Hi all, I have just researched Danny's comments below and can confirm what he is saying. I have just listened to the transcript of our telephone conference of Sept. 10 and there was no mention of Ross Rader, just Evan, Eric (is it Eric or Hugh?) and Michael (as per Danny's list). There has been absolutely no on-list activity mentioning Ross whatsoever. I, personally, have no problem with having Ross in this position. On the other hand I, too, have serious reservations about the opacity of the process. We had three names put forward, two of which were confirmed. I would definitely like to know how this happened with complete disregard for input from the NARALO. If processes are put in place, they should be followed or else what is the point of us putting our time and effort into this at all? Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:24 PM To: NA Discuss; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments Dear Members, The North American community is entitled to an explanation of the voting results for our region that saw a supplier-side registrar representative elected whose name was never once introduced for candidacy on the NARALO discussion list. The minutes of the last ALAC meeting state: "It was decided that the RALOs would provide their advice and recommendations by the end of this week (NLT 16st September). There would then be a vote online using instant runoff for the candidates of each region wherever there is more than one candidate proposed from a region." The North American region advanced three names: Eric Dierker (confirmed), Michael Geist (at last report was "pending confirmation", and Evan Leibovitch (confirmed). The current NARALO Wiki contains only two names: Hugh Dierker [USA] current chair of the GNSO's General Assembly Proposed by Danny Younger Confirmed Evan Leibovich [Canada] ALS Representative, CLUE (Canada) Proposed by Beau & Robert Confirmed https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?na_nominating_committee_candidates _2007 You will note that Ross Rader's name is not mentioned therein, yet suddenly he has been elected without member ALSs and North American individual participants in the RALO even being aware of his candidacy. Further, voting results show that Eric Dierker's name was never even voted upon, notwithstanding the fact that his bio/credentials were submitted for review. I find: (1) the opaqueness of this process outrageously disturbing, (2) the voting process that saw candidates having their names not included as perverse in the extreme, (3) the result (the election of registry and registrar representatives instead of user representatives) as a vile and deplorable abuse of trust I, and likely the Ombudsman as well, await an explanation. ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------

I, too, as a person who voted on NomComm appointments, am disturbed by what I'm hearing. I missed the last telephone conference so I assumed that the process for drawing up the final list of candidates had been clearly agreed upon and duly executed. It seems to me that the wiki, with its editing possibilities, is not the proper tool for carrying out a formal process such as finalizing an election list. The final authoritative list, whether it conformed to RALO wishes or not, must have been properly announced by the Chair(or the proper responsible substitute) before voting took place. Siavash

Hi, Following is my "personal" comments as an ALAC member who voted on this.

I think that Danny's and Darlene's question about the process is valid and requires good explanation. I thought the candidates on the voting website were the valid ones - I should have examined more carefully in the end. If I may, I was on the road and just voted on the fly, but was convinved the candidates were all qualified persons. I did not have time to check the NARALO wiki, and I did not think it was necesarry for me to do so. This is not saying that I am not responsible for the result, though.

I was charing the ALAC meeting on Sep 11, and handed over my responsibility to the Chair/Vice Chair after that. But I still feel responsible to implement what we agreed.

Now, I urge the persons in charge who setup the voting to come up with a reasonable explanation, and if failing so, I think we should hold the final decision to NomCom.

I personally have little problem having registrar or other consitiuency person to be nomiated to NomCom from ALAC, if he or she meets the criteria we set and selected through a legitimate way.

But, until a good explanation is made, our accoutability is at stake and therefore we should not conclude this.

izumi (still on the road in Europe with limited connection time)

2007/9/28, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca>:

...

Hi all,

I have just researched Danny's comments below and can confirm what he is saying. I have just listened to the transcript of our telephone conference of Sept. 10 and there was no mention of Ross Rader, just Evan, Eric (is it Eric or Hugh?) and Michael (as per Danny's list). There has been absolutely no on-list activity mentioning Ross whatsoever.

I, personally, have no problem with having Ross in this position. On the other hand I, too, have serious reservations about the opacity of the process. We had three names put forward, two of which were confirmed. I would definitely like to know how this happened with complete disregard for input from the NARALO. If processes are put in place, they should be followed or else what is the point of us putting our time and effort into this at all?

Darlene

Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca

-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:24 PM To: NA Discuss; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments

Dear Members,

The North American community is entitled to an explanation of the voting results for our region that saw a supplier-side registrar representative elected whose name was never once introduced for candidacy on the NARALO discussion list.

The minutes of the last ALAC meeting state: "It was decided that the RALOs would provide their advice and recommendations by the end of this week (NLT 16st September). There would then be a vote online using instant runoff for the candidates of each region wherever there is more than one candidate proposed from a region."

The North American region advanced three names: Eric Dierker (confirmed), Michael Geist (at last report was "pending confirmation", and Evan Leibovitch (confirmed).

The current NARALO Wiki contains only two names:

Hugh Dierker [USA] current chair of the GNSO's General Assembly Proposed by Danny Younger Confirmed

Evan Leibovich [Canada] ALS Representative, CLUE (Canada) Proposed by Beau & Robert Confirmed

https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?na_nominating_committee_candidates _2007

You will note that Ross Rader's name is not mentioned therein, yet suddenly he has been elected without member ALSs and North American individual participants in the RALO even being aware of his candidacy.

Further, voting results show that Eric Dierker's name was never even voted upon, notwithstanding the fact that his bio/credentials were submitted for review.

I find: (1) the opaqueness of this process outrageously disturbing, (2) the voting process that saw candidates having their names not included as perverse in the extreme, (3) the result (the election of registry and registrar representatives instead of user representatives) as a vile and deplorable abuse of trust

I, and likely the Ombudsman as well, await an explanation.

________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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

------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------

Hi, This is damaging the image of ALAC community as a whole . as an ALAC member i did vote based on the list posted into the ALAC wiki and according to it the voting proceeded, my understanding was that the regional secretary or Ralo representatives confirmed the data on their Ralos ALAC nominations list as the list was complete and online since 18th sep and there was a good space to time to review and update, based on that i voted accordingly . after checking ALAC wiki i can see that Ros Radar name was added after 17th sep, his name is not available on NA Nomcom list on NA wiki, and i can't assume that his name was added to the list based on a NA consensus or not. I would like to suggest that NA ALAC representatives and staff should consult with NA and find out what happened and how it happened ASAP as we are reaching our Nomcom deadline, if Danny & Darlene comments is correct ALAC should solve this issue . i don't think its the Staff mistake, as Nick mentioned they provide us with the tools to operate but when something like this happens they should be assisting in identifying the problem so we can avoid it in the future . Regards, Mo.EL Bashir ALAC member Siavash Shahshahani wrote:

I, too, as a person who voted on NomComm appointments, am disturbed by what I'm hearing. I missed the last telephone conference so I assumed that the process for drawing up the final list of candidates had been clearly agreed upon and duly executed. It seems to me that the wiki, with its editing possibilities, is not the proper tool for carrying out a formal process such as finalizing an election list. The final authoritative list, whether it conformed to RALO wishes or not, must have been properly announced by the Chair(or the proper responsible substitute) before voting took place. Siavash

...

Hi, Following is my "personal" comments as an ALAC member who voted on this.

I think that Danny's and Darlene's question about the process is valid and requires good explanation. I thought the candidates on the voting website were the valid ones - I should have examined more carefully in the end. If I may, I was on the road and just voted on the fly, but was convinved the candidates were all qualified persons. I did not have time to check the NARALO wiki, and I did not think it was necesarry for me to do so. This is not saying that I am not responsible for the result, though.

I was charing the ALAC meeting on Sep 11, and handed over my responsibility to the Chair/Vice Chair after that. But I still feel responsible to implement what we agreed.

Now, I urge the persons in charge who setup the voting to come up with a reasonable explanation, and if failing so, I think we should hold the final decision to NomCom.

I personally have little problem having registrar or other consitiuency person to be nomiated to NomCom from ALAC, if he or she meets the criteria we set and selected through a legitimate way.

But, until a good explanation is made, our accoutability is at stake and therefore we should not conclude this.

izumi (still on the road in Europe with limited connection time)

2007/9/28, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca>:

...

Hi all,

I have just researched Danny's comments below and can confirm what he is saying. I have just listened to the transcript of our telephone conference of Sept. 10 and there was no mention of Ross Rader, just Evan, Eric (is it Eric or Hugh?) and Michael (as per Danny's list). There has been absolutely no on-list activity mentioning Ross whatsoever.

I, personally, have no problem with having Ross in this position. On the other hand I, too, have serious reservations about the opacity of the process. We had three names put forward, two of which were confirmed. I would definitely like to know how this happened with complete disregard for input from the NARALO. If processes are put in place, they should be followed or else what is the point of us putting our time and effort into this at all?

Darlene

Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca

-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:24 PM To: NA Discuss; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments

Dear Members,

The North American community is entitled to an explanation of the voting results for our region that saw a supplier-side registrar representative elected whose name was never once introduced for candidacy on the NARALO discussion list.

The minutes of the last ALAC meeting state: "It was decided that the RALOs would provide their advice and recommendations by the end of this week (NLT 16st September). There would then be a vote online using instant runoff for the candidates of each region wherever there is more than one candidate proposed from a region."

The North American region advanced three names: Eric Dierker (confirmed), Michael Geist (at last report was "pending confirmation", and Evan Leibovitch (confirmed).

The current NARALO Wiki contains only two names:

Hugh Dierker [USA] current chair of the GNSO's General Assembly Proposed by Danny Younger Confirmed

Evan Leibovich [Canada] ALS Representative, CLUE (Canada) Proposed by Beau & Robert Confirmed

https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?na_nominating_committee_candidates _2007

You will note that Ross Rader's name is not mentioned therein, yet suddenly he has been elected without member ALSs and North American individual participants in the RALO even being aware of his candidacy.

Further, voting results show that Eric Dierker's name was never even voted upon, notwithstanding the fact that his bio/credentials were submitted for review.

I find: (1) the opaqueness of this process outrageously disturbing, (2) the voting process that saw candidates having their names not included as perverse in the extreme, (3) the result (the election of registry and registrar representatives instead of user representatives) as a vile and deplorable abuse of trust

I, and likely the Ombudsman as well, await an explanation.

________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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

------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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

-- Best Regards, Mohamed El Bashir President, Sudan Internet Society .SD Domain Name Registry Vice President, Communications & Out-Reach "African Top Level Domains Organization-AfTLD" ICANN ccNSO Council Member 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.

Danny Younger wrote:

Did these candidates provide Statements of Interest that revealed their employment history?

Danny - further to the background I sent you last night offline, I'd also add that my statement of interests has been a matter of the public record for as long as I can remember. In early 2006, I formalized them at the follow URL: http://www.byte.org/blog/_WebPages/StatementofInterestsforRossRader.html My telephone numbers are also listed on that page for anyone that has questions. I will be updating that page after the AGM to reflect the fact that I will no longer be an official representative of the registrar constituency in any way. My term of appointment to the GNSO Council by the registrar constituency will have come to a close and all of my elected task force work will also have completed. As I mentioned offline to you, in discussing this new found time with Robert a month or so ago, I had mentioned to him that I would like to rekindle my participation in the ALAC (I'm pretty sure that last time I participated in a meeting was at the ICANN meeting in Rome) and to start seriously looking at how we can bring some real meaning to the GA structure. I was very flattered when he let me know that he had put my name forward for this position and truly believe that I can bring a lot to the nominating committee table on behalf of the user community. I had mentioned to Robert yesterday that I would like to get the ball rolling early in terms of soliciting feedback and input on the expectations and recommendations of the membership in advance of the formal nominating committee process getting started. If you have any suggestions on how I might best approach this, I'd really appreciate the guidance. I see a great opportunity this year to move ICANN further away from the institutional bias of many of the insiders and instead start to form expectations of ICANN as a steward of a public resource (and not purely that of a coordinator of technical resources and security concerns). I don't see a long term future for ICANN unless it assumes a role as a public steward and all that this would entail. Anyways, I hope this further clarifies my intentions. If there are other questions that I can answer, please let me know. regards, -ross

Robert Guerra on the NARALO discussion list has revealed that "Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done privately on a one-to-one basis." These consultations with "those in ICANN" resulted in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate being removed from the voting roster. I find it highly disturbing that elected members of the NARALO feel at liberty to consult with "those in ICANN" without engaging in any consultation with those in the NARALO membership. Who are "those in ICANN" that were consulted? Are ICANN Board members or ICANN Staff complicit in a process to rig the ALAC elections? Or is Robert referring to others? It is his wish that those consultations remain privileged. We deserve a full investigation into this matter. I remain of the view that a legitimate candidate was treatly unfairly and that at the very least the Ombudsman should be called in to review this matter. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

Danny, As you have always been one of the strongest voices in counseling us to focus on policy rather than infighting, I hope you will also help us to leave behind personal attacks and work with us to make the ALAC more responsive to the at-large community. With work, I hope we can minimize such feelings of miscommunication in the future. Thanks, --Wendy Danny Younger wrote:

Robert Guerra on the NARALO discussion list has revealed that "Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done privately on a one-to-one basis."

These consultations with "those in ICANN" resulted in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate being removed from the voting roster.

I find it highly disturbing that elected members of the NARALO feel at liberty to consult with "those in ICANN" without engaging in any consultation with those in the NARALO membership.

Who are "those in ICANN" that were consulted? Are ICANN Board members or ICANN Staff complicit in a process to rig the ALAC elections? Or is Robert referring to others? It is his wish that those consultations remain privileged.

We deserve a full investigation into this matter. I remain of the view that a legitimate candidate was treatly unfairly and that at the very least the Ombudsman should be called in to review this matter.

____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 // office: 617.373.7331 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/

If this were an appointment that were committed to a public election, then there would indeed be grounds for complaints of interference. As it was one left to the complete discretion of the ALAC, which made no promise to consider rosters of candidates, I don't understand the accusations. You may wish to seek changes to the ICANN bylaws, or to the operating procedures of the RALO or the ALAC, but I don't see how attacking the individuals helps understand either what went wrong or what needs to be changed. For example: the current structure gives the NA RALO no binding power, such that its representatives were free to go beyond the NA RALO in selecting and evaluating nominees for the NomCom, and so they sought advice from multiple sources and ultimately made their own recommendations. Since that process left NA participants feeling disenfranchised, let's find a way to improve both communications and the structural participation of NA participants in the ALAC processes. Perhaps procedures should be changed so NA ALAC reps are bound to follow recommendations from the NARALO, as Darlene has suggested we look to LACRALO. Perhaps the RALO should develop a procedure by which it can indicate its [consensus, majority, other] commands to ALAC representatives. I'm hardly trying to bury the issue. I'm hoping it can yet be a source of progress rather than mere argumentation. --Wendy Danny Younger wrote:

Wendy,

As Robert on the NCUC list has revealed that you were one of the parties consulted in a process that led to the removal of a candidate from the voting roster, I can understand why you might wish to bury the issue.

Sorry, but electoral fraud, an illegal interference with the process of an election, is a serious matter that can't just be swept under the carpet like it never happened. Removing a candidate from the roster for no legitimate reason is illegal interference. It should not be condoned on the pretext of needing to move on.

regards, Danny

--- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:

...

Danny,

As you have always been one of the strongest voices in counseling us to focus on policy rather than infighting, I hope you will also help us to leave behind personal attacks and work with us to make the ALAC more responsive to the at-large community. With work, I hope we can minimize such feelings of miscommunication in the future.

Thanks, --Wendy

Danny Younger wrote:

...

Robert Guerra on the NARALO discussion list has revealed that "Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done privately on a one-to-one basis."

These consultations with "those in ICANN" resulted in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate being removed from the voting roster.

I find it highly disturbing that elected members of the NARALO feel at liberty to consult with "those in ICANN" without engaging in any consultation with those in the NARALO membership.

Who are "those in ICANN" that were consulted? Are ICANN Board members or ICANN Staff complicit in a process to rig the ALAC elections? Or is Robert referring to others? It is his wish that those consultations remain privileged.

We deserve a full investigation into this matter. I remain of the view that a legitimate candidate was treatly unfairly and that at the very least the Ombudsman should be called in to review this matter.

---

...

...

Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

...

Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 // office: 617.373.7331 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/

____________________________________________________________________________________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@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/

Danny Younger wrote:

Wendy,

You are correct. Matters were left to the complete discretion of the ALAC, the champion of the user interest, that in its wisdom elected the best possible user representatives from the registry and registrar communities.

Perhaps next year you can elect VeriSign's Chuck Gomes to serve as your user representative.

Danny - please stop repeating this. You've said it many times and its really starting to bother me. I think I've offered a fair explanation of how I will be spending my time in the next few years and that I should be given a chance to participate, as a user. This was never an issue when you were in the employ of register.com, why are you making it an issue now? I understand that you have issues about the process, but I really don't understand why you are making it an issue about me. -ross

Danny, There are so many more important topics than the one you're trying to put on the agenda today. It's good you are at least not attacking Bret and Wendy ;-) Veni P.S. Serving on the Board of ISOC-New York with you, and having heard your passionate arguments against the ALAC and ISOC-NY participation there (arguments which you lost, as we decided in the last board meeting that we'll join the At Large), I am surprised to see you interested in it. I thought you are into the NCUC. For more information, check this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4917641518036309218 Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given way. At 11:19 9/29/2007 -0700, Danny Younger wrote:

Ross,

This has never been an issue about "you".

Registrars put their own registrar candidates onto the NonCom. Registries put their own candidates onto the NonCom. Every stakeholder group looks to safeguard their own interests by selecting member representatives from their own community to serve on the NonCom.

You still didn't answer - why so passionate, since you are not interested in the ALAC, but I guess by your response the answer to that question is clear to everyone. veni as for the personal attacks - your usual style when you lose your nerves - perhaps you should concentrate on something more constructive. I am notorious for not paying attention to such stuff. For your ISOC-NY question, please, write to David Solomonoff. This list is not interested in only one of the many US chapters, I am afraid. At 19:11 9/29/2007 -0700, Danny Younger wrote:

Veni,

Thank you for your kind remarks. In the interest of transparency, please feel free to post the ISOC-NY vote count on NARALO membership (how many in favor; how many opposed). I presume that this was the August session at which only a mere handful of members showed up and in which you (a member of ICANN Staff) forced through your own private agenda?

regards, Danny

Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given way.

Found on the ICANN Public Participation Website: "I have an unexpired domain (ifasc.org) and my webhost suddenly dropped my site and has since blocked my domain from transferring to another webhost. Because of this, my non profit organization has lost contact with all of our volunteers around the world and we are desperately issuing press releases asking our volunteers to contact us using a generic email service provider. The problem I have is that all my attempts to contact the webhost LOWBUDGETHOST.COM and the registar JDT, Technologies by phone or by email have also failed. They do not respond and it has been a week since they last billed me. (Yeah, pages are down, but the billing continues and they remain silent). I was forced to purchase a new domain and host my pages with another webhost. However, my former registrar just keeps refusing to reply to my requests to unlock my domain before it expires. If anyone has any idea what I can I do to retreive my domain IFASC.ORG, please let me know to my email: dgon1329[at]aol.com or iex[at]hq.ifasc.net." Obviously registrants are continuing to have transfer-related problems. RegisterFly is not the only example of this predicament. This registrant was the INTERNATIONAL FAMILY AID & SUPPORT CENTER that offered services in Spanish and English. At first glance it appears that the registrar did not allow for a tranfer, did not renew the domain for the registrant, did not offer the auto-renew grace period services, and did not allow for a redemption grace period; instead the registrar allowed his reseller to put its own name in as registrant and promptly began utilizing a monetization service. It would really be great in anyone on the ALAC -- anyone -- could give some thought to this problem and post a solution to raa-consultation[at]icann.org. Registrants are begging for help... will anyone in the ALAC step forward to help them? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/

Ross Rader wrote:

Danny - please stop repeating this. You've said it many times and its really starting to bother me. I think I've offered a fair explanation of how I will be spending my time in the next few years and that I should be given a chance to participate, as a user.

And yet... Ross, you are unknown in or to the At-Large Infrastructure. You've never participated in the RALO and were never suggested to us as a candidate. As far as the grassroots is aware, you were parachuted in because those who actually cared to step forward were deemed unsuitable in their absence. It is no coincidence that you were not even considered until Wendy was elected as the ALAC rep to the Board. I would not go so far as Danny's accusations of fraud; no regulations were broken, and it sounds like Ross *may* be able to help appoint people who have user interests in mind. I have no idea, since his name was never brought before the RALO. However, I do think that the three North American ALAC members did violate the trust placed in them -- two of them directly by the North American ALSs -- in a number of ways: 1) In the absence of suitable candidates who stepped forward, they looked outside the At-Large community and chose a familiar face -- the easy way out -- from within an existing ICANN constituency. 2) Ample time existed for them to indicate their problem to the RALO and solicit other people from within the At-Large community. No such consultation was attempted. 3) This particular position was one for which ICANN longevity was not necessarily an asset, for it is regarding selection of people rather than policies. Limiting the selection to those deeply embedded into ICANN culture eliminates acceptance to new ideas or points of view that lack the contamination of long-term ICANN exposure. If the North American ALAC reps had consulted with the RALO on appropriate criteria, perhaps they would have had a different perspective on this as well. On a personal level, I am embarrassed to be writing this as the losing candidate because it sounds like sour grapes. I want to make it clear that I have no interest in re-contesting things and I'm quite able to accept this legitimately-made decision. However, I find it unfortunate that those who who recommended me to stand for the position not only voted against me, but solicited others who were perceived to be better suited. Why recruit me in the first place, then, if I'm deemed to be an inferior choice before I'm even put forward? How did setting me up to fail serve the interest of At-Large? Maybe my lack of appreciation for the wisdom of such procedures was a reason for my being considered not yet ready to be considered. I would still suggest, however, that this process was severely deficient, in the face of past events and ongoing deep concerns about the effectiveness of ALAC in representing the point of view of the world at large. At-Large is a community distinct from registrars, registries, IP lawyers, academics, NGOs or anyone else. As such, it -- and the people who represent it within ICANN -- have a responsibility to bring in new and different points of view, not fall back on The Usual Suspects every time a challenge appears. Perhaps its leaders -- especially those who were elected by the grassroots -- should consider that unfamiliarity with the baggage of ICANN culture perhaps can be seen as an asset. I would hope that moving forward we don't continue to be seen as taking the easy way out, repeatedly preferring comfort and familiarity over energy and diversity. - Evan

Ross Rader ha scritto:

This was never an issue when you were in the employ of register.com, why are you making it an issue now? I understand that you have issues about the process, but I really don't understand why you are making it an issue about me.

As I also criticized this appointment, let me clarify my reasoning, which is somewhat different from Danny's. I think that you would do a great job in the Nomcom, and I believe that you could separate your employment from your activity in this position. However, I am afraid that in the future, whenever the ALAC will take a position on a policy issue that is by chance in favour of registrars or registries, the opposing camps will start to claim that there are deals behind the scenes, that the ALAC is not impartial, and so on. I do not see any easy way to counter these allegiations, and so I am concerned about the chance that they might become (or be made become) louder and louder. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

Hi--I hope Ross can get up to speed with NARALO by getting on the NARALO list and participating, he doesn't have to be connected with an ALS, he can be an independent, like me! :-) If he takes advice from NARALO and wears a "user hat" I think he could be a strong voice for NA users at the NomCom. Of course we will never know because NomCom activities are absolutely secret. But I do think that, at least on the face of it, it is odd that ALAC would elect him to take a *user* seat on Nomcom. I note that when Nomcom itself doesn't think it has enough candidates for appointments, it announces the fact and extends the deadline. Maybe we had no choice about extending the deadline, but surely there was time for ALAC to ask NARALO to quickly send out one more plea to its ALS constituency to get some resumes to ALAC. I think putting people on NomCom is one of the most important things ALAC does. NomCom is the kingmaker. Just my ideas. JP Ex-ALAC from NA

I do not really want to continue flogging this dead horse as I've made my opinions abundantly clear that I, personally, do not agree with the process that was followed and I think that a review is in order. Having said that, though, I am still not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I do not think that Robert or Beau or anybody should be asked to step down nor should they be set up for personal attacks such as this. I think that mistakes were made but lets not go into the deep end with this. Having been on the receiving end of a tirade or two, I can tell you how demoralizing it is. I don't think that anybody acted purposefully "evil". Lets try to keep this constructive and, if anything, propose changes to the system (if possible or if desired), K? Darlene ________________________________ From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Sat 9/29/2007 10:46 AM To: shahshah@irnic.ir; Izumi AIZU Cc: Thompson, Darlene; At-Large Worldwide; Danny Younger; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments Robert Guerra on the NARALO discussion list has revealed that "Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done privately on a one-to-one basis." These consultations with "those in ICANN" resulted in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate being removed from the voting roster. I find it highly disturbing that elected members of the NARALO feel at liberty to consult with "those in ICANN" without engaging in any consultation with those in the NARALO membership. Who are "those in ICANN" that were consulted? Are ICANN Board members or ICANN Staff complicit in a process to rig the ALAC elections? Or is Robert referring to others? It is his wish that those consultations remain privileged. We deserve a full investigation into this matter. I remain of the view that a legitimate candidate was treatly unfairly and that at the very least the Ombudsman should be called in to review this matter. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

While it is properly for the members of the ALAC, and in particular those from North America, to comment on the candidates put forward for voting by the committee and anything related to their choices based upon that list, I should comment on the process. The Bylaws of ICANN, as has widely been stated earlier in the on-list discussions of selection of the 5 NomCom voting members which the ALAC appoints each year, provide in Article IX, S2(4)(e): e. The ALAC shall annually appoint one non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors, without limitation on re-appointment, and shall, after consultation with each RALO, annually appoint five voting delegates (no two of whom shall be citizens of countries in the same Geographic Region, as defined according to Section 5 of Article VI) to the Nominating Committee. In this instance, as has been noted, the ALAC did consult with the RALO. The members of the ALAC for North America included candidates from that region on the page at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? 2008_alac_nominating_committee and on that page also provided commentary on the selection criteria which they used to reach the names listed on that page. The ALAC voted on the candidates on the same page, and the results were as indicated. If the RALOs, or individual ALSes, believe that the Bylaws should be changed in some manner which would affect future NomCom appointments, it would be for them to suggest that. Perhaps the NARALO Secretariat and Chair will wish to bring this topic up during the meetings of the Secretariat in LA On 27 Sep 2007, at 20:23, Danny Younger wrote:

Dear Members,

The North American community is entitled to an explanation of the voting results for our region that saw a supplier-side registrar representative elected whose name was never once introduced for candidacy on the NARALO discussion list.

The minutes of the last ALAC meeting state: "It was decided that the RALOs would provide their advice and recommendations by the end of this week (NLT 16st September). There would then be a vote online using instant runoff for the candidates of each region wherever there is more than one candidate proposed from a region."

The North American region advanced three names: Eric Dierker (confirmed), Michael Geist (at last report was "pending confirmation", and Evan Leibovitch (confirmed).

The current NARALO Wiki contains only two names:

Hugh Dierker [USA] current chair of the GNSO's General Assembly Proposed by Danny Younger Confirmed

Evan Leibovich [Canada] ALS Representative, CLUE (Canada) Proposed by Beau & Robert Confirmed

https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi? na_nominating_committee_candidates_2007

You will note that Ross Rader's name is not mentioned therein, yet suddenly he has been elected without member ALSs and North American individual participants in the RALO even being aware of his candidacy.

Further, voting results show that Eric Dierker's name was never even voted upon, notwithstanding the fact that his bio/credentials were submitted for review.

I find: (1) the opaqueness of this process outrageously disturbing, (2) the voting process that saw candidates having their names not included as perverse in the extreme, (3) the result (the election of registry and registrar representatives instead of user representatives) as a vile and deplorable abuse of trust

I, and likely the Ombudsman as well, await an explanation.

______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------

-- 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@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

On 28 Sep 2007, at 08:22, Bret Fausett wrote:

...

The ALAC voted on the candidates on the same page, and the results were as indicated. If the RALOs, or individual ALSes, believe that the Bylaws should be changed in some manner which would affect future NomCom appointments, it would be for them to suggest that.

The bylaws only say that the ALAC annually shall "appoint" five delegates to the NomComm. They do not say that the ALAC is required to "vote" to make the appointments, so I think it would be a misreading to say that the bylaws dictated the process that the ALAC followed.

The Bylaws are indeed silent as to the mechanisms by which the ALAC shall choose whom to appoint to the NomCom.

As I mentioned on the list prior to the selection, in past years the ALAC representatives from each region gathered to make their selection, and then the other regions simply ratified those regional choices. Under the "voting" process that was followed this year, however, it is theoretically possible that a person could be elected from a region without having any support from the ALAC representatives of that region. In an extreme example, North America, South American and Europe, voting as a block, could dictate the representatives for Africa and Asia. That result is made possible by the procedure followed here, but it was not dictated by the bylaws.

As to your last point, you are correct that it is not dictated by the Bylaws - however, as the Bylaws are silent on this point the Bylaws clearly do not prevent the ALAC from voting in the manner they have chosen to follow, either. -- 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@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

Thanks for your note Evan - please see below. On 28 Sep 2007, at 11:48, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

...

you are correct that it is not dictated by the Bylaws - however, as the Bylaws are silent on this point the Bylaws clearly do not prevent the ALAC from voting in the manner they have chosen to follow, either. So, because the bylaws don't mandate transparency, it's not to be considered (let alone advocated)?

I note that I didn't say that, and as a result I didn't mean that, either. The staff do not decide what the members of the ALAC vote about. We provide the tools to ensure that voting is carried out in an orderly way which is not subject to inherent flaws. We do have a duty to ensure that to the extent possible the process devised is not abusive, untransparent, or not in conformity with the Bylaws of ICANN but we cannot dictate to the ALAC, for example,

There is clearly a gap between doing the minimum necessary and doing what is right. Fixing the ICANN bylaws to add transparency (that it claims to want) is one thing; asking for basic accountability and transparency within our own constituency -- even when not demanded by the bylaws -- is far more straightforward, and IMO quite reasonable.

The Bylaws may offer a legal crutch but they sure don't offer an ethical one, especially if ICANN wants any credibility in its stated desire to be more transparent. Or does it speak one way but act another by design?

The staff have not acted in any way improperly and I object to any characterisation of the staff role in this as untransparent. The page showing the Nomcom Appointees for 2008 has been publicly listed on the ALAC working wiki for some time. Who the ALAC were going to vote on was listed at that page and anyone in the community could look at it. The wiki environment itself - with the ability of each region, and of the ALAC, to post its activities and intended courses of action, was setup by staff to facilitate community transparency. The fact that all agendas of ALAC are public, that recordings and transcripts are available, is also very transparent. Votes are published as you see, with a link to facilitate independent verification. If you have an issue with the choices which were made then the ALAC members are where you should focus your questions. It is the responsibility of the community to elect its leaders. It is likewise those leaders' responsibility to execute their responsibilities openly and congruent with those that chose them. The staff is not responsible for the choices made by your leaders, or for your choices in who you choose to lead you.

Is it staff practice not to itself be transparent -- and to recommend against transparency and accountability in internal procedures -- unless the bylaws absolutely and specifically demand it? Is doing the absolute minimum necessary Standard Operating Procedure?

Again, this is objectionable, inaccurate, and actually insulting. It would be appreciated if comments could be kept factual, and accurate. If you object to the choices made by the representatives on the ALAC, you should ask them about their choices, not come and blame the staff. It is both a defocus and frankly unhelpful. I have never recommended untransparent actions - ask the ALAC; they'll likely tell you I can be a bit irritating in always suggesting that the community err on the side of more transparency, rather than less. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 email: nashton@consensus.pro Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Is it staff practice not to itself be transparent -- and to recommend against transparency and accountability in internal procedures -- unless the bylaws absolutely and specifically demand it? Is doing the absolute minimum necessary Standard Operating Procedure?

Although I agree with you on general observations regarding transparency (having read the traffic on the mailing list about the nominations, I was surprised myself to see different candidates - but please take also into account that I only have partial information, as I read only the public list), I believe that you might be aiming at the wrong target. And maybe, if we want to solve the problem for the next time, we should spend a little time and effort in identifying where the problem is. I cannot avoid to notice that, while staff (namely Nick) is being accused to be the main source of lack of transparency and accountability for not having enforced proper rules, I have witnessed in a RALO heavy attacks (even insulting) exactly because he dared to speak saying that he did not consider best practice to change the rules of voting while the voting had already started. The point made was that the RALO was responsible, not staff, of setting the rules. And this time, he has done exactly this: he has put on the wiki the names that have been passed to him by the RALOs and by ALAC. So maybe the solution to the problem is, when dust has settled down, to define clear and detailed procedures that define roles and tasks of staff, RALOs, ALAC, ALSes, etc. But this time, well before the vote, when nobody could be biased, even inconsciously, by estimation of possible outcomes. My personal suggestion is that, since the elected people are good people, and will do an excellent job, the focus be on improvement of the system rather than looking for the scapegoat. Regards, Roberto

I am finding this more and more disturbing. Our two ALAC reps (Beau and Robert) are supposed to be taking direction from the region and moving it forward. In this case, the direction from the region was completely disregarded and ALAC moved ahead with its own agenda. This is just horrible and a case of the tail wagging the dog. I fully understand that Alan does not have to vote in line with the region but why didn't Beau and Robert? They could have proposed Ross to the region at any time at all for our discussion but did not. I am totally confused and dismayed because, up until this time, I totally trusted our two ALAC reps to forward the regions wishes. I guess I was wrong. I think, regionally, we need to have this stuff addressed either in our Rules of Procedure or in our Operating Principles (whichever is appropriate) so that this does not happen again. I've been told that LACRALO has excellent wording in their RoP dictating the limits to the powers of their two ALAC reps. I naïvely thought that we didn't need that. I think I was wrong. Alan, thank you very much for the explanation. I still think that if it was felt that there should have been additions to the list of people the RALO had decided on, then all should have had the opportunity to discuss it. There was PLENTY of time. Nick, I have a day job and I do not have time to be consulting the Wiki all the time - especially for a page I didn't even know existed or should exist. I also find it almost impossible to find ANYTHING at all on there. And English is my mother tongue. I REALLY feel for the other regions. Or am I just really new and stupid? Since we have a Secretariats list, perhaps important pages like this can be flagged to the Secretariats so that they can then choose which ones to clutter their region's in-boxes with. I *know* how busy you are but I think that this is kinda important. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:48 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments Evan Leibovitch ha scritto:

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

...

you are correct that it is not dictated by the Bylaws - however, as the Bylaws are silent on this point the Bylaws clearly do not prevent the ALAC from voting in the manner they have chosen to follow, either. So, because the bylaws don't mandate transparency, it's not to be considered (let alone advocated)?

As I am not an ALAC member any more since last April, I have not been involved directly in this process - but I observed it, and so I would like to make some personal considerations. As I gather from the history of messages from the ALAC lists, things went this way: - the NARALO submitted a list of candidates; - the three NA ALAC members discussed them extensively, discarded all of them but one, and added the name of Ross Rader; - they could not agree on which of the two remaining candidates they would have liked to recommend to the whole ALAC, so two of them submitted to the group their personal preferences; - the ALAC decided to vote on each slot for which the Region could not agree on a unanimous suggestion, so the two candidates were put to votes; [note - this was already done once, two years ago for Europe, so there was a precedent] - and the ALAC voted for Ross (with quite a majority). So I am troubled by your conclusion:

Is it staff practice not to itself be transparent -- and to recommend against transparency and accountability in internal procedures -- unless the bylaws absolutely and specifically demand it? Is doing the absolute minimum necessary Standard Operating Procedure?

because it is the ALAC who sets its procedures, and it is the ALAC who took all the decisions you disagree with, not staff. I actually saw staff often remind the ALAC of responsibilities about due process, transparency, and public consultation, including consultation with RALOs. However, the ALAC often spends more time complaining about staff "interference" than working on policy, and, for some ALAC members (fortunately not all), blaming staff and ICANN in general has become an easy trick to dump personal responsibility and to promote themselves. Anyway, I find what happened in this case extremely worrying. We may discuss about process, but it was in ALAC's formal prerogatives to do all of the above actions. But when we come to substance, even if Ross is a honest, committed and intelligent person, appointing to the Nomcom a key employee of one of the biggest registrars, who was never involved with the At Large before, makes one wonder about how well does the ALAC intend to pursue the global public interest. I am sure that most ALAC members didn't mean to do anything bad, they just followed the recommendations from the regional members and overlooked the issue, but this kind of factual conflicts of interest deserves much more attention. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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

Bret Fausett wrote:

It's always been the case that, once elected, the ALAC representatives are free to vote their conscience and take advice, but not instructions, from others in the region. Speaking only for myself, I greatly prefer this current model and would not recommend the LACRALO approach as you have described it. Precisely because people have day jobs, it would be very difficult to give binding instructions to the ALAC reps on the issues. I'd rather accept the time commitment of those who are elected and trust their judgment. If we disagree with their choices over time, we can replace them at the next election. Agreed. This is a difficult grey area.

Legally requiring the formal agreement by the RALO for every action by their reps would strike me as simply too much of an impediment to getting real work done. There needs to be trust that the reps will act in the best interest of the region, but also confidence that they will consult with their RALO -- and follow its consensus -- whenever possible. In my experience, forcing such trust by regulation generally causes more problems than it solves. In the case of the NomComm vote, I'd hoped that there would have been even minimum consultation on the candidate changes. As Danny has indicated, Dierker _was_ known in the community; a simple question to the RALO may well have addressed the ALAC's concern about their personal lack of familiarity with him. - Evan

LOL - yes, and I go to that page just EVERY day looking for new postings and such. Get real. Who has time for that? If we even got those little notifications that things have been changed or new pages put up, like for the NA-Discuss list then we would all be aware. Other than that, I agree with your points below and keenly look forward to the improved communications, D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:08 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Vittorio Bertola; Evan Leibovitch; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments On 28 Sep 2007, at 16:53, Thompson, Darlene wrote:

Nick, I have a day job and I do not have time to be consulting the Wiki all the time - especially for a page I didn't even know existed or should exist. I also find it almost impossible to find ANYTHING at all on there. And English is my mother tongue. I REALLY feel for the other regions. Or am I just really new and stupid? Since we have a Secretariats list, perhaps important pages like this can be flagged to the Secretariats so that they can then choose which ones to clutter their region's in-boxes with. I *know* how busy you are but I think that this is kinda important.

There are two questions here to my mind: 1) Can we (staff, Secretariats, ALAC) coordinate more effectively - and can staff support facilitate better coordination? 2) Can online resources be leveraged more effectively to provide information faster? I have no doubt the answer to both these questions is "YES!" And of course a part of the whole point of having Secretariats and ALAC in LA is to work on just this kind of issue. On (2) there is ongoing work to help make the online tools both richer and easier to use (also in one place...). One thing is a bit worrying though, the link to the page for Nomcom 2008 is smack in the middle in large letters on st.icann.org/alac. Perhaps you're looking somewhere else?

ABSOLUTELY!!! I seem to only get the ones from the NA pages, not ALAC. They are great to see at a glance what has been done/changed. I would think that all of the Secretariats should be put on the kind of system as you mentioned. Then they can weed through and forward to their regions what is pertinent and what is not so as to avoid too much in-box clutter. D ________________________________ From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Sun 9/30/2007 11:42 AM To: Thompson, Darlene; 'Nick Ashton-Hart' Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'Vittorio Bertola' Subject: RE: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments Hi Darlene I get email everytime a page on the wiki (ALL the wikis actually - sometimes a LOT of changes!) changes and links to the changed pages - not sure how it was set up, but that might help you with keeping track? Jacqueline (kind of back online) -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 14:19 To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: At-Large Worldwide; Vittorio Bertola Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments LOL - yes, and I go to that page just EVERY day looking for new postings and such. Get real. Who has time for that? If we even got those little notifications that things have been changed or new pages put up, like for the NA-Discuss list then we would all be aware. Other than that, I agree with your points below and keenly look forward to the improved communications, D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:08 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Vittorio Bertola; Evan Leibovitch; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments On 28 Sep 2007, at 16:53, Thompson, Darlene wrote:

Nick, I have a day job and I do not have time to be consulting the Wiki all the time - especially for a page I didn't even know existed or should exist. I also find it almost impossible to find ANYTHING at all on there. And English is my mother tongue. I REALLY feel for the other regions. Or am I just really new and stupid? Since we have a Secretariats list, perhaps important pages like this can be flagged to the Secretariats so that they can then choose which ones to clutter their region's in-boxes with. I *know* how busy you are but I think that this is kinda important.

There are two questions here to my mind: 1) Can we (staff, Secretariats, ALAC) coordinate more effectively - and can staff support facilitate better coordination? 2) Can online resources be leveraged more effectively to provide information faster? I have no doubt the answer to both these questions is "YES!" And of course a part of the whole point of having Secretariats and ALAC in LA is to work on just this kind of issue. On (2) there is ongoing work to help make the online tools both richer and easier to use (also in one place...). One thing is a bit worrying though, the link to the page for Nomcom 2008 is smack in the middle in large letters on st.icann.org/alac. Perhaps you're looking somewhere else? _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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 <http://www.alac.icann.org/> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org <http://www.icannalac.org/> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 9/29/2007 21:46 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 9/29/2007 21:46

I'm sending this while on vacation at the request of colleagues on the ALAC. I proposed Evan as a candidate. We also talked to other people, one of whom posts constantly on these boards, and we were turned down by several people. My last words to Robert and Alan before I left on vacation were that I did not support Ross, who I'm sure is a fine individual, but is from a registrar. My feeling was that there were more than enough voices from that constituency. I didn't talk to anyone on ICANN staff. Beau Brendler ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Danny Younger Sent: Thu 9/27/2007 2:23 PM To: NA Discuss; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALACNominating Committee 2008 Appointments Dear Members, The North American community is entitled to an explanation of the voting results for our region that saw a supplier-side registrar representative elected whose name was never once introduced for candidacy on the NARALO discussion list. The minutes of the last ALAC meeting state: "It was decided that the RALOs would provide their advice and recommendations by the end of this week (NLT 16st September). There would then be a vote online using instant runoff for the candidates of each region wherever there is more than one candidate proposed from a region." The North American region advanced three names: Eric Dierker (confirmed), Michael Geist (at last report was "pending confirmation", and Evan Leibovitch (confirmed). The current NARALO Wiki contains only two names: Hugh Dierker [USA] current chair of the GNSO's General Assembly Proposed by Danny Younger Confirmed Evan Leibovich [Canada] ALS Representative, CLUE (Canada) Proposed by Beau & Robert Confirmed https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?na_nominating_committee_candidates_200... You will note that Ross Rader's name is not mentioned therein, yet suddenly he has been elected without member ALSs and North American individual participants in the RALO even being aware of his candidacy. Further, voting results show that Eric Dierker's name was never even voted upon, notwithstanding the fact that his bio/credentials were submitted for review. I find: (1) the opaqueness of this process outrageously disturbing, (2) the voting process that saw candidates having their names not included as perverse in the extreme, (3) the result (the election of registry and registrar representatives instead of user representatives) as a vile and deplorable abuse of trust I, and likely the Ombudsman as well, await an explanation. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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 *** Scanned