- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 23, 2014

Jan. 23, 2014

Alejandro, Firstly allow me to extend my sincere apologies as it is not and was not my intention to cause you grief or to show disrespect. I was merely spurting an opinion and I apologise if that opinion made you feel that way. With respect to the question on whether I believe the panelist was deliberately cheated, I must confess that the "jury is still out" on that one. I would have to read and go through the documentation before commenting, even though I had made comments in the past on the wiki where it came to .health applications. However, I know Carlton and trust his judgment and ethics. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan(a)unam.mx> wrote: > Sala, > > allow me to state for the record that I feel severe disrespect for many > and in many planes in your comment. I will not dwell on it for now and try > to go back to the objectives of this discussion list. > > Please just respond whether you believe that the panelist in the ALAC > .health objection deliberately cheated. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > ------------------------------ > *Desde:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [ > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014 23:13 > *Hasta:* Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > > *CC:* At-Large Worldwide; At-Large Worldwide > *Asunto:* Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed > by the ALAC > > And, let's try to show the cultural sensitivity we all demand by > limiting the references to specific bodies of religious text. > > [Sala: I would not call it religious text as it is historical :) Some > historians say that it is the root of the current Palestinian -Israeli > conflict. It is basic discourse in International Relations. The use of the > expression can be likened to the use of expressions such as "chilling" to > mean "relaxing". There is no such thing as plain English as it continues to > evolve. However, when someone uses an expression that others may not be > familiar with, we simply inquire. In fact when we live in a global diverse > context, we are all the more richer when we learn about "others'" systems > and cultures etc. ] >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 23, 2014

Jan. 23, 2014

I will let Carlton explain the first question that Alejandro wrote. With respect to the use of Jacob and Esau, it is an expression used when describing deception. The story goes that Jacob and Esau were brothers and sons of Isaac. In ancient times and in that particular culture, before a father would die he would bestow his blessings to the firstborn as that was his birthright. Whilst Jacob and Esau were twins, Esau was the older of the two and so it was his birthright to succeed, However as Isaac reached old age, his sight failed him so he could not see properly. In a successful attempt by Jacob to get the blessings of the firstborn after striking a deal with his brother over a bowl of soup, Jacob killed an animal and put the skin around his hands so that he could appear hairy as his brother Esau was hairy and in so doing deceived his father into blessing him. So the expression to hear the voice of Jacob but it is the hand of Esau he feels is used to refer to the use of "deception". On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan(a)unam.mx> wrote: > Carlton, > > what is the action that you conclude should follow? > > Can you explain the Jacob/Esau reference please? > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ > at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Carlton Samuels [ > carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com] > Enviado el: miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014 21:04 > Hasta: At-Large Worldwide; At-Large Worldwide > Asunto: [At-Large] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC > > Colleagues may recall that this writer was part of the original At-Large > panel constituted to evaluate and determine whether the ALAC would exercise > standing and file community objections to a gTLD application. > > You will also recall that after some time engaging and several evaluations, > I withdrew from the process, principally because I was challenged to > reconcile my disquiet regarding the bases used to identify the offended > community in context and the expandable and sometimes indeterminate > attributes available for defining a community with standing to raise an > objection. > > So now, the evaluator hired by the ICC to evaluate the objections filed has > issued his ruling. See it here: > > http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-… > . > Here's the key understanding, as he sees it, of what obtains.. > > "*The formal objection process was created to allow a f**ull and fair > consideration of objections based on certain l**imited grounds outside > ICANN’s evaluation of applications on t**heir merits*" - Para 54, Page 29 > > He, too, has his troubles settling on a meaning of the term 'community' in > context. His take... > > "*......**The word “community” refers not to a place, but to an > abstraction: the convergence of a sense of involvement with common > interests....Communities of persons united by their interests in how they > earn their living may be especially strong, whether they form permanent > organisations (like professional associations) or not (like the entire > **population > segment of retirees).*" Para 49, Page 27 inter alia > > He continues, bemoaning his inability to cleanly define a community with > standing.....and in the process, pimp slaps the prevailing or predominant > At-Large tenet of community.... > > "*.....Communities do not necessarily create institutions. They do not > necessarily function as a polity, in the sense of identifying officials > formally authorized to act in **their name, represent their interests, or > formulate their policies. They may exist without structures of > self-governance, such as membership committees which admit **or exclude > individuals by reference to more or less well-articulated standards > of qualification or conduct**........It follows that communities may > include individuals who are more or less **concerned with the welfare of > the group as a whole; it may contain cynics as well as * > *idealists, speculators as well as altruists. Naturally it may include > subgroups or even **individuals whose opinions and preferences are sharply > at odds with those of the **majority of the community. Unless the community > has in some constitutional sense **defined itself as excluding undesirable > individuals, or at least limited their capacity to **make claims to speak > as members of the group, someone looking at a community **from the outside, > and armed only with this broad understanding of what a **“community” may > be, has no rules-based criteria for evaluating who does or does not > **belong > to the community. *" Paras 50 & 51, Page 26-27, inter alia > > Here's where he ends up.... > > "*....The determination I am now charged with effecting deals.... – with > “global Internet communities”. That expression has not, however, been given > further specific definition. One must therefore proceed on the basis of (i) > discerning what the relevant rules do not say about “communities” and (ii) > being attentive to implied constraints derived from principles developed by > ICANN.*" Para 52, Page 28, inter alia > > He elides a lot of stuff from the foregoing to the six (6) principles upon > which the new GTLD program is predicated in Para 55 then delivered this > [considered] opinion.... > > "*To the extent that abstract or aspirational principles are defined, they > are those of a free market (“competition”, “consumer choice”, > “differentiation” and “diversity”) and freedom of expression, rather than > regulatory constraints arising from a protective (or authoritarian) desire > to filter “wrong” or “unsound” views, or otherwise restrict access s**o as > to reserve it to those who are vetted by some type of official bodies...I > see no reflection here of* *ALAC’s undisguised bias **against “commercial > applicants” who “cannot be trusted to self-police the .health domain space > and are “more than likely” to place “commercial interests before > public **welfare > interests”*.......*The Objector’s animadversions against the Applicant miss > the target;* *profit-seekers **may apply; the public interest is evidently > intended to be protected by protocols imposed by ICANN in a manner akin to > that of regulators whose supervision constrains the conduct of for-profit > providers of public services generally...*" Paras 56 & 57, Page 31 inter > alia > > Reasonable men and women may well agree to disagree, agreeably or not. I > willingly acknowledge the arguments posited by this evaluator are indeed > cogent. All in all, this was a bravura performance, worthy of > acknowledgement. For in one fell swoop, this gentleman tells the ALAC to > piss off - politely, in an 'Englishy' kind of way -, gives a left-handed > thumbs up to the regulatory role of ICANN, fingers the PICs as I have > always intimated they were .......and comes up roses. > > He hears the voice of Jacob. But smart fella knows it is the hand of Esau > he feels. > > -Carlton > > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

2 1

Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 23, 2014

Jan. 23, 2014

Colleagues may recall that this writer was part of the original At-Large panel constituted to evaluate and determine whether the ALAC would exercise standing and file community objections to a gTLD application. You will also recall that after some time engaging and several evaluations, I withdrew from the process, principally because I was challenged to reconcile my disquiet regarding the bases used to identify the offended community in context and the expandable and sometimes indeterminate attributes available for defining a community with standing to raise an objection. So now, the evaluator hired by the ICC to evaluate the objections filed has issued his ruling. See it here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-… . Here's the key understanding, as he sees it, of what obtains.. "*The formal objection process was created to allow a f**ull and fair consideration of objections based on certain l**imited grounds outside ICANN’s evaluation of applications on t**heir merits*" - Para 54, Page 29 He, too, has his troubles settling on a meaning of the term 'community' in context. His take... "*......**The word “community” refers not to a place, but to an abstraction: the convergence of a sense of involvement with common interests....Communities of persons united by their interests in how they earn their living may be especially strong, whether they form permanent organisations (like professional associations) or not (like the entire **population segment of retirees).*" Para 49, Page 27 inter alia He continues, bemoaning his inability to cleanly define a community with standing.....and in the process, pimp slaps the prevailing or predominant At-Large tenet of community.... "*.....Communities do not necessarily create institutions. They do not necessarily function as a polity, in the sense of identifying officials formally authorized to act in **their name, represent their interests, or formulate their policies. They may exist without structures of self-governance, such as membership committees which admit **or exclude individuals by reference to more or less well-articulated standards of qualification or conduct**........It follows that communities may include individuals who are more or less **concerned with the welfare of the group as a whole; it may contain cynics as well as * *idealists, speculators as well as altruists. Naturally it may include subgroups or even **individuals whose opinions and preferences are sharply at odds with those of the **majority of the community. Unless the community has in some constitutional sense **defined itself as excluding undesirable individuals, or at least limited their capacity to **make claims to speak as members of the group, someone looking at a community **from the outside, and armed only with this broad understanding of what a **“community” may be, has no rules-based criteria for evaluating who does or does not **belong to the community. *" Paras 50 & 51, Page 26-27, inter alia Here's where he ends up.... "*....The determination I am now charged with effecting deals.... – with “global Internet communities”. That expression has not, however, been given further specific definition. One must therefore proceed on the basis of (i) discerning what the relevant rules do not say about “communities” and (ii) being attentive to implied constraints derived from principles developed by ICANN.*" Para 52, Page 28, inter alia He elides a lot of stuff from the foregoing to the six (6) principles upon which the new GTLD program is predicated in Para 55 then delivered this [considered] opinion.... "*To the extent that abstract or aspirational principles are defined, they are those of a free market (“competition”, “consumer choice”, “differentiation” and “diversity”) and freedom of expression, rather than regulatory constraints arising from a protective (or authoritarian) desire to filter “wrong” or “unsound” views, or otherwise restrict access s**o as to reserve it to those who are vetted by some type of official bodies...I see no reflection here of* *ALAC’s undisguised bias **against “commercial applicants” who “cannot be trusted to self-police the .health domain space and are “more than likely” to place “commercial interests before public **welfare interests”*.......*The Objector’s animadversions against the Applicant miss the target;* *profit-seekers **may apply; the public interest is evidently intended to be protected by protocols imposed by ICANN in a manner akin to that of regulators whose supervision constrains the conduct of for-profit providers of public services generally...*" Paras 56 & 57, Page 31 inter alia Reasonable men and women may well agree to disagree, agreeably or not. I willingly acknowledge the arguments posited by this evaluator are indeed cogent. All in all, this was a bravura performance, worthy of acknowledgement. For in one fell swoop, this gentleman tells the ALAC to piss off - politely, in an 'Englishy' kind of way -, gives a left-handed thumbs up to the regulatory role of ICANN, fingers the PICs as I have always intimated they were .......and comes up roses. He hears the voice of Jacob. But smart fella knows it is the hand of Esau he feels. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: R: Confidentiality
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 22, 2014

Jan. 22, 2014

Again, based on knowledge of the RoP, here is my take on these issues. There are a number of reasons that a voter might be replaced. Being a candidate is the most obvious, but others include a single person holding two votes (as an ALAC member and RALO Chair), or a person who for some reason cannot participate (illness, for example), or an vacant ALAC seat. In all such places (including replacing a NomCom appointee to the ALAC), the RALO may identify a replacement "by a vote of the RALO according to its rules" (to quote the ALAC Rules of Procedure). The process by which candidates to fill this role are identified is purely up to the RALO, but the formal decision to put someone in a voter role must be by a vote of the RALO's ALSes. Regarding the BCEC, the rules are explicit about no member of the electorate being a member of the BCEC. If a member of the BCEC were to become a RALO Chair while on the BCEC, I would guess that the addition to the RoP that the ALAC decided to enact in Buenos AIres - speficially to handle the situationh where a Chair was unavailable to vote, the RALO would have to identify a replacement. But hopefully we will not put ourselves into such an awkward position. The RoP are silent on the timing. Clearly it must be done prior to the vote commencing, and I would guess that if a RALO had to take such replacement action, they should do it in the same time-frame as they have to identify additional slate candidates. Overall, the RALO has a fair amount of discretion with regard to deciding the details of the processes for replacements. Alan At 21/01/2014 07:17 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Dear Tijani, > >Excellent explanation. > >There is one level of complexity that the electorate may benefit from >having further clarity on. > >In the event that current ALAC members apply for the Board Seat 15 position >and are included in the slate of candidates, replacement voters will need >to be sought as per the ALAC RoP. > >Questions that can help provide clarity, especially for newcomers: > >1. What is the process for replacing voters in the electorate? >2. Who is responsible for choosing the replacement voters? >3. Are there criteria for selecting the replacement ALAC voters (eg., same >RALO, trusted by the RALO if the person being replaced is elected, what >about nomcom appointees?, etc)? >4. In the event that RALO Chairs are in the BCEC and are thus not allowed >to vote, what process should be followed to select the replacement voter? >What would be the criteria? >5. When in the elections timeline should the ALAC and RALOs have the >replacements in place so that they can benefit from >discussions/consultations about candidates before votes are cast? > >Best regards, > >Rinalia >On Jan 22, 2014 12:31 AM, <tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > Sorry to react late : I was in the plan and just arrived. > > > > Thank you Alan for your precious input. > > > > As the Chair of the BMSPC (in charge of the process), I want to make > > things very clear: > > > > - Since the BCEC couldn't get the 360 report (I know it's not called 360 > > anymore) on time, the voters who will sign a confidentiality document will > > have access to that report > > > > - The electorate is composed of the 15 ALAC members plus the 5 RALO > > chairs; Those people are the voters > > > > - The 15 ALAC members are not to consult with the ALSes; Although they > > represent their RALO in ALAC, they vote on their own behalf. > > > > - Only the 5 RALO chairs may give a directed vote (directed by the members > > of the RALO, means the ALSes). This is a decision of the RALO. > > > > - In this later case, the RALO Chair doesn't have to share the 360 report > > with the members of the RALO. You will ask me how they will direct the vote > > of their chai without having this information. They will give their opinion > > without having the information of the 360 report; I know it's infortunate, > > but we wouldn't be in this situation if the Board provided the report > > earlier, before the BCEC issues the slate. > > > > - All this concerns only the current occupant of the seat 15 on the Board > > who is Sebastien Bachollet if he applies for a second term. So none of the > > other candidate are concerned > > > > I hope this clarify the situation. If there is still confusion, please > > don't hesitate to share it on this list so all the list membersthat will > > receive it, as well as our clarification (Olivier, Alan and myself). > > > > Tijani > > > > > > > > > > On mar 21/01/14 4:00 , Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > > A couple of comments on all of the comments > > > below, from the perspective of one of the > > > designers of the selection process and the person > > > who drafted the current rules of procedure (with > > > the details of the content being decided by a far wider group). > > > > > > - When we talk about the "electorate", it should > > > be just that and not go into detail. Although the > > > generic form of the electorate is the ALAC plus > > > RALO chairs, it is quite possible that some of > > > these may be replaced for the purposes of the votes. > > > > > > - Although we expect there to be significant ALS > > > consultation, the majority of the voters > > > ultimately have to exercise their own judgement, > > > so although not being able to share the contents > > > of the assessment is perhaps unfortunate, it is > > > perhaps not crucial. The exception is for RALOs > > > that may decide to have the ALSs direct the vote > > > of their Chair. In that case, I don't have an easy way out. > > > > > > - I am confused and troubled by the comments in > > > Roberto's message about disclosing confidential > > > references to the BCEC. These references were > > > requested with the understanding that they were > > > to be confidential. I would have a LOT of trouble > > > making them public, or even asking a referee if > > > they were willing to have their input made > > > public. This is simply not the kind of thing that should be done > > > mid-stream. > > > > > > - To Leon's first two points, there is only one > > > possible candidate being referred to here, and > > > that is the current Seat 15 holder, if he should choose to run again. > > > > > > - On Leon's last point, these votes are > > > completely confidential, and how a elector votes > > > will not be made public (just as is the case with > > > all ALAC-related votes on individuals). > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > >Dear Olivier, > > > > > > > >Thanks for this update. I also agree that an > > > >informed voter is better than an uninformed one. > > > >Therefore I too agree with signing a > > > >confidentiality agreement in order to be able to > > > >receive the information related to the candidates for the Board. > > > > > > > >Now, on the questions side. How will we be able > > > >to comment on the candidates with the ALSs on > > > >our region and orient our vote if we are indeed > > > >under a confidentiality agreement? > > > > > > > >I can see some alternatives in order to avoid breaching the agreement: > > > > > > > >1.- Comment on the candidates virtues without > > > >telling the name of the candidate. > > > > > > > >2.- Letting ALSs know the list of persons postulated and asking for > > > feedback. > > > > > > > >3.- Asking the ALSs to blindly trust on our > > > >judgement and once the election ends, be open to > > > >comment on the decision by each voter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >All the best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > following up on Roberto's message below and to summarise the status > > > so far: > > > > > > > > > > The Board Governance Committee (BGC) who run the 360 reviews on > > > current > > > > > Board members whose term is due to expire will not be able to provide > > > > > its report to the BCEC in time before the BCEC selects its slate of > > > > > candidates. > > > > > > > > > > The results of the review of our current Board member will therefore > > > > > need to be shared amongst a wider set of people, very likely to be > > > the > > > > > complete electorate - hence the ALAC members 'ALAC Working List' > > > > >> *Oggetto:* Confidentiality > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> I was trying unsuccessfully to ask for the floor after the comments > > > from > > > > >> Tijani and Alan, maybe my line was muted, then I had to go back to > > > my > > > > >> meeting, where I am right now. > > > > >> > > > > >> I would like to go on record saying that: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> we had discussed and agreed in Buenos Aires our common position. The > > > > >> wider the number of people that have access to a piece of > > > information, > > > > >> the higher the risk that we have leaking data, and from that on the > > > step > > > > >> to the information being public is very small. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> have consulted with the NomCom Chair and with ICANN General Counsel > > > and > > > > >> then decided to require the non-disclosure to be signed by all, > > > before > > > > >> giving access to confidential material. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> evaluation by the voters, although being a theoretically valid > > > question, > > > > >> brings as a corollary the question on why should the voters also not > > > > >> have access to the reference letters for all candidates. You see > > > that, > > > > >> step by step, we can undermine completely the confidentiality, and > > > > >> therefore the trust in the process. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> would strongly recommend, if you do so, to at least require a > > > > >> non-disclosure similar to the one that BCEC members have signed. I > > > would > > > > >> also encourage you to look for advice by General Counsel. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> information with the regional voters is in open violation of the > > > > >> confidentiality agreement signed by BCEC members. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> > > > > >> Roberto > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> ALAC mailing list > > > > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [1] > > > > >> > > > > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [2] > > > > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > > > > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL > > > AC[3]) > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html [4] > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > ALAC mailing list > > > > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [5] > > > > > > > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [6] > > > > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL > > > AC[7]) > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >ALAC mailing list > > > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [8] > > > > > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [9] > > > >ALAC Working Wiki: > > > > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(A > > > LAC[10]) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [11] > > > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [12] > > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL > > > AC[13]) > > > > > > > > > > > > Links: > > > ------ > > > [1] > > > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > /mailman/listinfo/alac[2] > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > [3] > > > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://community.icann.org/dis > > > play/atlarge/At-Large%2BAdvisory%2BCommittee%2B%28ALAC[4] > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > [5] > > > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > /mailman/listinfo/alac[6] > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > [7] > > > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://community.icann.org/dis > > > play/atlarge/At-Large%2BAdvisory%2BCommittee%2B%28ALAC[8] > > > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > /mailman/listinfo/alac[9] > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > [10] > > > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://community.icann.org/dis > > > play/atlarge/At-Large%2BAdvisory%2BCommittee%2B%28ALAC[11] > > > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > /mailman/listinfo/alac[12] > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > [13] > > > > > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://community.icann.org/dis > > > play/atlarge/At-Large%2BAdvisory%2BCommittee%2B%28ALAC > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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… > > >_______________________________________________ >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] Fwd: R: Confidentiality
by tijani.benjemaa＠topnet.tn Jan. 22, 2014

Jan. 22, 2014

Dear all, Sorry to react late : I was in the plan and just arrived. Thank you Alan for your precious input. As the Chair of the BMSPC (in charge of the process), I want to make things very clear: - Since the BCEC couldn't get the 360 report (I know it's not called 360 anymore) on time, the voters who will sign a confidentiality document will have access to that report - The electorate is composed of the 15 ALAC members plus the 5 RALO chairs; Those people are the voters - The 15 ALAC members are not to consult with the ALSes; Although they represent their RALO in ALAC, they vote on their own behalf. - Only the 5 RALO chairs may give a directed vote (directed by the members of the RALO, means the ALSes). This is a decision of the RALO. - In this later case, the RALO Chair doesn't have to share the 360 report with the members of the RALO. You will ask me how they will direct the vote of their chai without having this information. They will give their opinion without having the information of the 360 report; I know it's infortunate, but we wouldn't be in this situation if the Board provided the report earlier, before the BCEC issues the slate. - All this concerns only the current occupant of the seat 15 on the Board who is Sebastien Bachollet if he applies for a second term. So none of the other candidate are concerned I hope this clarify the situation. If there is still confusion, please don't hesitate to share it on this list so all the list membersthat will receive it, as well as our clarification (Olivier, Alan and myself). Tijani On mar 21/01/14 4:00 , Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > A couple of comments on all of the comments > below, from the perspective of one of the > designers of the selection process and the person > who drafted the current rules of procedure (with > the details of the content being decided by a far wider group). > > - When we talk about the "electorate", it should > be just that and not go into detail. Although the > generic form of the electorate is the ALAC plus > RALO chairs, it is quite possible that some of > these may be replaced for the purposes of the votes. > > - Although we expect there to be significant ALS > consultation, the majority of the voters > ultimately have to exercise their own judgement, > so although not being able to share the contents > of the assessment is perhaps unfortunate, it is > perhaps not crucial. The exception is for RALOs > that may decide to have the ALSs direct the vote > of their Chair. In that case, I don't have an easy way out. > > - I am confused and troubled by the comments in > Roberto's message about disclosing confidential > references to the BCEC. These references were > requested with the understanding that they were > to be confidential. I would have a LOT of trouble > making them public, or even asking a referee if > they were willing to have their input made > public. This is simply not the kind of thing that should be done > mid-stream. > > - To Leon's first two points, there is only one > possible candidate being referred to here, and > that is the current Seat 15 holder, if he should choose to run again. > > - On Leon's last point, these votes are > completely confidential, and how a elector votes > will not be made public (just as is the case with > all ALAC-related votes on individuals). > > Alan > > >Dear Olivier, > > > >Thanks for this update. I also agree that an > >informed voter is better than an uninformed one. > >Therefore I too agree with signing a > >confidentiality agreement in order to be able to > >receive the information related to the candidates for the Board. > > > >Now, on the questions side. How will we be able > >to comment on the candidates with the ALSs on > >our region and orient our vote if we are indeed > >under a confidentiality agreement? > > > >I can see some alternatives in order to avoid breaching the agreement: > > > >1.- Comment on the candidates virtues without > >telling the name of the candidate. > > > >2.- Letting ALSs know the list of persons postulated and asking for > feedback. > > > >3.- Asking the ALSs to blindly trust on our > >judgement and once the election ends, be open to > >comment on the decision by each voter. > > > > > > > > >All the best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > following up on Roberto's message below and to summarise the status > so far: > > > > > > The Board Governance Committee (BGC) who run the 360 reviews on > current > > > Board members whose term is due to expire will not be able to provide > > > its report to the BCEC in time before the BCEC selects its slate of > > > candidates. > > > > > > The results of the review of our current Board member will therefore > > > need to be shared amongst a wider set of people, very likely to be > the > > > complete electorate - hence the ALAC members 'ALAC Working List' > > >> *Oggetto:* Confidentiality > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I was trying unsuccessfully to ask for the floor after the comments > from > > >> Tijani and Alan, maybe my line was muted, then I had to go back to > my > > >> meeting, where I am right now. > > >> > > >> I would like to go on record saying that: > > >> > > > >> we had discussed and agreed in Buenos Aires our common position. The > > >> wider the number of people that have access to a piece of > information, > > >> the higher the risk that we have leaking data, and from that on the > step > > >> to the information being public is very small. > > >> > > > >> have consulted with the NomCom Chair and with ICANN General Counsel > and > > >> then decided to require the non-disclosure to be signed by all, > before > > >> giving access to confidential material. > > >> > > > >> evaluation by the voters, although being a theoretically valid > question, > > >> brings as a corollary the question on why should the voters also not > > >> have access to the reference letters for all candidates. You see > that, > > >> step by step, we can undermine completely the confidentiality, and > > >> therefore the trust in the process. > > >> > > > >> would strongly recommend, if you do so, to at least require a > > >> non-disclosure similar to the one that BCEC members have signed. I > would > > >> also encourage you to look for advice by General Counsel. > > >> > > > >> information with the regional voters is in open violation of the > > >> confidentiality agreement signed by BCEC members. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Roberto > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> ALAC mailing list > > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [1] > > >> > > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [2] > > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL > AC[3]) > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html [4] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [5] > > > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [6] > > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL > AC[7]) > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [8] > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [9] > >ALAC Working Wiki: > > >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(A > LAC[10]) > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [11] > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [12] > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL > AC[13]) > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://atlarge-lists.icann.org > /mailman/listinfo/alac[2] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.atlarge.icann.org > [3] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://community.icann.org/dis > play/atlarge/At-Large%2BAdvisory%2BCommittee%2B%28ALAC[4] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > [5] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://atlarge-lists.icann.org > /mailman/listinfo/alac[6] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.atlarge.icann.org > [7] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://community.icann.org/dis > play/atlarge/At-Large%2BAdvisory%2BCommittee%2B%28ALAC[8] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://atlarge-lists.icann.org > /mailman/listinfo/alac[9] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.atlarge.icann.org > [10] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://community.icann.org/dis > play/atlarge/At-Large%2BAdvisory%2BCommittee%2B%28ALAC[11] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://atlarge-lists.icann.org > /mailman/listinfo/alac[12] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.atlarge.icann.org > [13] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://community.icann.org/dis > play/atlarge/At-Large%2BAdvisory%2BCommittee%2B%28ALAC >

4 3

Fwd: R: Confidentiality
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Jan. 21, 2014

Jan. 21, 2014

Dear all, an IT problem caused that this message from Roberto Gaetano, Chair of the At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee never arrived on the ALAC working list. You may have seen my and Tijani's replies, but not Roberto's message, which must have been a bit confusing. Please be so kind to find the two emails below from Roberto, for your information. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: R: Confidentiality Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:02:21 +0100 From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> CC: 'ICANN At-Large Staff' <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, 'ALAC Working List' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Following up on this thread, having also read all the comments, I would like to clarify a few things. Then, the ball will be in the hands of ALAC Leadership for decisions. The original point was about access to the 360 review, not to the candidates EoI. On the other hand, the EoIs are meant to be information available to all people involved in the decision, not just the BCEC: therefore there is no confidentiality issue there. The point was that the owner of the 360 review is the ICANN Board, and that the Chair of the BGC had agreed to give the document to BCEC, provided that all the members sign a non-disclosure agreement to commit to confidentiality. Therefore the BCEC will not provide this information to other parties. Whether philosophically the ALAC voting members have or not the right of accessing this information is not a BCEC problem, but a matter of an agreement between ALAC and the BGC. If the ICANN Board agrees, the BGC will give access to this information under the conditions that will be negotiated. Personally, I believe that a non-disclosure agreement would be necessary, but it is just my opinion. The good news is that the ICANN Board is at fault as it has not provided yet the document, which is extremely unlikely, at this point in time, to reach the BCEC before we produce the slate of candidates. As observed by Tijani, who chairs the committee who owns the schedule, no extension to the deadline will be authorized. This means that we have a pretty good reason for asking that the full voting body has access to the 360 review, because the BCEC did not have it on time to take it into account. The bad news is that the reference letters and the interviews with the referees, that have been recorded are also part of the documentation on which the BCEC has also committed to confidentiality. For instance, one referee has explicitly stated that he/she would not have accepted to provide information if there was any chance of leaking to a wider audience than the BCEC. If the ALAC voting members believe that reference checking is an essential part of the evaluation and vote, I recommend that action is taken as soon as possible to contact all referees and ask their explicit authorization for releasing the reference letters and/or recordings to a wider audience. Be aware that I expect some refusals, and in this case you need to decide how to weight the not accessible references. I know that this is a sticky issue that will cause a lot of traffic, but the sooner there is a decision, the better it is. For my part, I can confirm that I will remain committed to the non-disclosure paper that I have signed. Cheers, Roberto *Da:*Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] *Inviato:* martedì 17 dicembre 2013 18:20 *A:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl(a)gih.com) *Cc:* 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'ALAC Working List' *Oggetto:* Confidentiality I was trying unsuccessfully to ask for the floor after the comments from Tijani and Alan, maybe my line was muted, then I had to go back to my meeting, where I am right now. I would like to go on record saying that: · I share completely what Tijani has said -- as a matter of fact we had discussed and agreed in Buenos Aires our common position. The wider the number of people that have access to a piece of information, the higher the risk that we have leaking data, and from that on the step to the information being public is very small. · BCEC has taken the issue of confidentiality very seriously, I have consulted with the NomCom Chair and with ICANN General Counsel and then decided to require the non-disclosure to be signed by all, before giving access to confidential material. · If the principle of access to the current Board member evaluation by the voters, although being a theoretically valid question, brings as a corollary the question on why should the voters also not have access to the reference letters for all candidates. You see that, step by step, we can undermine completely the confidentiality, and therefore the trust in the process. · The ALAC can decide to open up to a larger audience but I would strongly recommend, if you do so, to at least require a non-disclosure similar to the one that BCEC members have signed. I would also encourage you to look for advice by General Counsel. · The hypothesis of having BCEC members to informally share information with the regional voters is in open violation of the confidentiality agreement signed by BCEC members. Thanks, Roberto

5 6

Community Priority Evaluations [Any Updates?]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 18, 2014

Jan. 18, 2014

Dear ALAC, Rinalia had updated us on November 20, 2013, re: CPE: *"The ALAC sent advice to the ICANN board requesting for preferential treatment of community applications that fulfill certain criteria precisely because we knew that an auction as a process for resolving string contention would disadvantage community applicants with less financial means than big industry players. We also urged the Board to ensure that the Economist Intelligence Unit has sufficient community expertise in its panel that is tasked to conduct the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) because community strings that pass the CPE would be in the position to knock out competing applications without going to action. Sadly, the Board response on these matters has been most disappointing."* Wonder what the developments and hope that the ALAC will continue pushing the global public interest in this regard. Sala

3 3

Fwd: Re: Strategy Working Group on the subject of Public Interest
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Jan. 14, 2014

Jan. 14, 2014

Dear all, please be so kind to find my follow-up on the item concerning Sally Costerton's work to define the public interest. The work is now being examined by the Public Responsibility panel. (see below) Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Strategy Working Group on the subject of Public Interest Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 06:46:29 -0800 From: Nora Abusitta <nora.abusitta(a)icann.org> To: Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> CC: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> Olivier and Sally, The definition of public interest and ICANN's public responsibility is being tackled by the panel on public responsibility framework. We are developing this definition and are open to any suggestions and advice. Thus far, the panel's work has focused on existing programs that ICANN is currently engaged in, that can qualify under public responsibility. I am pasting below the segment in our working document that touches on the definition. I would appreciate your input. Please note this document is still a work in progress. " Questions related to definitions: Public Responsibility- · Should this cover, or be limited to the thematic areas discussed in this document? · Are there areas that should also be included? · Should ICANN outline these areas in its definition of public responsibility? Public Interest- · One contributor in Buenos Aires raised the issue of defining the public interest, stressing that, without a definition, the term can be interpreted differently across regions. To this end, should ICANN explicitly define the Public Interest? · Should a definition make specific reference to target groups? If so, should these groups be targeted specifically, or should they be incorporated into all decision-making processes? Potential Definition: As an independent, global organization, ICANN is charged with responsibility for an increasingly important shared global resource: The Internet. As guardians of a public space and public resource, ICANN recognizes its responsibility to protect the global public interest at the core of all its work. ICANN defines the global public interest in relation to the Internet as ensuring the Internet becomes, and continues to be, healthy, open, and accessible across the globe. This vision is central to ICANN¹s public responsibility framework." Nora Abusitta VP, Public responsibility programs ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Direct: (310) 4635808 Nora.abusitta(a)icann.org On 1/10/14 3:41 PM, "Sally Costerton" <sally.costerton(a)icann.org> wrote: >Olivier >I think this is part of the remit of the Public Responsibility panel >which Nora is leading. Nora please could you respond to Olivier's >question? Thanks. Sally > >Sent from my iPhone > >> On 10 Jan 2014, at 13:47, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> >>wrote: >> >> Dear Sally, >> >> I am kindly following-up on a matter on behalf of the ALAC concerning >> the Strategy Working Group that was intended study a potential >> definition of the Public Interest. >> >> It appears that this initiative was actually announced by you prior to >> the formation of the Strategic Working Groups, then appears to have been >> somehow dropped, but reappeared as part of the work of a Strategic >> Working Group. >> >> As you know, the concept of "Public Interest" is of prime importance to >> the At-Large Community. Would you please be so kind to clarify how the >> matter is being treated, whether you are in charge of the work relating >> to the Public Interest, whether this is now taken up as a bigger issue >> and how could the At-Large Community contribute to the dialogue on this >> issue? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond >> ALAC Chair

3 2

Re: [ALAC] On TOR and Alternate DNS
by Holly Raiche Jan. 9, 2014

Jan. 9, 2014

Thanks Patrick and yes please, we all should be having this discussion. And a proposal. We have scheduled a two hour Multi-stakeholder session for Singapore. I was thinking it might be used for a Brazil update, but this is also a very timely topic. Will an hour be enough??? Holly On 10/01/2014, at 6:53 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > FWIW, I would support such a discussion and have already to the chair of ALAC offered myself to moderate and steer it in a product e direction. Reason for this is that there are issues not mentioned here that also must be brought to the table that I claim I have experience with! which includes alternate roots (from policy and technical point of view), calculations from a State's perspective of Tor helps with more than the problems (for LEA) it creates, and division of labour (Mou) between IETF and ICANC. And more. > > Patrik Fältström > >> On 9 jan 2014, at 20:43, Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Garth (and Patrik) >> >> I for one would really welcome the session you propose. And my suggestion is that it be an open suggestion as well. For example, everyone on the Privacy Proxy GNSo WG should be interested as well as EWG - since one of the topics of discussion is who should be able to use a pp service - again noting there are many legitimate reasons to hide one's identity >> >> Holly >>> On 10/01/2014, at 6:30 AM, Garth Bruen wrote: >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I have been looking to introduce some discussion subjects which are becoming >>> more critical in our space but have been considered off-limits or even taboo >>> by some in the ICANN world. While in BA Glenn and I met with Patrik Falstrom >>> from SSAC to talk about TOR and other topics. >>> >>> For those who do not know The Onion Routing (TOR) is a system that provides >>> additional privacy or obscurity to Internet communications by extending and >>> blurring the network path. The regular DNS, of course, works by using the >>> shortest, best-known traffic paths for quick communication and keeps >>> extensive logs in various places for troubleshooting. While this method >>> makes sense for effective data movement it also exposes Internet users to >>> spying, stalking, interception, etc. TOR works in the opposite way by >>> dropping information using very long network routes to make source >>> identification nearly impossible. >>> >>> This presents challenges as well as opportunities. Most of the media >>> attention about TOR has been on the illicit side, how criminals have used it >>> to conduct illegal commerce in secret. However, there are a large number of >>> people who depend on TOR to protect their identity for completely legitimate >>> reasons. This week I met with Kelley Misata from the TOR Project in Boston >>> who has championed the use of this technology for various victims and people >>> under threat. I think it is important for us as policy-makers to have open >>> discussions about this technology. >>> >>> As far as it relates to ICANN, TOR represents an alternate method of >>> Internet communications. While there is no domain system, TOR issues what it >>> calls "domains" in the form of unique strings which bind to IP addresses and >>> serve content through those unique strings. These "domains" can only be >>> reached with TOR. There is no governing body, registry system, or costs for >>> these "domains." Yes, it is confusing as to how TOR can look like a DNS but >>> not be a DNS, others can explain it much better than me. >>> >>> Additionally, there are other DNS roots out there which ICANN has no >>> authority over. These roots have been created for a variety of purposes and >>> I have complied a list of over 600 "unsanctioned" TLDs which can be accessed >>> with different configurations. >>> >>> I have proposed that at the Singapore meeting we have a session where these >>> topics can be presented and discussed for our benefit and awareness. I will >>> add this as a discussion item on the next NARALO call and propose it be >>> discussed on the next ALAC call. >>> >>> Thanks, Garth >>> >>> ------------------------------------- >>> >>> Garth Bruen >>> gbruen(a)knujon.com >>> >>> “If history is deprived of the Truth, we are left with nothing but an idle, >>> unprofitable tale” -Polybius >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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

Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
by José Francisco Arce Jan. 9, 2014

Jan. 9, 2014

Dear Olivier, all This is a quick question. Is At-large community thinking in participate? Who, How, when? In whick working group? I know Fatima Cambronero is maybe the person who is most involved. Maybe you can find the way to involved At-large in aWG. Kind Regards Jose Arce.- > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > De: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca(a)cafonso.ca> > Fecha: dic 21, 2013 1:37 PM > Asunto: [NCSG-Discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 > Para: <NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu> > Cc: > > Hi people, > > This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing > group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to > civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically > the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. > > I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ================================ > > 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting > > This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida > (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, > Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. > > 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee > > The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations > and for encouraging the participation of the international community. > > It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries > (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 > non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the > UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil > society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN > stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will > be composed of 26 people. > > The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. > One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo > Bernardo. > > So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four > high-level reps as soon as possible. > > 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the > discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the > participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part > of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the > Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make > themselves readily available for this challenge. > > The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. > There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are > Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO > of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be > appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to > participate. > > Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the > LOG by 1Net. > > For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee > two names as soon as possible. > > 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee > > The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of > CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of > national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by > 1Net. > > 5. Government Advisory Committee > > This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and > coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be > open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. > > 6. Funding > > NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance > will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from > ICANN and ISOC are expected. > > 7. Participation > > The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly > close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution > of participants is envisioned approximately as: > > 450 from govs > 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders > 100 journalists > 50 IGOs/UN reps > > Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation > requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. > > 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators > > - Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models; > > - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for > global IG; > > - Tentative draft of a global IG model. > > My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of > preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is > why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real > work towards the meeting. > >

2 1