- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Honouring Olivier Crepin LeBlond
by Barrack Otieno Oct. 13, 2014

Oct. 13, 2014

Well said Sala Best Regards On 10/14/14, Pierre DOVONOU LOKOSSOU <pierredovonou(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I join my voice to yours Salanieta to say many thanks to Olivier > > _____________ > Pierre DOVONOU LOKOSSOU | President ISOC-BENIN > | Place du Québec > Tel +229 95 06 5092 BP 337 Cotonou - Bénin > > >> Le 13 oct. 2014 à 14:00, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> Dear All, >> >> As we move into ICANN 51, I would like to take this opportunity to really >> honour the work of Olivier Crepin LeBlond for his leadership within the >> At >> Large Community. His diplomacy, wisdom, tenacity, character, energy, >> integrity in rallying the wider At Large community has been critical in >> the >> mobilization and activation of the wider At Large community. >> >> His constant advocacy for participation, inclusion and undying personal >> commitment which has in turn manifested in him being on literally >> thousands >> of calls, hours of genuine voluntary service is nothing short of >> phenomenal. I would recommend that ICANN gives him a Leadership Award. >> >> Having served under Olivier whilst on the ALAC, I have seen him open to >> hearing and managing diverse views, conflicting ideas but handling it >> with >> grace although at times, he has often remarked wanting to pull his >> hair...which is something that all leaders go through from time to time. >> :) >> But seriously, Olivier thank you for being very very inclusive in your >> approach. You are a star! >> >> >> On behalf of the South Pacific Computer Society, I would most sincerely >> like to thank you again for your amazing leadership and for the person >> that >> you are. Hopefully you can visit us in the Pacific some time if your >> schedule clears up. >> >> With every best wish, >> Sala >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 0

Fwd: [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 11, 2014

Oct. 11, 2014

Hello all, the Press release below, which Ram refers to is, IMHO, problematic. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 15:19:59 -0400 From: Dave Farber via ip <ip(a)listbox.com> Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net To: ip <ip(a)listbox.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ram Mohan" <rmohan(a)afilias.info <mailto:rmohan@afilias.info>> Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet To: "Dave Farber" <dave(a)farber.net <mailto:dave@farber.net>> Cc: "Ram Mohan" <rmohan(a)afilias.info <mailto:rmohan@afilias.info>> Dave, Here is a piece from a press release <http://www.weforum.org/news/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2015-addres…> by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to “build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet” that might be interesting to the IP readership. Excerpt below: “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over 50 initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, with the aim of contributing positive, transformative change to the global agenda, as well as those of industry, business and the world’s regions. These include a public-private initiative to help achieve zero net tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet; and the Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which work with governments worldwide to improve economic opportunity for the female half of the population.” -Ram Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/10842266-839cd10d> | Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=10842266&id_secret=10842266-89100…> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=10842266&id_secret=10842266-…> [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULT: Candidate Endorsement: ALAC Representative to the ICANN Accountability and Governance Coordination Group
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 9, 2014

Oct. 9, 2014

Congratulations Alan! Ariel's done all the magic & transmitted your details to the Staff member in charge of the Coordination Group. Kind regards, Olivier On 09/10/2014 19:29, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear ALAC Members and All, > > Kindly note that all the ALAC members have casted their ballots in the > vote regarding the endorsement of ALAC Representatives to the ICANN > Accountability and Governance Coordination Group, hence the vote is > now ended. > > *** > QUESTION: Should the advice from the At-Large Sub-Committee on the > Selection of Members for the ICANN Accountability and Governance > Coordination Group be accepted? The advice is as follows: > > Factoring in 1) a point scoring system (i.e. a straw ballot) based on > applicants' Expression of Interest, 2) the Sub-Committee's conference > call on 29 September 2014 to make the decision on the candidates, and > 3) a BigPulse vote to choose one representative between the top 2 > candidates decided by the straw ballot, it is recommended that the > ALAC endorse the following individual as the ALAC Representative to > the ICANN Accountability and Governance Coordination Group: > > *- Alan Greenberg * > > The recommendations are based on a high level of confidence that the > candidate: 1) Is qualified to access the principles and mechanisms for > ICANN Accountability and Governance functions; 2) has wide range of > contacts and experiences to engage the largest number of Coordination > Group participants; and 3) can do so from the perspective/viewpoint of > the ALAC, the At-Large Community, and the global Internet endusers. > > As at Poll close: Thursday 09 October 2014 18:21 UTC > Number of voters: 15 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 100.00 > Ranked by votes > *Rank* *Candidate* *Votes* *%* > 1 Yes 15 100.00 > 2 No 0 0.00 > 2 Abstain 0 0.00 > > > *** > To confirm, *Alan Greenberg* is selected to become the ALAC > Representatives to the ICANN Accountability and Governance > Coordination Group. > > You may view the result independently > under https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=4259vnewtbhaJbwVL5f6YT2F. > > 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.atlarge > <https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> > Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

3 2

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 8, 2014

Oct. 8, 2014

Two comments. - I don't think that this is worth the effort for the very small number oof times it happens - A public (ie open for all to read or listen to as are most of out discussion) would then identify the people who plan to go cast a contentious ballot. Alan At 05/10/2014 11:41 AM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >What if we say that all votes are open but, in >those cases where there is a concern in voting >openly, it gets discussed to reach consensus in >ALAC as to whether in the specific case it goes >secret or semi-secret. In other words, the >default is that every vote is open except if >someone requests not to be so and then, at that >time, ALAC decides by consensus if the vote goes secret or whatever. > >-ed > >On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Subrenat, >Jean-Jacques <<mailto:jjs@dyalog.net>jjs(a)dyalog.net> wrote: >@Sandra +1. >Jean-Jacques. > > > > > >----- Mail original ----- >De: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" ><<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> >Ã: "Carlton Samuels" ><<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >Cc: "ALAC" ><<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, >"Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >EnvoyÃ©: Samedi 4 Octobre 2014 10:37:17 >Objet: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes > > > Current institutional arrangements and the > > > configuration is that at least ten (10) ALAC members are supposed to be > > reflecting their sense of ALS positions to ALAC and thence, to the Board > > and community. > > > > If an ALAC member cannot vote and publicly justify one's vote then that > > member is unworthy of being an ALAC member. > > > > Mark me down as unanimous on that. > > > > -Carlton > > > > >++++1 Carlton and Sandra > > > > > ============================== > > Carlton A Samuels > > Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > ============================= > > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Tijani > BENJEMAA <<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Dear Alan, > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I didn't attend the last ALAC call. I do appreciate that > > > this > > > issue was brought to the table. > > > > > > > > > > > > I do think that the ALS certification and decertification votes should be > > > conducted as confidential votes to avoid any tension or harassment. Even > > > staff and the ALAC chair shouldn't know how ALAC Members voted. We may > > ask > > > voters to give the rational of their vote, but anonymously. > > > > > > > > > > > > My fear is that when the ALAC members cast their votes knowing that there > > > will be someone (staff and ALAC Chair) who will see how they voted, they > > > will not vote according to their conscience, they will modulate their > > > choice > > > according the relationship they think staff members and ALAC Chair have > > > with > > > the concerned ALS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---- > > > > > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > > > > > Executive Director > > > > > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > > > > > > Phone: <tel:%2B%20216%2041%20649%20605>+ 216 41 649 605 > > > > > > Mobile: <tel:%2B%20216%2098%20330%20114>+ 216 98 330 114 > > > > > > Fax: <tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%20376>+ 216 70 853 376 > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : > <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan > > Greenberg > > > EnvoyÃ© : jeudi 2 octobre 2014 14:37 > > > Ã : ALAC > > > Objet : [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes > > > > > > > > > > > > On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS > > > > > > certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots > > > > > > (such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to > > > > > > discuss the issue on the mailing list. > > > > > > > > > > > > The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who > > > > > > voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others > > > > > > that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such > > > > > > a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when > > > > > > we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we > > > > > > did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such > > > objections. > > > > > > > > > > > > A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and > > > > > > decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of > > > > > > one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern > > > > > > that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who > > > > > > rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the > > > > > > result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on > > > > > > personnel votes). > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that this concern should be considered. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and > > > > > > decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we > > > > > > should be in a position to explain why a decision was made. > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly I offer the following proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there > > > > > > will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the > > > > > > details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large > > > > > > staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews > > > > > > with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any > > > > > > particular decision was made. > > > > > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > 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+(ALA>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA > > > C) > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Ce courrier Ã©lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant > > > parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. > > > <http://www.avast.com>http://www.avast.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 ><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… > > > > >-- >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.

2 1

Review: ALS certification and decertification votes
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 8, 2014

Oct. 8, 2014

This has been a good set of interactions. We now seem to be down to two options. Everyone agrees that de-certification votes and certification votes where there is a specific RALO recommendation should be standard open votes. Where we differ is how to treat votes where the RALO could not develop a specific recommendation. a) Some ALAC members feel that to reduce chance of harassment, or to ensure that the ALAC members votes as he or she really believes is the correct choice, the vote should be secret, except that if the decision is challenged or likely to be challenged, At-Large Policy Staff and the ALAC chair have access to the actual votes to enable then to, after the fact, develop a rationale for why the vote went as it did (still keeping the actual votes confidential). b) Others feel that if a person is selected for the ALAC, they must be willing to vote according to their conscience, make public what that vote is, and deal with any repercussions. I have said I can live with either outcome, and I can. However, I will share my personal view of this. For my own vote, I am solidly on the "b" camp (you will recall that it was my asking why votes were no longer open that started this discussion). However, I think that things are not as simple as voting for what I personally would want. We are setting rules for the ALAC and must do so to ensure the best outcomes in future certification votes. It is clear that there are some ALAC members who might feel uncomfortable with announcing their vote, potentially in opposition to some members of the community. Even if there was no one on the current ALAC who felt that way, the tone of the discussion so far implies that such a position is a reasonable expectation for some ALAC members. Given that, there is a reasonable probability that such ALAC Members might react by changing their vote to result in the least conflict or confrontation, or they would abstain. That could alter outcomes allowing an ALS to be certified that a majority of voters felt would not be a credit to At-Large. Treating these ballots as secret, in my opinion, is the best choice to help ensure that all current and future ALAC members vote with what they believe to be the "right" answer. Nothing precludes any ALAC member making their own vote public if they choose. Alan

3 2

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 6, 2014

Oct. 6, 2014

This is getting to be interesting. So far, I think that we have general agreement on how to handle all votes except a certification where the RALO is undecided. Here we have multiple positions. 1. Secret but staff/chair can access details 2. Everything secret. 3. Everything published. Alan At 03/10/2014 01:42 PM, Fatima Cambronero wrote: >Dear All, > >I agree with Sandra on this. > >I expressed in our last teleconference a similar >point: our roles are as representatives from our RALOs. > >I think whenever possible, our votes in >certification and decertification processes >should be open and transparent and be available to be consulted for our RALOs. > >I believe it is easy to deal with happy people, >when we voted in the same sense that our RALO >expressed. But the main skill of a leader is >dealing with less happy people when we voted on >contrary sense of their "mandate". If we can >explain why our votes were in different sense, >we don't be worried because some RALO members don't smile us anymore. > >Just my 2 cents. > > > >Best Regards, > >Fatima > >2014-10-03 14:39 GMT-03:00 Alberto Soto ><<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>asoto(a)ibero-americano.org>: >Again, I agree Alan. Not all measures of a democratic government, are ideal. >Seek balance, governance and better functionality. >Regards > >Alberto > >-----Mensaje original----- >De: ><mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg >Enviado el: viernes, 03 de octubre de 2014 02:30 p.m. >Para: sandra hoferichter; Evan Leibovitch >CC: ALAC >Asunto: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes > >Most votes would be open. Our rules allow >someone to explain their vote if they wish >(particularly a no or abstain). For those few >votes where there is no recommendation from the >RALO, the vote would be secret, BUT we would be >able to privately request a rationale for the vote. > >You are correct (in my view) that in an ideal >world, the ALAC members, who have an obligation >to support the ALAC, At-Large and ICANN, could >vote against the wishes of some in their RALO, >and could justify this. The same is true for >personnel votes, and some parts of ICANN have those open as well. > >But I am not sure ALAC members are paid enough >to subject them to possible harassment if we can easily remedy it. > >Alan > >At 03/10/2014 01:17 PM, sandra hoferichter wrote: > >Hi all, my thoughts on one point. I understand or self as being > >privileged in terms that most of us are elected by their RALOs to > >represent their interest. They put trust in us. Sometimes we have to > >take decisions such as certification and decertification. I see the > >point of personal relationships within a RALO - which might be > >challenged depending on he vote. BUT as we have a certain > >responsibility here I think all of us should take that burden to > >justify a decision personally within the region and globally as a > >group. This would be in my POV the most democratic approach. > > > >Best Sandra > > > >(Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any > >misspelling.) > > > > > Am 03.10.2014 um 17:52 schrieb Evan > Leibovitch <<mailto:evan@telly.org>evan(a)telly.org>: > > > > > > On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg > <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be: > > >> > > >> 2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where > > >> there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open > > >> votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional > > advice, how ALAC members vote should > > >> not be published. > > > > > > Ã¢â¹Yes, that is a clearer expression of my iinternt. Thanks.Ã¢â¹ > > > > > > Ã¢â¹- EvanÃ¢â¹ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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+Committe>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe > > e+(ALAC) > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >Fatima Cambronero >Abogada-Argentina > >Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 >Twitter: @facambronero >Skype: fatima.cambronero

4 5

24H CONSENSUS CALL: appointment of members of the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions"
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 5, 2014

Oct. 5, 2014

Dear ALAC members, please be so kind to find the email below that I have sent to the members of the At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government Stewardship of the IANA Functions. The message is self explanatory. Due to time pressures, this is a 24H consensus call to the ALAC, on whether there are any objections from ALAC members concerning the candidates below to be appointed by the ALAC as full members of the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions". With no objections, the candidate names would be deemed as being satisfactory to be transmitted to the Staff member in charge of supporting the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions" as full member appointees from the ALAC, with a note that the candidate's name for the NARALO region is pending. As mentioned below, due to the nature of the appointment of persons, objections can be made in private to Staff and/or me. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: 24H CONSENSUS CALL: appointment of members of the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions" Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 01:28:59 +0300 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> CC: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Dear members of the At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government Stewardship of the IANA Functions, As you know, the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions" is currently being formed. After a call for potential candidates was sent to the RALO Secretariats list, the following names have been proposed by the RALO leaderships: * AFRALO: Seun Ojedeji * APRALO: Fouad Bajwa * EURALO: Olivier Crépin-Leblond * LACRALO: Fatima Cambronero The NARALO decision is still pending. With a first meeting of the CWG due to take place on 6th October, we barely have the time to agree with this selection for those members to be able to take part in the first conference call. As a result, for the time being we'll leave the NARALO slot as "pending". Due to time pressures, this is a 24H consensus cal running in parallel with the WG consensus call, which will also be send simultaneously to the ALAC, on whether there are any objections from the IANA Issues WG concerning the above candidates to be appointed by the ALAC as full members of the above working group. With no objections, the candidate names will be deemed as being satisfactory to passed on the to the ALAC for their consensus call. Again, time pressures will mean that the ALAC will receive a similar 24H consensus call in parallel with the present consensus call. Thus any objection will stop the process. Due to the nature of the appointment of persons, objections can be made in private to Staff and/or me. Warm regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Interim Chair of At-Large IANA Issues WG

10 10

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 5, 2014

Oct. 5, 2014

I hate to disagree with my friend Tijani on this. In this case we are extending the mantle of the ALAC's standing in the ICANN community to an At-Large Structure. Current institutional arrangements and the configuration is that at least ten (10) ALAC members are supposed to be reflecting their sense of ALS positions to ALAC and thence, to the Board and community. If an ALAC member cannot vote and publicly justify one's vote then that member is unworthy of being an ALAC member. Mark me down as unanimous on that. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Tijani BENJEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn> wrote: > Dear Alan, > > > > Unfortunately, I didn’t attend the last ALAC call. I do appreciate that > this > issue was brought to the table. > > > > I do think that the ALS certification and decertification votes should be > conducted as confidential votes to avoid any tension or harassment. Even > staff and the ALAC chair shouldn’t know how ALAC Members voted. We may ask > voters to give the rational of their vote, but anonymously. > > > > My fear is that when the ALAC members cast their votes knowing that there > will be someone (staff and ALAC Chair) who will see how they voted, they > will not vote according to their conscience, they will modulate their > choice > according the relationship they think staff members and ALAC Chair have > with > the concerned ALS. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > 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 : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg > Envoyé : jeudi 2 octobre 2014 14:37 > À : ALAC > Objet : [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes > > > > On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS > > certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots > > (such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to > > discuss the issue on the mailing list. > > > > The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who > > voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others > > that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such > > a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when > > we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we > > did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such > objections. > > > > A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and > > decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of > > one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern > > that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who > > rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the > > result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on > > personnel votes). > > > > I think that this concern should be considered. > > > > However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and > > decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we > > should be in a position to explain why a decision was made. > > > > Accordingly I offer the following proposal. > > > > ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there > > will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the > > details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large > > staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews > > with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any > > particular decision was made. > > > > Comments? > > > > 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+(ALA > C) > > > > --- > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant > parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. > http://www.avast.com > _______________________________________________ > 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… >

5 4

Re: [ALAC] 24H CONSENSUS CALL: appointment of members of the
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Oct. 4, 2014

Oct. 4, 2014

I am happy with the candidates Holly On Sat 04/10/14 8:38 AM , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl(a)gih.com sent: > Dear ALAC members, > > please be so kind to find the email below that I have sent to the > members of the At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government > Stewardship of the IANA Functions. > > The message is self explanatory. > > Due to time pressures, this is a 24H consensus call to the ALAC, on > whether there are any objections from ALAC members concerning the > candidates below to be appointed by the ALAC as full members of the > "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship > TransitionProposal on Naming Related Functions". > > With no objections, the candidate names would be deemed as being > satisfactory to be transmitted to the Staff member in charge of > supporting the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA > Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions" as > fullmember appointees from the ALAC, with a note that the candidate's name > for the NARALO region is pending. > > As mentioned below, due to the nature of the appointment of persons, > objections can be made in private to Staff and/or me. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: 24H CONSENSUS CALL: appointment of members of the "Cross > Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition > Proposal on Naming Related Functions" > Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 01:28:59 +0300 > From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com&g > t;To: iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>CC: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff > @atlarge.icann.org> > > > Dear members of the At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US > Government Stewardship of the IANA Functions, > > As you know, the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA > Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions" is > currently being formed. > > After a call for potential candidates was sent to the RALO Secretariats > list, the following names have been proposed by the RALO leaderships: > > * AFRALO: Seun Ojedeji > * APRALO: Fouad Bajwa > * EURALO: Olivier Crépin-Leblond > * LACRALO: Fatima Cambronero > > > The NARALO decision is still pending. With a first meeting of the CWG > due to take place on 6th October, we barely have the time to agree with > this selection for those members to be able to take part in the first > conference call. > > As a result, for the time being we'll leave the NARALO slot as > "pending". > Due to time pressures, this is a 24H consensus cal running in parallel > with the WG consensus call, which will also be send simultaneously to > the ALAC, on whether there are any objections from the IANA Issues WG > concerning the above candidates to be appointed by the ALAC as full > members of the above working group. With no objections, the candidate > names will be deemed as being satisfactory to passed on the to the ALAC > for their consensus call. > > Again, time pressures will mean that the ALAC will receive a similar > 24Hconsensus call in parallel with the present consensus call. Thus any > objection will stop the process. > > Due to the nature of the appointment of persons, objections can be made > in private to Staff and/or me. > > Warm regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > Interim Chair of At-Large IANA Issues WG > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.orgALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+C > ommittee+(ALAC) >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 4, 2014

Oct. 4, 2014

Evan, my apologies, it is how I read your suggestion. You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be: 2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional advice, how ALAC members vote should not be published. Is that correct. If so, I have no problem with that. Given the timing with some people leaving for LA in a few days, I suggest that we continue to solicit support or disagreement here and come to a resolution (hopefully quickly) in LA. Alan At 03/10/2014 11:24 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I'm not sure that summary is accurate. > >Based on my proposal â-- with which you (Alan) >and many others agreed -- is that in the vast >majority of cases where the RALO advice is >clear, the ALAC certification vote remains open. >That is the opposite of what you have in point #2 above. > >Based on the emails to date, only Tijani has >expressed the view that all certification votes >should be closed. There is certainly NOT general >agreement on that, I oppose it myself. Indeed, >some (including myself and Raf) understand that >my proposal -- to close the votes *only* for >those ALS applications for which RALO advice is >conflicted -- is a difficult compromise, since >the preference is to be totally open. > >- Evan > >On 3 October 2014 10:56, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >>Tijani, I understand. As I previously said, if >>there is support for your position, we probably >>need to make sure it is acceptable in case there is a dispute. >> >>TO SUMMARIZE: >> >>1. We have general agreement that >>de-certification votes should be standard open votes. >> >>2. We have general agreement that how ALAC >>members vote on certification motions should not be published. >> >>3. We have some level of agreement that in the >>case of a dispute, staff and Chair can access >>the details of how people voted to allow a >>summary statement to be created on why the >>request for accreditation did not succeed. >>However, there is some disagreement with this.

7 8