Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection
Maureen, Two small points to make sure that no one has the wrong impression. - Leon, as sole candidate, was not acclaimed by the BMSPC. Our Rules of Procedure say that a sole candidate is automatically the winner without any explicit action. As Chair of the BMSPC (overseeing this entire process), I was simply noting that. - Leon was appointed Board Vice-Chair for the current year. I have no reason to think that he will not be re-appointed next year, and I certainly hope that it happens. Our reappointment of Leon means he will be a Board member and eligible for reappointment as Vice-Chair, but it will be a Board decision to do so. Alan At 14/11/2019 08:05 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: Following on from Alan's note, my sincere thanks to Alan and Yrjo and their two teams of volunteers who made themselves available for the prospect of a long haul if it was going to be required, to carry out this Board Member Selection task. Thankfully, due to the calibre of the one candidate who applied and was uncontested, we are very grateful that the standard of his application met, and probably exceeded, expectation of the BCEC so that he was automatically acclaimed by the BMSPC as the winner of this well-earned position. Hearty congratulations to Leon Sanchez who will return to begin his second term of three years as the Board member selected by the At-Large Community, as well as resume his position of Vice Chair of the Board, at the conclusion of the AGM in October 2020. Well done to the At-Large Community - who will be well served in the future by Leon and our new Board Chair Maarten Botterman. Regards Maureen ALAC CHAIR On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 2:18 PM Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: As you will all know by now, the selection is complete, so unless there is a complaint of some sort (which I am not expecting), our job is over. I had predicted that this would be an easy task, but I wasn't expecting it to be this easy. I thank you all for volunteering for this and for your service. Alan _______________________________________________ BMSPC-2020 mailing list BMSPC-2020@icann.org<mailto:BMSPC-2020@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bmspc-2020 _______________________________________________ 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.
Thank you Alan, for the clarification of the finer details which I can correct at the ALAC meeting where we will formalise the selection before I inform the Empowered Community. M On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 5:39 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Maureen, Two small points to make sure that no one has the wrong impression.
- Leon, as sole candidate, was not acclaimed *by the BMSPC*. Our Rules of Procedure say that a sole candidate is automatically the winner without any explicit action. As Chair of the BMSPC (overseeing this entire process), I was simply noting that.
- Leon was appointed Board Vice-Chair for the current year. I have no reason to think that he will not be re-appointed next year, and I certainly hope that it happens. Our reappointment of Leon means he will be a Board member and eligible for reappointment as Vice-Chair, but it will be a Board decision to do so.
Alan
At 14/11/2019 08:05 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Following on from Alan's note, my sincere thanks to Alan and Yrjo and their two teams of volunteers who made themselves available for the prospect of a long haul if it was going to be required, to carry out this Board Member Selection task.
Thankfully, due to the calibre of the one candidate who applied and was uncontested, we are very grateful that the standard of his application met, and probably exceeded, expectation of the BCEC so that he was automatically acclaimed by the BMSPC as the winner of this well-earned position.
Hearty congratulations to Leon Sanchez who will return to begin his second term of three years as the Board member selected by the At-Large Community, as well as resume his position of Vice Chair of the Board, at the conclusion of the AGM in October 2020.
Well done to the At-Large Community - who will be well served in the future by Leon and our new Board Chair Maarten Botterman.
Regards Maureen ALAC CHAIR
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 2:18 PM Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: As you will all know by now, the selection is complete, so unless there is a complaint of some sort (which I am not expecting), our job is over.
I had predicted that this would be an easy task, but I wasn't expecting it to be this easy.
I thank you all for volunteering for this and for your service.
Alan
_______________________________________________ BMSPC-2020 mailing list BMSPC-2020@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bmspc-2020
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi, Alan, Exactly as you described, all of our Rules have been strictly followed and the result should be satisfactory to all. Thank you for the role you played during this process. Also, thanks to all the members of BMSPC and BCEC. Kaili On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:13 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Alan, for the clarification of the finer details which I can correct at the ALAC meeting where we will formalise the selection before I inform the Empowered Community.
M
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 5:39 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Maureen, Two small points to make sure that no one has the wrong impression.
- Leon, as sole candidate, was not acclaimed *by the BMSPC*. Our Rules of Procedure say that a sole candidate is automatically the winner without any explicit action. As Chair of the BMSPC (overseeing this entire process), I was simply noting that.
- Leon was appointed Board Vice-Chair for the current year. I have no reason to think that he will not be re-appointed next year, and I certainly hope that it happens. Our reappointment of Leon means he will be a Board member and eligible for reappointment as Vice-Chair, but it will be a Board decision to do so.
Alan
At 14/11/2019 08:05 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Following on from Alan's note, my sincere thanks to Alan and Yrjo and their two teams of volunteers who made themselves available for the prospect of a long haul if it was going to be required, to carry out this Board Member Selection task.
Thankfully, due to the calibre of the one candidate who applied and was uncontested, we are very grateful that the standard of his application met, and probably exceeded, expectation of the BCEC so that he was automatically acclaimed by the BMSPC as the winner of this well-earned position.
Hearty congratulations to Leon Sanchez who will return to begin his second term of three years as the Board member selected by the At-Large Community, as well as resume his position of Vice Chair of the Board, at the conclusion of the AGM in October 2020.
Well done to the At-Large Community - who will be well served in the future by Leon and our new Board Chair Maarten Botterman.
Regards Maureen ALAC CHAIR
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 2:18 PM Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: As you will all know by now, the selection is complete, so unless there is a complaint of some sort (which I am not expecting), our job is over.
I had predicted that this would be an easy task, but I wasn't expecting it to be this easy.
I thank you all for volunteering for this and for your service.
Alan
_______________________________________________ BMSPC-2020 mailing list BMSPC-2020@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bmspc-2020
_______________________________________________ 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@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.
Many thanks to Alan, Yrjo and all the members of the BMSPC and BCEC. Congratulations to Leon our selected board member. Hadia Sent from my iPhone On Nov 15, 2019, at 6:15 AM, Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Alan, Exactly as you described, all of our Rules have been strictly followed and the result should be satisfactory to all. Thank you for the role you played during this process. Also, thanks to all the members of BMSPC and BCEC. [https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif] Kaili On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:13 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Thank you Alan, for the clarification of the finer details which I can correct at the ALAC meeting where we will formalise the selection before I inform the Empowered Community. M On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 5:39 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Maureen, Two small points to make sure that no one has the wrong impression. - Leon, as sole candidate, was not acclaimed by the BMSPC. Our Rules of Procedure say that a sole candidate is automatically the winner without any explicit action. As Chair of the BMSPC (overseeing this entire process), I was simply noting that. - Leon was appointed Board Vice-Chair for the current year. I have no reason to think that he will not be re-appointed next year, and I certainly hope that it happens. Our reappointment of Leon means he will be a Board member and eligible for reappointment as Vice-Chair, but it will be a Board decision to do so. Alan At 14/11/2019 08:05 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: Following on from Alan's note, my sincere thanks to Alan and Yrjo and their two teams of volunteers who made themselves available for the prospect of a long haul if it was going to be required, to carry out this Board Member Selection task. Thankfully, due to the calibre of the one candidate who applied and was uncontested, we are very grateful that the standard of his application met, and probably exceeded, expectation of the BCEC so that he was automatically acclaimed by the BMSPC as the winner of this well-earned position. Hearty congratulations to Leon Sanchez who will return to begin his second term of three years as the Board member selected by the At-Large Community, as well as resume his position of Vice Chair of the Board, at the conclusion of the AGM in October 2020. Well done to the At-Large Community - who will be well served in the future by Leon and our new Board Chair Maarten Botterman. Regards Maureen ALAC CHAIR On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 2:18 PM Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: As you will all know by now, the selection is complete, so unless there is a complaint of some sort (which I am not expecting), our job is over. I had predicted that this would be an easy task, but I wasn't expecting it to be this easy. I thank you all for volunteering for this and for your service. Alan _______________________________________________ BMSPC-2020 mailing list BMSPC-2020@icann.org<mailto:BMSPC-2020@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bmspc-2020 _______________________________________________ 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@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@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.
Congratulations Leon!. Very deserving and great news for our At-large community. Thank you to the team that oversaw this selection process. Best Regards, Leah Symekher On 2019/11/14 19:39, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Maureen, Two small points to make sure that no one has the wrong impression.
- Leon, as sole candidate, was not acclaimed _by the BMSPC_. Our Rules of Procedure say that a sole candidate is automatically the winner without any explicit action. As Chair of the BMSPC (overseeing this entire process), I was simply noting that.
- Leon was appointed Board Vice-Chair for the current year. I have no reason to think that he will not be re-appointed next year, and I certainly hope that it happens. Our reappointment of Leon means he will be a Board member and eligible for reappointment as Vice-Chair, but it will be a Board decision to do so.
Alan
At 14/11/2019 08:05 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Following on from Alan's note, my sincere thanks to Alan and Yrjo and their two teams of volunteers who made themselves available for the prospect of a long haul if it was going to be required, to carry out this Board Member Selection task.
Thankfully, due to the calibre of the one candidate who applied and was uncontested, we are very grateful that the standard of his application met, and probably exceeded, expectation of the BCEC so that he was automatically acclaimed by the BMSPC as the winner of this well-earned position.
Hearty congratulations to Leon Sanchez who will return to begin his second term of three years as the Board member selected by the At-Large Community, as well as resume his position of Vice Chair of the Board, at the conclusion of the AGM in October 2020.
Well done to the At-Large Community - who will be well served in the future by Leon and our new Board Chair Maarten Botterman.
Regards Maureen ALAC CHAIR
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 2:18 PM Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote:
As you will all know by now, the selection is complete, so unless there is a complaint of some sort (which I am not expecting), our job is over.
I had predicted that this would be an easy task, but I wasn't expecting it to be this easy.
I thank you all for volunteering for this and for your service.
Alan
_______________________________________________ BMSPC-2020 mailing list BMSPC-2020@icann.org <mailto:BMSPC-2020@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bmspc-2020
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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@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.
As a matter of fact, he could even become Chair r On 15.11.2019, at 07:39, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Maureen, Two small points to make sure that no one has the wrong impression. - Leon, as sole candidate, was not acclaimed by the BMSPC. Our Rules of Procedure say that a sole candidate is automatically the winner without any explicit action. As Chair of the BMSPC (overseeing this entire process), I was simply noting that. - Leon was appointed Board Vice-Chair for the current year. I have no reason to think that he will not be re-appointed next year, and I certainly hope that it happens. Our reappointment of Leon means he will be a Board member and eligible for reappointment as Vice-Chair, but it will be a Board decision to do so. Alan At 14/11/2019 08:05 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: Following on from Alan's note, my sincere thanks to Alan and Yrjo and their two teams of volunteers who made themselves available for the prospect of a long haul if it was going to be required, to carry out this Board Member Selection task. Thankfully, due to the calibre of the one candidate who applied and was uncontested, we are very grateful that the standard of his application met, and probably exceeded, expectation of the BCEC so that he was automatically acclaimed by the BMSPC as the winner of this well-earned position. Hearty congratulations to Leon Sanchez who will return to begin his second term of three years as the Board member selected by the At-Large Community, as well as resume his position of Vice Chair of the Board, at the conclusion of the AGM in October 2020. Well done to the At-Large Community - who will be well served in the future by Leon and our new Board Chair Maarten Botterman. Regards Maureen ALAC CHAIR On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 2:18 PM Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: As you will all know by now, the selection is complete, so unless there is a complaint of some sort (which I am not expecting), our job is over. I had predicted that this would be an easy task, but I wasn't expecting it to be this easy. I thank you all for volunteering for this and for your service. Alan _______________________________________________ BMSPC-2020 mailing list BMSPC-2020@icann.org<mailto:BMSPC-2020@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bmspc-2020 _______________________________________________ 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@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.
Hopefully, sometime in the future At-Large would get its second seat on the Board. Kaili On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 6:48 PM Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
As a matter of fact, he could even become Chair r
On 15.11.2019, at 07:39, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Maureen, Two small points to make sure that no one has the wrong impression.
- Leon, as sole candidate, was not acclaimed *by the BMSPC*. Our Rules of Procedure say that a sole candidate is automatically the winner without any explicit action. As Chair of the BMSPC (overseeing this entire process), I was simply noting that.
- Leon was appointed Board Vice-Chair for the current year. I have no reason to think that he will not be re-appointed next year, and I certainly hope that it happens. Our reappointment of Leon means he will be a Board member and eligible for reappointment as Vice-Chair, but it will be a Board decision to do so.
Alan
At 14/11/2019 08:05 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Following on from Alan's note, my sincere thanks to Alan and Yrjo and their two teams of volunteers who made themselves available for the prospect of a long haul if it was going to be required, to carry out this Board Member Selection task.
Thankfully, due to the calibre of the one candidate who applied and was uncontested, we are very grateful that the standard of his application met, and probably exceeded, expectation of the BCEC so that he was automatically acclaimed by the BMSPC as the winner of this well-earned position.
Hearty congratulations to Leon Sanchez who will return to begin his second term of three years as the Board member selected by the At-Large Community, as well as resume his position of Vice Chair of the Board, at the conclusion of the AGM in October 2020.
Well done to the At-Large Community - who will be well served in the future by Leon and our new Board Chair Maarten Botterman.
Regards Maureen ALAC CHAIR
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 2:18 PM Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: As you will all know by now, the selection is complete, so unless there is a complaint of some sort (which I am not expecting), our job is over.
I had predicted that this would be an easy task, but I wasn't expecting it to be this easy.
I thank you all for volunteering for this and for your service.
Alan
_______________________________________________ BMSPC-2020 mailing list BMSPC-2020@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bmspc-2020
_______________________________________________ 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@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@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.
Other ACs have a Liaison. But At-Large is thr only part of ICANN that appoints full voting Board Members and has only one. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 16, 2019 2:57:36 PM EST, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote: On 16-11-19 18:22, Kaili Kan wrote: Hopefully, sometime in the future At-Large would get its second seat on the Board. Do other ACs have more than one seat? Julf ________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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.
As I understand, it was decided at the beginning that ALAC would have two seats, but then was reduced to one seat for some reason. Kaili On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 4:16 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Other ACs have a Liaison. But At-Large is thr only part of ICANN that appoints full voting Board Members and has only one.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On November 16, 2019 2:57:36 PM EST, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
On 16-11-19 18:22, Kaili Kan wrote:
Hopefully, sometime in the future At-Large would get its second seat on the Board.
Do other ACs have more than one seat?
Julf ------------------------------ At-Large mailing list 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@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.
Many thanks to Wolfgang for the background story thereby leading us to history Thanks and kind regards Dave Kissoondoyal Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 17, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info> wrote:
Hi,
here is the full background story:
1. The original bylaws (1998) did reserve 9 voting seats for an undefined "At Large Membership". 9 other voting seats were reserved for three SOs (DNSO, ASO, PSO). Ine seat for the CEO. There was a "placeholder" in the bylaws because nobody knew, what "At Large" is. An "Membership Advisory Committee" (MAC) was formed in Singapore during the 1st ICANN meeting in February 1999 (with the Berkman Center/Jonathan Zittrain as the academic back up). The MAC had a meeting during the 2nd ICANN in Berlin, July 1999. It concluded to identify the At Large voting directors via elections in the year 2000. The whole project was seen as a pilot project for "cyberdemocracy" and a bigger role of civil society on Internet policy making. The elections were described as an "experiment". They were organized with the help of a "Membership Implementation Task Force" (MITF). As a first step, the plan was to elect five directors from the five ICANN regions. The election was an exciting but also irritating experience. It worked and the community (around 200 000 voters) elected five directors which took their seat at the 2000 Annual Meeting in LA.
2. The elections produced a lot of questions. To answer those questions, ICANN etsbalished an "At Large Study Group" (ALG), chaired by the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt. The recommendations of the Bildt-Committee were presented at the ICANN meeting in Montevideo, September 2001. The main receommendation was to allow only "domainname holder" to participate in the election to avoid a misuse and to have a higher level of "representation" by stakeholders. Nevertheless, the Bildt-Proposal produced a wave of criticism by civil society. Such an approach would have excluded, inter alia, students, which have an e-Mail address but no domain name. The domain name is owned by the university which woulkd have only one vote in the new proposed system. The comparison was made to the election system in the middle ages where only "landowners" had a right to vote. The decision was postponed to the LA Annual Meeting in November 2001. The day after the At Large discussion on Montevideo two planes crashed into the twin towers in NYC.
3. 9/11 changed the political environment for the development of ICANN. ICANN was not seen anymore as a project for "cyberdemocracy" but as a question for "cybersecurity". US senators came to the ICANN meeting in LA and aksed tough questions how it can be avoided that a "terrorist" get elected into the ICANN Board of Directors. LA 2001 became the starting point of the first ICANN reform process.
4. The ICANN reform process was completed within less than two years. It included a restructuring of ICANN. The DNSO was subdivided into the GNSO and the CNSO. The PSO was abolished and transformed into "technical liason group". The elections of Voting At Large directors were abolished. Instaed of election a "selection" process was introduced through a new "Nomimation Committee" (NomCom). The NomCom got the right to "select" 8 voting directors in a process, strechted over three years (3:3:2). At Large was transfered into an "At Large Advisory Committee" (ALAC) with one non-voting liaison in the board. New structures with "recognized ALSs" and "RALOs", which had to sign a MoU with ICANN, were created. To compensate At Large for the loss of the nine voting directors, they got five seats in the NomCom. It was intended, that the NomCom will select directors which represent users/civil society.
5. After the reform was fixed into the new bylaws a lot of big supporters of the At Large, Election and Cyberdemocracy concept distanced themselves more or less from ICANN. Supporters of the new ALAC did not really represent anymore the big civil society NGOs. ALAC became something like a "Champions League without Champions". A nunber of civil society organisation moved within ICANN to the Non-Commercial User Organisation (NCUC), a constituency iwthin the GNSO. However, the RALOs were formed, the number of ALSs were growing and over the years, ALAC returned to became again a more recognized player in the ICANN family. The call for ALAC voting directors came back and culminated into the call for holding an "At Large Summit" (ATLAS). ATLAS 1 took place 2008 in Mexico. One sub-committee produced a resolution which called for two voting seats for ALAC. The Board recognized the legitimacy of such a call, however, the compromise was to change the non-voting ALAC liaison in the Board into a Voting Director, elected by the ALAC itself.
6. This is the situation which stands until now. In my eyes, ATLAS III (recently in Montreal) was a missed opportunity to have a more strategic oriented discussion about the role and future of At Large (user, civil society) in ICANN as a whole. This was also a missed opportunity to ask for a second voting seat in the Board. However, it was good to see that NCUC and ALAC entered into a more constructive and forward looking dialogue which ould lead to a stronger voice of the user/civil society stakeholder group within the empowered community.
7. With the IANA transition and the emergence of the "empowered community" we have reached a new situation. However, this is not the end of the story. In my eyes there is a need for something like a Work Stream 3 (WS3) which looks deeper into the existing structure of ICANN and how it matches the needs of the 2020s or whether a structural reform is needed to adjust it to the new challenges in a post-IANA transition period. With other words, ATLAS IV (2024?) could re-introduce the call for a 2nd AT Large voting director. Best wishes
Wolfgang
Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com> hat am 17. November 2019 um 06:06 geschrieben:
As I understand, it was decided at the beginning that ALAC would have two seats, but then was reduced to one seat for some reason.
Kaili
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 4:16 AM Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Other ACs have a Liaison. But At-Large is thr only part of ICANN that appoints full voting Board Members and has only one.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On November 16, 2019 2:57:36 PM EST, Johan Helsingius < julf@julf.com> wrote: On 16-11-19 18:22, Kaili Kan wrote: Hopefully, sometime in the future At-Large would get its second seat on the Board.
Do other ACs have more than one seat?
Julf At-Large mailing list 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@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@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@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.
Dear Wolfgang, Many thanks for your interesting excursion into the history and evolution of our community as also for the fact that this story doesn`t hide many sharp moments and your opinion. This story (seems to me) is a part of the prologue of guide-book for members, newcomers of the community (in writing, but better the video, if you kindly agree to participate in this venture-). In my humble opinion and perhaps the time for strategic discussions has come now, just after ATLASIII, when the ranks of leaders have been enhanced with new faces, new blood, new ideas and new energy. And, as I may expect the paragraph 8 in your story (maybe in a half of upcoming year) may got the point about the grown role of ALAC in Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model. Sincerely, Natalia Filina Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo https://individualusers.org/ Member of ALAC Subcommittee on Outreach and Engagement Officer of SIG IoT (ISOC) 1. +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russian Federation вс, 17 нояб. 2019 г. в 14:45, Wolfgang Kleinwächter < wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info>:
Hi,
here is the full background story:
1. The original bylaws (1998) did reserve 9 voting seats for an undefined "At Large Membership". 9 other voting seats were reserved for three SOs (DNSO, ASO, PSO). Ine seat for the CEO. There was a "placeholder" in the bylaws because nobody knew, what "At Large" is. An "Membership Advisory Committee" (MAC) was formed in Singapore during the 1st ICANN meeting in February 1999 (with the Berkman Center/Jonathan Zittrain as the academic back up). The MAC had a meeting during the 2nd ICANN in Berlin, July 1999. It concluded to identify the At Large voting directors via elections in the year 2000. The whole project was seen as a pilot project for "cyberdemocracy" and a bigger role of civil society on Internet policy making. The elections were described as an "experiment". They were organized with the help of a "Membership Implementation Task Force" (MITF). As a first step, the plan was to elect five directors from the five ICANN regions. The election was an exciting but also irritating experience. It worked and the community (around 200 000 voters) elected five directors which took their seat at the 2000 Annual Meeting in LA.
2. The elections produced a lot of questions. To answer those questions, ICANN etsbalished an "At Large Study Group" (ALG), chaired by the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt. The recommendations of the Bildt-Committee were presented at the ICANN meeting in Montevideo, September 2001. The main receommendation was to allow only "domainname holder" to participate in the election to avoid a misuse and to have a higher level of "representation" by stakeholders. Nevertheless, the Bildt-Proposal produced a wave of criticism by civil society. Such an approach would have excluded, inter alia, students, which have an e-Mail address but no domain name. The domain name is owned by the university which woulkd have only one vote in the new proposed system. The comparison was made to the election system in the middle ages where only "landowners" had a right to vote. The decision was postponed to the LA Annual Meeting in November 2001. The day after the At Large discussion on Montevideo two planes crashed into the twin towers in NYC.
3. 9/11 changed the political environment for the development of ICANN. ICANN was not seen anymore as a project for "cyberdemocracy" but as a question for "cybersecurity". US senators came to the ICANN meeting in LA and aksed tough questions how it can be avoided that a "terrorist" get elected into the ICANN Board of Directors. LA 2001 became the starting point of the first ICANN reform process.
4. The ICANN reform process was completed within less than two years. It included a restructuring of ICANN. The DNSO was subdivided into the GNSO and the CNSO. The PSO was abolished and transformed into "technical liason group". The elections of Voting At Large directors were abolished. Instaed of election a "selection" process was introduced through a new "Nomimation Committee" (NomCom). The NomCom got the right to "select" 8 voting directors in a process, strechted over three years (3:3:2). At Large was transfered into an "At Large Advisory Committee" (ALAC) with one non-voting liaison in the board. New structures with "recognized ALSs" and "RALOs", which had to sign a MoU with ICANN, were created. To compensate At Large for the loss of the nine voting directors, they got five seats in the NomCom. It was intended, that the NomCom will select directors which represent users/civil society.
5. After the reform was fixed into the new bylaws a lot of big supporters of the At Large, Election and Cyberdemocracy concept distanced themselves more or less from ICANN. Supporters of the new ALAC did not really represent anymore the big civil society NGOs. ALAC became something like a "Champions League without Champions". A nunber of civil society organisation moved within ICANN to the Non-Commercial User Organisation (NCUC), a constituency iwthin the GNSO. However, the RALOs were formed, the number of ALSs were growing and over the years, ALAC returned to became again a more recognized player in the ICANN family. The call for ALAC voting directors came back and culminated into the call for holding an "At Large Summit" (ATLAS). ATLAS 1 took place 2008 in Mexico. One sub-committee produced a resolution which called for two voting seats for ALAC. The Board recognized the legitimacy of such a call, however, the compromise was to change the non-voting ALAC liaison in the Board into a Voting Director, elected by the ALAC itself.
6. This is the situation which stands until now. In my eyes, ATLAS III (recently in Montreal) was a missed opportunity to have a more strategic oriented discussion about the role and future of At Large (user, civil society) in ICANN as a whole. This was also a missed opportunity to ask for a second voting seat in the Board. However, it was good to see that NCUC and ALAC entered into a more constructive and forward looking dialogue which ould lead to a stronger voice of the user/civil society stakeholder group within the empowered community.
7. With the IANA transition and the emergence of the "empowered community" we have reached a new situation. However, this is not the end of the story. In my eyes there is a need for something like a Work Stream 3 (WS3) which looks deeper into the existing structure of ICANN and how it matches the needs of the 2020s or whether a structural reform is needed to adjust it to the new challenges in a post-IANA transition period. With other words, ATLAS IV (2024?) could re-introduce the call for a 2nd AT Large voting director. Best wishes
Wolfgang
Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com> hat am 17. November 2019 um 06:06 geschrieben:
As I understand, it was decided at the beginning that ALAC would have two seats, but then was reduced to one seat for some reason.
Kaili
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 4:16 AM Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Other ACs have a Liaison. But At-Large is thr only part of ICANN that appoints full voting Board Members and has only one.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On November 16, 2019 2:57:36 PM EST, Johan Helsingius < julf@julf.com> wrote:
On 16-11-19 18:22, Kaili Kan wrote:
Hopefully, sometime in the future At-Large would get its second seat on the Board.
Do other ACs have more than one seat?
Julf
------------------------------
At-Large mailing list 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@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@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@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.
Thanks Wolfgang, For a short story of a long story. I will not try here to add to the missing points but to underline some points and add some suggestions. See in your text. SeB
Le 17 nov. 2019 à 06:44, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info> a écrit :
Hi,
here is the full background story:
1. The original bylaws (1998) did reserve 9 voting seats for an undefined "At Large Membership". 9 other voting seats were reserved for three SOs (DNSO, ASO, PSO). Ine seat for the CEO. There was a "placeholder" in the bylaws because nobody knew, what "At Large" is. An "Membership Advisory Committee" (MAC) was formed in Singapore during the 1st ICANN meeting in February 1999 (with the Berkman Center/Jonathan Zittrain as the academic back up). The MAC had a meeting during the 2nd ICANN in Berlin, July 1999. It concluded to identify the At Large voting directors via elections in the year 2000. The whole project was seen as a pilot project for "cyberdemocracy" and a bigger role of civil society on Internet policy making. The elections were described as an "experiment". They were organized with the help of a "Membership Implementation Task Force" (MITF). As a first step, the plan was to elect five directors from the five ICANN regions. The election was an exciting but also irritating experience. It worked and the community (around 200 000 voters) elected five directors which took their seat at the 2000 Annual Meeting in LA.
2. The elections produced a lot of questions. To answer those questions, ICANN etsbalished an "At Large Study Group" (ALG), chaired by the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt. The recommendations of the Bildt-Committee were presented at the ICANN meeting in Montevideo, September 2001. The main receommendation was to allow only "domainname holder" to participate in the election to avoid a misuse and to have a higher level of "representation" by stakeholders. Nevertheless, the Bildt-Proposal produced a wave of criticism by civil society. Such an approach would have excluded, inter alia, students, which have an e-Mail address but no domain name. The domain name is owned by the university which woulkd have only one vote in the new proposed system. The comparison was made to the election system in the middle ages where only "landowners" had a right to vote. The decision was postponed to the LA Annual Meeting in November 2001. The day after the At Large discussion on Montevideo two planes crashed into the twin towers in NYC.
3. 9/11 changed the political environment for the development of ICANN. ICANN was not seen anymore as a project for "cyberdemocracy" but as a question for "cybersecurity". US senators came to the ICANN meeting in LA and aksed tough questions how it can be avoided that a "terrorist" get elected into the ICANN Board of Directors. LA 2001 became the starting point of the first ICANN reform process. It is the only time where ICANN went to a complet review.
4. The ICANN reform process was completed within less than two years. It included a restructuring of ICANN. The DNSO was subdivided into the GNSO and the CNSO. The PSO was abolished and transformed into "technical liason group". The elections of Voting At Large directors were abolished. Instaed of election a "selection" process was introduced through a new "Nomimation Committee" (NomCom). The NomCom got the right to "select" 8 voting directors in a process, strechted over three years (3:3:2). At Large was transfered into an "At Large Advisory Committee" (ALAC) with one non-voting liaison in the board. New structures with "recognized ALSs" and "RALOs", which had to sign a MoU with ICANN, were created. To compensate At Large for the loss of the nine voting directors, they got five seats in the NomCom. It was intended, that the NomCom will select directors which represent users/civil society. That is something that was lost in translation ;)
5. After the reform was fixed into the new bylaws a lot of big supporters of the At Large, Election and Cyberdemocracy concept distanced themselves more or less from ICANN. Supporters of the new ALAC did not really represent anymore the big civil society NGOs. ALAC became something like a "Champions League without Champions". A nunber of civil society organisation moved within ICANN to the Non-Commercial User Organisation (NCUC), a constituency iwthin the GNSO. However, the RALOs were formed, the number of ALSs were growing and over the years, ALAC returned to became again a more recognized player in the ICANN family. The call for ALAC voting directors came back and culminated into the call for holding an "At Large Summit" (ATLAS). ATLAS 1 took place 2008 in Mexico. One sub-committee produced a resolution which called for two voting seats for ALAC. The Board recognized the legitimacy of such a call, however, the compromise was to change the non-voting ALAC liaison in the Board into a Voting Director, elected by the ALAC itself.
6. This is the situation which stands until now. In my eyes, ATLAS III (recently in Montreal) was a missed opportunity to have a more strategic oriented discussion about the role and future of At Large (user, civil society) in ICANN as a whole. This was also a missed opportunity to ask for a second voting seat in the Board. However, it was good to see that NCUC and ALAC entered into a more constructive and forward looking dialogue which ould lead to a stronger voice of the user/civil society stakeholder group within the empowered community.
7. With the IANA transition and the emergence of the "empowered community" we have reached a new situation. However, this is not the end of the story. In my eyes there is a need for something like a Work Stream 3 (WS3) which looks deeper into the existing structure of ICANN and how it matches the needs of the 2020s or whether a structural reform is needed to adjust it to the new challenges in a post-IANA transition period. With other words, ATLAS IV (2024?) could re-introduce the call for a 2nd AT Large voting director. I hope we will not wait for 2024. You and me can maybe do something with ATRT3? Best wishes
Wolfgang
Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com> hat am 17. November 2019 um 06:06 geschrieben:
As I understand, it was decided at the beginning that ALAC would have two seats, but then was reduced to one seat for some reason.
Kaili
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 4:16 AM Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Other ACs have a Liaison. But At-Large is thr only part of ICANN that appoints full voting Board Members and has only one.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On November 16, 2019 2:57:36 PM EST, Johan Helsingius < julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote: On 16-11-19 18:22, Kaili Kan wrote: Hopefully, sometime in the future At-Large would get its second seat on the Board.
Do other ACs have more than one seat?
Julf At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <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) <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). <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@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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@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@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.
Thanks for this background Wolfgang. I must point out that section 5 in the decision to replace the ALAC Liaison with a voting Board member is not complete and perhaps gives an incorrect impression. It is correct that one of the ATLAS I WGs recommended that the ALAC Liaison be replaced with two voting Board members. I would like to think that this was the crucial basis on which the Board eventually took action, but I do not believe that to be so. Indeed, if you look at the entire body of ATLAS I recommendations, you will find many issues that are still with us 10 years later. In parallel with ATLAS (held in March 2009), we have the first At-Large Review. In July, 2008, the Independent Reviewer published its report and recommended that no change be made to the ALAC Liaison. The Board decided not to act directly on this report but chartered a Board ALAC Review WG to rethink the reviewer's recommendations. That WG published its final report in June 2009 and recommended that the ALAC Liaison be replaced with two At-Large voting members (not the reference to At-Large and not ALAC). The report was accepted by the Board, with the exception of the reference to voting board members and that recommendation was referred to the Board Review WG (BRWG) which was considering an overall review of the Board. That review had suggested that the overall size of the Board be decreased and not enlarged. The BRWG considered the recommendation and recommended to the Board that At-Large be given one voting board member to replace the ALAC Liaison. The Board acted on this during its 27 August 2009 meeting. The BRWG and the Board both noted that this was a compromise position with some believing there should be no change and some believing that At-Large should have two voting members. So as much as I would be delighted to report that the Board considered the output of ATLAS I in great detail and took action on it (at a time where most input from the ALAC was not even acknowledged, never mind acted on), I believe that the recommendation from the Board's own ALAC Review WG was the trigger for the action. Alan At 17/11/2019 06:44 AM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: Hi, here is the full background story: 1. The original bylaws (1998) did reserve 9 voting seats for an undefined "At Large Membership". 9 other voting seats were reserved for three SOs (DNSO, ASO, PSO). Ine seat for the CEO. There was a "placeholder" in the bylaws because nobody knew, what "At Large" is. An "Membership Advisory Committee" (MAC) was formed in Singapore during the 1st ICANN meeting in February 1999 (with the Berkman Center/Jonathan Zittrain as the academic back up). The MAC had a meeting during the 2nd ICANN in Berlin, July 1999. It concluded to identify the At Large voting directors via elections in the year 2000. The whole project was seen as a pilot project for "cyberdemocracy" and a bigger role of civil society on Internet policy making. The elections were described as an "experiment". They were organized with the help of a "Membership Implementation Task Force" (MITF). As a first step, the plan was to elect five directors from the five ICANN regions. The election was an exciting but also irritating experience. It worked and the community (around 200 000 voters) elected five directors which took their seat at the 2000 Annual Meeting in LA. 2. The elections produced a lot of questions. To answer those questions, ICANN etsbalished an "At Large Study Group" (ALG), chaired by the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt. The recommendations of the Bildt-Committee were presented at the ICANN meeting in Montevideo, September 2001. The main receommendation was to allow only "domainname holder" to participate in the election to avoid a misuse and to have a higher level of "representation" by stakeholders. Nevertheless, the Bildt-Proposal produced a wave of criticism by civil society. Such an approach would have excluded, inter alia, students, which have an e-Mail address but no domain name. The domain name is owned by the university which woulkd have only one vote in the new proposed system. The comparison was made to the election system in the middle ages where only "landowners" had a right to vote. The decision was postponed to the LA Annual Meeting in November 2001. The day after the At Large discussion on Montevideo two planes crashed into the twin towers in NYC. 3. 9/11 changed the political environment for the development of ICANN. ICANN was not seen anymore as a project for "cyberdemocracy" but as a question for "cybersecurity". US senators came to the ICANN meeting in LA and aksed tough questions how it can be avoided that a "terrorist" get elected into the ICANN Board of Directors. LA 2001 became the starting point of the first ICANN reform process. 4. The ICANN reform process was completed within less than two years. It included a restructuring of ICANN. The DNSO was subdivided into the GNSO and the CNSO. The PSO was abolished and transformed into "technical liason group". The elections of Voting At Large directors were abolished. Instaed of election a "selection" process was introduced through a new "Nomimation Committee" (NomCom). The NomCom got the right to "select" 8 voting directors in a process, strechted over three years (3:3:2). At Large was transfered into an "At Large Advisory Committee" (ALAC) with one non-voting liaison in the board. New structures with "recognized ALSs" and "RALOs", which had to sign a MoU with ICANN, were created. To compensate At Large for the loss of the nine voting directors, they got five seats in the NomCom. It was intended, that the NomCom will select directors which represent users/civil society. 5. After the reform was fixed into the new bylaws a lot of big supporters of the At Large, Election and Cyberdemocracy concept distanced themselves more or less from ICANN. Supporters of the new ALAC did not really represent anymore the big civil society NGOs. ALAC became something like a "Champions League without Champions". A nunber of civil society organisation moved within ICANN to the Non-Commercial User Organisation (NCUC), a constituency iwthin the GNSO. However, the RALOs were formed, the number of ALSs were growing and over the years, ALAC returned to became again a more recognized player in the ICANN family. The call for ALAC voting directors came back and culminated into the call for holding an "At Large Summit" (ATLAS). ATLAS 1 took place 2008 in Mexico. One sub-committee produced a resolution which called for two voting seats for ALAC. The Board recognized the legitimacy of such a call, however, the compromise was to change the non-voting ALAC liaison in the Board into a Voting Director, elected by the ALAC itself. 6. This is the situation which stands until now. In my eyes, ATLAS III (recently in Montreal) was a missed opportunity to have a more strategic oriented discussion about the role and future of At Large (user, civil society) in ICANN as a whole. This was also a missed opportunity to ask for a second voting seat in the Board. However, it was good to see that NCUC and ALAC entered into a more constructive and forward looking dialogue which ould lead to a stronger voice of the user/civil society stakeholder group within the empowered community. 7. With the IANA transition and the emergence of the "empowered community" we have reached a new situation. However, this is not the end of the story. In my eyes there is a need for something like a Work Stream 3 (WS3) which looks deeper into the existing structure of ICANN and how it matches the needs of the 2020s or whether a structural reform is needed to adjust it to the new challenges in a post-IANA transition period. With other words, ATLAS IV (2024?) could re-introduce the call for a 2nd AT Large voting director. Best wishes Wolfgang Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com> hat am 17. November 2019 um 06:06 geschrieben: As I understand, it was decided at the beginning that ALAC would have two seats, but then was reduced to one seat for some reason. Kaili On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 4:16 AM Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: Other ACs have a Liaison. But At-Large is thr only part of ICANN that appoints full voting Board Members and has only one. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 16, 2019 2:57:36 PM EST, Johan Helsingius < julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote: On 16-11-19 18:22, Kaili Kan wrote: Hopefully, sometime in the future At-Large would get its second seat on the Board. Do other ACs have more than one seat? Julf ________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@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@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@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.
Alan,
So as much as I would be delighted to report that the Board considered the output of ATLAS I in great detail and took action on it (at a time where most input from the ALAC was not even acknowledged, never mind acted on), I believe that the recommendation from the Board's own ALAC Review WG was the trigger for the action.
This is correct. I was the Vice-Chair of the Board at that time - as well as the Chair of the Structural Improvement Committee, the one that was coordinating the review WGs - and can tell you that it has been an uphill fight as some of the Board members were still thinking that ALAC was just a bit more than windows dressing and did not deserve too much attention. The Working Groups, on the other hand, were composed inter alia by carefully chosen former Board members and their opinion was instrumental to the final compromise decision. But this should not lead us to think that recommendations from ATLAS do not carry weight. Now the situation has changed dramatically, ALAC has demonstrated its capabilities and the contribution it provides to ICANN is substantial. The good reputation that ALAC has earned gives much more weight to its statements than it was 10 years ago. Cheers, Roberto
here is the full background story:
Thank you for that, Wolfgang!
7. With the IANA transition and the emergence of the "empowered community" we have reached a new situation. However, this is not the end of the story. In my eyes there is a need for something like a Work Stream 3 (WS3) which looks deeper into the existing structure of ICANN and how it matches the needs of the 2020s or whether a structural reform is needed to adjust it to the new challenges in a post-IANA transition period.
Hear hear! Unfortunately ALAC is not the only stakeholder organisation looking to strengthen its role in ICANN... Julf
Dear Wolfgang, thank you for finally writing this history! I have been waiting for this day for 10 years! Kindest regards, Olivier On 17/11/2019 15:44, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
Hi,
here is the full background story:
1. The original bylaws (1998) did reserve 9 voting seats for an undefined "At Large Membership". 9 other voting seats were reserved for three SOs (DNSO, ASO, PSO). Ine seat for the CEO. There was a "placeholder" in the bylaws because nobody knew, what "At Large" is. An "Membership Advisory Committee" (MAC) was formed in Singapore during the 1st ICANN meeting in February 1999 (with the Berkman Center/Jonathan Zittrain as the academic back up). The MAC had a meeting during the 2nd ICANN in Berlin, July 1999. It concluded to identify the At Large voting directors via elections in the year 2000. The whole project was seen as a pilot project for "cyberdemocracy" and a bigger role of civil society on Internet policy making. The elections were described as an "experiment". They were organized with the help of a "Membership Implementation Task Force" (MITF). As a first step, the plan was to elect five directors from the five ICANN regions. The election was an exciting but also irritating experience. It worked and the community (around 200 000 voters) elected five directors which took their seat at the 2000 Annual Meeting in LA.
2. The elections produced a lot of questions. To answer those questions, ICANN etsbalished an "At Large Study Group" (ALG), chaired by the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt. The recommendations of the Bildt-Committee were presented at the ICANN meeting in Montevideo, September 2001. The main receommendation was to allow only "domainname holder" to participate in the election to avoid a misuse and to have a higher level of "representation" by stakeholders. Nevertheless, the Bildt-Proposal produced a wave of criticism by civil society. Such an approach would have excluded, inter alia, students, which have an e-Mail address but no domain name. The domain name is owned by the university which woulkd have only one vote in the new proposed system. The comparison was made to the election system in the middle ages where only "landowners" had a right to vote. The decision was postponed to the LA Annual Meeting in November 2001. The day after the At Large discussion on Montevideo two planes crashed into the twin towers in NYC.
3. 9/11 changed the political environment for the development of ICANN. ICANN was not seen anymore as a project for "cyberdemocracy" but as a question for "cybersecurity". US senators came to the ICANN meeting in LA and aksed tough questions how it can be avoided that a "terrorist" get elected into the ICANN Board of Directors. LA 2001 became the starting point of the first ICANN reform process.
4. The ICANN reform process was completed within less than two years. It included a restructuring of ICANN. The DNSO was subdivided into the GNSO and the CNSO. The PSO was abolished and transformed into "technical liason group". The elections of Voting At Large directors were abolished. Instaed of election a "selection" process was introduced through a new "Nomimation Committee" (NomCom). The NomCom got the right to "select" 8 voting directors in a process, strechted over three years (3:3:2). At Large was transfered into an "At Large Advisory Committee" (ALAC) with one non-voting liaison in the board. New structures with "recognized ALSs" and "RALOs", which had to sign a MoU with ICANN, were created. To compensate At Large for the loss of the nine voting directors, they got five seats in the NomCom. It was intended, that the NomCom will select directors which represent users/civil society.
5. After the reform was fixed into the new bylaws a lot of big supporters of the At Large, Election and Cyberdemocracy concept distanced themselves more or less from ICANN. Supporters of the new ALAC did not really represent anymore the big civil society NGOs. ALAC became something like a "Champions League without Champions". A nunber of civil society organisation moved within ICANN to the Non-Commercial User Organisation (NCUC), a constituency iwthin the GNSO. However, the RALOs were formed, the number of ALSs were growing and over the years, ALAC returned to became again a more recognized player in the ICANN family. The call for ALAC voting directors came back and culminated into the call for holding an "At Large Summit" (ATLAS). ATLAS 1 took place 2008 in Mexico. One sub-committee produced a resolution which called for two voting seats for ALAC. The Board recognized the legitimacy of such a call, however, the compromise was to change the non-voting ALAC liaison in the Board into a Voting Director, elected by the ALAC itself.
6. This is the situation which stands until now. In my eyes, ATLAS III (recently in Montreal) was a missed opportunity to have a more strategic oriented discussion about the role and future of At Large (user, civil society) in ICANN as a whole. This was also a missed opportunity to ask for a second voting seat in the Board. However, it was good to see that NCUC and ALAC entered into a more constructive and forward looking dialogue which ould lead to a stronger voice of the user/civil society stakeholder group within the empowered community.
7. With the IANA transition and the emergence of the "empowered community" we have reached a new situation. However, this is not the end of the story. In my eyes there is a need for something like a Work Stream 3 (WS3) which looks deeper into the existing structure of ICANN and how it matches the needs of the 2020s or whether a structural reform is needed to adjust it to the new challenges in a post-IANA transition period. With other words, ATLAS IV (2024?) could re-introduce the call for a 2nd AT Large voting director. Best wishes
Wolfgang
Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com> hat am 17. November 2019 um 06:06 geschrieben:
As I understand, it was decided at the beginning that ALAC would have two seats, but then was reduced to one seat for some reason.
Kaili
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 4:16 AM Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Other ACs have a Liaison. But At-Large is thr only part of ICANN that appoints full voting Board Members and has only one.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On November 16, 2019 2:57:36 PM EST, Johan Helsingius < julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
On 16-11-19 18:22, Kaili Kan wrote:
Hopefully, sometime in the future At-Large would get its second seat on the Board.
Do other ACs have more than one seat?
Julf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At-Large mailing list At-Large@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@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@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@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.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Please excuse this note from a member of staff! The document attached might be of interest, a study of the global At-Large elections and a few recommendations. As Wolfgang noted, the elections did not continue after the first year. Best, Adam From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 17:02 To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info>, Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: "at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection Dear Wolfgang, thank you for finally writing this history! I have been waiting for this day for 10 years! Kindest regards, Olivier On 17/11/2019 15:44, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: Hi, here is the full background story: 1. The original bylaws (1998) did reserve 9 voting seats for an undefined "At Large Membership". 9 other voting seats were reserved for three SOs (DNSO, ASO, PSO). Ine seat for the CEO. There was a "placeholder" in the bylaws because nobody knew, what "At Large" is. An "Membership Advisory Committee" (MAC) was formed in Singapore during the 1st ICANN meeting in February 1999 (with the Berkman Center/Jonathan Zittrain as the academic back up). The MAC had a meeting during the 2nd ICANN in Berlin, July 1999. It concluded to identify the At Large voting directors via elections in the year 2000. The whole project was seen as a pilot project for "cyberdemocracy" and a bigger role of civil society on Internet policy making. The elections were described as an "experiment". They were organized with the help of a "Membership Implementation Task Force" (MITF). As a first step, the plan was to elect five directors from the five ICANN regions. The election was an exciting but also irritating experience. It worked and the community (around 200 000 voters) elected five directors which took their seat at the 2000 Annual Meeting in LA. 2. The elections produced a lot of questions. To answer those questions, ICANN etsbalished an "At Large Study Group" (ALG), chaired by the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt. The recommendations of the Bildt-Committee were presented at the ICANN meeting in Montevideo, September 2001. The main receommendation was to allow only "domainname holder" to participate in the election to avoid a misuse and to have a higher level of "representation" by stakeholders. Nevertheless, the Bildt-Proposal produced a wave of criticism by civil society. Such an approach would have excluded, inter alia, students, which have an e-Mail address but no domain name. The domain name is owned by the university which woulkd have only one vote in the new proposed system. The comparison was made to the election system in the middle ages where only "landowners" had a right to vote. The decision was postponed to the LA Annual Meeting in November 2001. The day after the At Large discussion on Montevideo two planes crashed into the twin towers in NYC. 3. 9/11 changed the political environment for the development of ICANN. ICANN was not seen anymore as a project for "cyberdemocracy" but as a question for "cybersecurity". US senators came to the ICANN meeting in LA and aksed tough questions how it can be avoided that a "terrorist" get elected into the ICANN Board of Directors. LA 2001 became the starting point of the first ICANN reform process. 4. The ICANN reform process was completed within less than two years. It included a restructuring of ICANN. The DNSO was subdivided into the GNSO and the CNSO. The PSO was abolished and transformed into "technical liason group". The elections of Voting At Large directors were abolished. Instaed of election a "selection" process was introduced through a new "Nomimation Committee" (NomCom). The NomCom got the right to "select" 8 voting directors in a process, strechted over three years (3:3:2). At Large was transfered into an "At Large Advisory Committee" (ALAC) with one non-voting liaison in the board. New structures with "recognized ALSs" and "RALOs", which had to sign a MoU with ICANN, were created. To compensate At Large for the loss of the nine voting directors, they got five seats in the NomCom. It was intended, that the NomCom will select directors which represent users/civil society. 5. After the reform was fixed into the new bylaws a lot of big supporters of the At Large, Election and Cyberdemocracy concept distanced themselves more or less from ICANN. Supporters of the new ALAC did not really represent anymore the big civil society NGOs. ALAC became something like a "Champions League without Champions". A nunber of civil society organisation moved within ICANN to the Non-Commercial User Organisation (NCUC), a constituency iwthin the GNSO. However, the RALOs were formed, the number of ALSs were growing and over the years, ALAC returned to became again a more recognized player in the ICANN family. The call for ALAC voting directors came back and culminated into the call for holding an "At Large Summit" (ATLAS). ATLAS 1 took place 2008 in Mexico. One sub-committee produced a resolution which called for two voting seats for ALAC. The Board recognized the legitimacy of such a call, however, the compromise was to change the non-voting ALAC liaison in the Board into a Voting Director, elected by the ALAC itself. 6. This is the situation which stands until now. In my eyes, ATLAS III (recently in Montreal) was a missed opportunity to have a more strategic oriented discussion about the role and future of At Large (user, civil society) in ICANN as a whole. This was also a missed opportunity to ask for a second voting seat in the Board. However, it was good to see that NCUC and ALAC entered into a more constructive and forward looking dialogue which ould lead to a stronger voice of the user/civil society stakeholder group within the empowered community. 7. With the IANA transition and the emergence of the "empowered community" we have reached a new situation. However, this is not the end of the story. In my eyes there is a need for something like a Work Stream 3 (WS3) which looks deeper into the existing structure of ICANN and how it matches the needs of the 2020s or whether a structural reform is needed to adjust it to the new challenges in a post-IANA transition period. With other words, ATLAS IV (2024?) could re-introduce the call for a 2nd AT Large voting director. Best wishes Wolfgang Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com><mailto:kankaili@gmail.com> hat am 17. November 2019 um 06:06 geschrieben: As I understand, it was decided at the beginning that ALAC would have two seats, but then was reduced to one seat for some reason. Kaili On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 4:16 AM Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Other ACs have a Liaison. But At-Large is thr only part of ICANN that appoints full voting Board Members and has only one. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 16, 2019 2:57:36 PM EST, Johan Helsingius < julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote: On 16-11-19 18:22, Kaili Kan wrote: Hopefully, sometime in the future At-Large would get its second seat on the Board. Do other ACs have more than one seat? Julf ________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large [atlarge-lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=DwMF...> ________________________________ 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) [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...> 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large [atlarge-lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=DwMF...> _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large [atlarge-lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=DwMF...> _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large [atlarge-lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=DwMF...> _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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. -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html [gih.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gih.com_ocl.html&d=D...>
Thank you very much, Adam! - Kaili On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:20 AM Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org> wrote:
Please excuse this note from a member of staff! The document attached might be of interest, a study of the global At-Large elections and a few recommendations. As Wolfgang noted, the elections did not continue after the first year.
Best,
Adam
*From: *At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> *Date: *Monday, November 18, 2019 17:02 *To: *Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info>, Kaili Kan < kankaili@gmail.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc: *"at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
*Subject: *Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection
Dear Wolfgang,
thank you for finally writing this history! I have been waiting for this day for 10 years! Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 17/11/2019 15:44, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
Hi,
here is the full background story:
1. The original bylaws (1998) did reserve 9 voting seats for an undefined "At Large Membership". 9 other voting seats were reserved for three SOs (DNSO, ASO, PSO). Ine seat for the CEO. There was a "placeholder" in the bylaws because nobody knew, what "At Large" is. An "Membership Advisory Committee" (MAC) was formed in Singapore during the 1st ICANN meeting in February 1999 (with the Berkman Center/Jonathan Zittrain as the academic back up). The MAC had a meeting during the 2nd ICANN in Berlin, July 1999. It concluded to identify the At Large voting directors via elections in the year 2000. The whole project was seen as a pilot project for "cyberdemocracy" and a bigger role of civil society on Internet policy making. The elections were described as an "experiment". They were organized with the help of a "Membership Implementation Task Force" (MITF). As a first step, the plan was to elect five directors from the five ICANN regions. The election was an exciting but also irritating experience. It worked and the community (around 200 000 voters) elected five directors which took their seat at the 2000 Annual Meeting in LA.
2. The elections produced a lot of questions. To answer those questions, ICANN etsbalished an "At Large Study Group" (ALG), chaired by the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt. The recommendations of the Bildt-Committee were presented at the ICANN meeting in Montevideo, September 2001. The main receommendation was to allow only "domainname holder" to participate in the election to avoid a misuse and to have a higher level of "representation" by stakeholders. Nevertheless, the Bildt-Proposal produced a wave of criticism by civil society. Such an approach would have excluded, inter alia, students, which have an e-Mail address but no domain name. The domain name is owned by the university which woulkd have only one vote in the new proposed system. The comparison was made to the election system in the middle ages where only "landowners" had a right to vote. The decision was postponed to the LA Annual Meeting in November 2001. The day after the At Large discussion on Montevideo two planes crashed into the twin towers in NYC.
3. 9/11 changed the political environment for the development of ICANN. ICANN was not seen anymore as a project for "cyberdemocracy" but as a question for "cybersecurity". US senators came to the ICANN meeting in LA and aksed tough questions how it can be avoided that a "terrorist" get elected into the ICANN Board of Directors. LA 2001 became the starting point of the first ICANN reform process.
4. The ICANN reform process was completed within less than two years. It included a restructuring of ICANN. The DNSO was subdivided into the GNSO and the CNSO. The PSO was abolished and transformed into "technical liason group". The elections of Voting At Large directors were abolished. Instaed of election a "selection" process was introduced through a new "Nomimation Committee" (NomCom). The NomCom got the right to "select" 8 voting directors in a process, strechted over three years (3:3:2). At Large was transfered into an "At Large Advisory Committee" (ALAC) with one non-voting liaison in the board. New structures with "recognized ALSs" and "RALOs", which had to sign a MoU with ICANN, were created. To compensate At Large for the loss of the nine voting directors, they got five seats in the NomCom. It was intended, that the NomCom will select directors which represent users/civil society.
5. After the reform was fixed into the new bylaws a lot of big supporters of the At Large, Election and Cyberdemocracy concept distanced themselves more or less from ICANN. Supporters of the new ALAC did not really represent anymore the big civil society NGOs. ALAC became something like a "Champions League without Champions". A nunber of civil society organisation moved within ICANN to the Non-Commercial User Organisation (NCUC), a constituency iwthin the GNSO. However, the RALOs were formed, the number of ALSs were growing and over the years, ALAC returned to became again a more recognized player in the ICANN family. The call for ALAC voting directors came back and culminated into the call for holding an "At Large Summit" (ATLAS). ATLAS 1 took place 2008 in Mexico. One sub-committee produced a resolution which called for two voting seats for ALAC. The Board recognized the legitimacy of such a call, however, the compromise was to change the non-voting ALAC liaison in the Board into a Voting Director, elected by the ALAC itself.
6. This is the situation which stands until now. In my eyes, ATLAS III (recently in Montreal) was a missed opportunity to have a more strategic oriented discussion about the role and future of At Large (user, civil society) in ICANN as a whole. This was also a missed opportunity to ask for a second voting seat in the Board. However, it was good to see that NCUC and ALAC entered into a more constructive and forward looking dialogue which ould lead to a stronger voice of the user/civil society stakeholder group within the empowered community.
7. With the IANA transition and the emergence of the "empowered community" we have reached a new situation. However, this is not the end of the story. In my eyes there is a need for something like a Work Stream 3 (WS3) which looks deeper into the existing structure of ICANN and how it matches the needs of the 2020s or whether a structural reform is needed to adjust it to the new challenges in a post-IANA transition period. With other words, ATLAS IV (2024?) could re-introduce the call for a 2nd AT Large voting director.
Best wishes
Wolfgang
Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com> <kankaili@gmail.com> hat am 17. November 2019 um 06:06 geschrieben:
As I understand, it was decided at the beginning that ALAC would have two seats, but then was reduced to one seat for some reason.
Kaili
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 4:16 AM Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Other ACs have a Liaison. But At-Large is thr only part of ICANN that appoints full voting Board Members and has only one.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On November 16, 2019 2:57:36 PM EST, Johan Helsingius < julf@julf.com> wrote:
On 16-11-19 18:22, Kaili Kan wrote:
Hopefully, sometime in the future At-Large would get its second seat on the Board.
Do other ACs have more than one seat?
Julf
------------------------------
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large [atlarge-lists.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=DwMF...>
------------------------------
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) [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...> 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large [atlarge-lists.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=DwMF...> _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large [atlarge-lists.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=DwMF...> _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large [atlarge-lists.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=DwMF...>
_______________________________________________
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 [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html [gih.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gih.com_ocl.html&d=D...>
Wolfgang, at this point the word "revisionism" cannot be spared. The flaws of the election were so severe that it was like candidates in developing countries who ferry peasants in trucks to the voting stations. The Bildt proposal was unworkable; re-reading it today in your note it looks like OSI compared to the IP stack, only much worse. The existing concept of the At Large was premised on the then-popular idea of the "Web of trust" in which everyone would be welcome and you'd have an idea whether when they said they spoke for 128,000 members or 5 it was true, whethther tehy claimed to represent all engineers in Texas or all nurses in a continent was true or not, and whether the organization had a reputation for professional integrity or had been accused of misdemeanors like easing access into visa processes in exchange for fat membership fees. Not exerting that self-assessment has cost the At Large dearly, demanding more from members has contributed to more effectiveness. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Wolfgang Kleinwächter [wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info] Enviado el: lunes, 18 de noviembre de 2019 12:05 Hasta: Adam Peake; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond; Kaili Kan; Alan Greenberg CC: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection Thx. Adam to remember NAIS. NAIS was a group of Civil Society groups and NGOs, sponsored inter alia by the Markle Foundation and Common Cause. The official ICANN study, discussed in Montevideo, was presented by the Bildt Committee. This proposal included the idea to form an "At Large Supporting Organisation" (ALSO) with the right to send six voting members to the Board. Bildt proposed that At Large membership should be open to "individual domain name holders". The idea was to form six regional At Large Councils (with five members) and a global At Large Council (with 12 members/two from each of the six regions). Recognized At Large members would have a right to vote for the five members of their regional council and also vote for the regional Board director. The plan was to have a balance in the ICANN board among "developers" (technical community), providers (business) and users (civil society) of services, with governments in an advisory capacity. The Bildt committee adopted more or less ideas which were discussed at this time around a "participatory democracy", "powershift" and a "new trilateralism", inter alia by the OECD. The language "multistakehooder approach" emerged from those discussions. Ideas of the Bildt Committee were used later also in the WSIS process to define Internet Governance (by the UN WGIG) n 2003 - 2005. https://cyber.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/alsc-pf.html As said in my previous mail, there was no decision on Montevideo. The issue was postponed and 9/11 changed the big picture. There was a very controversial debate about the future of At Large in Accra, March 2002 to continue with elections or to ablosh it. Here is a funny excerpt of the transcript of the Public Forum: WOLFGANG KLEIUWACHTE: MY NAME IS WOLFGANG KLEIUWACHTE FROM DENMARK. THE ICANN CONCEPT FOR THE PROJECT WAS LABELED IN THE VERY EARLY DAYS AS GOVERNANCE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT. AND THE CONCEPT OF AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP WAS PART OF THIS PROJECT. AT THIS TIME, IN THE EARLY DAYS, NOBODY HAD AN IDEA WHAT AN AT-LARGE MEMBER IS. THE ARTICLE II OF THE BYLAWS WAS EMPTY WHEN THE FIRST BYLAWS WERE ADOPTED. AND WITH ONLY THREE YEARS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE REACHED A TREMENDOUS HIGH LEVEL OF CLARIFICATION AND ORGANIZATION. TODAY, WE KNOW, MORE OR LESS, WHAT AN AT-LARGE MEMBER COULD BE, AND WE KNOW HOW AN AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP COULD BE ORGANIZED. AND WE HAVE REACHED THE POINT WHERE WE CAN MOVE FROM PROCESS TO EFFICIENT ACTION AND CONTRIBUTIONS. TO KILL THE CONCEPT NOW WOULD MEAN TO KILL THE BABY IN THE CRADLE AND TO GO BACK TO PROCEDURES OF THE 20TH CENTURY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE SEEN THE FILM ON CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS. THERE IS A SCENE IN THE FILM WHEN, AFTER THE REBELLION, WHEN HE IS ALONE IN HIS ROOM AND HE IS THINKING WHAT TO DO, TO GO BACK TO SPAIN OR TO MOVE FORWARD. AND HE TOOK THE RISK AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD. AND HE DISCOVERED NEW TERRITORY. MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD WOULD BE, SHOW YOUR COURAGE, TRUST THE PEOPLE, MOVE FORWARD. YOU WILL DISCOVER NEW TERRITORY WHICH WILL OFFER NEW OPPORTUNITIES. DON'T SAIL BACK TO SPAIN. THANK YOU. (APPLAUSE.)
AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR WOLFGANG. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
UNKNOWN: IS YOUR QUESTION "WHERE IS SPAIN?"
AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YES.
NO, FIRST OF ALL, ADVISE, THE CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS WAS COMPLETELY CRAZY. HE THOUGHT HE ARRIVED IN INDIA. BY THE WAY, HE DIED DURING THAT. BESIDES THAT POINT, WHEN YOU SAID KILLING THE AT LARGE, FOR MY EDUCATION, WHAT'S – I MEAN THAT EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT, BUT WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT, ELECTIONS OR THE AT-LARGE ORGANIZATION. AT ONE TIME WE HAD ELECTIONS WITHOUT THE AT-LARGE ORGANIZATION. ANOTHER TIME WE HAVE AT-LARGE WITHOUT THE ELECTIONS. IN YOUR VIEW, NOT HAVING THE ELECTIONS IS KILLING THE AT LARGE AND ICANN. NOT HAVING A SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION WITH A CONTINUING ROLE IS KILLING ICANN AND AT LARGE, OR BOTH THINGS ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO YOUR MIND?
WOLFGANG KLEIUWACHTE: CERTAINLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MECHANISM. AND ELECTION IS A GOOD MECHANISM, YOU KNOW, TO GUARANTEE REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION IN THE BOARD.
HOW THIS IS ORGANIZED, YOU KNOW, DO WE HAVE SEVERAL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE. AND I THINK THE LAST VERSION OF THE REPORT GIVES A GOOD OPTION, YOU KNOW, WHICH BRINGS THE RISKS RATHER DOWN. NOBODY WANTS TO REPEAT THE ELECTION FROM THE YEAR 2000. BUT WE HAVE LEARNED A LOT FROM THESE ELECTIONS. I WAS A MEMBER OF THE MITF. AND, YOU KNOW, WE MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES. BUT PEOPLE LEARN FROM MISTAKES, AND I THINK THIS WAS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE NEXT STEP IS AGAIN A VERY SMALL STEP. BUT THE STEPS WOULD BE FORWARD, NOT BACKWARDS.
VINTON CERF: I HAVE TO MAKE ONE OBSERVATION. ONE OF THEM IS THAT WHEN COLUMBUS DISCOVERED AMERICA, AND MANY PEOPLE WENT THERE, THEY BROUGHT THINGS LIKE SMALLPOX AND SYPHILIS AND SO ON. I HOPE THAT WE DON'T GO IN THAT DIRECTION.
SECOND, JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE ONE MORE TIME, IN THE MIDST OF ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT GOVERNANCE AND EVERYTHING ELSE, DON'T FORGET, OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WORKS AND THE INTERNET ADDRESSING ALLOCATIONS WORK. AND THAT IS OUR CORE RESPONSIBILITY. see: https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/accra/captioning-afternoon-13mar02.htm Wolfgang PS: My "short hisotry" was seen more or less as a brief comment, not as an article or as the full history. The whole history was much more complex. Howeverit makes sense, to document this history in a readable form to enable newbies to understand, where this complex beast, called AL, comes from. Roberto, Izumi, Adam, Raul, Carlos, Hans Klein but also Esther Dyson, Andrew Mc Laughlin and Carl Bildt could give their perspectives. Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org> hat am 18. November 2019 um 17:16 geschrieben: Please excuse this note from a member of staff! The document attached might be of interest, a study of the global At-Large elections and a few recommendations. As Wolfgang noted, the elections did not continue after the first year. Best, Adam From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 17:02 To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info>, Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: "at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection Dear Wolfgang, thank you for finally writing this history! I have been waiting for this day for 10 years! Kindest regards, Olivier On 17/11/2019 15:44, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: Hi, here is the full background story: 1. The original bylaws (1998) did reserve 9 voting seats for an undefined "At Large Membership". 9 other voting seats were reserved for three SOs (DNSO, ASO, PSO). Ine seat for the CEO. There was a "placeholder" in the bylaws because nobody knew, what "At Large" is. An "Membership Advisory Committee" (MAC) was formed in Singapore during the 1st ICANN meeting in February 1999 (with the Berkman Center/Jonathan Zittrain as the academic back up). The MAC had a meeting during the 2nd ICANN in Berlin, July 1999. It concluded to identify the At Large voting directors via elections in the year 2000. The whole project was seen as a pilot project for "cyberdemocracy" and a bigger role of civil society on Internet policy making. The elections were described as an "experiment". They were organized with the help of a "Membership Implementation Task Force" (MITF). As a first step, the plan was to elect five directors from the five ICANN regions. The election was an exciting but also irritating experience. It worked and the community (around 200 000 voters) elected five directors which took their seat at the 2000 Annual Meeting in LA. 2. The elections produced a lot of questions. To answer those questions, ICANN etsbalished an "At Large Study Group" (ALG), chaired by the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt. The recommendations of the Bildt-Committee were presented at the ICANN meeting in Montevideo, September 2001. The main receommendation was to allow only "domainname holder" to participate in the election to avoid a misuse and to have a higher level of "representation" by stakeholders. Nevertheless, the Bildt-Proposal produced a wave of criticism by civil society. Such an approach would have excluded, inter alia, students, which have an e-Mail address but no domain name. The domain name is owned by the university which woulkd have only one vote in the new proposed system. The comparison was made to the election system in the middle ages where only "landowners" had a right to vote. The decision was postponed to the LA Annual Meeting in November 2001. The day after the At Large discussion on Montevideo two planes crashed into the twin towers in NYC. 3. 9/11 changed the political environment for the development of ICANN. ICANN was not seen anymore as a project for "cyberdemocracy" but as a question for "cybersecurity". US senators came to the ICANN meeting in LA and aksed tough questions how it can be avoided that a "terrorist" get elected into the ICANN Board of Directors. LA 2001 became the starting point of the first ICANN reform process. 4. The ICANN reform process was completed within less than two years. It included a restructuring of ICANN. The DNSO was subdivided into the GNSO and the CNSO. The PSO was abolished and transformed into "technical liason group". The elections of Voting At Large directors were abolished. Instaed of election a "selection" process was introduced through a new "Nomimation Committee" (NomCom). The NomCom got the right to "select" 8 voting directors in a process, strechted over three years (3:3:2). At Large was transfered into an "At Large Advisory Committee" (ALAC) with one non-voting liaison in the board. New structures with "recognized ALSs" and "RALOs", which had to sign a MoU with ICANN, were created. To compensate At Large for the loss of the nine voting directors, they got five seats in the NomCom. It was intended, that the NomCom will select directors which represent users/civil society. 5. After the reform was fixed into the new bylaws a lot of big supporters of the At Large, Election and Cyberdemocracy concept distanced themselves more or less from ICANN. Supporters of the new ALAC did not really represent anymore the big civil society NGOs. ALAC became something like a "Champions League without Champions". A nunber of civil society organisation moved within ICANN to the Non-Commercial User Organisation (NCUC), a constituency iwthin the GNSO. However, the RALOs were formed, the number of ALSs were growing and over the years, ALAC returned to became again a more recognized player in the ICANN family. The call for ALAC voting directors came back and culminated into the call for holding an "At Large Summit" (ATLAS). ATLAS 1 took place 2008 in Mexico. One sub-committee produced a resolution which called for two voting seats for ALAC. The Board recognized the legitimacy of such a call, however, the compromise was to change the non-voting ALAC liaison in the Board into a Voting Director, elected by the ALAC itself. 6. This is the situation which stands until now. In my eyes, ATLAS III (recently in Montreal) was a missed opportunity to have a more strategic oriented discussion about the role and future of At Large (user, civil society) in ICANN as a whole. This was also a missed opportunity to ask for a second voting seat in the Board. However, it was good to see that NCUC and ALAC entered into a more constructive and forward looking dialogue which ould lead to a stronger voice of the user/civil society stakeholder group within the empowered community. 7. With the IANA transition and the emergence of the "empowered community" we have reached a new situation. However, this is not the end of the story. In my eyes there is a need for something like a Work Stream 3 (WS3) which looks deeper into the existing structure of ICANN and how it matches the needs of the 2020s or whether a structural reform is needed to adjust it to the new challenges in a post-IANA transition period. With other words, ATLAS IV (2024?) could re-introduce the call for a 2nd AT Large voting director. Best wishes Wolfgang Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com><mailto:kankaili@gmail.com> hat am 17. November 2019 um 06:06 geschrieben: As I understand, it was decided at the beginning that ALAC would have two seats, but then was reduced to one seat for some reason. Kaili On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 4:16 AM Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Other ACs have a Liaison. But At-Large is thr only part of ICANN that appoints full voting Board Members and has only one. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 16, 2019 2:57:36 PM EST, Johan Helsingius < julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote: On 16-11-19 18:22, Kaili Kan wrote: Hopefully, sometime in the future At-Large would get its second seat on the Board. Do other ACs have more than one seat? Julf ________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large [atlarge-lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=DwMF...> ________________________________ 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) [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...> 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large [atlarge-lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=DwMF...> _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large [atlarge-lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=DwMF...> _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large [atlarge-lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=DwMF...> _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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. -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html [gih.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gih.com_ocl.html&d=D...>
Dear Wolfgang, thank you for your follow-up. Please find my comments inline: On 18/11/2019 22:05, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
Bildt proposed that At Large membership should be open to "individual domain name holders". The idea was to form six regional At Large Councils (with five members) and a global At Large Council (with 12 members/two from each of the six regions). Recognized At Large members would have a right to vote for the five members of their regional council and also vote for the regional Board director. The plan was to have a balance in the ICANN board among "developers" (technical community), providers (business) and users (civil society) of services, with governments in an advisory capacity.
A significant mistake was made by the Bildt Committee and that's to propose restricting membership to "individual domain name holders". The DNS is used by all users, not only by domain name holders. In fact, there is a designation for individuals that hold a large number of domain names and that's "domainer". So in fact Bildt was proposing ICANN to close itself into its microcosm of domain name businesses and domainers, quite the contrary from the openness that was displayed when ICANN first started. This was a significant step back for end users and I understand how some supporters of ICANN Version 1 were irritated enough to leave the process altogether. They felt betrayed. As someone who had been actively involved in supporting the "other" proposal, the Internet Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC - https://icannwiki.org/IAHC ), resulting in a gTLD MoU ( https://icannwiki.org/GTLD-MoU ) the debate became political very quickly, with concerns by US politicians that the Root and its resources would leave the USA. Upon hindsight, perhaps the IAHC's proposal was not end-user friendly, but I remember that one of the significant points made in the presentation of ICANN, along with the Green and White papers, was that it had a very strong end user component, through its election process. I think that a lot of people, reading this, myself included, shifted our view from supporting a gTLD MoU future to an ICANN future when this end user component was promoted. What happened during the re-organisation of ICANN was, in my view, nothing short of capture, and it took me until 2008 to accept it. BTW the DNSO mailing list discussions were toxic. Kindest regards, Olivier
This story gets more intriguing as more is revealed. But it is more interesting as a conversation - rather than trying to fit all these personal observations into a textbook version. On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, 8:44 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Wolfgang,
thank you for your follow-up. Please find my comments inline:
On 18/11/2019 22:05, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
Bildt proposed that At Large membership should be open to "individual domain name holders". The idea was to form six regional At Large Councils (with five members) and a global At Large Council (with 12 members/two from each of the six regions). Recognized At Large members would have a right to vote for the five members of their regional council and also vote for the regional Board director. The plan was to have a balance in the ICANN board among "developers" (technical community), providers (business) and users (civil society) of services, with governments in an advisory capacity.
A significant mistake was made by the Bildt Committee and that's to propose restricting membership to "individual domain name holders". The DNS is used by all users, not only by domain name holders. In fact, there is a designation for individuals that hold a large number of domain names and that's "domainer". So in fact Bildt was proposing ICANN to close itself into its microcosm of domain name businesses and domainers, quite the contrary from the openness that was displayed when ICANN first started.
This was a significant step back for end users and I understand how some supporters of ICANN Version 1 were irritated enough to leave the process altogether. They felt betrayed. As someone who had been actively involved in supporting the "other" proposal, the Internet Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC - https://icannwiki.org/IAHC ), resulting in a gTLD MoU ( https://icannwiki.org/GTLD-MoU ) the debate became political very quickly, with concerns by US politicians that the Root and its resources would leave the USA. Upon hindsight, perhaps the IAHC's proposal was not end-user friendly, but I remember that one of the significant points made in the presentation of ICANN, along with the Green and White papers, was that it had a very strong end user component, through its election process. I think that a lot of people, reading this, myself included, shifted our view from supporting a gTLD MoU future to an ICANN future when this end user component was promoted. What happened during the re-organisation of ICANN was, in my view, nothing short of capture, and it took me until 2008 to accept it. BTW the DNSO mailing list discussions were toxic. Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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.
Dear all, It appears from the Final Report of the At-Large Study Committee ("Bildt Committee") that At-Large Support Organization (sic) was intended "for informed participation of any interested individual" and that in addition to domain holders, "efforts continue to be made to identify an additional membership option with a reasonable level of verification. This recommendation is under consideration by the Board, but need not delay initial At-Large organizing efforts". https://archive.icann.org/en/committees/at-large/final-report-05nov01.htm ICANN | At-Large Study Committee | Final Report<https://archive.icann.org/en/committees/at-large/final-report-05nov01.htm> Executive Summary. The At-Large Membership Study Committee (ALSC) is pleased to present this report and accompanying recommendations to the ICANN Board in fulfillment of the provisions of its charter. archive.icann.org Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:43 AM To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info>; Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org>; Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection Dear Wolfgang, thank you for your follow-up. Please find my comments inline: On 18/11/2019 22:05, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: Bildt proposed that At Large membership should be open to "individual domain name holders". The idea was to form six regional At Large Councils (with five members) and a global At Large Council (with 12 members/two from each of the six regions). Recognized At Large members would have a right to vote for the five members of their regional council and also vote for the regional Board director. The plan was to have a balance in the ICANN board among "developers" (technical community), providers (business) and users (civil society) of services, with governments in an advisory capacity. A significant mistake was made by the Bildt Committee and that's to propose restricting membership to "individual domain name holders". The DNS is used by all users, not only by domain name holders. In fact, there is a designation for individuals that hold a large number of domain names and that's "domainer". So in fact Bildt was proposing ICANN to close itself into its microcosm of domain name businesses and domainers, quite the contrary from the openness that was displayed when ICANN first started. This was a significant step back for end users and I understand how some supporters of ICANN Version 1 were irritated enough to leave the process altogether. They felt betrayed. As someone who had been actively involved in supporting the "other" proposal, the Internet Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC - https://icannwiki.org/IAHC<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ficannwiki.org%2FIAHC&data=02%7C01%7C%7C672fafaa1eeb4121955c08d76cbbde84%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637097426458033946&sdata=a%2BsDYpoMZ6e6Nf7t0uFmxXOUekpSo4Qt%2FJL4ImM52LU%3D&reserved=0> ), resulting in a gTLD MoU ( https://icannwiki.org/GTLD-MoU<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ficannwiki.org%2FGTLD-MoU&data=02%7C01%7C%7C672fafaa1eeb4121955c08d76cbbde84%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637097426458043945&sdata=RG4bgczSAlub3qsLnfuqhXY%2BykX8kuYjJrPPF67XEtY%3D&reserved=0> ) the debate became political very quickly, with concerns by US politicians that the Root and its resources would leave the USA. Upon hindsight, perhaps the IAHC's proposal was not end-user friendly, but I remember that one of the significant points made in the presentation of ICANN, along with the Green and White papers, was that it had a very strong end user component, through its election process. I think that a lot of people, reading this, myself included, shifted our view from supporting a gTLD MoU future to an ICANN future when this end user component was promoted. What happened during the re-organisation of ICANN was, in my view, nothing short of capture, and it took me until 2008 to accept it. BTW the DNSO mailing list discussions were toxic. Kindest regards, Olivier
After repeated failures of my email, I am posting with a new email account, but it is still me, Roberto Gaetano :-) I have a different reading than Olivier of both turning points that he mentions. First of all, I am not so negative about the Bildt recommendation. I might agree that the risk of having registrants captured by domaines was a possibility, but I did not see it so dangerous at that time, maybe because I was naif about the potential push from civil society to avoid that. Also, I am a long time supporter of the approach where “the best is good’s worst enemy” - I assume that you say that in English similarly to how we say in Italian. A completely different story is my reading of the IAHC vs NewCo proposals. I have been a supporter of the IAHC (actually, I was a member of the POC - Policy Advisory Committee - as well as in the Executive Committee of CORE - Internet Council of Registrars - so I admit I might have been biased. I never believed that NewCo would have delivered a “power to the people” solution (neither would have the IAHC, btw), but at least they could have broken NetSol’s monopoly - but even this minimal result was achieved only partly, in the sense that the market share was left almost untouched, but at least there has been a price control (the very thing that is being now released). The Green Paper looked like something that had been put together in a hurry, with the sole purpose of stopping - or slowing down - the IAHC proposal, that with CORE becoming operational as organization at the end of 1997 and with development plans for an SRS ongoing was becoming dangerous. However, the White Paper was different, it showed that there was a serious effort to build an alternative proposal. That was obvious also looking at the financial supporters, organisations like ATT, IBM, etc., letting alone the power of USG. Having worked for 12 years for IBM I have learned two things: they never release centralisation of the power (this is the main reason why their network architecture failed, but this is another story) and they never - or very, very rarely - bet on losers. So I was convinced that, although the IAHC had the best approach, NewCo would have prevailed in the end, and that it was a mistake not to get involved in that project to try to obtain at least something. This was a minority view in CORE and I ended up in being the only CORE ExCom member to attend the first IFWP meeting in Reston. Anyway, long story short, had we the IAHC solution in operation, registries would be acting as non-profit, leaving the competition and the commercial aspect to registrars. This also means that we would not have been here discussing about the sellout of a non-profit registry to sa commercial investment fund that will transform it into something different. But we can’t rewind history. On one point I fully agree with Olivier. As Chair of the DNSO GA, I can confirm that some of the DNSO mailing lists discussions were indeed toxic. Cheers, Roberto
On 19.11.2019, at 07:43, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Wolfgang,
thank you for your follow-up. Please find my comments inline:
On 18/11/2019 22:05, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
Bildt proposed that At Large membership should be open to "individual domain name holders". The idea was to form six regional At Large Councils (with five members) and a global At Large Council (with 12 members/two from each of the six regions). Recognized At Large members would have a right to vote for the five members of their regional council and also vote for the regional Board director. The plan was to have a balance in the ICANN board among "developers" (technical community), providers (business) and users (civil society) of services, with governments in an advisory capacity.
A significant mistake was made by the Bildt Committee and that's to propose restricting membership to "individual domain name holders". The DNS is used by all users, not only by domain name holders. In fact, there is a designation for individuals that hold a large number of domain names and that's "domainer". So in fact Bildt was proposing ICANN to close itself into its microcosm of domain name businesses and domainers, quite the contrary from the openness that was displayed when ICANN first started.
This was a significant step back for end users and I understand how some supporters of ICANN Version 1 were irritated enough to leave the process altogether. They felt betrayed. As someone who had been actively involved in supporting the "other" proposal, the Internet Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC - https://icannwiki.org/IAHC <https://icannwiki.org/IAHC> ), resulting in a gTLD MoU ( https://icannwiki.org/GTLD-MoU <https://icannwiki.org/GTLD-MoU> ) the debate became political very quickly, with concerns by US politicians that the Root and its resources would leave the USA. Upon hindsight, perhaps the IAHC's proposal was not end-user friendly, but I remember that one of the significant points made in the presentation of ICANN, along with the Green and White papers, was that it had a very strong end user component, through its election process. I think that a lot of people, reading this, myself included, shifted our view from supporting a gTLD MoU future to an ICANN future when this end user component was promoted. What happened during the re-organisation of ICANN was, in my view, nothing short of capture, and it took me until 2008 to accept it. BTW the DNSO mailing list discussions were toxic. Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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.
The 1997-2001 period is a different country. The question I have is whether the sale of PIR by ISOC represents anything more than a bow to the now completely obvious. Domain name registration via ICANN structures is not a public interest activity but a business with some strong cartel like features. In this sense there is a real positive in ISOC acknowledging and clarifying the bigger picture by removing itself. The disposal suggests the need for a new approach by those concerned that people who are users of Internet resources are under influential in a structural long term sense in their governance and their management. best Christian On 21/11/2019 17:13, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
After repeated failures of my email, I am posting with a new email account, but it is still me, Roberto Gaetano :-)
I have a different reading than Olivier of both turning points that he mentions. First of all, I am not so negative about the Bildt recommendation. I might agree that the risk of having registrants captured by domaines was a possibility, but I did not see it so dangerous at that time, maybe because I was naif about the potential push from civil society to avoid that. Also, I am a long time supporter of the approach where “the best is good’s worst enemy” - I assume that you say that in English similarly to how we say in Italian.
A completely different story is my reading of the IAHC vs NewCo proposals. I have been a supporter of the IAHC (actually, I was a member of the POC - Policy Advisory Committee - as well as in the Executive Committee of CORE - Internet Council of Registrars - so I admit I might have been biased. I never believed that NewCo would have delivered a “power to the people” solution (neither would have the IAHC, btw), but at least they could have broken NetSol’s monopoly - but even this minimal result was achieved only partly, in the sense that the market share was left almost untouched, but at least there has been a price control (the very thing that is being now released). The Green Paper looked like something that had been put together in a hurry, with the sole purpose of stopping - or slowing down - the IAHC proposal, that with CORE becoming operational as organization at the end of 1997 and with development plans for an SRS ongoing was becoming dangerous. However, the White Paper was different, it showed that there was a serious effort to build an alternative proposal. That was obvious also looking at the financial supporters, organisations like ATT, IBM, etc., letting alone the power of USG. Having worked for 12 years for IBM I have learned two things: they never release centralisation of the power (this is the main reason why their network architecture failed, but this is another story) and they never - or very, very rarely - bet on losers. So I was convinced that, although the IAHC had the best approach, NewCo would have prevailed in the end, and that it was a mistake not to get involved in that project to try to obtain at least something. This was a minority view in CORE and I ended up in being the only CORE ExCom member to attend the first IFWP meeting in Reston. Anyway, long story short, had we the IAHC solution in operation, registries would be acting as non-profit, leaving the competition and the commercial aspect to registrars. This also means that we would not have been here discussing about the sellout of a non-profit registry to sa commercial investment fund that will transform it into something different. But we can’t rewind history.
On one point I fully agree with Olivier. As Chair of the DNSO GA, I can confirm that some of the DNSO mailing lists discussions were indeed toxic.
Cheers, Roberto
On 19.11.2019, at 07:43, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Wolfgang,
thank you for your follow-up. Please find my comments inline:
On 18/11/2019 22:05, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
Bildt proposed that At Large membership should be open to "individual domain name holders". The idea was to form six regional At Large Councils (with five members) and a global At Large Council (with 12 members/two from each of the six regions). Recognized At Large members would have a right to vote for the five members of their regional council and also vote for the regional Board director. The plan was to have a balance in the ICANN board among "developers" (technical community), providers (business) and users (civil society) of services, with governments in an advisory capacity.
A significant mistake was made by the Bildt Committee and that's to propose restricting membership to "individual domain name holders". The DNS is used by all users, not only by domain name holders. In fact, there is a designation for individuals that hold a large number of domain names and that's "domainer". So in fact Bildt was proposing ICANN to close itself into its microcosm of domain name businesses and domainers, quite the contrary from the openness that was displayed when ICANN first started.
This was a significant step back for end users and I understand how some supporters of ICANN Version 1 were irritated enough to leave the process altogether. They felt betrayed. As someone who had been actively involved in supporting the "other" proposal, the Internet Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC - https://icannwiki.org/IAHC ), resulting in a gTLD MoU ( https://icannwiki.org/GTLD-MoU ) the debate became political very quickly, with concerns by US politicians that the Root and its resources would leave the USA. Upon hindsight, perhaps the IAHC's proposal was not end-user friendly, but I remember that one of the significant points made in the presentation of ICANN, along with the Green and White papers, was that it had a very strong end user component, through its election process. I think that a lot of people, reading this, myself included, shifted our view from supporting a gTLD MoU future to an ICANN future when this end user component was promoted. What happened during the re-organisation of ICANN was, in my view, nothing short of capture, and it took me until 2008 to accept it. BTW the DNSO mailing list discussions were toxic. Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@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@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.
On 11/21/19 10:25 AM, Christian wrote:
Domain name registration via ICANN structures is not a public interest activity but a business with some strong cartel like features.
That is true. In my own life I wear several hats - I am (obviously) a very pro-democracy advocate. But I am also an intellectual property lawyer. I also own and operate multiple businesses (via corporate forms), most of which have domain name and trademarks. I also am a net techie (and have my name on full Internet Standard RFCs.) I also have a financial interest in various domain name registries. In terms of power (by which I mean power to influence ICANN decisions) the least powerful of my hats is that of the individual here in ICANN. I spent last week among my intellectual property lawyer peers. Those folks represent a seriously strong power block. When they (or, rather, we) are figuring out how to make ICANN dance to our tune we can afford to dedicate serious resources, such as full time staff, to make sure we have the best chance of winning. The public, the ALAC, the individual has nearly zero chance of winning. Just witness how easily the intellectual property interests got the highly biased UDRP into place and how far ICANN policy over the ensuing decades has been shaped to cater to the interests of my friends in the intellectual property community. Same thing in my roles with my corporations and registry interests: Although not as well organized as the intellectual property industry, my business and registry friends are quite able and willing to expend resources (and hire dedicated staff) to ensure that their (our) interests are strongly expressed within ICANN. It is hard for individuals, hobbled by ICANN's Byzantine procedures, bureaucracy, layers ALAC "organizations", and a mere single public board seat, to carry the day against well organized and well funded industrial opposition. And ICANN's fundamental structure not only allows, but encourages, this kind of industrial collaboration and combination of influence. The notion of "stakeholder" says that our voice within ICANN is measured by our self-interest, largely our financial self-interest, in maters before ICANN. Because individuals - you and me - have a dilute interest, and often not an interest easily measured in financial terms, our authority within ICANN as stakeholders is written in lower case. On the other hand, because Intellectual Property, business, registrar, and registry interests are organized and combined and have a high dollar value their role as STAKEHOLDERS in ICANN is written in upper case, in bold font, italicized, and underlined. It is no wonder, therefore, that the "non-profit/public benefit" corporation called ICANN has been captured by industrial interests, dances to their tunes, and allows sales of "Public Interest Registry" to a body of ICANN insiders with nary a shred of concern about the public or its interests. One might apply Jessica Rabbit's famous line to ICANN: "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way." ICANN will continue to favor organized business interests over the public benefit as long as ICANN retains its present form. If we want to make ICANN less bad then we will have to draw it a different way. --karl--
Karl, over the years, I have quite often disagreed with your posts. In this case, I strongly support everything you said here (and appreciate the Roger Rabbit reference! :-) ). Alan At 21/11/2019 03:13 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 11/21/19 10:25 AM, Christian wrote:
Domain name registration via ICANN structures is not a public interest activity but a business with some strong cartel like features.
That is true.
In my own life I wear several hats - I am (obviously) a very pro-democracy advocate. But I am also an intellectual property lawyer. I also own and operate multiple businesses (via corporate forms), most of which have domain name and trademarks. I also am a net techie (and have my name on full Internet Standard RFCs.) I also have a financial interest in various domain name registries.
In terms of power (by which I mean power to influence ICANN decisions) the least powerful of my hats is that of the individual here in ICANN.
I spent last week among my intellectual property lawyer peers. Those folks represent a seriously strong power block. When they (or, rather, we) are figuring out how to make ICANN dance to our tune we can afford to dedicate serious resources, such as full time staff, to make sure we have the best chance of winning. The public, the ALAC, the individual has nearly zero chance of winning. Just witness how easily the intellectual property interests got the highly biased UDRP into place and how far ICANN policy over the ensuing decades has been shaped to cater to the interests of my friends in the intellectual property community.
Same thing in my roles with my corporations and registry interests: Although not as well organized as the intellectual property industry, my business and registry friends are quite able and willing to expend resources (and hire dedicated staff) to ensure that their (our) interests are strongly expressed within ICANN.
It is hard for individuals, hobbled by ICANN's Byzantine procedures, bureaucracy, layers ALAC "organizations", and a mere single public board seat, to carry the day against well organized and well funded industrial opposition.
And ICANN's fundamental structure not only allows, but encourages, this kind of industrial collaboration and combination of influence.
The notion of "stakeholder" says that our voice within ICANN is measured by our self-interest, largely our financial self-interest, in maters before ICANN. Because individuals - you and me - have a dilute interest, and often not an interest easily measured in financial terms, our authority within ICANN as stakeholders is written in lower case. On the other hand, because Intellectual Property, business, registrar, and registry interests are organized and combined and have a high dollar value their role as STAKEHOLDERS in ICANN is written in upper case, in bold font, italicized, and underlined.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the "non-profit/public benefit" corporation called ICANN has been captured by industrial interests, dances to their tunes, and allows sales of "Public Interest Registry" to a body of ICANN insiders with nary a shred of concern about the public or its interests.
One might apply Jessica Rabbit's famous line to ICANN: "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."
ICANN will continue to favor organized business interests over the public benefit as long as ICANN retains its present form.
If we want to make ICANN less bad then we will have to draw it a different way.
--karl-- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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.
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 at 16:00, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Karl, over the years, I have quite often disagreed with your posts. In this case, I strongly support everything you said here (and appreciate the Roger Rabbit reference! :-) ).
Absolutely agreed with Alan (and thus Karl). One thing that intrigues me about the post-2000 ICANN structure is the Nominating Committee. On most other orgs in which I have participated (and some for which I'm the primary bylaw author) the Nominating Committee produces a slate of candidates for the available positions from which an electorate chooses. In some orgs (such as CIRA) there are also open nominations for a second slate of candidates from which a minority of Board positions are elected. (This makes up for the inability of a virtual org to have "nominations from the floor"). In ICANN there is a NomCom but no electorate, so it's not really a nomination committee but a selection committee. The people it annoints slide right into their positions without any extra processes. This is highly unusual, and it means that the NomCom really over-vets its candidates. Part of me thinks that a combination of a *real* nominating committee, combined with a broad global electorate, could produce a board with both a collection of sane candidates and a public mandate. The sad truth is that ICANN (and as we've found out recently, ISOC) have no actual external stakeholders. In a for-profit the fiduciary duty is to stakeholders. In a normal nonprofit the fiduciary duty is to the stakeholders. In ICANN and ISOC, there is no external accountability so the fiduciary duty is soley to the institution itself. If this is an innovation of governance it's one I can do without. - Evan
Great discussion. @Evan do you think that “that the NomCom really over-vets its candidates” is a bad thing? Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Nov 22, 2019, at 6:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
This is highly unusual, and it means that the NomCom really over-vets its candidates.
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 07:41, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Great discussion.
@Evan do you think that “that the NomCom really over-vets its candidates” is a bad thing?
Under the current circumstance, where the person they pick goes directly to fill the position, that is indeed necessary. But if the NomCom were actually only choosing candidates for an election slate, it should be flexible enough to allow for some diversity of approaches and experience. It would not need to be as strict. Rather than choosing three people for (say) the Board it would create a slate of nine or ten candidates from which the voters would pick the three. In this case the main role for the NomCom is more to eliminate the non-serious (and bias towards skills needs) than to pick the best people. That is the job of the electorate. - Evan
Thanx @Evan On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 8:49 AM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 07:41, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Great discussion.
@Evan do you think that “that the NomCom really over-vets its candidates” is a bad thing?
Under the current circumstance, where the person they pick goes directly to fill the position, that is indeed necessary.
But if the NomCom were actually only choosing candidates for an election slate, it should be flexible enough to allow for some diversity of approaches and experience. It would not need to be as strict. Rather than choosing three people for (say) the Board it would create a slate of nine or ten candidates from which the voters would pick the three. In this case the main role for the NomCom is more to eliminate the non-serious (and bias towards skills needs) than to pick the best people. That is the job of the electorate.
- Evan
On 11/22/19 2:32 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
The sad truth is that ICANN (and as we've found out recently, ISOC) have no actual external stakeholders. In a for-profit the fiduciary duty is to stakeholders. In a normal nonprofit the fiduciary duty is to the stakeholders. In ICANN and ISOC, there is no external accountability so the fiduciary duty is soley to the institution itself. If this is an innovation of governance it's one I can do without.
Wow, you, Alan, and I all in general agreement! This is a rare (and positive) event that ought to occur more often. ;-) One minor nit. In a regular corporation the duty of directors is to take actions (or refrain from actions) with the goal of improving the corporation. What that means is as vague as it sounds. But it does not mean what some have described as "increasing shareholder value", although that can certainly be a consideration. In a public-benefit/non-profit such as ICANN is under California law the duty of directors is slightly different. Again the goal is to act (or not act) in order to benefit the corporation. But the measure in this case must necessarily include consideration of how the public benefits from that act/non-act. In other words, a director's duty must ask how well the corporation is acting to benefit the public. That's also a quite vague standard. And the sense of "public" is broad, in that it means the entire public not just a narrow selection of "stakeholders". Yeah, this seems hyper technical and, at the same time, very vague. But the distinctions are important and need to be recognized as part of the calculus that directors have to use when making decisions even if at the end the result in a given decision are the same. Directors of non-profits are under great personal risk (to their personal assets) should they fail to exercise these duties. (Some rules, such as the US IRS's rule about "intermediate sanctions" are utterly Draconian.) As a board member in ICANN and elsewhere I find it useful to go through a little process in which I write down, in a ledger or in the minutes, the reasoning for any particular decision, revealing the evidence, the criteria used to measure that evidence. That creates a thing called a "business judgement" which can not only be a defense but also tends to induce better decision making. --karl--
+1 I agree with you Karl. At-Large had got to change its approach if we are to "draw ICANN" differently and I think that is what Brian has been attempting to do. I would like to hope that we in At-Large are on the way towards creating change through everyone talking rationally to each other, sharing their perspectives and moving each other more purposefully in a more focused direction, stumbling forward (as Wolfgang suggests) together as a collective. Theoretically, as end-users, our numbers should be our strength, but 200 odd ALSes and a few hundred individual users who are not yet engaged with what ICANN does nor are they actively part of it, are not going to get us very far.. Maureen On Thu, 21 Nov 2019, 10:14 AM Karl Auerbach, <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 11/21/19 10:25 AM, Christian wrote:
Domain name registration via ICANN structures is not a public interest activity but a business with some strong cartel like features.
That is true.
In my own life I wear several hats - I am (obviously) a very pro-democracy advocate. But I am also an intellectual property lawyer. I also own and operate multiple businesses (via corporate forms), most of which have domain name and trademarks. I also am a net techie (and have my name on full Internet Standard RFCs.) I also have a financial interest in various domain name registries.
In terms of power (by which I mean power to influence ICANN decisions) the least powerful of my hats is that of the individual here in ICANN.
I spent last week among my intellectual property lawyer peers. Those folks represent a seriously strong power block. When they (or, rather, we) are figuring out how to make ICANN dance to our tune we can afford to dedicate serious resources, such as full time staff, to make sure we have the best chance of winning. The public, the ALAC, the individual has nearly zero chance of winning. Just witness how easily the intellectual property interests got the highly biased UDRP into place and how far ICANN policy over the ensuing decades has been shaped to cater to the interests of my friends in the intellectual property community.
Same thing in my roles with my corporations and registry interests: Although not as well organized as the intellectual property industry, my business and registry friends are quite able and willing to expend resources (and hire dedicated staff) to ensure that their (our) interests are strongly expressed within ICANN.
It is hard for individuals, hobbled by ICANN's Byzantine procedures, bureaucracy, layers ALAC "organizations", and a mere single public board seat, to carry the day against well organized and well funded industrial opposition.
And ICANN's fundamental structure not only allows, but encourages, this kind of industrial collaboration and combination of influence.
The notion of "stakeholder" says that our voice within ICANN is measured by our self-interest, largely our financial self-interest, in maters before ICANN. Because individuals - you and me - have a dilute interest, and often not an interest easily measured in financial terms, our authority within ICANN as stakeholders is written in lower case. On the other hand, because Intellectual Property, business, registrar, and registry interests are organized and combined and have a high dollar value their role as STAKEHOLDERS in ICANN is written in upper case, in bold font, italicized, and underlined.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the "non-profit/public benefit" corporation called ICANN has been captured by industrial interests, dances to their tunes, and allows sales of "Public Interest Registry" to a body of ICANN insiders with nary a shred of concern about the public or its interests.
One might apply Jessica Rabbit's famous line to ICANN: "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."
ICANN will continue to favor organized business interests over the public benefit as long as ICANN retains its present form.
If we want to make ICANN less bad then we will have to draw it a different way.
--karl-- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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.
Exactly! In a world where the domainers can gin up 3k ridiculous comments, activation needs to be a priority for the At-Large! Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 4:55:57 PM To: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection +1 I agree with you Karl. At-Large had got to change its approach if we are to "draw ICANN" differently and I think that is what Brian has been attempting to do. I would like to hope that we in At-Large are on the way towards creating change through everyone talking rationally to each other, sharing their perspectives and moving each other more purposefully in a more focused direction, stumbling forward (as Wolfgang suggests) together as a collective. Theoretically, as end-users, our numbers should be our strength, but 200 odd ALSes and a few hundred individual users who are not yet engaged with what ICANN does nor are they actively part of it, are not going to get us very far.. Maureen On Thu, 21 Nov 2019, 10:14 AM Karl Auerbach, <karl@cavebear.com<mailto:karl@cavebear.com>> wrote: On 11/21/19 10:25 AM, Christian wrote: Domain name registration via ICANN structures is not a public interest activity but a business with some strong cartel like features. That is true. In my own life I wear several hats - I am (obviously) a very pro-democracy advocate. But I am also an intellectual property lawyer. I also own and operate multiple businesses (via corporate forms), most of which have domain name and trademarks. I also am a net techie (and have my name on full Internet Standard RFCs.) I also have a financial interest in various domain name registries. In terms of power (by which I mean power to influence ICANN decisions) the least powerful of my hats is that of the individual here in ICANN. I spent last week among my intellectual property lawyer peers. Those folks represent a seriously strong power block. When they (or, rather, we) are figuring out how to make ICANN dance to our tune we can afford to dedicate serious resources, such as full time staff, to make sure we have the best chance of winning. The public, the ALAC, the individual has nearly zero chance of winning. Just witness how easily the intellectual property interests got the highly biased UDRP into place and how far ICANN policy over the ensuing decades has been shaped to cater to the interests of my friends in the intellectual property community. Same thing in my roles with my corporations and registry interests: Although not as well organized as the intellectual property industry, my business and registry friends are quite able and willing to expend resources (and hire dedicated staff) to ensure that their (our) interests are strongly expressed within ICANN. It is hard for individuals, hobbled by ICANN's Byzantine procedures, bureaucracy, layers ALAC "organizations", and a mere single public board seat, to carry the day against well organized and well funded industrial opposition. And ICANN's fundamental structure not only allows, but encourages, this kind of industrial collaboration and combination of influence. The notion of "stakeholder" says that our voice within ICANN is measured by our self-interest, largely our financial self-interest, in maters before ICANN. Because individuals - you and me - have a dilute interest, and often not an interest easily measured in financial terms, our authority within ICANN as stakeholders is written in lower case. On the other hand, because Intellectual Property, business, registrar, and registry interests are organized and combined and have a high dollar value their role as STAKEHOLDERS in ICANN is written in upper case, in bold font, italicized, and underlined. It is no wonder, therefore, that the "non-profit/public benefit" corporation called ICANN has been captured by industrial interests, dances to their tunes, and allows sales of "Public Interest Registry" to a body of ICANN insiders with nary a shred of concern about the public or its interests. One might apply Jessica Rabbit's famous line to ICANN: "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way." ICANN will continue to favor organized business interests over the public benefit as long as ICANN retains its present form. If we want to make ICANN less bad then we will have to draw it a different way. --karl-- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@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.
Let’s start drawing!!!! On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 6:08 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Exactly! In a world where the domainers can gin up 3k ridiculous comments, activation needs to be a priority for the At-Large!
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2019 4:55:57 PM *To:* Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> *Cc:* At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection
+1 I agree with you Karl. At-Large had got to change its approach if we are to "draw ICANN" differently and I think that is what Brian has been attempting to do.
I would like to hope that we in At-Large are on the way towards creating change through everyone talking rationally to each other, sharing their perspectives and moving each other more purposefully in a more focused direction, stumbling forward (as Wolfgang suggests) together as a collective.
Theoretically, as end-users, our numbers should be our strength, but 200 odd ALSes and a few hundred individual users who are not yet engaged with what ICANN does nor are they actively part of it, are not going to get us very far..
Maureen
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019, 10:14 AM Karl Auerbach, <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 11/21/19 10:25 AM, Christian wrote:
Domain name registration via ICANN structures is not a public interest activity but a business with some strong cartel like features.
That is true.
In my own life I wear several hats - I am (obviously) a very pro-democracy advocate. But I am also an intellectual property lawyer. I also own and operate multiple businesses (via corporate forms), most of which have domain name and trademarks. I also am a net techie (and have my name on full Internet Standard RFCs.) I also have a financial interest in various domain name registries.
In terms of power (by which I mean power to influence ICANN decisions) the least powerful of my hats is that of the individual here in ICANN.
I spent last week among my intellectual property lawyer peers. Those folks represent a seriously strong power block. When they (or, rather, we) are figuring out how to make ICANN dance to our tune we can afford to dedicate serious resources, such as full time staff, to make sure we have the best chance of winning. The public, the ALAC, the individual has nearly zero chance of winning. Just witness how easily the intellectual property interests got the highly biased UDRP into place and how far ICANN policy over the ensuing decades has been shaped to cater to the interests of my friends in the intellectual property community.
Same thing in my roles with my corporations and registry interests: Although not as well organized as the intellectual property industry, my business and registry friends are quite able and willing to expend resources (and hire dedicated staff) to ensure that their (our) interests are strongly expressed within ICANN.
It is hard for individuals, hobbled by ICANN's Byzantine procedures, bureaucracy, layers ALAC "organizations", and a mere single public board seat, to carry the day against well organized and well funded industrial opposition.
And ICANN's fundamental structure not only allows, but encourages, this kind of industrial collaboration and combination of influence.
The notion of "stakeholder" says that our voice within ICANN is measured by our self-interest, largely our financial self-interest, in maters before ICANN. Because individuals - you and me - have a dilute interest, and often not an interest easily measured in financial terms, our authority within ICANN as stakeholders is written in lower case. On the other hand, because Intellectual Property, business, registrar, and registry interests are organized and combined and have a high dollar value their role as STAKEHOLDERS in ICANN is written in upper case, in bold font, italicized, and underlined.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the "non-profit/public benefit" corporation called ICANN has been captured by industrial interests, dances to their tunes, and allows sales of "Public Interest Registry" to a body of ICANN insiders with nary a shred of concern about the public or its interests.
One might apply Jessica Rabbit's famous line to ICANN: "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."
ICANN will continue to favor organized business interests over the public benefit as long as ICANN retains its present form.
If we want to make ICANN less bad then we will have to draw it a different way.
--karl-- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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@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.
Jonathan, Let's stay on track. There is no need to disparage the perspectives of thousands of members of the public, who on their own initiative submitted comments on the .org agreement. The attempt to delegitimize those comments as less than genuine has been thoroughly discredited, as detailed in this letter to the Ombudsman ( https://www.internetcommerce.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Letter-to-ICANN-... ). The comments that ICANN received ranged from well-established non-profits such as NPR, AARP, the National Council of Nonprofits and the ASAE, as well as much smaller nonprofits and individuals. You can read a selection of the more notable public comments here: https://www.internetcommerce.org/selected-public-comments-submitted-in-respo... . ICANN would have been much better off if it had listened to this feedback rather than discrediting it, for we would then not be in the mess we are in now. Regards, Nat Cohen Director, Internet Commerce Association On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 5:08 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Exactly! In a world where the domainers can gin up 3k ridiculous comments, activation needs to be a priority for the At-Large!
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2019 4:55:57 PM *To:* Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> *Cc:* At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection
+1 I agree with you Karl. At-Large had got to change its approach if we are to "draw ICANN" differently and I think that is what Brian has been attempting to do.
I would like to hope that we in At-Large are on the way towards creating change through everyone talking rationally to each other, sharing their perspectives and moving each other more purposefully in a more focused direction, stumbling forward (as Wolfgang suggests) together as a collective.
Theoretically, as end-users, our numbers should be our strength, but 200 odd ALSes and a few hundred individual users who are not yet engaged with what ICANN does nor are they actively part of it, are not going to get us very far..
Maureen
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019, 10:14 AM Karl Auerbach, <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 11/21/19 10:25 AM, Christian wrote:
Domain name registration via ICANN structures is not a public interest activity but a business with some strong cartel like features.
That is true.
In my own life I wear several hats - I am (obviously) a very pro-democracy advocate. But I am also an intellectual property lawyer. I also own and operate multiple businesses (via corporate forms), most of which have domain name and trademarks. I also am a net techie (and have my name on full Internet Standard RFCs.) I also have a financial interest in various domain name registries.
In terms of power (by which I mean power to influence ICANN decisions) the least powerful of my hats is that of the individual here in ICANN.
I spent last week among my intellectual property lawyer peers. Those folks represent a seriously strong power block. When they (or, rather, we) are figuring out how to make ICANN dance to our tune we can afford to dedicate serious resources, such as full time staff, to make sure we have the best chance of winning. The public, the ALAC, the individual has nearly zero chance of winning. Just witness how easily the intellectual property interests got the highly biased UDRP into place and how far ICANN policy over the ensuing decades has been shaped to cater to the interests of my friends in the intellectual property community.
Same thing in my roles with my corporations and registry interests: Although not as well organized as the intellectual property industry, my business and registry friends are quite able and willing to expend resources (and hire dedicated staff) to ensure that their (our) interests are strongly expressed within ICANN.
It is hard for individuals, hobbled by ICANN's Byzantine procedures, bureaucracy, layers ALAC "organizations", and a mere single public board seat, to carry the day against well organized and well funded industrial opposition.
And ICANN's fundamental structure not only allows, but encourages, this kind of industrial collaboration and combination of influence.
The notion of "stakeholder" says that our voice within ICANN is measured by our self-interest, largely our financial self-interest, in maters before ICANN. Because individuals - you and me - have a dilute interest, and often not an interest easily measured in financial terms, our authority within ICANN as stakeholders is written in lower case. On the other hand, because Intellectual Property, business, registrar, and registry interests are organized and combined and have a high dollar value their role as STAKEHOLDERS in ICANN is written in upper case, in bold font, italicized, and underlined.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the "non-profit/public benefit" corporation called ICANN has been captured by industrial interests, dances to their tunes, and allows sales of "Public Interest Registry" to a body of ICANN insiders with nary a shred of concern about the public or its interests.
One might apply Jessica Rabbit's famous line to ICANN: "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."
ICANN will continue to favor organized business interests over the public benefit as long as ICANN retains its present form.
If we want to make ICANN less bad then we will have to draw it a different way.
--karl-- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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@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.
+ 1 Maureen. Then we must redouble our efforts to achieve greater participation of ALSs and individual users. We have treated him with Lito in ATLAS III in one of the exercises, I even made a prop that did not seem bad at all ... Regards Alberto El 2019-11-21 18:55, Maureen Hilyard escribió:
+1 I agree with you Karl. At-Large had got to change its approach if we are to "draw ICANN" differently and I think that is what Brian has been attempting to do.
I would like to hope that we in At-Large are on the way towards creating change through everyone talking rationally to each other, sharing their perspectives and moving each other more purposefully in a more focused direction, stumbling forward (as Wolfgang suggests) together as a collective.
Theoretically, as end-users, our numbers should be our strength, but 200 odd ALSes and a few hundred individual users who are not yet engaged with what ICANN does nor are they actively part of it, are not going to get us very far..
Maureen
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019, 10:14 AM Karl Auerbach, <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 11/21/19 10:25 AM, Christian wrote:
Domain name registration via ICANN structures is not a public interest activity but a business with some strong cartel like features.
That is true.
In my own life I wear several hats - I am (obviously) a very pro-democracy advocate. But I am also an intellectual property lawyer. I also own and operate multiple businesses (via corporate forms), most of which have domain name and trademarks. I also am a net techie (and have my name on full Internet Standard RFCs.) I also have a financial interest in various domain name registries.
In terms of power (by which I mean power to influence ICANN decisions) the least powerful of my hats is that of the individual here in ICANN.
I spent last week among my intellectual property lawyer peers. Those folks represent a seriously strong power block. When they (or, rather, we) are figuring out how to make ICANN dance to our tune we can afford to dedicate serious resources, such as full time staff, to make sure we have the best chance of winning. The public, the ALAC, the individual has nearly zero chance of winning. Just witness how easily the intellectual property interests got the highly biased UDRP into place and how far ICANN policy over the ensuing decades has been shaped to cater to the interests of my friends in the intellectual property community.
Same thing in my roles with my corporations and registry interests: Although not as well organized as the intellectual property industry, my business and registry friends are quite able and willing to expend resources (and hire dedicated staff) to ensure that their (our) interests are strongly expressed within ICANN.
It is hard for individuals, hobbled by ICANN's Byzantine procedures, bureaucracy, layers ALAC "organizations", and a mere single public board seat, to carry the day against well organized and well funded industrial opposition.
And ICANN's fundamental structure not only allows, but encourages, this kind of industrial collaboration and combination of influence.
The notion of "stakeholder" says that our voice within ICANN is measured by our self-interest, largely our financial self-interest, in maters before ICANN. Because individuals - you and me - have a dilute interest, and often not an interest easily measured in financial terms, our authority within ICANN as stakeholders is written in lower case. On the other hand, because Intellectual Property, business, registrar, and registry interests are organized and combined and have a high dollar value their role as STAKEHOLDERS in ICANN is written in upper case, in bold font, italicized, and underlined.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the "non-profit/public benefit" corporation called ICANN has been captured by industrial interests, dances to their tunes, and allows sales of "Public Interest Registry" to a body of ICANN insiders with nary a shred of concern about the public or its interests.
One might apply Jessica Rabbit's famous line to ICANN: "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."
ICANN will continue to favor organized business interests over the public benefit as long as ICANN retains its present form.
If we want to make ICANN less bad then we will have to draw it a different way.
--karl-- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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@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.
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 at 17:08, <alberto@soto.net.ar> wrote:
+ 1 Maureen. Then we must redouble our efforts to achieve greater participation of ALSs and individual users.
No offence, Alberto, but this mantra of "of only we could get greater participation from ALSs" has become a tiresome and self-defeating mantra of At-Large leadership. After decades of failure of such strategy the standard answer appears to be to keep trying the same thing, but nastier this time (ALS metrics leading to disenfranchisement, for instance). This strategy needs a thorough and total binning. The original plan that ALSs would be the two-way conduit -- to ALAC of policy and volunteers, and to the ALSs of information from which to provide useful input -- is, with a very few exceptions, an utter failure. Most ALS reps who are now involved (present company included) would be involved with or without an ALS. We need an approach that maximizes or effectiveness and addresses real shortcomings with (IMO) very different approaches: - 1) More use of At-Large support staff for policy research and development: There are just too few person hours for the volunteers to keep track of everything going on. It amazed me to know how many of ALAC staff have really useful skills here, some of whom even have PhDs in policy (hi Heidi!) yet spend their time in bureaucracy, politics and meetings logistics. Of course drawing ALAC staff to policy means ... - 2) More virtual meetings and less F2F. Yes there is some sacrifice, but I've been to enough ICANN meetings to see how poor a use of resources it is. The money spent so that ALAC can feel like the United Nations three times a year is just staggering. Virtual meeting technology is now good enough to suit many needs including multilingual issues, and timing doesn't have to sync with ICANN's schedule. I've just spent too much time at U-shaped tables listening to people who are there because of politics and like the sound of their own voices, It's unproductive and we can't afford to be unproductive with the few resources available. Speaking of resources -- less money spent sending people to meetings should lead to ... - 3) More money spent on independent public education, polling and research on global interests and needs from ICANN. Fifteen people in ALAC, most of whom are self-selected and well into ICANN culture, can easily lose track of what "the billions" need. We waste our time getting involved in the muck of traditional ICANN constituency politics when we need to be spending nearly all of our effort on just three things: (a) creating a better educated public (b) knowing what that public needs, and (c) advancing those needs at ICANN. That is the only way for ALAC to really fulfill its mandate of speaking for global end users, by knowing what they need rather than making ivory-tower guesses. I may have said this before but not quite so specifically. For ALAC to be relevant we have to overcome the "who the hell are you?" factor, and good research obliterates that objection. Spending allocated funds in ways that are not self-serving (such as travel) eliminates the perception as charity case, with which the vested interests keep hitting us with year after year. One thing we *do* know is that oncee more doubling down on decades-old tactics ("if only we could get the ALSs to step up more") will not work. - Evan
I like your story. I have been involved with ICANN since before it was formed. In that swirling of events around the formation of ICANN there was a bright belief and requirement that ICANN be structured, after a short initial interim organizational period, so that it would be controlled by the community of internet users. But as we look on the ICANN today only a small splinter remains of that obligation. And that small relic was regained only through long and hard work and over much opposition. Much of this is reflected in our 2009 report at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-alac-review-09jun09... Take a look at my "concurrence" that begins on page 33. Today's ICANN is an epitome of a regulatory body captured by those who it purports to regulate. In the 20+ years since ICANN was formed not even one new organization has chosen to model itself upon ICANN. This thread of e-mails mentions the year 2000 elections. I am certain that there will arise at least one voice that tries to besmirch that event. One should not forget that ICANN has a long held allergy to elections, and even to the word "election" itself. ICANN, or rather the law firm that created ICANN, fears what are some reasonable obligations that are triggered by organizational elections. The list of those obligations, as well as ICANN's dance of evasion, is visible in ICANN's own 1999 document: http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm The year 2000 elections were an initial attempt to organize an election, or to use ICANN's word, a "selection". For an first-time effort that election went reasonably well. There are those who will focus on the difficulties or problems of that election - not unlike a new parent who obsesses on the disruption, mess, and noise of a new baby yet fails to remember that that child represents a new human, and new person, a new potential, coming into the world. It is easy to forget some of the events of that election: An electorate formed quickly without ICANN support or funding - ultimately there were, if I remember correctly, well more than 200,000 voters who tried to register to participate (many could not consummate their registrations because ICANN's registration system was an abysmal failure of design, implementation, and operation.) There was a robust campaign and debate in the North American region (less so in other regions.) My own campaign platform is still online at https://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm (I still hew to most of that platform with the exception of my mistaken view of Louis Touton, a man who I came to know as one of the bright lights of ICANN.) The entire process was disrupted by at least one ICANN-related person. And there was general institutional hostility (by ICANN) against the process once the ballot was opened to allow candidates not chosen by ICANN's "nominating" committee. There were some problems with those elections. But in general they were a success. The problems that did occur could have been addressed on the next round that would have occurred two or three years later. But that opportunity was lost and destroyed. If ICANN is to survive as anything more than a regulatory relic it needs to return to its root conception as a body that is unambiguously controlled by the public for whose benefit it purports to exist. --karl--
+1 - can't really add much... my sense is the same for ISOC post SLC 2001 On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 6:13 PM Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
I like your story.
I have been involved with ICANN since before it was formed.
In that swirling of events around the formation of ICANN there was a bright belief and requirement that ICANN be structured, after a short initial interim organizational period, so that it would be controlled by the community of internet users.
But as we look on the ICANN today only a small splinter remains of that obligation. And that small relic was regained only through long and hard work and over much opposition.
Much of this is reflected in our 2009 report at
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-alac-review-09jun09... Take a look at my "concurrence" that begins on page 33.
Today's ICANN is an epitome of a regulatory body captured by those who it purports to regulate.
In the 20+ years since ICANN was formed not even one new organization has chosen to model itself upon ICANN.
This thread of e-mails mentions the year 2000 elections. I am certain that there will arise at least one voice that tries to besmirch that event.
One should not forget that ICANN has a long held allergy to elections, and even to the word "election" itself. ICANN, or rather the law firm that created ICANN, fears what are some reasonable obligations that are triggered by organizational elections. The list of those obligations, as well as ICANN's dance of evasion, is visible in ICANN's own 1999 document: http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm
The year 2000 elections were an initial attempt to organize an election, or to use ICANN's word, a "selection".
For an first-time effort that election went reasonably well.
There are those who will focus on the difficulties or problems of that election - not unlike a new parent who obsesses on the disruption, mess, and noise of a new baby yet fails to remember that that child represents a new human, and new person, a new potential, coming into the world.
It is easy to forget some of the events of that election:
An electorate formed quickly without ICANN support or funding - ultimately there were, if I remember correctly, well more than 200,000 voters who tried to register to participate (many could not consummate their registrations because ICANN's registration system was an abysmal failure of design, implementation, and operation.)
There was a robust campaign and debate in the North American region (less so in other regions.) My own campaign platform is still online at https://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm (I still hew to most of that platform with the exception of my mistaken view of Louis Touton, a man who I came to know as one of the bright lights of ICANN.)
The entire process was disrupted by at least one ICANN-related person. And there was general institutional hostility (by ICANN) against the process once the ballot was opened to allow candidates not chosen by ICANN's "nominating" committee.
There were some problems with those elections. But in general they were a success.
The problems that did occur could have been addressed on the next round that would have occurred two or three years later. But that opportunity was lost and destroyed.
If ICANN is to survive as anything more than a regulatory relic it needs to return to its root conception as a body that is unambiguously controlled by the public for whose benefit it purports to exist.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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.
No number of repetitions of this revision of history will make it any more believable without disclosure of your previous involvement in the "Boston Working Group" and its competing, not awarded, bid for the ICANN function, nor the lack of understanding of fundamental electoral theory it shows. Elections are a process to identify the preferences of a given electorate and no election is better than its voter registration. Rallying voters on fake arguments, unrelated to their interest or stake in the election, and forming with them the voter registry is, has been, and always will be a sham. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Karl Auerbach [karl@cavebear.com] Enviado el: martes, 19 de noviembre de 2019 10:13 Hasta: Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Adam Peake; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond; Kaili Kan; Alan Greenberg CC: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection I like your story. I have been involved with ICANN since before it was formed. In that swirling of events around the formation of ICANN there was a bright belief and requirement that ICANN be structured, after a short initial interim organizational period, so that it would be controlled by the community of internet users. But as we look on the ICANN today only a small splinter remains of that obligation. And that small relic was regained only through long and hard work and over much opposition. Much of this is reflected in our 2009 report at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-alac-review-09jun09... Take a look at my "concurrence" that begins on page 33. Today's ICANN is an epitome of a regulatory body captured by those who it purports to regulate. In the 20+ years since ICANN was formed not even one new organization has chosen to model itself upon ICANN. This thread of e-mails mentions the year 2000 elections. I am certain that there will arise at least one voice that tries to besmirch that event. One should not forget that ICANN has a long held allergy to elections, and even to the word "election" itself. ICANN, or rather the law firm that created ICANN, fears what are some reasonable obligations that are triggered by organizational elections. The list of those obligations, as well as ICANN's dance of evasion, is visible in ICANN's own 1999 document: http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm The year 2000 elections were an initial attempt to organize an election, or to use ICANN's word, a "selection". For an first-time effort that election went reasonably well. There are those who will focus on the difficulties or problems of that election - not unlike a new parent who obsesses on the disruption, mess, and noise of a new baby yet fails to remember that that child represents a new human, and new person, a new potential, coming into the world. It is easy to forget some of the events of that election: An electorate formed quickly without ICANN support or funding - ultimately there were, if I remember correctly, well more than 200,000 voters who tried to register to participate (many could not consummate their registrations because ICANN's registration system was an abysmal failure of design, implementation, and operation.) There was a robust campaign and debate in the North American region (less so in other regions.) My own campaign platform is still online at https://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm (I still hew to most of that platform with the exception of my mistaken view of Louis Touton, a man who I came to know as one of the bright lights of ICANN.) The entire process was disrupted by at least one ICANN-related person. And there was general institutional hostility (by ICANN) against the process once the ballot was opened to allow candidates not chosen by ICANN's "nominating" committee. There were some problems with those elections. But in general they were a success. The problems that did occur could have been addressed on the next round that would have occurred two or three years later. But that opportunity was lost and destroyed. If ICANN is to survive as anything more than a regulatory relic it needs to return to its root conception as a body that is unambiguously controlled by the public for whose benefit it purports to exist. --karl-- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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.
You sound upset about the Boston Working Group. The BWG has never hidden its existence nor denied its formation. We remain an active forum of discussion. A simple Google search will turn up our formative URL - https://www.cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ Of course our proposal didn't "win" - Joe Sims had already worked out several secret deals (he told me so) to make sure that his (i.e. Jones Day's) proposal was the industrial favorite. Nonetheless we were invited to participate in the final negotiations with the US Dep't of Commerce and NTIA. (I remember one of those negotiating sessions quite clearly - I was using an early VoIP system and for many of the participants it was the first time they had ever heard a telephone call carried by the internet.) We do protect our conversations under something like Chatham House Rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule As for your aspersions on elections: It is hard to credit your claim that the electorate was Gerrymandered when everyone was free to register in ICANN's year 2000 elections. The difficulties that occurred in that election were due to incompetent software designed by and built by ICANN - software that overloaded and failed at a transaction rate measured in terms of a few transactions per *minute*! (I guess that foreshadowed ICANN's disaster of "digital archery" a bit more than a decade later - https://icannwiki.org/Digital_Archery ) Your assertion that the issues we discussed during the year 2000 campaign were "fake" is incorrect. You can see my own platform points at https://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm Other candidates had similar lists of issues and views. These were debated at moderated, live, public, online meetings at Harvard, Stanford and elsewhere. We also held many open discussions online, on public radio, and in print media. I note your statement that ICANN should be controlled by those who have an "interest or stake". That's nice, particularly for those who get the privilege to measure and rule upon the "interest or stake" of others. It's also a high speed road that leads to the kind of industrial capture that ICANN is suffering from today. Elections, warts and all, are a far better system than paternal neo royalism. It would be difficult to overestimate the financial damage that this paternalism and capture has caused. For example, ICANN's never-audited, never justified registry fee allowance is costing the community of internet users an amount that by some estimates is in excess of a $Billion (USD) per year in unsupportable, monopoly domain name registry fees. That damage might have happened had ICANN's board been publicly elected through the years. But then again, at least had there been elections, those who are paying those $$ might have elected board members who would have required that those fees be justified and adjusted to conform to actual registry costs. It is sad that ICANN chose to destroy what could have developed into a vibrant system to allow the public to control an entity created to benefit that same public. --karl-- On 11/19/19 8:52 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
No number of repetitions of this revision of history will make it any more believable without disclosure of your previous involvement in the "Boston Working Group" and its competing, not awarded, bid for the ICANN function, nor the lack of understanding of fundamental electoral theory it shows. Elections are a process to identify the preferences of a given electorate and no election is better than its voter registration. Rallying voters on fake arguments, unrelated to their interest or stake in the election, and forming with them the voter registry is, has been, and always will be a sham.
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
________________________________________ Desde: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Karl Auerbach [karl@cavebear.com] Enviado el: martes, 19 de noviembre de 2019 10:13 Hasta: Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Adam Peake; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond; Kaili Kan; Alan Greenberg CC: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection
I like your story.
I have been involved with ICANN since before it was formed.
In that swirling of events around the formation of ICANN there was a bright belief and requirement that ICANN be structured, after a short initial interim organizational period, so that it would be controlled by the community of internet users.
But as we look on the ICANN today only a small splinter remains of that obligation. And that small relic was regained only through long and hard work and over much opposition.
Much of this is reflected in our 2009 report at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-alac-review-09jun09... Take a look at my "concurrence" that begins on page 33.
Today's ICANN is an epitome of a regulatory body captured by those who it purports to regulate.
In the 20+ years since ICANN was formed not even one new organization has chosen to model itself upon ICANN.
This thread of e-mails mentions the year 2000 elections. I am certain that there will arise at least one voice that tries to besmirch that event.
One should not forget that ICANN has a long held allergy to elections, and even to the word "election" itself. ICANN, or rather the law firm that created ICANN, fears what are some reasonable obligations that are triggered by organizational elections. The list of those obligations, as well as ICANN's dance of evasion, is visible in ICANN's own 1999 document: http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm
The year 2000 elections were an initial attempt to organize an election, or to use ICANN's word, a "selection".
For an first-time effort that election went reasonably well.
There are those who will focus on the difficulties or problems of that election - not unlike a new parent who obsesses on the disruption, mess, and noise of a new baby yet fails to remember that that child represents a new human, and new person, a new potential, coming into the world.
It is easy to forget some of the events of that election:
An electorate formed quickly without ICANN support or funding - ultimately there were, if I remember correctly, well more than 200,000 voters who tried to register to participate (many could not consummate their registrations because ICANN's registration system was an abysmal failure of design, implementation, and operation.)
There was a robust campaign and debate in the North American region (less so in other regions.) My own campaign platform is still online at https://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm (I still hew to most of that platform with the exception of my mistaken view of Louis Touton, a man who I came to know as one of the bright lights of ICANN.)
The entire process was disrupted by at least one ICANN-related person. And there was general institutional hostility (by ICANN) against the process once the ballot was opened to allow candidates not chosen by ICANN's "nominating" committee.
There were some problems with those elections. But in general they were a success.
The problems that did occur could have been addressed on the next round that would have occurred two or three years later. But that opportunity was lost and destroyed.
If ICANN is to survive as anything more than a regulatory relic it needs to return to its root conception as a body that is unambiguously controlled by the public for whose benefit it purports to exist.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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.
None of this redresses nor even addresses the failures I have signaled. Enough said. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Karl Auerbach [karl@cavebear.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de noviembre de 2019 00:58 Hasta: Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Adam Peake; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond; Kaili Kan; Alan Greenberg CC: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection You sound upset about the Boston Working Group. The BWG has never hidden its existence nor denied its formation. We remain an active forum of discussion. A simple Google search will turn up our formative URL - https://www.cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ Of course our proposal didn't "win" - Joe Sims had already worked out several secret deals (he told me so) to make sure that his (i.e. Jones Day's) proposal was the industrial favorite. Nonetheless we were invited to participate in the final negotiations with the US Dep't of Commerce and NTIA. (I remember one of those negotiating sessions quite clearly - I was using an early VoIP system and for many of the participants it was the first time they had ever heard a telephone call carried by the internet.) We do protect our conversations under something like Chatham House Rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule As for your aspersions on elections: It is hard to credit your claim that the electorate was Gerrymandered when everyone was free to register in ICANN's year 2000 elections. The difficulties that occurred in that election were due to incompetent software designed by and built by ICANN - software that overloaded and failed at a transaction rate measured in terms of a few transactions per *minute*! (I guess that foreshadowed ICANN's disaster of "digital archery" a bit more than a decade later - https://icannwiki.org/Digital_Archery ) Your assertion that the issues we discussed during the year 2000 campaign were "fake" is incorrect. You can see my own platform points at https://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm Other candidates had similar lists of issues and views. These were debated at moderated, live, public, online meetings at Harvard, Stanford and elsewhere. We also held many open discussions online, on public radio, and in print media. I note your statement that ICANN should be controlled by those who have an "interest or stake". That's nice, particularly for those who get the privilege to measure and rule upon the "interest or stake" of others. It's also a high speed road that leads to the kind of industrial capture that ICANN is suffering from today. Elections, warts and all, are a far better system than paternal neo royalism. It would be difficult to overestimate the financial damage that this paternalism and capture has caused. For example, ICANN's never-audited, never justified registry fee allowance is costing the community of internet users an amount that by some estimates is in excess of a $Billion (USD) per year in unsupportable, monopoly domain name registry fees. That damage might have happened had ICANN's board been publicly elected through the years. But then again, at least had there been elections, those who are paying those $$ might have elected board members who would have required that those fees be justified and adjusted to conform to actual registry costs. It is sad that ICANN chose to destroy what could have developed into a vibrant system to allow the public to control an entity created to benefit that same public. --karl-- On 11/19/19 8:52 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
No number of repetitions of this revision of history will make it any more believable without disclosure of your previous involvement in the "Boston Working Group" and its competing, not awarded, bid for the ICANN function, nor the lack of understanding of fundamental electoral theory it shows. Elections are a process to identify the preferences of a given electorate and no election is better than its voter registration. Rallying voters on fake arguments, unrelated to their interest or stake in the election, and forming with them the voter registry is, has been, and always will be a sham.
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
________________________________________ Desde: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Karl Auerbach [karl@cavebear.com] Enviado el: martes, 19 de noviembre de 2019 10:13 Hasta: Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Adam Peake; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond; Kaili Kan; Alan Greenberg CC: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection
I like your story.
I have been involved with ICANN since before it was formed.
In that swirling of events around the formation of ICANN there was a bright belief and requirement that ICANN be structured, after a short initial interim organizational period, so that it would be controlled by the community of internet users.
But as we look on the ICANN today only a small splinter remains of that obligation. And that small relic was regained only through long and hard work and over much opposition.
Much of this is reflected in our 2009 report at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-alac-review-09jun09... Take a look at my "concurrence" that begins on page 33.
Today's ICANN is an epitome of a regulatory body captured by those who it purports to regulate.
In the 20+ years since ICANN was formed not even one new organization has chosen to model itself upon ICANN.
This thread of e-mails mentions the year 2000 elections. I am certain that there will arise at least one voice that tries to besmirch that event.
One should not forget that ICANN has a long held allergy to elections, and even to the word "election" itself. ICANN, or rather the law firm that created ICANN, fears what are some reasonable obligations that are triggered by organizational elections. The list of those obligations, as well as ICANN's dance of evasion, is visible in ICANN's own 1999 document: http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm
The year 2000 elections were an initial attempt to organize an election, or to use ICANN's word, a "selection".
For an first-time effort that election went reasonably well.
There are those who will focus on the difficulties or problems of that election - not unlike a new parent who obsesses on the disruption, mess, and noise of a new baby yet fails to remember that that child represents a new human, and new person, a new potential, coming into the world.
It is easy to forget some of the events of that election:
An electorate formed quickly without ICANN support or funding - ultimately there were, if I remember correctly, well more than 200,000 voters who tried to register to participate (many could not consummate their registrations because ICANN's registration system was an abysmal failure of design, implementation, and operation.)
There was a robust campaign and debate in the North American region (less so in other regions.) My own campaign platform is still online at https://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm (I still hew to most of that platform with the exception of my mistaken view of Louis Touton, a man who I came to know as one of the bright lights of ICANN.)
The entire process was disrupted by at least one ICANN-related person. And there was general institutional hostility (by ICANN) against the process once the ballot was opened to allow candidates not chosen by ICANN's "nominating" committee.
There were some problems with those elections. But in general they were a success.
The problems that did occur could have been addressed on the next round that would have occurred two or three years later. But that opportunity was lost and destroyed.
If ICANN is to survive as anything more than a regulatory relic it needs to return to its root conception as a body that is unambiguously controlled by the public for whose benefit it purports to exist.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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@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.
*** resending because of email failure of yesterday's message *** Hi all. I have a few comments to add to this thread, in particular about my recollection of some details about the early days, but have no time at the moment to elaborate. I will, however, quickly react to this exchange between Alejandro and Karl. I will probably repeat things that I have been saying to both over decades, but here they are again. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between the “what” and the “how”, and while there is wide agreement about the “what”, there is a substantial disagreement about the “how”. What I mean with that is that we all agree that the current situation of the management of the domain name market - and in general about Internet governance - is tilted in favour of some interest groups, and that the voice of the “public interest” is at obvious disadvantage. So I assume that we all agree on the fact that something has to be done to empower the voice of the public interest in order to achieve a real Global Equal Multi-Stakeholder system - to borrow Fadi’s expression {I mean the “previous Fadi, not the one that is behind the PIR acquisition). Where our opinions differ widely is on the “how” to achieve that. Karl knows that I am against the global election - this not because the idea is not valid in an abstract world, but because it has to be instantiated in our reality. And here, again, we witness that not all stakeholders are “equal”. We can talk about global elections only when the (global) electorate has equal access to the information related to the vote. This was clearly not the case in 2000, and is not yet the case today. Question is open about whether it will ever be the case. Just to repeat my favourite example: the 2000 election was an internal affair among Germans for the simple reason that only one magazine - der Spiegel - had covered the issue, and that has triggered a word of mouth action in a few candidates. this has led to a mild coverage by media, resulting in a (very) mild interest in the electorate. Compared to the substantial lack of interest by other European media, this has produced the result. If we go to a global scale, it should be obvious to everybody that the access to information related to ICANN is not uniform across the billions of users that globally constitute the “public interest”. In Italy, and I assume in most countries, there are strict rules to govern elections about access to the information, including rules for the media, exactly because information about the election and the candidates is a condition sine qua non, failing which we cannot speak about fair elections. This is why I personally consider more useful to try to find another mechanism to give power to the public interest. Since I mentioned Fadi, I would like to make a separate comment on how things change. Yesterday's champion of the Global Equal Multi-Stakeholder approach, who acknowledged the disparity of power that played against the public interest, is today the mastermind of the stripping of the Public Interest Registry away from who had, at least on paper, the public interest as leading value (ISOC) and make it a fully commercial business. This is the intermediate step to the building of a vertically integrated (PIR + Donuts) power player that could not care less about the public interest. My personal opinion is that we might better concentrate on that rather than beating again the dead horse of the 2000 elections. Cheers, Roberto
Perhaps I'm being naive but what seems to me is missing in this conversation is: By what process might this ship be righted? Multiple choice is acceptable. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
@Barry; I think part of the answer is what @Zuck is doing: first having ALAC clearly understand what we are and what we are not. Clarity of mission and purpose. @Zuck’s boolean graphs are super sharp for that. Next step is wielding that clarity in ICANN policy fora & processes in meaningful ways. Achieving power through actual relevance, not just trying to feel relevant through formal power (like positions and:or an extra seat @ Board) - not that having an extra seat would be a bad thing! On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:11 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
Perhaps I'm being naive but what seems to me is missing in this conversation is: By what process might this ship be righted?
Multiple choice is acceptable.
-- -Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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.
👍 Javier On Thu, 21 Nov 2019, 1:21 PM Javier Rua, <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
@Barry;
I think part of the answer is what @Zuck is doing: first having ALAC clearly understand what we are and what we are not. Clarity of mission and purpose. @Zuck’s boolean graphs are super sharp for that. Next step is wielding that clarity in ICANN policy fora & processes in meaningful ways. Achieving power through actual relevance, not just trying to feel relevant through formal power (like positions and:or an extra seat @ Board) - not that having an extra seat would be a bad thing!
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:11 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
Perhaps I'm being naive but what seems to me is missing in this conversation is: By what process might this ship be righted?
Multiple choice is acceptable.
-- -Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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@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.
One place to begin thinking about goals is to look at the list of things in this ICANN document: http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm Another place might be to look at some of the rather mild proposals that we made in the BWG (Boston Working Group) submission way back when: https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/submission-letter.html Personally I'd like a return to the original commitment made during ICANN's formation that at least a majority of ICANN board of directors be chosen (indirectly or directly) by the community of internet users. It could be illuminating if people here sat down, fired up their hopes and imaginations, and set down their vision of what a properly formed ICANN, unfettered by the present structure, would be. How those hopes could be achieved is a hard question. The lawyer in me tends to think of means that resemble the fabled use of a 2x4 to get the attention of a reluctant mule. Perhaps one might want to coax ICANN to recognize that it is (or at least was in year 2000) a membership based public-benefit/non-profit per California Law. Another possible means would be to revisit the grounds upon which ICANN receives its US Federal tax exemption (501(c)(3)). It's been years since I last looked, but initially it was, if I remember correctly, "to lessen the burdens of government" (for the US gov't.) If that's still the foundation, it would be one that is filled with cracks and crumbling. Those might not be good approaches - they might engender a lot of resentment (they would certainly engender a lot of legal fees paid by ICANN to Jones Day. ;-) --karl-- On 11/21/19 3:10 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm being naive but what seems to me is missing in this conversation is: By what process might this ship be righted?
Multiple choice is acceptable.
At the time of the NomCom Review I posted a comment recommending that the NomCom selects all the members of the ICANN Board. The rationale for that was that the SO-appointed Directors were in a permanent conflict because although they had a fiduciary responsibility to ICANN they were nevertheless obliged to follow the interest of their own organization if they wanted to be re-elected. We had in the past exemplary cases of independence by Directors, but also cases of the contrary. There were also other considerations, but at this early stage I just want to throw this idea as brainstorming, we can develop it later if other people find it worth exploring. Cheers, R
On 22.11.2019, at 01:24, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One place to begin thinking about goals is to look at the list of things in this ICANN document:
http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm
Another place might be to look at some of the rather mild proposals that we made in the BWG (Boston Working Group) submission way back when:
https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/submission-letter.html
Personally I'd like a return to the original commitment made during ICANN's formation that at least a majority of ICANN board of directors be chosen (indirectly or directly) by the community of internet users.
It could be illuminating if people here sat down, fired up their hopes and imaginations, and set down their vision of what a properly formed ICANN, unfettered by the present structure, would be.
How those hopes could be achieved is a hard question.
The lawyer in me tends to think of means that resemble the fabled use of a 2x4 to get the attention of a reluctant mule.
Perhaps one might want to coax ICANN to recognize that it is (or at least was in year 2000) a membership based public-benefit/non-profit per California Law.
Another possible means would be to revisit the grounds upon which ICANN receives its US Federal tax exemption (501(c)(3)). It's been years since I last looked, but initially it was, if I remember correctly, "to lessen the burdens of government" (for the US gov't.) If that's still the foundation, it would be one that is filled with cracks and crumbling.
Those might not be good approaches - they might engender a lot of resentment (they would certainly engender a lot of legal fees paid by ICANN to Jones Day. ;-)
--karl--
On 11/21/19 3:10 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm being naive but what seems to me is missing in this conversation is: By what process might this ship be righted?
Multiple choice is acceptable.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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.
That makes some sense, Roberto, and I don't think that the conflict you mention is restricted only to the SO-appointed Directors. Some questions: - Therefore, Directors would be independently selected to represent the interests of the different communities from within ICANN? - What would be the optimum number of ICANN Board members to achieve fair representation across ICANN? - Would the NomCom making the selection remain in its current composition - with GNSO (7) At-Large (5) and one member each from ASO, CCNSO, IETF, GAC, RSSAC, SSAC, and the ICANN Board selecting the Chair and Chair Elect? On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 8:18 PM Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
At the time of the NomCom Review I posted a comment recommending that the NomCom selects all the members of the ICANN Board. The rationale for that was that the SO-appointed Directors were in a permanent conflict because although they had a fiduciary responsibility to ICANN they were nevertheless obliged to follow the interest of their own organization if they wanted to be re-elected. We had in the past exemplary cases of independence by Directors, but also cases of the contrary. There were also other considerations, but at this early stage I just want to throw this idea as brainstorming, we can develop it later if other people find it worth exploring. Cheers, R
On 22.11.2019, at 01:24, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One place to begin thinking about goals is to look at the list of things in this ICANN document:
http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm
Another place might be to look at some of the rather mild proposals that we made in the BWG (Boston Working Group) submission way back when:
https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/submission-letter.html
Personally I'd like a return to the original commitment made during ICANN's formation that at least a majority of ICANN board of directors be chosen (indirectly or directly) by the community of internet users.
It could be illuminating if people here sat down, fired up their hopes and imaginations, and set down their vision of what a properly formed ICANN, unfettered by the present structure, would be.
How those hopes could be achieved is a hard question.
The lawyer in me tends to think of means that resemble the fabled use of a 2x4 to get the attention of a reluctant mule.
Perhaps one might want to coax ICANN to recognize that it is (or at least was in year 2000) a membership based public-benefit/non-profit per California Law.
Another possible means would be to revisit the grounds upon which ICANN receives its US Federal tax exemption (501(c)(3)). It's been years since I last looked, but initially it was, if I remember correctly, "to lessen the burdens of government" (for the US gov't.) If that's still the foundation, it would be one that is filled with cracks and crumbling.
Those might not be good approaches - they might engender a lot of resentment (they would certainly engender a lot of legal fees paid by ICANN to Jones Day. ;-)
--karl--
On 11/21/19 3:10 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm being naive but what seems to me is missing in this conversation is: By what process might this ship be righted?
Multiple choice is acceptable.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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@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.
A transitional bridge on the path of the NomCom selecting all the members is to ask the AC/SOs to send three names for each of the 'reserved' seats, perhaps with an indication of an order of preference, for the NomCom to make a selection among the three names. If this can't happen and the status quo continues, a balance is still required across a) GNSO taken together with ccNSO (???) and b) GAC taken together with ccNSO (?) and ALAC, with representation for RSSAC, IETF and SSAC whose expertise is definitely needed in the Board Deliberations. On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:48 AM Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
At the time of the NomCom Review I posted a comment recommending that the NomCom selects all the members of the ICANN Board. The rationale for that was that the SO-appointed Directors were in a permanent conflict because although they had a fiduciary responsibility to ICANN they were nevertheless obliged to follow the interest of their own organization if they wanted to be re-elected. We had in the past exemplary cases of independence by Directors, but also cases of the contrary. There were also other considerations, but at this early stage I just want to throw this idea as brainstorming, we can develop it later if other people find it worth exploring. Cheers, R
On 22.11.2019, at 01:24, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One place to begin thinking about goals is to look at the list of things in this ICANN document:
http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm
Another place might be to look at some of the rather mild proposals that we made in the BWG (Boston Working Group) submission way back when:
https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/submission-letter.html
Personally I'd like a return to the original commitment made during ICANN's formation that at least a majority of ICANN board of directors be chosen (indirectly or directly) by the community of internet users.
It could be illuminating if people here sat down, fired up their hopes and imaginations, and set down their vision of what a properly formed ICANN, unfettered by the present structure, would be.
How those hopes could be achieved is a hard question.
The lawyer in me tends to think of means that resemble the fabled use of a 2x4 to get the attention of a reluctant mule.
Perhaps one might want to coax ICANN to recognize that it is (or at least was in year 2000) a membership based public-benefit/non-profit per California Law.
Another possible means would be to revisit the grounds upon which ICANN receives its US Federal tax exemption (501(c)(3)). It's been years since I last looked, but initially it was, if I remember correctly, "to lessen the burdens of government" (for the US gov't.) If that's still the foundation, it would be one that is filled with cracks and crumbling.
Those might not be good approaches - they might engender a lot of resentment (they would certainly engender a lot of legal fees paid by ICANN to Jones Day. ;-)
--karl--
On 11/21/19 3:10 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm being naive but what seems to me is missing in this conversation is: By what process might this ship be righted?
Multiple choice is acceptable.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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@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.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 2:57 PM sivasubramanian muthusamy < 6.internet@gmail.com> wrote:
A transitional bridge on the path of the NomCom selecting all the members is to ask the AC/SOs to send three names for each of the 'reserved' seats, perhaps with an indication of an order of preference, for the NomCom to make a selection among the three names. If this can't happen and the status quo continues, a balance is still required across a) GNSO taken together with ccNSO (???) and b) GAC taken together with ccNSO (?) and ALAC, with representation for RSSAC, IETF and SSAC whose expertise is definitely needed in the Board Deliberations
ie. a balance between GNSO, GAC and ALAC and apart from this balance for the 15 seats, RSSAC, IETF and SSAC.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:48 AM Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
At the time of the NomCom Review I posted a comment recommending that the NomCom selects all the members of the ICANN Board. The rationale for that was that the SO-appointed Directors were in a permanent conflict because although they had a fiduciary responsibility to ICANN they were nevertheless obliged to follow the interest of their own organization if they wanted to be re-elected. We had in the past exemplary cases of independence by Directors, but also cases of the contrary. There were also other considerations, but at this early stage I just want to throw this idea as brainstorming, we can develop it later if other people find it worth exploring. Cheers, R
On 22.11.2019, at 01:24, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One place to begin thinking about goals is to look at the list of things in this ICANN document:
http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm
Another place might be to look at some of the rather mild proposals that we made in the BWG (Boston Working Group) submission way back when:
https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/submission-letter.html
Personally I'd like a return to the original commitment made during ICANN's formation that at least a majority of ICANN board of directors be chosen (indirectly or directly) by the community of internet users.
It could be illuminating if people here sat down, fired up their hopes and imaginations, and set down their vision of what a properly formed ICANN, unfettered by the present structure, would be.
How those hopes could be achieved is a hard question.
The lawyer in me tends to think of means that resemble the fabled use of a 2x4 to get the attention of a reluctant mule.
Perhaps one might want to coax ICANN to recognize that it is (or at least was in year 2000) a membership based public-benefit/non-profit per California Law.
Another possible means would be to revisit the grounds upon which ICANN receives its US Federal tax exemption (501(c)(3)). It's been years since I last looked, but initially it was, if I remember correctly, "to lessen the burdens of government" (for the US gov't.) If that's still the foundation, it would be one that is filled with cracks and crumbling.
Those might not be good approaches - they might engender a lot of resentment (they would certainly engender a lot of legal fees paid by ICANN to Jones Day. ;-)
--karl--
On 11/21/19 3:10 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm being naive but what seems to me is missing in this conversation is: By what process might this ship be righted?
Multiple choice is acceptable.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list 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@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@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.
-- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com
On November 22, 2019 at 07:17 mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com (Roberto Gaetano) wrote:
At the time of the NomCom Review I posted a comment recommending that the NomCom selects all the members of the ICANN Board. The rationale for that was that the SO-appointed Directors were in a permanent conflict because although they had a fiduciary responsibility to ICANN they were nevertheless obliged to follow the interest of their own organization if they wanted to be re-elected. We had in the past exemplary cases of independence by Directors, but also cases of the contrary. There were also other considerations, but at this early stage I just want to throw this idea as brainstorming, we can develop it later if other people find it worth exploring.
Interesting, having been a nominee for a board seat by both the ASO/AC and the IETF my assumption was that my core duty would be to represent their interests to the board where needed. Of course for many issues which would come before the board they had no or only indirect interest so other than discussing those with people from those organizations to ensure my reading was correct, and to just seek their insights, I would use my best judgement on the interests of ICANN and the internet in general as appropriate. I believe that's how those organizations saw those board positions though I do understand your point about fiduciary responsibility. The easy answer is they were only one vote each and the fiduciary responsibilities reflected the sum voting of the board, the work product as it were. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
participants (27)
-
Adam Peake -
Alan Greenberg -
Alan Levin -
alberto＠soto.net.ar -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Christian -
Dave Kissoondoyal -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch -
Evan Leibovitch -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
Javier Rua -
Johan Helsingius -
Jonathan Zuck -
Kaili Kan -
Karl Auerbach -
Leah Symekher -
Maureen Hilyard -
Nat Cohen -
Natalia Filina -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Roberto Gaetano -
Sebicann Bachollet -
Sivasubramanian M -
sivasubramanian muthusamy
-
Wolfgang Kleinwächter -
Yrjö Länsipuro