- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Modification of statement submitted regarding At-Large Director Bylaws
by langdonorr＠gmail.com Aug. 25, 2010

Aug. 25, 2010

HMMM perhaps I can blame the ridiculous number of meetings for ICANN in the last 56 hrs but I have started a discussion when apparently none is called for => I do apologize... Alan informs me that he is not suggesting this as a change to our new Rule 27 (I read it that way Sorry Alan), but rather that his message was " ... augmenting my comment on Bylaws, which were submitted on my own behalf and not ratified (or whatever) by ALAC. New change is to those and not Rule 27." Again my apologies. CLO On Aug 26, 2010 12:03pm, Hong Xue <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I'm uncomfortable with inclusion of the following all-capitalized part, > which will not only substantially complicated the process (replacement and > then resumption to position) but deviate from neutral voting (an applicant > published --not selected candidate-- back to be a voter). > SHOULD A PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS SECTION NOT BE > > LISTED ON THE PUBLISHED FINAL SLATE OF CANDIDATES, THE TERMS OF THIS > > SECTION NO LONGER APPLY. > Hong > _______________________________________________ > 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: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Modification of statement submitted regarding At-Large Director Bylaws
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 25, 2010

Aug. 25, 2010

Cheryl, with so many things going on related to the selection process, perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. My added suggestion was to the comment on the proposed Bylaw amendments that I submitted (on my own behalf, although later supported by a number of ALAC and RALO people). It is not directly linked to our Rule of Procedure 27 and requires no action by the ALAC. Alan At 25/08/2010 08:45 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >Thanks for this Alan, and indeed it would be possible to make this >as an additional amendment but if ALAC wishes to do so I would >encourage that to happen 'post haste'... So how does the ALAC wish >to proceed ? > >Shall we discuss this amendment to the new Rule 27 of the RoP's for >the ALAC here on this list => say for the next 7 days and then >subject to final wording (or not) based on that discussion take >amended text to an online confirmation vote to run for 5 days after >that? so close on 7th Sept? > >Cheryl Langdon-Orr >(CLO) > > > >On 26 August 2010 03:34, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >During a discussion on some of the details of the selection process >on the ALAC list, I realized that there was a problem with my >suggested wording for ARTICLE VI, Section 4(2). > >Specifically, under my wording, if a person (for example, and ALAC >member) submits a SoI to the BCEC, that person can no longer >participate in the selection process or vote. That would be true even >if that person was eliminated from the slate and not one of the final >candidates. > >I suggest the following change with the new wording in upper case: > >No person who serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) on the >At-Large Advisory Committee, or who holds the position of chair of a >RALO, shall simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison to the >Board. If such a person submits a Statement of Interest to be >considered as a candidate for Board Seat 15, the person shall not, >following such submission, participate in any discussion of, or vote >by the At-Large Advisory Committee, RALO chairs or any of the >constituent At-Large Advisory Committee sub-committees relating to >the selection of the person to hold Board Seat 15 until the selection >process has been completed. In the event that a person serving on the >At-Large Advisory Committee, or who holds the position of chair of a >RALO, submits a Statement of Interest to be considered as a candidate >for Board Seat 15, the RALO for the region that the person represents >may select a replacement for purposes of the Committee's selection >process. In the event that a person is serving as a Liaison to the >At-Large Advisory Committee, the group or entity that selected the >person may select a replacement for purposes of the Committee's >selection process. SHOULD A PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS SECTION NOT BE >LISTED ON THE PUBLISHED FINAL SLATE OF CANDIDATES, THE TERMS OF THIS >SECTION NO LONGER APPLY. > >I understand that it is too late for this new wording to be included >in the formal comments, but should my overall comment to this section >be acted upon, the new addition will remove a possible disenfranchisement. > >Alan Greenberg > >_______________________________________________ >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: <http://st.icann.org/alac>http://st.icann.org/alac >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] NOW OPEN: ALAC Vote on Vanity Facebook URL
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 25, 2010

Aug. 25, 2010

So let me get this straight. There's a formal vote on ... how to capitalise the At-Large Facebook page. Really. - Evan On 25 August 2010 08:28, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>wrote: > Dear All, > > As per decision at the ALAC Meeting on 24 August 2010, a five-day online > ALAC vote on the vanity URL for the Facebook At-Large fan page starts today > . > > Facebook offers the possibility to change the current URL of the At-Large > fan page from > http://www.facebook.com/pages/ICANN-At-Large-Community/108562012168 to > something more easily recognizable. > > Please note that the only authorized voters for this election are the 15 > members of the At-Large Advisory Committee. > > The question to be put will be the following: > > ****************** > > Which of the following should be the URL of the At-Large Facebook fan page? > Please vote for URLs in order of preference with 1 (the first click made) > being your first choice, 2 your second and 3 your third. > > With possible answers: > > 1. http://www.facebook.com/ICANN.AtLarge > 2. http://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge > 3. http://www.facebook.com/ICANN.ATLARGE > > **** > > This poll is not anonymous. > > You can submit your vote and track the votes as they come in under: > https://www.bigpulse.com/35571. > > At the bottom of this page there is a link entitled “See who voted”, which > allows you to see who has voted so far. > > A separate email with their voting credentials has been sent to the members > of the ALAC recently. Please contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org if you did > not receive your credentials so far. > > The vote will remain open until Monday, 30 August at 2359 UTC. > > All currently open ALAC votes are linked to a menu page under: > https://www.bigpulse.com/m6962 > > The results of closed ALAC votes may be reviewed under: > https://www.bigpulse.com/m7097 > > -- > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, > Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström > ICANN At-Large Staff > > email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > website: www.atlarge.icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > 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://atlarge.icann.org > -- - Evan

4 4

Rule 27 - At-Large Director selection
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 25, 2010

Aug. 25, 2010

Thanks you all for your comments and support for getting this new RoP section done in record time. I am attaching the final version of Rule 27 to be incorporated into the Rules of Procedure. The final version differs from the draft in the following ways: 1. Explicit reference to electronic votes. 2. Including documents related to creation of the selection process in the history to be kept. 3. A provision saying that a person cannot simultaneously be a BCEC member and part of the designated elector group (ALAC member or RALO Chair). 4. A requirement that in the case of a tie, the specific election be re-held once if time permits. Regarding the last item, I think we all agree that an election (or candidate elimination) selected by random draw is NOT the best outcome. If someone can come up with a better alternative, there is still time to change it. In some groups, one person's ballot is not counted unless there is a tie (often the Chair). That would work in the case of the final vote but not necessarily to eliminate a tie for 3rd place. Also, withholding a vote can cause one candidate to win where using the vote would give a tie (this effectively says that the vote withheld causes the "Chair's choice" to loose - less than optimal). But there must be other ideas as well. Alan

2 2

ALAC Endorsement of applicants having provided ICANN with SoI's for future Review Teams
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 24, 2010

Aug. 24, 2010

Dear Rod and Heather, Regarding the recently closed public Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer Review Team Member- Review Team 2: Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS and Review Team 4: WHOIS Policy - It is my pleasure to inform you that at our monthly meeting of the ALAC, held earlier today (August 24th), the ALAC unanimously voted to endorse and there was no dissenting discussion only specific support for the qualities, qualifications and experience of the applicants from the ALAC, in addition to the Regional Leadership and At-Large members also on the call. Therefore please note our formal ALAC endorsement of the following three applicants for the three positions on the RT's as listed below with an implicit priority order as listed, for each RT. for a. Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-en.htm> (noting ALAC will have one representative on the SSR RT) ALAC Candidates<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-applications-en.htm> : 1. Alejandro Pisanty and 2. Lutz Donnerhacke and for *b.* Whois policy<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-4-en.htm> (noting ALAC will have two representatives on the Whois Policy RT) ALAC Candidates<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-4-applications-en.htm>: Lutz Donnerhacke and Olivier Iteanu kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Outcome from ALAC Meeting earlier today re New gTLD Recommendation 6 Cross-Community Working Group => Your response required :-)
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 24, 2010

Aug. 24, 2010

Excellent [?] I will inform the co-Chairs and the WG list... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 25 August 2010 05:47, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I accept. Thanks for the confidence. > > - Evan > > > > > > On 24 August 2010 15:33, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Evan you have been pinged in Skype (I think) re this, but here is the >> formal call for your response... >> >> As part of our discussions on *New gTLD Recommendation 6 Cross-Community >> Working Group ToR's * in our ALAC Meeting earlier today we endorsed >> (subject to a few minor matters date of report / final vs "a report" as >> stated in my note to the discussion list) and we discussed >> the formal selection of the ALAC Liaison as per "The ALAC, GAC and GNSO >> Council must identify at least one person who will serve as a primary >> liaison between the Rec6 CWG and their respective organizations." from >> those ToR's. Your name was put forward as a nomination for this role and >> has the support of those at the meeting :-) So I am now asking you if you >> would be willing to accept this role in this Work Group, and I look forward >> to your (affirmative) reply. >> >> >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr >> (CLO) >> >> > > > -- > - Evan >

1 0

Outcome from ALAC Meeting earlier today re New gTLD Recommendation 6 Cross-Community Working Group => Your response required :-)
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 24, 2010

Aug. 24, 2010

Evan you have been pinged in Skype (I think) re this, but here is the formal call for your response... As part of our discussions on *New gTLD Recommendation 6 Cross-Community Working Group ToR's * in our ALAC Meeting earlier today we endorsed (subject to a few minor matters date of report / final vs "a report" as stated in my note to the discussion list) and we discussed the formal selection of the ALAC Liaison as per "The ALAC, GAC and GNSO Council must identify at least one person who will serve as a primary liaison between the Rec6 CWG and their respective organizations." from those ToR's. Your name was put forward as a nomination for this role and has the support of those at the meeting :-) So I am now asking you if you would be willing to accept this role in this Work Group, and I look forward to your (affirmative) reply. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for your review
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 24, 2010

Aug. 24, 2010

Just a quick note that (based on the last version sent by Liz inclusive of the changes proposed by Avri) ALAC at its meeting earlier today and subject to a possible change of date or change to "a report" as opposed to a date of final report by Sept 13) endorsed the Draft Tor's, and will revisit any subsequent additions.edits or changes made between this version and any final, if required for specific additional endorsement / acceptance. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 25 August 2010 03:10, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > > Any opposition to Avri's addition? > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-soac-mapo(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@icann.org] On > > Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 11:12 AM > > To: soac-mapo > > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for > > your review > > > > > > > > On 23 Aug 2010, at 18:31, Liz Gasster wrote: > > > > > <Rec6 TOR updated as of 23 Aug 2300 UTC.doc> > > > > I am personally mostly fine with tis version of the ToR. > > > > While I understand and accept the idea of removing the word > > preliminary, it does leave the ToR sort of dangling as to what happens > > after this report. but not stating what happens after this report, it > > makes it seem as if that is the end of the story. > > > > And it may be. > > > > Perhaps adding something like the following, in addition to removing > > preliminary, would help: > > > > After submission of the report, the CWG will review what, if anything, > > remains to be done on the defined tasks and will communicate that to > > the ALAC, GAC and GNSO council. > > > > (note i put the 3 in alphabetical order which is something i recommend > > for elsewhere in the report) > > > > a. > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [soac-mapo] Revised Recommendation 6 Charter Terms of Reference -- 24 August version
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 24, 2010

Aug. 24, 2010

Thanks Liz ALAC this replaces the link not yet added version we discussed and endorsed at our meeting earlier today... Staff can you make the changes from Agenda to this one Noting that the date 13 Sept will be reviewed to a new date in the final and pages of comments marked to be deleted will be gone in the final version ( you might be able to get a final mark up from Liz before replacement if the date discussion etc., is finalized by later today) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 25 August 2010 03:56, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> wrote: > All, > > > > Please see a revised draft charter. The “track changes” reflect > suggestions made by Stéphane and Avri since yesterday’s call. This version > also includes links to the ALAC and NCUC statements (thanks Robin and > Evan). > > > > No other changes have been made. Please also see the remaining comments at > the end of the document. In particular it would be helpful if those who > made those comments can review them to see whether further edits are needed > to the Charter or whether additional issues need to be discussed by the > group. > > > > As always, please let me know if I’ve missed anything. > > > > Thanks! Liz > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 24, 2010

Aug. 24, 2010

Adam, you may well be right about the correct tactic being to at this point make the case to continue the Liaison. In that case, we need to be building the salient piece of advice to the Board REALLY QUICKLY. I know that I and others would certainly support this, but the question is can we make a case for a majority of Board members to accept it. And certainly the partial answer is that we won't know if we don't try. But I do think that there is some danger of Directors who do not like the idea of a voting At-Large director rejecting the Bylaws if they see and alternative, so we do need to keep that in mind also. BTW, I don't equate not having a Liaison with no longer being a Board Advisory Committee. Alan At 22/08/2010 03:45 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >Alan, I don't agree we are facing an either or situation: we do not >have to choose between having a voting director and liaison, we can >and should argue for both. > >That there will be a voting director for at large is certain, the >board will not go back on that decision now. But the liaison >position is not gone and trying to keep it is important to the future >of ALAC's ability to provide advice to the board and community. >Unlike the supporting organizations, and even GAC, the bylaws do not >require ICANN to take At Large's advice. The new director can >certainly represent user interests, but we know they cannot be our >representative on the board. > >Suggest that the bylaws amendments you have drafted go forward, >except that we do not accept the sections deleting the liaison. We >can provide text to explain why (I've written some before on this >list.) > >In addition to weakening At Large/ALAC's ability to provide >advice/recommendations to the board, if we loose the board advisory >role the supporting organizations we currently have liaisons with may >re-consider those relationships. I know some constituencies have >already mentioned this. > >And I think it's mistaken to think that once the at large director is >in place we can return to arguing for the (then lost) liaison role >and even the second director position the At Large review >recommended. The board will consider that part of the review done, I >can't see them reopening the process. Won't happen, at least not >until the next review, many years from now. > >I think it's important the RALOs discuss this and come back with advice. > >Adam > > > > > >Well, the Board resolution on which this is all based was very clear > >about replacing the Liaison with the voting Board member. If our > >intent is to turn back the clock and go back to just a Liaison (as > >some people indeed feel would be best and have since the start of > >these discussions), then this is a good time to raise the issue. If > >we really want the voting Board member, then my inclination is to get > >that put in place and then based on experience, try to argue for > >putting back the Liaison (presumably instead of a second voting > >Board member). > > > >I just don't see how we could get both at the same time at this > >moment. There are certainly some Board members who want to see the > >voting position go forward, and no doubt some who would prefer the > >status quo. I don't think there are many who would buy one voting and > >one liaison at this time. > > > >It's not a perfect situation, but that is how I read things. We need > >to make up our minds which is more important and go for it. > > > >My personal opinion is that At-Large would be better served by a > >Liaison, but that Internet user community is better served by a good > >voting Board member. > > > >Alan > > > >At 21/08/2010 08:25 PM, Hong Xue wrote: > > > >>Thanks to Alan for the comprehensive comments. Another issue that > >>has been raised in Brussels but not sufficiently discussed ever > >>since is whether we want to advocate to keep the Board liaison along > >>with the selected At-Large Board Member. To my memory, draft bylaws > >>replace the liaison with the Board member. We may wish to comment on > >>this specific point as well. > >> > >>Hong > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Alan Greenberg > >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >>While drafting my comments on the draft Bylaws associated with the > >>At-Large Director, I realized that we will need to formally put our > >>selection procedures into the ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP). > >> > >>I have done a first draft which can be found at > >><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27>https://st.ican > n.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27. > >>I am also attaching a PDF version for your convenience. > >> > >>The current RoP (Rev10) is pointed to at > >><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure>https://st > .icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. > >> > >>The new draft rule includes Rationale's for some of the sub-rules. > >>These rationales would not be part of the final rule, but are there > > >to explain what I am proposing. > >> > >>With a few exceptions, the draft corresponds to the process that has > >>been agreed upon and has been given to the Board SIC. They are > >>specified in general terms, to allow the process to be refined based > >>on what we learn during this current process, and without having to > >>formally alter the RoP each time. > >> > >>There are two new parts that I am suggesting. > >> > >>First, although we have had some general discussions about proxy > >>voting, we have never agreed on any rules, and we never discussed > >>this in the context of the At-Large Director selection process. I am > >>suggesting that we allow proxies *IF* we come up with some general > >>rules (applicable for all votes) or if we develop some for the > >>Director selection process only. Essentially this rule says that > >>proxies are allowed *IF* we define exactly how they will work. If we > >>do this, it will ensure that we do not disenfranchise some RALOs. > >> > >>Second, our voting methodology said that we will use random > >>selection in the case of a tie. I think that it would be a really > >>poor outcome if we end up selecting our Director by a random > >>selection. I am proposing that if there is a tie, that the vote can > >>be held a second time which would allow some voters to alter their > >>vote. This *may* reduce the need for random selection. > >> > >>I am suggesting that we discuss this on the list and schedule a vote > >>for the next ALAC meeting. I suggest that staff take any messages > >>posted to the list and add them as comments to the wiki. If we > >>cannot come to closure in the remaining time, the vote could be > >>delayed, but it is important that we have the rule in place sometime > >>in the near future. > >> > >>To adopt a new rule or change existing rules, it takes a 2/3 vote of > >>all ALAC members who are voting in that ballot. > >> > >>I look forward to hearing comments on this. > >> > >>Alan > >>_______________________________________________ > >>ALAC mailing list > >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists > .icann.org > >> > >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >>ALAC Working Wiki: <http://st.icann.org/alac>http://st.icann.org/alac > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>Dr. Hong Xue > >>Professor of Law > >>Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > >>Beijing Normal University > >><http://iipl.org.cn/>http://iipl.org.cn/ > >>19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > >>Beijing 100875 China > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

3 2