http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti... Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic. Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council? At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it. We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same. While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives. My 2c M -
Dear Maureen, Just a thought, historically, when the DotMobi TLD was created, a formal DotMobi liaison with At-Large was mandated. Others will have details. Best wishes, Olivier Sent from my iPad
On 6 Jan 2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
Thanks Maureen. Jacob has quickly fallen into the clutches of Godwin's Law. Reductio ad Nazium. The At-Large mandate is specifically NOT to represent organizations but instead individual end users. There is, in fact, an entity within the ICANN community which DOES represent the interests of not for profit organizations, NPOC. I had a long and involved conversation with Jacob, at Evan's behest and was coming around to some of his points and and we concluded he would make other introductions. Comparing us sticking to our remit to being antisemitic is beyond the pale! We need to find our own way on this, with a focus on individual end users, and perhaps some concerns over organizational practices, but we owe SAVEDOTORG absolutely nothing and, after that op-ed, we should tell them to go to Hell. Just my two cents. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2020, 8:53 PM To: Maureen Hilyard Cc: ALAC; ALAC Members; CPWG; ALT-Plus Subject: Re: [ALAC] [CPWG] PIR and Dot Org Dear Maureen, Just a thought, historically, when the DotMobi TLD was created, a formal DotMobi liaison with At-Large was mandated. Others will have details. Best wishes, Olivier Sent from my iPad On 6 Jan 2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti... Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic. Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council? At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it. We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same. While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives. My 2c M * _______________________________________________ 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.
PIR Advisory Committee had an ALAC Liaison - it was Michel Tchonang from the Cameroon. Are you suggesting we have a PIR or a DotOrg liaison on our ALT+ team - to keep us in the loop WRT PIR activities? That's a thought. M On Sun, 5 Jan 2020, 3:52 PM Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Maureen,
Just a thought, historically, when the DotMobi TLD was created, a formal DotMobi liaison with At-Large was mandated. Others will have details. Best wishes,
Olivier
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Jan 2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
-
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
Two mistakes the author of the article: thinks that Maureen is the one who makes the decisions, does not know how ALAC works, and puts all the responsibility to her before the world. Think that we represent the interests of organizations and not end users. This does not mean that we discuss and if there is consensus, an opinion of ALAC on the subject is issued. Regards Alberto De: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> en nombre de Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Fecha: domingo, 5 de enero de 2020, 21:55 Para: ALAC Members <ALAC-members@icann.org>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, ALT-Plus <alt-plus@icann.org>, ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: [CPWG] PIR and Dot Org http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti... Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic. Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council? At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it. We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same. While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives. My 2c M · _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit
On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti... <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...>
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted. Maureen On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto
PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit
On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
-
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
Dear friends. I have worked with PIR back in time for 3 years and totally agree with Roberto’s rationale. Thanks Roberto for these meaningful thoughts! Kisses to all Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Date: Monday, January 6, 2020 at 07:26 To: Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, ALAC Members <ALAC-members@icann.org>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, ALT-Plus <alt-plus@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] [CPWG] PIR and Dot Org Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted. Maureen On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com<mailto:mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti... Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic. Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council? At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it. We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same. While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives. My 2c M · _______________________________________________ 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.
Dear all, indeed - the DotMobi Liaison was on the DotMobi Policy Advisory Board. But IMHO Roberto's suggestion for a Liaison to the PIR Board sounds good. For those interested, DotMobi Liaison Reports can be found on: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports Kindest regards, Olivier On 06/01/2020 11:24, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted.
Maureen
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com <mailto:mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto
PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit
On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
*
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing list ALT-Plus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Colleagues, I am in agreement with Roberto's sentiments. We should not be on the Menu, we should be on the Table. Regards On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 10:10 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear all,
indeed - the DotMobi Liaison was on the DotMobi Policy Advisory Board. But IMHO Roberto's suggestion for a Liaison to the PIR Board sounds good. For those interested, DotMobi Liaison Reports can be found on: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/01/2020 11:24, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted.
Maureen
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto
PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit
On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
-
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing listALT-Plus@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
_______________________________________________ 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, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing list ALT-Plus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
Maureen and all, I agree with Roberto, and would perhaps go even further. The best solution would be to have a voting seat on the PIR board, rather than a non-voting liaison. I'm not sure which Roberto was suggesting. To my mind, true "representation" comes with a vote.. I also agree with everything Jonathan Zuck said -- about the mission, about Malthouse, about that "editorial." Nasty stuff. An appropriate response needs to be considered, but I'm not sure what that might be. It might be a message from someone else in At Large, pointing out that in a bottom-up organization, it's not the Chair's job to go flying into battle on their own impetus. Or maybe it can come from a bunch of somebodies.... However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us. There are more important things than a pissing match in the toilet of public opinion. We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.) Then we can go into toilets with Jacob and Nat.... Greg Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"* On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:10 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear all,
indeed - the DotMobi Liaison was on the DotMobi Policy Advisory Board. But IMHO Roberto's suggestion for a Liaison to the PIR Board sounds good. For those interested, DotMobi Liaison Reports can be found on: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/01/2020 11:24, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted.
Maureen
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto
PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit
On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
-
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing listALT-Plus@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
_______________________________________________ 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, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
Concur! <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> Cheryl Langdon-Orr about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:13, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
Maureen and all,
I agree with Roberto, and would perhaps go even further. The best solution would be to have a voting seat on the PIR board, rather than a non-voting liaison. I'm not sure which Roberto was suggesting. To my mind, true "representation" comes with a vote..
I also agree with everything Jonathan Zuck said -- about the mission, about Malthouse, about that "editorial." Nasty stuff. An appropriate response needs to be considered, but I'm not sure what that might be. It might be a message from someone else in At Large, pointing out that in a bottom-up organization, it's not the Chair's job to go flying into battle on their own impetus. Or maybe it can come from a bunch of somebodies....
However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us.
There are more important things than a pissing match in the toilet of public opinion.
We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.)
Then we can go into toilets with Jacob and Nat....
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:10 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear all,
indeed - the DotMobi Liaison was on the DotMobi Policy Advisory Board. But IMHO Roberto's suggestion for a Liaison to the PIR Board sounds good. For those interested, DotMobi Liaison Reports can be found on: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/01/2020 11:24, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted.
Maureen
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto
PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit
On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
-
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing listALT-Plus@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
_______________________________________________ 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, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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 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.
Totally agree. It's a team effort. Power to the people!! M On Mon, 6 Jan 2020, 3:13 PM Greg Shatan, <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
Maureen and all,
I agree with Roberto, and would perhaps go even further. The best solution would be to have a voting seat on the PIR board, rather than a non-voting liaison. I'm not sure which Roberto was suggesting. To my mind, true "representation" comes with a vote..
I also agree with everything Jonathan Zuck said -- about the mission, about Malthouse, about that "editorial." Nasty stuff. An appropriate response needs to be considered, but I'm not sure what that might be. It might be a message from someone else in At Large, pointing out that in a bottom-up organization, it's not the Chair's job to go flying into battle on their own impetus. Or maybe it can come from a bunch of somebodies....
However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us.
There are more important things than a pissing match in the toilet of public opinion.
We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.)
Then we can go into toilets with Jacob and Nat....
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:10 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear all,
indeed - the DotMobi Liaison was on the DotMobi Policy Advisory Board. But IMHO Roberto's suggestion for a Liaison to the PIR Board sounds good. For those interested, DotMobi Liaison Reports can be found on: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/01/2020 11:24, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted.
Maureen
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto
PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit
On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
-
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing listALT-Plus@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
_______________________________________________ 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, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
Well said Holly
On Jan 7, 2020, at 12:13 PM, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
Maureen and all,
I agree with Roberto, and would perhaps go even further. The best solution would be to have a voting seat on the PIR board, rather than a non-voting liaison. I'm not sure which Roberto was suggesting. To my mind, true "representation" comes with a vote..
I also agree with everything Jonathan Zuck said -- about the mission, about Malthouse, about that "editorial." Nasty stuff. An appropriate response needs to be considered, but I'm not sure what that might be. It might be a message from someone else in At Large, pointing out that in a bottom-up organization, it's not the Chair's job to go flying into battle on their own impetus. Or maybe it can come from a bunch of somebodies....
However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us.
There are more important things than a pissing match in the toilet of public opinion.
We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.)
Then we can go into toilets with Jacob and Nat....
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone"
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:10 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear all,
indeed - the DotMobi Liaison was on the DotMobi Policy Advisory Board. But IMHO Roberto's suggestion for a Liaison to the PIR Board sounds good. For those interested, DotMobi Liaison Reports can be found on: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports>
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/01/2020 11:24, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted.
Maureen
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com <mailto:mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto
PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit
On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti... <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...>
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing list ALT-Plus@icann.org <mailto:ALT-Plus@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html <http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
Hi Maureen, I totally agree with Roberto and Greg on the strategy and the response. However, something in me just still believe that deal would be reversed and the strategy might not be needed. In any case the best strategy is to prepare for eventualities. Thanks AK On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, 02:06 Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Well said
Holly
On Jan 7, 2020, at 12:13 PM, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
Maureen and all,
I agree with Roberto, and would perhaps go even further. The best solution would be to have a voting seat on the PIR board, rather than a non-voting liaison. I'm not sure which Roberto was suggesting. To my mind, true "representation" comes with a vote..
I also agree with everything Jonathan Zuck said -- about the mission, about Malthouse, about that "editorial." Nasty stuff. An appropriate response needs to be considered, but I'm not sure what that might be. It might be a message from someone else in At Large, pointing out that in a bottom-up organization, it's not the Chair's job to go flying into battle on their own impetus. Or maybe it can come from a bunch of somebodies....
However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us.
There are more important things than a pissing match in the toilet of public opinion.
We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.)
Then we can go into toilets with Jacob and Nat....
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:10 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear all,
indeed - the DotMobi Liaison was on the DotMobi Policy Advisory Board. But IMHO Roberto's suggestion for a Liaison to the PIR Board sounds good. For those interested, DotMobi Liaison Reports can be found on: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/01/2020 11:24, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted.
Maureen
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto
PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit
On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
-
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing listALT-Plus@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
_______________________________________________ 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, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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 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.
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Members mailing list ALAC-Members@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-members
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
I wonder if we should take a page from Steve Metalitz and draft a "DNS Abuse Mitigation" rider that we attach to every comment or Advice related to contracts. It feels like a powerful issue for us to own. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: ALAC-Members <alac-members-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of carlosraul@gutierrez.se <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 8:08:42 AM To: Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> Cc: ICANN ALAC list <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALT-Plus <alt-plus@icann.org>; Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>; ALAC Members <ALAC-members@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC-Members] [CPWG] [ALT-Plus] PIR and Dot Org Txs for the Focus Greg:
However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us.<<<
+1
We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.)<<<
+1+1+1+1 Let's get ready to follow up an respond to ICANN evaluation for approval of the deal NOW Thanks! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez On Jan 6, 2020 19:13, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: Maureen and all, I agree with Roberto, and would perhaps go even further. The best solution would be to have a voting seat on the PIR board, rather than a non-voting liaison. I'm not sure which Roberto was suggesting. To my mind, true "representation" comes with a vote.. I also agree with everything Jonathan Zuck said -- about the mission, about Malthouse, about that "editorial." Nasty stuff. An appropriate response needs to be considered, but I'm not sure what that might be. It might be a message from someone else in At Large, pointing out that in a bottom-up organization, it's not the Chair's job to go flying into battle on their own impetus. Or maybe it can come from a bunch of somebodies.... However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us. There are more important things than a pissing match in the toilet of public opinion. We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.) Then we can go into toilets with Jacob and Nat.... Greg Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:10 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear all, indeed - the DotMobi Liaison was on the DotMobi Policy Advisory Board. But IMHO Roberto's suggestion for a Liaison to the PIR Board sounds good. For those interested, DotMobi Liaison Reports can be found on: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports Kindest regards, Olivier On 06/01/2020 11:24, Maureen Hilyard wrote: Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted. Maureen On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com<mailto:mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti... Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic. Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council? At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it. We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same. While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives. My 2c M * _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing list ALT-Plus@icann.org<mailto:ALT-Plus@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus _______________________________________________ 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.
I dont see why it would not be included into our advice to PIR when they see it as an important issue anyway. Providing our viewpoint here is relevant. On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, 6:31 AM Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I wonder if we should take a page from Steve Metalitz and draft a "DNS Abuse Mitigation" rider that we attach to every comment or Advice related to contracts. It feels like a powerful issue for us to own.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* ALAC-Members <alac-members-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of carlosraul@gutierrez.se <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 7, 2020 8:08:42 AM *To:* Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> *Cc:* ICANN ALAC list <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALT-Plus < alt-plus@icann.org>; Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>; ALAC Members <ALAC-members@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC-Members] [CPWG] [ALT-Plus] PIR and Dot Org
Txs for the Focus Greg:
However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us.<<<
+1
We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.)<<<
+1+1+1+1
Let's get ready to follow up an respond to ICANN evaluation for approval of the deal NOW
Thanks! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
On Jan 6, 2020 19:13, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
Maureen and all,
I agree with Roberto, and would perhaps go even further. The best solution would be to have a voting seat on the PIR board, rather than a non-voting liaison. I'm not sure which Roberto was suggesting. To my mind, true "representation" comes with a vote..
I also agree with everything Jonathan Zuck said -- about the mission, about Malthouse, about that "editorial." Nasty stuff. An appropriate response needs to be considered, but I'm not sure what that might be. It might be a message from someone else in At Large, pointing out that in a bottom-up organization, it's not the Chair's job to go flying into battle on their own impetus. Or maybe it can come from a bunch of somebodies....
However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us.
There are more important things than a pissing match in the toilet of public opinion.
We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.)
Then we can go into toilets with Jacob and Nat....
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:10 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear all,
indeed - the DotMobi Liaison was on the DotMobi Policy Advisory Board. But IMHO Roberto's suggestion for a Liaison to the PIR Board sounds good. For those interested, DotMobi Liaison Reports can be found on: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/01/2020 11:24, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted.
Maureen
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto
PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit
On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
-
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing listALT-Plus@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
_______________________________________________ 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, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing list ALT-Plus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear colleagues, Let me add my humble opinion: This is not the first public article which focuses on the role and some responsibility of ALAC in the .org issue, the comments here were also stones into our garden: http://domainincite.com/24988-i-attempt-to-answer-icas-questions-about-the-t... It seems like errors and incorrect remarks, ugly comparisons in public articles are always a challenge for us to answer by action, it is not just the lack of the competence of the authors, we know this. And now it is very helpful to understand the incorrect view of the outside world/market (fabricated by such articles) to the place and role of At-Large in ICANN. We need to work on it to. To explain by action. Because it is also always a great call and opportunity to raise the flag and At-Large go forward with the initiative and be where decisions should be directly related to the interests of end users. Exactly by the way Roberto proposed. Sincerely, Natalia Filina Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo https://individualusers.org/ Member of ALAC Subcommittee on Outreach and Engagement Officer of SIG IoT (ISOC) +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russian Federation вт, 7 янв. 2020 г. в 19:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>:
I dont see why it would not be included into our advice to PIR when they see it as an important issue anyway. Providing our viewpoint here is relevant.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, 6:31 AM Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I wonder if we should take a page from Steve Metalitz and draft a "DNS Abuse Mitigation" rider that we attach to every comment or Advice related to contracts. It feels like a powerful issue for us to own.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* ALAC-Members <alac-members-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of carlosraul@gutierrez.se <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 7, 2020 8:08:42 AM *To:* Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> *Cc:* ICANN ALAC list <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALT-Plus < alt-plus@icann.org>; Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>; ALAC Members <ALAC-members@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC-Members] [CPWG] [ALT-Plus] PIR and Dot Org
Txs for the Focus Greg:
However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us.<<<
+1
We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.)<<<
+1+1+1+1
Let's get ready to follow up an respond to ICANN evaluation for approval of the deal NOW
Thanks! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
On Jan 6, 2020 19:13, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
Maureen and all,
I agree with Roberto, and would perhaps go even further. The best solution would be to have a voting seat on the PIR board, rather than a non-voting liaison. I'm not sure which Roberto was suggesting. To my mind, true "representation" comes with a vote..
I also agree with everything Jonathan Zuck said -- about the mission, about Malthouse, about that "editorial." Nasty stuff. An appropriate response needs to be considered, but I'm not sure what that might be. It might be a message from someone else in At Large, pointing out that in a bottom-up organization, it's not the Chair's job to go flying into battle on their own impetus. Or maybe it can come from a bunch of somebodies....
However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us.
There are more important things than a pissing match in the toilet of public opinion.
We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.)
Then we can go into toilets with Jacob and Nat....
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:10 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear all,
indeed - the DotMobi Liaison was on the DotMobi Policy Advisory Board. But IMHO Roberto's suggestion for a Liaison to the PIR Board sounds good. For those interested, DotMobi Liaison Reports can be found on: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/01/2020 11:24, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted.
Maureen
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto
PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit
On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
-
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing listALT-Plus@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
_______________________________________________ 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, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing list ALT-Plus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Carlos, I agree with you. Regards
El 08-01-2020, a las 09:37, carlosraul@gutierrez.se escribió:
Dear All!
I agree we should move forward, but short of accepting the sale as a fait accompli and start grabbing for seats in a Privately Owned Corporation, at least for the time being.
I suggest the Chair to go ahead and call for a small team of ALAC members to start evaluation of all the submissions to the ICANN Board, about their evaluation of the PIR deal (from the perspective of ALACs narrow remit of course) and get us up to speed to react promptly to the expected public comment period (hoping there will be one). Time is of essence here and we need to show more muscle here than just collecting a wide variety of opinions.
Abdicating to the sale as a fact, as some members are already doing by grabbing a share of the pie in the form of a Board seat of the PIR under new ownership is a rather early move, to say the least.
Thanks! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
On Jan 7, 2020 18:09, Natalia Filina <filinafilka@gmail.com> wrote: Dear colleagues,
Let me add my humble opinion: This is not the first public article which focuses on the role and some responsibility of ALAC in the .org issue, the comments here were also stones into our garden: http://domainincite.com/24988-i-attempt-to-answer-icas-questions-about-the-t... <http://domainincite.com/24988-i-attempt-to-answer-icas-questions-about-the-t...>
It seems like errors and incorrect remarks, ugly comparisons in public articles are always a challenge for us to answer by action, it is not just the lack of the competence of the authors, we know this. And now it is very helpful to understand the incorrect view of the outside world/market (fabricated by such articles) to the place and role of At-Large in ICANN. We need to work on it to. To explain by action.
Because it is also always a great call and opportunity to raise the flag and At-Large go forward with the initiative and be where decisions should be directly related to the interests of end users. Exactly by the way Roberto proposed.
Sincerely, Natalia Filina
Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo <https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo> https://individualusers.org/ <https://individualusers.org/> Member of ALAC Subcommittee on Outreach and Engagement
Officer of SIG IoT (ISOC)
+7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russian Federation
вт, 7 янв. 2020 г. в 19:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>: I dont see why it would not be included into our advice to PIR when they see it as an important issue anyway. Providing our viewpoint here is relevant.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, 6:31 AM Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: I wonder if we should take a page from Steve Metalitz and draft a "DNS Abuse Mitigation" rider that we attach to every comment or Advice related to contracts. It feels like a powerful issue for us to own.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/> From: ALAC-Members <alac-members-bounces@icann.org <mailto:alac-members-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 8:08:42 AM To: Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> Cc: ICANN ALAC list <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>; ALT-Plus <alt-plus@icann.org <mailto:alt-plus@icann.org>>; Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com <mailto:mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>>; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>>; ALAC Members <ALAC-members@icann.org <mailto:ALAC-members@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ALAC-Members] [CPWG] [ALT-Plus] PIR and Dot Org
Txs for the Focus Greg:
However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us.<<<
+1
We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.)<<<
+1+1+1+1
Let's get ready to follow up an respond to ICANN evaluation for approval of the deal NOW
Thanks! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
On Jan 6, 2020 19:13, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> wrote: Maureen and all,
I agree with Roberto, and would perhaps go even further. The best solution would be to have a voting seat on the PIR board, rather than a non-voting liaison. I'm not sure which Roberto was suggesting. To my mind, true "representation" comes with a vote..
I also agree with everything Jonathan Zuck said -- about the mission, about Malthouse, about that "editorial." Nasty stuff. An appropriate response needs to be considered, but I'm not sure what that might be. It might be a message from someone else in At Large, pointing out that in a bottom-up organization, it's not the Chair's job to go flying into battle on their own impetus. Or maybe it can come from a bunch of somebodies....
However, I'm concerned that if ALAC and At-large do not speak for themselves, the "record" is going to be the garbage that is being thrown at us.
There are more important things than a pissing match in the toilet of public opinion.
We have ALAC's "superpower" -- the mandate to provide formal advice to the Board. (Not quite as "super" as GAC advice, but it's what we've got, and if it is exercised properly, it will grow in strength, like a muscle.)
Then we can go into toilets with Jacob and Nat....
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone"
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:10 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear all,
indeed - the DotMobi Liaison was on the DotMobi Policy Advisory Board. But IMHO Roberto's suggestion for a Liaison to the PIR Board sounds good. For those interested, DotMobi Liaison Reports can be found on: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/dotMOBI+Liaison+Reports>
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/01/2020 11:24, Maureen Hilyard wrote: Excellent points Roberto. Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted.
Maureen
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com <mailto:mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto
PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit
On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti... <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...>
Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.
Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com
I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?
At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.
We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.
While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.
My 2c M
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing list ALT-Plus@icann.org <mailto:ALT-Plus@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html <http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALT-Plus mailing list ALT-Plus@icann.org <mailto:ALT-Plus@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Members mailing list ALAC-Members@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-members
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear all, @Roberto, thank you very much for the very interesting insights and thoughts from an old dinosaurs J. This sounds like a valuable plan from a strategic point of view! Have a nice evening! Best, Matthias _________________________ Ing. Mag. Matthias M. Hudobnik HYPERLINK "mailto:matthias@hudobnik.at"matthias@hudobnik.at HYPERLINK "http://www.hudobnik.at/"http://www.hudobnik.at Von: ALAC-Members [mailto:alac-members-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Roberto Gaetano Gesendet: Montag, 06. Jänner 2020 11:02 An: Maureen Hilyard Cc: ICANN ALAC list; ALAC Members; CPWG; ALT-Plus Betreff: Re: [ALAC-Members] [CPWG] PIR and Dot Org Hi Maureen. I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board. Here is the rationale for that. The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC. With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of. This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected. We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively. In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion. I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR. Cheers, Roberto PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <HYPERLINK "mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com"maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti... Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic. Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com I agree with Roberto's approach - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council? At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it. We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same. While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives. My 2c M · _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list HYPERLINK "mailto:CPWG@icann.org"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.
participants (15)
-
ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE -
Alberto Soto -
Barrack Otieno -
carlosraul＠gutierrez.se -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Greg Shatan -
Holly Raiche -
Humberto Carrasco -
Jonathan Zuck -
Matthias M. Hudobnik -
Maureen Hilyard -
Natalia Filina -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vanda Scartezini