- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Upcoming Board Retreat: leadership succession
by Wendy Seltzer Sept. 30, 2007

Sept. 30, 2007

As soon-to-be Board liaison, I have been invited to a Board retreat in Frankfurt next week, along with the Board's newly appointed members. As I understand it, the purpose of this retreat is to discuss the Board's chairmanship, since Vint Cerf's term is up at the end of the LA meeting. I have not yet had any briefings on the subject, nor do I know what confidentiality rules I'll be asked to follow once I am included in the discussion, but I anticipate I will not be able to get and ask for at-large guidance in real-time. So I would like to ask the at-large community for advance input, particularly on the qualities at-large deems important for a Chair and for Board governance. I imagine that those, and the reasoning behind them, will have more influence than preferences for specific individuals, given our non-voting status. I'm happy to take other thoughts at this time too, although I do not believe this meeting is intended for other substantive discussion. A few articles speculate that Peter Dengate Thrush and Roberto Gaetano are front-runners <http://www.stuff.co.nz/4218747a13.html>, <http://www.domainesinfo.fr/actualite/1317/qui-apres-vint-cerf.php>. Please feel free to send me comments on-list or off-. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ http://www.torproject.org/

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Upcoming Board Retreat: leadership succession
by Vittorio Bertola Sept. 29, 2007

Sept. 29, 2007

Bret Fausett ha scritto: > If the press reports are correct, either candidate will make a fine > choice. This is win-win in my view. I could not consult with anyone, since the nominations that exist up to this moment are informal and confidential. Thus, up to this moment I refrained from taking any position. I also suspect that there will not be opportunities to consult, as the nominations are likely to remain confidential - all the Board members are extremely valid and committed people, and none of them should be unnecessarily exposed to a public rejection. So, personally, I would suggest that we do not take stance in favour of any candidate. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Upcoming Board Retreat: leadership succession
by Bret Fausett Sept. 29, 2007

Sept. 29, 2007

If the press reports are correct, either candidate will make a fine choice. This is win-win in my view. -- Bret -----Original Message----- From: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy(a)seltzer.com> To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: 9/29/07 7:09 AM Subject: [At-Large] Upcoming Board Retreat: leadership succession As soon-to-be Board liaison, I have been invited to a Board retreat in Frankfurt next week, along with the Board's newly appointed members. As I understand it, the purpose of this retreat is to discuss the Board's chairmanship, since Vint Cerf's term is up at the end of the LA meeting. I have not yet had any briefings on the subject, nor do I know what confidentiality rules I'll be asked to follow once I am included in the discussion, but I anticipate I will not be able to get and ask for at-large guidance in real-time. So I would like to ask the at-large community for advance input, particularly on the qualities at-large deems important for a Chair and for Board governance. I imagine that those, and the reasoning behind them, will have more influence than preferences for specific individuals, given our non-voting status. I'm happy to take other thoughts at this time too, although I do not believe this meeting is intended for other substantive discussion. A few articles speculate that Peter Dengate Thrush and Roberto Gaetano are front-runners <http://www.stuff.co.nz/4218747a13.html>, <http://www.domainesinfo.fr/actualite/1317/qui-apres-vint-cerf.php>. Please feel free to send me comments on-list or off-. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ http://www.torproject.org/ _______________________________________________ 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] Results of the Voting for ALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments
by Robert Guerra Sept. 29, 2007

Sept. 29, 2007

Danny: The candidate you proposed was indeed considered, but did not make the short list. that was not a personal decision of mine, but of the NA ALAC representatives. Informal consultations - due diligence you could call it - took place to assess the candidates being proposed, and if they would be well suited and able to strategically represent users from not only Canada and the USA, but users "everywhere" on the nomcom. Your statement that no consultation was done with those on NA RALO, is in fact wrong. Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done done privately on a one -to-one basis. I will keep the sources confidential, - they can speak out if they wish - but suffice it to say that your candidate, well - got very mixed reviews, in fact some quite negative. Those who got far more favorable reviews - ended up on the short list. As i've mentioned now several times, my person view is that the NA Nomcom candidate that - was elected by a large majority of ALAC members - will be able to well and strategically represent the views from the ALAC on the nomcom. The person in is well known to civil society working in ICANN as a person we can work with, and who has integrity. We will be well served. He has another "hat" - as do many of us as well. So i don't see that as an issue in the least. Indeed this whole discussion reminds me on an ongoing discussion in Canada related to elections canada's stance on allowing veiled women to vote . http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/10/elections-veils.html It's not for the administrator to settle the current societal debate. If I were to do so, I would assume the role that does not belong to me, and above all, usurp the role of Canada's elected politicians." Currently, I do not believe criteria exists as to who can or can not be a candidate for ALAC to select as its nomcom representatives. If you want that changed - please, by all means do suggest that ALS's and ALAC change the rules. In summary - Hey, i didn't support your candidate. I have that right. Due process was followed, and a good, honest and very strategic candidate from Canada was duly elected. Please, respect the decision . If you feel the process could have been better - please, be constructive and suggest changes so that we can improve things going forward. In the meantime, decision has taken place.. let's move forward.. Let's work with Ross, and take up his offer to speak with him on a teleconference. He's keen to hear from the NA RALO, and in fact ALAC as a whole on how he can best represent us. As he shouldn't hold him to a higher standard - let's also arrange consultations with the other ALAC nomcom reps . After all if they are supposed to be our representatives, let's make sure they stay in touch and consult with us. regards Robert On 29-Sep-07, at 2:16 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > Robert, > > Bottom line: You removed a duly nominated candidate > that was duly confirmed from the voting roster, a > candidate with seven years experience within ICANN > defending the public interest, a candidate that > properly submitted his credentials for consideration, > and the only confirmed candidate that hailed from the > United States... all without any consultation with > members of the NARALO discuss list, and without member > consent for such action. > > You also introduced a candidate from the supplier > community surreptitiously without any consultation > with the membership. In my view, your actions > demonstrate that you are not fit for holding office. > > regards, > Danny > > > --- Robert Guerra <lists(a)PRIVATERRA.INFO> wrote: > >> I've been away for the last few days and am only now >> catching up on >> this list's email... >> >> It seems some questions have been raised as to the >> process by which >> the NA ALAC , and in fact ALAC as a whole selected >> the nomcom >> candidate from the NA region. >> >> First,let me describe the process - >> >> The NA ALAC reps held two teleconferences where we >> discussed the >> Nomcom candidates. Beau, Alan and I spent >> considerable time >> discussing the i\, the candidates and additional >> persons we might >> want to consider >> >> The candidate pool came from names proposed on the >> NA list, as well >> as persons suggested by the NA Regional reps. The >> breakdown was thus >> - one person proposed from the NA list, and 5 >> persons suggested from >> the ALAC reps. Of the 6 persons, one candidate was >> removed as they >> had been elected board liason. the rest were >> contacted to confirm >> that indeed they would be willing and able to serve >> the term. Three >> confirmed there were interested, willing and able to >> represent ALAC >> on nomcom. two top candidates were identified and a >> discussion took >> place to see if a consensus candidate could be >> chosen. This was not >> the case, as such the two were submitted to the ALAC >> for them to vote >> on. >> >> Key facts: >> >> - the two proposed candidates both were supported by >> more then one >> ALAC rep >> - The consensus view that developed was that a >> candidate should be >> well familiar with icann and/or able to learn about >> it's politics >> and issues, and ability to represent the user >> voice/view were key >> factors needed in a candidate. >> >> >> My personal choice was Ross, as i'm quite familiar >> with his work with >> the user community in Canada and his involvement in >> CIRA. It is his >> proven track record to be able to represent users on >> the CIRA board >> as well as his support for NCUC and ALAC view that >> led to me voting >> for him. In summary, I voted based on a track >> record in engaging >> users and the user community (in canada) as well as >> a very good >> understand of ICANN, it's politics and nomcom. >> >> Using the recently approved voting rules adopted by >> the ALAC, >> candidates proposed from the regions where a >> consensus was not >> possible were considered by the ALAC. A one week >> open voting & period >> was opened - where opinions were expressed by ALAC >> members on >> candidates, and voting took place.Voting closed a >> particular day, >> after which the results were announced. >> >> The existing icann bylaws state that ALAC should >> appoint candidates - >> and that was done. Though not specifically mentioned >> , consulation >> also tool place - and considerable time, and effort >> was taken to >> review candidates and elect one that fit the >> criteria developed. >> >> Ross, in my opinion - despite what some critics >> might say - has the >> knowledge and ability, integrity and ability to >> represent ALAC and >> users interests well on the nomcom. I believe that >> he will serve >> alac well . >> >> Secondly, let me say that constant critiquing ALAC >> reps is not >> constructive at all. Personally, I have tried to >> bring values of >> consultation and dialogue between those in the NA >> ALS, ALAC members >> and other key constituencies such as NCUC, SSAC and >> many others . I >> see there is great value in collaboration - one >> that can serve to >> bring a stronger voice to users and civil society >> inside the complex >> and very political structure that is ICANN. >> >> >> >> In summary - Key appointments and nominations need >> to be strategic >> and constructive. I believe that the two candidates >> proposed were >> good, and that the better qualified and most >> knowledgeable person who >> indeed will be able to serve all users from the NA >> region has been >> selected. Can we do things better in the future - >> indeed we can. >> let's learn from this experience and build a better >> process for the >> 08/09 nomcom selection process >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your > story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. > http://sims.yahoo.com/

2 2

Re: [At-Large] Results of the Voting for ALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments
by Robert Guerra Sept. 28, 2007

Sept. 28, 2007

I've been away for the last few days and am only now catching up on this list's email... It seems some questions have been raised as to the process by which the NA ALAC , and in fact ALAC as a whole selected the nomcom candidate from the NA region. First,let me describe the process - The NA ALAC reps held two teleconferences where we discussed the Nomcom candidates. Beau, Alan and I spent considerable time discussing the i\, the candidates and additional persons we might want to consider The candidate pool came from names proposed on the NA list, as well as persons suggested by the NA Regional reps. The breakdown was thus - one person proposed from the NA list, and 5 persons suggested from the ALAC reps. Of the 6 persons, one candidate was removed as they had been elected board liason. the rest were contacted to confirm that indeed they would be willing and able to serve the term. Three confirmed there were interested, willing and able to represent ALAC on nomcom. two top candidates were identified and a discussion took place to see if a consensus candidate could be chosen. This was not the case, as such the two were submitted to the ALAC for them to vote on. Key facts: - the two proposed candidates both were supported by more then one ALAC rep - The consensus view that developed was that a candidate should be well familiar with icann and/or able to learn about it's politics and issues, and ability to represent the user voice/view were key factors needed in a candidate. My personal choice was Ross, as i'm quite familiar with his work with the user community in Canada and his involvement in CIRA. It is his proven track record to be able to represent users on the CIRA board as well as his support for NCUC and ALAC view that led to me voting for him. In summary, I voted based on a track record in engaging users and the user community (in canada) as well as a very good understand of ICANN, it's politics and nomcom. Using the recently approved voting rules adopted by the ALAC, candidates proposed from the regions where a consensus was not possible were considered by the ALAC. A one week open voting & period was opened - where opinions were expressed by ALAC members on candidates, and voting took place.Voting closed a particular day, after which the results were announced. The existing icann bylaws state that ALAC should appoint candidates - and that was done. Though not specifically mentioned , consulation also tool place - and considerable time, and effort was taken to review candidates and elect one that fit the criteria developed. Ross, in my opinion - despite what some critics might say - has the knowledge and ability, integrity and ability to represent ALAC and users interests on the nomcom. I believe that he will serve alac well . Secondly, let me say that constant critiquing ALAC reps is not constructive at all. Personally, I have tried to bring values of consultation and dialogue between those in the NA ALS, ALAC members and other key constituencies such as NCUC, SSAC and many others . I see there is great value in collaboration - one that can serve to bring a stronger voice to users and civil society inside the complex and very political structure that is ICANN. In summary - Key appointments and nominations need to be strategic and constructive. I believe that the two candidates proposed were good, and that the better qualified and most knowledgeable person who indeed will be able to serve all users from the NA region has been selected. Can we do things better in the future - indeed we can. let's learn from this experience and build a better process for the 08/09 nomcom selection process regards Robert

1 0

Action Items 11th September ALAC Teleconference
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 28, 2007

Sept. 28, 2007

Dear Members: The Action Items for the 11th September meeting are available at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action_items_11_september_2007 You will notice a new line at the top of each agenda going forward, alongside those for meeting summary etc., where Action Items can be easily reviewed, going forward. Once again a reminder that the meeting summary notes taken were not entirely complete, as I was required to step out of the teleconference a couple of times in order to deal with technical issues of the teleconference and I hope that members will fill in anything which might be missing whilst their memories are fresh. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 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] Domain Tasting update
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 28, 2007

Sept. 28, 2007

Izumi, there is no call for public comment, but input is welcome and I will pass it on. The deadline for this draft is today, but there will be at least one more before it is finalized - there are still section to incorporate. It is due to be discussed by the GNSO Council on Oct 11. The main intention of my message was to show that work is indeed proceeding. Alan At 28/09/2007 01:44 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >Alan, > >Thank you for the update report. Is there any role expected >for AtLarge to play to the working group process? > >I think we should read the current draft and come up with >our own input/comments. I have not read them yet, but >your answer will help us. > >Thank you. > >izumi > >2007/9/28, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>: > > At the request of the ALAC, ICANN staff created an issues report on > > Domain Tasting for the consideration of the GNSO. The Issues report > > can be found at > > > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14ju… > > and in Spanish at > > > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-es-1…. > > > > This was the first Issues report requested by an advisory committee. > > > > In order to do further research (as recommended in the Issues Report) > > and to suggest ways in which the GNSO should respond to this issue, > > an Ad Hoc Working group was established. The working group is > > developing a document to be submitted to the GNSO Council in a few > > weeks. The current draft is a work-in progress, but is available on > > the ICANN web site. It is in two parts: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dt-wg/docwPdT7Y2FMA.doc > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dt-wg/doczL72av8MkX.doc. > > Based on the report and council deliberations, a decision will be > > made on whether to launch a Policy Development Process (PDP) to > > address Domain Tasting, and if so, exactly what the scope of the > PDP will be. > > > > The full mailing list of the working group can be found at > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dt-wg/. > > > > Alan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > >-- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita > Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org

1 0

On voting
by Elisabeth Porteneuve Sept. 28, 2007

Sept. 28, 2007

Greetings, Usually I only browse ALAC's archives to keep up with ongoing issues. I am coming here just for a couple of comments on votes, with my old hat of the DNSO Secretary. Each vote means a dedicated web page, gathering all relevant information, time stamp on everything: - URL to relevant procedures, Watchdog Committee if any - electorate (voting roster) published before the vote starts - list of candidates published before the vote starts - email announcement to everyone (including public archives) before the vote starts informing that the two above have been published, that the vote starts fo N days, and the results will be given no later than D day - email announcement to everyone (including public archives) giving the results (and who voted for what if voting procedures so require) The above transparency is the only means to discover any problem, including the composition of electorate and candidates. See record of the NC (small well known electorate) http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnso.ncindex.html , or just here an exemple http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/1999.DNSO-GAchair.html See record of the GA (big electorate) http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html , an exemple http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.DNSO-GAchair.html and its results http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-chair-election-ranking.html King regards, Elisabeth

1 0

NomComm Appoints New ALAC Members
by Bret Fausett Sept. 28, 2007

Sept. 28, 2007

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-25sep07.htm New ALAC Council members will join us in Los Angeles. Welcome to those who are new, with thanks and warm wishes for those who are completing their ICANN service. Bret -- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html -------------------------------------

4 3

Domain Tasting update
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 28, 2007

Sept. 28, 2007

At the request of the ALAC, ICANN staff created an issues report on Domain Tasting for the consideration of the GNSO. The Issues report can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14ju… and in Spanish at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-es-1…. This was the first Issues report requested by an advisory committee. In order to do further research (as recommended in the Issues Report) and to suggest ways in which the GNSO should respond to this issue, an Ad Hoc Working group was established. The working group is developing a document to be submitted to the GNSO Council in a few weeks. The current draft is a work-in progress, but is available on the ICANN web site. It is in two parts: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dt-wg/docwPdT7Y2FMA.doc http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dt-wg/doczL72av8MkX.doc. Based on the report and council deliberations, a decision will be made on whether to launch a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address Domain Tasting, and if so, exactly what the scope of the PDP will be. The full mailing list of the working group can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dt-wg/. Alan

2 1