll see a > new round for at least a few years -- which is my honest best guess. > Furthermore, if they have a common trademark like "United," a competing > application from another "united" trademark holder is perfectly possible in > this round. If they have a coined, unique name like "Xerox" then they can > easily wait for Round 2 or 3 or whenever. So the impetus to apply in this > round is different for different brand holders. > > Antony > > > On Oct 20, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > > > Bret > > > > I've been hearing the same thing from quite a few people - including > potential applicants for this round. > > > > Personally I'd hate to see the good and positive aspects of new Tlds > being overshadowed by FUD being touted as "advice" by some of the new tld > crowd > > > > Regards > > > > Michele > > > > Mr. Michele Neylon > > Blacknight > > http://Blacknight.tel <http://blacknight.tel/> > > > > Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity > > > > On 20 Oct 2011, at 21:35, "Bret Fausett" <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> > wrote: > > > >> I really liked the idea that ICANN announce now when it will have the > next open application window as a way to take pressure off this round. The > "now or never" idea that a lot of consultants and back-end registries are > pitching is both factually wrong and, I think, detrimental to the process. > Scaring people into operating Internet infrastructure won't be good for > anyone, including the company that receives the delegation of something it > wasn't really sure it wanted anyway. "Now or never" also will substantially > increase the number of applications, which will complicate the evaluation > and launch process. > >> > >> I'd like to see ICANN announce now that it will open another application > window in January, 2013. That would give the companies sitting on the fence > comfort that they won't be left out, and we all will be able to see whether > what comes out of this first round is worth emulating. My expectation is > that after seeing what new TLDs really look like, with all of their > complexities and expenses, some of the companies now thinking of how to do > this will decide not to pursue it at all. For the undecided, I think it's > better to watch and learn than to learn while operating a registry. > >> > >> Bret > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Oct 20, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> > >>> Is anyone from NARALO going to this conference? > >>> > >>> http://www.cadna.org/Whats-At-Stake/ > >>> > >>> It seems like a very useful approach with which we might want to > associate > >>> ourselves. Yes, much of it involves major brandholders scared by the > influx > >>> of gTLDs, but it seems that there is much common ground between that > group's > >>> skepticism about the program and that of ICANN At-Large. > >>> > >>> As one example of how this may be interesting, apparently gTLD > consultants > >>> are unwelcome at the event: > >>> > http://domainincite.com/whats-at-stake-conference-bans-new-gtld-consultants/ > >>> ... > >>> boo hoo. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada > >>> Em: evan at telly dot org > >>> Sk: evanleibovitch > >>> Tw: el56 > >>> ------ > >>> NA-Discuss mailing list > >>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >>> > >>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > >>> ------ > >> > >> > >> ------ > >> NA-Discuss mailing list > >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >> > >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > >> ------ > > > > ------ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ > > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ >

1 0

"What's At Stake" gTLD conference
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 20, 2011

Oct. 20, 2011

Is anyone from NARALO going to this conference? http://www.cadna.org/Whats-At-Stake/ It seems like a very useful approach with which we might want to associate ourselves. Yes, much of it involves major brandholders scared by the influx of gTLDs, but it seems that there is much common ground between that group's skepticism about the program and that of ICANN At-Large. As one example of how this may be interesting, apparently gTLD consultants are unwelcome at the event: http://domainincite.com/whats-at-stake-conference-bans-new-gtld-consultants/ ... boo hoo. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Fwd: [soac-discussion] FW: ICANN 42 Public Forum Topics
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 20, 2011

Oct. 20, 2011

FYI -- the public forum will include several topics which are close to At-Large's interests. -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [soac-discussion] FW: ICANN 42 Public Forum Topics Date : Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:42:11 -0700 De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> Pour : soac-discussion(a)icann.org <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> Dear ICANN Community Leaders, Thank you very much for your suggested topics. Based on them, we now have published the Public Forum agenda after Steve Crocker's review and approval: http://dakar42.icann.org/node/27025 Your prompt responses to our call have made this timely publication possible, before the meeting starts in Dakar. We hope this will facilitate more informed discussions during the Public Forum, allowing the Community ample time to be aware of the agenda topics. Please note the following specifics to this meeting as well: - There is a separate session scheduled, *"CEO Succession Process"*, on Mon, 24 October, 15:00 - 16:30, in Chapiteau Tent. One of the suggestions we received was about this topic. - Just before the Public Forum on Thu, 27 October, a separate session will be held in the same location (Chapiteau Tent), *"Conflicts and Ethics"*, 14:00 - 15:30. There were some suggested topics related to this, which now can be raised in this separate session. - Public Forum will take place between 15:30 - 19:00. Thanks again for your support and co-operation in this agenda building process and hope to see you soon in Dakar. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Sr Dir Participation and Engagement ICANN

1 0

UPDATE: Election Call for ALAC Officers to serve from 31 October 2011 to ICANN AGM 2012
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 20, 2011

Oct. 20, 2011

Dear All, According to Rule 2.1 of the ALAC Internal Rules of Procedure <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/27854147/AL-2007-1-1-Rev11… <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/27854147/AL-2007-1-1-Rev11…>>, the ALAC will elect a Chair, at least two (2) Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur. Rule. 2.2 states that all officers are normally elected at an Annual General Meeting of ICANN. Rule 9.1 states that the election call will be sent by the current ALAC Chair. This stage having been undertaken, it is now time to discuss those nominations. The election schedule is as follows: *Election Schedule* 30 September 2011 Election Call /(sent to lists)/ 14 October 2011 Deadline for Officer Nominations /(sent to lists)/ 17 October 2011 Chair to post to the public ALAC list an "election summary" message /(sent to lists)/ 17-28 October 2011 Nominations are discussed 21 October Deadline for Nominees to Accept their Nomination /(sent to lists and or as notified and recorded on the relevant Election Pages of the At-Large Wiki)/ 23 October 2011 Start of AGM 28-29 October 2011 Election of ALAC Officers 31 October 2011 Election Results announced 31 October 2011 - New ALAC Officers take their seats The following nominations have been received: EURALO Olivier Crépin-Leblond Chair Sandra Hoferichter (N) Sylvia Herlein-Leite Cheryl Langdon-Orr Jean-Jacques Subrenat NARALO Evan Leibovitch Vice-Chair Ganesh Kumar (N) Cheryl Langdon-Orr LACRALO Carlton Samuels Vice-Chair Evan Leibovitch (N) Cheryl Langdon-Orr AFRALO Tijani Ben Jemaa Rapporteur Evan Leibovitch (N) Cheryl Langdon-Orr AFRALO Tijani Ben Jemaa Vice-Chair Dave Kissoondoyal (N) A 2011-2012 ALAC Officer Election wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2011-2012+ALAC+Officer+Election…> has been created that includes the following: - The election schedule as above; - An election schedule with the Rules of Procedure explanations; - ALAC officer criteria; - Nominations for ALAC officers. Warm regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

1 1

Travel restriction database
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 17, 2011

Oct. 17, 2011

I just came across an incredibly useful website for reviewing mandatory travel passport, visa and health issues. This one is on the KLM site, although other airlines/alliances offer the same content. The all use the "Timatic" database run by IATA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timatic) http://www.klm.com/travel/ru_en/prepare_for_travel/travel_planning/travel_c… Alan

2 1

Election Call for ALAC Liaisons to serve from October 2011 to ICANN AGM 2012
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 16, 2011

Oct. 16, 2011

** *Election Call for ALAC Liaisons to serve from October 2011 to ICANN AGM 2012* Dear All, The ALAC Liaison positions, and those currently serving in the role (until the ICANN AGM in Dakar) are listed below. The incumbent Liaisons are able to stand for reappointment. However, the current SSAC liaison, Patrick Vande Walle, has indicated that he does not wish to be nominated for reappointment. Please note that only ALAC members can nominate and select the Liaisons. *Nominations are now called for each of the following Liaison positions:* * GNSO liaison -- Currently held by Alan Greenberg <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/greenberg.html> * ccNSO -- Currently held by Cheryl Langdon-Orr <https://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/langdon-orr-11jan10.html> * SSAC -- Currently held by Patrick Vande Walle <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/vande-walle.html> * IDN Policy -- Currently held by Edmon Chung <https://community.icann.org/display/APRALO/Edmon+Chung+-+Bio+and+Statement+…> * NCSG -- Currently held by Beau Brendler <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/brendler.html> * dotMOBI -- Currently held by Andre`s Piazza *2011 ALAC Liaison Election Schedule: * * 11 October 2011 - Election Call (to be sent to lists.) * 24 October 2011 - Deadline for Liaison Nominations (to be sent to lists.) * 27 October 2011 - Chair to post to the public ALAC list an “election summary” message (to be sent to lists). * 27 October 2011 - Nominations are discussed. * 28 October 2011 - Deadline for Nominees to Accept their Nomination (sent to lists and or as notified and recorded on the relevant Election Pages of the At-Large Wiki.) * 31 October -- 4 November 2011 - Election of ALAC Liaisons -- if elections are required, they will be held 31 October through 4 November. Where only one nomination is received for any Liaison position, the nominee will be confirmed in that role on October 28^th . * 4 November 2011 - Election Results announced and any unconfirmed Liaisons begin in their roles. *Relevant rules from the ALAC Rules of Procedure: * RULE 4 - ELECTION OF LIAISONS 4.1 Liaisons to ICANN's Advisory Committees, Supporting Organizations and Constituencies can be established by approval of the Committee; in that case, they will follow the rules established for the appointment and functioning of the GNSO Liaison 4.2 **Refers to *The Board Liaison*, and is therefore not relevant here, and will be redacted from the ALAC ROPs* 4.3 The election can take place by electronic mail, online balloting, written balloting, or any other means deemed convenient and accurate 4.4 All liaisons serve for a term of one year starting from the closure of an Annual General Meeting and ending at the closure of the following Annual General Meeting. 4.5 Liaisons shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria: 4.6 They shall normally be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of ICANN and of the ALAC; 4.7 They shall accept to serve on behalf of the At‐Large Community by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, but also recognizing difference and enabling different opinions to be shared; 4.8 They shall accept, while acting in their capacity as an ALAC representative, to put the collective views of the ALAC, always, in front of their own. RULE 5 - QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR LIAISONS 5.1 There is no requirement for a Liaison to be a member of the At‐Large Advisory Committee;* 5.2 A conflict of interest statement must be filed; 5.3 A person may not serve two different liaison positions at the same time; 5.4 All liaisons can be removed before the end of their term by a vote of recall according to rule 11; 5.5 All liaisons have a duty of performing their roles with diligence and loyalty to the Committee, and are bound to meet the minimum participation requirements set forth in Rule 21. In case of failure to do so, the Chair shall call a vote of recall. The mission and responsibilities of each Liaison of the ALAC are: 5.6 To participate diligently in the meetings and activities of the body he/she is liaison to; 5.7 To communicate and advocate the positions of the ALAC to such body; 5.8 To report to the ALAC the current and upcoming activities of the body he/she is liaison to, as far as this is possible under the timing and confidentiality constraints of such *body;* 5.9 When this is possible under such constraints, ask to the ALAC for advance instructions on matters that are going to be discussed by such body. RULE 6 - PRIVILEGES OF LIAISONS 6.1 All liaisons have the same rights of access to information, mailing lists and documents *as the ordinary ALAC members.* * NOTE: with the exception of the ALAC liaisons to the GNSO and the ccNSO, there is no assured travel finding for ALAC Liaisons to attend ICANN Meetings unless they are serving ALAC members. Therefore, assurances that they can still perform their role will be required. *The 2011-2012 ALAC Liaison Election - Schedule and Nominees Workspace:* This workspace is available at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2011-2012+ALAC+Liaison+Election… . It includes the following additional important information: -qualification criteria for liaisons; -privileges of liaisons; -election procedures, including specific procedures for the ALAC liaison to the SSAC; -a table listing who has been nominated for the various liaison positions. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Cre'pin-Leblond ALAC Chair

6 8

Currency and SIM cards in Senegal
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 14, 2011

Oct. 14, 2011

Hi there. For anyone travelling to the ICANN meeting in Dakar next week. The currency in Senegal is the *Communaute Financiere Africaine franc (XOF), *also used in Togo, Mali and other francophone African countries Based on the tools I have available, as of today, *$1 = 473F* *€1 = 656F* *£1 = 747F* Here is information on getting mobile: Those of you who have an unlocked mobile phone will probably find that buying a prepaid SIM card for the week will be far less expensive than roaming costs using your usual carrier(*). Based on this page from Orange<http://www.orange.sn/djoumtouwayyatu,2,37,ay,e172125ff9ab2c5>(in French), the rates are, from what I can gather: SIM card: 2 000F ($4.23) comes loaded with 2 000F credit Per minute domestic: 85F ($0.18) Per minute domestic night (00:00-06:00): 50F ($0.11) Per minute international: 170F ($0.36) SMS domestic: 30F ($0.06) SMS international: 100F ($0.21) (*) My Canadian telco would charge me $3.00 per minute or $0.75 per SMS for Senegal You can also buy an unlocked phone there<http://www.orange.sn/djoumtouwayyatu,2,1720,ay,e172125ff9ab2c5>for as little as 12 900F ($27.30). I hope this is helpful. Feel free to pass it to anyone travelling. - Evan

1 0

Fwd: ICANN Board resolutions - from 11 Oct 2011
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 14, 2011

Oct. 14, 2011

Item 2 *VERY* interesting. >Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolutions - from 11 Oct 2011 >Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:34:59 +1000 >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-11oct11-en.htm > >Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board > >11 October 2011 > >* Note: Where available, draft Rationale of the >Board's actions is presented under the >associated Resolution. The draft Rationale is >not final until approved with the minutes of the Board meeting. > > >Consent Agenda > >Resolved, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are approved: > > >1.1. Approval of Minutes of 25 August 2011 ICANN Board Meeting > >Resolved (2011.10.11.01), the Board approves the >minutes of the 25 August 2011 ICANN Board Meeting. > > >1.2. Approval of Minutes of 17 September 2011 ICANN Board Meeting > >Resolved (2011.10.11.02), the Board approves the >minutes of the 17 September 2011 ICANN Board Meeting. > > >1.3. Approval of Delegation of .CW (Curacao), >Transitional Arrangements for Netherlands Antilles (.AN) >====================================================================================== > >Whereas, CW is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for Curaçao; > >Whereas, ICANN has received a request for >delegation of .CW to the University of the Netherlands Antilles; > >Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has >determined that the proposed redelegation would >be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities; > >Resolved (2011.10.11.03), the proposed >delegation of the .CW top-level domain to the >University of the Netherlands Antilles is approved. > >Whereas, the .AN top-level domain was delegated >on the basis of its former listing as an ISO >3166-1 two-letter country code designated for the Netherlands Antilles; > >Whereas, the ISO 3166-1 standard has removed the >"AN" code, and the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency >recommends its use be discontinued; > >Whereas, ICANN is not responsible for deciding >what is or is not a country, and adheres to the >ISO 3166-1 standard for guidance on when to add, >modify and remove country-code top-level domains; > >Whereas, the .AN top-level domain is still the >primary domain used by parties in the countries >and municipalities that comprised the former Netherlands Antilles; > >Whereas, there is a transition plan to move >registrations from the .AN domain to new domains >.CW and .SX, with the University of the >Netherlands Antilles continuing to act as >manager of the .AN domain until transition is complete, > >Resolved (2011.10.11.04), that the University of >Netherlands Antilles be instructed to report >their progress on decommissioning the .AN domain >every six months to ICANN against a relevant set of metrics, > >Resolved (2011.10.11.05), that the University of >Netherlands Antilles work to complete the >transition of the .AN domain to the .CW domain, >the .SX domain, and any other relevant domain; >so that it may be removed from the DNS root zone no later than 31 October 2014. > >Resolved (2011.10.11.06), that the .AN domain be >removed from the DNS root zone on 31 October >2014, if not requested earlier by the manager of the domain. > > >2. Approval of CEO Search Committee Membership >================================================= > >Whereas, 16 August 2011, Rod Beckstrom announced >that he will continue to fulfill his term as >ICANN's President and CEO, which will be completed on 1 July 2012. > >Whereas, the ICANN Board discussed CEO >Succession planning at the Board meeting on 17 September 2011. > >Whereas, the ICANN Board directed the Board >Governance Committee to recommend a slate of >Board members to comprise a CEO Search Process >Management Work Committee for the Board to consider at its next meeting. > >Whereas all members of the current Board and >liaisons, including incoming, have all stated >without reservation that they are not a >candidate for the position of CEO and will not accept it as offered. > >Resolved (2011.10.11.07), no current or incoming >member of the Board or liaisons may be >considered as a candidate for the role of the >CEO for the current CEO Selection process. > >Whereas, the following are the proposed members >of the group, based upon Board Governance >Committee recommendation and as refined by the Board: > >Steve Crocker > >George Sadowsky > >Bertrand de La Chapelle > >Erika Mann > >Chris Disspain > >Cherine Chalaby > >Ray Plzak > >R. Ramaraj > >Resolved (2011.10.11.08), the Board approves the >recommended membership of the CEO Search Process Management Work Committee. > >Resolved (2011.10.11.09), the George Sadowsky >will be the Chair of the CEO Search Committee. > > >Rationale for Resolutions 2011.10.11.07 - 2011.10.11.09 > >The ICANN Board has begun planning for and >developing the CEO succession process, to assist >in transition of the leadership. The >establishment of a work committee will allow the >Board to coordinate this process with regular >reporting to the Board as a whole, as well as >reviewing opportunities for community >involvement in the process. Timely succession of >the ICANN CEO will assist the organization in >maintaining its work in overseeing the security >and the stability of the DNS. The establishment >of the work committee will not have a financial >impact on ICANN, though resources are likely to >be required at later points in the process.

1 0

Fwd: For consideration: RAA Discussion Paper
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 14, 2011

Oct. 14, 2011

I am forwarding this note from Kurt Pritz related to options for amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. The discussion paper itself may be found at: <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/final-raa-discussion-paper-13oct11-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/final-raa-discussion-paper-13oct11-en.pdf. Feel free to redistribute this to your RALOs if desired. Alan >From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:36:41 -0700 >Subject: [council] For consideration: RAA DIscussion Paper > >Dear GNSO Council Members, > >I would appreciate it if you could please review >the attached Discussion Paper on Next Steps to >Produce a New Form of the RAA. This paper >suggests possible options for consideration by >the community to move the RAA amendment process >forward in a cooperative and timely manner. > >This paper was prepared in response to a request >from the Board to categorize proposed amendment >topics and summarize possible options for next steps. > >The recent efforts by the GNSO Council to >address some of the law enforcement >recommendations demonstrate progress and are >encouraging. There are many other proposals to >be addressed. We believe that this paper can be >useful in identifying additional alternative >paths. To be clear, this is not intended to >interrupt current work or advance ICANN Board or >staff opinion in the policy discussions. The >paper is meant to be responsive to requests for >information. It is also meant to signal that >there will be a high level of staff support to >facilitate the development of RAA amendments and any related policy activities. > >Two additional points: You will find that the >categorization of topics is not as >straightforward as we all might prefer. As >described in the paper, it is difficult to >determine whether a proposal is a policy issue >or is within the picket fence without >considering specific amendment language. >Finally, the paper indicates a preference for >undertaking substantive discussion now, to >develop specific recommendations for amendments >through negotiation or policy development or both. > >We hope that this Discussion Paper will >encourage further dialogue in Dakar with the >GNSO Council, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, >and the ICANN community with regard to >identifying an acceptable path forward. I am >sure this paper is likely to raise questions >also. I think an exchange of questions and >answers is important to realize the full benefit >of the thought that went into this a writing >does not always capture or describe all the >ideas generated. Please direct those questions >to Margie Milam, who will share them with the >cross-functional team that worked on this for your consideration. > >Best regards, > >Kurt > > >Kurt Pritz >ICANN > >4676 Admiralty Way, #330 >Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update
by Beau Brendler Oct. 13, 2011

Oct. 13, 2011

Why don't we appoint someone from the RALO level (who is not on ALAC) to work with each RALO chair to help resolve issues from below. That would not necessarily help evaluate the performance of the nomcom appointees, but it would help evaluate the bulk of the ALAC elected people. People in each RALO and the chairs could be invited to e-mail that person with concerns which could, in turn, be discussed with the chairs and evaluated. Then that material could be presented in a quarterly report or tri-annual report at the ICANN meetings to the excom. I wouldn't want to use the term ombudsman, but maybe that person could also work in conjunction with the ombudsman's office (since we are, in effect, dealing here with HR issues, but with no HR department, and with, after all, volunteers) to make sure proper procedure and good manners are followed. My guess would be that someone from the secretariat would make a good candidate for such a new "position." And maybe that "position" could come with some kind of stipend to sweeten the deal a little bit. Whoever did it would have to have a good sense of what's right and wrong, good common sense, and preferably some HR experience or interest. Most organizations that lean on a lot of volunteers have a "volunteer coordinator" position that is paid staff, who deals with these sorts of issues. We have no such thing. Instead we keep hand-wringing about it year-in and year-out. The ICANN staff currently assigned to us have their hands full with meeting procedure and whatnot, and it wouldn't be appropriate for ICANN to be evaluating performance in this manner anyway. I mean, we are talking about a lot of volunteers here, at least 30 or so, who are providing free labor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. To not have a basic system of evaluation and "job performance" for a fluid administration of people who have enormous learning curves, and are sometimes thrown into these positions without much preparation, is absurd. It's also a poor return on investment. And asking everyone to do busy work or be judged on the number of (often pointless and time-wasting) conference calls they show up for is a substantial penalty on the people who actually do good work -- it is not the solution to a problem. Just a thought. Beau -----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Sent: Oct 13, 2011 12:58 PM >To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca>, 'Carlton Samuels' <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >Cc: "lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, ALAC EXCOM <alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update > >I am not sure they are difficult to assess, but they are most >definitely subjective. And we tend to have an aversion to making >subjective decisions in this sort of area (although in real life, we >are continually called upon to make them). > >Alan > >At 13/10/2011 11:29 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote: >>Exactly Carleton, >> >>I've always maintained that we need to track both quantitative and >>qualitative measures - but the qualitative measure are MUCH more >>difficult to assess. I would really like to see suggestions on how >>this can be done - because it must be done. >> >>D >> >>Darlene A. Thompson >>Community Access Program Administrator >>Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >>P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >>Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >>Phone: (867) 975-5631 >>Fax: (867) 975-5610 >>E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca<mailto:dthompson@gov.nu.ca> >> >>From: Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com] >>Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 11:13 AM >>To: Thompson, Darlene >>Cc: Evan Leibovitch; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; >>lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; ALAC EXCOM; At-Large Worldwide >>Subject: Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project >>-- important update >> >>On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Thompson, Darlene >><DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca<mailto:DThompson1@gov.nu.ca>> wrote: >>The members of the region, right now, have no idea if their ALAC rep >>is showing up to meetings or giving any kind of substantive input >>while at these meetings. >> >>Ah, there's the rub.....emphasis on 'substantive input'! >> >>Carlton >> >> >>============================== >>Carlton A Samuels >>Mobile: 876-818-1799 >>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >>============================= >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC-ExCom mailing list >>ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0