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

Reginoal Advice for ACOULL - DRS
by Mohammed EL Bashir June 16, 2007

June 16, 2007

Dear Afri-ALSs I would like to inform you about a new ALS Application from Africa Which needs regional advice . The Applicant Name : Association COngolaise des Utilisateurs de Logiciels Libres Country : Central Africa -- DRC Web Site : http://www.acoull.org ACOULL is a non profit organization which promote and provide information on Free and Open Source Software, ACOULL is linked to ISOC, AAULL and AfrISPA. your Advice and comments is needed . -- Best Regards, Mohamed El Bashir ICANN ALAC Committee Member Personal Web : www.mbash.net ""Life lies not in never falling, but in rising when you fall." Nelson Mandela 1995, Easten Cape.

1 2

Re: [At-Large] W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue
by Annette Muehlberg June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Dear Jaqueline, I would have loved to be a bit behind on the emails on this ;-) Unfortunately the recent email sent out by Nick (see attached mail below) does not look like a resolution but an escalation of this issue. I would like to ask you as our chair to help to make sure that all ALAC members can take part at the next ICANN Meeting in San Juan - without making them pay any extra fees. In respect to what several ALAC members went through in trying to get there ticket in time (and therefore there visa!!!) over the last years, the issue we are currently dealing with, should have been a minor issue and easy to solve. Sincerely Annette --- >Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy >Von: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >An: "'Annette Muehlberg'" <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de>, "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Datum: 15.06.07 14:55:50 Uhr >Hi Annette >You are a bit behind on the emails on this - Wendy and Nick have been >communicating on the issue and will probably have a resolution in a short >while. >The per diem has been organised - email went out to all already. >There is discussion with ICANN on the other travel issues - it should all >be sorted soon. >Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Annette Muehlberg [mailto:annette.muehlberg@web.de] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 5:24 AM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy All, I really do not understand what is going on here. I do not know if someone made a mistake or not and if so, who made a mistake. I do not think that this is relevant. Mistakes occur and we all have to help out to get things done. We should not spend days and days discussing this, instead staff should just book that flight to make sure that all ALAC members can fulfill their duties at the ICANN Meeting in San Juan. Best regards Annette attached mail > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > Gesendet: 15.06.07 16:11:43 > An: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Doug Brent <doug.brent(a)icann.org> > Betreff: [At-Large] W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue > > 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 Seltzers 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 > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > --

3 2

Add to agenda for teleconf: travel policy to exclude participation
by Wendy Seltzer June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Unless ICANN has dealt with them by the call, I'd like to take 2 minutes to raise my concerns about ridiculous implementation of the new travel policies. So far, I've seen a use of process to exclude participation, which I'd hate to think was ICANN's intent in streamlining its policies. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org

16 38

Registrar research
by Wendy Seltzer June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Members: > > With respect to the research proposed by Wendy, I have the pleasure to > provide you with some information which already exists in relation to > this subject. Some of you may have seen it previously. > > As to the request for the research work, as I mentioned to you on our > teleconference, in order to evaluate the utility of spending the money > to get research of the kind envisaged done, some further information > is needed. > > In particular, a proposal - not long, but a proposal - would be > required, which at a minimum has all the questions the ALAC has in > mind, and also what the ALAC proposes to do with the research data > once it has been gathered. > My suggestions, building upon the request submitted earlier: The At-Large Advisory Committee has heard complaints from individuals about significant divergences among registrars on fees and practices regarding domain name transfer and expired domain name redemption. At least some registrants are not aware of these fees and practices at the time they register names. Before ALAC can analyze whether these fees and practices reflect a problem or the competitive market at work, we would like to get more information about them. We therefore ask staff to develop a plan for surveying accredited registrars on their practices. For each registrar, determine: Transfer-away: Is there a transfer-away fee for registrants to take their domain names to another registrar? If so, what is the fee? Is the transfer-away fee disclosed to the registrant at the time of registration? Where and how is such disclosure made? Is the fee subject to change during the registration period? Can registrants actually get the authcodes required to transfer domains? What is the process to get the authcode, including any fees charged? Redemption: What is the redemption fee for an expired domain name? Does the registrar itself register names its registrants have failed to renew? Once the ALAC has received and collated responses, we will use them to evaluate whether individual registrants are able to take advantage of the options provided them in consensus policies. Depending on the outcomes, we will analyze whether ALAC believes that more contractual regulation or a lighter touch is necessary to serve the needs of individual (and other) domain name registrants. Further suggestions? If ICANN's concern is expense, we could ask for a sample plus top 20, although study of the variance may be valuable. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

1 0

Some of the thinking behind per-diem rates - and a survey on travel at the end of the meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Dear North American and LAC travellers: Since a number of people have asked questions about the per-diem system, how the amount was chosen, and the like, I thought I would put out a brief note. The amount chosen is actually based upon the US Government's OCONUS system amount for San Juan. We looked at two systems: the US system and the UN DSAR system. In the end, we settled on the US system - which is slightly lower - since there are frequently food and drink options at evening events - in San Juan, there are evening events every night which will have drinks, and are expected to have food - certainly the gala dinner will have a sumptuous meal as per usual, and the opening night reception traditionally has food as well. We removed the lodging portion of the US per diem amount since lodging is of course included. In the case of At-Large, both the LAC and NA regional meetings will have a catered lunch, and the ALAC will have two meetings with breakfast included. Obviously, this is the first time a number of these measures have been impemented. We want to know how it works for everyone. Robert Guerra came up with the superb idea of having the polling system conduct a poll on the various elements of the travel handling for San Juan, which all of you will be invited to take part in, so we can use the feedback to make things better for everyone. One final note: I explained the per-diems rather badly in my previous email I find. Here's the text from the travel policy which is much clearer: You will receive the per-diem for each full night you are away from home. For example, if the per-diem amount set for the meeting in this example was US$80, and you leave on the 13th to attend the meeting, arrive at the meeting location on the 15th (meaning you travelled a long way on flights, or overnighted somewhere along the way), and left for home on the 20th, and arrived on the 21st, you would receive the per-diem for 8 nights. -- 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

Re: [At-Large] W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue
by Annette Muehlberg June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

"outside"? best Annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > Gesendet: 15.06.07 16:59:33 > An: Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg(a)web.de> > CC: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca, Doug Brent <doug.brent(a)icann.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > Betreff: Re: [At-Large] W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue > > Dear Annette: > > Thank you for your reply. > > I believe my note is completely self-explanatory. The offer we have > made to Wendy is also clear. She is free to accept it or decline it > as she chooses but outside interventions will not alter it. > > > On 15 Jun 2007, at 15:42, Annette Muehlberg wrote: > > > Dear Jaqueline, > > > > I would have loved to be a bit behind on the emails on this ;-) > > > > Unfortunately the recent email sent out by Nick (see attached mail > > below) does not look like a resolution but an escalation of this > > issue. > > > > I would like to ask you as our chair to help to make sure that all > > ALAC members can take part at the next ICANN Meeting in San Juan - > > without making them pay any extra fees. > > > > In respect to what several ALAC members went through in trying to > > get there ticket in time (and therefore there visa!!!) over the > > last years, the issue we are currently dealing with, should have > > been a minor issue and easy to solve. > > > > Sincerely > > > > Annette > > --- > >> Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy > >> Von: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> > >> An: "'Annette Muehlberg'" <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de>, "'Nick > >> Ashton-Hart'" <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > >> Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> Datum: 15.06.07 14:55:50 Uhr > > > > > >> Hi Annette > >> You are a bit behind on the emails on this - Wendy and Nick have been > >> communicating on the issue and will probably have a resolution in > >> a short > >> while. > >> The per diem has been organised - email went out to all already. > >> There is discussion with ICANN on the other travel issues - it > >> should all > >> be sorted soon. > >> Jacqueline > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Annette Muehlberg [mailto:annette.muehlberg@web.de] > > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 5:24 AM > > To: Nick Ashton-Hart > > Cc: At-Large Worldwide > > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy > > > > All, > > I really do not understand what is going on here. I do not know if > > someone made a mistake or not and if so, who made a mistake. I do not > > think that this is relevant. Mistakes occur and we all have to help > > out > > to get things done. > > > > We should not spend days and days discussing this, instead staff > > should > > just book that flight to make sure that all ALAC members can fulfill > > their duties at the ICANN Meeting in San Juan. > > > > Best regards > > Annette > > > > > > > > attached mail > > > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> Von: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > >> Gesendet: 15.06.07 16:11:43 > >> An: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > >> CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Doug Brent > >> <doug.brent(a)icann.org> > >> Betreff: [At-Large] W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue > > > > > >> > >> 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 Seltzers 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ALAC mailing list > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- > >> lists.icann.org > >> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > >> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > >> > > > > -- > > --

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Gross Deletes
by Robert Guerra June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Danny: In your opinion, do you think it is due to registryfly going under? or can the significant increase in deletes be explained by some other factor. On 8-Jun-07, at 1:53 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > The latest monthly registry reports have been posted. > This report sees an increase of almost 8 million gross > deletes in .com/.net over last month's totals -- > current monthly total is at 55,794,877 gross deletes. > > > http://www.icann.org/tlds/monthly-reports/com-net/verisign-200702.pdf > >

8 14

FW: [council] Revised and final version of the Issues Report on Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:15:27 +0100 >From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell(a)icann.org> >Subject: FW: [council] Revised and final version of the Issues >Report on Domain > Tasting >To: 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: 'Nick Ashton-Hart' <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > >Hi Alan, > >Would you mind circulating this revised report to the At Large, as >appropriate? The changes are pretty minor (they're detailed in Annex >3), but I want to make sure your guys have the most accurate and up >to date version. > >I don't expect there to be any more changes to the Issues Report. > >Many thanks, Maria

1 0

Constituency Interaction with the Board / At-Large Community meeting with the Board 26th June 1100 - 1200
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

Dear NA, LAC, and ALAC members: As you will see below, the date and time set for the At-Large community meeting with the ICANN Board of Directors on Constituency Day has been set - and you will find links to a new meeting page on the community meeting pages at: LAC: https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?san_juan_icann_meeting NA: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?puerto_rico_icann_meeting ALAC: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?san_juan_meeting For those of you who are not familiar with Constituency Day, amongst other things, the Board makes time to meet with each ICANN constituency to give the communities a chance to discuss their priorities and get the views of the board on the issues of importance to the communities. The agenda of these meetings is basically set by each community, though the courtesy of providing these in advance to the board is appreciated. The Board and ICANN Staff are looking for input on these meetings, and Diane Schroeder has asked that the following note be passed along to you for your consideration. --- To the ICANN Constituencies, Supporting Organizations and Advisory Groups, Over the past year, the ICANN Meetings Committee has been soliciting information on how to make the public board meetings more efficient and to increase participation. This is a ongoing project and in response to the feedback that has been received, changes are being made to each meeting. For instance, as a part of this event, we have rearranged the schedule to start with public meetings on Monday and significant changes have been made to the methods of remote participation. As part of this ongoing process, we would like each group to evaluate the interaction between the constituency, supporting organization or advisory group that takes place during the meeting. These opportunities to meet should be as productive for each party as possible. Constituency Day is the one day on which most of the groups meet. The questions I would like to ask each constituency to consider are: 1. The purpose of the interaction between the board and the constituency? 2. The best venue for this to occur. Is the constituency meeting the best venue? Would a breakfast, lunch or dinner be better? 3. How much time would be needed for the most optimal interaction? 4. Does the entire board need to meet with the constituency? For instance, could a few members of the board attend different constituency meetings, perhaps allowing them to stay for a longer period of time? 5. Could the board be provided with an agenda before the meeting, identifying topics or concerns that the constituency would like to discuss, allowing the board to be better prepared for the meeting? Any other feedback on the board/constituency interactions? I would like to report back to the Meetings Committee on the feedback that I receive from the various groups at our first telephone conference after San Juan. This would enable us to take the feedback into account for the planning of the Los Angeles meeting? Diane Schroeder General Manager, Conferences & Administration ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Ste. 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 +1-310-823-9358 x 5827 (phone) +1-310-823-8649 (fax) diane.schroeder(a)icann.org -- 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

2 1

ALS accreditation votes
by Vittorio Bertola June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

I am moving the discussion to the global list - I really think that this is a matter that affects the entire constituency, not just the current ALAC members. [The discussion is about modalities of voting for ALS accreditation - in particular, whether ALAC members who abstain or vote against should be required to provide explicit reasons for doing so, and whether individual votes should remain public as it is now, or be kept confidential.] One ALAC member wrote: > - No matter what voting approach we apply (e.g. secret voting, opened > voting), more important is the FEEDBACK we provide to the ALS applicants. > So, that they are able to improve their structure/activities/priorities > according to the established/provided criterias. > For this purpose, the ALAC should provide a Letter with Recommendations on > behalf of the entire Committee. I agree with you on this. However, the problem we have is that the failure to approve is the result of the sum of individual opinions, so when the applicant asks "why did you reject my application, and what do I have to do to improve?", you do not have an answer... perhaps there is no answer, since the people that did not vote in favour might have done so for very different reasons. I understand that some people might be afraid about having to explain why they took a position against, especially in countries where there might be social backlash arising from that. But it is also unreasonable to deny participatory rights to someone, and when asked why, either say "we don't know" (which makes it look like the Committee is not serious and does not think before acting) or "we refuse to tell you" (which is even worse). In the end, excluding someone from the constituency in which they want to participate is quite a serious action, that must be backed by strong and clear reasons, also because it might (and will, in most cases) be subject to appeal to the Ombudsman or to the Board. Perhaps, if individual members have a problem in expressing themselves publicly, we could change the system so that, in the due diligence phase, those who are against write a motion to reject, stating also the reasons why they think that the application should be rejected. In that way, on the ballot you would have to pick one of two motions, one saying "yes" and one saying "no, because..."; in that case, if the "no" prevails, there would already be collective reasons stated and there would be no need for members to provide explanations individually. So, basically we would have: - a due diligence phase as usual; - before the deadline for starting the vote, any member can privately submit to the Chair a motion against, if he/she thinks that the application is to be rejected; the author(s) of the motion shall remain confidential; - if no motions against are proposed, the application is approved on a "no objections" basis; - if there are motions against, then we vote (publicly or privately, as we prefer) and we have a clear result. I would really like to get rid of abstentions - they were meant only for direct conflict of interests (e.g. voting on one's own organization), but in the end either the application meets the criteria, or it doesn't - members should not refrain from taking a position on that, and in the end, they can still not vote at all. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

7 14