Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
To echo what Patrick said at the very start, this is an UNOFFICIAL group of a bunch of interested people. Period. Regardless of how we may have selected At-Large people to participate, that does not change it. See a recent note from Bruce Tonkin to the GNSO Council who are having similar problems with the representativeness of the participants. Alan At 10/11/2009 11:48 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
Hello, Nothing against the persons...
But I am concern with the composition of the Working Group. 8 of the members have signed a common letter http://www.icann.org/correspondence/van-couvering-to-beckstrom-21sep09-en.pd f 6 didn't sign it, (Maybe because in those stakeholder groups no one sign the letter ;)) 3 names are Awaiting confirmation. I am afraid that we will repeat the same situation than with the IRT. We can be very happy with a bottom-up process but if some rules are not taking into account (like publication of a statement of interest by each participants of "official" WG) it is not good. Geographic diversity is another point of concern.
My statement of interest is available at http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/bachollet.html
Sébastien Bachollet Président d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr
-----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Vanda UOL Envoyé : mardi 10 novembre 2009 14:06 À : 'At-Large Worldwide' Objet : Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
I support your comments James. It was very interesting process and should have more those in many policy issues. I believe any proposal will be posted to comments and after that we may have a process defined to go further. best
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of James Seng Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:09 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
What I heard from yesterday conference call is that the next conf call will be supported by ICANN; The yesterday conf call was put together in a hurry before the staff could react. Of course, this does not imply ICANN endorse the group or the concept but it is not as if ICANN staff is against it.
On the other hand, I see this initiative as an bottom-up process, where folks within the community come up with an idea, speak to enough people to gather support, go on and form a group to make a proposal to ICANN. So as a matter of principle, I support such initiative and I wish we could see more of such bottom-up ideas within ICANN.
If there is any fault with it so far, I would say the aggressive timeline they have (idea in Seoul, first call on Monday, and submit proposal on Friday).
In anycase, I don't think Friday would be the end of the process but rather the beginning. If the general idea is accepted by the Dec board conf call, I think the group need to continue the good work for a couple more months, working with the staff, as well as a public comment, before it will be finally accepted as part of the DAG process.
-James Seng
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande- walle.eu
wrote:
Just to be clear:
- The board asked the *staff* to come up with a proposal. They have not asked for a WG to be formed to develop policy. - although the WG leaders asked management, staff and board to logistically support this group, there was no answer. As an example, ICANN provided no teleconference facilities. Participants pay out of their own pocket. I volunteered to host the mailing list on my personal mail server.
The conclusion I draw is that the staff would actually prefer this WG not to exist. The main goal of this unofficial WG is to come up with a proposal that the staff cannot refuse, and will be somehow forced to present to the board at its December meeting.
As for the "missing" At-Large position on the group, the information I have that it was someone from Africa was based on conversations I had with Antony. The person has been approached already and the WG is still waiting for a reply. I was in no way involved in the choice, BTW.
Evan Leibovitch wrote, On 9/11/09 18:02:
First of all, I am *extremely* concerned about the compressed timeline.
/"Note that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight (Monday) and a final call next Friday" /
This is NOT how to do major policy changes!! ICANN has been at tghe DAG for years, and it wants to turn a good suggestion at the Public Forum into complete policy in less than a month?
This (along with the absolutely ridiculous way the IRT was formed) indicates an extremely dangerous sense of panic within either ICANN's Board, staff or both.
Also -- and this may be most important of all -- it lets ICANN knows how many applications will be non-controversial and might have an ability to be fast tracked. The concept of application categories is clearly back, but ICANN needs to see what applications is dealing with in order to know whether a strategy of streams is worthwhile. I have not heard the word fast-track in this discussion. The one of the goals is to be able to quantify, not to select a few that would get a priority treatment. Those operating in stealth will eventually have to come out sometime, might as well be now. ICANN is a public and transparent body and need not care about business justifications for secrecy. I am against ICANN engaging in NDAs with applicants. This is a"pirate" group of some activists trying to push through a proposal, despite the reluctance of ICANN. Hence, it is not an official policy work. See this as lobbying, rather than policy development. This is why I said right from the beginning that I would be acting in my personal capacity. At the ALAC/GAC meeting I raised the issue of the 'morality and public order' clause. There seemed to be a broad consensus that the existing clause is highly problematic, however they are against taking it out because want *some* provision there and they have no alternative ideas. The goal of this WG is not to decide what constitutes morality and public order. More pragmatically, this early notification may allow those who submit controversial proposals that generate large opposition from the beginning to avoid sinking a million dollars in vain.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
OK it is an UNOFFICIAL CLOSED group of a bunch of interested people. Yes they are interested! But to what? If it is period then it is not time for "official" At-Large participation. Sébastien Bachollet Président d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr
-----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg Envoyé : mardi 10 novembre 2009 18:15 À : At-Large Worldwide; ALAC Working List Objet : Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group Importance : Haute
To echo what Patrick said at the very start, this is an UNOFFICIAL group of a bunch of interested people. Period. Regardless of how we may have selected At-Large people to participate, that does not change it.
See a recent note from Bruce Tonkin to the GNSO Council who are having similar problems with the representativeness of the participants.
Alan
At 10/11/2009 11:48 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
Hello, Nothing against the persons...
But I am concern with the composition of the Working Group. 8 of the members have signed a common letter http://www.icann.org/correspondence/van-couvering-to-beckstrom- 21sep09-en.pd f 6 didn't sign it, (Maybe because in those stakeholder groups no one sign the letter ;)) 3 names are Awaiting confirmation. I am afraid that we will repeat the same situation than with the IRT. We can be very happy with a bottom-up process but if some rules are not taking into account (like publication of a statement of interest by each participants of "official" WG) it is not good. Geographic diversity is another point of concern.
My statement of interest is available at http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/bachollet.html
Sébastien Bachollet Président d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr
-----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Vanda UOL Envoyé : mardi 10 novembre 2009 14:06 À : 'At-Large Worldwide' Objet : Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
I support your comments James. It was very interesting process and should have more those in many policy issues. I believe any proposal will be posted to comments and after that we may have a process defined to go further. best
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of James Seng Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:09 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
What I heard from yesterday conference call is that the next conf call will be supported by ICANN; The yesterday conf call was put together in a hurry before the staff could react. Of course, this does not imply ICANN endorse the group or the concept but it is not as if ICANN staff is against it.
On the other hand, I see this initiative as an bottom-up process, where folks within the community come up with an idea, speak to enough people to gather support, go on and form a group to make a proposal to ICANN. So as a matter of principle, I support such initiative and I wish we could see more of such bottom-up ideas within ICANN.
If there is any fault with it so far, I would say the aggressive timeline they have (idea in Seoul, first call on Monday, and submit proposal on Friday).
In anycase, I don't think Friday would be the end of the process but rather the beginning. If the general idea is accepted by the Dec board conf call, I think the group need to continue the good work for a couple more months, working with the staff, as well as a public comment, before it will be finally accepted as part of the DAG process.
-James Seng
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande- walle.eu
wrote:
Just to be clear:
- The board asked the *staff* to come up with a proposal. They have not asked for a WG to be formed to develop policy. - although the WG leaders asked management, staff and board to logistically support this group, there was no answer. As an example, ICANN provided no teleconference facilities. Participants pay out of their own pocket. I volunteered to host the mailing list on my personal mail server.
The conclusion I draw is that the staff would actually prefer this WG not to exist. The main goal of this unofficial WG is to come up with a proposal that the staff cannot refuse, and will be somehow forced to present to the board at its December meeting.
As for the "missing" At-Large position on the group, the information I have that it was someone from Africa was based on conversations I had with Antony. The person has been approached already and the WG is still waiting for a reply. I was in no way involved in the choice, BTW.
Evan Leibovitch wrote, On 9/11/09 18:02:
First of all, I am *extremely* concerned about the compressed timeline.
/"Note that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight (Monday) and a final call next Friday" /
This is NOT how to do major policy changes!! ICANN has been at tghe DAG for years, and it wants to turn a good suggestion at the Public Forum into complete policy in less than a month?
This (along with the absolutely ridiculous way the IRT was formed) indicates an extremely dangerous sense of panic within either ICANN's Board, staff or both.
Also -- and this may be most important of all -- it lets ICANN knows how many applications will be non-controversial and might have an ability to be fast tracked. The concept of application categories is clearly back, but ICANN needs to see what applications is dealing with in order to know whether a strategy of streams is worthwhile. I have not heard the word fast-track in this discussion. The one of the goals is to be able to quantify, not to select a few that would get a priority treatment. Those operating in stealth will eventually have to come out sometime, might as well be now. ICANN is a public and transparent body and need not care about business justifications for secrecy. I am against ICANN engaging in NDAs with applicants. This is a"pirate" group of some activists trying to push through a proposal, despite the reluctance of ICANN. Hence, it is not an official policy work. See this as lobbying, rather than policy development. This is why I said right from the beginning that I would be acting in my personal capacity. At the ALAC/GAC meeting I raised the issue of the 'morality and public order' clause. There seemed to be a broad consensus that the existing clause is highly problematic, however they are against taking it out because want *some* provision there and they have no alternative ideas. The goal of this WG is not to decide what constitutes morality and public order. More pragmatically, this early notification may allow those who submit controversial proposals that generate large opposition from the beginning to avoid sinking a million dollars in vain.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Sébastien Bachollet