ALAC OBJECTION PROCEDURE for the new gTLD applications
Dear OFB and ALAC members, On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you. But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision: I’m concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn’t allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections. I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing. For the record, in this very “ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round” we are providing, it’s clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph). I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn’t be affected. This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentifying concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Drafting ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement) has a conflict of interest. In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced. Now that I made my point clearly, it’s up to you to take the right decision thereupon. Tijani
Hi, Are you saying that no one on the gARG should be involved in any way with any new gTLD application in the round? I think this is a really good idea. avri On 2025-05-05 13:18, Tijani via At-Large wrote:
Dear OFB and ALAC members,
On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you.
But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision:
I'm concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning.
I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn't allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections.
I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing.
For the record, in this very "ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round" we are providing, it's clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph).
I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn't be affected.
This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentifying concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Drafting ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement) has a conflict of interest.
In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced.
Now that I made my point clearly, it's up to you to take the right decision thereupon.
Tijani
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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.
Hi Tijani and all, I fully agree with Tijani's position. It is very important to understand that potential conflicts of interest, especially when members of the decision making or evaluation committees have direct or indirect links with the applicant organisations, can seriously jeopardise the integrity of the process. If you think that there is a conflict of interest, even if you're not sure about it, it can lead to people not trusting the results. This is even more true for new gTLDs because their allocation can have major economic and strategic consequences. In a market where there's a lot of competition and you have to be careful, if you think that somebody is being favoured or treated differently, it can lead to legal problems, people will lose confidence and people will question whether ICANN is being ethical. I think it is fundamental for ICANN to remain vigilant on conflict of interest issues and to increase transparency at all levels of the process to ensure sound and ethical governance. This will ensure a fair and trustworthy environment for the global Internet community. Yours sincerely. Le lun. 5 mai 2025 à 20:25, avri--- via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi,
Are you saying that no one on the gARG should be involved in any way with any new gTLD application in the round?
I think this is a really good idea.
avri
On 2025-05-05 13:18, Tijani via At-Large wrote:
Dear OFB and ALAC members,
On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you.
But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision:
I'm concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning.
I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn't allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections.
I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing.
For the record, in this very "ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round" we are providing, it's clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph).
I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn't be affected.
This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentifying concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Drafting ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement ) has a conflict of interest.
In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced.
Now that I made my point clearly, it's up to you to take the right decision thereupon.
Tijani
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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.
-- *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* *Coordinateur Général CAPDA* *Secrétaire Exécutif // Executive Secretary * Forum National sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet - Cameroun // National Internet Governance Forum - Cameroon *ÉVÉNEMENTS** SUR LES TIC :* - *CASIG du 11 Avril au 6 Mai 2025 en ligne et du du 6 au 7 Mai 2025 en présidentiel au Gabon* - *FGI Afrique Centrale en Mai 2025 à Libreville Gabon* - *FGI Cameroun du 21 au 23 mai 2025 à Yaoundé Cameroun* - *FGI Afrique (AfIGF) du 28 au 31 Mai en Tanzanie* - *Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet monde du 23 au 27 Juin 2025 à Lillestrôm - Norvège* - *Sommet Mondial AI for Good du 8 au 11 Juillet 2025 à Genève - Suisse* - *Symposium TIC Afrique du 30 juillet au 1er Août 2025 à Yaoundé - Cameroun * *C**APDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique)* *BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 67775-39-63 / 24212-9493 Email : capdasiege@gmail. <capdasiege@gmail.com>**com <capdasiege@gmail.com> Site : www.capda.cm <http://www.capda.cm> ; www.tic-afrique.cm <http://www.tic-afrique.cm> *
Hello All, Just to clarify what is in the ALAC/At-Large Procedure related to gARG membership requirements and Conflicts of Interest "gARG Membership Requirements Members should preferably possess legal expertise and strong proficiency in English, and must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Examples of conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to: * Being a member of an At-Large Structure that is publicly promoting or supporting a gTLD application, * Having a substantive financial interest in an applicant that has applied for a gTLD string, * Employed by, or having a family member employed by, any applicant that has applied for a gTLD string, * Providing any services (legal or technical) to any applicant that has applied for a gTLD string; and/or * Having a close family relationship (e.g. spouse, partner, sibling, parent, child) with an individual who has a financial or employment interest in an applicant that has applied for a gTLD string. "If a gARG member identifies a potential Conflict of Interest (COI) with a specific gTLD application after Reveal Day (such as one affecting an industry they are involved in), they may choose to resign. If they opt to remain, they must disclose the COI to the gARG and the ALAC and recuse themselves from all discussions and drafting related to that gTLD application. Any concerns about an undisclosed COI should be directed to the ALAC Chair who will be empowered to take whatever action he/she decides." The comment that accompanied the procedure when submitted to the OFB : "Tijani has expressed concern about the option for a gARG member to recuse themselves from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. He feels that not allowing recusal may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections, and that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing. The counter argument is that a resignation due to a conflict with one application may impact our ability to respond to another un-connected application and may impact our ability to respond to an appeal. Recusal is an effective remedy in the ICANN Board and should suffice for us." Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 1:20 PM Tijani via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> wrote:
Dear OFB and ALAC members,
On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you.
But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision:
I’m concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning.
I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn’t allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections.
I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing.
For the record, in this very “ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round” we are providing, it’s clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph).
I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn’t be affected.
This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentifying concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Drafting ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement ) has a conflict of interest.
In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced.
Now that I made my point clearly, it’s up to you to take the right decision thereupon.
Tijani
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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.
Hello Dave, I am sure the text you quoted is meant to read as "...He feels that not allowing recusal may impact our credibility...." and I so agree with that as well. It's unrealistic to expect a recusal to suffice, such individuals should resign prior to any other person establishing the conflict. It's important to have members that know they are unlikely to have conflict in the first place. Regards On Mon, 5 May 2025 at 15:39, Dev Anand Teelucksingh via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote:
Hello All,
Just to clarify what is in the ALAC/At-Large Procedure related to gARG membership requirements and Conflicts of Interest
"gARG Membership Requirements
Members should preferably possess legal expertise and strong proficiency in English, and must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
Examples of conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to: * Being a member of an At-Large Structure that is publicly promoting or supporting a gTLD application, * Having a substantive financial interest in an applicant that has applied for a gTLD string, * Employed by, or having a family member employed by, any applicant that has applied for a gTLD string, * Providing any services (legal or technical) to any applicant that has applied for a gTLD string; and/or * Having a close family relationship (e.g. spouse, partner, sibling, parent, child) with an individual who has a financial or employment interest in an applicant that has applied for a gTLD string.
"If a gARG member identifies a potential Conflict of Interest (COI) with a specific gTLD application after Reveal Day (such as one affecting an industry they are involved in), they may choose to resign. If they opt to remain, they must disclose the COI to the gARG and the ALAC and recuse themselves from all discussions and drafting related to that gTLD application. Any concerns about an undisclosed COI should be directed to the ALAC Chair who will be empowered to take whatever action he/she decides."
The comment that accompanied the procedure when submitted to the OFB :
"Tijani has expressed concern about the option for a gARG member to recuse themselves from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. He feels that not allowing recusal may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections, and that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing. The counter argument is that a resignation due to a conflict with one application may impact our ability to respond to another un-connected application and may impact our ability to respond to an appeal. Recusal is an effective remedy in the ICANN Board and should suffice for us."
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 1:20 PM Tijani via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> wrote:
Dear OFB and ALAC members,
On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you.
But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision:
I’m concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning.
I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn’t allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections.
I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing.
For the record, in this very “ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round” we are providing, it’s clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph).
I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn’t be affected.
This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentify ing concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Draft ing ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement) has a conflict of interest.
In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced.
Now that I made my point clearly, it’s up to you to take the right decision thereupon.
Tijani
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Reading this thread makes me remind myself what the ALAC has standing to object to and will be funded for in objection. Memory serves it says "*on community or limited public interest grounds*" for which we must providently claim demonstrable '*legal or procedural errors*'. If an objection is given short shrift, then there is a possibility of an appeal. I may be missing the forest for the trees. But it helps if I know what success should look like. Let's make me a lawyer charging US$1500/hour just to show up. So can I ask, assuming a filing for one or other, what do we suppose will be asked of us to submit/display/justify/account for an ALAC objection to prevail? Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, 6 May 2025 at 08:38, Seun Ojedeji via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Dave,
I am sure the text you quoted is meant to read as "...He feels that not allowing recusal may impact our credibility...." and I so agree with that as well. It's unrealistic to expect a recusal to suffice, such individuals should resign prior to any other person establishing the conflict. It's important to have members that know they are unlikely to have conflict in the first place.
Regards
On Mon, 5 May 2025 at 15:39, Dev Anand Teelucksingh via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote:
Hello All,
Just to clarify what is in the ALAC/At-Large Procedure related to gARG membership requirements and Conflicts of Interest
"gARG Membership Requirements
Members should preferably possess legal expertise and strong proficiency in English, and must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
Examples of conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to: * Being a member of an At-Large Structure that is publicly promoting or supporting a gTLD application, * Having a substantive financial interest in an applicant that has applied for a gTLD string, * Employed by, or having a family member employed by, any applicant that has applied for a gTLD string, * Providing any services (legal or technical) to any applicant that has applied for a gTLD string; and/or * Having a close family relationship (e.g. spouse, partner, sibling, parent, child) with an individual who has a financial or employment interest in an applicant that has applied for a gTLD string.
"If a gARG member identifies a potential Conflict of Interest (COI) with a specific gTLD application after Reveal Day (such as one affecting an industry they are involved in), they may choose to resign. If they opt to remain, they must disclose the COI to the gARG and the ALAC and recuse themselves from all discussions and drafting related to that gTLD application. Any concerns about an undisclosed COI should be directed to the ALAC Chair who will be empowered to take whatever action he/she decides."
The comment that accompanied the procedure when submitted to the OFB :
"Tijani has expressed concern about the option for a gARG member to recuse themselves from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. He feels that not allowing recusal may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections, and that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing. The counter argument is that a resignation due to a conflict with one application may impact our ability to respond to another un-connected application and may impact our ability to respond to an appeal. Recusal is an effective remedy in the ICANN Board and should suffice for us."
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 1:20 PM Tijani via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> wrote:
Dear OFB and ALAC members,
On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you.
But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision:
I’m concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning.
I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn’t allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections.
I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing.
For the record, in this very “ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round” we are providing, it’s clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph).
I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn’t be affected.
This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentify ing concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Draft ing ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement) has a conflict of interest.
In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced.
Now that I made my point clearly, it’s up to you to take the right decision thereupon.
Tijani
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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.
Aligne with the ida if the Board member that will do the final decision fro any issue related to any gTLD can go out of the room and no not comment or vote due this particular COI, I believe the rule shall apply to all in the gArg. My 2 cents From: Carlton Samuels via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 6 May 2025 at 18:59 To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Subject: [At-Large] Re: ALAC OBJECTION PROCEDURE for the new gTLD applications Reading this thread makes me remind myself what the ALAC has standing to object to and will be funded for in objection. Memory serves it says "on community or limited public interest grounds" for which we must providently claim demonstrable 'legal or procedural errors'. If an objection is given short shrift, then there is a possibility of an appeal. I may be missing the forest for the trees. But it helps if I know what success should look like. Let's make me a lawyer charging US$1500/hour just to show up. So can I ask, assuming a filing for one or other, what do we suppose will be asked of us to submit/display/justify/account for an ALAC objection to prevail? Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Tue, 6 May 2025 at 08:38, Seun Ojedeji via At-Large <at-large@icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Dave, I am sure the text you quoted is meant to read as "...He feels that not allowing recusal may impact our credibility...." and I so agree with that as well. It's unrealistic to expect a recusal to suffice, such individuals should resign prior to any other person establishing the conflict. It's important to have members that know they are unlikely to have conflict in the first place. Regards On Mon, 5 May 2025 at 15:39, Dev Anand Teelucksingh via At-Large <at-large@icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote: Hello All, Just to clarify what is in the ALAC/At-Large Procedure related to gARG membership requirements and Conflicts of Interest "gARG Membership Requirements Members should preferably possess legal expertise and strong proficiency in English, and must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Examples of conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to: * Being a member of an At-Large Structure that is publicly promoting or supporting a gTLD application, * Having a substantive financial interest in an applicant that has applied for a gTLD string, * Employed by, or having a family member employed by, any applicant that has applied for a gTLD string, * Providing any services (legal or technical) to any applicant that has applied for a gTLD string; and/or * Having a close family relationship (e.g. spouse, partner, sibling, parent, child) with an individual who has a financial or employment interest in an applicant that has applied for a gTLD string. "If a gARG member identifies a potential Conflict of Interest (COI) with a specific gTLD application after Reveal Day (such as one affecting an industry they are involved in), they may choose to resign. If they opt to remain, they must disclose the COI to the gARG and the ALAC and recuse themselves from all discussions and drafting related to that gTLD application. Any concerns about an undisclosed COI should be directed to the ALAC Chair who will be empowered to take whatever action he/she decides." The comment that accompanied the procedure when submitted to the OFB : "Tijani has expressed concern about the option for a gARG member to recuse themselves from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. He feels that not allowing recusal may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections, and that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing. The counter argument is that a resignation due to a conflict with one application may impact our ability to respond to another un-connected application and may impact our ability to respond to an appeal. Recusal is an effective remedy in the ICANN Board and should suffice for us." Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 1:20 PM Tijani via At-Large <at-large@icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote: Dear OFB and ALAC members, On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you. But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision: I’m concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn’t allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections. I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing. For the record, in this very “ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round” we are providing, it’s clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph). I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn’t be affected. This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentifying concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Drafting ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement) has a conflict of interest. In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced. Now that I made my point clearly, it’s up to you to take the right decision thereupon. Tijani _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org<mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org> 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@icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org<mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org> 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org<mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org> 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 Tue, May 6, 2025 at 6:10 PM Vanda Scartezini via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote:
Aligne with the ida if the Board member that will do the final decision fro any issue related to any gTLD can go out of the room and no not comment or vote due this particular COI, I believe the rule shall apply to all in the gArg.
What appears to be the broader consensus view, with which I agree, is that someone who is directly conflicted in one application is indirectly conflicted in others during the same round. Therefore they should not be in the evaluation group at all; being "out of the room" for only the direct conflict is insufficient. Given that we have so many fully un-conflicted potential participants this should not be a hard rule to uphold.
- Evan
Evan since those groups are paid for the service I agree with you, shall be excluded. To this do not impact the work ICANN shall have a alternate in witing list to seat at the group once identified any kind of COI if was a volunteer I could accept the “out of room” in any debate related, for instance, same category- ( Brands? For instance) my 2 cents From: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, 7 May 2025 at 18:45 To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Cc: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Re: ALAC OBJECTION PROCEDURE for the new gTLD applications On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 6:10 PM Vanda Scartezini via At-Large <at-large@icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote: Aligne with the ida if the Board member that will do the final decision fro any issue related to any gTLD can go out of the room and no not comment or vote due this particular COI, I believe the rule shall apply to all in the gArg. What appears to be the broader consensus view, with which I agree, is that someone who is directly conflicted in one application is indirectly conflicted in others during the same round. Therefore they should not be in the evaluation group at all; being "out of the room" for only the direct conflict is insufficient. Given that we have so many fully un-conflicted potential participants this should not be a hard rule to uphold. - Evan
Dear Colleagues, I find myself in full agreement with Tijani. The Objections Procedure is a very significant responsibility that needs to be performed flawlessly. The last time we filed an objection after a long and thorough process, I was the ALAC Chair, and I measured the impact of the objection when I had a face to face meeting with the ICANN Legal Counsel at the ICANN Offices in Los Angeles. These things are not matters to be taken lightly, especially if an applicant has already spent large sums of money to reach the point of application. This is big business and is very competitive. Thus we cannot, under any circumstance, risk anyone being able to influence a potential objection to an application if they have a conflict of interest. Our community consists of a lot of volunteers that have absolutely no business with gTLDs. We also have many who have an interest, whether they or their organisation derive part of their income from consulting, or work for companies that have something to do with domain names, whether a reseller, registry, registrar, or brand protection, or even domain name statistics or run a publication that deals with domain names, in which they might be approached to influence on the objection process. The modus operandi of gARG members should be: "If in doubt, resign." Kindest regards, Olivier On 05/05/2025 18:18, Tijani via At-Large wrote:
Dear OFB and ALAC members,
On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you.
But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision:
I’m concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/herselffrom a specific application(s) instead of resigning.
I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn’t allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections.
I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing.
For the record, in this very “ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round” we are providing, it’s clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph).
I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn’t be affected.
This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentifying concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection,Drafting ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; andDrafting ALAC Appeal statement) has a conflict of interest.
In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced.
Now that I made my point clearly, it’s up to you to take the right decision thereupon.
Tijani
+1. The process must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Best/Pozdrav Danko Jevtovic From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 10:39 PM To: Tijani <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>; at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org; JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org Subject: [At-Large] Re: ALAC OBJECTION PROCEDURE for the new gTLD applications Dear Colleagues, I find myself in full agreement with Tijani. The Objections Procedure is a very significant responsibility that needs to be performed flawlessly. The last time we filed an objection after a long and thorough process, I was the ALAC Chair, and I measured the impact of the objection when I had a face to face meeting with the ICANN Legal Counsel at the ICANN Offices in Los Angeles. These things are not matters to be taken lightly, especially if an applicant has already spent large sums of money to reach the point of application. This is big business and is very competitive. Thus we cannot, under any circumstance, risk anyone being able to influence a potential objection to an application if they have a conflict of interest. Our community consists of a lot of volunteers that have absolutely no business with gTLDs. We also have many who have an interest, whether they or their organisation derive part of their income from consulting, or work for companies that have something to do with domain names, whether a reseller, registry, registrar, or brand protection, or even domain name statistics or run a publication that deals with domain names, in which they might be approached to influence on the objection process. The modus operandi of gARG members should be: "If in doubt, resign." Kindest regards, Olivier On 05/05/2025 18:18, Tijani via At-Large wrote: Dear OFB and ALAC members, On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you. But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision: I’m concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn’t allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections. I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing. For the record, in this very “ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round” we are providing, it’s clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph). I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn’t be affected. This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentifying concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Drafting ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement) has a conflict of interest. In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced. Now that I made my point clearly, it’s up to you to take the right decision thereupon. Tijani
+1 r
On 06.05.2025, at 08:51, Danko Jevtović via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> wrote:
+1. The process must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
Best/Pozdrav Danko Jevtovic
From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 10:39 PM To: Tijani <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>; at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org; JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org Subject: [At-Large] Re: ALAC OBJECTION PROCEDURE for the new gTLD applications
Dear Colleagues,
I find myself in full agreement with Tijani. The Objections Procedure is a very significant responsibility that needs to be performed flawlessly. The last time we filed an objection after a long and thorough process, I was the ALAC Chair, and I measured the impact of the objection when I had a face to face meeting with the ICANN Legal Counsel at the ICANN Offices in Los Angeles. These things are not matters to be taken lightly, especially if an applicant has already spent large sums of money to reach the point of application. This is big business and is very competitive. Thus we cannot, under any circumstance, risk anyone being able to influence a potential objection to an application if they have a conflict of interest.
Our community consists of a lot of volunteers that have absolutely no business with gTLDs. We also have many who have an interest, whether they or their organisation derive part of their income from consulting, or work for companies that have something to do with domain names, whether a reseller, registry, registrar, or brand protection, or even domain name statistics or run a publication that deals with domain names, in which they might be approached to influence on the objection process.
The modus operandi of gARG members should be: "If in doubt, resign."
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 05/05/2025 18:18, Tijani via At-Large wrote: Dear OFB and ALAC members,
On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you. But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision:
I’m concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn’t allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections.
I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing. For the record, in this very “ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round” we are providing, it’s clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph).
I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn’t be affected.
This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentifying concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Drafting ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement) has a conflict of interest. In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced.
Now that I made my point clearly, it’s up to you to take the right decision thereupon.
Tijani
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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.
I do agree as well. +1 Thank you for this important point and discussion. Naty út 6. 5. 2025 v 15:28 odesílatel Roberto Gaetano via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> napsal:
+1 r
On 06.05.2025, at 08:51, Danko Jevtović via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> wrote:
+1. The process must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
Best/Pozdrav *Danko* Jevtovic
*From:* Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> *Sent:* Monday, May 5, 2025 10:39 PM *To:* Tijani <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>; at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org; JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org *Subject:* [At-Large] Re: ALAC OBJECTION PROCEDURE for the new gTLD applications
Dear Colleagues,
I find myself in full agreement with Tijani. The Objections Procedure is a very significant responsibility that needs to be performed flawlessly. The last time we filed an objection after a long and thorough process, I was the ALAC Chair, and I measured the impact of the objection when I had a face to face meeting with the ICANN Legal Counsel at the ICANN Offices in Los Angeles. These things are not matters to be taken lightly, especially if an applicant has already spent large sums of money to reach the point of application. This is big business and is very competitive. Thus we cannot, under any circumstance, risk anyone being able to influence a potential objection to an application if they have a conflict of interest.
Our community consists of a lot of volunteers that have absolutely no business with gTLDs. We also have many who have an interest, whether they or their organisation derive part of their income from consulting, or work for companies that have something to do with domain names, whether a reseller, registry, registrar, or brand protection, or even domain name statistics or run a publication that deals with domain names, in which they might be approached to influence on the objection process.
The modus operandi of gARG members should be: "If in doubt, resign."
Kindest regards,
Olivier On 05/05/2025 18:18, Tijani via At-Large wrote:
Dear OFB and ALAC members,
On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you. But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision:
I’m concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn’t allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections.
I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing. For the record, in this very “ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round” we are providing, it’s clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph).
I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn’t be affected.
This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentifying concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Drafting ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement ) has a conflict of interest. In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced.
Now that I made my point clearly, it’s up to you to take the right decision thereupon.
Tijani
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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 Mon, May 5, 2025 at 4:40 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote:
The modus operandi of gARG members should be: "If in doubt, resign."
Not only am I agreed, frankly I'm surprised that this is at all controversial. Our community has among us many totally unconflicted community members who are capable of serving the role. At-Large has had many accusations of double-dipping: that is, people involved with contracted parties who -- since everyone is an end-user -- attempt influence both here and through other ICANN communities. This phenomenon should be resisted wherever it's revealed. - Evan
Dear colleagues, Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. I fully agree with Tijani’s view that all gARG members must be completely free of any conflict of interest. Allowing someone to simply step aside for one application while staying on the team may raise concerns about fairness and trust. We need to avoid any risk of having our objections questioned or dismissed because of perceived bias. Resignation in such cases shows we are serious about transparency and accountability. We have many capable community members who can step in when needed, so losing one person would not harm our process. Our strength lies in how carefully and fairly we work. Warm regards, Joanna wt., 6 maj 2025 o 09:43 Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> napisał(a):
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 4:40 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote:
The modus operandi of gARG members should be: "If in doubt, resign."
Not only am I agreed, frankly I'm surprised that this is at all controversial. Our community has among us many totally unconflicted community members who are capable of serving the role.
At-Large has had many accusations of double-dipping: that is, people involved with contracted parties who -- since everyone is an end-user -- attempt influence both here and through other ICANN communities. This phenomenon should be resisted wherever it's revealed.
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org
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.
-- Kind regards, Joanna Kulesza ------------------- Joanna Kulesza, PhD Professor of International Law Lodz Cyber Hub / University of Lodz Law School / Poland www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC
Also in agreement with Tijiani's suggestionMaritaSent from my Galaxy -------- Original message --------From: Joanna Kulesza via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> Date: 2025-05-06 4:40 a.m. (GMT-05:00) To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Re: ALAC OBJECTION PROCEDURE for the new gTLD applications Dear colleagues, Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. I fully agree with Tijani’s view that all gARG members must be completely free of any conflict of interest. Allowing someone to simply step aside for one application while staying on the team may raise concerns about fairness and trust. We need to avoid any risk of having our objections questioned or dismissed because of perceived bias. Resignation in such cases shows we are serious about transparency and accountability. We have many capable community members who can step in when needed, so losing one person would not harm our process. Our strength lies in how carefully and fairly we work. Warm regards, Joannawt., 6 maj 2025 o 09:43 Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> napisał(a):On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 4:40 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> wrote: The modus operandi of gARG members should be: "If in doubt, resign."Not only am I agreed, frankly I'm surprised that this is at all controversial. Our community has among us many totally unconflicted community members who are capable of serving the role.At-Large has had many accusations of double-dipping: that is, people involved with contracted parties who -- since everyone is an end-user -- attempt influence both here and through other ICANN communities. This phenomenon should be resisted wherever it's revealed.- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org 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.-- Kind regards,Joanna Kulesza-------------------Joanna Kulesza, PhDProfessor of International Law Lodz Cyber Hub / University of Lodz Law School / Polandwww.cyber.uni.lodz.pl (EURALO ALS 341)ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC
definitely From: mmoll via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 6:00 AM To: Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com>, at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Re: ALAC OBJECTION PROCEDURE for the new gTLD applications Also in agreement with Tijiani's suggestion Marita Sent from my Galaxy -------- Original message -------- From: Joanna Kulesza via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> Date: 2025-05-06 4:40 a.m. (GMT-05:00) To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Re: ALAC OBJECTION PROCEDURE for the new gTLD applications Dear colleagues, Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. I fully agree with Tijani’s view that all gARG members must be completely free of any conflict of interest. Allowing someone to simply step aside for one application while staying on the team may raise concerns about fairness and trust. We need to avoid any risk of having our objections questioned or dismissed because of perceived bias. Resignation in such cases shows we are serious about transparency and accountability. We have many capable community members who can step in when needed, so losing one person would not harm our process. Our strength lies in how carefully and fairly we work. Warm regards, Joanna wt., 6 maj 2025 o 09:43 Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large@icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org>> napisał(a): On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 4:40 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large@icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote: The modus operandi of gARG members should be: "If in doubt, resign." Not only am I agreed, frankly I'm surprised that this is at all controversial. Our community has among us many totally unconflicted community members who are capable of serving the role. At-Large has had many accusations of double-dipping: that is, people involved with contracted parties who -- since everyone is an end-user -- attempt influence both here and through other ICANN communities. This phenomenon should be resisted wherever it's revealed. - Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org<mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org> 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. -- Kind regards, Joanna Kulesza ------------------- Joanna Kulesza, PhD Professor of International Law Lodz Cyber Hub / University of Lodz Law School / Poland www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl<http://www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl> (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC
Dear Tijani, Your opinion is very accurate and I fully agree. Lilian Obtener Outlook para Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: Tijani via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 12:18:35 PM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Subject: [At-Large] ALAC OBJECTION PROCEDURE for the new gTLD applications Dear OFB and ALAC members, On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you. But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision: I’m concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn’t allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections. I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing. For the record, in this very “ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round” we are providing, it’s clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph). I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn’t be affected. This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentifying concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Drafting ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement) has a conflict of interest. In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced. Now that I made my point clearly, it’s up to you to take the right decision thereupon. Tijani
participants (16)
-
avri＠doria.org -
CAPDA Consortium -
Carlton Samuels -
Danko Jevtović -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Evan Leibovitch -
Joanna Kulesza -
Jonathan Zuck -
lilian ivette de luque bruges -
mmoll -
Natálie Terčová -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Seun Ojedeji -
Tijani -
Vanda Scartezini