May 2016 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Rights Protection Mechanisms in all gTLDs. Outreach Letter
by Alan Greenberg May 31, 2016

May 31, 2016

Please note the following request. The ALAC was active in the creation of the current Trademark Clearing House and Universal Rapid Suspension process, so we may well want to provide input under this current request. Olivier and I were on the grup that developed them and will likely have some thoughts on the matter. Does anyone have an interest in taking responsibility for this query? I also note that there are several people with At-Large as their affiliation in the list of WG Members (https://community.icann.org/x/3iWAAw) I will also send this message to them as well. Alan >From: Glen de Saint GÃ©ry <Glen(a)icann.org> >To: "Alan Greenberg (alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca)" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, > Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org>, > Glen de Saint GÃ©ry <Glen(a)icann.org>, > "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> >Subject: Rights Protection Mechanisms in all gTLDs. Outreach Letter >Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 21:29:30 +0000 > >Dear Alan , > >Please find attached an outreach letter from the >GNSO PDP Working Group on the Review of all >Rights Protection Mechanisms in all gTLDs. > >If possible, please forward your comments to us >prior to ICANN56 but no later than 5 July 2016. >Ideally, we would like to consider community >feedback during our face-to-face session in >Helsinki. Please note, if you cannot submit by >the 5 July deadline, but would like to >contribute, please let us know when we can >expect to receive your contribution, so we can plan accordingly. > >Many thanks, >Glen > >Glen de Saint GÃ©ry >Manager Supporting Organisations Advisory Committees >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers - ICANN ><mailto:glen@icann.org>glen(a)icann.org >http://www.icann.org

3 2

Board resolutions from the ICANN Board meeting held on 27 May 2016
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 28, 2016

May 28, 2016

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-27-en Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 27 May 2016 1. Main Agenda: a. Approval of New ICANN Bylaws for IANA Stewardship Transition Rationale for Resolutions 2016.05.27.01 - 2016.05.27.04 b. Posting of Draft Restated ICANN Articles of Incorporation for Public Comment resulting from IANA Stewardship Transition Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.27.05 c. Service Level Agreement (SLA) with RIRs for the IANA Numbering Services Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.27.06 d. IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.27.07 e. AOB - Reconfirming Board resolution on .HOTEL and .ECO IRP Declaration Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.27.08 1. Main Agenda: a. Approval of New ICANN Bylaws for IANA Stewardship Transition Whereas, on 14 March 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of Commerce announced its intention to transition the stewardship of the IANA Functions to the global multistakeholder community. Whereas, on 10 March 2016, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) accepted and transmitted to the NTIA the following transition documents: (i) the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal, and (ii) the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability's Work Stream 1 Report (collectively, the "Transition Proposals"). Whereas, ICANN lawyers and the independent law firms hired to assist the community in the development of the Transition Proposals, worked diligently to create a new set of Bylaws setting out the various proposed changes to ICANN's current bylaws to give effect to the Transition Proposals. Their work was supported by a Bylaws Coordination Group, formed at the ICANN55 Meeting in Marrakech and comprised of community members from the various groups that contributed to the Transition Proposals. Whereas, the draft Bylaws were posted for public comment on 21 April 2016 for a period of 30 days. Upon the close of the comments, a detailed analysis of the comments was performed and modifications were made to the Bylaws in response to the public comments. ICANN coordinated with the independent law firms on the revisions. Whereas, ICANN's General Counsel has affirmed that the proposed New ICANN Bylaws remain consistent with the Transition Proposals and recommends that they be adopted to allow for implementation planning to continue. Whereas, the revisions to the Bylaws were shared with the Bylaws Coordination Group that was empowered to advise the legal drafting teams in advance of consideration by the Board. The Board then considered the inputs and reactions of the Bylaws Coordination Group as well as the public comment summary and analysis. Resolved (2016.05.27.01), the ICANN Board adopts the New ICANN Bylaws as revised on 26 May 2016 [PDF, 1.41 MB]. Resolved (2016.05.27.02), the New ICANN Bylaws will be deemed effective upon the expiration the IANA Functions Contract between ICANN and NTIA. The Board reaffirms its Resolution 2016.03.10.18, stating, "The Board is committed to working with the community to identify the portions of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations that can be implemented in the event that it is determined that ICANN's obligations to perform the IANA Functions will remain under contract with NTIA." Resolved (2016.05.27.03), the President and CEO, or his designee, is directed to plan for the implementation of the Bylaws so that ICANN is operationally ready to meet its obligations in the event NTIA approves of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and the IANA Functions Contract expires. Resolved (2016.05.27.04), the Board approves of the transmittal of confirmation to NTIA of the adoption of these Bylaws. b. Posting of Draft Restated ICANN Articles of Incorporation for Public Comment resulting from IANA Stewardship Transition Whereas, on 14 March 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of Commerce announced its intention to transition the stewardship of the IANA Functions to the global multistakeholder community. Whereas, on 10 March 2016, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) accepted and transmitted to the NTIA the following transition documents: (i) the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal, and (ii) the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability's Work Stream 1 Report (collectively, the "Transition Proposals"). Whereas, in addition to requiring changes to the Bylaws, the Transition Proposals also require ICANN's Articles of Incorporation to be modified. ICANN's lawyers, together with the independent law firms hired to assist the community in the development of the Transition Proposals, developed a draft Restated Articles of Incorporation that is agreed to be consistent with those Proposals. Resolved (2015.05.27.05), the ICANN Board approves the posting of the draft Restated Articles of Incorporation for public comment on the ICANN website as soon as reasonably practicable. c. Service Level Agreement (SLA) with RIRs for the IANA Numbering Services Whereas, on 10 March 2016, the Board approved a package of proposals to transition NTIA's stewardship of the IANA function to the global multistakeholder community (the "Proposal"). Whereas, the Proposal contains a requirement for a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between ICANN and the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) for the performance of the numbering services. Whereas, the Proposal contains eleven principles for the IANA Service Level Agreement. Whereas, the RIRs drafted the proposed SLA in accordance with the IANA Service Level Agreement principles in the Proposal following an open and transparent process, including public comment period of each version via the ianaxfer mailing list <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer>. The RIRs also had discussions and meetings with ICANN during the drafting process, and ICANN submitted written comments on various versions of the proposed SLA to the ianaxfer mailing list. Resolved (2016.05.27.06), the President and CEO, or his designee(s), is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to finalize and execute the Service Level Agreement with the Regional Internet Registries for the IANA Numbering Services as contemplated by the Proposal. d. IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement Whereas, on 10 March 2016, the Board approved a package of proposals to transition NTIA's stewardship of the IANA function to the global multistakeholder community (the "Proposal"). Whereas, the Proposal calls for ICANN to maintain its existing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for the performance of the protocol parameters functions, which has been in place since 2000. Each year a service level agreement is negotiated that supplements the MoU (the "MoU Supplemental Agreement"). Whereas, ICANN and the IETF have agreed to a final MoU Supplemental Agreement for 2016. Whereas, the 2016 IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement has been drafted in accordance with the IETF guidelines for contracted services. Resolved (2016.05.27.07), the President and CEO, or his designee(s), is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to finalize and execute the 2016 IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement with the IETF for the protocol parameters registries function as contemplated by the Proposal. e. AOB - Reconfirming Board resolution on .HOTEL and .ECO IRP Declaration Whereas, at its meeting on 10 March 2016, the Board passed the following resolution https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#2.a, adopting findings found in the Final Declaration [PDF, 2.15 MB] issued on 12 February 2016, in the consolidated Independent Review Process (IRP) proceedings relating to .HOTEL and .ECO. The resolutions of that meeting have been confirmed as approved by the Secretary, as posted on the ICANN website. Whereas, members of the Board raised some concerns about the speed at which the resolution was passed, and wanted to ensure that the record on the Board's vote, and any voting statement that Board members would like to include, were clear and fully transparent. Resolved (2016.05.27.08), the Board hereby reaffirms the following resolution it passed on 10 March 2016: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#2.a . _______________________________________________

1 0

ICANN Board adopts the new Bylaws
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 27, 2016

May 27, 2016

Hello, ALAC and Regional Leaders: Blog from Board Chair below on adoption of new Bylaws. Also, the new Bylaws have been transmitted to NTIA. A lot of people have worked very hard to make this happen. It is a dedication that is deeply inspiring from the multistakeholder Internet community. Together we have all effected change in ICANN, which I believe is positive. In every change there are always unintended consequences, but we will deal with it them best as we can together. Welcome to the new empowered community! Best regards, Rinalia Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/new-icann-bylaws. Blog by Dr. Steve Crocker (ICANN Board Chair) Today, on behalf of the ICANN Board, I am pleased to announce the adoption <http://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-27-en> of the new ICANN Bylaws <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-bylaws-27may16-en.pdf>, which reflect changes made as a result of the IANA Stewardship Transition package of proposals <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>. The new Bylaws are the result of hundreds of hours of work by the community and the legal teams. The Regional Internet Registries Service Level Agreement and Internet Engineering Task Force Memorandum of Understanding Supplemental Agreement have also been approved for signing and will go into effect after the transition. Later today, ICANN will be transmitting the new Bylaws to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA has previously stated that adoption of the new Bylaws is required for them to complete their review of the proposals, which is expected to occur in June. This is an important milestone for ICANN and the community. As we await the release of NTIA’s report, we continue to prepare for implementation of the transition proposals. We thank everyone for their continued hard work and support during this transition process.

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment on the Articles of Incorporation
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 27, 2016

May 27, 2016

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Grace Abuhamad* <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, 28 May 2016 Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment on the Articles of Incorporation To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Dear all, Per the Board resolution earlier today, the Articles of Incorporation are now up for public comment: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation…. Brief Overview *Purpose:* This Public Comment period seeks community input on the Draft Restated Articles of Incorporation developed to reflect the recommendations contained in the proposals by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) as provided to the ICANN Board on 10 March 2016 and transmitted to NTIA. (See Resolutions 2016.03.10.12-15 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#2.b> and 2016.03.10.16-19 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#2.c> ) *Current Status:* The proposed draft of the Restated Articles of Incorporation was developed collaboratively by the ICANN legal team and the independent counsel hired to advise the CCWG-Accountability and the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). Both the independent counsel to the community groups and ICANN's General Counsel agree that the draft Restated Articles are consistent with the community proposals relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. *Next Steps:* Any interested party may review and provide feedback on the draft Restated Articles during the public comment period. The comments will be analyzed and incorporated for the ICANN Board prior to its consideration of the adoption of the Restated Articles. Restated Articles must be adopted as part of the implementation planning process. Once adopted, the Restated Articles are expected to filed and go into effect in the event NTIA approves of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and the IANA Functions Contract expires. -- *Grace Abuhamad* Manager, Public Policy *ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers* 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 *Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? * *LEARN MORE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>. STAY UPDATED <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status>. FOLLOW <https://twitter.com/icann>. ENGAGE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved>. *

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] UPDATED Agenda for ICANN Board meeting on 27 May 2016
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 27, 2016

May 27, 2016

Hurray! Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Bruce Tonkin* <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Friday, 27 May 2016 Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] UPDATED Agenda for ICANN Board meeting on 27 May 2016 To: "bylaws-coord(a)icann.org" <bylaws-coord(a)icann.org> Just a short note to confirm that the Board has passed resolutions with respect to the 4 items of the agenda below. The exact wording of the resolutions will be posted publicly soon. Thanks all for your work since Marrakech to finalize the bylaws and agreements. A big thank you to the combined legal team on drafting the legal documents, and also for the broader ICANN staff for summarizing the public comments in a short timeframe. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, 27 May 2016 6:02 PM To: 'bylaws-coord(a)icann.org <javascript:;>' <bylaws-coord(a)icann.org <javascript:;>> Subject: UPDATED Agenda for ICANN Board meeting on 27 May 2016 From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2016-05-27-en Agenda | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 27 May 2016 Main Agenda * Approval of New ICANN Bylaws for IANA Stewardship Transition * Approval of Posting of the new Articles of Incorporation * Service Level Agreement (SLA) with RIRs for the IANA Numbering Services * IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement * AOB - Reconfirming Board resolution on .HOTEL and .ECO IRP Declaration _______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list bylaws-coord(a)icann.org <javascript:;> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord

1 0

Re: [ALAC] IMPORTANT: NomCom Delegates
by Alan Greenberg May 22, 2016

May 22, 2016

I have been asked about the possibility of feedback on the returning candidates. In preparation for calling for nominations and for the selection phase, I did ask the Chair of the NomCom for such feedback. I was told that the NomCom self-evaluates itself and all of the members and publishes the reports (and was probably the only ICANN group to do so) - see https://www.icann.org/nomcom2015. These evaluations will be available at the end of the selection process. Despite our desire to know how well our delegates are doing, he did not consider it fair to NomCom members for the NomCom Leadership Team to provide personal opinions outside of the evaluation process. Alan At 20/05/2016 09:47 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >As you know, the ALAC must select five >delegates, one per region, to the 2017 Nominating committee. > >The applicable section of the ICANN Bylaws >reads: "The ALAC shall, after consultation with >each RALO, annually appoint five voting >delegates (no two of whom shall be citizens of >countries in the same Geographic Region, as >defined according to Section 5 of Article VI) to the Nominating Committee." > >The regions have all made their recommendations to the ALAC. They are: > >AFRALO: Dave Kissoondoyal (2nd of 2 years) >APRALO: Amir Qayyum (2nd of 2 years) >EURALO: Sandra Hoferichter >LACRALO: José Ovidio Salgueiro >NARALO: Eduardo Diaz (2nd of 2 years) > >The ALAC must consider the RALO recommendations, >but is not obliged to follow them. > >In preparation for formally appointing >delegates, there will be an agenda item on next >week's ALAC meeting. If, for any reason, you >believe that we should not follow any of these >recommendations, please let me know privately, >and the ALAC will meet in confidential session to discuss the recommendations. > >Alan

2 2

REVISED: My comments on Draft Bylaws
by Alan Greenberg May 21, 2016

May 21, 2016

Here are my revised comments. Thanks to all for your feedback. It is a much stronger statement as a result. They are submitted Public Comment on my own behalf. I believe that Based on the comments so far, I have the full support of the ALAC on the first item, and significant but not full support on the second. I will wait until tomorrow near the end of the comment period to post a message about ALAC support (adjusting the above if necessary based on further input). Also attached is a redline version showing the changes from the earlier version. Alan ============================= Background: The Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) Reviews are being integrated into the Bylaws. The AoC called for the reviews to be held every three years, but was unclear as to how the three years was to be measured. The three years has been interpreted flexibly to allow more time between some reviews and the Board has deferred some reviews due to community overload (with the agreement of the NTIA, the AoC co-signer). The CCWG Proposal required the new reviews to be carried out no less frequently than every five years, measured from the start of one review until the start of the next one. It was recently realized that the last WHOIS review started in October 2010, so when the new Bylaws are adopted, we will already be several months past the October 2015 date for the next one to start and will need to initiate the next one immediately. Since the required review is on Registration Directory Services Review, renamed from WHOIS Review, we would technically NOT be in default, since there never has been an "RDS Review". But it is assumed that this distinction will not affect ICANN's actions. Section 4.6(e)(v) During the CCWG discussions on the interval between the reviews, the issue of ICANN immediately being in default on the WHOIS/RDS review was never raised. Moreover, since those discussions were held, the GNSO new RDS PDP WG has been convened and is well underway. It is reasonably clear that the people in the volunteer community who would likely participate in an RDS review significantly overlap with those who are heavily involved in the RDS PDP. To schedule an RDS Review soon after the Bylaws are enacted would be serious error and will only serve to slow the work of the PDP - a PDP that even now may go on for quite some time. It is clear that there is work that needs to be done that would fall under the auspices of a full-blown AoC-like Review. We need a good picture of how the various current WHOIS/RDS efforts mesh together. We need to assess how the recommendations of the first WHOIS Review are being implemented and their impact, as well as other WHOIS/RDS related activities unrelated to that last AoC review. But these efforts, as important as they are, do not need to be done by a full-blown AoC-like review. Most of the work can be done by staff. To the extent that "staff cannot be trusted", I and others in the community will gladly act as a sounding board and review their work. [For the record, I was the person on the ATRT2 who did the full analysis of the WHOIS RT Recommendation implementation, so I have some idea of what I am talking about.] The current Bylaws for the organizational reviews all have explicit time limits in them, but also have the words "if feasible". That was true even when the organization review interval was (foolishly) three years instead of the five years it was quickly changed to. "If feasible" allowed the Board to save an immense amount of wasted community expense and ICANN dollars. We need some wriggle room in the current case as well. I strongly suggest that the draft Bylaws be revised to allow additional flexibility to defer the RDS review until there is a real RDS or RDS plan to review, and would even suggest that once implemented, the new Bylaws soon after be amended to add the missing "if feasible". ============================= Background: The CCWG Proposal requires the Empowered Community (EC) to take a variety of actions but was not specific on exactly how this would happen or what people would take responsibility for ensuring that the actions are carried out. As a result this had to be addressed during Bylaw drafting. The concept of the EC Administration was created, embodied by the Chairs (or other delegates) of the AC/SOs participating in the EC. Along with the creation (or perhaps naming, since there was always a need for such a body/group) of the EC Administration, a section was added to the draft Bylaws placing restrictions on the people involved in the EC Administration. Section 7.4(d) "No person who serves on the EC Administration while serving in that capacity shall be considered for nomination or designated to the Board, nor serve simultaneously on the EC Administration and as a Director or Liaison to the Board." Lawyers Comments (in reply to my early raising of this issue): On March 31, 2016, counsel posed the following question to the Bylaws Coordination Group and received confirmation that the disqualification in Section 7.4(d) be included in the Bylaws: "Confirm that chairs of the Decisional Participants and persons designated by the Decisional Participants to serve on the EC Chairs Council cannot be nominated or serve on the ICANN Board. Such a provision would be consistent with other provisions in the current Bylaws, which provide that (a) "no person who serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) on any Supporting Organization Council shall simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison to the Board (Article VI, Section 4.2)" and (b) persons serving on the Nominating Committee must be "neutral and objective, without any fixed personal commitments to particular individuals, organizations, or commercial objectives in carrying out their Nominating Committee responsibilities" (Article VII, Section 4.4)."] I note that the term "nominated" as used in the new Bylaws is used in the sense of the current Nominating Committee. Once a person is "nominated" by the NomCom or an AC/SO, they will become a Director once the EC takes the appropriate action (and the EC has no option to NOT take such action). However, this is confusing terminology, because an AC/SO may well have a nomination process used to select candidates who will then vie for the actual AC/SO selection. I believe that the Bylaws Coordination Group may have erred in its reply and moreover, the Bylaw drafters went farther than was required in implementing that response. There are several reasons. 1. The CCWG has been very careful to only implement exactly what is specified or implied in the CCWG Proposal. The EC Administration is not explicitly named, but is implied in Proposal Paragraph 178, bullet 8 and elsewhere. There is no mention of restrictions such as those in this proposed Bylaw, and as described below, I can see no compelling reason to vary from the CCWG Proposal. 2. I cannot understand what the relationship is between the EC Administration and the rules that apply to the NomCom. The NomCom makes decisions. The AC/SO Chairs or other delegates who participate in the EC Administration have no discretion whatsoever. They MUST follow the directions of the entity nominating or removing a director. 3. Given that lack of ability to influence outcomes, I find it unreasonable to restrict such a person from submitting an SoI to the NomCom or to their own AC/SO as a potential director (ie to be "considered"). 4. I would find it quite reasonable that they would have to surrender (or be deemed to have surrendered) their EC Administration seat if they are actually nominated (nominated in the sense of the Bylaws - will actually serve on the Board once the EC Designates them). This is in line with the reference to serving "simultaneously" 5. I note that the wording in the proposed Bylaws is different from what was asked. The March 31st question was "Confirm that chairs of the Decisional Participants and persons designated by the Decisional Participants to serve on the EC Chairs Council cannot be nominated or serve on the ICANN Board.". The draft Bylaws extend that to "considered for nomination" which is a much wider group. 6. The path of AC/SO Chair to Director is not unreasonable - both require high degree of confidence in the person expressed by the AC/SO. And to be blunt, arguably two of our best currently seated AC/SO Directors have followed exactly that path, as did the current Board Chair (although in that case, since the SSAC has chosen not to be part of the EC, the rule would not be applicable). I strongly suggest that Section 7.4(d) be replaced by: "No person may serve simultaneously on the EC Administration and as a Director or Liaison to the Board. If a member of of the EC Administration is appointed as a Liaison to the Board, that person must be replaced by their AC/SO on the EC Administration prior to the Liaison appointment becoming effective. If a person is nominated by the Nominating Committee or an AC/SO to become a Director, that person must be replaced by their AC/SO on the EC Administration prior to the EC Administration designating that person as a Director and prior to that person taking part in any Board activities as an observer."

3 2

Re: [ALAC] CONSENSUS CALL: My comments on Draft Bylaws
by Alan Greenberg May 21, 2016

May 21, 2016

At 19/05/2016 12:23 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Tijani/Alan, > >Unless I am misunderstood Alan, as he seem to >indicate that the ALT already supported the >write-up so I am surprised to read Tijani's comment. If Tijani objected during the ALT call, I missed it. Several other ALT members explicitly supported my statements and urged me to submit them. >Irrespective maybe there is something that >Tijani is seeing that I am probably missing so >perhaps I could improve my understanding of >things by knowing why Tijani is of this view >(ofcourse while respecting his personal opinion as we must not always agree). > >As proposed in the CCWG proposal, the Chair's of SO/AC would represent the EC. Or it could be someone else if the AC/SO chose. > In the case of AtLarge that will be the ALAC > Chair. At the moment noting prevents an ALAC > Chair from being nominated as a board member > just that he/she will need to resign his/her > Chair position if he happens to make it to the > board. In that case, there will be no room for > concurrent occupant of the EC and of the board(either liaison or voting). He/she would clearly have to resign the EC position immediately. Whether would have to resign the Chair position prior to actually being seated is an interesting question. Since the Board tend to allow incoming Directors to be observers, resignation would probably be required immediate, but perhaps there would be reasons to stay temporarily as Chair and NOT be an observer on the Board. >My question then would be to know if we >currently identified conflict of interest(and >such disallow) in our current board member >selection/nomination process where a sitting >Chair cannot be nominated? If that exist then I >will have to differ on my previous stand and agree with Tijani. There are NO general restrictions about who can apply for a Board position other than they cannot currently be on the NomCom. An AC/SO might have local rules. There are none for the ALAC that relate to this, other than Board applicants cannot sit on the two selection committees we have. Such a rule has never been suggested that I am aware of. And given the example with several sitting (non-At-Large) Board members, I would not want such a rule. Alan > Otherwise I think the fix should be at our > board selection process instead; by requiring > that sitting Chair cannot be nominated for board talkless of being elected. > >Regards > >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos >On 19 May 2016 16:56, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" ><<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> wrote: >Alan, >I support your comment on Section 4.6(e)(v) but >not 7.4(d) because I donât find it a problem >to restrict to someone who is serving on the EC >administration to be simultaneously on the board >or to be candidate to such position. I even find >it a kind of avoiding the concentration of power >in the hands of a single person. >So please record my full support to your >comments on section 4.6(e)(v) and my opposition to those about section 7.4(d). > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tijani BEN JEMAA >Executive Director >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >Phone: <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>+216 98 330 114 > <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>+216 52 385 114 >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>Le 19 mai 2016 Ã 14:56, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> a Ã©crit : >>Most of the comments I made (sent to the CCWG >>list and IANA-Issues lists) have either been >>completely integrated into the CCWG comments or >>are not particularly important. There are two >>that I feel still have merit. I have reviewed >>them with the ALT, and I have their full >>support (including Cheryl and Leon who have >>been very involved in the current draft Bylaws >>as well as the more recent comments of the CCWG >>itself on the draft Bylaws. I am not making >>these comments without considerable thought. IN >>BOTH CASES, IF THE CURRENT DRAFT BYLAWS ARE >>IMPLEMENTED, I BELIEVE THAT ICANN WILL BE >>FOLLOWING A PATH THAT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT ALL OF US. >>I will be submitting these comments to the >>Public Comment on my own behalf, but I would >>like to be able to say that they are supported >>by the ALAC prior to the close of the comment >>oat 23:59 on Saturday. I would appreciate >>explicit statements of support, but in the >>absence of significant opposition, I will say >>that the comments are those of the ALAC. >>Alan >>PS I will not be submitting the comment until >>later today. If you notice any typos, please let me know ASAP. >>============================= >>Background: >>The Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) Reviews are >>now being integrated into the Bylaws. The AoC >>called for the reviews to be held every three >>years, but was unclear as to when the three >>years was measured from. The three years has >>been interpreted flexibly to allow more time >>between some reviews and the Board has deferred >>some reviews due to community overload (with >>the agreement of the NTIA, the AoC co-signer). >>The CCWG required the new reviews to be carried >>out no less frequently than every five years, >>measured from the start of one review until the >>start of the next one. It was recently realized >>that the last WHOIS review started in October >>2010, so when the new Bylaws are adopted, we >>will already be several months past the October >>2015 date for the next one to start and will >>need to initiate the next one immediately. >>Since the required review is an Registration >>Directory Services Review, renamed from WHOIS >>Review, we would technically NOT be in default, >>since there never has been an "RDS Review". But >>it is assumed that this distinction will not affect ICANN's actions. >>Section 4.6(e)(v) >>During the CCWG discussions on the interval >>between the reviews, the issue of ICANN >>immediately being in default on the WHOIS/RDS >>review was never raised. Moreover, since those >>discussions were held, the GNSO new RDS PDPWG >>has been convened and is well underway. It is >>reasonably clear that the people in the >>volunteer community who would likely >>participate in an RDS review significantly >>overlap with those who are heavily involved in >>the RDS PDP. To schedule an RDS Review soon >>after the Bylaws are enacted would be serious >>error and will only serve to slow the work of >>the PDP - a PDP that even now may go on for quite some time. >> >>It is clear that there is work that needs to be >>done that would fall under the auspices of a >>full blown PDP. We need a good picture of how >>the various current WHOIS/RDS efforts mesh >>together. We need to assess how the >>recommendations of the first WHOIS review are >>being implemented and their impact, as well as >>other WHOIS/RDS related activities unrelated to that last AoC review. >>But these efforts, as important as they are, do >>not need to be done by a full-blown AoC-like >>review. Most of the work can be done by staff. >>To the extent that "staff cannot be trusted" >>(something that I question, but will address), >>I am others in the community will gladly act as >>a sounding block and review their work. [For >>the record, I was the person on the ATRT2 who >>did the full analysis of the WHOIS RT >>Recommendation implementation, so I have some idea of what I am talking about.] >>The current Bylaws for the organizational >>reviews all have explicit time limits in them, >>but also have the words "if feasible". That was >>true even when the organization review interval >>was (foolishly) three years instead of the five >>years it was quickly changed to. "If feasible" >>allowed the Board to save an immense amount of >>wasted community expense and ICANN dollars. We >>need some wriggle room in the current case as well. >>I strongly suggest that the draft Bylaws be >>revised to allow additional flexibility to >>defer the RDS review until there is a real RDS >>to review, and would even suggest that once >>implemented, they soon after be amended to add the missing "if feasible". >> >>============================= >>Background: >>The CCWG Proposal requires the Empowered >>Community (EC) to take a variety of actions but >>was not specific on exactly how this would >>happen or what people would take responsibility >>for ensuring that the actions are carried out. >>As a result this had to be addressed during >>Bylaw drafting. The concept of the EC >>Administration was created, embodied by the >>Chairs (or other delegates) of the AC/SOs participating in the EC. >>Along with the creation (or perhaps >>identification, since there was always a need >>for such a body/group) of the EC >>Administration, a section was added to the >>draft Bylaws placing restrictions on the people >>involved in the EC Administration. >> >>Section 7.4(d) >>"No person who serves on the EC Administration >>while serving in that capacity shall be >>considered for nomination or designated to the >>Board, nor serve simultaneously on the EC >>Administration and as a Director or Liaison to the Board." >>Lawyers Comments (in reply to my early raising of this issue): >>On March 31, 2016, counsel posed the following >>question to the Bylaws Coordination Group and >>received confirmation that the disqualification >>in Section 7.4(d) be included in the Bylaws: >>"Confirm that chairs of the Decisional >>Participants and persons designated by the >>Decisional Participants to serve on the EC >>Chairs Council cannot be nominated or serve on >>the ICANN Board. Such a provision would be >>consistent with other provisions in the current >>Bylaws, which provide that (a) "no person who >>serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) >>on any Supporting Organization Council shall >>simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison >>to the Board (Article VI, Section 4.2)" and (b) >>persons serving on the Nominating Committee >>must be "neutral and objective, without any >>fixed personal commitments to particular >>individuals, organizations, or commercial >>objectives in carrying out their Nominating >>Committee responsibilitiesÃ¢ (Article VII, Section 4.4)."] >> >>I note that the term "nominated" as used in the >>new Bylaws is used in the sense of the current >>Nominating Committee. Once a person is >>"nominated" by the NomCom or an AC/SO, they >>will become a Director once the EC takes the >>appropriate action (and the EC has no option to >>NOT take such action). However, this is >>confusing terminology, because an AC/SO may >>well have a nomination process used to select >>candidates who will then vie for the actual AC/SO selection. >>I believe that the Bylaws Coordination Group >>may have erred in its reply and moreover, the >>Bylaw drafters went farther than was required >>in implementing that response. There are several reasons. >>1. I cannot understand what the relation ship >>is to the EC Administration and the rules that >>apply to the NomCom. The NomCom makes >>decisions. The AC/SO Chairs or other delegates >>who participate in the EC Administration have >>no discretion whatsoever. They MUST follow the >>directions of the entity nominating/removing a director. >>2. Given that lack of ability to influence >>outcomes, I find it unreasonable to restrict >>such a person from submitting an SoI to the >>NomCom or to their own AC/SO as a potential director (ie to be "considered"). >>3. I would find it quite reasonable that they >>would have to surrender (or be deemed to have >>surrendered) their EC Administration seat if >>they are actually nominated (nominated in the >>sense of the Bylaws - will actually serve on >>the Board once the EC Designates them). This is >>in line with the reference to serving "simultaneously" >>4. I note that the wording in the proposed >>Bylaws is different that what was asked. The >>March 31st question was "Confirm that chairs of >>the Decisional Participants and persons >>designated by the Decisional Participants to >>serve on the EC Chairs Council cannot be >>nominated or serve on the ICANN Board.". The >>draft Bylaws extend that to "considered for >>nomination" which is a much wider group. >>5. The path of AC/SO Chair to Director is not >>unreasonable - both require high degree of >>confidence in the person expressed by the >>AC/SO. And to be blunt, arguably two of our >>best currently seated AC/SO Directors have >>followed exactly that path, as did the current >>Board Chair (although in that case, since the >>SSAC has chosen not to be part of the EC, the rule would not be applicable). >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

3 3

IMPORTANT: NomCom Delegates
by Alan Greenberg May 21, 2016

May 21, 2016

As you know, the ALAC must select five delegates, one per region, to the 2017 Nominating committee. The applicable section of the ICANN Bylaws reads: "The ALAC shall, after consultation with each RALO, annually appoint five voting delegates (no two of whom shall be citizens of countries in the same Geographic Region, as defined according to Section 5 of Article VI) to the Nominating Committee." The regions have all made their recommendations to the ALAC. They are: AFRALO: Dave Kissoondoyal (2nd of 2 years) APRALO: Amir Qayyum (2nd of 2 years) EURALO: Sandra Hoferichter LACRALO: José Ovidio Salgueiro NARALO: Eduardo Diaz (2nd of 2 years) The ALAC must consider the RALO recommendations, but is not obliged to follow them. In preparation for formally appointing delegates, there will be an agenda item on next week's ALAC meeting. If, for any reason, you believe that we should not follow any of these recommendations, please let me know privately, and the ALAC will meet in confidential session to discuss the recommendations. Alan

1 0

CONSENSUS CALL: My comments on Draft Bylaws
by Alan Greenberg May 19, 2016

May 19, 2016

Most of the comments I made (sent to the CCWG list and IANA-Issues lists) have either been completely integrated into the CCWG comments or are not particularly important. There are two that I feel still have merit. I have reviewed them with the ALT, and I have their full support (including Cheryl and Leon who have been very involved in the current draft Bylaws as well as the more recent comments of the CCWG itself on the draft Bylaws. I am not making these comments without considerable thought. IN BOTH CASES, IF THE CURRENT DRAFT BYLAWS ARE IMPLEMENTED, I BELIEVE THAT ICANN WILL BE FOLLOWING A PATH THAT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT ALL OF US. I will be submitting these comments to the Public Comment on my own behalf, but I would like to be able to say that they are supported by the ALAC prior to the close of the comment oat 23:59 on Saturday. I would appreciate explicit statements of support, but in the absence of significant opposition, I will say that the comments are those of the ALAC. Alan PS I will not be submitting the comment until later today. If you notice any typos, please let me know ASAP. ============================= Background: The Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) Reviews are now being integrated into the Bylaws. The AoC called for the reviews to be held every three years, but was unclear as to when the three years was measured from. The three years has been interpreted flexibly to allow more time between some reviews and the Board has deferred some reviews due to community overload (with the agreement of the NTIA, the AoC co-signer). The CCWG required the new reviews to be carried out no less frequently than every five years, measured from the start of one review until the start of the next one. It was recently realized that the last WHOIS review started in October 2010, so when the new Bylaws are adopted, we will already be several months past the October 2015 date for the next one to start and will need to initiate the next one immediately. Since the required review is an Registration Directory Services Review, renamed from WHOIS Review, we would technically NOT be in default, since there never has been an "RDS Review". But it is assumed that this distinction will not affect ICANN's actions. Section 4.6(e)(v) During the CCWG discussions on the interval between the reviews, the issue of ICANN immediately being in default on the WHOIS/RDS review was never raised. Moreover, since those discussions were held, the GNSO new RDS PDPWG has been convened and is well underway. It is reasonably clear that the people in the volunteer community who would likely participate in an RDS review significantly overlap with those who are heavily involved in the RDS PDP. To schedule an RDS Review soon after the Bylaws are enacted would be serious error and will only serve to slow the work of the PDP - a PDP that even now may go on for quite some time. It is clear that there is work that needs to be done that would fall under the auspices of a full blown PDP. We need a good picture of how the various current WHOIS/RDS efforts mesh together. We need to assess how the recommendations of the first WHOIS review are being implemented and their impact, as well as other WHOIS/RDS related activities unrelated to that last AoC review. But these efforts, as important as they are, do not need to be done by a full-blown AoC-like review. Most of the work can be done by staff. To the extent that "staff cannot be trusted" (something that I question, but will address), I am others in the community will gladly act as a sounding block and review their work. [For the record, I was the person on the ATRT2 who did the full analysis of the WHOIS RT Recommendation implementation, so I have some idea of what I am talking about.] The current Bylaws for the organizational reviews all have explicit time limits in them, but also have the words "if feasible". That was true even when the organization review interval was (foolishly) three years instead of the five years it was quickly changed to. "If feasible" allowed the Board to save an immense amount of wasted community expense and ICANN dollars. We need some wriggle room in the current case as well. I strongly suggest that the draft Bylaws be revised to allow additional flexibility to defer the RDS review until there is a real RDS to review, and would even suggest that once implemented, they soon after be amended to add the missing "if feasible". ============================= Background: The CCWG Proposal requires the Empowered Community (EC) to take a variety of actions but was not specific on exactly how this would happen or what people would take responsibility for ensuring that the actions are carried out. As a result this had to be addressed during Bylaw drafting. The concept of the EC Administration was created, embodied by the Chairs (or other delegates) of the AC/SOs participating in the EC. Along with the creation (or perhaps identification, since there was always a need for such a body/group) of the EC Administration, a section was added to the draft Bylaws placing restrictions on the people involved in the EC Administration. Section 7.4(d) "No person who serves on the EC Administration while serving in that capacity shall be considered for nomination or designated to the Board, nor serve simultaneously on the EC Administration and as a Director or Liaison to the Board." Lawyers Comments (in reply to my early raising of this issue): On March 31, 2016, counsel posed the following question to the Bylaws Coordination Group and received confirmation that the disqualification in Section 7.4(d) be included in the Bylaws: "Confirm that chairs of the Decisional Participants and persons designated by the Decisional Participants to serve on the EC Chairs Council cannot be nominated or serve on the ICANN Board. Such a provision would be consistent with other provisions in the current Bylaws, which provide that (a) "no person who serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) on any Supporting Organization Council shall simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison to the Board (Article VI, Section 4.2)" and (b) persons serving on the Nominating Committee must be "neutral and objective, without any fixed personal commitments to particular individuals, organizations, or commercial objectives in carrying out their Nominating Committee responsibilitiesâ (Article VII, Section 4.4)."] I note that the term "nominated" as used in the new Bylaws is used in the sense of the current Nominating Committee. Once a person is "nominated" by the NomCom or an AC/SO, they will become a Director once the EC takes the appropriate action (and the EC has no option to NOT take such action). However, this is confusing terminology, because an AC/SO may well have a nomination process used to select candidates who will then vie for the actual AC/SO selection. I believe that the Bylaws Coordination Group may have erred in its reply and moreover, the Bylaw drafters went farther than was required in implementing that response. There are several reasons. 1. I cannot understand what the relation ship is to the EC Administration and the rules that apply to the NomCom. The NomCom makes decisions. The AC/SO Chairs or other delegates who participate in the EC Administration have no discretion whatsoever. They MUST follow the directions of the entity nominating/removing a director. 2. Given that lack of ability to influence outcomes, I find it unreasonable to restrict such a person from submitting an SoI to the NomCom or to their own AC/SO as a potential director (ie to be "considered"). 3. I would find it quite reasonable that they would have to surrender (or be deemed to have surrendered) their EC Administration seat if they are actually nominated (nominated in the sense of the Bylaws - will actually serve on the Board once the EC Designates them). This is in line with the reference to serving "simultaneously" 4. I note that the wording in the proposed Bylaws is different that what was asked. The March 31st question was "Confirm that chairs of the Decisional Participants and persons designated by the Decisional Participants to serve on the EC Chairs Council cannot be nominated or serve on the ICANN Board.". The draft Bylaws extend that to "considered for nomination" which is a much wider group. 5. The path of AC/SO Chair to Director is not unreasonable - both require high degree of confidence in the person expressed by the AC/SO. And to be blunt, arguably two of our best currently seated AC/SO Directors have followed exactly that path, as did the current Board Chair (although in that case, since the SSAC has chosen not to be part of the EC, the rule would not be applicable).

5 9