Hi all. I will try to address some of the points. The main topic for discussion seems to me to be the “is 1 more Director over 15 relevant?”. There are different ways to look at this. Surely Olivier’s argument is relevant, but I would like to add something else to confute the thesis of “1 or 2, does not matter”. First of all, I would encourage all those who share this view to go tell the SOs that “1 or 2, does not matter” and therefore invite them to drop one of their seats. I am sure that they are fascinated by the idea, and their unison reply will be: “Sure, how come we did not think about this earlier?" In particular when the Board review recommended to shrink the number and there has been a violent reaction (I was on the Board t that time) from folks who argued that simple or double, it does really matter. On a more serious tone, I do believe that it does really matter, for a simple reason. ALAC is a widely diverse body. Although one single ALAC Director might well have all the possible knowledge and experience of the different environments and user experiences all over the world, it seems much more reasonable to split the burden over two Directors, that of course should reflect as much as possible the geopolitica, gender, etc. diversity. Also, it might well happen that a Director has a force majeure commitment and cannot attend a specific session, so to have a backup helps. Another point that was under discussion is whether the issue about the number of members should be deleted from the report. I am strongly against this. To delete it might give the impression that we do no longer care, which I believe is not the case for two reasons. The first one is that there is no (at least from my perception) consensus on doing this. I agree with Marita with her assessment. But the second one is far more important. The issue about representation (on the Board, on WG, etc.) is a strategic issue. While I agree about the importance of the WGs, I believe that changes to the strategy cannot happen within a WG about matters that are not in the scope of the WG itself. In just a few months we will have the third Summit, in Montreal - that will be the situation in which ALAC will have the ability to consult the ALSes ad the individual members and decide whether we need to change on this vital point. Best regards Roberto On 09.06.2019, at 09:30, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Maureen, well, historically the ICANN Board was supposed to be elected solely by ICANN At-Large Members. https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2000-09-21-en When ICANN was created and proposed (imposed) to the world as a counter-proposal to the ISOC-ITU-WTO IAHC proposal, this direct democracy option to keep the control of Internet resources in the hands of the very users of the Internet was seen positively by many. Then of course the election process was gamed and ended up in a big mess, and ICANN went from 1.0 to 2.0, where the SOs and ACs were created and At-Large, end users, was stripped of all its power and given a chance to select only a proportion of Board directors by having 5 people on a newly created NomCom, a group that would appoint people to the Board of Directors, rather than a free open election where the quality of Board members could not be assured. But at the same time, a strict regime was decided where SOs would also be able to select Board members and ACs being "advisory" could select Liaisons to the Board. The ALAC ended up with a Liaison. That had its advantages on one side: the Liaison could directly relay the ALAC's point of view, whilst a Board director is not allowed to do this and should defend the interests of ICANN instead. But the Liaison did not have the ability to vote. Thus convincing others was deemed less important than being able to be a fully fledged Board member. I guess only Board members or ex-Board members can really comment on that. That's how we asked for 2 Board members in the 1st ALAC Review. The Board decided to allow for 1 Board member to replace our Liaison. And regularly we have asked ourselves whether we need more than 1. The defining factor, IMHO is whether the number 2 will help in votes. If we take a board of 15 voting members 1 or 2 is not much difference. But one has to contend with the fact that 1/2 the Board is selected by the NomCom. If you look at the composition of the ICANN Board, ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-of-directors ) you'll see that out of the 8 Board members that are selected by NomCom and that therefore should have no skin in the Domain Name business, most are aligned to our end users view. But not all. In fact, some have ended up being "tainted" by the domain name industry by being hired either full time or part time, or as a consultant for some domain name businesses, whether Registrars, Registries or Service Providers servicing the industry. So will 2 instead of 1 make a difference? It can be argued that in fringe cases, 2 Board members would help. But we should also look into our collective power of persuasion of Board members by engaging them. We could easily profile which Board members we can speak to directly and influence them from the grassroots up. But we still have a long way to go. As CLO mentioned many times, we should work smarter, not harder. Kindest regards, Olivier On 08/06/2019 22:59, Maureen Hilyard wrote: For as long as I have been on the ALAC I have heard some of the more seasoned members of At-Large raise the fact that At-Large used to have more representation on the Board and it has now dwindled to one person. I honestly feel that this makes it easy for people to say "get rid of the seat, they don't deserve it anyway". For the contribution that we make to the work of ICANN within all the constituencies, I believe that we should at least state the case. It was discussed already by the CPWG and there was no earlier disagreement about its insertion into the statement. I can't see any reason for removing it. We don't all have to agree, and I doubt that this is something worth arguing about. M On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 8:10 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: So, you are both suggesting that I delete the reference to number of seats on the board (although I believe that one was in the 1st comment paper on this subject) and the reference to number of members on the EPDP. I think Alan and Hadia have both often brought this up and they have both looked at this draft, I hope. Bastiaan is saying that point about power imbalance should be removed entirely. Many people argued that we were not being aggressive enough on that. I think it would be a mistake not to address this issue. It is fundamental and you can be sure others will also be pointing in that direction. If we say nothing about this, we are actually saying we happy with the status quo. I can delete the examples if there are no objections to that. But, I will be finalizing this tomorrow. Marita On 6/8/2019 3:27 AM, Holly Raiche wrote: Hi Marita I do have to agree with Bastiaan on this one. Both Alan and Hadia have put in enormous time and effort on the EPDP and our viewpoints have been heard, if not necessarily agreed with. I am not convinced that having more people on the EPDP would make any difference to being heard - but I bow to both Alan and Hadia’s opinion on that. On Board representation, at the end of the day, once you are a member of any Board, you are just that - a Board member - NOT a representative of anything. Yes, you bring a particular perspective to the Board,. But that is all any Board member should do. If ALAC is to sway decisions of the Board, it will be done by us as ALAC members arguing well; it will not be done by a Board member (or two) arguing the ALAC case on the Board Holly On Jun 6, 2019, at 10:57 PM, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net><mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote: Thanks, Marita - you have not misunderstood my point, and I see the challenge here when trying to strike a balance. I very much respect and appreciate your efforts. If we think 'The issues themselves, the things that need fixing, have mostly already been identified’ then fine. My comment was purely based on the text we are now working on - and just in case, I do not feel the issues are sufficiently substantiated in the other At-Large doc (from 2012?) either that is being referred to. And that we can therefore cannot convincingly conclude, again based on the text as is, that there is an imbalance of power. And that e.g. we should be able to appoint more boardmembers or that there is an unfair lack of At-Large representation in the EPDP. cheers Bastiaan On 6 Jun 2019, at 14:39, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote: Bastiaan -- thanks for your comments. I don't want to agree or disagree with anything you are saying but I have to point out that this request for comment specifically asked that we give examples of where and how these issues affected us. There are probably many examples, but these stood out. This part of the process is looking for concrete examples of things that need fixing. The issues themselves, the things that need fixing, have mostly already been identified. So, the fact that we have only one seat on a board of 16 -- ccNSO and GNSO both have two (we did not add that detail) -- EPDP representation is worse - are examples of imbalance. This way we substantiate the "power imbalance"statement with respect to the identified issue of roles and responsibilities. There are many in our group who feel the comment is not aggressive enough. Our team was just trying to strike a balance. I hope I haven't misunderstood your point. Marita On 6/6/2019 4:34 AM, Jonathan Zuck wrote: Agree we shouldn't just assert things, especially without showing consequences. We need to get the conversation going, not end it prematurely Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/> From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net><mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 12:50:45 AM To: ICANN At-Large Staff Cc: Bartlett Morgan; Joanna Kulesza; cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Reminder - Today by 17:00 UTC: ACTION/ALAC and CPWG Members: Statement on Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model All, Thanks for the efforts that have been put into drafting the statement. I understand that we’re finalising our contribution, although we still have a week before the deadline. I just want to note for the record that, following comments during yesterday’s call that ALAC/At-Large should not only be more forceful in conveying its message but should also be as ’S.M.A.R.T.’ as possible when doing so (both of which I agree with), text like the one on page 4: 'What we have currently is an unbalanced multistakeholder model in which some parties have far more power than others. For an example of how our community is affected, At-Large works in the best interests of more than 4 billionend users on the Internet, but has only one seat on the ICANN Board. We have also been underrepresented in the current EPDP, which may well carry through to other applications of the “PDP 3.0” model’ in my opinion is quite ‘aggressive’ however it lacks substantiation. Both when it comes to the ‘some parties have far more power than others’ and the ‘examples’ that follow. Without stating an opinion whether I agree or not, I think that making these bold type of statements while not being S.M.A.R.T. and rational in our argumentation, brings a risk that our suggestions are not taken on board and into consideration. And can have an undesired effect on how the At-Large, as the representative of end-users, is perceived as a serious counterpart in deliberations within an ICANN governance context. thanks Bastiaan *** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer *** On 3 Jun 2019, at 08:59, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote: Dear All, A kind reminder to please make final comments on the ALAC Statement on Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model today, Monday, June 03 by 17:00 UTC. Please make any final comments, if needed, by edits on the Word Doc (attached), comments to the At-Large workspace, or by replying to staff/Evin. Thank you, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<http://facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org><mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org> on behalf of ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Date: Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 2:43 PM To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com><mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com><mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn><mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>, Sebastien Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr><mailto:sebicann@bachollet.fr>, Ricardo Holmquist <rihogris@gmail.com><mailto:rihogris@gmail.com>, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com><mailto:javrua@gmail.com>, Bartlett Morgan<bartlett.morgan@gmail.com><mailto:bartlett.morgan@gmail.com>, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@gmail.com><mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>, Joanna Kulesza <joannakulesza@gmail.com><mailto:joannakulesza@gmail.com>, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net><mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net><mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com><mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg><mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg>, "cpwg@icann.org"<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org><mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org><mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org> Subject: ACTION/ALAC and CPWG Members by 03 June 17:00 UTC: Statement on Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model Dear ALAC and CPWG Members, The Google Doc has been closed for the ALAC Statement on Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model, and the final draft of the version is attached in Word for final comment by Monday, June 03 at 17:00 UTC. Please make any final comments, if needed, by edits on the Word Doc (attached), comments to the At-Large workspace, or by replying to staff/Evin. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<http://facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge <ALAC Statement on Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model.docx> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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._______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg _______________________________________________ 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.