- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ALAC position on newgTLD subpro
by John Laprise July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019

Thanks Jeff, We've been following the discussion and are in the process of producing more detailed advice which will be forthcoming. However I can respond to points 1 & 4 now. It is our view that the subpro work is akin to refining the machinery while initiating a round is using the machinery. One necessarily precedes the other and we support the subpro work. We want it completed before we start using it in the future. On point 4: this is documented in ALACs #ICANN65 talking points document as well as recordings and transcripts of ALAC's session with GDD. We've also communicated this to the board with regularity and the other ACs. At Large's Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) will be providing further detail as you requested. Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 10:52 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> wrote: > Thanks John for this e-mail. > > > > > > We discussed this comment and a few questions were raised during the call > last night. > > > > 1. “ALAC will not support a new gTLD round….” Can you please confirm > that the ALAC position refers only to the opening of the application window > as opposed to ICANN and the community taking steps to prepare for the > opening of the next application window. When something like this came up > previously with respect to the NCAP studies being a dependency for the next > round, Justine in the attached e-mail, explained: > > > > *“The Subsequent Procedures WG can conclude its work, and implementation > may proceed, BUT EITHER ICANN may not launch the application window until > the NCAP study(ies) are completed and any recommendations resulting from > those study(ies) are addressed in implementation OR ICANN may launch the > application window and start the evaluation process, but no TLD may be > delegated until the NCAP Study(ies) is/are completed and any > recommendations resulting from those study(ies) are retroactively > incorporated.”* > > > > Can you please explain if this should be interpreted similarly – > namely, that implementation can proceed in ALAC’s view? > > > > 1. “full implementation of CCT….recommendations are fully > implemented.” As you are no doubt aware, the CCT recommendations contain a > number of levels. Some are labeled as pre-requisites to the launch of the > next round, others are not. > > > > 1. Is the ALAC only referring to those recommendations that are deemed > to be pre-requisites? Or is the ALAC actually referring to ALL > recommendations regardless of how they were labeled? > 2. In addition, not all of the recommendations were accepted by the > ICANN Board for immediate implementation. Is the ALAC referring to only > the ones that were accepted by the ICANN Board or to literally all of the > recommendations regardless of whether they were accepted by the ICANN Board. > > > > 1. “full implementation of…RPM Recommendations are fully implemented” > 1. Is the ALAC only referring to Phase One of the RPM work or to > both Phase One (New gTLD protections) and Phase Two (UDRP)? > 2. The GNSO RPM PDP Working Group leaders represented to the GNSO > Council that they only believed that Phase One needed to be implemented by > the time the first new gTLD in the next round enters into an Agreement or > is delegated (not sure there was agreement on which one). But in either > case the GNSO has discussed the possibility of moving forward with SubPro > (assuming it finishes first and has consensus recommendations accepted by > the Council, etc.) even if the RPM Phase 1 Work is not done. So, this is > really related to Question 1 (see above). > > > > 1. Finally, your e-mail refers to “ALAC’s position as asserted to > ICANN GDD at ICANN65.” > 1. Is that position documented? And if so, can you please send the > position statement and rationale to this PDP Working Group for our review? > 2. When was the ALAC position communicated to ICANN GDD? > 3. Is there a transcript, presentation material, etc. of that > meeting and can they be sent to this Working Group for Review? > > > > I know these seem like a lot of questions, but I am assuming the e-mail > you sent us was a brief summary of the conclusion of the ALAC position and > it would be helpful for us to have all of the detail. > > > Thanks. > > > > *Jeffrey J. Neuman* > Senior Vice President > > > *Com Laude | Valideus *1751 Pinnacle Drive , Suite 600 > Mclean , VA 22102 > UNITED STATES > > T: +1.703.635.7514 > M: +1.202.549.5079 > > > > > > CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS: Please note that we always confirm receipt of > orders. To assist us in identifying orders, please use the word ORDER in > the subject line of your email. If you have sent us an order and have not > received confirmation on the same working day (PST) it is possible that > your order has not been received or has been trapped by our spam filter. > In this case, please contact your client manager or admin(a)comlaude.com > for confirmation that the order has been received and is being processed. > Thank you. > > > > *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> *On Behalf Of > *John Laprise > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2019 10:20 PM > *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > *Cc:* 'ALAC Members' <ALAC-members(a)icann.org>; 'ICANN At-Large Staff' < > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ALAC position on newgTLD subpro > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Just a useful reminder of ALAC’s position as asserted to ICANN GDD at > ICANN65: > > > > ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of CCT > and RPM recommendations are fully implemented. > > > > Best regards, > > > > John Laprise, Ph.D. > > NARALO ALAC Representative > > ALAC Vice Chair-Policy > > > ------------------------------ > The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the > intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way > by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this > message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the > email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete > it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility > for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this > email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability > for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of > the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes > Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales > with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell > Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in > England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at > 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a > company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its > registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF > Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered > at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) > Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at > Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further > information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Justine Chew <justine.chew(a)gmail.com> > To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> > Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb(a)icann.org>, > Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Jonathan Zuck < > JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 14:18:28 +0000 > Subject: Re: [GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB] ALAC responses to Sub-group B triage > exercise on Topics 2.7.5 IDNs and 2.7.8 Name Collisions > Hi Jeff, > > In reply to your request for further clarification, the ALAC is saying: > > The Subsequent Procedures WG can conclude its work, and implementation may > proceed, BUT EITHER ICANN may not launch the application window until the > NCAP study(ies) are completed and any recommendations resulting from those > study(ies) are addressed in implementation OR ICANN may launch the > application window and start the evaluation process, but no TLD may be > delegated until the NCAP Study(ies) is/are completed and any > recommendations resulting from those study(ies) are retroactively > incorporated. > > Kind regards, > > Justine Chew > ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures > ----- > > > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 22:10, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks Justine and thanks to the ALAC. I have one further clarification >> question on Name Collisions: >> >> >> >> Below it states: “*Based on recent developments to the SSAC NCAP, the >> ALAC advocates for any implementation, if not development, of policy with >> respect to dealing with Names Collision, be subject to informed guidance >> from the SSAC NCAP Study 1, at the minimum, as well as Study 2 and Study 3 >> (if Studies 2 and 3 were to proceed), and that the policy allow for the >> implementation to take any NCAP recommendations into full account.”* >> >> >> >> This can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Is the ALAC >> saying: >> >> >> >> 1. SubPro should include a reference to the NCAP study(ies) in its >> Final Report and state that the implementation of the Next Round include >> recommendations (if any) from the that study (those studies) if and when >> those are made available. The New TLD Program can continue and launch, but >> just have a process to allow for changes due too the results of the NCAP >> Study(ies); or >> 2. SubPro should not complete its work in producing a final report >> until NCAP Study(ies) is/are completed; or >> 3. SubPro can conclude its work, but implementation cannot begin >> until the NCAP Study(ies) is/are completed; or >> 4. SubPro can conclude its work, implementation can continue, but >> ICANN may not launch the application window until the NCAP study(ies) are >> completed; or >> 5. SubPro can continue its work, implementation can complete, ICANN >> can launch the application window and go through the evaluation process, >> but the TLD may not be delegated until the NCAP Study(ies) is/are completed; >> 6. None of the above? >> >> >> >> As we get down to the wire it is going to be incredibly important to make >> sure that we are precise. All 5 options above could be consistent with >> the statement above. >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> *Jeff Neuman* >> >> Senior Vice President >> >> >> >> >> *Com Laude | Valideus *1751 Pinnacle Drive >> >> Suite 600, McLean >> >> VA 22102, USA >> >> >> M: +1.202.549.5079 >> >> D: +1.703.635.7514 >> >> E: *jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>* >> www.comlaude.com >> >> >> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the >> sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This >> message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential >> information. If you have received this message in error, please send it >> back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or >> disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com >> Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. >> >> >> >> *From:* GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB <gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb-bounces(a)icann.org> *On >> Behalf Of *Justine Chew >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 24, 2019 10:05 PM >> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb(a)icann.org >> *Cc:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>; Jonathan Zuck < >> JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> >> *Subject:* [GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB] ALAC responses to Sub-group B triage >> exercise on Topics 2.7.5 IDNs and 2.7.8 Name Collisions >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> Thank you for allowing the ALAC the opportunity and time to respond to >> the following alert and request for clarification on the topics of (I) >> 2.7..5 IDNs and (II) 2.7.8 Name Collisions, respectively. I thankfully had >> the opportunity to properly consult my colleagues during ICANN64 on the >> same and am now pleased to provide the following ALAC responses. >> >> I would be most grateful for an acknowledgment of receipt of this email, >> by leadership and/or staff, noting that Sub-group B has completed its work >> on 5 March, so that the ALAC can be assured these feedback will be taken >> into account accordingly in the upcoming deliberations of the Subsequent >> Procedures WG at the plenary level. >> >> >> * (I) 2.7.5 IDNs* >> At the Sub-group B's call of 20 February, Rubens Kuhl very kindly alerted >> us to a contradiction in ALAC's comment to *Q 2.7.5.e.2* and afforded an >> opportunity to remove the contradiction. The ALAC gratefully accepts the >> opportunity and wishes to re-state its comment as follows:- >> >> >> >> *The ALAC suggests that the "Same Entity Constraint" is enforced for all >> variants, ie all variants are either allocated to the same registrant as >> the primary label, or blocked. This would require registries (and possibly >> registrars) to implement the necessary checks during the registration >> process. Further, registrants may need to be educated about the reasons why >> such a constraint exists.* >> >> >> *(II) 2.7.8 Name Collisions* >> At the Sub-group B's call of 5 March, there was a request/action item for >> me to clarify the ALAC comment of "Wait on SSAC recommendations" to all >> preliminary recommendations and questions in section 2.7.8, except for >> 2.7.8.c.1. In response, the ALAC wishes to re-state its comment for >> clarity, and which is in line with its comment to preliminary >> recommendation 2.7.8.c.1, as follows:- >> >> *Based on recent developments to the SSAC NCAP, the ALAC advocates for >> any implementation, if not development, of policy with respect to dealing >> with Names Collision, be subject to informed guidance from the SSAC NCAP >> Study 1, at the minimum, as well as Study 2 and Study 3 (if Studies 2 and 3 >> were to proceed), and that the policy allow for the implementation to take >> any NCAP recommendations into full account. * >> >> >> FYI, I have copied Olivier Crepin-Leblond and Jonathan Zuck for their >> information, in their capacity as Co-Chairs of the At-Large Consolidated >> Policy Working Group (CPWG). >> >> Many thanks and kind regards, >> >> >> Justine Chew >> >> ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures >> >> >> ----- >> >> >> > >

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ATLASIII Participation
by Alan Greenberg July 10, 2019

July 10, 2019

Nowhere did we ever advertise ATLAS III as a "free vacation trip to glorious damp, cold and maybe snowy Montreal". We asked for people who wanted to participate in ATLAS III, and all we are saying here is that, to hopefully no ones surprise, we actually expect them to participate. Alan At 09/07/2019 09:46 PM, Jacqueline Morris wrote: A quick question - were all of these explained to applicants before they applied? Because it seems to me to be a bit "bait and switch" to impose requirements and penalties AFTER the application process has ended, and the winning candidates have been chosen and are making ready to travel. Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann<http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> ) On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:21 PM < h.raiche(a)internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: And not to labour the point, but all ATLASIII participants need to know up front what is expected of them both in behavour and work, and consequences for failuare to meet the know standards Holly ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Laprise" <jlaprise(a)gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> To: "At-Large Worldwide" < at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Cc: Sent: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 15:11:44 -0500 Subject: Re: [At-Large] ATLASIII Participation I think at this point we have sufficient data to assess that in the past, ATLAS participants were not always as diligent as we would like. I'm all for collecting data at ATLASIII, however we should have in place remedies for failure to abide by the MOU in place before rather than after On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 2:59 PM Alfredo Calderon < calderon.alfredo(a)gmail.com<mailto:calderon.alfredo@gmail.com>> wrote: John: As a Fellow and NASIG organizer a MOU was sent to all selected and we had to agree to all conditions and sign. Once that documentation was received it was official to proceed with Travel arrangements. Additionally, during the different sessions a visual (look-around) was done, since all Fellows should have stated their schedule for the dates at each ICANN Meeting. I the case of our NASIG daily attendance was required. Alfredo Calderon eLearning Consultant calderon.alfredo(a)gmail.com<mailto:calderon.alfredo@gmail.com> | http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon<http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon> Get your own email signature<https://wisestamp.com/email-install?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=signatu…> On Jul 9, 2019, at 10:16 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote: I would like us all to consider consequences for ATLASIII participants who travel but do not participate (excepting reasons of illness etc). This is a serious, professional responsibility and should be treated as such. For a start, I would suggest that participants who fail to participate should be ineligible for funding and elections for 3 years. I look forward to conversation on this topic leading to action by the ALAC. Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ 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.

5 4

NEWCOMER
by innocent adriko July 8, 2019

July 8, 2019

Hello, My name is Innocent Adriko from Uganda. I am a NextGen@ICANN65, and happy to join the ICANN family. Thank you.

11 10

G7 GAC and WHOIS - protecting end users
by Joanna Kulesza July 8, 2019

July 8, 2019

Dear all, thought this might be of interest to better understand and substantiate user interests in the WHOIS/GDPR/UAM debate: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/green-to-chalaby-21jun… Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. -- Kind regards, Joanna Kulesza ------------------- Joanna Kulesza, PhD University of Lodz, Poland ALAC / EURALO / Capacity Building Working Group Co-Chair SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Joanna+Kulesza+SOI TT: @KuleszaJ

4 5

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by narten＠us.ibm.com July 5, 2019

July 5, 2019

Total of 75 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 5 00:53:04 EDT 2019 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 24.00% | 18 | 19.64% | 326530 | evan at telly.org 10.67% | 8 | 6.28% | 104339 | bzs at theworld.com 8.00% | 6 | 7.74% | 128682 | karl at cavebear.com 6.67% | 5 | 8.17% | 135880 | kankaili at gmail.com 5.33% | 4 | 8.24% | 136898 | otieno.barrack at gmail.com 5.33% | 4 | 4.38% | 72790 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 2.67% | 2 | 4.10% | 68181 | ocl at gih.com 2.67% | 2 | 3.10% | 51615 | at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org 2.67% | 2 | 2.53% | 42063 | jkuleszaicann at gmail.com 1.33% | 1 | 3.50% | 58250 | judith at jhellerstein.com 1.33% | 1 | 3.15% | 52342 | nadira.araj at gmail.com 1.33% | 1 | 2.31% | 38461 | jzuck at innovatorsnetwork.org 1.33% | 1 | 2.14% | 35493 | williamskale at hotmail.com 1.33% | 1 | 2.06% | 34260 | mcknight.glenn at gmail.com 1.33% | 1 | 1.90% | 31629 | brainstreetceo at gmail.com 1.33% | 1 | 1.70% | 28177 | rihogris at gmail.com 1.33% | 1 | 1.57% | 26135 | olivierkouami at gmail.com 1.33% | 1 | 1.56% | 25977 | vanda at scartezini.org 1.33% | 1 | 1.55% | 25754 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 1.33% | 1 | 1.41% | 23452 | 6.internet at gmail.com 1.33% | 1 | 1.38% | 22957 | julf at julf.com 1.33% | 1 | 1.30% | 21678 | matthias at hudobnik.at 1.33% | 1 | 1.17% | 19470 | alberto at soto.net.ar 1.33% | 1 | 1.04% | 17277 | emma.mugabi at gmail.com 1.33% | 1 | 1.04% | 17252 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com 1.33% | 1 | 1.03% | 17041 | chand at connect.com.fj 1.33% | 1 | 1.00% | 16590 | jmcc at hosterstats.com 1.33% | 1 | 0.96% | 16031 | mmoll at ca.inter.net 1.33% | 1 | 0.91% | 15153 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 1.33% | 1 | 0.86% | 14309 | bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net 1.33% | 1 | 0.85% | 14133 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.33% | 1 | 0.74% | 12288 | jlaprise at gmail.com 1.33% | 1 | 0.68% | 11270 | hadia at tra.gov.eg --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 75 |100.00% | 1662357 | Total

1 0

Fwd: ICANN Community Childcare Grants Pilot Program
by Marita Moll July 2, 2019

July 2, 2019

FYI --childcare grants for community participants who are attending meetings with small children. Marita -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: ICANN Community Childcare Grants Pilot Program Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:48:50 +0000 From: Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)FERDELINE.COM> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com> To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU ICANN has launched a new program that may benefit NCSG members who have small children and bring them to ICANN meetings: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/community-childcare-grants /The ICANN Community Childcare Grants Pilot Program aims to facilitate the in-person participation of community members with children at ICANN meetings. Grants up to USD 750.00 per family are available for ICANN Public Meeting participants who are bringing children and will incur expenses due to babysitting and/or local childcare services./ -- Ayden

1 0

Planning for Round Two of New gTLDS is open?
by Carlton Samuels July 2, 2019

July 2, 2019

...hmmmm....... http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190620_icann_announces_planning_for_round_t… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

11 19

The Case for Regulatory Capture at ICANN | Review Signal Blog
by Carlton Samuels July 2, 2019

July 2, 2019

Interesting read. At least some folks seem to be paying attention to what is done. Carlton ‐-------------------------- https://reviewsignal.com/blog/2019/06/24/the-case-for-regulatory-capture-at…

19 71

Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom updates
by Nadira Alaraj July 2, 2019

July 2, 2019

Dear At-large community, I would like to thank you for the trust and the rich experience that I went through during my 2 years term at the NomCom. Reading Anriette update as a NomCom delegate for the NCUC, I wouldn't have written my experience in a better or nicer way. Hence I would like to thank Anriette for allowing me to share her piece with AT-LARGE community. I aslo happy to provide any further questions to new ALAC delegates to the NomCom. Best wishes Nadira AL-Araj ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette(a)apc.org> Date: Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 15:44 Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom update Dear all My term on NomCom has come to an end. In the next month or so you will be informed of the results of the efforts of the 2019 NomCom. While the results will hold some disappointment for some excellent candidates who did not make it, I believe that our selections overall will add value and diversity (particularly diversity in terms of experience, background, perspective and region) to ICANN. I also think we struck a good balance between continuity on the one hand, and new people/ideas/perspectives on the other. {snip...} ... to share more about the experience and workload. Bruna already shared the criteria. I copy them below, and add a few additional thoughts. *Experience:* What is not mentioned explicitly in the official criteria is how valuable board experience is. If you have served on boards, even if they are not like the ICANN board which has a far heavier workload than most boards, that helps a lot. Experience in recruitment is even more valuable in my view. If you have worked with recruitment processes (particularly ones that have to adhere to labour law that demands fairness in recruitment procedure) that helps a lot. Having experience in interviewing people is also very helpful. *Knowledge of ICANN:* You do need good knowledge of ICANN overall, particularly of the specific role and characteristics of the leadership roles that NomCom recruits for and of the unique role of NomCom - remember NomCom is note the only mechanism for finding people for leadership roles. My knowledge of ICANN was good overall but limited by the limitations of my experience in ICANN and not nearly as 'insider' or detailed as that of many others in this space. During my first term I had to work hard to fill the 'depth' gap in my knowledge of how ICANN works. Fortunately this was not hard. There is a lot of material to read, and people to talk to and learn from. Being on NomCom has been a really good learning experience for me. *Time required:* Between the March and June meetings you probably need to dedicate an average of about 22 hours a week. That includes calls, the face-to-face meetings mentioned below as well as an online intersessional and the work you do on your own reviewing candidates and work done with others on interviewing candidates and follow up on references. This does not include time traveling or getting visas (which, as those who need to get them know, can be significant). Prior to that you have to attend meetings and calls and do outreach, meet with members of the community and work on various NomCom committees but the volume of time needed is less. *Attitude:* Be open to learn and listen to others. Have the confidence to disagree and question in a constructive manner. Be able to ask for help when you need it. Put ICANN's overall interest first, as opposed to that of a particularly stakeholder group or constituency. If you don't have a clear understanding of what ICANN's overall interest is at the particular time that NomCom is doing its work, then think about it, read, and talk to people; having clarity in your own mind about this is important, even if your individual understanding might vary a bit from that of others. Always maintain critical thinking and an analytical understanding of the specifics of the ICANN multistakeholder model and the current status of its development (or evolution) and the expectations it has to meet. I am available to any candidate for NCUC NomCom appointee who has further questions. Anriette “Section 8.4. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE DELEGATES Delegates to the ICANN Nominating Committee shall be: 1. Accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, and intelligence, with reputations for sound judgment and open minds, and with experience and competence with collegial large group decision-making; 2. Persons with wide contacts, broad experience in the Internet community, and a commitment to the success of ICANN; 3. Persons whom the selecting body is confident will consult widely and accept input in carrying out their responsibilities; 4. Persons who are neutral and objective, without any fixed personal commitments to particular individuals, organizations, or commercial objectives in carrying out their Nominating Committee responsibilities; 5. Persons with an understanding of ICANN's mission and the potential impact of ICANN's activities on the broader Internet community who are willing to serve as volunteers, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses; and 6. Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken English.” Other criteria (retrieved from the Nominating Committee email): - Eligibility Exception - No person who is an employee of or paid a consultant to ICANN (including the Ombudsman) shall simultaneously serve in any of the Nominating Committee positions as described in Article 8, Section 8.2 of ICANN’s Bylaws ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article8) - The person should be able to join monthly teleconferences (typically 15:00 or 16:00 UTC). Note that the committee's workload will increase significantly during Apr/May/June 2020 when the candidate assessment process will be at its busiest. Conference calls are held more frequently (typically weekly and the duration of the calls may last up to 3 hours) during this time as well. - The person should be willing to work in a large, consensus-oriented committee. - All 2020 NomCom members should be able to attend the following ICANN meetings (travel and hotel accommodations will be provided for all meetings): - ICANN66 | Montréal, Canada: 2-7 November 2019 (1st official meeting of 2020 NomCom) - ICANN67 | Cancún, Mexico: 7-12 March 2020 (outreach and training meeting) - Intersessional | (Location tentative - Los Angeles, United States): TBD April 2020 (assessment meeting) - ICANN68 | Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 22-25 June 2020 (selection meeting) As you gather from the criteria above, it is very important that the applicants for this position be active members of NCUC, involved with ICANN and its various working groups and show proven interest in NCUC work and understand the dynamics of ICANN and groups existing within ICANN. ----------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette(a)apc.org On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:36 PM Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette(a)apc.org> wrote: > Dear all > > Another NomCom cycle is nearing its end. NomCom has just completed a > series of online intersessional meetings - three four-hour long calls - and > we have come up with the finalised list of candidates for open ICANN > leadership positions. Between now and Marrakesh we will follow up with > candidates' references, and prepare for the final selection process which > will take place in Marrakesh during ICANN65. > > At the close of the application period in late March, NomCom had received > 127 applications in total: 56 from Africa; 35 from Asia Pacific; 13 from > Europe; 21 > from Latin America and the Caribbean; and 2 from North America. There were > 42 female and 85 male applicants. Several applicants applied for more than > one position. The low number of NA candidates is simply a result of the > fact that the complement of board members from North America is full at > present and we were not appointing anyone for ALAC from NA in this round. > The gender breakdown is disappointing. In my view addressing this should be > given serious consideration by future NomComs. The 2018 figures looked > better. > > At an intersessional meeting in Los Angeles from 10-13 April NomCom > members reviewed and discussed each of the 128 applications and produced a > long list of 58 candidates. From late April to mid-May applicants we took > another close look at candidates' applications and background material, and > conducted voice with all of them. > > The final list consists of a total of 24 shortlisted candidates in total > for all the positions: Board, PTI Board; GNSO; ccNSO; ALAC-Africa; > ALAC-Asia Pacific; ALAC Latin American and the Caribbean. The number of > candidates per position varies from 7 to 2. As I said above, we will > finalise our selections in Marrakesh, including interviewing Board and PTI > Board candidates face-to-face. The public announcement of the final > selection, however, will only be made from late August to September. > > I am very happy to report that we had excellent candidates - that is not > new of course. However, what is particularly rewarding is that we also had > excellent candidates from Africa which indicates we manage to respond > effectively to a challenge identified in 2018. There is also good diversity > in the shortlist from the perspective of insiders vs. outsiders, and the > background and experience of candidates. > > Below is a reminder of the 2019 NomCom Timeline. I also attach the May > 2019 NomCom update. > > Finally, my second term on NomCom is coming to an end. This means it is > time for NCUC to identify someone new. I am available to share information > about the workload and skills needed with anyone who is interested. > > Thanks again to the NCUC for appointing me and to NCUC leadership for > their support. It has been very positive experience. I have learnt more > about ICANN than in the previous 20 years :) It is hard work, frustrating > at times, but rewarding to see how a group of very diverse individuals can > work together effectively to produce what I trust will again be an > impressive group of people that will add value to ICANN. > > Thank you also to NomCom leadership: Damon Ashcraft (chair), Jay Sudowski > (incoming chair) and Zahid Jamil (outgoing chair) for creating a very > constructive and respectful work environment. As for the ICANN staff > support team, they have been excellent. We would never be able to do this > without them. > > Sincere regards > > Anriette Esterhuysen > > > > > > > 2019 NomCom Timeline: > > ----------------------------- > Anriette Esterhuysen > Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning > Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette(a)apc.org > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list

3 2

RALO Meeting Participation
by John Laprise July 2, 2019

July 2, 2019

Sebastien made a good comment this week regarding the location of meetings and RALO participation. I would favor giving one slot in the schedule to the RALO ALAC representatives to organize a session on topics that are regionally relevant. As others have pointed out, in many respects the needs of Internet users are the same more often than not. Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D.

2 1