- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [Fwd: Clarifications Regarding Staff Summary-Analysis of Stakeholder Group Charter Public Forum]
by Adam Peake Aug. 8, 2009

Aug. 8, 2009

Nick, Rob Thanks for the response, but it doesn't directly answer the question asked on the EA RALO call. I read the caution and disclaimer in the staff summary, I expect Bill did too. But the particular quote from Cheryl's comment uses the words "we" and "our", hence, I think, the confusion. The relevant part of the summary again: > >"Finally, although the majority of comments were >strongly in support of returning to the original >NCUC Charter version, ALAC favored the SIC's >NCSG Charter that, ³best meets the aims of the >new GNSO Model and the Boards criteria, which we >support, and believe is (with the additional >version changes as at July 19th ) being >essentially met.² Continuing in this vein, ALAC >noted, ³Maturity and development of the new >design GNSO and specifically the parity and >viability of the User House will benefit greatly >with the fresh start°o this Charter in our >opinion provides and it should be noted that in >it we can see that the opinions and views >brought forward in our processes, activities and >meetings on the matter have been recognised, >heard and considered.² " > and as I said, I understood Bill's question as: is this an official ALAC position? Yes or no. What is the answer? From your reply it seems to be no. Correct? And if the answer is no I hope we can simply say so on the public forum and to the Board who received the summary. And yes, using "ALAC "to identify Cheryl's comments is of course confusing, ALAC has meaning as we all well know. (Sending this to the ALAC list where I sent my email rather than ALAC internal and including my original message so context is still understood.) Thanks, Adam At 7:48 PM +0200 8/7/09, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >Dear All: > >As a couple of queries have come in from Bill >and Adam with respect to the staff summary of >the NCSG public comment period, Rob has sent >along the below. > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Clarifications Regarding Staff >Summary-Analysis of Stakeholder Group Charter >Public Forum Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 08:50:47 >-0700 From: Robert Hoggarth ><mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org><robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org> >To: Nick Ashton-Hart ><mailto:Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org><Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> > > >Clarifications Regarding Staff Summary-Analysis >of Stakeholder Group Charter Public Forum Dear >Nick: > >I understand that there have been some recent >discussion within the At-Large community >regarding the Staff Summary/Analysis (S/A) of >the submissions in the GNSO Stakeholder Group >Charter Forum that closed on 24 July.- ><http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#stakeholder>http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#stakeholder >- and particularly the reference the S/A >document makes to the comments submitted by ALAC >Chair Cheryl Langdon-Orr. > >As the staff person responsible for that >document, I wanted to make sure that I cleared >up any potential confusion in the attribution >assigned to Cheryl¹s submission in the S/A. At >the beginning of every S/A document we clearly >include the caution to the reader that: > >³This document is intended to broadly and >comprehensively summarize the comments of the >various contributors to this forum but not to >address every specific argument or position >stated by any or all contributors. The Staff >recommends that readers interested in specific >aspects of any of the summarized comments or the >full statements of others refer directly to the >originally posted contributions.² > > >Further, with respect to the specific comments >submitted by Cheryl, I reproduced verbatim the >disclaimer that she provided at the top of her >submission. Footnote one at the beginning of >the S/A document reads: > >³[1] The Submission by Cheryl Langdon-Orr >specifically noted the following disclaimer, >This comment is intended to ensure that the >Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is >aware of and takes into account in this current >public comment period the previous activities, >views and opinions, including Advice to the >Board, and ratified Statements of the At-Large >Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the At-Large >Community with specific reference to the >development of the new structure of the GNSO, >its Council and the Stakeholder Group model. >This is not a formal or ratified statement or >comment per se but rather a synopsis of those >previously provided in various fora to date.¹ >For identification purposes this document uses >the ALAC¹ initials to refer to the submission.² > > >If for any reason, Cheryl would like to clarify >her comments or if she thinks the initials I >used to identify her comments were >inappropriate, please have her send me an email >at <>robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org and I will work >with the web-admin and tech-support teams to >re-open the Forum record to insert any >clarifications she might want to make to her >submission. > >Besr, > >Rob Hoggarth > > > > >-- > >-- > >Regards, > > > >Nick Ashton-Hart > >Director for At-Large > >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 > >USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 > >Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > >Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 > >email: <mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org>nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > >Win IM: ><mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com>ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com >/ AIM/iSight: ><mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com>nashtonhart(a)mac.com >/ Skype: nashtonhart > >Online Bio: ><https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart>https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > >At 7:00 PM +0900 8/8/09, Adam Peake wrote: >>Hi, >> >>Just read the transcript of the August 4th >>call. Seems to have been a bit of confusion >>over a question raised during the EU-RALO call >>a few hours before. >> >>Sébastien mentioned that Bill Drake asked for >>clarification about text attributed to ALAC in >>staff's summary of charter public comments on >>the GNSO stakeholder charters. >> >>The staff summary says: >> >>> >>>"Finally, although the majority of comments >>>were strongly in support of returning to the >>>original NCUC Charter version, ALAC favored >>>the SIC's NCSG Charter that, ³best meets the >>>aims of the new GNSO Model and the Boards >>>criteria, which we support, and believe is >>>(with the additional version changes as at >>>July 19th ) being essentially met.² Continuing >>>in this vein, ALAC noted, ³Maturity and >>>development of the new design GNSO and >>>specifically the parity and viability of the >>>User House will benefit greatly with the >>>fresh start°o this Charter in our opinion >>>provides and it should be noted that in it we >>>can see that the opinions and views brought >>>forward in our processes, activities and >>>meetings on the matter have been recognised, >>>heard and considered.² " >>> >> >> >>(staff summary available here >><http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00074.html>) >> >>Bill's question was: is this an official ALAC position? Yes or no. >> >>My view is if the answer's no we should ask >>staff to correct the summary. And inform the >>board as the summary was apparently the main >>information board members had before them when >>they voted on the stakeholder charters. Can we >>please be clear, yes or no. >> >> >>Cheryl, the transcript quotes you as saying: >> >>"And that would be where people such as Bill >>and Adam -- who would go back and read minutes >>-- would see a variance between what was >>recorded and what actually happened. That's why >>the minutes of the 28th of April 2009 need to >>be amended." >> >>I don't really understand the context of your >>remark, but you'll perhaps recall that in our >>May 26th call I commented on what I thought was >>the poor quality of the April 28th minutes. >>Once minutes are agreed we need to be careful >>about amending them without the committee being >>informed. >> >>I am beginning to think that summary minutes >>are still necessary. The transcripts (and >>recordings) are very useful, but they do not >>constitute a clear record of what action was >>taken, etc. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Adam >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>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 >>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >

1 0

Aug 4th transcript - question
by Adam Peake Aug. 7, 2009

Aug. 7, 2009

Hi, Just read the transcript of the August 4th call. Seems to have been a bit of confusion over a question raised during the EU-RALO call a few hours before. Sébastien mentioned that Bill Drake asked for clarification about text attributed to ALAC in staff's summary of charter public comments on the GNSO stakeholder charters. The staff summary says: > >"Finally, although the majority of comments were >strongly in support of returning to the original >NCUC Charter version, ALAC favored the SIC's >NCSG Charter that, ³best meets the aims of the >new GNSO Model and the Boards criteria, which we >support, and believe is (with the additional >version changes as at July 19th ) being >essentially met.² Continuing in this vein, ALAC >noted, ³Maturity and development of the new >design GNSO and specifically the parity and >viability of the User House will benefit greatly >with the fresh start°o this Charter in our >opinion provides and it should be noted that in >it we can see that the opinions and views >brought forward in our processes, activities and >meetings on the matter have been recognised, >heard and considered.² " > (staff summary available here <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00074.html>) Bill's question was: is this an official ALAC position? Yes or no. My view is if the answer's no we should ask staff to correct the summary. And inform the board as the summary was apparently the main information board members had before them when they voted on the stakeholder charters. Can we please be clear, yes or no. Cheryl, the transcript quotes you as saying: "And that would be where people such as Bill and Adam -- who would go back and read minutes -- would see a variance between what was recorded and what actually happened. That's why the minutes of the 28th of April 2009 need to be amended." I don't really understand the context of your remark, but you'll perhaps recall that in our May 26th call I commented on what I thought was the poor quality of the April 28th minutes. Once minutes are agreed we need to be careful about amending them without the committee being informed. I am beginning to think that summary minutes are still necessary. The transcripts (and recordings) are very useful, but they do not constitute a clear record of what action was taken, etc. Thanks, Adam

1 0

Two Resolutions Open for Comment Prior to Voting
by At-Large Staff Aug. 5, 2009

Aug. 5, 2009

Dear Members: At the Special Session of the ALAC on 4th August, the Chair asked that two resolutions be carried over for five days of comments from all of you prior to being put to the vote. Accordingly, if any of you have any edits to propose, you are kindly requested to do so on or before 10th August at 1800 UTC. The best way to do it is to leave a comment, via the comment button, at the URLs below. The resolutions are as follows: *Resolution on Creating an At-Large Review WG Implementation Plan (AL.ALAC/RES.0809/1)* https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?resolution_on_creating_an_at_large_revi… The ALAC endorses the following process proposed by the Staff, in order to create a plan for implementing the recommendations of the At-Large Review Working Group's Final Report as accepted by the Board of ICANN at its June 2009 meeting: 1. Staff will create a document showing the recommendations, at a high level. 2. Underneath each major recommendation, the staff shall propose an initial list of those activities or improvements to processes which seem relevant to that recommendation. 3. For each activity or improvement, a high level relative priority will be suggested ('near term' - 3-6 months; 'medium term' - 6-9 months; 'longer term - 9 months or longer). The premise used in developing the relative priority will be that the community does not want to spend a majority of its time or energy engaged in process improvements, and that it is therefore important the work undertaken is not to the detriment to the community's other priorities. 4. All of the above would then be provided for the whole At-Large community to review, for a 30-day period. During that time, community members could propose the addition of new subjects, deletion or modification of existing subjects, ask questions and provide any other comments they think relevant. 5. During the comment period, special purpose teleconferences would be organised for community members to gather and discuss all of the above, and provide additional input and ideas. 6. At the end of the comment period, a new version of the document would be produced incorporating the views expressed. This could then be subjected to a vote of the ALAC; at the same time, the staff could begin to look at the resourcing of the various initiatives. The objective of this process is to ensure that a igh-level plan for implementation of the review working group proposals approved by the Board would be complete in good time for the Board to review it at its Seoul meeting. This timeline also facilitates discussions at the face-to-face meetings in Seoul on the various elements the plan contains. *Resolution on Transmittal and Announcement of Adopted ALAC Statements and Advisories (AL.ALAC/RES.0809/2)* https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?resolution_on_transmittal_and_announcem… The ALAC, in order to further improve and standardize its bottom-up Policy Advice Development, resolves upon the following process to ensure that ratified ALAC Statements are transmitted to Public Comment processes, provided to the Board as required, and announced to the At-Large Community. When an ALAC Statement has been ratified, the Staff will send the Statement to the following recipients: * The member of staff responsible for the Public Consultation (if the statement is in relation to a public consultation), and; * The official address for submitting comments to the same where relevant, and; * The Secretary of the ICANN Board of Directors, and; * The Vice President of Policy at ICANN, and; * The At-Large Staff address, and; * The ALAC Board Liaison, and; * The ALAC-Announce list. The Staff will announce all ratified Statements on the news and the correspondence section of the At-Large website as appropriate. The text of these communications is to include the following information: * A brief overview of the adoption process of the Statement with a reference to the author of the original Statement and the date when it published for comments by the At-Large community. It will further be noted when the ALAC vote took place, what the result was of said vote was, and where the result can be verified and reviewed. * Links to the original version of the Statement as well as all revisions and the final ALAC Statement. Also, to facilitate the comparision of different versions of the Statement, a URL highlighting the changes between the different versions will be linked to the communication. * A notification that the document also serves as an official ALAC Advisory to the ICANN Board of Directors, where that is the case. Where the response is to an open Public Consultation, the notification will make clear that a copy is being provided to the Board as a courtesy, on the basis that the ALAC is an advisory committee of the Board. -- Regards, *ICANN At-Large Staff* Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Preliminary Report of ICANN Board meeting - 30 July 2009
by Wendy Seltzer Aug. 4, 2009

Aug. 4, 2009

Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:02:29 +1000 From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hello All, Below are the minutes of the Board meeting held last week. The key decisions with respect to the GNSO were: - approval of GNSO Stakeholder group charters (B 1 (a)) - approval of process for selecting ICANN Board seats 13 and 14 (B 1(b)) (note I abstained from the discussion and voting on that issue - although this is not stated in the preliminary minutes) - approval of single 15-working-day document deadline before an ICANN meeting No decision was made with respect to new constituencies or bylaw changes. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-30jul09.htm Preliminary Report of Special Board Meeting 30 July 2009 [Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board] Note: This has not been approved by the Board and does not constitute minutes but does provide a preliminary attempt setting forth the unapproved reporting of the resolutions from that meeting. Details on voting and abstentions will be provided in the Board's Minutes, when approved by the board at a future meeting. A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via teleconference 30 July 2009 @ 19.00 UTC. Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush promptly called the meeting to order. In addition to Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Rod Beckstrom (President and CEO), Roberto Gaetano (Vice Chairman), Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Raimundo Beca, Steve Crocker, Steven Goldstein, Dennis Jennings, Rita Rodin Johnston, Raymond A. Plzak, Mike Silber, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Bruce Tonkin, and Katim Touray. The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Janis Karklins, GAC Liaison; Ram Mohan, SSAC Liaison; Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison; Thomas Roessler, TLG Liaison; Wendy Seltzer, ALAC Liaison; and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison. Rajasekhar Ramaraj was not present for the meeting. This is a preliminary report of the approved resolutions resulting from the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, which took place on 30 July 2009 A. Consent Agenda 1. Board Finance Committee – Amended Investment Policy Whereas, ICANN adopted its Investment Policy in November 2007. Whereas, the Board Finance Committee requested that an outside expert review the Investment Policy to ensure it is appropriate for ICANN. Whereas, the outside expert completed a review of the ICANN Investment Policy and concluded that overall the Investment Policy is consistent with best practices of other similar organizations. Whereas, the outside expert recommended that minor modifications of the Investment Policy be made to ensure that it is as strong as possible. It is hereby resolved (2009.30.07.01) that the Board endorses the ICANN Investment Policy and adopts the minor amendments to the Investment Policy. 2. From the Board Governance Committee a. BGC Recommendation for Adoption of revised Conflicts of Interest Policy Whereas the Board adopted the current Conflicts of Interest Policy on 4 March 1999; Whereas the Board Governance Committee (BGC) reviewed and revised the Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy; Whereas the COI Policy was posted for a 30 day public comment period; Whereas the BGC considered the public comments received and made a few additional revisions; and Whereas the BGC recommends that the Board adopt the revised COI Policy. It is hereby resolved (2009.30.07.02) that the revised Conflicts of Interest Policy is approved. b. Approval of Board Governance Committee Recommendation for Academia & Research Representative for 2010 Nominating Committee Whereas, Section I.I of the Board Governance Committee charter directs the committee to recommend to the Board a nominee for the Academia and Research representative on the Nominating Committee, Whereas, Professor Jan Gruntorád was selected and approved by the Board in July 2008 as the Academia and Research representative on the Nominating Committee for 2009, Whereas, Professor Jan Gruntorád has agreed to serve as the Academia and Research representative on the Nominating Committee for 2010, Whereas, the Board Governance support this nomination and recommends that the Board select and approve Professor Jan Gruntorád as the Academia and Research representative on the Nominating Committee for 2010, Resolved (2009.30.07.03), the Board selects Professor Jan Gruntorád as the Academia and Research representative to the 2010 Nominating Committee. 3. From the Structural Improvements Committee a. Approval of Structural Improvements Committee Recommendation on Composition of the NomCom Review Working Group Whereas Article IV of ICANN Bylaws, Section 4 calls for periodic reviews of the key structures of ICANN; Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee has the duty to oversight ICANN’s organizational review processes through the engagement of external reviewers, and is authorized to ‘Create and populate Working Groups for each of the Reviews’; Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee considers that the work of the previously established NomCom review Working Group needs updating as to produce a report for public consultation; Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee voted the following composition of the NomCom Review updating Working Group: Thomas Roessler (Chair), Alejandro Pisanty, Jonathan Cohen, Steve Goldstein; and all nominated Members accepted to serve in this role; Resolved (2009.30.07.04), the composition of the NomCom Review updating Working Group as voted by the Structural Improvements Committee is hereby approved. b. Structural Improvements Committee Recommendation to direct staff to publish a Request for Proposal for the hiring of an external consultant for the Organizational Review of the ccNSO Whereas Article IV of ICANN Bylaws, Section 4 states that ‘The Board shall cause a periodic review (…) of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review’; Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee has unanimously approved and submitted to the Board for approval the draft Request for Proposal (RfP) of the first independent review of the ICANN’s Country Code Names Supporting Organization, containing Terms of Reference and Instructions to Bidders; Whereas the RfP was previously published for public comments for a period of 30 days, as directed by the Board, and no comments were received; It is hereby resolved (2009.30.07.05) that the Request for Proposal (RfP) of the first independent review of the ICANN’s Country Code Names Supporting Organization is approved by the Board; It is hereby resolved (2009.30.07.06) that the Request for Proposal (RfP) of the first independent review of the ICANN’s Country Code Names Supporting Organization be posted and advertised for soliciting applications from independent consultants. c. Structural Improvements Committee Recommendation for Adoption of the Paper on the Systematization of Organizational Review Processes Whereas Article IV of ICANN Bylaws, Section 4 calls for periodic reviews of the key structures of ICANN; Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee has the duty of ‘[r]eviewing, and suggesting changes as warranted to, ICANN’s policies and processes governing organizational review’; Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee, based on lessons learned during the present phase of the first cycle of organizational reviews of key structures of ICANN, has reviewed the present Organizational Review processes and considers that these processes can be rationalized in order to achieve greater effectiveness and efficiency while increasing the accountability and transparency of ICANN; Whereas, as directed by the Board, the attached paper entitled ‘Proposals for the Systematization of ICANN’s Organizational Review Processes’ was previously published for public comments for a period of 30 days and no comments were received suggesting changes to its terms; and Whereas, at its 15 July 2009 meeting, the Structural Improvements Committee has unanimously approved the adoption of the proposals outlined in the papers, and a recommendation to the Board to adopt the proposals and direct staff to move towards implementation. It is hereby resolved (2009.07.30.07) that the proposals set forth in the paper entitled ‘Proposals for the Systematization of ICANN’s Organizational Review Processes’ are adopted by ICANN. 4. Review of Ombudsman Reports and Recommendations to the Board Whereas, the Ombudsman has made recommendations to the Board of Directors following certain investigations conducted by the Ombudsman; Whereas, the Board thanks the Ombudsman for his continuing service to ICANN; Whereas, the Board has reviewed the Ombudsman’s recommendations to the Board; and Whereas, the Board acknowledges that most of the Ombudsman’s recommendations have already been addressed. It is hereby resolved (2009.07.30. 08) that as soon as practicable, Staff shall provide the Ombudsman with Board approved responses to the Ombudsman’s outstanding recommendations. Resolutions 2009-07-30-01; 2009-07-30-02; 2009-07-30-03; 2009-07-30-04; 2009-07-30-05; 2009-07-30-06; 2009-07-30-07; 2009-07-30-08 were approved in a single vote approving the consent agenda items. All Board Members present unanimously approved these resolution. B. Regular Agenda B 1. From the Structural Improvements Committee regarding GNSO Improvements B 1(a) Stakeholder Group Charters ================================= The Board discussed the public comments received regarding the proposed Stakeholder Group Charter for the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group and the opposition raised by some of the members of the current Non Commercial Users Constituency, and discussed the need to clearly state that the period of time for which the transitional charter will remain in effect and that, upon reevaluation after the transitional period, the Board will reevaluate in full, including but not limited to the continued need for a constituency-based model. The Board received an update from Staff regarding the necessity for all proposed charters to be approved together to allow for the GNSO to move forward and seat the new council in Seoul. The Board then took the following action: Whereas, the Board determined at its May 2009 meeting that most of the New GNSO Stakeholder Group Charters required revisions to ensure equitable participation and representation by new Constituencies and alignment with the Board-approved GNSO Improvements Report; Whereas, the Board’s Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) developed, posted, and discussed with the community revised SG Charter documents; Whereas, the Staff has made further administrative and substantive edits to conform the documents with the SIC’s intention s, to address additional community comments and to resolve various, non-substantive typographical, form and style changes; It is RESOLVED (2009.30.07.09), the Board approves each of the Charters of the Registries Stakeholder Group, The Registrars Stakeholder Group, The Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group as revised by the Structural Improvements Committee (copies of which accompany this resolution). The Board also approves additional charter elements to ensure the Bylaws principles of transparency, openness, fairness and representativeness and each Stakeholder Group is further directed to incorporate those additional charter elements into its permanent charter document at its earliest opportunity. The Board will re-examine the Stakeholder Group structures and their operations in one year and, thereafter, every three years to assure adherence to the ICANN Bylaws principles. In view of this resolution, the Board directs the Staff to re-initiate its work with the GNSO Constituency leaders to complete any necessary additional work on the re-confirmation of their existing charters (consistent with the principles and elements adopted with respect to the Stakeholder Group Charters) so that the Board can act on those documents at its September special meeting. Ten of the Board members present approved of this resolution. Three Board members opposed the resolution. The resolution passed. Another Board Member who was not present at the time of the vote but was present later in the meeting, also asked that her dissent and asked that it be placed on the record regarding the board’s role in making appointments. B 1(b) Board Seats 13&14 ========================== The Board received an update on the compromise solution for the seating of Board Seats 13 and 14. The Board then took the following action: Whereas, in June 2008, the Board formed a special working group (WG-GCR) to make specific recommendations regarding the restructuring of the GNSO Council. Whereas, as part of a comprehensive set of compromise recommendations the WG-GCR recommended that Board Seats #13 and #14 be selected in alternate elections by the Contracted Party House and the Non-contracted Party House of the GNSO Council. Whereas, the Board accords significant weight to the WG-GCR’s compromise recommendation in that it was formed through a thoroughly discussed and comprehensive community compromise. It is RESOLVED (2009.30.07.10); The Board approves the original recommendation of the WG-GCR with respect to the election of Board seats #13 and #14. The Contract Party House of the GNSO Council will nominate candidates for Board Seat #13 and select a Board member candidate by a 60% majority of that voting house. The Non-Contract Party House will nominate candidates for Board Seat #14 and select a Board member candidate by a 60% majority of that voting house. There will be no other restriction on the nomination or election of those Board candidates. All Board members in attendance unanimously approved of this resolution. B 1 (c) New Constituencies ========================== The Board received an update from Staff on the four pending petitions to form new constituencies within the GNSO. The Board then discussed that there are pending concerns with each petition, and received an update from the Structural Improvements Committee that it did not recommend the Board to take action on any of the petitions at this time, in favor of directing Staff to contact the prospective constituencies to inform of the issues within the petitions and allow for continued work prior to a Board decision. B 1 (d) Changes to Bylaws ========================= The Board received an update that Staff is working on preparing a package of all proposed amendments to the Bylaws that are required to seat a new GNSO Council in Seoul and allow the Bylaws to remain internally consistent. B 2 IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process ================================ The Board received an update from Staff on the ongoing work on the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process to keep on track for a launch of the process just after the Seoul meeting, including the institution of a pre-evaluation testing. The Board also discussed concerns relating to the fee issues and potential conflict with the Government Advisory Committee and ccNSO positions. B 3 New gTLDS – Remaining Open Issues =================================== The Board received an update from Staff on the progress made on the launch of the New gTLD process and the remaining open issues, including trademark protection, malicious use, root server scaling and economic studies. B 4 JPA Progress Report ======================== A confidential discussion was held on the progress of the JPA discussions. B 5 New CEO Progress Report =========================== The CEO made a statement to the Board regarding his first 30 days in service to the organization, thanked all for the support they’ve given in integrating him into the organization and educating him, and encouraging all to continue to work with the important issues ahead. B 6 Document Deadline Policy for ICANN International Meetings from Public Participation Committee ======================================================================================== Whereas the Public Participation Committee (PPC) was charged at the May 2009 Board meeting with producing and managing an operational policy for the publication of documents intended for use at ICANN’s international public meetings, starting with the Seoul meeting in October 2009; Whereas the Committee has reviewed the document deadline temporary policy which was set up for the ICANN meeting in Sydney, and has held public and private meetings to discuss the impact and results of that policy; Whereas the Committee remains aware that the introduction of a document deadline policy will have a significant impact on the organization and its pattern of work and so will need to be introduced with sensitivity and creative compromise; It is hereby resolved (2009.07.30.11) that ICANN introduce a single 15-working-day document deadline for all ICANN international public meetings, from this point forward. That deadline will include all documentation for that meeting, as well as meeting agendas. It is also hereby resolved (2009.07.30.12) that an operational policy providing fuller details of the document deadline be published for public comment for a period of 30 days and that its implementation be monitored by the PPC, who should report back to the Board with any suggested refinements, as needed. The Board conducted an executive session without staff present, in confidence. The Meeting was adjourned at approximately, -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

Agenda for tomorrow's special ALAC meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart Aug. 3, 2009

Aug. 3, 2009

Dear members: We have further fleshed out the agenda for tomorrow, and more updates will occur over the course of the evening. In particular, you can now see at-a-glance the various election processes, with dates for each step, as required in ALAC's Rules of Procedure. As the ALAC doesn't provide for the appointment of NomCom members (5 persons are appointed by the ALAC to the NomCom upon advice of the RALOs each year), we have proposed a timeline based around the need to arrange travel for the new appointees; of course, ALAC could decide upon a different approach, but we thought this would be helpful as a starting position at least. You may find all this at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?04_august_2009 -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Statements on the Public Consultations on Proposals for Systematization of Organizational Review Processes, and Bylaw Amendment Related to Organisational Review Cycles
by At-Large Staff Aug. 3, 2009

Aug. 3, 2009

Dear ALAC Members: Attached you will find two documents, which respond to two related public consultations: “Proposals for the Systematization of Organisational Reviews” to be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#review-processes. "Bylaw Amendment Related to Organisational Review Cycles" to be found at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#review-cycles. As you may recall, the original text (to be found in AL.ALAC/ST.0709/3) addressed only the first consultation. Revision 1, also attached, amends that text in order to add a paragraph at the bottom so that the response also applied to the second consultation, which was directly related to the first. The modification was done at the request of CLO by the Staff. The first consultation has closed; the second remains open until 9th August. The Chair has asked for a vote on the text, which will be setup shortly in order for the statement to be delivered before the close of the public comment window. For ease of review, here are the two versions: ORIGINAL: *Statement of the ALAC to the Public Consultation on Proposals for Systematization of Organizational Review Processes* Whilst the ALAC has not been able to review these proposals in depth due to the volume of public consultations currently underway, we wish to make one point. The entire current structure of independent reviews should be rethought, as it is increasingly clear that having multiple reviews conducted and implemented independently of one another is multiplying the complexity of the entire process, and does not sufficiently take into account the growing interdependencies between the different component parts of ICANN. REV1: *Statement of the ALAC to the Public Consultations on Proposals for Systematization of Organizational Review Processes, and Bylaw Amendment Related to Organisational Review Cycles* Whilst the ALAC has not been able to review these proposals in depth due to the volume of public consultations currently underway, we wish to make the following points. The entire current structure of independent reviews should be rethought, as it is increasingly clear that having multiple reviews conducted and implemented independently of one another is multiplying the complexity of the entire process, and does not sufficiently take into account the growing interdependencies between the different component parts of ICANN. Accordingly, is our view that the Bylaw amendment proposed is not the right approach. It simply continues the present paradigm when what is needed is a more fundamental rethink.

1 0

Comment on NCSG Charters
by Alan Greenberg July 31, 2009

July 31, 2009

Adam, on the Euro-Discuss list, you had the following quote, and I think (but am not sure) that it is the one that you quoted during the ALAC meeting this week. " We also may differ from some of the current constituencies on how the GNSO should evolve after the new structure is implemented. As noted in the BGC report, the process for forming new constituencies has been in the By-Laws as long as the GNSO has existed. But it has never happened, presumably due to the (real or perceived) heavy burden of ³self-forming² and then ongoing management. Within the new structure, it may be even more difficult, due to a potential for the existing constituencies to believe that they can represent all viewpoints, thus eliminating the need for new constituencies." And goes on to make comments about how constituencies can be created without the barriers we've seen in the past. By summarizing the next part in one sentence eliminates some of the key issues. It says: So expecting a group to self-form and become a new GNSO constituency is expecting a lot. If it is to happen at all, there are several things that must facilitate this: . ICANN (and the stakeholder groups) will have to make it as easy as possible to create and operate new constituencies. The requirements they must meet must be reasonable and applied with consistency. . These new entities must feel comfortable that they will be able to participate in the Policy Development Process as discretely identifiable bodies, at a level comparable to (and not subservient to) the long-established players (of course factoring in size). Without that guarantee, there is little reason for them to make the considerable effort needed to enter into GNSO processes. . The new addition level of hierarchy moving from GNSO->¨Constituency to GNSO->¨Stakeholder Group¨Constituency (or as per the consensus proposal GNSO->¨House->¨Stakeholder Group->¨Constituency) must be managed to minimize the need for additional complexity and additional volunteer effort. Thin layers will be, in our opinion, absolutely mandatory. If the above can be accomplished within the new Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, the non-commercial rebirth envisioned in section 5.3 of the BGC report may actually happen. The second bullet is crucial. In my mind (and I don't expect to alter your views or those of the NCUC folks who drafted it), the NCUC-proposed NCSG charter does not come close to satisfying the second bullet. I believe that charter sets too high a threshold to getting the views of a new constituency to be voiced on Council. The SIC-proposed charter addresses this by allowing the Board to select some Councillors until such time as the new players in the NCSG can participate in the drafting of the longer-term rules for selecting councillors. That is absolutely key to attracting those new people into the game. By having the flat model that was proposed by the NCUC, you have the need to a small new constituency (or interest group) to convince others that their ideas merit support, a potentially difficult thing to do it those ideas do not support the established thinking (and I am reminded on the radically differing views on Whois by those who advocate privacy and those who are looking at consumer protection issues). The SIC proposal also removed the possibility of capture, and issue that did not arise until the early NCSG charter drafts (and one that is present in the CyberSecurity draft as well). I honestly don't know if that issue was raised in a formal ALAC statement (I haven't had the chance to check), but it was continually raised in public and private discussions with the NCUC. In the end, once everyone is at the table, the final NCSG charter may look very similar to the NCUC proposal, and if some that is fine. As long as any new constituencies have had a chance to participate in the discussion. Alan

2 1

[Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010]
by At-Large Staff July 31, 2009

July 31, 2009

Dear ALAC Members: Below please find a note prepared by the staff in order to help inform discussion in At-Large on how to allocate the travel funds available in this fiscal year. When the ALAC Executive Committee met at the end of the Sydney meeting, Steve and Kevin joined them and a discussion about travel was held; one of the take-aways was that the staff would look at the available pool of funds and see what options could be envisaged that stretched those funds as far as possible to (in particular) ensure that each RALO could hold a General Assembly each year. There will be a pair of teleconferences shortly with Kevin, Steve, the At-Large staff, and any of you and the wider At-Large community who wish to attend in order to discuss travel support for this coming fiscal year; as you will see in the below time is of the essence to come to a decision on who to fund, what for, and how. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:50:44 +0200 From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr>, Vanda Scartezini UOL <vanda(a)uol.com.br>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson(a)icann.org>, Steve Antonoff <steve.antonoff(a)icann.org>, Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org> CC: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Dear Cheryl, Vanda, Alan, and Sebastien: In order to help inform ALAC's discussions about how travel support funds allocated to the At-Large community can be used to support both RALO General Assemblies and ICANN Meeting attendance, Steve, Kevin, Heidi and I have had a few conversations and Kevin and Steve have run the numbers against a couple of scenarios. As you know, currently ICANN’s budget and travel guidelines provide for 15 At-Large members and 10 RALO representatives (two from each RALO) for travel to each of the three ICANN meetings. This support includes air travel, hotel, and per diems. We offer two alternatives to the current arrangement in order to be able to fund a portion of the General Assemblies: Option 1: * Support 15 At-Large members and 5 RALO representatives (one from each RALO) for travel each ICANN meeting (to include the same air, hotel, per diem support as before). * Fund five General Assemblies annually (one for each RALO) under the following terms and conditions: o ICANN would support up to 40% of RALO members not to exceed a total of 10 members for each General Assembly as follows: o Site for the General Assembly decided in consultation with ICANN to ensure that the site chosen is economically viable within available resources, whilst facilitating participation by ALSes. o ICANN would pay for a meeting room at the hotel o ICANN would pay for “remote participation” set up as necessary o Round trip lowest cost economy air fare for supported travelers o Two nights hotel accommodations (to include tax but not incidentals) for supported travelers o Two days of per diem per supported traveler (per diem to be established based on approved location in the same method as per diems are established for ICANN meetings) Option 2: * Support 15 At-Large members and NO RALO members for travel to each ICANN meeting (to include the same air, hotel and per diem as before). * Fund five General Assemblies annually (one for each RALO) under the following terms and conditions: * ICANN would support up to 80% of the RALO members not to exceed a total of 20 members for each General Assembly as follows: o Site for the General Assembly decided in consultation with ICANN to ensure that the site chosen is economically viable within available resources, whilst facilitating participation by ALSes. o ICANN would pay for a meeting room at the hotel o ICANN would pay for “remote participation” set up as necessary o Round trip lowest cost economy air fare for supported travelers o Two nights hotel accommodations (to include tax but not incidentals) for supported travelers o Two days of per diem per supported traveler (per diem to be established based on approved location in the same method as per diems are established for ICANN meetings) It is our understanding that the RALO’s may look to coordinate their General Assemblies with other meetings in their regions to maximize participation and lower costs – while this is perfectly acceptable to ICANN, it would not be required. It is of course possible to think of other options, however, with the Seoul meeting upcoming ICANN needs to have the list of approved travellers imminently, and the choices made about the above necessarily impact that list. At the same time, arranging regional GAs requires advance notice from the time at which a city and date is chosen. For these reasons, we recommend that you choose one of the above options. Some additional points to consider: * Some regions are larger than others, and this impacts on the number of travellers but also the amount of advance preparation time required to arrange meetings. We would suggest therefore that the larger RALOs organise their GAs for later in the fiscal year. * We propose that the Staff work with the Secretariats of the RALOs, and the ALAC Finance Subcommittee, to help establish the list of GA locations and prospective dates ASAP in order to ensure we can allocate meeting organisation resources. We believe that we would need considerable advance notice (8 weeks or more) in order to organise a GA, from the point at which a city and date is decided upon. * To help facilitate this process, ICANN is working on a draft form which would be used for proposing the date, city and country, and other elements of a GA; we will forward this in due course and in the meantime work informally. * The question has been asked about incoming NomCom appointees to ALAC, and whether or not these would be funded to attend the Seoul meeting from the At-Large travel support 'bucket'. The answer is that this is funded separately, and the new appointees will be able to attend the Seoul meeting. * We understand that the terms of five members of ALAC (from those directly elected) expire at the close of the Seoul meeting. The funding for the new appointees to come to Seoul would have to come from At-Large travel funds. If the community chooses to support travel for additional Seoul attendees for those newly-elected members of ALAC whose terms begin at the close of the Seoul meeting as well as those members whose term expires at the close of Seoul, that would negatively impact the proposal above, and we would have to reduce the level of support for regional GAs downwards, probably quite considerably. Please review and of course feel free to discuss all this in the broader At-Large community as you see fit, and let us know as quickly as possible what conclusions you come to. Of course, if there are any questions, let us know and we'll be happy to try and answer them. -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

4 5

Re: [ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010]
by Beau Brendler July 30, 2009

July 30, 2009

I like the general assemblies idea The summit was a more effective policymaking activity than ALAC, so a similar function should figure prominently in future ALAC ops -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Jul 30, 2009 3:55 PM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010] > >Alan Greenberg wrote: >> The meeting was not held to decide on the fate of RALOs or their >> budgets. I was a wrap-up to make sure that the results of the weeks's >> meetings were followed up on and that there were no omissions in the >> various "to be done" lists. We asked Kevin and Steve to join us to >> make sure we understood the current travel situation and tried to >> cover things to improve the Seoul meeting. >> >> I have said in public (probably to you as well as others) that if this >> is indeed the situation for this budget year, perhaps it is too late >> to change it, but we still need to try to fix it in future years. I >> spend quite a while on Saturday morning talking to Kevin about the >> budget analysis I did last fall, to try to make sure that he >> understood that this year's At-Large budget is not a continuation of >> the status-quo, but a cut. (For the record, I did this as the person >> who had spent the most time on travel budget issues over the last two >> years, and not as a ExCom member - my discussions predated my taking >> on that role.) He said he would go home and root around to understand >> what happened. I plan to talk to him this week to find out if I was >> successful. > >Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation -- though I still think it would >have helped had there been a wider audience for that session. > >What do you think about my idea for biennial general assemblies as a way >to meet the ICANN budget folks half-way? > >- Evan > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >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 >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

Proposal for Creating an At-Large Review WG Implementation Plan
by Nick Ashton-Hart July 29, 2009

July 29, 2009

Dear ALAC and Community members: As you know, a number of agenda items from the meeting of the 28th will be addressed at a special session of the ALAC (date to be chosen by doodle). We would like to propose the following for consideration at that time, as an outline of how to begin to give effect to the Board's resolution to adopt the recommendations of the At-Large Review Working Group's Final Report. 1. Staff will create a document showing the recommendations, at a high level. 2. Underneath each major recommendation, the staff would propose an initial list of those activities or improvements to processes which seem relevant. 3. Staff would propose relative priority to each, at a high level ('near term' - 3-6 months; 'medium term' - 6-9 months; 'longer term - 9 months or longer). We would do under the premise that the community does not want to spend a majority of its time or energy engaged in process improvements, and that it is therefore important the work undertaken is not to the detriment to the community's other priorities, but rather is complementary to them. 3. All of the above would then be provided for the At-Large community to review, for a 30-day period. During that time, the community members could propose the addition of new subjects, deletion or modification of existing subjects, ask questions and provide any other comments they think relevant. 4. During the comment period, special purpose teleconferences would be organised for community members to gather and discuss all of the above, and provide additional input and ideas. 5. At the end of the comment period, a new version of the document would be produced incorporating the views expressed. This could then be subjected to a vote of the ALAC; at the same time, the staff could begin to look at the resourcing of the various initiatives. The objective of all this is that we would have, in good time for the Seoul meeting, a high-level plan for implementation of the review working group proposals which the Board approved. This, in turn, could then be the subject of discussions at the face-to-face meetings in Seoul. It is worth noting that the Board has frequently directed plans of this type to general ICANN public comment periods, and it may wish to do so in this instance - though there is no certainty that it would do so. The procedure outlined above is not meant to suggest that we staffers wish to set the agenda for the improvements - on the contrary, we believe that would be precisely the wrong way to proceed. We believe it is essential that At-Large feel the programme of work ultimately undertaken is to its benefit and serves its interests. That is only possible if At-Large is in the 'driving seat' with respect to the entire programme. We have proposed originating a draft as we know that it is often easier to get the 'creative juices flowing' on an issue if there is a 'strawman' proposal to review, rather than simply handing a large group of people distributed throughout the world a blank sheet of paper. -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0