- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Proposal about ALAC Rules of procedure
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 21, 2018

Oct. 21, 2018

To be clear, you are suggesting that we replace "individual Internet users" with "Internet end users" in two places in the first sentence. Alan At 21/10/2018 05:28 AM, Sergio Salinas Porto wrote: The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary organizational home for Internet end users within the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The role of the ALAC is to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of Internet end users. Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina AsociaciÃ³n Argentina de Usuarios de Internet<http://www.internauta.org.ar/>/FeTIA<http://www.fetia.org.ar/> /CTA<http://ctamdq.org.ar/> FLUI- FederaciÃ³n Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet<http://www.fuilatin.org/> facebook: salinasporto<http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto> twitter: sergiosalinas<http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas> Youtube: salinasporto<http://www.youtube.com/salinasporto> Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 "OjalÃ¡ podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos Ã³rdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido comÃºn" Eduardo Galeano

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Proposal about ALAC Rules of procedure
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 21, 2018

Oct. 21, 2018

Never mind. Now understand. At 21/10/2018 06:43 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Sebastien, I understand the first part of your suggestion is that we not delete "individual" as suggested by Sergio, but I am not sure where you are adding "organizational home for individual Internet end users". Can you please show the full sentence you are suggesting. Alan At 21/10/2018 05:53 AM, Sebastien Bachollet wrote: Thanks Sergio for your proposal The current text is: "The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary organizational home for individual Internet users within the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The role of the ALAC is to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users." Taking into account Sergio proposal I would like to suggest to keep individual and to add end organizational home for individual Internet end users Rational Yes we are end users But we are not the only end users (businesses, association are also end users) Thanks SeB Le 21 oct. 2018 Ã 11:28, Sergio Salinas Porto < presidencia(a)internauta.org.ar<mailto:presidencia@internauta.org.ar>> a Ã©crit : The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary organizational home for Internet end users within the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The role of the ALAC is to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of Internet end users. Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina AsociaciÃ³n Argentina de Usuarios de Internet<http://www.internauta.org.ar/>/FeTIA<http://www.fetia.org.ar/> /CTA<http://ctamdq.org.ar/> FLUI- FederaciÃ³n Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet<http://www.fuilatin.org/> facebook: salinasporto<http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto> twitter: sergiosalinas<http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas> Youtube: salinasporto<http://www.youtube.com/salinasporto> Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 "OjalÃ¡ podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos Ã³rdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido comÃºn" Eduardo Galeano _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> @atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@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… )

1 0

Second Security and Stability Advisory Committee Review (SSAC2) released for public comment
by Andrei Kolesnikov Oct. 21, 2018

Oct. 21, 2018

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ssac-review-final-2018-10-15-en -- Andrey Kolesnikov RIPN.NET

1 0

RoP and E-mail Guide
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 15, 2018

Oct. 15, 2018

Please find attached the RoP and E-mail Guide addressing the issues that have been raised. Both marked up and clean versions are included. In the marked up versions, the original changes are in red and the new changes as a result of comments are in blue. The full set of current documents can be found at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Rules+of+Procedure. These revisions will be discussed in Barcelona on Sunday and presuming we come to closure, will be voted on during the Wrap Up meeting. If you have any concerns with this new version, please raise them via e-mail prior to the meetings to ensure that they can be properly dealt with. There were two issues that were raised during the discussion that are explicitly not included here. 1. Rules related to the certification of ALSes and the admittance of individual unaffiliated members. These issues will be discussed during the At-Large Review Implementation or in other fora and no changes in respect to this are included here. 2. Whether the BCEC slate of Board candidates should be final or whether as under the current rules, RALOs should be able to add candidates (subject to specific ruls and processes). There seems to be a growing feeling in the ALAC that the petition process is not needed. No change is included here other than to clarify the petition process. The change would be easy to implement should the ALAC desire. Alan

3 5

Re: [ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 15, 2018

Oct. 15, 2018

As I was incorporating the suggestions into the RoP, I realized I had not replied to several of Seun's comments. See BLUE below. At 10/10/2018 08:11 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:18 PM Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >At 08/10/2018 07:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>Hello Alan, >> >>Find below a few comments on the RoP and the mail guideline: >> >>Comments on RoP >>11.45 - One needs to be careful with automatically considering all >>members present via email as it depends on the notice period provided. > >Agreed. As a fail-safe action, under 12.1.5, an ALAC Member can >request that a formal vote be taken instead of the consensus call. > > >SO: Yes but this will be after the fact but its okay. > >>17.2.1 - Am not sure why the added statement is necessary, has >>there been a scenario where a candidate that had the majority >>wasn't declared winner? > >Perhaps not necessary but clarifies that this rule take precedence >over 17.2.4. And it doesn't hurt. > > >SO: None of the 2 situations in 17.2.4 are applicable to 17.2.1 so i >don't think it clarifies a precedence. If a vote results in (for instance), 9 for candidate A, and 3 each for candidates B and C, it does fall under 17.2.3.2 but 17.2.1 should take precedence. I have added the phrase "for avoidance of doubt" to 17.2.1 to make it clear that the sentence may be redundant but is ensuring no doubt on the precedence (a phrase used in the ICANN Bylaws). >>19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, >>was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to >>achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying >>we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof) > >The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three >RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made >up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that >agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC >that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to >do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all? > > >SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that >recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording >suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO. > > >>19.11.8 - I like the inclusion but i believe the interpretation of >>abstain needs to be reviewed. That someone abstain should not imply >>a No as we currently practice. It should simply mean the person >>does not care hence should not be counted in the total valid votes >>but should be part of total cast. > >The current rules are very clear about what the winning condition is >(50% of votes cast) so I don't feel comfortable changing those >words. A change could certainly be possible in the future. For the >moment, we should focus on saying there should be an Abstain, or not >(once can always not vote). > > >SO: Well Abstain in this case has weighting hence i don't think it >can only be a matter of having it or not, but if that is what you >like us to focus on then I prefer we do not include abstain then. Will flag for discussion in Barcelona. Since you will not be there, Please send a message to me or to the ALAC list for presentation there. >>23.1/2 - Are you suggesting we put that phrase or just doing an >>explanation? if the former i don't think its necessary. I think >>just 23.3 is sufficient. > >It would be bad form to have a 23.3 and no 23.1/23.2. People then do >not know if there is an error or not. And we have (so far) tried to >never renumber a section, although some day we may need to. We could >simply say "Omitted" but this is clearer for this revision. > > >SO: Am unsure why 23.3 cannot then be renumbered to 23.1 since the >previous texts(23.1&2) are no longer applicable. It could be. It is a matter of style that existing rules not be renumbered. Alternatively we could leave the transition rules there. They do not hurt anything but may be confuingi to some in the future. > > > >>24 - Similar comment as 23 hence 24.3 should be sufficient >> >> >>Comments on RoP - Email guide >>ALAC (bullet 6) - By ALT's recommendation, does it mean ALAC would >>consider for approval or that ALT is recommending for >>implementation. I think it should be decision of ALAC. > >My intent was to make this automatic unless the ALAC over-rode (ie >notification but not needing approval) to reduce the number of >rubber-stamp ALAC decisions. And it had been universally accepted as >a good thing (so far). If it needs a formal ALAC decision, it is >already covered under the last bullet. > >SO: Well am not sure about the universality but we do say ALT is not >a decision making group, i think doing what you suggest would not be >playing justice to that. Secondly this is an ALAC list, we are >talking about hence it seem to be appropriate that ALAC approves >such additions. I have added a phrase that keeps workload down but gives ALAC full control. > > >>ALAC (bullet 8,9) - Am not sure who periodic affirmation mean, can >>you clarify your intention? Is it just to check with the individual >>if they still like to remain subscribed? if yes then i think there >>should be a definite period for that. > >The theory when we wrote this was that annually we would ask. But >the list of such people is long and doing it annually would be a big >chore (and in practice we do not get around to it. Thus the >suggested change. It is rare that someone has asked to be taken off >(and they always could at any time), so the impact is minimal. > > >SO: Okay actually changing from annually to periodic may give an >impression of much more frequent check, if an annual check is >cumbersome, its better this is stated to be done within every 2 years. > > >>ALAC-Internal (bullet 3) - I honestly feel the ALAC list is too >>large and i don't think bullet point 3 should be included as i >>don't see the added value. At best i think only the liasons should be included > >This is no change from the current practice - it just uses a new >term not defined at the time this document was originally written >and moves some from the last bullet to the third. The only current >advisors who are not Liaisons are past ALAC Chairs. > > >SO: Hmm....lets just say the current practice of growing the ALAC >internal list is what I was also indirectly commenting on; I feel >that including the entire 3.5(particularly 3.5.3 and 3.5.5) as >members of internal-list is un-necessary and perhaps defeats the >internal nature of it. You will have to be clearer here. Are you saying that the w/3 non-titled ALT members (3.5.3) are ALAC members and ALT members but should not be members of the ALAC-Internal list?? >>Line 34 - Is it referring to communication on the list or the >>information of the mailman itself? > >Communications on the list. > > >SO: Okay kindly include that word communication somewhere in the sentence > >Cheers! > >Alan > > >>Regards >> >> >> >> >>On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:46 PM Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>As I am about to relinquish the honor of being the Chair of the >>ALAC, I would like to leave things in reasonable order. There are a >>number of overdue changes needed to the Rules of Procedure (RoP) >>and associated documents. >>To summarize, our overall rule set includes: >>Rules of Procedure: We have a backlog of correction, clarifications >>and changes to address issues that have arisen or to bring the RoP >>in line with current practices. >> >>Adjunct Document 01: "Position Description for ALAC Members, >>Liaisons and Appointees" I expect to be considered by the ARIWG in >>relation to Issue 16 (Metrics) >>Adjunct Document 02: "Metrics and Remedial Actions for ALAC Members >>and Appointees" was never written but to the extent it is needed, >>it should also be considered in relation to Issue 16. >>Adjunct Document 03: "At-Large Board Member Selection >>Implementation" should not need any immediate attention. The >>Selection process was referenced in the Review (Issue 6) but our >>proposal that was accepted by the Board disagreed with the Review >>Team and said that we will not address it in the Review >>Implementation. We may of course re-open that discussion at any >>point in the future if changes is needed. >>Adjunct Document 04: "At-Large Structure Framework" will no doubt >>be reviewed and likely changed as part of addressing Review Issue 2 >>(ALS and Individual Membership). >>ALAC E-mail Guide: There are a number of corrections and changes >>needed to being the document in line with current ALAC practice >>(and reduce routine work). >> >> >>Accordingly I am proposing a set of changes to the ALAC Rules of >>Procedure and the ALAC E-mail Guide. The RoP call for at least 21 >>calendar days notice and and this message will allow us to vote on >>the amendments at the Wrap-Up Session in Barcelona. There will also >>be time allocated for discussion in Barcelona, but hopefully any >>need for change can be brought up and resolved via e-mail prior to travel. >>I will do a very brief overview of the changes on the ALAC call >>later today, and we can have a dedicated call if people wish. >>Attached is the redline revision of the RoP as well as a Change Log >>explaining each of the changes. >>Also attached is the redline E-mail Guide. All of the changes are >>either clear corrections or changes to reflect current practice >>(such as including the any ALT Advisor in the ALT or ALAC lists, >>and including key working group chairs in the ALAC list). >>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… >> >> >> >> >>-- >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>Seun Ojedeji, >>Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>Mobile: <http://??>+2348035233535 >>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> >><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng >> >>Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: +2348035233535 >alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> ><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > >Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! >

2 1

Root Zone KSK Rollover
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 14, 2018

Oct. 14, 2018

Did anyone notice??? https://www.icann.org/ksk-rollover-status https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ksk-rollover Alan

11 14

Re: [ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 12, 2018

Oct. 12, 2018

At 08/10/2018 07:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Alan, > >Find below a few comments on the RoP and the mail guideline: > >Comments on RoP >11.45 - One needs to be careful with automatically considering all >members present via email as it depends on the notice period provided. Agreed. As a fail-safe action, under 12.1.5, an ALAC Member can request that a formal vote be taken instead of the consensus call. >11.10 - I think it needs to be clear whether all ALT meetings are >open to observers or just literately open This is the exact wording used for ALAC meetings. If Since these meetings are less formal than ALAC meetings I didn't think the additional rules listed in 11.5.2-11.5.4 were needed, but they could be added (or a reference to them). >17.16 - Which of the "or" does the "whichever comes first" apply to? >i assume its the former, if yes then i think that may need rewording >to clearly state that. Will clarify. >17.2.1 - Am not sure why the added statement is necessary, has there >been a scenario where a candidate that had the majority wasn't declared winner? Perhaps not necessary but clarifies that this rule take precedence over 17.2.4. And it doesn't hurt. >17.2.4.2 - I think options should read "If the drop WILL result >in...." I the current text suggest that drop should happen anyway. >Secondly i assume you are asking we indicate which option is >preferred, if yes i will prefer option B Noted. >19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, >was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to >achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying >we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof) The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all? >19.11.8 - I like the inclusion but i believe the interpretation of >abstain needs to be reviewed. That someone abstain should not imply >a No as we currently practice. It should simply mean the person does >not care hence should not be counted in the total valid votes but >should be part of total cast. The current rules are very clear about what the winning condition is (50% of votes cast) so I don't feel comfortable changing those words. A change could certainly be possible in the future. For the moment, we should focus on saying there should be an Abstain, or not (once can always not vote). >23.1/2 - Are you suggesting we put that phrase or just doing an >explanation? if the former i don't think its necessary. I think just >23.3 is sufficient. It would be bad form to have a 23.3 and no 23.1/23.2. People then do not know if there is an error or not. And we have (so far) tried to never renumber a section, although some day we may need to. We could simply say "Omitted" but this is clearer for this revision. >24 - Similar comment as 23 hence 24.3 should be sufficient > > >Comments on RoP - Email guide >ALAC (bullet 6) - By ALT's recommendation, does it mean ALAC would >consider for approval or that ALT is recommending for >implementation. I think it should be decision of ALAC. My intent was to make this automatic unless the ALAC over-rode (ie notification but not needing approval) to reduce the number of rubber-stamp ALAC decisions. And it had been universally accepted as a good thing (so far). If it needs a formal ALAC decision, it is already covered under the last bullet. >ALAC (bullet 8,9) - Am not sure who periodic affirmation mean, can >you clarify your intention? Is it just to check with the individual >if they still like to remain subscribed? if yes then i think there >should be a definite period for that. The theory when we wrote this was that annually we would ask. But the list of such people is long and doing it annually would be a big chore (and in practice we do not get around to it. Thus the suggested change. It is rare that someone has asked to be taken off (and they always could at any time), so the impact is minimal. >ALAC-Internal (bullet 3) - I honestly feel the ALAC list is too >large and i don't think bullet point 3 should be included as i don't >see the added value. At best i think only the liasons should be included This is no change from the current practice - it just uses a new term not defined at the time this document was originally written and moves some from the last bullet to the third. The only current advisors who are not Liaisons are past ALAC Chairs. >ALAC-ExCom (bullet 3) - Same comment as internal > >ALAC-Announce - Subscription method phrase changed to "see members" >i think it also needs to be clear if its staff subscrbed or not. There is no change here. It is a reference to the above section where it says that Staff subscribes formal reps and anyone else may self-subscribe. >AFRI-DISCUSS (bullet 3) - Lets include individual members as well. >Comment applicable to other RALO lists well, they may already be self-subscribed, but I agree they need to be mentioned. For all RALOs. >Line 34 - Is it referring to communication on the list or the >information of the mailman itself? Communications on the list. Alan >Regards > > > > >On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:46 PM Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >As I am about to relinquish the honor of being the Chair of the >ALAC, I would like to leave things in reasonable order. There are a >number of overdue changes needed to the Rules of Procedure (RoP) and >associated documents. > >To summarize, our overall rule set includes: > >Rules of Procedure: We have a backlog of correction, clarifications >and changes to address issues that have arisen or to bring the RoP >in line with current practices. > >Adjunct Document 01: "Position Description for ALAC Members, >Liaisons and Appointees" I expect to be considered by the ARIWG in >relation to Issue 16 (Metrics) > >Adjunct Document 02: "Metrics and Remedial Actions for ALAC Members >and Appointees" was never written but to the extent it is needed, it >should also be considered in relation to Issue 16. > >Adjunct Document 03: "At-Large Board Member Selection >Implementation" should not need any immediate attention. The >Selection process was referenced in the Review (Issue 6) but our >proposal that was accepted by the Board disagreed with the Review >Team and said that we will not address it in the Review >Implementation. We may of course re-open that discussion at any >point in the future if changes is needed. > >Adjunct Document 04: "At-Large Structure Framework" will no doubt be >reviewed and likely changed as part of addressing Review Issue 2 >(ALS and Individual Membership). > >ALAC E-mail Guide: There are a number of corrections and changes >needed to being the document in line with current ALAC practice (and >reduce routine work). > > > >Accordingly I am proposing a set of changes to the ALAC Rules of >Procedure and the ALAC E-mail Guide. The RoP call for at least 21 >calendar days notice and and this message will allow us to vote on >the amendments at the Wrap-Up Session in Barcelona. There will also >be time allocated for discussion in Barcelona, but hopefully any >need for change can be brought up and resolved via e-mail prior to travel. > >I will do a very brief overview of the changes on the ALAC call >later today, and we can have a dedicated call if people wish. > >Attached is the redline revision of the RoP as well as a Change Log >explaining each of the changes. > >Also attached is the redline E-mail Guide. All of the changes are >either clear corrections or changes to reflect current practice >(such as including the any ALT Advisor in the ALT or ALAC lists, and >including key working group chairs in the ALAC list). > >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… > > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: +2348035233535 >alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> ><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > >Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! >

9 14

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 11, 2018

Oct. 11, 2018

Noting that this discussion was triggered by the RoP revision but is not a part of it - any decisions on how individual members are handled (if indeed we decide that this is an ALAC matter and not a RALO matter as is currently the case) will come out of either the At-Large Review Implementation r other follow-on activities. But to put add my own comments. Seun is right that it can be done in a relatively uncumbersome way. But you lose the ability of telling a new possible eager person that they are now a member (and not have to wait for the periodic approval. And more to the point, if the ALAC will not actually look at each prospective new member, case by case, what are we getting for the new process? Alan At 10/10/2018 01:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Sent from my mobile >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, 17:24 Olivier MJ >CrÃ©pin-Leblond, <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: >Dear Seun, > >sorry just catching up with old emails. >The procedure which you mention below, Seun, >seems to be really heavy handed. You are >speaking of ALAC ratification for every >individual member? Do you realise that EURALO, >for example, has in excess of 30 individual >members handled by the EURALO individuals >association. I could not imagine getting the >ALAC to vote on each and every individual application. >The way we have done it in EURALO is to delegate >the task of handling individual users to a >purpose built structure and they have conducted >the process which you have listed below, by >individual users, for individual users. I >realise that there are always pressures for >centralisation, but in this sort of process, I >really think delegation and decentralisation is >the key to good growth whilst keeping the >administrative workload of the ALAC to a manageable level. > > >SO: Olivier, it depends on how much details ALAC >is looking into; ratification can simply mean >approving the recommendation of that group you >said already does it and it can simply be to >affirm if they have followed the review process. >Secondly ratification for individual members can >be done in bulk on periodic basis, that way it >won't require voting on each individual (but >chance to exclude any controversial individual may need to be included) > >Overall I don't think this process needs to be >cumbersome, it all depends on how much details >ALAC will be required to look at before >ratification. On a lighter note, 30 isn't so much a big number to consider :-) > >Thanks > >Kindest regards, > >Olivier > >On 05/10/2018 16:21, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>While the uniform process still needs to be >>detailed, am in support of such line of thought >>which I can summarize as follows: >> >>- EOI submission >>- Staff due diligence >>- Staff notification on RALO list, with the >>intent of confirming if the applicant is not an ALS member >>- RALO approval for ALAC ratification >>- ALAC ratification >> >>Regards >>Sent from my mobile >>Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >>On Fri, 5 Oct 2018, 14:44 Dev Anand >>Teelucksingh, <<mailto:devtee@gmail.com>devtee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>Something to file for the discussions then >> >>To me, the individual membership should be done >>in a equivalent manner for Organisations >>applying to be Accredited as a member of the at large community >>- a common online application form in the 6un >>languages on the at large website >>- the ralos provide regional advice after staff >>due diligence is sent to the ralos for their advice >>- the ALAC votes whether to accept the regional advice or not >> >>Dev Anand >> >> >> >>On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 4:29 AM, Maureen Hilyard >><<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>I agree that individual membership as well as >>ALS registration details still need to be >>discussed further and this was certainly going to be on my "to do" list. >> >>But I do not think that any real changes to the >>ROPs can be made at this time without full >>consultation with everyone, especially when >>some RALOs are still discussing it within their own membership lists. >> >>The issue of defining / redefining different >>types of membership (affiliated and >>unaffiliated individual members as well as of >>ALSes) should be incorporated into the >>implementation plan, under Item #2 which looks at individual participation. >> >>Maureen >> >>On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:44 AM Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >>Thanks Ricardo, >> >>You may be right that 1.1 needs more than a few >>words inserted to have it make full sense. I will look at it. >> >>Alan >> >>At 03/10/2018 10:29 AM, Ricardo Holmquist wrote: >> >>>Good day Alan, >>>Thanks so much for the revision. >>> >>>I have one comment for the Introduction, where >>>a phrase concerning the approval of the >>>Individual members seems to be missing (Being >>>it an RALO approval, an ALAC Approval, a >>>Committee Approval or what the RALO establishes in its own RoP). >>> >>>About the Email guide, attached is a screen >>>capture of the At Large email list (capture >>>email guide), there is a missing "a" on the >>>"may de-subscribe" line. It then its repeated >>>in the rest of the lists from there on. >>>Also on the Email Guide, almost at the end, in >>>one of the corrections (capture email guide 2) >>>it should say ALAC-Internal, and not just ALAC. >>>In the same guide, about all the RALO lists >>>(and also the At Large list), there is no >>>direct inclusion of the Individual members. I >>>understand that for EURALO (Not sure how the >>>other RALO works, and LACRALO is still >>>deciding how), it works like an ALS, where a >>>representative is named to vote on EURALO >>>instances, but I will also understand that in >>>any RALO if an individual is asking to be a >>>member, is not because he wants a "virtual" >>>ALS, but because he wants to interact >>>directly. Yes, I am aware anyone can auto >>>subscribe, but it is just another step in the >>>recognition of the individual users to include him in the list once approved. >>> >>>Best >>> >>>Ricardo Holmquist >>> >>>El mar., 2 oct. 2018 a las 18:46, Alan >>>Greenberg (<<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >>>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>) escribiÃÂ³: >>>As I am about to relinquish the honor of being >>>the Chair of the ALAC, I would like to leave >>>things in reasonable order. There are a number >>>of overdue changes needed to the Rules of >>>Procedure (RoP) and associated documents. >>>To summarize, our overall rule set includes: >>>Rules of Procedure: We have a backlog of >>>correction, clarifications and changes to >>>address issues that have arisen or to bring >>>the RoP in line with current practices. >>>Adjunct Document 01: "Position Description for >>>ALAC Members, Liaisons and Appointees" I >>>expect to be considered by the ARIWG in relation to Issue 16 (Metrics) >>>Adjunct Document 02: "Metrics and Remedial >>>Actions for ALAC Members and Appointees" was >>>never written but to the extent it is needed, >>>it should also be considered in relation to Issue 16. >>>Adjunct Document 03: "At-Large Board Member >>>Selection Implementation" should not need any >>>immediate attention. The Selection process was >>>referenced in the Review (Issue 6) but our >>>proposal that was accepted by the Board >>>disagreed with the Review Team and said that >>>we will not address it in the Review >>>Implementation. We may of course re-open that >>>discussion at any point in the future if changes is needed. >>> >>>Adjunct Document 04: "At-Large Structure >>>Framework" will no doubt be reviewed and >>>likely changed as part of addressing Review >>>Issue 2 (ALS and Individual Membership). >>>ALAC E-mail Guide: There are a number of >>>corrections and changes needed to being the >>>document in line with current ALAC practice (and reduce routine work). >>> >>> >>>Accordingly I am proposing a set of changes to >>>the ALAC Rules of Procedure and the ALAC >>>E-mail Guide. The RoP call for at least 21 >>>calendar days notice and and this message will >>>allow us to vote on the amendments at the >>>Wrap-Up Session in Barcelona. There will also >>>be time allocated for discussion in Barcelona, >>>but hopefully any need for change can be >>>brought up and resolved via e-mail prior to travel. >>>I will do a very brief overview of the changes >>>on the ALAC call later today, and we can have a dedicated call if people wish. >>>Attached is the redline revision of the RoP as >>>well as a Change Log explaining each of the changes. >>>Also attached is the redline E-mail Guide. All >>>of the changes are either clear corrections or >>>changes to reflect current practice (such as >>>including the any ALT Advisor in the ALT or >>>ALAC lists, and including key working group chairs in the ALAC list). >>>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+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>> >>> >>>Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="capture email guide 2.JPG" >>>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="capture email guide 2.JPG" >>>Content-ID: <f_jmt2hr8w0> >>>X-Attachment-Id: f_jmt2hr8w0 >>> >>>Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="capture email guide.JPG" >>>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="capture email guide.JPG" >>>Content-ID: <f_jmt2hr9a1> >>>X-Attachment-Id: f_jmt2hr9a1 >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>>) >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>ALAC mailing list >> >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >-- > >Olivier MJ CrÃ©pin-Leblond, PhD > ><http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 10, 2018

Oct. 10, 2018

Thanks Ricardo, You may be right that 1.1 needs more than a few words inserted to have it make full sense. I will look at it. Alan At 03/10/2018 10:29 AM, Ricardo Holmquist wrote: >Good day Alan, >Thanks so much for the revision. > >I have one comment for the Introduction, where a >phrase concerning the approval of the Individual >members seems to be missing (Being it an RALO >approval, an ALAC Approval, a Committee Approval >or what the RALO establishes in its own RoP). > >About the Email guide, attached is a screen >capture of the At Large email list (capture >email guide), there is a missing "a" on the "may >de-subscribe" line. It then its repeated in the >rest of the lists from there on. >Also on the Email Guide, almost at the end, in >one of the corrections (capture email guide 2) >it should say ALAC-Internal, and not just ALAC. >In the same guide, about all the RALO lists (and >also the At Large list), there is no direct >inclusion of the Individual members. I >understand that for EURALO (Not sure how the >other RALO works, and LACRALO is still deciding >how), it works like an ALS, where a >representative is named to vote on EURALO >instances, but I will also understand that in >any RALO if an individual is asking to be a >member, is not because he wants a "virtual" ALS, >but because he wants to interact directly. Yes, >I am aware anyone can auto subscribe, but it is >just another step in the recognition of the >individual users to include him in the list once approved. > >Best > >Ricardo Holmquist > >El mar., 2 oct. 2018 a las 18:46, Alan Greenberg >(<<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>) escribiÃ³: >As I am about to relinquish the honor of being >the Chair of the ALAC, I would like to leave >things in reasonable order. There are a number >of overdue changes needed to the Rules of >Procedure (RoP) and associated documents. > >To summarize, our overall rule set includes: > >Rules of Procedure: We have a backlog of >correction, clarifications and changes to >address issues that have arisen or to bring the >RoP in line with current practices. > >Adjunct Document 01: "Position Description for >ALAC Members, Liaisons and Appointees" I expect >to be considered by the ARIWG in relation to Issue 16 (Metrics) > >Adjunct Document 02: "Metrics and Remedial >Actions for ALAC Members and Appointees" was >never written but to the extent it is needed, it >should also be considered in relation to Issue 16. > >Adjunct Document 03: "At-Large Board Member >Selection Implementation" should not need any >immediate attention. The Selection process was >referenced in the Review (Issue 6) but our >proposal that was accepted by the Board >disagreed with the Review Team and said that we >will not address it in the Review >Implementation. We may of course re-open that >discussion at any point in the future if changes is needed. > >Adjunct Document 04: "At-Large Structure >Framework" will no doubt be reviewed and likely >changed as part of addressing Review Issue 2 (ALS and Individual Membership). > >ALAC E-mail Guide: There are a number of >corrections and changes needed to being the >document in line with current ALAC practice (and reduce routine work). > > > >Accordingly I am proposing a set of changes to >the ALAC Rules of Procedure and the ALAC E-mail >Guide. The RoP call for at least 21 calendar >days notice and and this message will allow us >to vote on the amendments at the Wrap-Up Session >in Barcelona. There will also be time allocated >for discussion in Barcelona, but hopefully any >need for change can be brought up and resolved via e-mail prior to travel. > >I will do a very brief overview of the changes >on the ALAC call later today, and we can have a dedicated call if people wish. > >Attached is the redline revision of the RoP as >well as a Change Log explaining each of the changes. > >Also attached is the redline E-mail Guide. All >of the changes are either clear corrections or >changes to reflect current practice (such as >including the any ALT Advisor in the ALT or ALAC >lists, and including key working group chairs in the ALAC list). > >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… > >Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="capture email guide 2.JPG" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="capture email guide 2.JPG" >Content-ID: <f_jmt2hr8w0> >X-Attachment-Id: f_jmt2hr8w0 > >Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="capture email guide.JPG" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="capture email guide.JPG" >Content-ID: <f_jmt2hr9a1> >X-Attachment-Id: f_jmt2hr9a1 > >_______________________________________________ >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…

15 22

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 9, 2018

Oct. 9, 2018

Sergio, I agree. The changes in this revision are not related to the discussion on defining or changing rules related to ALSes or Individual Members. That discussion will take place as part of the At-Large Review Implementation. Alan At 08/10/2018 08:15 PM, Sergio Salinas Porto wrote: >Dear Alan, good Initiative! >I have to agree with Maureen, I do not think >it's a good time to start discussing this, I >think we have to give participation to the >RALOS, in the case of LACRALO, we are in the process of defining our rules. >Best regards > > >Sergio Salinas Porto >Presidente Internauta Argentina ><http://www.internauta.org.ar/>AsociaciÃ³n >Argentina de Usuarios de >Internet/<http://www.fetia.org.ar/>FeTIA/<http://ctamdq.org.ar/>CTA >FLUI- <http://www.fuilatin.org/>FederaciÃ³n >Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet >facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto>salinasporto >twitter: <http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas>sergiosalinas >Youtube: <http://www.youtube.com/salinasporto>salinasporto >Skype:internautaargentina >Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 >"OjalÃ¡ podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que >recibimos Ã³rdenes que humillan nuestra > > conciencia o violan nuestro sentido comÃºn" Eduardo Galeano > > > > > >El vie., 5 oct. 2018 a las 5:29, Maureen Hilyard >(<<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>) escribiÃ³: >I agree that individual membership as well as >ALS registration details still need to be >discussed further and this was certainly going to be on my "to do" list. > >But I do not think that any real changes to the >ROPs can be made at this time without full >consultation with everyone, especially when some >RALOs are still discussing it within their own membership lists. > >The issue of defining / redefining different >types of membership (affiliated and unaffiliated >individual members as well as of ALSes) should >be incorporated into the implementation plan, >under Item #2 which looks at individual participation. > >Maureen > >On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:44 AM Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Thanks Ricardo, > >You may be right that 1.1 needs more than a few >words inserted to have it make full sense. I will look at it. > >Alan > >At 03/10/2018 10:29 AM, Ricardo Holmquist wrote: > >>Good day Alan, >>Thanks so much for the revision. >> >>I have one comment for the Introduction, where >>a phrase concerning the approval of the >>Individual members seems to be missing (Being >>it an RALO approval, an ALAC Approval, a >>Committee Approval or what the RALO establishes in its own RoP). >> >>About the Email guide, attached is a screen >>capture of the At Large email list (capture >>email guide), there is a missing "a" on the >>"may de-subscribe" line. It then its repeated >>in the rest of the lists from there on. >>Also on the Email Guide, almost at the end, in >>one of the corrections (capture email guide 2) >>it should say ALAC-Internal, and not just ALAC. >>In the same guide, about all the RALO lists >>(and also the At Large list), there is no >>direct inclusion of the Individual members. I >>understand that for EURALO (Not sure how the >>other RALO works, and LACRALO is still deciding >>how), it works like an ALS, where a >>representative is named to vote on EURALO >>instances, but I will also understand that in >>any RALO if an individual is asking to be a >>member, is not because he wants a "virtual" >>ALS, but because he wants to interact directly. >>Yes, I am aware anyone can auto subscribe, but >>it is just another step in the recognition of >>the individual users to include him in the list once approved. >> >>Best >> >>Ricardo Holmquist >> >>El mar., 2 oct. 2018 a las 18:46, Alan >>Greenberg (<<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>) escribiÃÂ³: >>As I am about to relinquish the honor of being >>the Chair of the ALAC, I would like to leave >>things in reasonable order. There are a number >>of overdue changes needed to the Rules of >>Procedure (RoP) and associated documents. >>To summarize, our overall rule set includes: >>Rules of Procedure: We have a backlog of >>correction, clarifications and changes to >>address issues that have arisen or to bring the >>RoP in line with current practices. >>Adjunct Document 01: "Position Description for >>ALAC Members, Liaisons and Appointees" I expect >>to be considered by the ARIWG in relation to Issue 16 (Metrics) >>Adjunct Document 02: "Metrics and Remedial >>Actions for ALAC Members and Appointees" was >>never written but to the extent it is needed, >>it should also be considered in relation to Issue 16. >>Adjunct Document 03: "At-Large Board Member >>Selection Implementation" should not need any >>immediate attention. The Selection process was >>referenced in the Review (Issue 6) but our >>proposal that was accepted by the Board >>disagreed with the Review Team and said that we >>will not address it in the Review >>Implementation. We may of course re-open that >>discussion at any point in the future if changes is needed. >>Adjunct Document 04: "At-Large Structure >>Framework" will no doubt be reviewed and likely >>changed as part of addressing Review Issue 2 (ALS and Individual Membership). >>ALAC E-mail Guide: There are a number of >>corrections and changes needed to being the >>document in line with current ALAC practice (and reduce routine work). >> >> >>Accordingly I am proposing a set of changes to >>the ALAC Rules of Procedure and the ALAC E-mail >>Guide. The RoP call for at least 21 calendar >>days notice and and this message will allow us >>to vote on the amendments at the Wrap-Up >>Session in Barcelona. There will also be time >>allocated for discussion in Barcelona, but >>hopefully any need for change can be brought up >>and resolved via e-mail prior to travel. >>I will do a very brief overview of the changes >>on the ALAC call later today, and we can have a dedicated call if people wish. >>Attached is the redline revision of the RoP as >>well as a Change Log explaining each of the changes. >>Also attached is the redline E-mail Guide. All >>of the changes are either clear corrections or >>changes to reflect current practice (such as >>including the any ALT Advisor in the ALT or >>ALAC lists, and including key working group chairs in the ALAC list). >>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… >> >> >>Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="capture email guide 2.JPG" >>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="capture email guide 2.JPG" >>Content-ID: <f_jmt2hr8w0> >>X-Attachment-Id: f_jmt2hr8w0 >> >>Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="capture email guide.JPG" >>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="capture email guide.JPG" >>Content-ID: <f_jmt2hr9a1> >>X-Attachment-Id: f_jmt2hr9a1 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>) >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >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