Dear At-Large Community If you have been following the At-Large community discussion list, you will have noted the concern that has been raised about a waiver that ICANN is imposing on the volunteer community to provide their signature to the document, as a prerequisite to being granted travel sponsorship to attend F2F ICANN Meetings. The waiver absolves ICANN of any responsibility for an ICANN participant'sgetting ill or is harmed in any way, even if it is ICANN's fault. This is the core concern for us as volunteers. It is seen as an unreasonable ask of volunteers who have always known that they have to take responsibility for themselves not only when attending ICANN meetings, but also when they participate in other F2F meetings and working group activities that occur in between ICANN meetings. We can appreciate that ICANN needs to protect itself, but while doing so they should not abdicate their duty of care to all those members of the ICANN community who have dedicated many years to providing personal inputs into ICANN's important work - to produce policy that will help to protect the DNS. It is taken for granted that "years" is the normal measurement in time which is required to produce formal outputs from ICANN. During the At-Large community discussions, a raft of reasons developed which related to how this waiver that has been imposed as a pre-requisite to any travel support, impacts volunteer communities throughout ICANN. These reasons were noted and transformed into a list of 10 reasons why the waiver is not one of the best decisions that has come out of ICANN - more especially because it did not adhere to one of its core principles "the bottom-up, multistakeholder model". I have called the ALAC members together to make a decision about the waiver (the invitations for them to do so is below) to seek their support for "*the waiver and the expectation that it is signed before any travel sponsorship is provided, to be withdrawn*" Although we have to consider that this course of action may not be actionable before ICANN74, we would ultimately like to return to what was the practice of the past when the community was trusted. We have always known that we were attending ICANN meetings at our own risk and would not have earlier contemplated taking action against ICANN for any illness or harm that might befall us if it was the fault of the individual during an ICANN meeting. There was also some need to address the section that had been identified as a key sticking point "*I knowingly and freely assume all risks related to illness and infectious diseases, including but not limited to COVID-19, even if arising from the negligence or fault of ICANN "* I already have a majority of the ALAC members who have immediately added their support to my request to submit Marita's 10 reasons why the waivers should be removed, *as the basis of our Advice to the Board that the waiver be withdrawn*. In case they are otherwise engaged, other ALAC members still have a bit of time to respond (by Sunday 1 May 23.59utc) before the request is formally submitted as ALAC advice to the Board. *Although many of our community already participated earlier, I would hope that others in our At-Large community will also support this request. Please let me know if you would like to add your name to our letter of Advice to the Board.* Maureen ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 11:14 PM Subject: Advice to the Board? To: ALAC Members <ALAC-members@icann.org> Dear ALAC members It has been suggested that we propose Marita's email to the community as ADVICE to the Board of the community's feelings about the waiver, so that the Board has to officially respond. Earlier messages of concern about other issues about volunteer support have only been noted because they were not formal advice, even though they reflected many discussions by the At-Large community, particularly during the pandemic. If you have any concerns about this summary list, please let me know before Sunday 23.59UTC. I think it is an important issue and that we need to make sure that it is given the consideration that it deserves. I realise that any change may not happen for ICANN74 but if can address these issues for future meetings we will have achieved something at least. I look forward to a yay or nay from members about sending this as advice. Regards Maureen Marita Moll via At-Large 2:32 AM (20 hours ago) to At With apologies to former late show host David Letterman and thanks to all those who provided input, here are my top 10 reasons why this waiver is a bad idea for ICANN and for the community: 10. It is insensitive to the global community as it can be interpreted as an exportation of U.S.-based litigious culture 9. It disregards the fact that participants at ICANN meetings have always willingly and knowingly accepted personal responsibility for health issues that arise during meetings 8. It is a disincentive to attending ICANN meetings in person, thereby damaging the ability of the community to work together 7. Concerns which have arisen throughout the community about the broad scope of the waiver are not being addressed – including legal opinions warning potential participants against signing. 6. No one is taking ownership of this waiver. The Board position on it is unclear 5. There has been no general explanation to the community or any attempt seek buy-in for this waiver 4. This kind of blanket waiver could be unenforceable and in that case, serves only as intimidation 3. The waiver infringes on individual rights 2. ICANN appears to be abandoning its duty of care to the participating community who are voluntarily contributing their time and energy to fulfilling ICANN's mandate to operate as a bottom-up multistakeholder organization *Top reason why this waiver is a really bad idea:* *1. It leaves a lasting unpleasant taste in the mouths of participants contributing to ICANN's multistakeholder model -- which is presented as a source of pride and accomplishment to the internet governance community.* Marita (now signing off on this topic -- thanks for bearing with me)