June 2015 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Feedback on the new ALAC-Board meeting format
by Alan Greenberg June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting. I'll kick it off with my thoughts: 1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show". 2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate. 3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time. Alan

9 9

ALAC Chair, and At-Large Staff please note my proxy for CCWG and other ALAC At-Large Leadership discussions that go to vote or ballot tomorrow and when absent for the remainder of ICANN53
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

Whenever I am absent from convened meetings and proceedings for the remainder of ICANN53; I hearby appointed Léon Sanchez to act as my proxy without limitation or direction in all matters of discussion, polling, ballot or vote, in all matters where I would normally have the right to exercise those privileges... Please also redistribute print and file this wherever it is required Cheryl Langdon-Orr Date and time stamp to be taken from received email headers

2 2

Fwd: Feedback on the new ALAC-Board meeting format
by Eduardo Diaz June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

I forgot to send my comments to the list too. -ed ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Feedback on the new ALAC-Board meeting format To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> My apologies for not being there today. In any case, I think that having a broader ALAC engagement will always be better so it does not become a "one person" thing. Everybody should be able to participate. A timer always helps. -ed On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the > ALAC-Board meeting. > > I'll kick it off with my thoughts: > > 1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg > show". > > 2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because > the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. > In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate. > > 3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the > interventions, I am inclined to do so next time. > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > 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… > -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

1 0

ACTION: RE: Comments to accompany CWG ratification
by Alan Greenberg June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

Staff, please be prepared to post on adobeconnect. >From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> >To: 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: RE: Comments to accompany CWG ratification >Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:02:34 +0100 >Thread-Index: AdCslck7YaEcB9kxTI+XikPqwKNI4AA/HaIw > >Good morning Alan, > >Here are the issues that may be raised in our comments: > > >· The inclusion of 2 PTI Board members >to be populated by the Nominating Committee >should strongly ensure geographic diversity without neglecting the competence. > > > >· The sustainability of PTI remain a >serious concern, especially because it will rely >on ICANN in terms of its resources (particularly >funding) that needs to be carefully considered during implementation > > > >· The prerogatives of the CSC should >be strictly defined within its intent of >monitoring the operational performance of IANA >function related to names, and reporting. Its >reports should be transparently available to the community. > > > >· There is no need to include a CSC >liaison in the composition of the IFRT > > > >· The activity of IRFT should be >transparently carried out and community driven > > > >· The final decision on the action to >be undertaken will not be the IFRT one since it >would still be subject to GNSO/ccNSO approval. >So the multi-stakeholder nature is only an >intermediate phase that can be overridden by the registries. > > > >· The composition of the Separation >Cross Community Working Group (SCWG) should be >made up of people different from IFRT members. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tijani BEN JEMAA >Executive Director >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >Phone: + 216 41 649 605 >Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 >Fax: + 216 70 853 376 >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Envoyé : lundi 22 juin 2015 03:47 >À : Tijani BEN JEMAA >Objet : Comments to accompany CCWG ratification > >Tijani, could you send me in note form, the issues that you think >must be raised in our comments. > >Thank, Alan > > > >---------- >Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus >ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection ><https://www.avast.com/antivirus>Antivirus avast! est active.

1 0

CCWG-Accountability Issues
by Alan Greenberg June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

As I mentioned in the ALAC meeting yesterday, I had made a proposal which does not include the ability of the community to "enforce" its rights other than by the threat or reality of Board member removal. This matches the position taken by most At-Large people involved in the process, as opposed to the stronger Member or even designator model. A copy of my message to the CCWG is appended to this e-mail. At the moment, the "Empowered AC/SO" model is being discussed by the CCWG, which by simply stating that the AC/SO wants to use its rights as a Member, the AC/SO effectively has the same powers (as a legal person) as the Unincorporated Association would have in the previous proposals (but with the "alter ego" structure confusion). This mechanism would also work for Designators instead of Members. In our formal reply to the CCWG Public Comment, we said that if we had to choose between a Member or Designator model, we would select Member, because it was easier to explain that Designators. I now believe that we forgot a major consideration in this choice, and if I had it to do over again, I would choose differently. The reason is that we can start using Designators without changing ICANN into a Membership organization (by altering its Articles of Incorporation), and that I think is a major consideration. Alan >Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:17:00 -0400 >To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Plan B > >Given the spread between those who believe that we need ultimate >accountability, and those who are willing to trust that the >community wishes will be honoured, allow me to put a new variation >on the table. We have talked about all of the parts before, but >perhaps the combination is new. > >This proposal involves no Unincorporated Associates, no Designators >and no Members. > >Up to now, we have been working with Bylaws that we are now told >have no real basis in law, but which so far, have worked. I >specifically refer to things like the SOs, ALAC and the NomCom >appointing Board members, powers that under California law are only >given to Members or Designators, but our less formal entities are >granted these powers under the ICANN Bylaws and for whatever reasons, it works. > >I propose that we do the same with all of the community powers that >we want (including the requirement that Bylaws and certainly >fundamental Bylaws be approved), with the exception of formal budget >approval (which impinges on Board fiduciary responsibility). In lieu >of the latter, we could have a process by which and AC/SO lodges a >formal objection to a budget or budget item, and the Board has an >obligation to follow-up (I am not going to go into any further details here). > >Every Director, as a requirement of being seated signs an >irrevocable letter saying that if by specified procedure, they are >requested to step down, they will. The procedure might include the >formal action of the AC/SO that appointed them, or a more widespread >community request passing a specified level of AC/SO support - the >details would need to be defined, but do not alter this proposal. >The letter would also make reference to an enforcement mechanism >that could be invoked. The enforcement mechanism might be to give >the ICANN Ombudsman (or some other trustworthy and trusted >individual) the right to take court action to require the requested >resignation be honoured, or could give that right to the people >occupying the AC/SO Chairs. Any such action would be funded by ICANN >and funds held in escrow to ensure that this can be carried out. > >In unlikely event that a removal included the entire Board, or some >number such that the remaining Board members do not meet minimum >quorum requirements, the AC/SO Chairs will on an interim basis be >added to the Board on an interim basis. This augmented interim Board >would have caretaker responsibilities and have only limited rights >(to be specified). > >Board member removals would be unconditional and not appealable. > >I believe that the threat of invoking removal will likely be >sufficient to ensure that the community is given good control. And >should that fail, the actual removal of the Board member(s) who do >not support the community position can actually be removed. > >There are many details to be determined but I believe that this is >workable. It allows for the most of the powers that have been >requested with a minimum number of changes and does not create >significant new potential vulnerabilities. > >Alan >

2 1

Question regarding PTI Board
by Alan Greenberg June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

During the discussion on the CWG Proposal, there was a question of exactly what the proposal called for regarding the composition of the PTI Board. The wording in the proposal is: >PTI Board > >As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors and >have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers. >The construct of the PTI Board will be a range of 3-5 people to be >appointed by ICANN as the sole member of PTI. The PTI Board could be >comprised of three directors who are employed by ICANN or PTI (for >example, the ICANN Executive responsible for PTI, the ICANN CTO and >the IANA Managing Director), and two additional independent >directors. The two additional directors must be nominated using an >appropriately rigorous nomination mechanism (e.g. through the use of >the ICANN Nominating Committee). As you can see, the proposal does not provide a hard and fast specification, but does make some general recommendations. If all people maintain their current responsibilities, and the "ICANN executive responsible for PTI" is the same executive who is now responsible for IANA, the three "ICANN directors" would be Elise Gerich, David Conrad and Akram Atallah. Alan

2 1

RIR-RALO Cooperation
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

Dear RALO Chairs, Please note the Joint Meeting of the ASO/NRO with the ICANN Board scheduled for Wednesday at 2.00-3.00pm in Martin Fierro Room (Level 2 of conference venue - take elevator directly across Golden Horn). At the meeting, Ray Plzak (ICANN Board member selected by the ASO) will ask the RIRs to highlight their cooperation with RALOs at the regional level. This is an opportunity for RALOs to show support and interest to have enhanced cooperation at the RIR-RALO level across regions. Do consider sending RALO representatives to the meeting. Please check the ICANN meeting schedule on Wed to confirm the venue and meeting time in case there are changes. https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-board-nro-aso Best regards, Rinalia

2 1

Thoughts Requested on ICANN CEO Criteria
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim June 21, 2015

June 21, 2015

Dear ALAC and RALO Chairs, I am very much looking forward to seeing you and other At-Large community members again at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. *Important Topic Alert* The Board is interested in your input to help us refine the selection criteria for the next ICANN CEO. - On Sunday June 21st, there will be an ALAC/At-Large session with me, which will focus on the CEO Search and Criteria. - On Thursday June 25th, there will be a Board Session on the CEO Succession Process right before the Public Forum where your input would be invaluable. *Key Questions:* What characteristics and skills would you like to see in the future ICANN CEO? As no one person will meet all the desired criteria, which criteria are most important? What distribution of characteristics and skills would you like to see? I request that members of the ALAC and the At-Large spare some time thinking about and discussing this important topic. If RALO Chairs could facilitate discussions at the regional level leading up to Buenos Aires, that would be extremely helpful to feed into the discussions in Buenos Aires. As a reference and trigger for your thoughts and discussion, below is the CEO Profile from the 2011 CEO Search materials. I look forward to your input. Best regards, Rinalia *CEO Profile [from CEO Search in 2011*] Candidates will be expected to demonstrate to the highest degree possible the following experience and skills. These have been grouped under 4 headings that embody the multi-faceted nature of the role: *Professional* § Solid record of either/or public, corporate, academic service, at a high international level § Global exposure: experience of working in different countries or with different cultures § Experience in managing process work flows and ability to anticipate issues § Close familiarity with the ways in which civil society, business sector interests and regulatory authorities interact § Success in managing ICANN’s evolution as an organization, complex issues and programs, and key contracts § Track record of achieving results, not just ‘being there’ § Previous association with highly respected organizations § Leadership of dispersed international teams and active multi-stakeholders that provide policy input *Personal* § Consensus builder and catalyst, a motivator and persuader § Intellectually engaging, contributes to ‘thought leadership’ in helping define vision and strategy, and leverages the organization’s competencies § Combines weight of personality with empathy towards others of many different backgrounds § Practiced at exercising influence in non-hierarchical relationships § Earns respect and generates trust in him/herself and the organization § Multicultural with language skills, practiced communicator and public speaker § Aligns with ICANN's values: integrity, trust, humility, technical excellence and public service § Able negotiator, without making enemies, can represent ICANN and can present it well § Strong affinity with the Internet (but not just a “cheerleader”), conscious of its role and complexity, fully embraces ICANN’s mission and its bottom-up process § Embodies and practices the multi-stakeholder approach and welcomes significant volunteer involvement *Technical* § Internet architecture knowledge : understanding of the global Internet’s systems of unique identifiers, including domain names, protocol parameters and addresses § Institutional knowledge : familiarity with the functioning of registries and registrars, ICANN’s policy development procedures and user categories § Understanding of the domain names market structure and dynamics, including competition issues *The Internet Governance Ecosystem* § Institutions: understand the environment of those involved in the Internet and its administrative governance systems, notably IETF, ISOC, W3C, and other standard bodies (ETSI, ITU, ISO, Unicode) § International awareness: know the government stakeholders in Internet governance and how to interact with them § Knowledge of the UN system and other international organizations and processes § Ability to function and generate trust with all actors through operational excellence and respect for input from the multistakeholder base END

16 17

Discussion on ALS Expectations and Criteria.
by Alan Greenberg June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

This is a topic that we were supposed to be working on since the last meeting in Singapore, but the larger discussions on IANA and accountability has pretty much taken all of our time. However, we do have some time allocated in Buenos Aires to work on this, so I thought I would start the discussion. I am attaching a VERY brief "Discussion Paper". For those who will be in Buenos Aires, there is no need to reply here, but please read the paper and be prepared to talk about what it has right, what is wrong, and what needs to be added. The long term intent is to have RALOs, ALSes and individual members that can effectively support ICANN (and vice versa). Alan

2 2

NTIA Blog by Larry Strickling
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

FYI. Rinalia > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann… > > > > Stakeholder Proposals to Come Together at ICANN Meeting in Argentina > > June 16, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling > > Next week, hundreds of members of the Internet stakeholder community will attend the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) 53rd meeting in Argentina. As I head to Buenos Aires, one of NTIA’s top priorities continues to be the transition of NTIA’s role related to the Internet Domain Name System. Since we announced the IANA stewardship transition in March 2014 [1], the response of the stakeholder community has been remarkable and inspiring. I thank everyone for their hard work. > > The meeting in Buenos Aires will be pivotal, as the community finalizes the components of the transition proposal and determines what remains to be done. The three stakeholder groups planning the transition of the individual IANA functions have made great progress. I congratulate the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions for finishing its draft proposal and look forward to this work stream reaching closure. The other two stakeholder groups – the Internet Engineering Task Force, which is shepherding the protocol parameter proposal, and the five Regional Internet Registries, which collaborated on the numbering proposal – finished their proposals earlier this year. > > Now the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) must combine these proposals into a consolidated transition proposal and then seek public comment on all aspects of the plan. ICG’s role is crucial, because it must build a public record for us on how the three customer group submissions tie together in a manner that ensures NTIA’s criteria [1] are met and institutionalized over the long term. > > In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability. Given that the draft proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders to consider: > > The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions? > > > > The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented? Has the working group designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out? Similarly, has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of “operationalizing” groups that to date have been advisory in nature? > > > > The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP? > > > > In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model? Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard? > > > > The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees? > > All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the community’s completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future. > > As the plans take final shape, I hope the community starts to focus on the matter of implementation of its recommendations. Have the issues of implementation been identified and addressed in the proposal so that the community and ICANN can implement the plan as expeditiously as possible once we have reviewed and accepted it? This is an important issue right now because after the Buenos Aires meeting, NTIA will need to make a determination on extending its current contract with ICANN, which expires on September 30, 2015. Last month, I asked both the ICG and the Working Group on Accountability for an update on the transition planning, as well as their views on how long it will take to finalize and implement the transition plan if it were approved. Keeping in mind that the community and ICANN will need to implement all work items identified by the ICG and the Working Group on Accountability as prerequisites for the transition before the contract can end. The community’s input on timing is critical and will strongly influence how NTIA proceeds with the contract extension. I look forward to hearing from everyone in Buenos Aires. > > At this key juncture, it is timely to not only take stock of all the work that has occurred, but also what lies ahead. I recognize that some stakeholder groups have finalized their proposals and are anxious to move forward. But NTIA will only review a comprehensive plan that includes all elements, and we must let the multistakeholder process run its full course. In that same spirit, I urge all global stakeholders – community members, ICANN Board members, and ICANN staff – to work together constructively to complete this final stage of the transition. The commitment by the global community to develop a consensus proposal that meets NTIA’s conditions and improves ICANN’s accountability is a testament to the power of the multistakeholder model. > END

2 1