- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] CWG-Stewardship Proposal Motion
by Alan Greenberg June 25, 2015

June 25, 2015

My position on 2c and 2d is that we should not include them. In both cases, I believe that they would actually harm or reduce the effectiveness of the processes in question. For 2c, I believe that since the CSC has either triggered a special IFRT or is a major source of input into a regular IFRT, the RT is well served by having direct input from the CSC. The alternative is that information from the CSC is either filtered through some other member, is provided solely in written form, or a CSC member is requested to be present to relay the information directly. The first two are poor replacements for direct dialogue and the latter is effectively a Liaison. For 2d, any group contributing a member of the SCWG may feel that their IFRT member is the person best suited for the SCWG. In the case of a group with limited resources such as the ALAC, a second person with suitable knowledge may not even be available. Alan At 25/06/2015 12:49 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Please find attached the proposed motion in WORD and PDF formats. > >Note that Resolved items 2c and 2d are "bracketed" and the ALAC will >need to decide on whether to include them or not prior to voting on >the motion itself. > >Alan > > > >_______________________________________________ >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…

2 1

CWG-Stewardship Proposal Motion
by Alan Greenberg June 25, 2015

June 25, 2015

Please find attached the proposed motion in WORD and PDF formats. Note that Resolved items 2c and 2d are "bracketed" and the ALAC will need to decide on whether to include them or not prior to voting on the motion itself. Alan

1 0

Questions regarding CSC in CWG Proposal
by Alan Greenberg June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

During the ALAC discussion yesterday, I was asked to review the CWG Proposal with regard to the scope, mandate and transparency of the CSC. The comment in question was: >The prerogatives of the CSC should be strictly defined within its >intent of monitoring the operational performance of IANA function >related to names, and reporting. Its reports should be transparently >available to the community. Based on the extracts of the Proposal as appended here, I believe that the CWG Proposal does meet the need. The CSC also has a responsibility to, at an operational level, attempt to correct problems that are observed or reported. In my mind, this is supportive of the monitoring function. Alan Extracts of the CWG-IANA proposal Paragraphs 310-311 - The mission of the CSC is to ensure continued satisfactory performance of the IANA function for the direct customers of the naming services. The primary customers of the naming services are TLD registry operators, but also include root server operators and other non-root zone functions. - The mission will be achieved through regular monitoring by the CSC of the performance of the IANA naming function against agreed service level targets and through mechanisms to engage with the IANA Functions Operator to remedy identified areas of concern." Paragraphs 314-315 - The CSC is authorized to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function against agreed service level targets on a regular basis. - The CSC will analyse reports provided by the IANA Functions Operator on a monthly basis and publish their findings. Paragraph 328 Liaisons can also be appointed from the following organisations; however, providing a Liaison is not mandatory for any group: - One liaison each from other ICANN SOs and ACs: Paragraphs 350-353: Record of Proceedings - Minutes of all CSC teleconferences will be made public within five business days of the meeting. - Any remedial action will also be reported by the CSC. - Information sessions conducted during ICANN meetings will be open and posting of transcripts and presentations will be done in accordance with ICANN's meeting requirements.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Feedback on the new ALAC-Board meeting format
by Alan Greenberg June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Regarding the number of people in the discussion, the model we were testing had 6 people from At-Large and 6 from the Board. So there was a restriction on both sides. The selection from the ALAC as my call. As I said during the meeting, I felt some obligation to follow the prescribed plan of six At-Large members and six Board members. It was clearly less than optimal. And the table format was horrible, both from the point of view of those at the table (vast amounts of space) and those in the audience (looking at people's backs). There were a number of interventions which were off-topic, but short of having a button to cut of someone else's microphone, I don't know how we can control that. I will be putting together a candid comment and will submit it for ALAC discussion. Alan At 23/06/2015 02:58 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today >for the ALAC-Board meeting. > >I'll kick it off with my thoughts: > >1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show". > >2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take >because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table >participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate. > >3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of >the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >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…

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ICANN 53 Meeting Reports
by gbruen＠knujon.com June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Is there are particular format we should be following? On 6/21/15 6:41 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear All, > > Please upload your ICANN 53 Meeting Reports to the wiki space here: > https://community.icann.org/x/gAsnAw. > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > Peregrine and Terri Agnew > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann > <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge > <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> > Twitter: @ <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge > <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org -- Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com 617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com Fisher College, Criminal Justice Division Chair of ICANN At-Large North America (naralo.org) http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Twitter: @Knujon

3 4

Feedback on the new ALAC-Board meeting format
by Alan Greenberg June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting. I'll kick it off with my thoughts: 1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show". 2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate. 3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time. Alan

9 9

ALAC Chair, and At-Large Staff please note my proxy for CCWG and other ALAC At-Large Leadership discussions that go to vote or ballot tomorrow and when absent for the remainder of ICANN53
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

Whenever I am absent from convened meetings and proceedings for the remainder of ICANN53; I hearby appointed Léon Sanchez to act as my proxy without limitation or direction in all matters of discussion, polling, ballot or vote, in all matters where I would normally have the right to exercise those privileges... Please also redistribute print and file this wherever it is required Cheryl Langdon-Orr Date and time stamp to be taken from received email headers

2 2

Fwd: Feedback on the new ALAC-Board meeting format
by Eduardo Diaz June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

I forgot to send my comments to the list too. -ed ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Feedback on the new ALAC-Board meeting format To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> My apologies for not being there today. In any case, I think that having a broader ALAC engagement will always be better so it does not become a "one person" thing. Everybody should be able to participate. A timer always helps. -ed On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the > ALAC-Board meeting. > > I'll kick it off with my thoughts: > > 1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg > show". > > 2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because > the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. > In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate. > > 3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the > interventions, I am inclined to do so next time. > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > 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… > -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

1 0

ACTION: RE: Comments to accompany CWG ratification
by Alan Greenberg June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

Staff, please be prepared to post on adobeconnect. >From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> >To: 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: RE: Comments to accompany CWG ratification >Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:02:34 +0100 >Thread-Index: AdCslck7YaEcB9kxTI+XikPqwKNI4AA/HaIw > >Good morning Alan, > >Here are the issues that may be raised in our comments: > > >· The inclusion of 2 PTI Board members >to be populated by the Nominating Committee >should strongly ensure geographic diversity without neglecting the competence. > > > >· The sustainability of PTI remain a >serious concern, especially because it will rely >on ICANN in terms of its resources (particularly >funding) that needs to be carefully considered during implementation > > > >· The prerogatives of the CSC should >be strictly defined within its intent of >monitoring the operational performance of IANA >function related to names, and reporting. Its >reports should be transparently available to the community. > > > >· There is no need to include a CSC >liaison in the composition of the IFRT > > > >· The activity of IRFT should be >transparently carried out and community driven > > > >· The final decision on the action to >be undertaken will not be the IFRT one since it >would still be subject to GNSO/ccNSO approval. >So the multi-stakeholder nature is only an >intermediate phase that can be overridden by the registries. > > > >· The composition of the Separation >Cross Community Working Group (SCWG) should be >made up of people different from IFRT members. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tijani BEN JEMAA >Executive Director >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >Phone: + 216 41 649 605 >Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 >Fax: + 216 70 853 376 >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Envoyé : lundi 22 juin 2015 03:47 >À : Tijani BEN JEMAA >Objet : Comments to accompany CCWG ratification > >Tijani, could you send me in note form, the issues that you think >must be raised in our comments. > >Thank, Alan > > > >---------- >Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus >ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection ><https://www.avast.com/antivirus>Antivirus avast! est active.

1 0

CCWG-Accountability Issues
by Alan Greenberg June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

As I mentioned in the ALAC meeting yesterday, I had made a proposal which does not include the ability of the community to "enforce" its rights other than by the threat or reality of Board member removal. This matches the position taken by most At-Large people involved in the process, as opposed to the stronger Member or even designator model. A copy of my message to the CCWG is appended to this e-mail. At the moment, the "Empowered AC/SO" model is being discussed by the CCWG, which by simply stating that the AC/SO wants to use its rights as a Member, the AC/SO effectively has the same powers (as a legal person) as the Unincorporated Association would have in the previous proposals (but with the "alter ego" structure confusion). This mechanism would also work for Designators instead of Members. In our formal reply to the CCWG Public Comment, we said that if we had to choose between a Member or Designator model, we would select Member, because it was easier to explain that Designators. I now believe that we forgot a major consideration in this choice, and if I had it to do over again, I would choose differently. The reason is that we can start using Designators without changing ICANN into a Membership organization (by altering its Articles of Incorporation), and that I think is a major consideration. Alan >Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:17:00 -0400 >To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Plan B > >Given the spread between those who believe that we need ultimate >accountability, and those who are willing to trust that the >community wishes will be honoured, allow me to put a new variation >on the table. We have talked about all of the parts before, but >perhaps the combination is new. > >This proposal involves no Unincorporated Associates, no Designators >and no Members. > >Up to now, we have been working with Bylaws that we are now told >have no real basis in law, but which so far, have worked. I >specifically refer to things like the SOs, ALAC and the NomCom >appointing Board members, powers that under California law are only >given to Members or Designators, but our less formal entities are >granted these powers under the ICANN Bylaws and for whatever reasons, it works. > >I propose that we do the same with all of the community powers that >we want (including the requirement that Bylaws and certainly >fundamental Bylaws be approved), with the exception of formal budget >approval (which impinges on Board fiduciary responsibility). In lieu >of the latter, we could have a process by which and AC/SO lodges a >formal objection to a budget or budget item, and the Board has an >obligation to follow-up (I am not going to go into any further details here). > >Every Director, as a requirement of being seated signs an >irrevocable letter saying that if by specified procedure, they are >requested to step down, they will. The procedure might include the >formal action of the AC/SO that appointed them, or a more widespread >community request passing a specified level of AC/SO support - the >details would need to be defined, but do not alter this proposal. >The letter would also make reference to an enforcement mechanism >that could be invoked. The enforcement mechanism might be to give >the ICANN Ombudsman (or some other trustworthy and trusted >individual) the right to take court action to require the requested >resignation be honoured, or could give that right to the people >occupying the AC/SO Chairs. Any such action would be funded by ICANN >and funds held in escrow to ensure that this can be carried out. > >In unlikely event that a removal included the entire Board, or some >number such that the remaining Board members do not meet minimum >quorum requirements, the AC/SO Chairs will on an interim basis be >added to the Board on an interim basis. This augmented interim Board >would have caretaker responsibilities and have only limited rights >(to be specified). > >Board member removals would be unconditional and not appealable. > >I believe that the threat of invoking removal will likely be >sufficient to ensure that the community is given good control. And >should that fail, the actual removal of the Board member(s) who do >not support the community position can actually be removed. > >There are many details to be determined but I believe that this is >workable. It allows for the most of the powers that have been >requested with a minimum number of changes and does not create >significant new potential vulnerabilities. > >Alan >

2 1