Re: [ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA
One of the real problems is that we throw around the word "volunteer", but it means very different things to different people. A Verisign or GoDaddy employee who participates in ICANN is, by the normal ICANN definition, a "volunteer". Perhaps in some cases they may truly believe in ICANN and put far more effort into their "volunteering" that their terms of employment could call for, but they are still a very different beast that the typical active At-Large volunteer. The ATRT2 made a strong statement to this effect: Recommendation 10.5: The Board must facilitate the equitable participation in applicable ICANN activities, of those ICANN stakeholders who lack the financial support of industry players. Although I was subjected to some strong "suggestions" to change the end of the sentence to make it more generic, that is the wording that went in. It does not give the Board a lot of wriggle room other than to just reject it, and I got no negative feedback from Steve Crocker during the process. So perhaps something will happen. Or not. Alan At 12/02/2014 06:34 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Plus 1 - thanks Carlton! This was exactly my thinking when following these exchanges. They still haven't got a clue what volunteers involvement is in fact, the time, continuous investment and dedication it means ... Come on guys, if you have nothing better to do -- your problem! Let's be frank: this is one of the key reasons why we are so few and haven't multiplied or exploded in numbers of volunteers over the years. Because non-profit or volunteer's work is still not accredited in this enterprise -- besides some occasional opening statements.
Best, Wolf
Carlton Samuels wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:21:
Oops! Added on principle no doubt.....and fueled by nickels n dimes.
You know something, what bothers me is how easy it is to overlook and devalue, even dismiss, the investments - the co-spends! - volunteers make in this enterprise.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>wrote:
As a FYI, the Board Resolution "Bylaws Revisions Re TLG" on 28 September 2013 that the resolutions of 7 Feb 2014 referred to can be viewed at
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2....
This resolution was originally redacted at the time and published on October 30 2013. That resolution stated "This action is not anticipated to have a fiscal impact on ICANN."
The staff analysis of the ALAC comment dated 3 Feb 2014
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-bylaws-amend-tlg...
contains the text included in the rationale, except for the "This action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a financial savings to ICANN." part.
Dev Anand
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com
wrote:
Also of note, the Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions which the ALAC submitted a comment on (https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg) which was on the consent agenda.
It noted the ALAC comments (referred to as the commenter): "The commenter expressed support for the intent to increase the availability of technical advice to the Board and the effectiveness of the TLG. The commenter recommended that the elimination of the TLG Liaison not occur until, at least, a mechanism to seek regular advice from the TLG is in place. The commenter opposed the removal of the NomCom TLG delegate on the basis that the removal is likely to hinder the NomCom's community outreach to technical communities."
However, the outcome was the the Board approves the Bylaws revisions as they were posted for public comment at
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/bylaws-amend-tlg-30oct13-en.htm
,
subject to two non-substantive changes made solely for clarification.
The rationale given was as follows:
"With respect to the strengthening of TLG advisory mechanism, the Board notes that this issue has already been addressed by the Board on 28 September 2013 in resolution 2013.09.28.15.
With respect to the concern regarding outreach to the technical communities, the Board notes that each of the four organizations that make up the TLG are already engaged in ongoing community outreach efforts. The removal of the NomCom TLG delegate does not prevent these organizations from continuing with their outreach efforts.
This action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a financial savings to ICANN. Further, the anticipated evolution and enhancement of how ICANN receives advice on technical matters could have a positive impact on how ICANN addresses matters relating to the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS."
Dev Anand
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
Of note: - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the NGPC. - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they could simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be done. - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom. - They approved the recommendation on Thick Whois! Note that this was not on the consent agenda so it will be interesting to see the minutes and whether there was any substantive discussion.
Alan
From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/ resolutions-07feb14-en.htm
Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 7 February 2014
1. Consent Agenda a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability Advisory Committee c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership
2. Main Agenda a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations
1. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability Advisory Committee c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership
2. Main Agenda:
a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP
Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group Charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf[PDF, 189 KB].
Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report delivered to the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013.
Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus on twenty-five recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in its Charter.
Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and discussed the recommendations of the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ).
Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm ).
Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board in the Buenos Aires Communiqué that it remained committed to continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on finalizing the modalities for permanent protection of IGO acronyms at the second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue.
Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf[PDF, 644 KB]), and requests additional time to consider the recommendations so that it may take into account advice from the GAC addressing the same topic.
Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee to:
(1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice on protections for IGOs; and
(2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a subsequent meeting.
b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition
Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 (
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm)
, which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the composition, size and recruitment function of the Nominating Committee.
Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) recommends that it is time to complete the follow-up work anticipated in the Final Report and that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose.
Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance with the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be addressed by the Board Governance Committee.
Related materials:
Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization Group issued in January 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf Nominating Committee Improvements Implementation Project Plan adopted in March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf
c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations
Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag).
Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed PDP procedures as stated in the
Bylaws and due process resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21 October 2013.
Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG) reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the Charter.
Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the recommendations of the Thick Whois PDP WG, and adopted the Recommendations on 31 October 2013 by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ council/resolutions#20131031-1).
Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the required voting threshold set forth in the ICANN Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN contracted parties.
Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a Thick Whois Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board.
Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on the approved recommendations, and the comments received strongly supported the recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm).
Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy Recommendations for a new Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set forth in section 7.1 of the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 1.23 MB]).
Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the President and CEO to develop and execute on an implementation plan for the Thick Whois Policy consistent with the guidance provided by the GNSO Council. The President and CEO is authorized and directed to work with the Implementation Review Team in developing the implementation details for the policy, and to continue communication with the community on such work.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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...)
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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...)
Thanks Alan -- what a strange mis/interpretation of the term "volunteer". Here in Europe a volunteer is clearly known as a strange species who spends loads of work hours in public, charitable but - in any case - *non-paid or re-funded* endeavors. Any confusion with an employee who can do this work during his / her working hours would be simply fanciful! But your explanations and quotes clearly show and explain such confusions that, in fact, the ICANN (or business driven) culture, terminologies, rules and habits still haven't got a clue what *real* volunteers involvement is in fact! After years of talk about "internationalization" etc., it's still the same old and narrow perception of the "rest of the world" or their strange terms, languages or tribal habits. And they do not even understand why we are getting frustrated about such hegemonial ignorances -- sorry for being straight. Best, Wolf Alan Greenberg wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:48:
One of the real problems is that we throw around the word "volunteer", but it means very different things to different people. A Verisign or GoDaddy employee who participates in ICANN is, by the normal ICANN definition, a "volunteer". Perhaps in some cases they may truly believe in ICANN and put far more effort into their "volunteering" that their terms of employment could call for, but they are still a very different beast that the typical active At-Large volunteer.
The ATRT2 made a strong statement to this effect:
Recommendation 10.5: The Board must facilitate the equitable participation in applicable ICANN activities, of those ICANN stakeholders who lack the financial support of industry players.
Although I was subjected to some strong "suggestions" to change the end of the sentence to make it more generic, that is the wording that went in. It does not give the Board a lot of wriggle room other than to just reject it, and I got no negative feedback from Steve Crocker during the process. So perhaps something will happen. Or not.
Alan
At 12/02/2014 06:34 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Plus 1 - thanks Carlton! This was exactly my thinking when following these exchanges. They still haven't got a clue what volunteers involvement is in fact, the time, continuous investment and dedication it means ... Come on guys, if you have nothing better to do -- your problem! Let's be frank: this is one of the key reasons why we are so few and haven't multiplied or exploded in numbers of volunteers over the years. Because non-profit or volunteer's work is still not accredited in this enterprise -- besides some occasional opening statements.
Best, Wolf
Carlton Samuels wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:21:
Oops! Added on principle no doubt.....and fueled by nickels n dimes.
You know something, what bothers me is how easy it is to overlook and devalue, even dismiss, the investments - the co-spends! - volunteers make in this enterprise.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>wrote:
As a FYI, the Board Resolution "Bylaws Revisions Re TLG" on 28 September 2013 that the resolutions of 7 Feb 2014 referred to can be viewed at
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2....
This resolution was originally redacted at the time and published on October 30 2013. That resolution stated "This action is not anticipated to have a fiscal impact on ICANN."
The staff analysis of the ALAC comment dated 3 Feb 2014
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-bylaws-amend-tlg...
contains the text included in the rationale, except for the "This action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a financial savings to ICANN." part.
Dev Anand
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com
wrote:
Also of note, the Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions which the ALAC submitted a comment on (https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg) which was on the consent agenda.
It noted the ALAC comments (referred to as the commenter): "The commenter expressed support for the intent to increase the availability of technical advice to the Board and the effectiveness of the TLG. The commenter recommended that the elimination of the TLG Liaison not occur until, at least, a mechanism to seek regular advice from the TLG is in place. The commenter opposed the removal of the NomCom TLG delegate on the basis that the removal is likely to hinder the NomCom's community outreach to technical communities."
However, the outcome was the the Board approves the Bylaws revisions as they were posted for public comment at
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/bylaws-amend-tlg-30oct13-en.htm
,
subject to two non-substantive changes made solely for clarification.
The rationale given was as follows:
"With respect to the strengthening of TLG advisory mechanism, the Board notes that this issue has already been addressed by the Board on 28 September 2013 in resolution 2013.09.28.15.
With respect to the concern regarding outreach to the technical communities, the Board notes that each of the four organizations that make up the TLG are already engaged in ongoing community outreach efforts. The removal of the NomCom TLG delegate does not prevent these organizations from continuing with their outreach efforts.
This action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a financial savings to ICANN. Further, the anticipated evolution and enhancement of how ICANN receives advice on technical matters could have a positive impact on how ICANN addresses matters relating to the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS."
Dev Anand
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
Of note: - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the NGPC. - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they could simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be done. - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom. - They approved the recommendation on Thick Whois! Note that this was not on the consent agenda so it will be interesting to see the minutes and whether there was any substantive discussion.
Alan
From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/ resolutions-07feb14-en.htm
Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 7 February 2014
1. Consent Agenda a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability Advisory Committee c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership
2. Main Agenda a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations
1. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability Advisory Committee c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership
2. Main Agenda:
a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP
Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group Charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf[PDF, 189 KB].
Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report delivered to the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013.
Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus on twenty-five recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in its Charter.
Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and discussed the recommendations of the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ).
Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm ).
Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board in the Buenos Aires Communiqué that it remained committed to continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on finalizing the modalities for permanent protection of IGO acronyms at the second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue.
Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf[PDF, 644 KB]), and requests additional time to consider the recommendations so that it may take into account advice from the GAC addressing the same topic.
Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee to:
(1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice on protections for IGOs; and
(2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a subsequent meeting.
b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition
Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 (
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm)
, which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the composition, size and recruitment function of the Nominating Committee.
Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) recommends that it is time to complete the follow-up work anticipated in the Final Report and that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose.
Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance with the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be addressed by the Board Governance Committee.
Related materials:
Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization Group issued in January 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf Nominating Committee Improvements Implementation Project Plan adopted in March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf
c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations
Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag).
Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed PDP procedures as stated in the > Bylaws and due process resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21 October > 2013. > > Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG) reached full consensus on > the recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the Charter. > > Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the recommendations of > the Thick Whois PDP WG, and adopted the Recommendations on 31 October 2013 > by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > council/resolutions#20131031-1). > > Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the required voting threshold set > forth in the ICANN Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN > contracted parties. > > Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a Thick Whois > Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the > implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the > ICANN Board. > > Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on > the approved recommendations, and the comments received strongly supported > the recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm). > > Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy > Recommendations for a new Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set forth in > section 7.1 of the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 1.23 MB]). > > Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the President and CEO to > develop and execute on an implementation plan for the Thick Whois Policy > consistent with the guidance provided by the GNSO Council. The President > and CEO is authorized and directed to work with the Implementation Review > Team in developing the implementation details for the policy, and to > continue communication with the community on such work. >
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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...)
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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...)
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear Wolf: Bless you for being straight. When I say volunteer, I always mean the one you describe. I'm glad Alan kept the ATRT straight. Anybody at the level of the Board in ICANN knows and ought to know that there are persons embedded in ICANN processes are paid to be there. I do not find this unusual. Afterall, contracted parties and their ages are part of the community. So frankly, any other interpretation of 'volunteer' is nothing less than wilful ignorance. -Carlton On Feb 12, 2014 8:27 PM, "Wolf Ludwig" <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> wrote:
Thanks Alan -- what a strange mis/interpretation of the term "volunteer". Here in Europe a volunteer is clearly known as a strange species who spends loads of work hours in public, charitable but - in any case - *non-paid or re-funded* endeavors. Any confusion with an employee who can do this work during his / her working hours would be simply fanciful!
But your explanations and quotes clearly show and explain such confusions that, in fact, the ICANN (or business driven) culture, terminologies, rules and habits still haven't got a clue what *real* volunteers involvement is in fact! After years of talk about "internationalization" etc., it's still the same old and narrow perception of the "rest of the world" or their strange terms, languages or tribal habits. And they do not even understand why we are getting frustrated about such hegemonial ignorances -- sorry for being straight.
Best, Wolf
Alan Greenberg wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:48:
One of the real problems is that we throw around the word "volunteer", but it means very different things to different people. A Verisign or GoDaddy employee who participates in ICANN is, by the normal ICANN definition, a "volunteer". Perhaps in some cases they may truly believe in ICANN and put far more effort into their "volunteering" that their terms of employment could call for, but they are still a very different beast that the typical active At-Large volunteer.
The ATRT2 made a strong statement to this effect:
Recommendation 10.5: The Board must facilitate the equitable participation in applicable ICANN activities, of those ICANN stakeholders who lack the financial support of industry players.
Although I was subjected to some strong "suggestions" to change the end of the sentence to make it more generic, that is the wording that went in. It does not give the Board a lot of wriggle room other than to just reject it, and I got no negative feedback from Steve Crocker during the process. So perhaps something will happen. Or not.
Alan
At 12/02/2014 06:34 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Plus 1 - thanks Carlton! This was exactly my thinking when following these exchanges. They still haven't got a clue what volunteers involvement is in fact, the time, continuous investment and dedication it means ... Come on guys, if you have nothing better to do -- your problem! Let's be frank: this is one of the key reasons why we are so few and haven't multiplied or exploded in numbers of volunteers over the years. Because non-profit or volunteer's work is still not accredited in this enterprise -- besides some occasional opening statements.
Best, Wolf
Carlton Samuels wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:21:
Oops! Added on principle no doubt.....and fueled by nickels n dimes.
You know something, what bothers me is how easy it is to overlook and devalue, even dismiss, the investments - the co-spends! - volunteers make in this enterprise.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>wrote:
As a FYI, the Board Resolution "Bylaws Revisions Re TLG" on 28 September 2013 that the resolutions of 7 Feb 2014 referred to can be viewed at
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2....
This resolution was originally redacted at the time and published on October 30 2013. That resolution stated "This action is not
anticipated to
have a fiscal impact on ICANN."
The staff analysis of the ALAC comment dated 3 Feb 2014
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-bylaws-amend-tlg...
contains the text included in the rationale, except for the "This action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a financial savings to ICANN." part.
Dev Anand
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh < devtee@gmail.com
wrote:
Also of note, the Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions which the ALAC submitted a comment on (https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg) which was on the consent agenda.
It noted the ALAC comments (referred to as the commenter): "The commenter expressed support for the intent to increase the availability of technical advice to the Board and the effectiveness of the TLG. The commenter recommended that the elimination of the TLG Liaison not occur until, at least, a mechanism to seek regular advice from the TLG is in place. The commenter opposed the removal of the NomCom TLG delegate on the basis that the removal is likely to hinder the NomCom's community outreach to technical communities."
However, the outcome was the the Board approves the Bylaws revisions as they were posted for public comment at
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/bylaws-amend-tlg-30oct13-en.htm
,
subject to two non-substantive changes made solely for clarification.
The rationale given was as follows:
"With respect to the strengthening of TLG advisory mechanism, the Board notes that this issue has already been addressed by the Board on 28 September 2013 in resolution 2013.09.28.15.
With respect to the concern regarding outreach to the technical communities, the Board notes that each of the four organizations that make up the TLG are already engaged in ongoing community outreach efforts. The removal of the NomCom TLG delegate does not prevent these organizations from continuing with their outreach efforts.
This action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a financial savings to ICANN. Further, the anticipated evolution and enhancement of how ICANN receives advice on technical matters could have a positive impact on how ICANN addresses matters relating to the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS."
Dev Anand
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:
> Of note: > - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the NGPC. > - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on > IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they could > simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be done. > - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom. > - They approved the recommendation on Thick Whois! Note that this was not > on the consent agenda so it will be interesting to see the minutes and > whether there was any substantive discussion. > > Alan > > > From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/ > resolutions-07feb14-en.htm > > Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board > 7 February 2014 > > 1. Consent Agenda > a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability Advisory > Committee > c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > > 2. Main Agenda > a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition > c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations > > 1. Consent Agenda: > a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability > Advisory Committee > c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > > 2. Main Agenda: > > a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > > Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy > Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All > gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group Charter > at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf[PDF, > 189 KB]. > > Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the ICANN > Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report delivered to > the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013. > > Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working > Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus on twenty-five recommendations in > relation to the issues outlined in its Charter. > > Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and discussed the recommendations of > the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a > unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see > http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ). > > Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on > the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been > summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm ). > > Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board in the Buenos Aires Communiqué > that it remained committed to continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on > finalizing the modalities for permanent protection of IGO acronyms at the > second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue. > > Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO > Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO > Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report > (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf[PDF, > 644 KB]), and requests additional time to consider the recommendations so > that it may take into account advice from the GAC addressing the same topic. > > Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD > Program Committee to: > > (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it > continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice on > protections for IGOs; and > > (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice > and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a > subsequent meeting. > > > b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Recruitment > & Selection Process and Size & Composition > > Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom > Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 ( >
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm)
> , which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the > composition, size and recruitment function of the Nominating Committee. > > Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) recommends that it is > time to complete the follow-up work anticipated in the Final Report and > that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose. > > Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a > Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance with > the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be > addressed by the Board Governance Committee. > > Related materials: > > Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization Group issued in January > 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf > Nominating Committee Improvements Implementation Project Plan adopted in > March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf > > c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations > > Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development > Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both > existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at > https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag). > > Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed PDP procedures as stated in the >> Bylaws and due process resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21 October >> 2013. >> >> Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG) reached full consensus on >> the recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the Charter. >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the recommendations of >> the Thick Whois PDP WG, and adopted the Recommendations on 31 October 2013 >> by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ >> council/resolutions#20131031-1). >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the required voting threshold set >> forth in the ICANN Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN >> contracted parties. >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a Thick Whois >> Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the >> implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the >> ICANN Board. >> >> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on >> the approved recommendations, and the comments received strongly supported >> the recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ >> public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm). >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy >> Recommendations for a new Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set forth in >> section 7.1 of the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ >> issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 1.23 MB]). >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the President and CEO to >> develop and execute on an implementation plan for the Thick Whois Policy >> consistent with the guidance provided by the GNSO Council. The President >> and CEO is authorized and directed to work with the Implementation Review >> Team in developing the implementation details for the policy, and to >> continue communication with the community on such work. >> > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC@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+(ALAC) >
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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...)
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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...)
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Wolf Ludwig