- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 22, 2010

Aug. 22, 2010

Well, the Board resolution on which this is all based was very clear about replacing the Liaison with the voting Board member. If our intent is to turn back the clock and go back to just a Liaison (as some people indeed feel would be best and have since the start of these discussions), then this is a good time to raise the issue. If we really want the voting Board member, then my inclination is to get that put in place and then based on experience, try to argue for putting back the Liaison (presumably instead of a second voting Board member). I just don't see how we could get both at the same time at this moment. There are certainly some Board members who want to see the voting position go forward, and no doubt some who would prefer the status quo. I don't think there are many who would buy one voting and one liaison at this time. It's not a perfect situation, but that is how I read things. We need to make up our minds which is more important and go for it. My personal opinion is that At-Large would be better served by a Liaison, but that Internet user community is better served by a good voting Board member. Alan At 21/08/2010 08:25 PM, Hong Xue wrote: >Thanks to Alan for the comprehensive comments. Another issue that >has been raised in Brussels but not sufficiently discussed ever >since is whether we want to advocate to keep the Board liaison along >with the selected At-Large Board Member. To my memory, draft bylaws >replace the liaison with the Board member. We may wish to comment on >this specific point as well. > >Hong > > > > >On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >While drafting my comments on the draft Bylaws associated with the >At-Large Director, I realized that we will need to formally put our >selection procedures into the ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP). > >I have done a first draft which can be found at ><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27>https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27. >I am also attaching a PDF version for your convenience. > >The current RoP (Rev10) is pointed to at ><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure>https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. > >The new draft rule includes Rationale's for some of the sub-rules. >These rationales would not be part of the final rule, but are there >to explain what I am proposing. > >With a few exceptions, the draft corresponds to the process that has >been agreed upon and has been given to the Board SIC. They are >specified in general terms, to allow the process to be refined based >on what we learn during this current process, and without having to >formally alter the RoP each time. > >There are two new parts that I am suggesting. > >First, although we have had some general discussions about proxy >voting, we have never agreed on any rules, and we never discussed >this in the context of the At-Large Director selection process. I am >suggesting that we allow proxies *IF* we come up with some general >rules (applicable for all votes) or if we develop some for the >Director selection process only. Essentially this rule says that >proxies are allowed *IF* we define exactly how they will work. If we >do this, it will ensure that we do not disenfranchise some RALOs. > >Second, our voting methodology said that we will use random >selection in the case of a tie. I think that it would be a really >poor outcome if we end up selecting our Director by a random >selection. I am proposing that if there is a tie, that the vote can >be held a second time which would allow some voters to alter their >vote. This *may* reduce the need for random selection. > >I am suggesting that we discuss this on the list and schedule a vote >for the next ALAC meeting. I suggest that staff take any messages >posted to the list and add them as comments to the wiki. If we >cannot come to closure in the remaining time, the vote could be >delayed, but it is important that we have the rule in place sometime >in the near future. > >To adopt a new rule or change existing rules, it takes a 2/3 vote of >all ALAC members who are voting in that ballot. > >I look forward to hearing comments on this. > >Alan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: <http://st.icann.org/alac>http://st.icann.org/alac > > > > >-- >Dr. Hong Xue >Professor of Law >Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) >Beijing Normal University ><http://iipl.org.cn/>http://iipl.org.cn/ >19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street >Beijing 100875 China

4 5

ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 21, 2010

Aug. 21, 2010

While drafting my comments on the draft Bylaws associated with the At-Large Director, I realized that we will need to formally put our selection procedures into the ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP). I have done a first draft which can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27. I am also attaching a PDF version for your convenience. The current RoP (Rev10) is pointed to at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. The new draft rule includes Rationale's for some of the sub-rules. These rationales would not be part of the final rule, but are there to explain what I am proposing. With a few exceptions, the draft corresponds to the process that has been agreed upon and has been given to the Board SIC. They are specified in general terms, to allow the process to be refined based on what we learn during this current process, and without having to formally alter the RoP each time. There are two new parts that I am suggesting. First, although we have had some general discussions about proxy voting, we have never agreed on any rules, and we never discussed this in the context of the At-Large Director selection process. I am suggesting that we allow proxies *IF* we come up with some general rules (applicable for all votes) or if we develop some for the Director selection process only. Essentially this rule says that proxies are allowed *IF* we define exactly how they will work. If we do this, it will ensure that we do not disenfranchise some RALOs. Second, our voting methodology said that we will use random selection in the case of a tie. I think that it would be a really poor outcome if we end up selecting our Director by a random selection. I am proposing that if there is a tie, that the vote can be held a second time which would allow some voters to alter their vote. This *may* reduce the need for random selection. I am suggesting that we discuss this on the list and schedule a vote for the next ALAC meeting. I suggest that staff take any messages posted to the list and add them as comments to the wiki. If we cannot come to closure in the remaining time, the vote could be delayed, but it is important that we have the rule in place sometime in the near future. To adopt a new rule or change existing rules, it takes a 2/3 vote of all ALAC members who are voting in that ballot. I look forward to hearing comments on this. Alan

5 6

Re: [ALAC] [soac-mapo] OK, so what happens next?
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 18, 2010

Aug. 18, 2010

Please see my (minor additional comments <CLO> inline below Chucks as well) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 19 August 2010 06:26, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > > Please see my responses below Avri. > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:18 AM > > To: Gomes, Chuck > > Cc: soac-mapo(a)icann.org > > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] OK, so what happens next? > > Importance: High > > > > Hi, > > > > Once the list discuses this ToR, will it be sent to the 3 chartering > > organizations (GNSO Council, ALAC and GAC) for approval? > [Gomes, Chuck] Because of the very late timing of this relative to the > new gTLD process, I am hoping that the ToR can be accepted in a rapid > and less formal manner. If all three organizations have to formally > approve the ToR, then that would likely take a month or two just to do > that before we could start discussions. The plan is to send the initial > draft to this list not later than tomorrow for discussion on the list > and hopefully in a call to be scheduled next week. I think it will be > easier for list participants to judge the approach once you see the > initial draft ToR and encourage you to comment after reading it. > <CLO> I will be asking ALAC to endorse the ToR's at our meeting Tue any way > > > [Gomes, Chuck] > And is it > > correct to assume that it is the 3 chairs who are creating the > original > > TOR? Or is this something being produced by some other entity. > [Gomes, Chuck] To get a jump start on the ToR and hopefully help us > start discussing the implementation issues more quickly, the three of us > are creating the first draft. > <CLO> Yup > > > > Also what does it mean to be a key participant. I ask especially > > relevant to the GNSO. How are these key participants being > designated? > [Gomes, Chuck] Probably a poor use of terms, but essentially the leaders > of the three organizations and some ICANN staff were invited to > participate in an evaluation of the draft ToR. Staff was invited for > support purposes. > <CLO> I asked the ALAC ExCom to join me in this for example > > > > > Finally, are the 3 SOAC chairs, planing to act as the co-chairs of > this > > group? > [Gomes, Chuck] The draft ToR calls for the three chairs or their > designees to co-chair the discussion team. > <CLO> Yes and we also ask for the AC/SO to appoint a Liaison etc., (another matter for our ALAC Agenda Tue) in keeping with the draft WG Procedures under consideration in the GNSO at the moment... <CLO> I finally want to point out that not only should all those on the SOAC-mapo list be assumed to be a WG participant (subject to thier confirmation etc., but that we also need to reach out to At-Large and of course further into the GNSO Constituencies to encourage more keen involvement as well as be joined by the GAC (who may join as a whole I believe) so do spread the word that a call for WG / DC Membership => either confirmation or addition I assume will be going out as well and needs to be promulgated widely... IMO > > > > thanks > > > > a. > > > > On 16 Aug 2010, at 14:49, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > > > > Please note the following next steps for this discussion group. > > > > > > 1. An initial version of draft Terms of Reference (ToR) will be sent > > to > > > this list by Thursday for list discussion. > > > > > > 2. A Doodle poll will be sent to this list to attempt to determine > > the > > > best meeting time possible for a weekly call; please respond to this > > > right away because we will try to have the first call as early as > > > possible next week. > > > > > > 3. A primary objective will be to finalize the ToR next week so that > > the > > > group may begin the real work promptly. > > > Action items: > > > > > > Glen - please send a list of the list subscribers to Cheryl, > > > Heather and I so that we can validate that key participants have > been > > > added. > > > > > > Gisella - please initiate a Doodle poll on this list, avoiding > > > conflicting GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO meetings; provide time options on > > Monday, > > > Tuesday & Wednesday; please include the 20:30 UTC time on Mondays if > > > there are not conflicts. > > > > > > Cheryl - please ensure that the collaborative work space is > > > implemented and announced on this list. > > > > > > Chuck > >

1 0

LACRALO recommendation for ALAC appointed representative from LACRALO to NomCom
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Aug. 16, 2010

Aug. 16, 2010

Dear all, LACRALO recommends to ALAC that José Ovidio Salgueiro, our representative from LACRALO serving on the Nominating Committee (NomCom) from 2009-2010, be re-appointed to NomCom for another term. There were no other nominations for this position from LACRALO and José Ovidio Salgueiro has accepted his nomination. Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh LACRALO Secretariat

1 0

Comments on the At-Large Director Bylaw revisions
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 16, 2010

Aug. 16, 2010

I posted some comments on the Bylaw revisions today. For those who may be interested, they are attached here. Alan

4 4

Re: [ALAC] Comments on the At-Large Director Bylaw revisions
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 16, 2010

Aug. 16, 2010

Well, for whatever reason, the comment period is still open. And since it is now after 9 am in Marina del Rey, that may not be the case much longer! Alan At 16/08/2010 11:30 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I'm generally OK with your changes except one. > >In the change toÂ Article XI, Section 2(4.j.1) >you propose eliminating the reference to >selection by "the At-Large Community". Even >though the procedures are maintained by ALAC it >must remain clear that this is to be a >community-wide process, and not just something >done by ALAC on behalf of community.Â I think >it needs to stay, as a reminder to all that: >1) The bylaw is making a distinction between >formally defined "ICANN At-Large" and the broader community-at-large >2) This is not just an ALAC process, it is one >that must include the view of the entire At-Large infrastructure > >Keeping the phrase "At-Large Community" intact >will dissuade furture ALACs from considering >change its RoP so to shut out the RALOs and ALSs from the process. > >So I'd modify your suggested change to this clause a little: > >Making a selection to fill Seat 15 on the Board. >Procedures for selection by the At-Large >Community are defined in the ALAC Rules of >Procedure. Notification of the At-Large >Communityâs selection shall be given by the >ALAC Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, >consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1). > > >- Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] NARALO Candidate for ALAC Delegate to NomCom Position
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 16, 2010

Aug. 16, 2010

Hello, This is to inform you that the NARALO recommendation for its regional representative to the Nomination Committee is for Eduardo Diaz to continue for another term. - Evan

1 0

AFRALO Candidate for ALAC Delegate do NomCom Position
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 16, 2010

Aug. 16, 2010

Dear Cheryl, We would like to inform you on behalf of AFRALO that Yaovi Atohoun has been recommended for the position of ALAC Delegate to the NomCom from the African region. Yaovi was nominated by Tijani Ben Jeema and was largely supported by the members of the region. There was no oposition to his nomination. Yaovi accepted his nomination on 4 August 2010. No other regional candidacies were received. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Public consultation on the Interim Paper on Policy Aspects Regarding Introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs - advice from James Seng, ALAC IDN Policy Liaison
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 13, 2010

Aug. 13, 2010

Dear All, With respect to the currently open public consultation on the Interim Paper on Policy Aspects Regarding Introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs (see: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#jig-initial-report) which closes on 9 September 2010, please see below the advice provided by James Seng, the ALAC IDN Policy Liaison, on whether the ALAC should comment on this paper: ** I am in contact with the folks in the Joint ccNSO‐GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) and am keeping tab on the progress they are making. The interim paper as it is right now is just a captured of all the issues and concerns involving the introduction of single-character. Therefore, there is no particular recommendations as of now that we can agree or oppose. And the fact capture is not something we can contest, nor do I see any missing issues in the paper. I think it is too early to comment on this. It would be more productive to wait for their next revision of the paper to make a comment. They are also going to publish the other topic JIG is working on (Variants) fairly soon. I just got a copy and is reviewing that right now. -James Seng ** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Call for ALAC members to join the ALAC/At-Large Improvements work teams
by Seth Greene Aug. 10, 2010

Aug. 10, 2010

Dear All, CALL FOR ALAC MEMBERS TO JOIN THE ALAC/AT-LARGE IMPROVEMENTS WORK TEAMS The ALAC/At-Large Improvements project is moving ahead. The goal is to review and improve both ALAC/At-Large’s participation in ICANN and the ALSes’ participation in At-Large. This will be done through the implementation of the 13 recommendations detailed in the Simplified At-Large Improvements Implementation Outline (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AhOqmBdY590QdExXZklQLVRZZUtncm1xSDZ…) We have divided these recommendations into four groups, each of which will be assigned a work team consisting of ALAC members and regional representatives. These recommendation groups (and work teams) are listed below. We are now looking for ALAC members to join each of the four work teams. We ask that those interested respond to the At-Large Staff (staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>) no later than Wednesday, 11 August 2010. Please specify which work team(s) you would like to join. Each work team is expected to schedule a call every two weeks. As with other At-Large work groups, these teams will conduct their business in English. For more details, please see the Improvements Project Plan (attached). The four recommendation groups and work teams are: Work team A: Work team on ALAC’s continuing purpose Rec 1: ICANN bylaws to reflect ALAC's continuing purpose Rec 10: ALAC/At-Large is home of individual Internet users Rec 11: Board statement recognizing Rec 10 Work team B: Work team on ALS participation Rec 3: Remove any obstacles in ALS-RALO-ALAC structure Rec 4: ALS education and engagement Rec 7: ALAC should choose its own communication/collaboration tools Rec 9: ICANN should strengthen its translation/interpretation tools Work team C: Work team on ALAC planning processes Rec 5: ALAC should develop strategic/operational plans as part of ICANN’s planning process Rec 6: At-Large should develop accurate cost models Work team D: Work team on ALAC’s policy advice development Rec 8: ALAC may request public comment period be extended to 45 days Rec 12: Consumer representatives should have input into decisions and policy advice Rec 13: ALAC/At-Large policy advice mechanisms should be strengthened Many thanks, Seth ____ Seth Greene At-Large Improvements Project Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) E-mail: seth.greene(a)icann.org<mailto:seth.greene@icann.org> Telephone: + 1 (212) 662-7723

1 1