June 2007 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 20, 2007

June 20, 2007

Dear Wendy: Since you have seen fit to deal with the situation with respect to your travel in the most public way possible, and because you have made serious and unsubstantiated allegations about the role of the staff in ‘manipulating the travel policy to exclude participation’, this response is being sent to the public At-Large list. May I take this opportunity to state that I take no pleasure whatever in having to send such communications and I would have preferred that the matter be dealt with in a normal way between those directly concerned instead. Since you were informed that you would not receive travel support because you didn’t book your tickets in the allotted time, you have: Accused the staff, in public email communications, of deliberately manipulating the travel policy to exclude participation in San Juan. Considering the amount of funding which ICANN provides to the At- Large community to attend ICANN meetings year in and year out - and considering that you personally have been supported for something like five years to attend three meetings a year, this accusation is unhelpful, inflammatory, and untrue. You have chosen to make untrue statements that you had complied with the travel deadlines on several occasions when that was demonstrably not the case. As is clear from the chronology of your contacts with American Express that you have not disputed, you had repeated opportunities to book your travel in the time provided and American Express repeatedly offered to help you – you on several occasions told them you were not ready to be ticketed yet. You have suggested that ‘policies’ about the amount of time for booking your tickets were ‘hidden’ when you were clearly aware of them. You replied to the email that contained them. Suggesting that the email that contained the travel deadlines from the vendor was somehow hidden when you as well as everyone else were notified by me that you could expect an email from American Express containing details of how and when to arrange your flights “within 24 hours” (email of 31st May). Suggested that you were somehow not able to use ‘the full period’ to book your travel when that is demonstrably not true. Suggested that the travel vendor failed to call you or follow up with you on public email lists when in fact you didn’t ask them to call you, and when they followed up with you the next day, you did not indicate that they should have called you – and in fact told them that you were not yet ready to book your travel. Your representation of the travel system is inaccurate, the accusations made against members of the ICANN staff are untrue and alleged incompetence in the actions of the travel vendor belied by the detailed record of communication between you and Amex. The result of the inaccurate and inflammatory statements you have made, as well as the very public way in which you have chosen to present them, is that a great deal of time and energy has been consumed by several people in and out of ICANN on a matter that should have been a straightforward decision based upon facts. This has resulted in time that could have been spent on providing services to the whole community being spent instead on this matter. As a community leader, it seems to me that you are meant to be helping the community help itself, not providing opportunities to waste the time of staff and of others and making untrue and inflammatory statements which require time to be spent correcting the record. Out of a total of 40 people attending the San Juan meeting, of which 35 used the American Express service, you are the only person who didn’t manage to make the arrangements in time. There were no other complaints about not having enough time to make arrangements – on the contrary, everyone else was done in good time – in spite of the fact that as previously mentioned, many had far more complex itineraries than yours would have been. The reality of having so many people travel with support from ICANN from this community is that there must be some reasonable rules regarding travel support – otherwise fewer people will get to attend meetings. It would be entirely reasonable for us to stand by our previous decision and uphold the rules as they were written – rules that everyone else managed to follow. However, upon reflection and taking particularly into account the wish of a number of your ALAC colleagues that the rules be bent in your favour, what we are prepared to do, on a one-time basis, is to reimburse you for an amount up to what the ticket could have been purchased for on the 8th on the airline of your choice and flight time windows, both of which you indicated as your preferences to American Express. If you choose to attend the San Juan meeting, please provide your airfare receipt with an expense claim and you will be reimbursed for up to US$883.00. Please let us know within 48 hours if you are intending to avail yourself of this offer and provide a copy of your itinerary so we can make the requisite hotel arrangements. To remind you, if you do attend, per-diems will cover a period of not longer than 23 – 29 June inclusive (meaning departure from San Juan on the 30th). I hope very much that this will be the end of this episode – and that you will address any remaining concerns to me and eschew opportunities for further public airing of matters related to your travel arrangements. ---- Chronology of W Seltzer’s Contacts with American Express Travel Desk. · May 31 - Original email sent to traveller · June 1 616 a - Ms Seltzer responds that she is out of the office until the 4th . She does add her phone number, but does not specifically request a verbal phone call and since this is an international reservation, our agents responded via email. · June 1-11:45a - agent response with email that she looks forward to her response on Monday. · June 4 3 :58p- agent does not hear back from traveller and sends a courtesy reminder, requesting verification of carrier and flights · June 4 4: 28p - Ms Seltzer responds that she is not ready to ticket. June 8 11:45a- Received request for alternate flights- we did not have the opportunity to get back to her on Friday. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

5 5

Update to the ALAC page at http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 20, 2007

June 20, 2007

I have updated a lot of the above page - there are now pages for the past members in an organised way (hopefully nobody is missing; if they are they can be added if they send a bio and note to me). The photos sent recently haven't yet been included - if current members wish to send a photo for their bio page, please feel free. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Draft document on GNSO review posted
by Vittorio Bertola June 19, 2007

June 19, 2007

The GNSO Review Working Group of the ICANN Board, of which I am a member, has posted an initial working document about possible changes in the structure and procedures of the GNSO: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19jun07.htm The document is the result of several weeks of discussion among the working group members, drawing on the external review of the GNSO released last year by the London School of Economics, and on other inputs and considerations. It is not a draft report, but rather a document that examines some of the rationales and possible consequences for implementing the LSE recommendations. One of the main threads of thoughts emerging from this work is the desire to reduce the internal controversies in the GNSO, by moving from policy discussions that are shaped by the constituency structure and focused on attempts to outvote each other on competing proposals to a consensus-based online working group model much similar to the ones adopted by the IETF or the W3C. Personally, I think that the GNSO Council should keep a role of oversight and strategizing, but policy should be discussed in open working groups that aim at promoting and reaching rough consensus, if not full consensus, among all participants. The document also raises again the long-standing issue of a possible new Individual Registrants Constituency in the GNSO, which would in my opinion be a good addition, even if of course its relationship with the ALAC should be studied. Generally speaking, the membership and internal rules of all constituencies should become more transparent and accountable. Moreover, the document discusses the possibility of collapsing the constituencies into four broad groupings - registries, registrars, business users and non-commercial users - that would then be sub-divided in the individual constituencies. This is just a first step to foster the discussion online and in person, at a workshop that will be held in San Juan. I encourage people to read the full document and submit comments. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

FW: [NA-Discuss] GNSO Recommendations on New TLDs
by Jacqueline A. Morris June 19, 2007

June 19, 2007

The GNSO Committee investigating the requirements associated with the roll-out of new gTLDs has published its recommendations (in two parts). http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/pdp-dec05-fr-a-18jun07.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/pdp-dec05-fr-b-18jun07.pdf No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

1 0

Briefing on the time commitment for Board Liaison
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

Dear All: Since the board liaison is to be elected as you know after this ICANN meeting, I thought it might be useful to provide some detail on the very considerable commitment which the successful candidate would be committing to fulfilling. ---- At-Large Advisory Committee Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN Summary of Time Commitment From the perspective of the time commitment required, the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board requires the greatest commitment of any At- Large community position. This note is meant to provide an indicator of the requirements for those interested in serving in this challenging and interesting post. It is important to note that unlike or other positions within the At- Large community where the amount of time spent on At-Large commitments is entirely voluntary and even ALAC members are not required to spend a certain amount of time "working" each week or month, board members are expected to remain engaged and work on a consistent basis - if you fail to "keep up" you will get persistent lobbying to work harder / more. In addition to the time commitments with respect to the Board itself, the Liaison will also need to participate in the mailing lists of the community, providing reports on board activities and soliciting advice from the community for input to the Board. MONTHLY COMMITMENTS: Teleconferences: Main Board: 1 monthly for 2 hours ALAC: 1 monthly for 2 hours Preparing written submissions: 1-2 hours TOTAL MONTHLY COMMITMENTS: 5 - 6 Hours WEEKLY COMMITMENTS: Teleconferences: Board WGs: 1 weekly for 2 hours Mailing list reading/correspondence: Board: 3 hours/week ALAC: 2 hours/week Reading Reports / Responding to Reports or non-email communications: for Board: 5 hours per week for ALAC: 2 hours per week TOTAL HOURS PER WEEK: 14 hours TOTAL HOURS PER MONTH: (WEEK*4+MONTH): 56 - 57 hours FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS: 3x ICANN meetings: 7-8 days away incl. travel 3 times per year = 21 - 24 days / year 2x Board retreats: 3-5 days away incl travel 2 times per year = 6 - 10 days / year TOTAL DAYS FACE-TO-FACE: 27 - 34 days / year -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Nomination for Board Liaison - Wolfgang Kleinwächter
by Jacqueline A. Morris June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

I nominate Wolfgang Kleinwächter as a candidate for Board Liaison. Prof Kleinwächter has been active in Internet Governance for many years. He was a member of the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance, has been instrumental in creating the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GIGANET) and has been involved in ICANN processes for many years (see attached document) He is a member of the EURALO. As Board Liaison, he will: * raise a voice clearly in support for the interests of individual Internet users in open and closed board meetings and * keep a close and regular contact to the members of the ALAC, consult with them on all relevant issues and report back from official and unofficial Board meetings. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007 8:23 AM

7 12

Re: [At-Large] Board liaison - What's the process to be selected ..?
by Roberto Gaetano June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

Sorry, disregard my previous posting, I have read again the rules and the mechanism is very clear. I am also under the impression that the vote should be with secret ballot, but before saying other sillynesses, I wait for the authoritative opinion of staff. Cheers, Roberto > -----Original Message----- > From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@icann.org] > Sent: 18 June 2007 18:38 > To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Robert Guerra' > Cc: 'At-large Worldwide' > Subject: RE: [At-Large] Board liaison - What's the process to > be selected ..? > > > > > > Given the high-contested election, I do have a preference > for a secret > > ballot to minimize bad feelings, and to ensure that people vote for > > who they believe is the best candidate instead of who they may feel > > they have to visibly support. > > > Just to make sure that everybody has the same understanding, > the result might differ if every member can only vote for one > person, or whether there will be a multiple vote with ranking. > Also, even in the case of one vote, how are the results to be > dealt with? The one who gets more votes? Or are there going > to be rounds, with elimination of the candidate with less votes? > > Having just witnessed the problems in running an EURALO > election where the rules where changed during the vote, may I > strongly recommend to set the rules in advance, even if it > might take some additional time. After all, the new Liaison > only takes office at the end of October. > > Cheers, > Roberto >

1 0

Soccer in Puerto Rico...NO! We will have Volleyball!!!
by José Ovidio Salgueiro A. June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

Erick asked me to forward this information. Lets play volleyball José Ovidio Salgueiro A. jsalgueiro(a)cantv.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Erick Iriarte Ahon To: jsalgueiro(a)cantv.net Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:52 AM Subject: Fwd: Soccer in Puerto Rico...NO! We will have Volleyball!!! >Hi People > >We change our sport, from Soccer to Volleyball >in the Beach. The Sport and Recreation Secretary >from the Puerto Rico Government and the NIC >Puerto Rico is organizing the Tournament. > >Date: >June 26, Time > >Place: >Hotel Hilton private beach. > >Rules: >- Each team need a name and a liason. >- 6 players per team in field > >We hope almost 6 teams. > >Ball, arbitrators, medical support and cocktail are confirmed. > >Contact Person: >Erick Iriarte Ahon - eiriarte(a)alfa-redi.org >Pablo Rodriguez - pablo(a)nic.pr > >I hope to see all you in the tournament. > >Erick

1 0

Nominations open for ALAC Board Liaison 2007-2008
by Jacqueline A. Morris June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

The ALAC is currently accepting nominations for Board Liaison. Timeline: Nominations will be open from today for 2 weeks, until June 18th at midnight GMT. We have 1 week after that for the nominated persons to indicate their acceptance of the nominations (until June 25th) and we will discuss the nominations in San Juan. Voting by the ALAC will be held immediately after the discussions end. The result will be posted to the public ALAC list after the vote closes. The new Board Liaison will take up his/her position at the end of the AGM in Marina Del Rey in October 2007. Nominations are to be made to the public ALAC list - HYPERLINK "mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org"alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org. The Board Liaison will serve for a term of one year starting from the closure of an Annual General Meeting and ending at the closure of the following Annual General Meeting. Criteria for Board Liaison: · Shall normally be a person who is a current or former member of the ALAC, or is familiar with the activities and functioning of ICANN and of the ALAC; · Shall accept to serve on behalf of the ALAC by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, but also recognizing difference and enabling different opinions to be shared; · Shall accept, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, to put the collective views of the Committee always in front of their own. Any questions can be addressed to me or to staff(a)alac.icann.org. Sincerely Jacqueline A. Morris ALAC Chair No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.7/830 - Release Date: 6/3/2007 12:47 PM

5 4

ALS Application processing procedures
by Alan Greenberg June 17, 2007

June 17, 2007

Along with the proposed criteria for ALS certification, Nick has proposed a new procedure for processing applications. The procedures can be found at the bottom of https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?lisbon_documents. The current process has been problematic due at least partly because of delays in accepting or rejecting applications. And at least part of that is due to ALAC committee members not acting in a timely manner. The proposed procedures address this in a number of ways that I find problematic. - The procedures rightfully give the three ALAC members from the region and the Regional Secretariat an opportunity to comment on an application from their region (the wording is confusing in that it includes the ALAC members twice). In the past, the rest of the ALAC has put heavy reliance on the opinon from the region. However, the provision ends with "Silence on an application = approval" This is trying to address the problem of ALAC members (and presumably Secretariats in the future) not responding in a timely manner. I find it problematic that the ALAC members, two of whom are selected by the Region, may give a different opinion than the Secretariat. I find it more problematic that if no one in the region (or their reps) are doing their job, it is deemed that they have approved and an application may be accepted inappropriately. - In the past, there have been examples of a Due Diligence (DD) saying that criteria (albeit vaguely defined ones) are met, even when the application says the opposite. The new procedure relies more on DD, and we need to ensure that the process of evaluation by staff is more bullet-proof than before (at least partly by actually formalizing the criteria!). - The proposal calls for approval of an application UNLESS at least 3/4 of the entire ALAC votes No. Assuming that there are at least 12 members on the ALAC at the time, this means that only 4 Yes votes are required to approve, and silence counts as Yes. Stated another way, for a full ALAC of 15, it will take 12 explicit No votes to reject an ALAC. It is quite common for one or more ALAC members to be unavailable or simply unresponsive for any given vote, and under these rules, they are effectively voting Yes. To me, this sounds like for all practical purposes, it will be virtually impossible to reject an ALS application. That makes the ALAC a rubber stamp. Even if there were a case of a region applying their own set of rules to accept "their friends", and even in the face of DD rejecting an application, it will be almost impossible to stop the approval. I am not sure what the proper process should be, but this does not sound like it to me. Alan

2 2