March 2018 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Stephane van Gelder
by Evan Leibovitch March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Hello all, I am informed that Stephane died last weekend in a traffic accident. Stephane had been active in the GNSO and Nominating Committee and is was Chair of the GNSO during my time as ALAC Vice-Chair. While we didn't agree on everything, Stephane was one of the few members of the domain industry who had both the interest and capacity to work towards broad consensus. His presence at ICANN will be clearly missed. I have been aware of growing interest in the GNSO to support Stephane's posthumous nomination for the ICANN ethos award. I would support this. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

6 5

Fellowship on today's ALAC Agenda
by Alan Greenberg March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Attached and in the body of this message are the notes for today's discussion of the Fellowship on the ALAC Call. ----------------------------- ALAC Meeting 27 March 2018 Fellowship Questionnaire Program Goals and Vision 1. What does your group believe should be the objective of the Fellowship Program? How would the success of this objective be measured? > Integration of "graduates" into the > various constituent parts of ICANN as active participants in ICANN activities 2. The Fellowship Program was established to provide access to ICANN meetings to individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities. In your groups opinion, how effective is the Fellowship Program at fulfilling its current goal? > It is moderately effective in getting > people to know about ICANN. Although there have > been a number of notable successes, it is more > effective at raising awareness than in generating workers. 3. In your groups opinion, is this goal still a priority for ICANN, given the new bylaws? If not, what new goals would your group propose for the program? > Yes, it must still be a goal but with > a target of measurable success as measured by the AC/SOs. Assessment of Program Impact on your SO/AC group 4. Have Fellows contributed to the work of your group? If so, where do you think they have added the most value? What might be changed about the Fellowship Program to enhance participation of Fellows in your group? > At-Large has had a number of great > successes with Fellowship alumni. The greatest > value has come from the relatively few who have > chosen to devote time and energy to ICANN post-Fellowship. 5. Does your group make efforts to involve, educate, and/or inform Fellows about your work? If so, please describe these efforts. > Yes, but it is rather haphazard. We > engage at ICANN meetings, but there is no > concerted effort to draw people into our activities. 6. How willing would your group (SO/AC/SG/C) be to participate and take ownership for selecting and developing fellows, including giving them assignments, assigning mentors, etc? > We are willing to participate. Mentors > are possible, but that would presume filtering > candidates who have a particular interest in our areas. Selection Processes 7. Are you aware of the Fellowship selection process? What changes, if any, would you suggest for the selection process? > Yes, we are willing. Returning Fellows > should come with a specific AC/SO/Const in mind > and these must be balanced over the > organization. This shouldbe accompanied by the > identification of coaches from the appropriate group. > > The effectiveness of fellows returning > as mentors and coaches should be evaluated. > > Prospective fellows must be willing to > take intro courses on ICANN Learn. If there are > not suitable courses there that will provide > the needed background, they should be created. > > It should be clear that this is not > tourism, but a path towards active engagement. > > One of the problems may be the > categories used in the selection process. > At-Large fits best into "civil society" but we > do not comfortably fit into the typical model of "civil society". > > And lastly, as long as we still have > fellows at the public meeting asking questions > why ICANN doing nothing to regulate dangerous > content, we are clearly not getting the selection/preparation right. 8. An individual can be awarded a Fellowship up to three times. Do you suggest retaining or revising this number? Why? >We would like to see a study of who (and with >how many trips) actually becomes active in ICANN >on an ongoing basis prior to addressing this. 9. For Policy Forum Meetings, currently only Fellowship Alums can apply. Do you support continuing with this approach? If not, what changes would you suggest? >We support it IF there is data to demonstrate >that these people participate in the policy >activities and do so across the community. Program Size 10. Considering your responses to previous questions, would you suggest making the program larger, smaller, or maintaining the current size? >30 was a very effective group and At-Large >supported increasing it. It may be that 60 was >overreaching and there are not sufficient >available resources (throughout the community) to integrate them. 11. If the program were to be reduced in size, what would your group deem as the priorities for the program with a smaller cohort? >Migration of Fellows to active participation. >This is too expensive a program to use it as >purely dissemination of information about ICANN. Program Structure 12. When you interact with Fellows at an ICANN Meeting, do you find that they are sufficiently knowledgeable about ICANN? If not, what skills or areas of knowledge would you suggest increasing focus on for pre-Meeting preparation? > It depends on whether they are new or have been to prior meetings. 13. Do you think that Fellows spend sufficient time in working sessions with your group during the course of an ICANN meeting? If not, what would changes would your group propose? > No, but it would be good to have us > submit a list of sessions that would prove useful to them. 14. Do you feel that you have enough time to engage with Fellows at an ICANN meeting? > Sadly, no. Information Available on Program 15. Is the information currently available clear and sufficient for your community members to understand the Fellowship Program? If not, which elements could be improved and how? > A presentation either via > teleconference or at an ICANN meeting would be a good start. 16. Are your community members aware of the differences between the Fellowship and NextGen@ICANN Programs? If not, please state what type of clarification would be useful. > Yes, I believe so. General Questions 17. The Fellowship Program seeks to engage participants who will go on to participate actively in the ICANN community. What skills, attributes and backgrounds have provided the most successful and active participation in your SO/AC/SG/C? What skillsets and backgrounds would your group see as desirable for candidates for the Fellowship Program? > At-Large focuses on issues that impact > end-users. A passionate consideration for > end-users, those without the knowledge of ICANN, is the key. 18. With which elements of the Fellowship Program is your group most satisfied? What changes or improvements would your group most want to see implemented to the program? > We are most satisfied with the > relatively small number of people who have gone > on to make At-Large their home and productively > work with us. We would like to see more! 19. Do you have any other questions or comments about the Fellowship Program?

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Community Onboarding Pilot Program Call for Nominations by SOs/ACs
by Judith Hellerstein March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

3 2

ALAC NomCom delegates
by Alan Greenberg March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Selections/elections are coming soon. There has been a lot of individual discussion recently about exactly what characteristics we are looking for in the delegates we send to the NomCom. This year, I think we need to be VERY clear in what we are looking for. I would like to put together a small drafting team of people who have NomCom and related experience to propose such a statement. Please contact me privately if you are interested in participating. The deadline for having such a statement for inclusion in the call for volunteers is mid-April. Alan

1 0

SSR2 RT
by Alan Greenberg March 22, 2018

March 22, 2018

For your information, appended here is a letter sent from the SO/AC Chairs to the OEC and the SSR2-RT last week (slightly modified to reflect a wording that was confusing in the original message). I have asked our RT members for their thoughts on this plan and for confirmation that they will be staying on the RT. Alan >Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:08:40 -0400 >To: Khaled Koubaa <khaled.koubaa(a)board.icann.org> >Cc: Board Calendaring <board-caucus-ssr2(a)icann.org>, > SO-AC Chairs List <soac-chairs(a)icann.org>, ssr2-review(a)icann.org >Subject: SSR2-RT > >Dear Khaled, > >Thank you for your reply on behalf of the Board OEC to our request >for support in the appointment of an external facilitator to enable >the re-start of SSR2-RT. In this message, while ICANN61 is underway, >we hope to answer the questions you have raised to make tangible >progress during this meeting and immediately provide the RT members >and the broader community with much-needed action and clarity. In >short, to the extent that a procure process is necessary, we ask >that it commence immediately. The appointment of the facilitator and >all new members (already in progress within the SO/ACs) will signal >the formal "un-pause" or "re-start" of the SSR2-RT. > >Our overarching aim is to empower the RT members to come together as >a group and progress their work. To that end, it is absolutely >imperative that the RT members be involved in this discussion. Our >responses here should be interpreted as guidance from the community >rather than a top-down mandate. We therefore have included the RT >members in this reply, and ask that going forward our communications >include them, and that they contribute to these recommendations. > >To guide the procurement process (specific details for which are set >out below) we wish to explain in more detail the intended role of >the facilitator. Our email of 15 February stated: "The primary aim >of the external facilitator would be to facilitate this transition >process, with a view to winding facilitation down when RT members >and leaders consider that issues are satisfactorily resolved to >continue their work." We consider the role of the facilitator to be >a) onboarding new members who have joined since the "pause" and >agreeing on leadership from within the then current membership; b) >helping the group to work through concerns around membership and >scope as identified in a confidential survey conducted by the SO/AC >Chairs shortly after the pause; and c) helping the RT to identify >ways to reach consensus. Specifically in response to the procurement practice: > * Skill set requirements: To most effectively fulfil a), b) and > c) above, the facilitator should be external to ICANN, with > expertise in group dynamics and empowering group members with > divergent views and experience to coalesce around a common goal. > The SO/AC Chairs will provide the confidential responses received > to the survey conducted following ICANN60 which sought RT member > input on issues relating to membership and scope, and which > generated quite divergent responses. The facilitator must therefore > establish a safe space in which the broad range of views on > membership and scope can be discussed and common positions > identified, with agreement on moving forward in an agreed statement > of scope and list of members. > * Experience requirements: As appropriate to meet skill set > requirements above > * Scope of work: a) helping the group to coalesce around > leadership and onboarding new members who have joined since the > "pause"; b) helping the group to work through concerns around > membership and scope as identified in a confidential survey > conducted by the SO/AC Chairs shortly after the pause; c) helping > the RT to identify ways to reach consensus. > * Timing and duration: Facilitation ends when all expected > deliverables (below) are completed. > * Expected deliverables: a) confirmation of membership list of > RT going forward, with chair/s identified; b) an agreed statement > of scope; and c) if considered necessary by the RT members, a > request from the RT for additional or different resources (ie, more > members with particular skills, refinements to staff support), with > a clear statement as to how any such request is necessary to and > directly supportive of the RT's work. >We appreciate your positive response to our initial request, and are >prepared to respond promptly to any further questions this week, in >order that the procurement process can commence immediately. We ask >further that this be prioritised by the OEC so that the >facilitator's appointment - and thus the re-start of SSR2-RT - can >take place as soon as possible, and no later than 1 May for >scheduling to take full advantage of face to face time at ICANN62. > >Kind regards, on behalf of, > >SO/AC Chairs

1 0

ALAC Meeting next week
by Alan Greenberg March 22, 2018

March 22, 2018

The main focus of the ALAC meeting on Tuesday will be to come to closure on: - KSK Rollover Statement (https://community.icann.org/x/dw28B) - Issues to raise in the GDPR statement (https://community.icann.org/x/Ay68B) - Fellowship statement (https://community.icann.org/x/vS28B) PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS/THOUGHTS BY THE END OF SUNDAY so they can be summarized for discussion on Tuesday. Alan

1 0

URGENT: ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation
by Alan Greenberg March 21, 2018

March 21, 2018

A review of the Fellowship Program was announced on 31 January 2018. For no obvious reason, it seems to have not been acted on by me, Staff, RALO leaders and perhaps ALAC Vice-Chairs (not sure if they are on the list as they should be). The formal deadline is 30 March, but we have been granted a one week extension. A Wiki page will be created shortly. If you value the Fellowship Program, please contribute. Comments should include both what the program has (in your mind), done well and less well. Alan At 31/01/2018 12:15 PM, David Olive wrote: >Dear Community Leaders: > >We're launching a community-wide consultation on the Fellowship >Program to help inform its future direction. > >The attached paper provides an overview of the program, including a >breakdown of the data available on the Fellows, a questionnaire, and >other details about the consultation process. > >We anticipate that there will be interest in further discussing this >process and our team will be available to speak with community >groups about the current Fellowship Program and the questionnaire at >ICANN61 or remotely. Questions about the program and responses to >the questionnaire should be sent to ><mailto:fellowshipconsultation@icann.org>fellowshipconsultation(a)icann.org >by 30 March 2018. > >Grateful if you could share this information so that each community >group is aware of and has the opportunity to participate in the consultation. > >Best, > >Ergys Ramaj >Sr. Director, Public Responsibility Support, ICANN

4 4

At-Large workspaces
by Maureen Hilyard March 20, 2018

March 20, 2018

Hi staff As new At-Large workspaces are created could they please be added to the Workspaces listed on the left of the At-Large Dashboard.and with current workspaces listed at the top - especially if we are trying to encourage At-Large members to access policy workspaces? It would make it a lot easier to locate and access our own workspaces rather than using the search engine which usually lists every other constituency's workspace of a similar name, even if you add "at-large". Maureen

1 0

Re: [ALAC] "Policy" t4ravel slots for Panama
by Alan Greenberg March 20, 2018

March 20, 2018

I agree that this is NOT the slot for a "newbie". As the main criteria says, it is for someone who already is actively involved but would not otherwise be able to attend. Examples that come to mind are Daniel Nanghaka, Justine Chew and Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong. Alan At 19/03/2018 09:22 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >The policy meeting is usually for policy work, I don't think we >should have newbie for that. I however suggest that those who have >not attended ICANN meeting before but have been participating >remotely should be given priority. > >Regards > >Sent from my mobile >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 1:49 AM Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >We have a short time to do the call for travellers for the "policy slots". >Last time, the criteria were summarized in the call for expressions >of interest as: > >There are two travel slots that will be allocated to At-Large >participants who are ACTIVELY involved in some ICANN policy >activity, or those with a strong history of such involvement in the >past and an interest to restart. Those include gNSO or ccNSO PDPs, >CCWGs, ALAC support Working Groups and the At-Large Review (with a >lesser emphasis on the latter). Other slots may be opened due to >other travellers not being able to attend or not requiring full funding. > >During the selection, we decided that to the extent practical, we >should also tried to select people who had not been previously >selected. I an recommending doing that again, and also, to the >extent possible, try to identify people who will best benefit from >the extensive policy discussions we expect in Panama. >Are there other criteria that we should consider. >As in the past, the selection will be done by the RALO chairs and >me, to best identify local talent who need to be favoured. >The call needs to be made very soon, so please contact me quickly if >you have input. >Alan >_______________________________________________ >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… >

7 7

"Policy" t4ravel slots for Panama
by Alan Greenberg March 19, 2018

March 19, 2018

We have a short time to do the call for travellers for the "policy slots". Last time, the criteria were summarized in the call for expressions of interest as: There are two travel slots that will be allocated to At-Large participants who are ACTIVELY involved in some ICANN policy activity, or those with a strong history of such involvement in the past and an interest to restart. Those include gNSO or ccNSO PDPs, CCWGs, ALAC support Working Groups and the At-Large Review (with a lesser emphasis on the latter). Other slots may be opened due to other travellers not being able to attend or not requiring full funding. During the selection, we decided that to the extent practical, we should also tried to select people who had not been previously selected. I an recommending doing that again, and also, to the extent possible, try to identify people who will best benefit from the extensive policy discussions we expect in Panama. Are there other criteria that we should consider. As in the past, the selection will be done by the RALO chairs and me, to best identify local talent who need to be favoured. The call needs to be made very soon, so please contact me quickly if you have input. Alan

12 15