Dear Johnathan and all, Thank you for your thoughtful reply and valuable feedback. I am pleased to see that the concerns raised by Maureen, Marita, and I have been well received and are now recognized within the broader community. While I remain committed to continuous improvement and collaboration, I would like to address a point raised by Pari, Alfredo, and Hadia that reflects a larger issue within our community. It has become increasingly evident that those who contribute the least are the quickest to claim credit for the efforts of others. This "cry wolf" mentality not only diminishes the value of genuine contributions but also discourages the very spirit of collaboration that we all strive to foster. It is critical that we recognize and correct this behavior to maintain the integrity of our work. Many of us have invested considerable time and energy into community development and capacity-building initiatives. However, it is increasingly disheartening to see these efforts undermined by individuals who, rather than contributing in good faith, instead piggyback on the hard work of others. This situation is no longer tenable, as it discourages genuine contributions and rewards opportunistic behaviors that are both unfair and unethical. We not only need metrics to track contributions effectively, but we also need concrete measures to discourage those who fail to act in good faith and instead rely on corporate-like practices to advance with minimal actual input. Such practices undermine the collaborative spirit that our community should be built on. However, we cannot tackle this challenge alone. To ensure that the At-Large community remains collegial, transparent, and grounded in good faith, it is essential that we receive guidance and support from ICANN org. Only through collective action can we create an environment where genuine efforts are recognized, and unethical practices are appropriately addressed. I look forward to discussing how we can move forward together in addressing these issues and ensuring the continued integrity of our community. Warm regards, Joanna On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 15:57, Judith Hellerstein via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Hi All, It seems this conversation is moving from one of CIP to one on all issues. I agree that staff have not been explaining the new process well and that has contributed to the confusion around. The idea of reviewers is new and it is also new that these persons give the first presentation. This is new process and not fully explained and is confusing but it is totally a different issue than what happened at the CIP public comment. The two should not be joined together in one discussion. They need to have two separate discussions. Pari’s issue is very different and needs its own separate discussion and should be discussed in another email.

The problem with the CIP issue is that a google form was set up and set up with all the separate questions with separate sections for each sub part and so the volunteers spent the time filling that out. Later it was decided that that approach was wrong and that only the first 4 questions would be answered. This was done after the vote was announced and many people on ALAC approved the statement. That was wrong.

The statement was then changed which discounted the many hours volunteers had worked on it and changed to something that the volunteers who had spent the time writing it did not approve. That is the issue we are talking about and we should not confuse these issues.

How to prevent this process is the topic. Let’s try and stick to this topic

Judith Sent from my iPad judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:JudithHellerstein

On Feb 6, 2025, at 8:01 AM, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:



Dear ALAC Colleagues,

I would like to echo the concerns raised by the small team and others and share my own frustration over the continued lack of transparency in our policy processes and the disregard for volunteer contributions.

After dedicating a full week to reading relevant material and drafting a response that I inserted in the Google document - ICANN FY26-30 Operating & Finacial Plan, ICANN IANA FY26 Operating Plans and Budgets.

in suggestion mode, I was dismayed to find my name removed and my input edited—without any discussion or consultation. This is not an isolated incident. Despite raising similar concerns in December and January, no meaningful action has been taken, discouraging volunteers from further engagement.

Our current document management system lacks fundamental safeguards:

- Anyone with a link can edit freely, creating an unstructured and unaccountable process. - No clear version control or discussion precedes changes. - A proper system should allow open viewing, designated members to comment in suggestion mode, and editing only after collective review.

Additionally, other troubling practices—such as assigning tasks to volunteers without their consent, which burdens others with follow-ups, and granting undue credit that alienates genuine contributors—only create the illusion of engagement rather than fostering true participation. While these actions may be well-intended, they undermine trust and diminish meaningful involvement.

These issues—unstructured processes, performative engagement, and dismissive, top-down leadership—threaten the integrity of the multistakeholder model from within. A volunteer-driven community thrives on transparency, respect, and inclusion, not opaque decision-making and anonymous interventions.

I urge leadership to take immediate steps to implement structured, fair, and transparent processes that respect the time, effort, and autonomy of all contributors.

Best regards, Pari

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:37 AM Alfredo Calderon via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear Natalia,

I have to agree with the key points outlined by other community members. Something is happening that is discouraging some of us to feel more engaged as volunteers in the community of At-Large.

Is it transparency, efficiency or clarity on the definitions of policy comments or even openness when some announcements for EOI or SOI arise? Let’s correct these issues, and as mentioned by others the CIP is a great opportunity to rectify and improve our community.

The next generation to engage in At-Large needs to have a clear idea of what is done and how his/her contributions “could” improve on the work done as volunteers.

Let’s start a conversation as mentioned by Natalia.

Alfredo Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52 Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: https://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com VSIG: Virtual School on Internet Governance - https://virtualsig.org

On Feb 6, 2025, at 3:02 AM, Natalia Filina via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:



Hello all,

Dear, Joanna, Maureen, Marita. Thank you for the work you have done. As a participant of the CIP I see in it a real opportunity for our improvement (on RALO level and in the At-Large - ALAC interaction we all are so waiting for). Your analysis and comments on CIP construction is professional and valuable. And the situation with the doc and records is ugly. Dear At-Large colleagues, Isn't it?

I would support you, ladies and follow Abdulkarim's message. We have changed (looks like cancelled without community's decision) a lot in our approaches to consolidated work, to respect volunteer work, to take into account the opinion of the community, to transparency and accountability and responsibility. Unfortunately and definitely, as a result, there is a lack of motivation and active participation in the work, less bottom-up components, fewer and fewer expectations of taking into account At-Large as a main and only one source of... Everithing for ALAC - expertise, energy, feedback from the local community etc, ideas, knowledge etc.

That's why - silence here, people (volunteers especially) working where they trust. We have to go to our classic way to build the community together. Maybe this situation will help us to wake up?

Sincerely, Natalia Filina

Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo

IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member

DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣

+7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia

чт, 6 февр. 2025 г., 09:09 Abdulkarim Oloyede via ALAC <alac@icann.org>:

...

Dear all

Transparency and accountability within ALAC have long been an issue because we have refused to address most of the root causes, among which are some individuals treating ALAC as their full-time responsibility(Job), imposing their way as the ONLY way. Unfortunately, many have chosen to remain silent. While I am not surprised by these events, what truly surprises me is the overwhelming silence in the face of it. Maybe we are all growing older like myself and have decided to allow everything to slide.

I see this as yet another wake-up call for us to confront these issues. I know this will likely be swept under the carpet, as usual, with the Chair offering a vague explanation without addressing the real issue because ......( i complete this another day). However, we must strive to emulate other SOs and ACs within ICANN, where transparency and openness are upheld. There are many better examples we can follow.

Each time I reflect on ALAC and my time, it pains me deeply.

*Prof. A. A. Oloyede*. *Full Professor of Wireless Telecommunications* *Department of Telecommunications Science, University of Ilorin, Nigeria* *Director, Centre for Research Development and In-House Training (CREDIT) University of Ilorin, Nigeria*

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:41 AM Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear ALAC Colleagues,

I hope this message finds you well.

As agreed during the OFB meeting last Thursday, I am sending you a formal, detailed review of the CIP comment drafting timeline, which has been prepared by the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and myself (Joanna Kulesza, undersigned below, currently serving as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC) attached to this message. In response to the request made, we have provided a comprehensive recap of the events surrounding the development of this document.

You can find the original document, as submitted by the drafting team for the ALAC vote, also attached for your review. This document includes all the recommendations that resulted from the inclusive and open process, which has been the standard for developing consensus within the At-Large community.

We would like to express once again our continuing disappointment with the processes that have accompanied the drafting of this document, in particular the lack of transparency and accountability that has been identified. We hope that this difficult situation will serve as a catalyst for improving internal procedures to promote greater transparency and clearer accountability mechanisms for all those involved in the preparation of At-Large documents. Ultimately, we seek real progress — not just 'continuous' effort - in improving the multi-stakeholder model for decision making within the ICANN community and, in particular, for the benefit of the unique end-user community whose interests we aspire to represent.

We look forward to continuing our work together to address these important issues.

Best regards,

Joanna Kulesza

(on behalf of the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and Joanna Kulesza) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> HelpDesk <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-re...>

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Dear Jonathan and all, Again I agree, the main issue with the CIP comment was that people were out of scope, those who saw this could not contribute/speak because they thought maybe they were missing something. Accordingly a lot of effort was put on an output that was not required. However, I would like to note that the effort put by the drafters is never wasted and we all as a community recognize it and can indeed make use of it. Best regards Hadia Elminiawi On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 18:03, Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Joanna and all, Thanks for your feedback on this issue. Perhaps we should have a dedicated discussion in Seattle on the topic of volunteer participation. The issue of credit being taken by those who only superficially participate has been a long-standing issue and has included some who are now complaining so sometimes it makes my head spin. It's a bit of a vicious circle when folks do not participate but complain when they are no longer asked to do so.

I guess my issue, in this particular case, is that we weren't answering the questions which were being asked. At any point, had the small team looked at the RFC and the form that was created, this would have been evident. Was it someone else's responsibility to catch this? I don't know. All I know is that it was a fact that yes, I corrected in an uncomfortable way, at the last minute. The only alternative I saw, at that point, was NOT to correct it and that seemed like a worse outcome from a community wide perspective. To tie this up as an instance of top-down leadership or a lack of appreciation for anyone's effort is to miss the point entirely. At ANY point it looks as though we are about to embarrass ourselves, it seems prudent to act, regardless of how we got there.

This has opened a bunch of wounds that we should definitely address and i stand ready to address them. NO ONE is a bigger fan of metrics than me so let's dive in, once again. Jonathan

------------------------------ *From:* Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:25 AM *To:* Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> *Cc:* alac@icann.org <alac@icann.org> *Subject:* [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review

Dear Johnathan and all,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and valuable feedback. I am pleased to see that the concerns raised by Maureen, Marita, and I have been well received and are now recognized within the broader community.

While I remain committed to continuous improvement and collaboration, I would like to address a point raised by Pari, Alfredo, and Hadia that reflects a larger issue within our community. It has become increasingly evident that those who contribute the least are the quickest to claim credit for the efforts of others. This "cry wolf" mentality not only diminishes the value of genuine contributions but also discourages the very spirit of collaboration that we all strive to foster. It is critical that we recognize and correct this behavior to maintain the integrity of our work.

Many of us have invested considerable time and energy into community development and capacity-building initiatives. However, it is increasingly disheartening to see these efforts undermined by individuals who, rather than contributing in good faith, instead piggyback on the hard work of others. This situation is no longer tenable, as it discourages genuine contributions and rewards opportunistic behaviors that are both unfair and unethical.

We not only need metrics to track contributions effectively, but we also need concrete measures to discourage those who fail to act in good faith and instead rely on corporate-like practices to advance with minimal actual input. Such practices undermine the collaborative spirit that our community should be built on.

However, we cannot tackle this challenge alone. To ensure that the At-Large community remains collegial, transparent, and grounded in good faith, it is essential that we receive guidance and support from ICANN org. Only through collective action can we create an environment where genuine efforts are recognized, and unethical practices are appropriately addressed.

I look forward to discussing how we can move forward together in addressing these issues and ensuring the continued integrity of our community.

Warm regards,

Joanna

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 15:57, Judith Hellerstein via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Hi All, It seems this conversation is moving from one of CIP to one on all issues. I agree that staff have not been explaining the new process well and that has contributed to the confusion around. The idea of reviewers is new and it is also new that these persons give the first presentation. This is new process and not fully explained and is confusing but it is totally a different issue than what happened at the CIP public comment. The two should not be joined together in one discussion. They need to have two separate discussions. Pari’s issue is very different and needs its own separate discussion and should be discussed in another email.

The problem with the CIP issue is that a google form was set up and set up with all the separate questions with separate sections for each sub part and so the volunteers spent the time filling that out. Later it was decided that that approach was wrong and that only the first 4 questions would be answered. This was done after the vote was announced and many people on ALAC approved the statement. That was wrong.

The statement was then changed which discounted the many hours volunteers had worked on it and changed to something that the volunteers who had spent the time writing it did not approve. That is the issue we are talking about and we should not confuse these issues.

How to prevent this process is the topic. Let’s try and stick to this topic

Judith Sent from my iPad judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:JudithHellerstein

On Feb 6, 2025, at 8:01 AM, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:



Dear ALAC Colleagues,

I would like to echo the concerns raised by the small team and others and share my own frustration over the continued lack of transparency in our policy processes and the disregard for volunteer contributions.

After dedicating a full week to reading relevant material and drafting a response that I inserted in the Google document - ICANN FY26-30 Operating & Finacial Plan, ICANN IANA FY26 Operating Plans and Budgets.

in suggestion mode, I was dismayed to find my name removed and my input edited—without any discussion or consultation. This is not an isolated incident. Despite raising similar concerns in December and January, no meaningful action has been taken, discouraging volunteers from further engagement.

Our current document management system lacks fundamental safeguards:

- Anyone with a link can edit freely, creating an unstructured and unaccountable process. - No clear version control or discussion precedes changes. - A proper system should allow open viewing, designated members to comment in suggestion mode, and editing only after collective review.

Additionally, other troubling practices—such as assigning tasks to volunteers without their consent, which burdens others with follow-ups, and granting undue credit that alienates genuine contributors—only create the illusion of engagement rather than fostering true participation. While these actions may be well-intended, they undermine trust and diminish meaningful involvement.

These issues—unstructured processes, performative engagement, and dismissive, top-down leadership—threaten the integrity of the multistakeholder model from within. A volunteer-driven community thrives on transparency, respect, and inclusion, not opaque decision-making and anonymous interventions.

I urge leadership to take immediate steps to implement structured, fair, and transparent processes that respect the time, effort, and autonomy of all contributors.

Best regards, Pari

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:37 AM Alfredo Calderon via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Natalia,

I have to agree with the key points outlined by other community members. Something is happening that is discouraging some of us to feel more engaged as volunteers in the community of At-Large.

Is it transparency, efficiency or clarity on the definitions of policy comments or even openness when some announcements for EOI or SOI arise? Let’s correct these issues, and as mentioned by others the CIP is a great opportunity to rectify and improve our community.

The next generation to engage in At-Large needs to have a clear idea of what is done and how his/her contributions “could” improve on the work done as volunteers.

Let’s start a conversation as mentioned by Natalia.

Alfredo Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52 Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: https://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com VSIG: Virtual School on Internet Governance - https://virtualsig.org

On Feb 6, 2025, at 3:02 AM, Natalia Filina via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:



Hello all,

Dear, Joanna, Maureen, Marita. Thank you for the work you have done. As a participant of the CIP I see in it a real opportunity for our improvement (on RALO level and in the At-Large - ALAC interaction we all are so waiting for). Your analysis and comments on CIP construction is professional and valuable. And the situation with the doc and records is ugly. Dear At-Large colleagues, Isn't it?

I would support you, ladies and follow Abdulkarim's message. We have changed (looks like cancelled without community's decision) a lot in our approaches to consolidated work, to respect volunteer work, to take into account the opinion of the community, to transparency and accountability and responsibility. Unfortunately and definitely, as a result, there is a lack of motivation and active participation in the work, less bottom-up components, fewer and fewer expectations of taking into account At-Large as a main and only one source of... Everithing for ALAC - expertise, energy, feedback from the local community etc, ideas, knowledge etc.

That's why - silence here, people (volunteers especially) working where they trust. We have to go to our classic way to build the community together. Maybe this situation will help us to wake up?

Sincerely, Natalia Filina

Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo

IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member

DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣

+7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia

чт, 6 февр. 2025 г., 09:09 Abdulkarim Oloyede via ALAC <alac@icann.org>:

Dear all

Transparency and accountability within ALAC have long been an issue because we have refused to address most of the root causes, among which are some individuals treating ALAC as their full-time responsibility(Job), imposing their way as the ONLY way. Unfortunately, many have chosen to remain silent. While I am not surprised by these events, what truly surprises me is the overwhelming silence in the face of it. Maybe we are all growing older like myself and have decided to allow everything to slide.

I see this as yet another wake-up call for us to confront these issues. I know this will likely be swept under the carpet, as usual, with the Chair offering a vague explanation without addressing the real issue because ......( i complete this another day). However, we must strive to emulate other SOs and ACs within ICANN, where transparency and openness are upheld. There are many better examples we can follow.

Each time I reflect on ALAC and my time, it pains me deeply.

*Prof. A. A. Oloyede*. *Full Professor of Wireless Telecommunications* *Department of Telecommunications Science, University of Ilorin, Nigeria* *Director, Centre for Research Development and In-House Training (CREDIT) University of Ilorin, Nigeria*

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:41 AM Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Dear ALAC Colleagues,

I hope this message finds you well.

As agreed during the OFB meeting last Thursday, I am sending you a formal, detailed review of the CIP comment drafting timeline, which has been prepared by the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and myself (Joanna Kulesza, undersigned below, currently serving as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC) attached to this message. In response to the request made, we have provided a comprehensive recap of the events surrounding the development of this document.

You can find the original document, as submitted by the drafting team for the ALAC vote, also attached for your review. This document includes all the recommendations that resulted from the inclusive and open process, which has been the standard for developing consensus within the At-Large community.

We would like to express once again our continuing disappointment with the processes that have accompanied the drafting of this document, in particular the lack of transparency and accountability that has been identified. We hope that this difficult situation will serve as a catalyst for improving internal procedures to promote greater transparency and clearer accountability mechanisms for all those involved in the preparation of At-Large documents. Ultimately, we seek real progress — not just 'continuous' effort - in improving the multi-stakeholder model for decision making within the ICANN community and, in particular, for the benefit of the unique end-user community whose interests we aspire to represent.

We look forward to continuing our work together to address these important issues.

Best regards,

Joanna Kulesza

(on behalf of the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and Joanna Kulesza) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> HelpDesk <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-re...>

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hey Pari, I can see how that would be frustrating and we'll need to create some rules around that or really limit he number of drafters. Part of the problem that I am trying to highlight is that the "draft" is not the place for new ideas. That's the job of the reviewers who run those ideas by the WG. The drafters are ONLY meant to take the consensus points and flesh them out. We have a whole procedure for requesting additional funding (AFRs) that includes proposals, consensus and inclusion in budget commentary. One can't simply start asking for money in the prose of a comment. While I think the overwrite problem, you describe, would not be eliminated, it would definitely be mitigated by removing any new concepts from the drafting process. Jonathan ________________________________ From: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 10:48 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com>; alac@icann.org <alac@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Dear Jonathan, Thank you for your response and your willingness to address these concerns. I want to clarify that my email was not an accusation against any community member, for whom I have great respect. My concern is with the structure of our current system, where anyone with a link can suggest changes while multiple roles—reviewers, penholders, commenters, and shepherds—have editing rights. This creates confusion and a lack of accountability. I raised this issue in December and January, yet my input went unacknowledged. It could have been resolved in minutes, but the lack of responsiveness remains the bigger issue. Additionally, my comments on task assignments and credit recognition are about fostering effective community engagement. Volunteer availability naturally varies, and participation should be a choice, not an obligation, to prevent undue burden on active members. A strong community relies on clear communication, recognition, inclusivity, and fairness, ensuring all voices are heard and valued. I appreciate your openness to discussing this further and look forward to working toward a more structured approach. Best, Pari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Joanna and all, Thanks for your feedback on this issue. Perhaps we should have a dedicated discussion in Seattle on the topic of volunteer participation. The issue of credit being taken by those who only superficially participate has been a long-standing issue and has included some who are now complaining so sometimes it makes my head spin. It's a bit of a vicious circle when folks do not participate but complain when they are no longer asked to do so. I guess my issue, in this particular case, is that we weren't answering the questions which were being asked. At any point, had the small team looked at the RFC and the form that was created, this would have been evident. Was it someone else's responsibility to catch this? I don't know. All I know is that it was a fact that yes, I corrected in an uncomfortable way, at the last minute. The only alternative I saw, at that point, was NOT to correct it and that seemed like a worse outcome from a community wide perspective. To tie this up as an instance of top-down leadership or a lack of appreciation for anyone's effort is to miss the point entirely. At ANY point it looks as though we are about to embarrass ourselves, it seems prudent to act, regardless of how we got there. This has opened a bunch of wounds that we should definitely address and i stand ready to address them. NO ONE is a bigger fan of metrics than me so let's dive in, once again. Jonathan ________________________________ From: Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:25 AM To: Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> Cc: alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Subject: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Dear Johnathan and all, Thank you for your thoughtful reply and valuable feedback. I am pleased to see that the concerns raised by Maureen, Marita, and I have been well received and are now recognized within the broader community. While I remain committed to continuous improvement and collaboration, I would like to address a point raised by Pari, Alfredo, and Hadia that reflects a larger issue within our community. It has become increasingly evident that those who contribute the least are the quickest to claim credit for the efforts of others. This "cry wolf" mentality not only diminishes the value of genuine contributions but also discourages the very spirit of collaboration that we all strive to foster. It is critical that we recognize and correct this behavior to maintain the integrity of our work. Many of us have invested considerable time and energy into community development and capacity-building initiatives. However, it is increasingly disheartening to see these efforts undermined by individuals who, rather than contributing in good faith, instead piggyback on the hard work of others. This situation is no longer tenable, as it discourages genuine contributions and rewards opportunistic behaviors that are both unfair and unethical. We not only need metrics to track contributions effectively, but we also need concrete measures to discourage those who fail to act in good faith and instead rely on corporate-like practices to advance with minimal actual input. Such practices undermine the collaborative spirit that our community should be built on. However, we cannot tackle this challenge alone. To ensure that the At-Large community remains collegial, transparent, and grounded in good faith, it is essential that we receive guidance and support from ICANN org. Only through collective action can we create an environment where genuine efforts are recognized, and unethical practices are appropriately addressed. I look forward to discussing how we can move forward together in addressing these issues and ensuring the continued integrity of our community. Warm regards, Joanna On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 15:57, Judith Hellerstein via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Hi All, It seems this conversation is moving from one of CIP to one on all issues. I agree that staff have not been explaining the new process well and that has contributed to the confusion around. The idea of reviewers is new and it is also new that these persons give the first presentation. This is new process and not fully explained and is confusing but it is totally a different issue than what happened at the CIP public comment. The two should not be joined together in one discussion. They need to have two separate discussions. Pari’s issue is very different and needs its own separate discussion and should be discussed in another email. The problem with the CIP issue is that a google form was set up and set up with all the separate questions with separate sections for each sub part and so the volunteers spent the time filling that out. Later it was decided that that approach was wrong and that only the first 4 questions would be answered. This was done after the vote was announced and many people on ALAC approved the statement. That was wrong. The statement was then changed which discounted the many hours volunteers had worked on it and changed to something that the volunteers who had spent the time writing it did not approve. That is the issue we are talking about and we should not confuse these issues. How to prevent this process is the topic. Let’s try and stick to this topic Judith Sent from my iPad judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> Skype ID:JudithHellerstein On Feb 6, 2025, at 8:01 AM, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote:  Dear ALAC Colleagues, I would like to echo the concerns raised by the small team and others and share my own frustration over the continued lack of transparency in our policy processes and the disregard for volunteer contributions. After dedicating a full week to reading relevant material and drafting a response that I inserted in the Google document - ICANN FY26-30 Operating & Finacial Plan, ICANN IANA FY26 Operating Plans and Budgets. in suggestion mode, I was dismayed to find my name removed and my input edited—without any discussion or consultation. This is not an isolated incident. Despite raising similar concerns in December and January, no meaningful action has been taken, discouraging volunteers from further engagement. Our current document management system lacks fundamental safeguards: * Anyone with a link can edit freely, creating an unstructured and unaccountable process. * No clear version control or discussion precedes changes. * A proper system should allow open viewing, designated members to comment in suggestion mode, and editing only after collective review. Additionally, other troubling practices—such as assigning tasks to volunteers without their consent, which burdens others with follow-ups, and granting undue credit that alienates genuine contributors—only create the illusion of engagement rather than fostering true participation. While these actions may be well-intended, they undermine trust and diminish meaningful involvement. These issues—unstructured processes, performative engagement, and dismissive, top-down leadership—threaten the integrity of the multistakeholder model from within. A volunteer-driven community thrives on transparency, respect, and inclusion, not opaque decision-making and anonymous interventions. I urge leadership to take immediate steps to implement structured, fair, and transparent processes that respect the time, effort, and autonomy of all contributors. Best regards, Pari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:37 AM Alfredo Calderon via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Natalia, I have to agree with the key points outlined by other community members. Something is happening that is discouraging some of us to feel more engaged as volunteers in the community of At-Large. Is it transparency, efficiency or clarity on the definitions of policy comments or even openness when some announcements for EOI or SOI arise? Let’s correct these issues, and as mentioned by others the CIP is a great opportunity to rectify and improve our community. The next generation to engage in At-Large needs to have a clear idea of what is done and how his/her contributions “could” improve on the work done as volunteers. Let’s start a conversation as mentioned by Natalia. Alfredo Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com<mailto:calderon.alfredo@gmail.com> Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52<http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: https://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com VSIG: Virtual School on Internet Governance - https://virtualsig.org On Feb 6, 2025, at 3:02 AM, Natalia Filina via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote:  Hello all, Dear, Joanna, Maureen, Marita. Thank you for the work you have done. As a participant of the CIP I see in it a real opportunity for our improvement (on RALO level and in the At-Large - ALAC interaction we all are so waiting for). Your analysis and comments on CIP construction is professional and valuable. And the situation with the doc and records is ugly. Dear At-Large colleagues, Isn't it? I would support you, ladies and follow Abdulkarim's message. We have changed (looks like cancelled without community's decision) a lot in our approaches to consolidated work, to respect volunteer work, to take into account the opinion of the community, to transparency and accountability and responsibility. Unfortunately and definitely, as a result, there is a lack of motivation and active participation in the work, less bottom-up components, fewer and fewer expectations of taking into account At-Large as a main and only one source of... Everithing for ALAC - expertise, energy, feedback from the local community etc, ideas, knowledge etc. That's why - silence here, people (volunteers especially) working where they trust. We have to go to our classic way to build the community together. Maybe this situation will help us to wake up? Sincerely, Natalia Filina Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member DotDucky<https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣 +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia чт, 6 февр. 2025 г., 09:09 Abdulkarim Oloyede via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>>: Dear all Transparency and accountability within ALAC have long been an issue because we have refused to address most of the root causes, among which are some individuals treating ALAC as their full-time responsibility(Job), imposing their way as the ONLY way. Unfortunately, many have chosen to remain silent. While I am not surprised by these events, what truly surprises me is the overwhelming silence in the face of it. Maybe we are all growing older like myself and have decided to allow everything to slide. I see this as yet another wake-up call for us to confront these issues. I know this will likely be swept under the carpet, as usual, with the Chair offering a vague explanation without addressing the real issue because ......( i complete this another day). However, we must strive to emulate other SOs and ACs within ICANN, where transparency and openness are upheld. There are many better examples we can follow. Each time I reflect on ALAC and my time, it pains me deeply. Prof. A. A. Oloyede. Full Professor of Wireless Telecommunications Department of Telecommunications Science, University of Ilorin, Nigeria Director, Centre for Research Development and In-House Training (CREDIT) University of Ilorin, Nigeria On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:41 AM Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Dear ALAC Colleagues, I hope this message finds you well. As agreed during the OFB meeting last Thursday, I am sending you a formal, detailed review of the CIP comment drafting timeline, which has been prepared by the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and myself (Joanna Kulesza, undersigned below, currently serving as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC) attached to this message. In response to the request made, we have provided a comprehensive recap of the events surrounding the development of this document. You can find the original document, as submitted by the drafting team for the ALAC vote, also attached for your review. This document includes all the recommendations that resulted from the inclusive and open process, which has been the standard for developing consensus within the At-Large community. We would like to express once again our continuing disappointment with the processes that have accompanied the drafting of this document, in particular the lack of transparency and accountability that has been identified. We hope that this difficult situation will serve as a catalyst for improving internal procedures to promote greater transparency and clearer accountability mechanisms for all those involved in the preparation of At-Large documents. Ultimately, we seek real progress — not just 'continuous' effort - in improving the multi-stakeholder model for decision making within the ICANN community and, in particular, for the benefit of the unique end-user community whose interests we aspire to represent. We look forward to continuing our work together to address these important issues. Best regards, Joanna Kulesza (on behalf of the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and Joanna Kulesza) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Website<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> HelpDesk<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-re...> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)

Maureen, The best way to get the largest number of people to understand what we're saying and why is with a simple discussion, using an outline or PowerPoint. All I'm suggesting is that every comment should begin life as an outline, not prose. It's not complicated or micromanaging. 1. Small team evaluates the RFC docs and makes a recommendation whether to comment and, if so, what to say (week 1) 2. The WG discusses these recommendations and reaches consensus on them. 3. Drafters turn these recommendation into a draft public comment (week 2) 4. The more ambitious are given a chance to review. (week 3) 5. The ALAC votes. (week 4) It's really not complicated. Anyone who believes we can hold a "discussion" and consensus call based on a written document is dreaming. Jonathan ________________________________ From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 3:07 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com>; alac@icann.org <alac@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Hi Jonathan I have to disagree about the role of drafters. In the past the drafters (usually a small team) put together a draft which is the starting point for a discussion to get consensus. If it isn't in the draft how can you know if you have even given people a chance to contribute to a consensus decision. It doesn't help however, when people do not take advantage of the opportunity to contribute a viewpoint, and cry foul when silence has been seen as consent. But our drafting of these submissions seem to start so late (or they hold the public comment over a period when everyone is on holiday and turned off their phones and laptops) so that the community doesn't really get a chance to contribute to any consensus. So that isn't the fault of the drafter. It is all becoming so confusing about the different roles and being so specific about categories of participation in submissions when it is probably just a small team who are putting in all the effort.. People are giving up their time to do this work and being micro-managed makes it hard for people to be all encompassing in their submission contributions to make sure they cover everyone's perspectives. Maureen Maureen. On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 12:19 PM Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Hey Pari, I can see how that would be frustrating and we'll need to create some rules around that or really limit he number of drafters. Part of the problem that I am trying to highlight is that the "draft" is not the place for new ideas. That's the job of the reviewers who run those ideas by the WG. The drafters are ONLY meant to take the consensus points and flesh them out. We have a whole procedure for requesting additional funding (AFRs) that includes proposals, consensus and inclusion in budget commentary. One can't simply start asking for money in the prose of a comment. While I think the overwrite problem, you describe, would not be eliminated, it would definitely be mitigated by removing any new concepts from the drafting process. Jonathan ________________________________ From: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com<mailto:pariesfandiari@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 10:48 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>>; alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Dear Jonathan, Thank you for your response and your willingness to address these concerns. I want to clarify that my email was not an accusation against any community member, for whom I have great respect. My concern is with the structure of our current system, where anyone with a link can suggest changes while multiple roles—reviewers, penholders, commenters, and shepherds—have editing rights. This creates confusion and a lack of accountability. I raised this issue in December and January, yet my input went unacknowledged. It could have been resolved in minutes, but the lack of responsiveness remains the bigger issue. Additionally, my comments on task assignments and credit recognition are about fostering effective community engagement. Volunteer availability naturally varies, and participation should be a choice, not an obligation, to prevent undue burden on active members. A strong community relies on clear communication, recognition, inclusivity, and fairness, ensuring all voices are heard and valued. I appreciate your openness to discussing this further and look forward to working toward a more structured approach. Best, Pari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Joanna and all, Thanks for your feedback on this issue. Perhaps we should have a dedicated discussion in Seattle on the topic of volunteer participation. The issue of credit being taken by those who only superficially participate has been a long-standing issue and has included some who are now complaining so sometimes it makes my head spin. It's a bit of a vicious circle when folks do not participate but complain when they are no longer asked to do so. I guess my issue, in this particular case, is that we weren't answering the questions which were being asked. At any point, had the small team looked at the RFC and the form that was created, this would have been evident. Was it someone else's responsibility to catch this? I don't know. All I know is that it was a fact that yes, I corrected in an uncomfortable way, at the last minute. The only alternative I saw, at that point, was NOT to correct it and that seemed like a worse outcome from a community wide perspective. To tie this up as an instance of top-down leadership or a lack of appreciation for anyone's effort is to miss the point entirely. At ANY point it looks as though we are about to embarrass ourselves, it seems prudent to act, regardless of how we got there. This has opened a bunch of wounds that we should definitely address and i stand ready to address them. NO ONE is a bigger fan of metrics than me so let's dive in, once again. Jonathan ________________________________ From: Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:25 AM To: Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> Cc: alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Subject: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Dear Johnathan and all, Thank you for your thoughtful reply and valuable feedback. I am pleased to see that the concerns raised by Maureen, Marita, and I have been well received and are now recognized within the broader community. While I remain committed to continuous improvement and collaboration, I would like to address a point raised by Pari, Alfredo, and Hadia that reflects a larger issue within our community. It has become increasingly evident that those who contribute the least are the quickest to claim credit for the efforts of others. This "cry wolf" mentality not only diminishes the value of genuine contributions but also discourages the very spirit of collaboration that we all strive to foster. It is critical that we recognize and correct this behavior to maintain the integrity of our work. Many of us have invested considerable time and energy into community development and capacity-building initiatives. However, it is increasingly disheartening to see these efforts undermined by individuals who, rather than contributing in good faith, instead piggyback on the hard work of others. This situation is no longer tenable, as it discourages genuine contributions and rewards opportunistic behaviors that are both unfair and unethical. We not only need metrics to track contributions effectively, but we also need concrete measures to discourage those who fail to act in good faith and instead rely on corporate-like practices to advance with minimal actual input. Such practices undermine the collaborative spirit that our community should be built on. However, we cannot tackle this challenge alone. To ensure that the At-Large community remains collegial, transparent, and grounded in good faith, it is essential that we receive guidance and support from ICANN org. Only through collective action can we create an environment where genuine efforts are recognized, and unethical practices are appropriately addressed. I look forward to discussing how we can move forward together in addressing these issues and ensuring the continued integrity of our community. Warm regards, Joanna On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 15:57, Judith Hellerstein via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Hi All, It seems this conversation is moving from one of CIP to one on all issues. I agree that staff have not been explaining the new process well and that has contributed to the confusion around. The idea of reviewers is new and it is also new that these persons give the first presentation. This is new process and not fully explained and is confusing but it is totally a different issue than what happened at the CIP public comment. The two should not be joined together in one discussion. They need to have two separate discussions. Pari’s issue is very different and needs its own separate discussion and should be discussed in another email. The problem with the CIP issue is that a google form was set up and set up with all the separate questions with separate sections for each sub part and so the volunteers spent the time filling that out. Later it was decided that that approach was wrong and that only the first 4 questions would be answered. This was done after the vote was announced and many people on ALAC approved the statement. That was wrong. The statement was then changed which discounted the many hours volunteers had worked on it and changed to something that the volunteers who had spent the time writing it did not approve. That is the issue we are talking about and we should not confuse these issues. How to prevent this process is the topic. Let’s try and stick to this topic Judith Sent from my iPad judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> Skype ID:JudithHellerstein On Feb 6, 2025, at 8:01 AM, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote:  Dear ALAC Colleagues, I would like to echo the concerns raised by the small team and others and share my own frustration over the continued lack of transparency in our policy processes and the disregard for volunteer contributions. After dedicating a full week to reading relevant material and drafting a response that I inserted in the Google document - ICANN FY26-30 Operating & Finacial Plan, ICANN IANA FY26 Operating Plans and Budgets. in suggestion mode, I was dismayed to find my name removed and my input edited—without any discussion or consultation. This is not an isolated incident. Despite raising similar concerns in December and January, no meaningful action has been taken, discouraging volunteers from further engagement. Our current document management system lacks fundamental safeguards: * Anyone with a link can edit freely, creating an unstructured and unaccountable process. * No clear version control or discussion precedes changes. * A proper system should allow open viewing, designated members to comment in suggestion mode, and editing only after collective review. Additionally, other troubling practices—such as assigning tasks to volunteers without their consent, which burdens others with follow-ups, and granting undue credit that alienates genuine contributors—only create the illusion of engagement rather than fostering true participation. While these actions may be well-intended, they undermine trust and diminish meaningful involvement. These issues—unstructured processes, performative engagement, and dismissive, top-down leadership—threaten the integrity of the multistakeholder model from within. A volunteer-driven community thrives on transparency, respect, and inclusion, not opaque decision-making and anonymous interventions. I urge leadership to take immediate steps to implement structured, fair, and transparent processes that respect the time, effort, and autonomy of all contributors. Best regards, Pari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:37 AM Alfredo Calderon via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Natalia, I have to agree with the key points outlined by other community members. Something is happening that is discouraging some of us to feel more engaged as volunteers in the community of At-Large. Is it transparency, efficiency or clarity on the definitions of policy comments or even openness when some announcements for EOI or SOI arise? Let’s correct these issues, and as mentioned by others the CIP is a great opportunity to rectify and improve our community. The next generation to engage in At-Large needs to have a clear idea of what is done and how his/her contributions “could” improve on the work done as volunteers. Let’s start a conversation as mentioned by Natalia. Alfredo Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com<mailto:calderon.alfredo@gmail.com> Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52<http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: https://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com VSIG: Virtual School on Internet Governance - https://virtualsig.org On Feb 6, 2025, at 3:02 AM, Natalia Filina via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote:  Hello all, Dear, Joanna, Maureen, Marita. Thank you for the work you have done. As a participant of the CIP I see in it a real opportunity for our improvement (on RALO level and in the At-Large - ALAC interaction we all are so waiting for). Your analysis and comments on CIP construction is professional and valuable. And the situation with the doc and records is ugly. Dear At-Large colleagues, Isn't it? I would support you, ladies and follow Abdulkarim's message. We have changed (looks like cancelled without community's decision) a lot in our approaches to consolidated work, to respect volunteer work, to take into account the opinion of the community, to transparency and accountability and responsibility. Unfortunately and definitely, as a result, there is a lack of motivation and active participation in the work, less bottom-up components, fewer and fewer expectations of taking into account At-Large as a main and only one source of... Everithing for ALAC - expertise, energy, feedback from the local community etc, ideas, knowledge etc. That's why - silence here, people (volunteers especially) working where they trust. We have to go to our classic way to build the community together. Maybe this situation will help us to wake up? Sincerely, Natalia Filina Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member DotDucky<https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣 +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia чт, 6 февр. 2025 г., 09:09 Abdulkarim Oloyede via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>>: Dear all Transparency and accountability within ALAC have long been an issue because we have refused to address most of the root causes, among which are some individuals treating ALAC as their full-time responsibility(Job), imposing their way as the ONLY way. Unfortunately, many have chosen to remain silent. While I am not surprised by these events, what truly surprises me is the overwhelming silence in the face of it. Maybe we are all growing older like myself and have decided to allow everything to slide. I see this as yet another wake-up call for us to confront these issues. I know this will likely be swept under the carpet, as usual, with the Chair offering a vague explanation without addressing the real issue because ......( i complete this another day). However, we must strive to emulate other SOs and ACs within ICANN, where transparency and openness are upheld. There are many better examples we can follow. Each time I reflect on ALAC and my time, it pains me deeply. Prof. A. A. Oloyede. Full Professor of Wireless Telecommunications Department of Telecommunications Science, University of Ilorin, Nigeria Director, Centre for Research Development and In-House Training (CREDIT) University of Ilorin, Nigeria On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:41 AM Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Dear ALAC Colleagues, I hope this message finds you well. As agreed during the OFB meeting last Thursday, I am sending you a formal, detailed review of the CIP comment drafting timeline, which has been prepared by the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and myself (Joanna Kulesza, undersigned below, currently serving as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC) attached to this message. In response to the request made, we have provided a comprehensive recap of the events surrounding the development of this document. You can find the original document, as submitted by the drafting team for the ALAC vote, also attached for your review. This document includes all the recommendations that resulted from the inclusive and open process, which has been the standard for developing consensus within the At-Large community. We would like to express once again our continuing disappointment with the processes that have accompanied the drafting of this document, in particular the lack of transparency and accountability that has been identified. We hope that this difficult situation will serve as a catalyst for improving internal procedures to promote greater transparency and clearer accountability mechanisms for all those involved in the preparation of At-Large documents. Ultimately, we seek real progress — not just 'continuous' effort - in improving the multi-stakeholder model for decision making within the ICANN community and, in particular, for the benefit of the unique end-user community whose interests we aspire to represent. We look forward to continuing our work together to address these important issues. Best regards, Joanna Kulesza (on behalf of the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and Joanna Kulesza) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Website<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> HelpDesk<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-re...> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Thanks Pari! Agree that only a limited number of volunteers should have edit privileges on a document. I honestly thought that was primarily the case. I'll get with staff on that. I'm also happy for a volunteer to engage in a process like you describe below with the simultaneous creation of prose and summary as long as no one gets wedded to their prose. In other words, if the discussion of the summary leads the group to drop or change one of the main points, the person who has already gone ahead and drafted something has to be sanguine with that. Does that make sense? All I'm really saying is that for informed consensus building to take place, with the broadest group of At-Large volunteers, that discussion must be driven by bullets, not prose. If you're confident in a particular bullet and want to start drafting, that's absolutely fine. That just cannot be the basis of the discussion. Does that make sense? Jonathan ________________________________ From: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 3:53 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>; alac@icann.org <alac@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Dear Jonathan, Thank you for your continuous efforts to improve our processes. Before we get into the broader discussion, I want to emphasize that the system issue is separate from roles or procedures and is instead a lapse on the staff side. In almost 20 years of working in collaborative environments, I have never seen such broad access where anyone with a link can edit freely. This is a major security and accountability concern, and resolving it should only take a few minutes. Please ask staff to restrict editing access so that only assigned volunteers can comment in suggestion mode. Regarding different roles, I understand that people work in various ways, and we need to consider that. Personally, I take notes as I read, meaning I review, comment, and draft simultaneously—separating these roles would not work for me. Likewise, I prefer to read the full draft and reflect before forming an opinion. The key is to establish a process that accommodates different working styles while ensuring inclusivity and engagement. Here is a suggestion/example: in drafting PTI FY26 Operating Plans and Budget, I read, reviewed, and drafted simultaneously. To accommodate different preferences, I also created and presented a bullet-point presentation for those who preferred a summarized format while ensuring that the full draft remained available for anyone who wanted to read it in detail. This approach balanced different working styles while maintaining transparency and engagement. Again, I appreciate your effort in structuring the process and look forward to refining it in a way that works for everyone. Cheers, Pari On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 11:20 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Maureen, The best way to get the largest number of people to understand what we're saying and why is with a simple discussion, using an outline or PowerPoint. All I'm suggesting is that every comment should begin life as an outline, not prose. It's not complicated or micromanaging. 1. Small team evaluates the RFC docs and makes a recommendation whether to comment and, if so, what to say (week 1) 2. The WG discusses these recommendations and reaches consensus on them. 3. Drafters turn these recommendation into a draft public comment (week 2) 4. The more ambitious are given a chance to review. (week 3) 5. The ALAC votes. (week 4) It's really not complicated. Anyone who believes we can hold a "discussion" and consensus call based on a written document is dreaming. Jonathan ________________________________ From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 3:07 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com<mailto:pariesfandiari@gmail.com>>; alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Hi Jonathan I have to disagree about the role of drafters. In the past the drafters (usually a small team) put together a draft which is the starting point for a discussion to get consensus. If it isn't in the draft how can you know if you have even given people a chance to contribute to a consensus decision. It doesn't help however, when people do not take advantage of the opportunity to contribute a viewpoint, and cry foul when silence has been seen as consent. But our drafting of these submissions seem to start so late (or they hold the public comment over a period when everyone is on holiday and turned off their phones and laptops) so that the community doesn't really get a chance to contribute to any consensus. So that isn't the fault of the drafter. It is all becoming so confusing about the different roles and being so specific about categories of participation in submissions when it is probably just a small team who are putting in all the effort.. People are giving up their time to do this work and being micro-managed makes it hard for people to be all encompassing in their submission contributions to make sure they cover everyone's perspectives. Maureen Maureen. On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 12:19 PM Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Hey Pari, I can see how that would be frustrating and we'll need to create some rules around that or really limit he number of drafters. Part of the problem that I am trying to highlight is that the "draft" is not the place for new ideas. That's the job of the reviewers who run those ideas by the WG. The drafters are ONLY meant to take the consensus points and flesh them out. We have a whole procedure for requesting additional funding (AFRs) that includes proposals, consensus and inclusion in budget commentary. One can't simply start asking for money in the prose of a comment. While I think the overwrite problem, you describe, would not be eliminated, it would definitely be mitigated by removing any new concepts from the drafting process. Jonathan ________________________________ From: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com<mailto:pariesfandiari@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 10:48 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>>; alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Dear Jonathan, Thank you for your response and your willingness to address these concerns. I want to clarify that my email was not an accusation against any community member, for whom I have great respect. My concern is with the structure of our current system, where anyone with a link can suggest changes while multiple roles—reviewers, penholders, commenters, and shepherds—have editing rights. This creates confusion and a lack of accountability. I raised this issue in December and January, yet my input went unacknowledged. It could have been resolved in minutes, but the lack of responsiveness remains the bigger issue. Additionally, my comments on task assignments and credit recognition are about fostering effective community engagement. Volunteer availability naturally varies, and participation should be a choice, not an obligation, to prevent undue burden on active members. A strong community relies on clear communication, recognition, inclusivity, and fairness, ensuring all voices are heard and valued. I appreciate your openness to discussing this further and look forward to working toward a more structured approach. Best, Pari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Joanna and all, Thanks for your feedback on this issue. Perhaps we should have a dedicated discussion in Seattle on the topic of volunteer participation. The issue of credit being taken by those who only superficially participate has been a long-standing issue and has included some who are now complaining so sometimes it makes my head spin. It's a bit of a vicious circle when folks do not participate but complain when they are no longer asked to do so. I guess my issue, in this particular case, is that we weren't answering the questions which were being asked. At any point, had the small team looked at the RFC and the form that was created, this would have been evident. Was it someone else's responsibility to catch this? I don't know. All I know is that it was a fact that yes, I corrected in an uncomfortable way, at the last minute. The only alternative I saw, at that point, was NOT to correct it and that seemed like a worse outcome from a community wide perspective. To tie this up as an instance of top-down leadership or a lack of appreciation for anyone's effort is to miss the point entirely. At ANY point it looks as though we are about to embarrass ourselves, it seems prudent to act, regardless of how we got there. This has opened a bunch of wounds that we should definitely address and i stand ready to address them. NO ONE is a bigger fan of metrics than me so let's dive in, once again. Jonathan ________________________________ From: Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:25 AM To: Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> Cc: alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Subject: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Dear Johnathan and all, Thank you for your thoughtful reply and valuable feedback. I am pleased to see that the concerns raised by Maureen, Marita, and I have been well received and are now recognized within the broader community. While I remain committed to continuous improvement and collaboration, I would like to address a point raised by Pari, Alfredo, and Hadia that reflects a larger issue within our community. It has become increasingly evident that those who contribute the least are the quickest to claim credit for the efforts of others. This "cry wolf" mentality not only diminishes the value of genuine contributions but also discourages the very spirit of collaboration that we all strive to foster. It is critical that we recognize and correct this behavior to maintain the integrity of our work. Many of us have invested considerable time and energy into community development and capacity-building initiatives. However, it is increasingly disheartening to see these efforts undermined by individuals who, rather than contributing in good faith, instead piggyback on the hard work of others. This situation is no longer tenable, as it discourages genuine contributions and rewards opportunistic behaviors that are both unfair and unethical. We not only need metrics to track contributions effectively, but we also need concrete measures to discourage those who fail to act in good faith and instead rely on corporate-like practices to advance with minimal actual input. Such practices undermine the collaborative spirit that our community should be built on. However, we cannot tackle this challenge alone. To ensure that the At-Large community remains collegial, transparent, and grounded in good faith, it is essential that we receive guidance and support from ICANN org. Only through collective action can we create an environment where genuine efforts are recognized, and unethical practices are appropriately addressed. I look forward to discussing how we can move forward together in addressing these issues and ensuring the continued integrity of our community. Warm regards, Joanna On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 15:57, Judith Hellerstein via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Hi All, It seems this conversation is moving from one of CIP to one on all issues. I agree that staff have not been explaining the new process well and that has contributed to the confusion around. The idea of reviewers is new and it is also new that these persons give the first presentation. This is new process and not fully explained and is confusing but it is totally a different issue than what happened at the CIP public comment. The two should not be joined together in one discussion. They need to have two separate discussions. Pari’s issue is very different and needs its own separate discussion and should be discussed in another email. The problem with the CIP issue is that a google form was set up and set up with all the separate questions with separate sections for each sub part and so the volunteers spent the time filling that out. Later it was decided that that approach was wrong and that only the first 4 questions would be answered. This was done after the vote was announced and many people on ALAC approved the statement. That was wrong. The statement was then changed which discounted the many hours volunteers had worked on it and changed to something that the volunteers who had spent the time writing it did not approve. That is the issue we are talking about and we should not confuse these issues. How to prevent this process is the topic. Let’s try and stick to this topic Judith Sent from my iPad judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> Skype ID:JudithHellerstein On Feb 6, 2025, at 8:01 AM, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote:  Dear ALAC Colleagues, I would like to echo the concerns raised by the small team and others and share my own frustration over the continued lack of transparency in our policy processes and the disregard for volunteer contributions. After dedicating a full week to reading relevant material and drafting a response that I inserted in the Google document - ICANN FY26-30 Operating & Finacial Plan, ICANN IANA FY26 Operating Plans and Budgets. in suggestion mode, I was dismayed to find my name removed and my input edited—without any discussion or consultation. This is not an isolated incident. Despite raising similar concerns in December and January, no meaningful action has been taken, discouraging volunteers from further engagement. Our current document management system lacks fundamental safeguards: * Anyone with a link can edit freely, creating an unstructured and unaccountable process. * No clear version control or discussion precedes changes. * A proper system should allow open viewing, designated members to comment in suggestion mode, and editing only after collective review. Additionally, other troubling practices—such as assigning tasks to volunteers without their consent, which burdens others with follow-ups, and granting undue credit that alienates genuine contributors—only create the illusion of engagement rather than fostering true participation. While these actions may be well-intended, they undermine trust and diminish meaningful involvement. These issues—unstructured processes, performative engagement, and dismissive, top-down leadership—threaten the integrity of the multistakeholder model from within. A volunteer-driven community thrives on transparency, respect, and inclusion, not opaque decision-making and anonymous interventions. I urge leadership to take immediate steps to implement structured, fair, and transparent processes that respect the time, effort, and autonomy of all contributors. Best regards, Pari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:37 AM Alfredo Calderon via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Natalia, I have to agree with the key points outlined by other community members. Something is happening that is discouraging some of us to feel more engaged as volunteers in the community of At-Large. Is it transparency, efficiency or clarity on the definitions of policy comments or even openness when some announcements for EOI or SOI arise? Let’s correct these issues, and as mentioned by others the CIP is a great opportunity to rectify and improve our community. The next generation to engage in At-Large needs to have a clear idea of what is done and how his/her contributions “could” improve on the work done as volunteers. Let’s start a conversation as mentioned by Natalia. Alfredo Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com<mailto:calderon.alfredo@gmail.com> Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52<http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: https://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com VSIG: Virtual School on Internet Governance - https://virtualsig.org On Feb 6, 2025, at 3:02 AM, Natalia Filina via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote:  Hello all, Dear, Joanna, Maureen, Marita. Thank you for the work you have done. As a participant of the CIP I see in it a real opportunity for our improvement (on RALO level and in the At-Large - ALAC interaction we all are so waiting for). Your analysis and comments on CIP construction is professional and valuable. And the situation with the doc and records is ugly. Dear At-Large colleagues, Isn't it? I would support you, ladies and follow Abdulkarim's message. We have changed (looks like cancelled without community's decision) a lot in our approaches to consolidated work, to respect volunteer work, to take into account the opinion of the community, to transparency and accountability and responsibility. Unfortunately and definitely, as a result, there is a lack of motivation and active participation in the work, less bottom-up components, fewer and fewer expectations of taking into account At-Large as a main and only one source of... Everithing for ALAC - expertise, energy, feedback from the local community etc, ideas, knowledge etc. That's why - silence here, people (volunteers especially) working where they trust. We have to go to our classic way to build the community together. Maybe this situation will help us to wake up? Sincerely, Natalia Filina Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member DotDucky<https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣 +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia чт, 6 февр. 2025 г., 09:09 Abdulkarim Oloyede via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>>: Dear all Transparency and accountability within ALAC have long been an issue because we have refused to address most of the root causes, among which are some individuals treating ALAC as their full-time responsibility(Job), imposing their way as the ONLY way. Unfortunately, many have chosen to remain silent. While I am not surprised by these events, what truly surprises me is the overwhelming silence in the face of it. Maybe we are all growing older like myself and have decided to allow everything to slide. I see this as yet another wake-up call for us to confront these issues. I know this will likely be swept under the carpet, as usual, with the Chair offering a vague explanation without addressing the real issue because ......( i complete this another day). However, we must strive to emulate other SOs and ACs within ICANN, where transparency and openness are upheld. There are many better examples we can follow. Each time I reflect on ALAC and my time, it pains me deeply. Prof. A. A. Oloyede. Full Professor of Wireless Telecommunications Department of Telecommunications Science, University of Ilorin, Nigeria Director, Centre for Research Development and In-House Training (CREDIT) University of Ilorin, Nigeria On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:41 AM Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Dear ALAC Colleagues, I hope this message finds you well. As agreed during the OFB meeting last Thursday, I am sending you a formal, detailed review of the CIP comment drafting timeline, which has been prepared by the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and myself (Joanna Kulesza, undersigned below, currently serving as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC) attached to this message. In response to the request made, we have provided a comprehensive recap of the events surrounding the development of this document. You can find the original document, as submitted by the drafting team for the ALAC vote, also attached for your review. This document includes all the recommendations that resulted from the inclusive and open process, which has been the standard for developing consensus within the At-Large community. We would like to express once again our continuing disappointment with the processes that have accompanied the drafting of this document, in particular the lack of transparency and accountability that has been identified. We hope that this difficult situation will serve as a catalyst for improving internal procedures to promote greater transparency and clearer accountability mechanisms for all those involved in the preparation of At-Large documents. Ultimately, we seek real progress — not just 'continuous' effort - in improving the multi-stakeholder model for decision making within the ICANN community and, in particular, for the benefit of the unique end-user community whose interests we aspire to represent. We look forward to continuing our work together to address these important issues. Best regards, Joanna Kulesza (on behalf of the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and Joanna Kulesza) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Website<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> HelpDesk<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-re...> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)

Me too! Of course, what happened most recently was a discussion from a draft, not a discussion with the larger group so I won't exactly hold it up as an example. The additional problem with today's example is that it involved a request for money, for which we established a process so that shouldn't ever be in a draft absent a consensus view to make the request. We are in delicate times, prior to the new round, where ORG is looking at money as zero sum so as we push to try and make ATLAS 4 happen, we need to be careful what else is on our wishlist. That said, if we have a fulsome discussion in the OFB to make a request, we do it. ________________________________ From: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:16 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>; alac@icann.org <alac@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Dear Jonathan, I appreciate you following up with the staff on this. Regarding roles, I believe we should have just penholders and a shepherd, with only the shepherd having editing rights, exercised at the end to maintain accountability and prevent conflicts. On the process, I completely understand your point and fully support using bullet points for discussion and consensus-building, while allowing drafting to happen in parallel. If the group decides to drop or adjust a point, the draft should simply reflect that—just as we did today on the ICANN FY26–30 Operating & Financial Plan regarding UASG and ALAC. Thanks again for your efforts. Looking forward to refining the process together. Cheers, Pari On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 11:59 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Thanks Pari! Agree that only a limited number of volunteers should have edit privileges on a document. I honestly thought that was primarily the case. I'll get with staff on that. I'm also happy for a volunteer to engage in a process like you describe below with the simultaneous creation of prose and summary as long as no one gets wedded to their prose. In other words, if the discussion of the summary leads the group to drop or change one of the main points, the person who has already gone ahead and drafted something has to be sanguine with that. Does that make sense? All I'm really saying is that for informed consensus building to take place, with the broadest group of At-Large volunteers, that discussion must be driven by bullets, not prose. If you're confident in a particular bullet and want to start drafting, that's absolutely fine. That just cannot be the basis of the discussion. Does that make sense? Jonathan ________________________________ From: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com<mailto:pariesfandiari@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 3:53 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>; alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Dear Jonathan, Thank you for your continuous efforts to improve our processes. Before we get into the broader discussion, I want to emphasize that the system issue is separate from roles or procedures and is instead a lapse on the staff side. In almost 20 years of working in collaborative environments, I have never seen such broad access where anyone with a link can edit freely. This is a major security and accountability concern, and resolving it should only take a few minutes. Please ask staff to restrict editing access so that only assigned volunteers can comment in suggestion mode. Regarding different roles, I understand that people work in various ways, and we need to consider that. Personally, I take notes as I read, meaning I review, comment, and draft simultaneously—separating these roles would not work for me. Likewise, I prefer to read the full draft and reflect before forming an opinion. The key is to establish a process that accommodates different working styles while ensuring inclusivity and engagement. Here is a suggestion/example: in drafting PTI FY26 Operating Plans and Budget, I read, reviewed, and drafted simultaneously. To accommodate different preferences, I also created and presented a bullet-point presentation for those who preferred a summarized format while ensuring that the full draft remained available for anyone who wanted to read it in detail. This approach balanced different working styles while maintaining transparency and engagement. Again, I appreciate your effort in structuring the process and look forward to refining it in a way that works for everyone. Cheers, Pari On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 11:20 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Maureen, The best way to get the largest number of people to understand what we're saying and why is with a simple discussion, using an outline or PowerPoint. All I'm suggesting is that every comment should begin life as an outline, not prose. It's not complicated or micromanaging. 1. Small team evaluates the RFC docs and makes a recommendation whether to comment and, if so, what to say (week 1) 2. The WG discusses these recommendations and reaches consensus on them. 3. Drafters turn these recommendation into a draft public comment (week 2) 4. The more ambitious are given a chance to review. (week 3) 5. The ALAC votes. (week 4) It's really not complicated. Anyone who believes we can hold a "discussion" and consensus call based on a written document is dreaming. Jonathan ________________________________ From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 3:07 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com<mailto:pariesfandiari@gmail.com>>; alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Hi Jonathan I have to disagree about the role of drafters. In the past the drafters (usually a small team) put together a draft which is the starting point for a discussion to get consensus. If it isn't in the draft how can you know if you have even given people a chance to contribute to a consensus decision. It doesn't help however, when people do not take advantage of the opportunity to contribute a viewpoint, and cry foul when silence has been seen as consent. But our drafting of these submissions seem to start so late (or they hold the public comment over a period when everyone is on holiday and turned off their phones and laptops) so that the community doesn't really get a chance to contribute to any consensus. So that isn't the fault of the drafter. It is all becoming so confusing about the different roles and being so specific about categories of participation in submissions when it is probably just a small team who are putting in all the effort.. People are giving up their time to do this work and being micro-managed makes it hard for people to be all encompassing in their submission contributions to make sure they cover everyone's perspectives. Maureen Maureen. On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 12:19 PM Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Hey Pari, I can see how that would be frustrating and we'll need to create some rules around that or really limit he number of drafters. Part of the problem that I am trying to highlight is that the "draft" is not the place for new ideas. That's the job of the reviewers who run those ideas by the WG. The drafters are ONLY meant to take the consensus points and flesh them out. We have a whole procedure for requesting additional funding (AFRs) that includes proposals, consensus and inclusion in budget commentary. One can't simply start asking for money in the prose of a comment. While I think the overwrite problem, you describe, would not be eliminated, it would definitely be mitigated by removing any new concepts from the drafting process. Jonathan ________________________________ From: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com<mailto:pariesfandiari@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 10:48 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>>; alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Dear Jonathan, Thank you for your response and your willingness to address these concerns. I want to clarify that my email was not an accusation against any community member, for whom I have great respect. My concern is with the structure of our current system, where anyone with a link can suggest changes while multiple roles—reviewers, penholders, commenters, and shepherds—have editing rights. This creates confusion and a lack of accountability. I raised this issue in December and January, yet my input went unacknowledged. It could have been resolved in minutes, but the lack of responsiveness remains the bigger issue. Additionally, my comments on task assignments and credit recognition are about fostering effective community engagement. Volunteer availability naturally varies, and participation should be a choice, not an obligation, to prevent undue burden on active members. A strong community relies on clear communication, recognition, inclusivity, and fairness, ensuring all voices are heard and valued. I appreciate your openness to discussing this further and look forward to working toward a more structured approach. Best, Pari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Joanna and all, Thanks for your feedback on this issue. Perhaps we should have a dedicated discussion in Seattle on the topic of volunteer participation. The issue of credit being taken by those who only superficially participate has been a long-standing issue and has included some who are now complaining so sometimes it makes my head spin. It's a bit of a vicious circle when folks do not participate but complain when they are no longer asked to do so. I guess my issue, in this particular case, is that we weren't answering the questions which were being asked. At any point, had the small team looked at the RFC and the form that was created, this would have been evident. Was it someone else's responsibility to catch this? I don't know. All I know is that it was a fact that yes, I corrected in an uncomfortable way, at the last minute. The only alternative I saw, at that point, was NOT to correct it and that seemed like a worse outcome from a community wide perspective. To tie this up as an instance of top-down leadership or a lack of appreciation for anyone's effort is to miss the point entirely. At ANY point it looks as though we are about to embarrass ourselves, it seems prudent to act, regardless of how we got there. This has opened a bunch of wounds that we should definitely address and i stand ready to address them. NO ONE is a bigger fan of metrics than me so let's dive in, once again. Jonathan ________________________________ From: Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:25 AM To: Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> Cc: alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> Subject: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Dear Johnathan and all, Thank you for your thoughtful reply and valuable feedback. I am pleased to see that the concerns raised by Maureen, Marita, and I have been well received and are now recognized within the broader community. While I remain committed to continuous improvement and collaboration, I would like to address a point raised by Pari, Alfredo, and Hadia that reflects a larger issue within our community. It has become increasingly evident that those who contribute the least are the quickest to claim credit for the efforts of others. This "cry wolf" mentality not only diminishes the value of genuine contributions but also discourages the very spirit of collaboration that we all strive to foster. It is critical that we recognize and correct this behavior to maintain the integrity of our work. Many of us have invested considerable time and energy into community development and capacity-building initiatives. However, it is increasingly disheartening to see these efforts undermined by individuals who, rather than contributing in good faith, instead piggyback on the hard work of others. This situation is no longer tenable, as it discourages genuine contributions and rewards opportunistic behaviors that are both unfair and unethical. We not only need metrics to track contributions effectively, but we also need concrete measures to discourage those who fail to act in good faith and instead rely on corporate-like practices to advance with minimal actual input. Such practices undermine the collaborative spirit that our community should be built on. However, we cannot tackle this challenge alone. To ensure that the At-Large community remains collegial, transparent, and grounded in good faith, it is essential that we receive guidance and support from ICANN org. Only through collective action can we create an environment where genuine efforts are recognized, and unethical practices are appropriately addressed. I look forward to discussing how we can move forward together in addressing these issues and ensuring the continued integrity of our community. Warm regards, Joanna On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 15:57, Judith Hellerstein via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Hi All, It seems this conversation is moving from one of CIP to one on all issues. I agree that staff have not been explaining the new process well and that has contributed to the confusion around. The idea of reviewers is new and it is also new that these persons give the first presentation. This is new process and not fully explained and is confusing but it is totally a different issue than what happened at the CIP public comment. The two should not be joined together in one discussion. They need to have two separate discussions. Pari’s issue is very different and needs its own separate discussion and should be discussed in another email. The problem with the CIP issue is that a google form was set up and set up with all the separate questions with separate sections for each sub part and so the volunteers spent the time filling that out. Later it was decided that that approach was wrong and that only the first 4 questions would be answered. This was done after the vote was announced and many people on ALAC approved the statement. That was wrong. The statement was then changed which discounted the many hours volunteers had worked on it and changed to something that the volunteers who had spent the time writing it did not approve. That is the issue we are talking about and we should not confuse these issues. How to prevent this process is the topic. Let’s try and stick to this topic Judith Sent from my iPad judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> Skype ID:JudithHellerstein On Feb 6, 2025, at 8:01 AM, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote:  Dear ALAC Colleagues, I would like to echo the concerns raised by the small team and others and share my own frustration over the continued lack of transparency in our policy processes and the disregard for volunteer contributions. After dedicating a full week to reading relevant material and drafting a response that I inserted in the Google document - ICANN FY26-30 Operating & Finacial Plan, ICANN IANA FY26 Operating Plans and Budgets. in suggestion mode, I was dismayed to find my name removed and my input edited—without any discussion or consultation. This is not an isolated incident. Despite raising similar concerns in December and January, no meaningful action has been taken, discouraging volunteers from further engagement. Our current document management system lacks fundamental safeguards: * Anyone with a link can edit freely, creating an unstructured and unaccountable process. * No clear version control or discussion precedes changes. * A proper system should allow open viewing, designated members to comment in suggestion mode, and editing only after collective review. Additionally, other troubling practices—such as assigning tasks to volunteers without their consent, which burdens others with follow-ups, and granting undue credit that alienates genuine contributors—only create the illusion of engagement rather than fostering true participation. While these actions may be well-intended, they undermine trust and diminish meaningful involvement. These issues—unstructured processes, performative engagement, and dismissive, top-down leadership—threaten the integrity of the multistakeholder model from within. A volunteer-driven community thrives on transparency, respect, and inclusion, not opaque decision-making and anonymous interventions. I urge leadership to take immediate steps to implement structured, fair, and transparent processes that respect the time, effort, and autonomy of all contributors. Best regards, Pari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:37 AM Alfredo Calderon via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Natalia, I have to agree with the key points outlined by other community members. Something is happening that is discouraging some of us to feel more engaged as volunteers in the community of At-Large. Is it transparency, efficiency or clarity on the definitions of policy comments or even openness when some announcements for EOI or SOI arise? Let’s correct these issues, and as mentioned by others the CIP is a great opportunity to rectify and improve our community. The next generation to engage in At-Large needs to have a clear idea of what is done and how his/her contributions “could” improve on the work done as volunteers. Let’s start a conversation as mentioned by Natalia. Alfredo Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com<mailto:calderon.alfredo@gmail.com> Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52<http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: https://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com VSIG: Virtual School on Internet Governance - https://virtualsig.org On Feb 6, 2025, at 3:02 AM, Natalia Filina via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote:  Hello all, Dear, Joanna, Maureen, Marita. Thank you for the work you have done. As a participant of the CIP I see in it a real opportunity for our improvement (on RALO level and in the At-Large - ALAC interaction we all are so waiting for). Your analysis and comments on CIP construction is professional and valuable. And the situation with the doc and records is ugly. Dear At-Large colleagues, Isn't it? I would support you, ladies and follow Abdulkarim's message. We have changed (looks like cancelled without community's decision) a lot in our approaches to consolidated work, to respect volunteer work, to take into account the opinion of the community, to transparency and accountability and responsibility. Unfortunately and definitely, as a result, there is a lack of motivation and active participation in the work, less bottom-up components, fewer and fewer expectations of taking into account At-Large as a main and only one source of... Everithing for ALAC - expertise, energy, feedback from the local community etc, ideas, knowledge etc. That's why - silence here, people (volunteers especially) working where they trust. We have to go to our classic way to build the community together. Maybe this situation will help us to wake up? Sincerely, Natalia Filina Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member DotDucky<https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣 +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia чт, 6 февр. 2025 г., 09:09 Abdulkarim Oloyede via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>>: Dear all Transparency and accountability within ALAC have long been an issue because we have refused to address most of the root causes, among which are some individuals treating ALAC as their full-time responsibility(Job), imposing their way as the ONLY way. Unfortunately, many have chosen to remain silent. While I am not surprised by these events, what truly surprises me is the overwhelming silence in the face of it. Maybe we are all growing older like myself and have decided to allow everything to slide. I see this as yet another wake-up call for us to confront these issues. I know this will likely be swept under the carpet, as usual, with the Chair offering a vague explanation without addressing the real issue because ......( i complete this another day). However, we must strive to emulate other SOs and ACs within ICANN, where transparency and openness are upheld. There are many better examples we can follow. Each time I reflect on ALAC and my time, it pains me deeply. Prof. A. A. Oloyede. Full Professor of Wireless Telecommunications Department of Telecommunications Science, University of Ilorin, Nigeria Director, Centre for Research Development and In-House Training (CREDIT) University of Ilorin, Nigeria On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:41 AM Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Dear ALAC Colleagues, I hope this message finds you well. As agreed during the OFB meeting last Thursday, I am sending you a formal, detailed review of the CIP comment drafting timeline, which has been prepared by the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and myself (Joanna Kulesza, undersigned below, currently serving as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC) attached to this message. In response to the request made, we have provided a comprehensive recap of the events surrounding the development of this document. You can find the original document, as submitted by the drafting team for the ALAC vote, also attached for your review. This document includes all the recommendations that resulted from the inclusive and open process, which has been the standard for developing consensus within the At-Large community. We would like to express once again our continuing disappointment with the processes that have accompanied the drafting of this document, in particular the lack of transparency and accountability that has been identified. We hope that this difficult situation will serve as a catalyst for improving internal procedures to promote greater transparency and clearer accountability mechanisms for all those involved in the preparation of At-Large documents. Ultimately, we seek real progress — not just 'continuous' effort - in improving the multi-stakeholder model for decision making within the ICANN community and, in particular, for the benefit of the unique end-user community whose interests we aspire to represent. We look forward to continuing our work together to address these important issues. Best regards, Joanna Kulesza (on behalf of the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and Joanna Kulesza) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Website<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> HelpDesk<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-re...> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)

Herein lies the existential problem. ICANN org objective is to institutionalize what is called At-Large. This means committing a group of volunteers to strictures with significant commitment of IP, time and effort that will always be beyond what should be normal. For a volunteer with only so much time to give, it raises significant concerns. I have in the past 'held the pen' for loads of ALAC statements, advice etc. I have long accepted that my view of the world and the remit for the At-Large in ICANN matters is not universal. We are differently socialised. I accept that my use of [the English] language is never the same for any two of us, especially colleagues where English is not their first language. So I am prepared for whatever I write to be ill-read/challenged for cause/require clarification/misunderstood. We are socialised to prioritise possibilities. And looking on from the edge of empire, I often see different priorities for Caribbean peoples in these matters, running the gamut from no interest at all to 'er...um' mild. I accept then that others would wish to use different terms to register a concern, even if the concern has a common root to mine. In the end, it really isn't all that to *suggest* changes in verbiage to a penholder. And if what emerges offends intellect or common sense, one can always sit on one's hands and be mute. Or, at minimum, have space to record disagreement. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 18:57, Maureen Hilyard via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Jonathan

I agree with you about the importance of a regular and brief summary given on a ppt so that people can understand what is being presented in the submission as we see with our small teams, but the timeframes for ordinary submissions, not associated with a WG to report back to , are getting shorter and shorter so that the opportunity for feedback is minimising real input from the voices in our community who really would like to make an input.

This is what we need to feed back to Org. Their limiting timeframes is so inconsiderate of what time and effort that volunteers can contribute. Making it an under-pressure expectation as if they are paying At-Large to deliver these products is both thoughtless and disrespectful.

Maureen

On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 1:20 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

...

Maureen, The best way to get the largest number of people to understand what we're saying and why is with a simple discussion, using an outline or PowerPoint. All I'm suggesting is that every comment should begin life as an outline, not prose. It's not complicated or micromanaging.

1. Small team evaluates the RFC docs and makes a recommendation whether to comment and, if so, what to say (week 1) 2. The WG discusses these recommendations and reaches consensus on them. 3. Drafters turn these recommendation into a draft public comment (week 2) 4. The more ambitious are given a chance to review. (week 3) 5. The ALAC votes. (week 4)

It's really not complicated. Anyone who believes we can hold a "discussion" and consensus call based on a written document is dreaming. Jonathan

------------------------------ *From:* Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 7, 2025 3:07 PM *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc:* Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com>; alac@icann.org < alac@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review

Hi Jonathan

I have to disagree about the role of drafters. In the past the drafters (usually a small team) put together a draft which is the starting point for a discussion to get consensus. If it isn't in the draft how can you know if you have even given people a chance to contribute to a consensus decision. It doesn't help however, when people do not take advantage of the opportunity to contribute a viewpoint, and cry foul when silence has been seen as consent. But our drafting of these submissions seem to start so late (or they hold the public comment over a period when everyone is on holiday and turned off their phones and laptops) so that the community doesn't really get a chance to contribute to any consensus. So that isn't the fault of the drafter. It is all becoming so confusing about the different roles and being so specific about categories of participation in submissions when it is probably just a small team who are putting in all the effort.. People are giving up their time to do this work and being micro-managed makes it hard for people to be all encompassing in their submission contributions to make sure they cover everyone's perspectives.

Maureen

Maureen.

On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 12:19 PM Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Hey Pari, I can see how that would be frustrating and we'll need to create some rules around that or really limit he number of drafters. Part of the problem that I am trying to highlight is that the "draft" is not the place for new ideas. That's the job of the reviewers who run those ideas by the WG. The drafters are ONLY meant to take the consensus points and flesh them out. We have a whole procedure for requesting additional funding (AFRs) that includes proposals, consensus and inclusion in budget commentary. One can't simply start asking for money in the prose of a comment.

While I think the overwrite problem, you describe, would not be eliminated, it would definitely be mitigated by removing any new concepts from the drafting process.

Jonathan

------------------------------ *From:* Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 7, 2025 10:48 AM *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc:* Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com>; alac@icann.org < alac@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your response and your willingness to address these concerns. I want to clarify that my email was not an accusation against any community member, for whom I have great respect.

My concern is with the structure of our current system, where anyone with a link can suggest changes while multiple roles—reviewers, penholders, commenters, and shepherds—have editing rights. This creates confusion and a lack of accountability. I raised this issue in December and January, yet my input went unacknowledged. It could have been resolved in minutes, but the lack of responsiveness remains the bigger issue.

Additionally, my comments on task assignments and credit recognition are about fostering effective community engagement. Volunteer availability naturally varies, and participation should be a choice, not an obligation, to prevent undue burden on active members. A strong community relies on clear communication, recognition, inclusivity, and fairness, ensuring all voices are heard and valued.

I appreciate your openness to discussing this further and look forward to working toward a more structured approach.

Best, Pari

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Joanna and all, Thanks for your feedback on this issue. Perhaps we should have a dedicated discussion in Seattle on the topic of volunteer participation. The issue of credit being taken by those who only superficially participate has been a long-standing issue and has included some who are now complaining so sometimes it makes my head spin. It's a bit of a vicious circle when folks do not participate but complain when they are no longer asked to do so.

I guess my issue, in this particular case, is that we weren't answering the questions which were being asked. At any point, had the small team looked at the RFC and the form that was created, this would have been evident. Was it someone else's responsibility to catch this? I don't know. All I know is that it was a fact that yes, I corrected in an uncomfortable way, at the last minute. The only alternative I saw, at that point, was NOT to correct it and that seemed like a worse outcome from a community wide perspective. To tie this up as an instance of top-down leadership or a lack of appreciation for anyone's effort is to miss the point entirely. At ANY point it looks as though we are about to embarrass ourselves, it seems prudent to act, regardless of how we got there.

This has opened a bunch of wounds that we should definitely address and i stand ready to address them. NO ONE is a bigger fan of metrics than me so let's dive in, once again. Jonathan

------------------------------ *From:* Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:25 AM *To:* Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> *Cc:* alac@icann.org <alac@icann.org> *Subject:* [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review

Dear Johnathan and all,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and valuable feedback. I am pleased to see that the concerns raised by Maureen, Marita, and I have been well received and are now recognized within the broader community.

While I remain committed to continuous improvement and collaboration, I would like to address a point raised by Pari, Alfredo, and Hadia that reflects a larger issue within our community. It has become increasingly evident that those who contribute the least are the quickest to claim credit for the efforts of others. This "cry wolf" mentality not only diminishes the value of genuine contributions but also discourages the very spirit of collaboration that we all strive to foster. It is critical that we recognize and correct this behavior to maintain the integrity of our work.

Many of us have invested considerable time and energy into community development and capacity-building initiatives. However, it is increasingly disheartening to see these efforts undermined by individuals who, rather than contributing in good faith, instead piggyback on the hard work of others. This situation is no longer tenable, as it discourages genuine contributions and rewards opportunistic behaviors that are both unfair and unethical.

We not only need metrics to track contributions effectively, but we also need concrete measures to discourage those who fail to act in good faith and instead rely on corporate-like practices to advance with minimal actual input. Such practices undermine the collaborative spirit that our community should be built on.

However, we cannot tackle this challenge alone. To ensure that the At-Large community remains collegial, transparent, and grounded in good faith, it is essential that we receive guidance and support from ICANN org. Only through collective action can we create an environment where genuine efforts are recognized, and unethical practices are appropriately addressed.

I look forward to discussing how we can move forward together in addressing these issues and ensuring the continued integrity of our community.

Warm regards,

Joanna

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 15:57, Judith Hellerstein via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Hi All, It seems this conversation is moving from one of CIP to one on all issues. I agree that staff have not been explaining the new process well and that has contributed to the confusion around. The idea of reviewers is new and it is also new that these persons give the first presentation. This is new process and not fully explained and is confusing but it is totally a different issue than what happened at the CIP public comment. The two should not be joined together in one discussion. They need to have two separate discussions. Pari’s issue is very different and needs its own separate discussion and should be discussed in another email.

The problem with the CIP issue is that a google form was set up and set up with all the separate questions with separate sections for each sub part and so the volunteers spent the time filling that out. Later it was decided that that approach was wrong and that only the first 4 questions would be answered. This was done after the vote was announced and many people on ALAC approved the statement. That was wrong.

The statement was then changed which discounted the many hours volunteers had worked on it and changed to something that the volunteers who had spent the time writing it did not approve. That is the issue we are talking about and we should not confuse these issues.

How to prevent this process is the topic. Let’s try and stick to this topic

Judith Sent from my iPad judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:JudithHellerstein

On Feb 6, 2025, at 8:01 AM, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:



Dear ALAC Colleagues,

I would like to echo the concerns raised by the small team and others and share my own frustration over the continued lack of transparency in our policy processes and the disregard for volunteer contributions.

After dedicating a full week to reading relevant material and drafting a response that I inserted in the Google document - ICANN FY26-30 Operating & Finacial Plan, ICANN IANA FY26 Operating Plans and Budgets.

in suggestion mode, I was dismayed to find my name removed and my input edited—without any discussion or consultation. This is not an isolated incident. Despite raising similar concerns in December and January, no meaningful action has been taken, discouraging volunteers from further engagement.

Our current document management system lacks fundamental safeguards:

- Anyone with a link can edit freely, creating an unstructured and unaccountable process. - No clear version control or discussion precedes changes. - A proper system should allow open viewing, designated members to comment in suggestion mode, and editing only after collective review.

Additionally, other troubling practices—such as assigning tasks to volunteers without their consent, which burdens others with follow-ups, and granting undue credit that alienates genuine contributors—only create the illusion of engagement rather than fostering true participation. While these actions may be well-intended, they undermine trust and diminish meaningful involvement.

These issues—unstructured processes, performative engagement, and dismissive, top-down leadership—threaten the integrity of the multistakeholder model from within. A volunteer-driven community thrives on transparency, respect, and inclusion, not opaque decision-making and anonymous interventions.

I urge leadership to take immediate steps to implement structured, fair, and transparent processes that respect the time, effort, and autonomy of all contributors.

Best regards, Pari

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:37 AM Alfredo Calderon via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Natalia,

I have to agree with the key points outlined by other community members. Something is happening that is discouraging some of us to feel more engaged as volunteers in the community of At-Large.

Is it transparency, efficiency or clarity on the definitions of policy comments or even openness when some announcements for EOI or SOI arise? Let’s correct these issues, and as mentioned by others the CIP is a great opportunity to rectify and improve our community.

The next generation to engage in At-Large needs to have a clear idea of what is done and how his/her contributions “could” improve on the work done as volunteers.

Let’s start a conversation as mentioned by Natalia.

Alfredo Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52 Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: https://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com VSIG: Virtual School on Internet Governance - https://virtualsig.org

On Feb 6, 2025, at 3:02 AM, Natalia Filina via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:



Hello all,

Dear, Joanna, Maureen, Marita. Thank you for the work you have done. As a participant of the CIP I see in it a real opportunity for our improvement (on RALO level and in the At-Large - ALAC interaction we all are so waiting for). Your analysis and comments on CIP construction is professional and valuable. And the situation with the doc and records is ugly. Dear At-Large colleagues, Isn't it?

I would support you, ladies and follow Abdulkarim's message. We have changed (looks like cancelled without community's decision) a lot in our approaches to consolidated work, to respect volunteer work, to take into account the opinion of the community, to transparency and accountability and responsibility. Unfortunately and definitely, as a result, there is a lack of motivation and active participation in the work, less bottom-up components, fewer and fewer expectations of taking into account At-Large as a main and only one source of... Everithing for ALAC - expertise, energy, feedback from the local community etc, ideas, knowledge etc.

That's why - silence here, people (volunteers especially) working where they trust. We have to go to our classic way to build the community together. Maybe this situation will help us to wake up?

Sincerely, Natalia Filina

Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo

IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member

DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣

+7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia

чт, 6 февр. 2025 г., 09:09 Abdulkarim Oloyede via ALAC <alac@icann.org>:

Dear all

Transparency and accountability within ALAC have long been an issue because we have refused to address most of the root causes, among which are some individuals treating ALAC as their full-time responsibility(Job), imposing their way as the ONLY way. Unfortunately, many have chosen to remain silent. While I am not surprised by these events, what truly surprises me is the overwhelming silence in the face of it. Maybe we are all growing older like myself and have decided to allow everything to slide.

I see this as yet another wake-up call for us to confront these issues. I know this will likely be swept under the carpet, as usual, with the Chair offering a vague explanation without addressing the real issue because ......( i complete this another day). However, we must strive to emulate other SOs and ACs within ICANN, where transparency and openness are upheld. There are many better examples we can follow.

Each time I reflect on ALAC and my time, it pains me deeply.

*Prof. A. A. Oloyede*. *Full Professor of Wireless Telecommunications* *Department of Telecommunications Science, University of Ilorin, Nigeria* *Director, Centre for Research Development and In-House Training (CREDIT) University of Ilorin, Nigeria*

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:41 AM Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Dear ALAC Colleagues,

I hope this message finds you well.

As agreed during the OFB meeting last Thursday, I am sending you a formal, detailed review of the CIP comment drafting timeline, which has been prepared by the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and myself (Joanna Kulesza, undersigned below, currently serving as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC) attached to this message. In response to the request made, we have provided a comprehensive recap of the events surrounding the development of this document.

You can find the original document, as submitted by the drafting team for the ALAC vote, also attached for your review. This document includes all the recommendations that resulted from the inclusive and open process, which has been the standard for developing consensus within the At-Large community.

We would like to express once again our continuing disappointment with the processes that have accompanied the drafting of this document, in particular the lack of transparency and accountability that has been identified. We hope that this difficult situation will serve as a catalyst for improving internal procedures to promote greater transparency and clearer accountability mechanisms for all those involved in the preparation of At-Large documents. Ultimately, we seek real progress — not just 'continuous' effort - in improving the multi-stakeholder model for decision making within the ICANN community and, in particular, for the benefit of the unique end-user community whose interests we aspire to represent.

We look forward to continuing our work together to address these important issues.

Best regards,

Joanna Kulesza

(on behalf of the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and Joanna Kulesza) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> HelpDesk <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-re...>

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Dear Judith, I appreciate your perspective, but I must respectfully disagree. This is precisely an example of an autonomous action taken without consultation, which is at the core of my concerns. The decision on where and how to present my concerns is mine alone as the author of the comment. While you are, of course, welcome to express your own views, unilaterally starting a new thread on my concerns, exemplifies the very issue I am raising. Best, Pari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 3:12 PM Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:

Hi all

Since Pari’s topic is a separate issue it deserves its own thread. I agree that staff have not been explaining the new approach to public comments well and that has contributed to the confusion around. People who have written public comments before followed the same process as they had before as no one had told them anything was changed. Adding in Reviewers and commenters to the process without fully explaining what they are doing and how they are different from pen holders is contributing to the problem.

Since idea of reviewers is new and it is also new that these persons give the first presentation. Itis very confusing as the pen holders are then thrust into the spotlight and as they see on the agenda that a presentation needs to be made in a few days. It breeds confusion and contributes to the issues Pari mentioned.

In her case, her contributions were not erased they were just moved around. Credit was given to both people who significantly contributed to the drafting. Normally when an item is presented to ALAC the comments are accepted and a clean document is presented and this was the misunderstanding as the presentation was only given by the reviewer and not by the pen holder.

The Budget and operating plans are often voluminous and many hours are spent reading the document seeing what was said in the past and crafting a well organized response. Moving sections around to make the points more cogently and readable is normal. To say that all the work was not used and that the person who made these changes is at fault is wrong as it puts the blame on that person. All the person did was reorganize the sections, make them more readable, and avoid duplicative ideas.

The Pen holders should have editing rights but normally only clean up the document before it is being presented. With this new system it is confusing on which stage that occurs. There are several presentations and so that may result in confusion on when the pen holder should clean up the document. However, once the system is clearly understood than Ithink there will be less problems.

I repeat these issues are very different than what happened in the CIP case and the two should not be conjoined together.

Best, Judith

Sent from my iPad judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:JudithHellerstein

On Feb 6, 2025, at 8:01 AM, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:



Dear ALAC Colleagues,

I would like to echo the concerns raised by the small team and others and share my own frustration over the continued lack of transparency in our policy processes and the disregard for volunteer contributions.

After dedicating a full week to reading relevant material and drafting a response that I inserted in the Google document - ICANN FY26-30 Operating & Finacial Plan, ICANN IANA FY26 Operating Plans and Budgets.

in suggestion mode, I was dismayed to find my name removed and my input edited—without any discussion or consultation. This is not an isolated incident. Despite raising similar concerns in December and January, no meaningful action has been taken, discouraging volunteers from further engagement.

Our current document management system lacks fundamental safeguards:

- Anyone with a link can edit freely, creating an unstructured and unaccountable process. - No clear version control or discussion precedes changes. - A proper system should allow open viewing, designated members to comment in suggestion mode, and editing only after collective review.

Additionally, other troubling practices—such as assigning tasks to volunteers without their consent, which burdens others with follow-ups, and granting undue credit that alienates genuine contributors—only create the illusion of engagement rather than fostering true participation. While these actions may be well-intended, they undermine trust and diminish meaningful involvement.

These issues—unstructured processes, performative engagement, and dismissive, top-down leadership—threaten the integrity of the multistakeholder model from within. A volunteer-driven community thrives on transparency, respect, and inclusion, not opaque decision-making and anonymous interventions.

I urge leadership to take immediate steps to implement structured, fair, and transparent processes that respect the time, effort, and autonomy of all contributors.

Best regards, Pari

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:37 AM Alfredo Calderon via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear Natalia,

I have to agree with the key points outlined by other community members. Something is happening that is discouraging some of us to feel more engaged as volunteers in the community of At-Large.

Is it transparency, efficiency or clarity on the definitions of policy comments or even openness when some announcements for EOI or SOI arise? Let’s correct these issues, and as mentioned by others the CIP is a great opportunity to rectify and improve our community.

The next generation to engage in At-Large needs to have a clear idea of what is done and how his/her contributions “could” improve on the work done as volunteers.

Let’s start a conversation as mentioned by Natalia.

Alfredo Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52 Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: https://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com VSIG: Virtual School on Internet Governance - https://virtualsig.org

On Feb 6, 2025, at 3:02 AM, Natalia Filina via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:



Hello all,

Dear, Joanna, Maureen, Marita. Thank you for the work you have done. As a participant of the CIP I see in it a real opportunity for our improvement (on RALO level and in the At-Large - ALAC interaction we all are so waiting for). Your analysis and comments on CIP construction is professional and valuable. And the situation with the doc and records is ugly. Dear At-Large colleagues, Isn't it?

I would support you, ladies and follow Abdulkarim's message. We have changed (looks like cancelled without community's decision) a lot in our approaches to consolidated work, to respect volunteer work, to take into account the opinion of the community, to transparency and accountability and responsibility. Unfortunately and definitely, as a result, there is a lack of motivation and active participation in the work, less bottom-up components, fewer and fewer expectations of taking into account At-Large as a main and only one source of... Everithing for ALAC - expertise, energy, feedback from the local community etc, ideas, knowledge etc.

That's why - silence here, people (volunteers especially) working where they trust. We have to go to our classic way to build the community together. Maybe this situation will help us to wake up?

Sincerely, Natalia Filina

Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo

IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member

DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣

+7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia

чт, 6 февр. 2025 г., 09:09 Abdulkarim Oloyede via ALAC <alac@icann.org>:

...

Dear all

Transparency and accountability within ALAC have long been an issue because we have refused to address most of the root causes, among which are some individuals treating ALAC as their full-time responsibility(Job), imposing their way as the ONLY way. Unfortunately, many have chosen to remain silent. While I am not surprised by these events, what truly surprises me is the overwhelming silence in the face of it. Maybe we are all growing older like myself and have decided to allow everything to slide.

I see this as yet another wake-up call for us to confront these issues. I know this will likely be swept under the carpet, as usual, with the Chair offering a vague explanation without addressing the real issue because ......( i complete this another day). However, we must strive to emulate other SOs and ACs within ICANN, where transparency and openness are upheld. There are many better examples we can follow.

Each time I reflect on ALAC and my time, it pains me deeply.

*Prof. A. A. Oloyede*. *Full Professor of Wireless Telecommunications* *Department of Telecommunications Science, University of Ilorin, Nigeria* *Director, Centre for Research Development and In-House Training (CREDIT) University of Ilorin, Nigeria*

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:41 AM Joanna Kulesza via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear ALAC Colleagues,

I hope this message finds you well.

As agreed during the OFB meeting last Thursday, I am sending you a formal, detailed review of the CIP comment drafting timeline, which has been prepared by the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and myself (Joanna Kulesza, undersigned below, currently serving as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC) attached to this message. In response to the request made, we have provided a comprehensive recap of the events surrounding the development of this document.

You can find the original document, as submitted by the drafting team for the ALAC vote, also attached for your review. This document includes all the recommendations that resulted from the inclusive and open process, which has been the standard for developing consensus within the At-Large community.

We would like to express once again our continuing disappointment with the processes that have accompanied the drafting of this document, in particular the lack of transparency and accountability that has been identified. We hope that this difficult situation will serve as a catalyst for improving internal procedures to promote greater transparency and clearer accountability mechanisms for all those involved in the preparation of At-Large documents. Ultimately, we seek real progress — not just 'continuous' effort - in improving the multi-stakeholder model for decision making within the ICANN community and, in particular, for the benefit of the unique end-user community whose interests we aspire to represent.

We look forward to continuing our work together to address these important issues.

Best regards,

Joanna Kulesza

(on behalf of the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and Joanna Kulesza) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> HelpDesk <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-re...>

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)

Hi Bill, That’s a great idea, and here’s a common practice that might help streamline access control. Google Docs has two key access settings: 1. *General Access* – Currently, it is set to *"Anyone with the link,"* which is fine. However, within this setting, there are three options: *Viewer, Commenter, and Editor.* Right now, our documents are inconsistently set to either *Commenter* or *Editor* access. *I suggest we standardize this to "Viewer" to ensure consistency and prevent unintended modifications.* 2. *People with Access* – To create a clear structure, I propose the following: - *Penholders* → *Commenter access* - *Shepherd* → *Editor access* This setup ensures that only designated individuals can edit while maintaining transparency and preventing accidental deletions. Would love to hear everyone’s thoughts—any suggestions or refinements? Cheers, Pari On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 5:42 PM Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Pari,

Let me offer a structural/process suggestion. My experience is that anyone accessing one of our Google docs is, by default, in EDIT mode. Which means they can delete anybody else's contribution. It would help if the default was SUGGEST mode, with only the pen holder allowed to Edit.

Not a perfect solution to the lack of transparency. But at least a step forward, as it would be clear who was making deletions.

Bill Jouris

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 5:01 AM, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)

I agree with Judith on this and would add that penholders are ultimately responsible for getting the work done, which includes preparing draft documents, presenting and discussing them with the community, and finalizing the draft to be submitted to ALAC for final approval. Anyone else should be able to comment. Shepherds provide guidance throughout this process. Therefore, penholders have edit access, while anyone else has comment-only access. -ed On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 4:28 PM Judith Hellerstein via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Hi all Thanks for these comments. I think the pen holders should have edit access and everyone else should have commenter access. The Shepard , in my opinion, is to give guidance to the pen holders and the commenters. They set the tone for the report.

Judith Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 9, 2025, at 12:42 PM, Bill Jouris via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

 Hi Pari,

Let me offer a structural/process suggestion. My experience is that anyone accessing one of our Google docs is, by default, in EDIT mode. Which means they can delete anybody else's contribution. It would help if the default was SUGGEST mode, with only the pen holder allowed to Edit.

Not a perfect solution to the lack of transparency. But at least a step forward, as it would be clear who was making deletions.

Bill Jouris

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 5:01 AM, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- *Notice*: This email may contain confidential information, is subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

Dear all, I fully support Maureen’s point that one person should coordinate the process. However, regarding penholders' editorial rights, I want to highlight why this discussion started. Recently, after dedicating over a week of full-time work on a document, I inserted six pages of review in *suggestion mode*. Another penholder, without any consultation, accepted my changes using *editing mode*, making it unclear who had done that work. She then inserted additional paragraphs and even modified my writing. Since these changes were made in edit mode, I could no longer see what had been altered and whether I agreed with it or not, unless I went through the entire document—a very time-consuming process. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered such an issue. As this illustrates, if all penholders have editing rights, we lose track of who contributed what, how much effort each person put in, and who is saying what. To ensure transparency and accountability, all penholders should remain in *suggestion mode*, with only one designated person having editing rights—exercised only at the final stage after we reach an agreement. This approach safeguards everyone's work and ensures a fair, collaborative process. Looking forward to your thoughts. Cheers, Pari On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 1:05 PM Maureen Hilyard via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Hi all It is a great CI process that we are discussing here, but a necessary one. It is important that there is one person coordinating all the activities, and it should be the shepherd (if we are going to use these terms) who brings commentary contributions to the attention of the OFB team. It is important to keep comments on the google doc where they can be resolved during the weekly discussions and decisions made according to consensus. Only penholders should have editorial rights. Maureen

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 2:38 AM Eduardo Diaz via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

...

I agree with Judith on this and would add that penholders are ultimately responsible for getting the work done, which includes preparing draft documents, presenting and discussing them with the community, and finalizing the draft to be submitted to ALAC for final approval. Anyone else should be able to comment. Shepherds provide guidance throughout this process. Therefore, penholders have edit access, while anyone else has comment-only access.

-ed

On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 4:28 PM Judith Hellerstein via ALAC < alac@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hi all Thanks for these comments. I think the pen holders should have edit access and everyone else should have commenter access. The Shepard , in my opinion, is to give guidance to the pen holders and the commenters. They set the tone for the report.

Judith Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 9, 2025, at 12:42 PM, Bill Jouris via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

 Hi Pari,

Let me offer a structural/process suggestion. My experience is that anyone accessing one of our Google docs is, by default, in EDIT mode. Which means they can delete anybody else's contribution. It would help if the default was SUGGEST mode, with only the pen holder allowed to Edit.

Not a perfect solution to the lack of transparency. But at least a step forward, as it would be clear who was making deletions.

Bill Jouris

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 5:01 AM, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- *Notice*: This email may contain confidential information, is subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)

Absolutely right Pari. I totally agree with your suggestion not to allow editing only at the end, for the final penholder or even the staff to collect the approved suggestions and incorporate them at the final document. Kisses to all Vanda Scartezini DNS WOMEN Sao Paulo, Brazil + 55 11 98181-1464 Vanda@Scartezini.org www.dnswomen.org From: Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org> Date: Monday, 10 February 2025 at 19:03 To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: alac@icann.org <alac@icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review Dear all, I fully support Maureen’s point that one person should coordinate the process. However, regarding penholders' editorial rights, I want to highlight why this discussion started. Recently, after dedicating over a week of full-time work on a document, I inserted six pages of review in suggestion mode. Another penholder, without any consultation, accepted my changes using editing mode, making it unclear who had done that work. She then inserted additional paragraphs and even modified my writing. Since these changes were made in edit mode, I could no longer see what had been altered and whether I agreed with it or not, unless I went through the entire document—a very time-consuming process. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered such an issue. As this illustrates, if all penholders have editing rights, we lose track of who contributed what, how much effort each person put in, and who is saying what. To ensure transparency and accountability, all penholders should remain in suggestion mode, with only one designated person having editing rights—exercised only at the final stage after we reach an agreement. This approach safeguards everyone's work and ensures a fair, collaborative process. Looking forward to your thoughts. Cheers, Pari On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 1:05 PM Maureen Hilyard via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all It is a great CI process that we are discussing here, but a necessary one. It is important that there is one person coordinating all the activities, and it should be the shepherd (if we are going to use these terms) who brings commentary contributions to the attention of the OFB team. It is important to keep comments on the google doc where they can be resolved during the weekly discussions and decisions made according to consensus. Only penholders should have editorial rights. Maureen On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 2:38 AM Eduardo Diaz via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: I agree with Judith on this and would add that penholders are ultimately responsible for getting the work done, which includes preparing draft documents, presenting and discussing them with the community, and finalizing the draft to be submitted to ALAC for final approval. Anyone else should be able to comment. Shepherds provide guidance throughout this process. Therefore, penholders have edit access, while anyone else has comment-only access. -ed On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 4:28 PM Judith Hellerstein via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all Thanks for these comments. I think the pen holders should have edit access and everyone else should have commenter access. The Shepard , in my opinion, is to give guidance to the pen holders and the commenters. They set the tone for the report. Judith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 9, 2025, at 12:42 PM, Bill Jouris via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote:  Hi Pari, Let me offer a structural/process suggestion. My experience is that anyone accessing one of our Google docs is, by default, in EDIT mode. Which means they can delete anybody else's contribution. It would help if the default was SUGGEST mode, with only the pen holder allowed to Edit. Not a perfect solution to the lack of transparency. But at least a step forward, as it would be clear who was making deletions. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 5:01 AM, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Notice: This email may contain confidential information, is subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)