- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2012

Sept. 3, 2012

Carlton, a few thoughts below. At 03/09/2012 01:20 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Dear Alan: >I have re-read your analysis and my position remains immutable. > >For the record, I took a primer on the GNSO policy development >process in preparation for co-chairing the Applicant Support WG. I >have also paid keen attention to your tutorial given long before now >on the workings of the GNSO and reprised by request in this thread. > >My understanding of that process is largely harmonized with yours >with a small exception. In my view, policy development in GNSO >should, of right, provide space for inclusion of the rest of the >community, hence the requirement for a formal PDP. It is only in exceeding rare situation where the rest of the community is excluded from GNSO activities. It is sad but true that generally they do not avail themselves of this right. The only case in recent history where we were limited in participation was the STI, and ALL GNSO G and Cons were similarly limited, all in the interest of balanced representation and a sufficiently small group as to meet the tight time deadline. It was sufficiently successful that *perhaps* it should be used as a model for other efforts, but to date it has not. >Regardless of that difference, I support the outcomes of your >analysis. And I urge my colleagues to ratify these and request the >ALAC Chair proceed to communicate our concerns in both detail and >with the appropriate level of alarm. > >To me the principle is not conroversial. This idea that the ICANN >Board may only adopt a policy perspective handed to them by the GNSO >must be rejected. For to give this credence is to accept that the >GNSO tail wags the ICANN Board's dog. And that corporate governance >model would be altogether exceptional, counterintuitive and >dangerous. Even for a California corporation albeit dedicated to a >multistakeholder model of policy development in the global public interest! I'd be careful about this. The GNSO has the Bylaw mandated role to "be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains". To say that the Board has the right to create policy on its own, and without the involvement of ICANN stakeholders, is giving the Board just a bit too much power in my mind, and is counter to the MS-model. The Board DOES explicitly have the power to adopt policy on an interim basis in exceptional circumstances, but must then rely of on the GNSO to craft a more permanent solution. >This idea of an all-knowing priesthood (the GNSO) claiming this >special unitary and exclusive relationship which informs its >exceptional supplications on behalf of us mere mortals is offensive to reason. The current GNSO Council model is explicitly not an all-knowing priesthood. It is mandated with managing or overseeing the policy development process which by necessity involves the entire GNSO (equivalent to the overall At-large). Alan >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >You will recall that at its last meeting, the ALAC unanimously >approved a statement to the Board reiterating its position that all >16 recommendations be implemented, and stressed that several were >very important and clearly did not require any prior GNSO policy >development. That ALAC statement can be found at ><http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice. >Based on further discussions, and in light of a controversy that has >arisen in the GNSO, it was suggested that the ALAC explicitly >identify which recommendations do not require any prior policy >development, and which might required GNSO policy development. >I had already done a brief review looking at which recommendations >might require policy development. I have since revised this and >present it to you here. >In summary, of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO policy >development, 3 *might* require policy development, but that would >depend on work carried out over the coming months and years, and 1 >does require policy development by the GNSO along with the rest of >the community, but in my opinion, does not require a formal PDP. >The detailed analysis is attached. The report with the >recommendations in detail can be found at ><http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf. >It is essential that this analysis reach the Board before the Board >Workshop scheduled for September 12-13. >I am not sure if Olivier wants to hold a formal vote on this, or for >the ALAC to just reach consensus, but regardless, the first step if >for anyone who does not agree with this analysis to speak up. >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…

1 0

Congratulations and WELCOME BACK!
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sept. 3, 2012

Sept. 3, 2012

JJS delighted to see you continue :-) Alan Welcome back AGAIN!!! :-) :-) :-) Excellent news indeed!!! I assume OCL will send congrats to the others mainly the Board Appointment but also Mary Wong who works so well with many of us in her previous GNSO guise(s) but will now be on ccNSO Council.... formally from 'all of us' *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr

14 20

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2012

Sept. 3, 2012

Sure. The formal Policy Development Process (PDP) is a process enshrined in the ICANN Bylaws. This policy MUST be followed if you want to make a policy that will immediately alter a Contracted Party contract. Both registry and registrar agreements have a specific list of things which can be modified by Consensus Policy (note the upper case C and P). This areas are sometimes referred to as issues that are "within the picket fence". If the PDP steps are followed (whether for a picket fence Consensus Policy or for anything else), and if in the end the GNSO adopts the policy recommendations with a "supermajority" (I'll define that in a moment), then when the policy goes to the Board, the Board must adopt the policy unless a Board supermajority defeats it. Supermajority: Normally in the ICANN context, this means greater than 2/3. When the GNSO had a simpler structure, a GNSO supermajority was also greater than 2/3. Now with the two houses, a supermajority means 2/3 of both house, or 3/4 on one house and a majority of the other. So to go over that earlier thought, if the GNSO approves a PDP outcome with a supermajority, it would take 2/3 of the Board to overturn it, or stated another way, it only take 1/3 of the Board to ratify it. That means that unless to policy is so onerous that most of the Board feels it would be bad for ICANN, they are pretty much compelled to approve it. So, in summary, a PDP is needed if you want to alter contracted party contracts (in certain areas) and/or you want to make it very difficult for the Board to ignore the recommended policy. If neither of these is an issue, the GNSO can adopt a less specific method of adopting policy. Such a method could, in theory, be faster (assuming all parties could agree), or different fora could be used that the GNSO WG structure. Note that there are those in the GNSO who do not agree with me and feel that ANY policy decision must follow the PDP steps. But I can find no document that says that and a number of people have said that my interpretation is a good one. Is that any clearer? Alan At 02/09/2012 09:48 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Dear Alan, > >Can you please clarify what you mean by 'requiring policy >development,' but not a formal PDP? > >Thank you. > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > >Rinalia Abdul Rahim > >sent via galaxy tab >On 3 Sep 2012 09:27, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >You will recall that at its last meeting, the ALAC unanimously >approved a statement to the Board reiterating its position that all >16 recommendations be implemented, and stressed that several were >very important and clearly did not require any prior GNSO policy >development. That ALAC statement can be found at ><http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice. > >Based on further discussions, and in light of a controversy that has >arisen in the GNSO, it was suggested that the ALAC explicitly >identify which recommendations do not require any prior policy >development, and which might required GNSO policy development. > >I had already done a brief review looking at which recommendations >might require policy development. I have since revised this and >present it to you here. > >In summary, of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO policy >development, 3 *might* require policy development, but that would >depend on work carried out over the coming months and years, and 1 >does require policy development by the GNSO along with the rest of >the community, but in my opinion, does not require a formal PDP. > >The detailed analysis is attached. The report with the >recommendations in detail can be found at ><http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf. > >It is essential that this analysis reach the Board before the Board >Workshop scheduled for September 12-13. > >I am not sure if Olivier wants to hold a formal vote on this, or for >the ALAC to just reach consensus, but regardless, the first step if >for anyone who does not agree with this analysis to speak up. > >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…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [EURO-Discuss] Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse ‘OpenStand’ Principles that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 31, 2012

Aug. 31, 2012

Dear Rudi, thank you for this. Do you have a URL link that holds this text, and if so, could you please add it to the WIKI page which we have set-up for our ALSes re: WCIT issues: https://community.icann.org/x/iQMQAg Many thanks, Olivier On 29/08/2012 17:00, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse ‘OpenStand’ Principles that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce > > IEEE, IAB, IETF, Internet Society and W3C Invite Other Standards Organizations, Governments and Companies to Support Modern Paradigm for Global, Open Standards > > [PISCATAWAY, N.J., and WASHINGTON, D.C., United States; GENEVA, Switzerland, and http://www.w3.org/ —29 August 2012]— Five leading global organizations—IEEE, Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Society and World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)—today announced that they have signed a statement affirming the importance of a jointly developed set of principles establishing a modern paradigm for global, open standards. The shared “OpenStand” principles—based on the effective and efficient standardization processes that have made the Internet and Web the premiere platforms for innovation and borderless commerce—are proven in their ability to foster competition and cooperation, support innovation and interoperability and drive market success. > > IEEE, IAB, IETF, Internet Society and W3C invite other standards organizations, governments, corporations and technology innovators globally to endorse the principles, which are available at open-stand.org. > > The OpenStand principles strive to encapsulate that successful standardization model and make it extendable across the contemporary, global economy’s gamut of technology spaces and markets. The principles comprise a modern paradigm in which the economics of global markets—fueled by technological innovation—drive global deployment of standards, regardless of their formal status within traditional bodies of national representation. The OpenStand principles demand: > > • cooperation among standards organizations; > > • adherence to due process, broad consensus, transparency, balance and openness in standards development; > > • commitment to technical merit, interoperability, competition, innovation and benefit to humanity; > > • availability of standards to all, and > > • voluntary adoption. > > “New dynamics and pressures on global industry have driven changes in the ways that standards are developed and adopted around the world,” said Steve Mills, president of the IEEE Standards Association. “Increasing globalization of markets, the rapid advancement of technology and intensifying time-to-market demands have forced industry to seek more efficient ways to define the global standards that help expand global markets. The OpenStand principles foster the more efficient international standardization paradigm that the world needs.” > > Added Leslie Daigle, chief Internet technology officer with the Internet Society: “International standards development for borderless economics is not ad hoc; rather, it has a paradigm—one that has demonstrated agility and is driven by technical merit. The OpenStand principles convey the power of bottom-up collaboration in harnessing global creativity and expertise to the standards of any technology space that will underpin the modern economy moving forward.” > > Standards developed and adopted via the OpenStand principles include IEEE standards for the Internet’s physical connectivity, IETF standards for end-to-end global Internet interoperability and the W3C standards for the World Wide Web. > > “The Internet and World Wide Web have fueled an economic and social transformation, touching billions of lives. Efficient standardization of so many technologies has been key to the success of the global Internet,” said Russ Housley, IETF chair. “These global standards were developed with a focus toward technical excellence and deployed through collaboration of many participants from all around the world. The results have literally changed the world, surpassing anything that has ever been achieved through any other standards-development model.” > > Globally adopted design-automation standards, which have paved the way for a giant leap forward in industry’s ability to define complex electronic solutions, provide another example of standards developed in the spirit of the OpenStand principles. Another technology space that figures to demand such standards over the next decades is the global smart-grid effort, which seeks to augment regional facilities for electricity generation, distribution, delivery and consumption with a two-way, end-to-end network for communications and control. > > “Think about all that the Internet and Web have enabled over the past 30 years, completely transforming society, government and commerce,” said W3C chief executive officer Jeff Jaffe. “It is remarkable that a small number of organizations following a small number of principles have had such a huge impact on humanity, innovation and competition in global markets.” > > Bernard Aboba, chair of the IAB: “The Internet has been built on specifications adopted voluntarily across the globe. By valuing running code, interoperability and deployment above formal status, the Internet has democratized the development of standards, enabling specifications originally developed outside of standards organizations to gain recognition based on their technical merit and adoption, contributing to the creation of global communities benefiting humanity. We now invite standards organizations, as well as governments, companies and individuals to join us at open-stand.org in order to affirm the principles that have nurtured the Internet and underpin many other important standards—and will continue to do so.” > > About IEEE > > IEEE, a large, global technical professional organization is dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. Through its highly cited publications, conferences, technology standards, and professional and educational activities, IEEE is the trusted voice on a wide variety of areas ranging from aerospace systems, computers and telecommunications to biomedical engineering, electric power and consumer electronics. Learn more at http://www.ieee.org. > > About the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) > > The IAB is chartered both as a committee of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and as an advisory body of the Internet Society (ISOC). Its responsibilities include architectural oversight of IETF activities, Internet Standards Process oversight and appeal, and the appointment of the RFC Editor. The IAB is also responsible for the management of the IETF protocol parameter registries. > > About the Internet Engineering Task Force > > The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual. The IETF is an organised activity of the Internet Society. > > About the Internet Society > > The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visitwww.internetsociety.org. > > About the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international consortium where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards. W3C primarily pursues its mission through the creation of Web standards and guidelines designed to ensure long-term growth for the Web. Over 375 organizations are Members of the Consortium. W3C is jointly run by the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (MIT CSAIL) in the USA, the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics (ERCIM) headquartered in France and Keio University in Japan, and has additional Offices worldwide. For more information see http://www.w3.org/. > > > > > Rudi Vansnick > President - CEO > rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be > Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 > Tel : +32/(0)9/329.39.16 > > ------------ "The Internet is for everyone" ------------- > www.internetsociety.be > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Congratulations and WELCOME BACK!
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 31, 2012

Aug. 31, 2012

Mucho thanks to all. Alan At 30/08/2012 07:54 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >JJS delighted to see you continue :-) Alan Welcome back AGAIN!!! :-) :-) > :-) > >Excellent news indeed!!! > >I assume OCL will send congrats to the others mainly the Board Appointment > but also Mary Wong who works so well with many of us in her previous GNSO >guise(s) but will now be on ccNSO Council.... formally from 'all of us' >*Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* > http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

About NomComm
by Presidencia Internauta Aug. 29, 2012

Aug. 29, 2012

Dear Colleagues: I am writing to reaffirm my belief in the decisions of the region. LACRALO had an open election, clear and fair vote and the two candidates and we had chosen a candidate with most votes. For your information, the member has obtained the majority of preferences in LACRALO has been Vanda Scartezini. I encourage you to support the final decision of our region, the strength of the decision of the user community. Thanks for your consideration. Best Regards -- *Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>/CTA <http://www.ctamdq.org.ar> FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org/> facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819*

1 0

Re: [ALAC] New gTLD update
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Aug. 28, 2012

Aug. 28, 2012

Hi Alan I fully support your response. I also support Carlton's suggestions. I am sure I will have more to say - but I hope that can wait until my holidays are over and I"m back in winter and Sydney. Holly On Tue 28/08/12 11:27 PM , Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca sent: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-27aug12-en [1] New gTLD Update for Applicants (27 August 2012) We have additional updates for applicants this week: Applicant Update Webinar The next Applicant Update Webinar is scheduled for Thursday, 6 September at 12:00 UTC. Topics will include status on Initial Evaluation, an update on batching/metering options, information on application comments, and new gTLD sessions we are planning for Toronto among other things. If you are unable to join us for the live webinar, it will be recorded and posted to the webinar page (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars) [2] on the new gTLD microsite. The webinar is open to everyone but directed toward applicants in particular. Clarification Questions Pilot The Clarification Questions Pilot is scheduled to kick off this week. Notices have gone out to the 50 applications selected and participation is optional. Preliminary evaluation results show that a large number of applications require clarification. The purpose of the pilot is to ensure that the questions evaluators ask are clear and applicants understand what information they are being asked to provide. See attached [PDF, 80 KB]. Change Requests We are finalizing the process to post application change requests. A set of seven criteria have been created to evaluate each request and, if approved, the change will be reflected on the posting page of the microsite http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus [3] ). New gTLD Microsite The new gTLD microsite is getting a facelift. We are working to refresh the microsite, making it a bit easier for you to find what you need. A new feature we will add is an Applicants Corner. This is a place where applicants can go to get important advisories as well as to check the status of various parts of the program still under development. Keep an eye out for the microsite's new look! _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [4] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [5] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [6]) Links: ------ [1] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fnewgtld… [2] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fnewgtld… [3] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fgtldres… [4] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [5] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [6] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun…

1 0

ALAC Advice on WHOIS Review Team Report
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2012

Aug. 28, 2012

During its June 23rd meeting, the Board asked for input from the ACs and SOs regarding how it should address the WHOIS AoC Review Report. I was asked to draft a statement for ALAC consideration. The statement is attached in both WORD and PDF formats, and for your convenience, the content is reproduced in this e-mail as well. The Board set a date of August 31 for receiving such input. Alan =================================== In its statement of June 19, 2012 (http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-rt-final-report/msg00014.html) the ALAC supported the recommendations of the WHOIS Policy Review Team and urged the Board to take effective action on these recommendations. On June 23, 2012, the ICANN Board, passed its resolution 2012.06.23.26: >Resolved (2012.06.23.26), the Board encourages public input on the >Final Report and Recommendations, and requests that the ASO, ccNSO, >GNSO, ALAC, GAC, and SSAC provide input to the Board by 31 August 2012. The ALAC wishes to re-iterate that it believes that the entire set of recommendations should be implemented with expediency. The ALAC understands that several of these recommendations may require GNSO policy development, but the vast majority do not. The ALAC wishes to highlight several of the recommendations that the Board clearly can move on unilaterally, and addressing these will both serve to improve the overall WHOIS situation and send a message to the community that the ICANN Board considers this to be an important issue. Recommendation 1: Make WHOIS a Strategic Priority. Recommendation 2: Consolidate current policies into a single clear and comprehensible policy statement. Recommendation 3: Outreach. Recommendation 4: Address Compliance transparency, reporting and resources. Recommendation 11: Improve Internic Service. Recommendation 15: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan. The ALAC notes that the Review Team's deadline for implementing Recommendation 15 has already passed. The Board needs to move quickly and decisively on this report.

3 2

New gTLD update
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2012

Aug. 28, 2012

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-27aug12-en New gTLD Update for Applicants (27 August 2012) We have additional updates for applicants this week: Applicant Update Webinar The next Applicant Update Webinar is scheduled for Thursday, 6 September at 12:00 UTC. Topics will include status on Initial Evaluation, an update on batching/metering options, information on application comments, and new gTLD sessions we are planning for Toronto among other things. If you are unable to join us for the live webinar, it will be recorded and posted to the webinar page (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars) on the new gTLD microsite. The webinar is open to everyone but directed toward applicants in particular. Clarification Questions Pilot The Clarification Questions Pilot is scheduled to kick off this week. Notices have gone out to the 50 applications selected and participation is optional. Preliminary evaluation results show that a large number of applications require clarification. The purpose of the pilot is to ensure that the questions evaluators ask are clear and applicants understand what information they are being asked to provide. See attached [PDF, 80 KB]. Change Requests We are finalizing the process to post application change requests. A set of seven criteria have been created to evaluate each request and, if approved, the change will be reflected on the posting page of the microsite http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus ). New gTLD Microsite The new gTLD microsite is getting a facelift. We are working to refresh the microsite, making it a bit easier for you to find what you need. A new feature we will add is an Applicants Corner. This is a place where applicants can go to get important advisories as well as to check the status of various parts of the program still under development. Keep an eye out for the microsite's new look!

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Internal] ALAC in an evolving ICANN.
by JJS Aug. 28, 2012

Aug. 28, 2012

*Dear colleagues,* * * *thank you for your substantial comments and suggestions. At this stage, our discussion has underlined quite a clear separation between function and structure:* * * *1) There is agreement on the need for clearly defined lines of responsibility. As ICANN is pushed into a new phase of transformation, so too must ALAC adapt: it must distinguish its most important duties from its more routine -if traditional- tasks; it must organize its work according to its own priorities, rather than being geared to react to agendas set elsewhere.* * * *2) Although there have been suggestions for some small changes, there is broad agreement on the definition of the lines of responsibility set out in my original e-mail, viz.* *- Community, Outreach, Communication,* *- Policy, Process, Legal,* *- Finance, Administration.* * * *3) There is no consensus on preferred structures. Some suggest that the lines of responsibility be integrated into the Executive Committee; others call for such lines to be led by individuals not necessarily seated on the ExeCom; yet others remark that such a task would provide the ideal level for the involvement of RALOs. Most comments dwell on the fact that the choice of a title (e.g. Vice Chair) is far less important than reliably performing a function (e.g. Community, which requires a stable, identifiable lead). A minority calls for a regional balance in leading the lines of responsibility, but most consider that regional balance is best achieved in other ways in ALAC.* * * *4) There is quite a basic difference of opinion between a minority which considers that the lines of responsibility should be dealt with in Working Groups, and could therefore be populated at the RALO level, and a majority which supports the idea of a more permanent approach. The latter considers that permanence would provide the additional advantage of visibility to both our community and to the wider ICANN.* * * *5) Several comments have called for any further discussion on lines of responsibility to be taken to the Rules of Procedure Working Group (RoP WG). This would indeed be quite normal, but the challenges ALAC and ICANN are now facing, render an ALAC-wide overview a necessity, if only to provide direction and guidance to the RoP WG.* * * *I remain at your disposal.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* * * 2012/7/5 Titi Akinsanmi <titi.akinsanmi(a)gmail.com> > Between a rock and a hard place (Yes I do like my sayings). > > Having read all mails - from JJS to Alan's this morning here are my > thoughts. > > *Labels, Positions and Structures in Volunteer organizations:* If not > properly managed can be quite detrimental moreso in a grouping that is > emerging from being viewed as 'unimportant'. That said - there is indeed > merit in being able to fashion out specific volunteering streams within > ALAC. > > *Work Streams vs Labelled Roles creating illusions/realities of superiority > and importance: * > > I mentioned this more to Olivier as Chair than anyone else - coming in to > ALAC as a newbie one of the fuzziest things is identifying where my > particular set of skills would best be leveraged alongside the value add > strategy I envisioned. Not a function of not knowing what I joined up (I > was warned - multiple times :-) for but rather an issue of having an ALAC > that is so convoluted: has people going off and doing their own thing > atimes to shine other times to truly move ALAC forward; also issue of those > with long term association coming with 'baggage' (good bad and ugly) which > deters efforts to move issues forward when engaged on and those who > genuinely would like to add value. > > In essence - my take is create work streams - label them if necessary to > add weight to the leadership but please lets manage the plethora of work > groups, committees etc etc that fragments our ability to engage as a whole. > The ALAC is becoming a bigger maze in the already convoluted maze called > ICANN and its WGs, Committees etc.(How many of these do we have currently - > those engaged on substantive vs organizational issues?) > > *ALAC Evolution:* > > Key is if we do end up with a formalized structure I would suggest its > along work/program/issue areas with leads appointed by those in that > particular grouping or by the entire ALAC membership. Each stream has a set > of deliverables/objectives that easily measurable. This hopefully (fingers > crossed) would foster increased participation than what currently exists. > > Finally in principle - agree to suggestion. Adding on more > elected/nominated/positions roles within though - I would caution against. > > Morning Thoughts from a close to term TT > > Enjoy the day ahead! > > TT > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > >wrote: > > > Somewhere in the thread that follows JJS' message, I think that it > > was suggested that we should formalize these groupings with our RoP > > revision. I would strongly suggest that we not do anything of the > > kind. People's skills and interests vary, and assignments should be > > made in accordance with these and not cast in concrete ahead of time. > > > > Alan > > > > At 29/06/2012 10:05 AM, JJS wrote: > > >*ALAC's tasks can be handled under three main lines. Each line would be > > led > > >by a Vice Chair, and each member would be required to join at least one > of > > >the three lines:* > > >*1) Community, Outreach, Communication* > > >*2) Policy, Process, Legal* > > >*3) Finance, administration* > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC-Internal mailing list > > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > > > ALAC Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > -- > Mrs. Titi Akinsanmi > > Consultant/Researcher > Mobile: +27 83 300 7105 > titi.akinsanmi(a)gmail.com > Impacting My Generation > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Internal mailing list > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > ALAC Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org >

3 3