June 2019 - EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Universal Acceptance
by Roberto Gaetano July 25, 2019

July 25, 2019

Hi all. As most of you know, I have been always pushing for Universal Acceptance, including the deployment of IDN TLDs. I strongly believe that this is one of the game changers for reaching out to the next billion Internet users and giving equal opportunities for enjoying the benefits of online communication. There will be a working session at EuroDIG (https://www.eurodig.org<https://www.eurodig.org/>) on this topic on Wednesday 6 June - see the full programme at https://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/Consolidated_programme_2018. I have been appointed focal point for the session, and will therefore coordinate participation. I wonder whether there are any former Directors that are either directly interested or could indicate people within their respective networks who are interested in participating to the discussion on this topic and/or joining the session in Tbilisi. The first step would be to join the EuroDIG-WS6 mailing list, where the session on Universal Acceptance is being prepared. Instructions for joining can be found at the WS6 info page (https://list.eurodig.org/mailman/listinfo/ws6) Please feel free to contact me for further information. Thanks, Roberto

5 5

ATLAS III Travel List published
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond July 1, 2019

July 1, 2019

Dear Colleagues, please be so kind to find the list of ICANN sponsored travellers to ATLAS III in Montreal. Congratulations to all successful candidates. I am however concerned that despite all the publicity, very few people in our region felt they had the interest to apply. I would be interested in hearing why - please email me directly. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Secretariat] [soac-chairs] Letter from SSR2 Leadership Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 15:08:42 +0100 From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> To: RALO Leadership <secretariat(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Announcement: ATLAS Travellers List* * * A final check has been made of the Travellers List and everything is now in order. Travel arrangements to Marrakech by the Selection Committee held up the final decisions on the selected travellers. Therefore, a 6.30am meeting was held on their first day in Marrakech to ensure that the final list was compiled. I must thank RALO Chairs for the superb group of people they offered to this ATLAS process as members of the Selection Committee. They did an amazing job for which I am extremely grateful. ☺ Congratulations to the 60 successful travellers. Be prepared for a little more work in the lead up to Montreal. It will be worth while to be totally engaged in the preparation so that you get full value out of the training you will experience. The list can be found on the *ATLAS III Home Page*, under "/*Participants and Travel*/" Clickhere <https://community.icann.org/display/ATLAS3/At-Large+Summit+III+Home>. A formal announcement will be made on Thursday at the session on the preparation for ICANN66.. Maureen ALAC Chair

1 1

ICANN NomCom June Update
by Schweighofer Erich June 29, 2019

June 29, 2019

ICANN NomCom June Update The ICANN NomCom delegates and leadership team met at ICANN 65 in Marrakesh, Morocco to interview, further evaluate and select candidates from the 2nd intercessional short-list. This is a continuation of the candidate selection phase in the NomCom process. Selections for the most qualified candidates was completed for these 10 open seats: 3 seats for the ICANN board, 1 seat for the PTI board, 3 seats for each of these ALAC regions: Africa, LAC and Asia, 1 seat for ccNSO and 2 seats for the GNSO. New selectees will officially assume their roles in Montreal at ICANN 66 Annual General Meeting (AGM) but announcements should come out in late August or early September. NomCom timelines: (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/nomcom2019-timeline-720x54…) Erich Schweighofer Credits for the text: Leah Symekher ICANN NomCom Outreach Sub-Committee Co-Chair NomCom Delegate, ALAC NA

1 0

Fwd: [NRIs List] Reminder: MAG 2020 Renewal
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond June 18, 2019

June 18, 2019

FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NRIs List] Reminder: MAG 2020 Renewal Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 07:34:38 +0000 From: Anja Gengo <anja.gengo(a)un.org> To: igfregionals(a)intgovforum.org <igfregionals(a)intgovforum.org> Dear Colleagues, This is a kind reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: _https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/mag-2020-renewal_ The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF website: _https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/mag-renewal-2020-general-… Best regards, Anja

1 0

Computer problem
by Roberto Gaetano June 11, 2019

June 11, 2019

My Mac just died during an automatic update. Trying to login with my old Windows stuff. If it does not work will join by phone. Sorry, but I will be some 10 mins late R Inviato da iPhone

1 0

REMINDER / Meeting invitation: EURALO Monthly Meeting on Tuesday, 11 June 2019 at 18:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 11, 2019

June 11, 2019

If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<file:///composeviewinternalloadurl/staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number. Dear All, The next EURALO Monthly Call is scheduled for Tuesday, 11 June 2019 at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yy3egx8v The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/yomjBg ZOOM ROOM: https://icann.zoom.us/j/176686926 / Meeting ID: 176-686-926 EURALO Main Wiki Portal: https://community.icann.org/x/K5Qi EURALO Web Page: https://atlarge.icann.org/ralos/euralo[atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge.icann.org_ralo…> ADIGO Conference Bridge: English Conference ID: 1638 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__adigo.com_icann_&d=DwMF…> Thank you. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/facebook.com/icannatlar…> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/@ICANNAtLarge>

4 4

Fwd: Fwd: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond June 11, 2019

June 11, 2019

FYI - finalised version sent directly, plus contributed to the CPWG ALAC process. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Fwd: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:59:08 +0200 From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>, Justine Chew <justine.chew(a)gmail.com> CC: cpwg(a)icann.org <cpwg(a)icann.org> Dear Maureen and Justine, I am writing to you to let you know of EURALO's response to the questions asked. We were contacted directly by NomCom Review staff. Having reviewed the ALAC's proposed response, I note that our answers are broadly aligned. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:48:10 +0200 From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez(a)icann.org> CC: Tom Barrett <tbarrett(a)encirca.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Zahid Jamil-IG (internet(a)jamilandjamil.com) <internet(a)jamilandjamil.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Dear Jean-Baptiste, thank you for reaching out to EURALO. Please be so kind to find the EURALO input to this consultation with responses interspersed in your text below, written in BLUE. This input is not meant to contradict the ALAC input on the matter, as EURALO will support the ALAC's input. Although this input was prepared independently of the ALAC's input, it should be taken as complementary to the ALAC's advice. If you have any question about any part of EURALO's response, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond EURALO Chair On 14/05/2019 16:51, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez wrote: > > Dear Olivier, > > Â > > We are contacting you in the capacity of Chair and Vice-Chairs of the > NomCom Review Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG). Following the > ICANN Boardâ€™s acceptance > <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-14-en#2.f>of > the Final Report > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.…>and > the Feasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom2-ipt-review-faiip-14dec1…>, > we have been tasked to oversee the implementation of the twenty-seven > (27) recommendations issued by the independent examiner. > > Â > > Before implementation can begin, the Board has asked us to draft a > Detailed Implementation Plan, due to be submitted to the Boardâ€™s > Organizational Effectiveness Committee no later than 14 September 2019. > > Â > > While the NomComRIWG has the Board-mandated responsibility to plan the > implementation of the twenty-seven recommendations, we would welcome > any and all feedback either as a single document from the EURALO or > from individual members of the EURALO. All feedback will inform our > drafting of the Detailed Implementation Plan.Â We understand that you > or the EURALO may not have the time to respond to all 27 > recommendations, so we have identified seven where your input would be > most helpful. > > Â > > Please, limit your response to the process you suggest we follow for > each implementation rather than advocating for any specific outcome of > the recommendation. > > Â > > *We kindly ask you to provide us with your feedback no later than 10 > June 2019*. If you cannot respond by that time, but would like to > provide input, please, let us know at your earliest convenience by > when we can expect your feedback. > > Â > > If you have any questions or concerns, either about the list of > questions, or about any other aspect of the NomCom Review > implementation, please, do not hesitate to reach out to us or any of > ICANNâ€™s support staff at any time. > > Â > > Many thanks and best wishes, > > Â > > Tom Barrett, Chair NomComRIWG > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG > > Zahid Jamal, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG > > Â > > Â > > Cc: ALAC, ASO AC, ccNSO Council, GAC, GNSO Council, RSSAC, SSAC, NCSG, > RrSG, RySG, BC, IPC, ISPCP, NCUC, NPOC, AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO, > LACRALO, NARALO. > > > Â > > 1. *Recommendation 10*: Representation on the NomCom should be > re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years. > > Â > > * What process, based on which principles, would you suggest forÂ > the implementation of this recommendation to rebalance the NomCom? > And, what criteriaÂ should the overall allocation of all NomCom > seats among the SO/ACs be based on? > This really depends on the actual "balancing". The recommendation suggests the creation of a working group that would be tasked with undertaking an assessment and ultimately making recommendations for the actual re-balancing. The IPT suggests (2) rebalancing could be rotational. The difference in balancing year on year will make this very complicated as the group might not include the same balance of stakeholders and this is likely to affect continuity. IPT suggestion (3) mentions the growth and expansion of SO/ACs - we believe that one has to be careful that gaming the system will not be used to multiply constituencies thus bringing more weight to the NomCom from a particular group of constituencies. At this moment in time, short of supporting a working group to take a deeper look at the issue and to make recommendations, we can only support the process that is currently suggested. > * > > > Â > > 2. *Recommendation 14*: Formalize communication between the NomCom > and the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board in order to understand > needed competencies and experience. > > Â > > * What process would you suggest to formalize the communicationof > the needed competencies and experiences of NomCom appointees to > your SO/AC? > This issue is not solely caused by lack of formalised communication. The Nominating Committee meets with SOs and ACs asking what skills are currently needed in their communities. But the way the question is asked at present appears like asking a resident what size of pipe they would like installed inside their house: they would have no idea. A questionnaire asking the right questions, addressing specific topics, could provide much more insights as to skill gaps in SOs, ACs and the ICANN Board, than an open question "what type of profile do you need?" It would also be helpful if the NomCom itself would publish its own perception of perceived gaps in skill-sets and competencies on the Board, as this can serve as a good starting point for discussions with the community. > * > > > Â > > 3. *Recommendation 16*: Implement and codify a system for providing > feedback to the NomCom regarding the contributions and > participation of members up for re-appointment by the NomCom (i.e. > for the Board, PTI, GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO) > > Â > > * What process would you suggest to improve feedback to the NomCom > regarding the contribution and participation of NomCom-appointees > members that wish to apply forre-appointment by the NomCom? > The NomCom should be provided with full feedback from the body into which it appointed a candidate, about that candidate's performance. This feedback should be confidential to the NomCom so as to allow for a candid assessment of that person's performance. Optionally, a NomCom appointing a candidate to a position could store a rationale of specific points/characteristics that resonated to appoint this candidate and this rationale could be made available to a later NomCom that would have to evaluate whether the expectations of that prior NomCom were fulfilled regarding that candidate. This additional information could help with the NomCom's decision to re-appoint a candidate. > * > > > Â > > 4. *Recommendation 24*: An empowered body of current and former > NomCom members should be formed to ensure greater continuity > across NomComs, and in particular, to recommend and assist in > implementing improvements to NomCom operations. > > Â > > * What process do you suggest should be put in place to help ensure > cross-community consensus on developing the Charter and formation > of this body? The Charter would address issues such as membership, > term-limits, number and allocation of seats. > This "empowered body" should be a cross community group composed of members of the community appointed by their respective component organisation, in the same manner as NomCom participants. Its membership should be made up of the current NomCom chair plus a past NomCom Chair, as well as past NomCom members across the community. The function of this group should be to focus purely on procedural matters and should not influence NomCom selections. Its primary function should be to make recommendations for ICANN component organisations to act on. It should also receive instructions from component organisations to implement recommendations. In no way should it both recommend and implement without the express agreement from NomCom component organisations. > * > > > > > Â > > 5. *Recommendation 25*: Improve NomCom selection decisions by > assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom > appointees. > > Â > > * What process would you suggest for your organization to inform and > improve future NomCom appointments? > Prior to searching for candidates, a questionnaire asking the right questions, addressing specific topics, could provide much more insights as to skill gaps in SOs, ACs and the ICANN Board than an open question "what type of profile do you need?" The SO/AC should also provide candid feedback to the NomCom about a candidate's past performance. This, again, could also be done via a questionnaire to the Chair of the body that the returning candidate has been appointed to. Both questionnaires could be linked and compared so as to find out of the original skills gap was competently fulfilled. Ultimately a form of uniform feedback process, either through a specific feedback form asking pertinent questions, or through a uniform 360 peer review process used across all of ICANN, would help with comparing performance of appointed candidates. > * > > > Â > > 6. *Recommendation 27*: Provide clarity on desire for and definition > of â€œindependent directorsâ€. Upon clarification of desire and > definition, determine the number of specific seats for > â€œindependent directorsâ€. > > Â > > Â·Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â What are your suggestions regarding the process of > implementing of this recommendation? > > Â > The notion of "independent directors" is misguided. Whilst the NomCom selected directors can be part of the ICANN community, all NomCom selected directors should be, as much as possible, unrelated to the Domain Name industry. They should be completely un-conflicted for all decisions of the ICANN Board and should not derive a direct income from the domain name business. This is needed mainly to balance out ICANN Board members appointed by SOs and ACs that are more likely to be conflicted. Declaring a conflict of interest is not enough in this case. ---- end of contribution ---

1 0

EURALO Hot Topics 2019
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond June 9, 2019

June 9, 2019

Dear colleagues, I am following up on an Action Item which we had on our May 2019 EURALO monthly call. please be so kind to find attached the EURALO Hot Topics 2019 document. This document is the result of months of discussion and input into the process based on our past calls for hot topics. The document is also available from: https://community.icann.org/x/PQXuBQ If there are no objections by Wednesday 12 June 2019, 12:00 UTC, I shall transmit this to the At-Large Outreach and Engagement working group, as well as Jonathan Zuck and Joanna Kulesza who have been tasked to develop a list of ALAC Hot Topics. Kindest regards, Olivier

1 1

Re: [EURO-Discuss] NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond June 8, 2019

June 8, 2019

Dear colleagues, please be so kind to find my proposed response below to questions that we have received about the NomCom Review. My answers are in blue. Please let me know as soon as possible if you propose any amendments to the text, as the deadline for answer is 10 June. On 14/05/2019 16:51, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez wrote: > > Dear Olivier, > > > > We are contacting you in the capacity of Chair and Vice-Chairs of the > NomCom Review Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG). Following the > ICANN Board’s acceptance > <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-14-en#2.f>of > the Final Report > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.…>and > the Feasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom2-ipt-review-faiip-14dec1…>, > we have been tasked to oversee the implementation of the twenty-seven > (27) recommendations issued by the independent examiner. > > > > Before implementation can begin, the Board has asked us to draft a > Detailed Implementation Plan, due to be submitted to the Board’s > Organizational Effectiveness Committee no later than 14 September 2019. > > > > While the NomComRIWG has the Board-mandated responsibility to plan the > implementation of the twenty-seven recommendations, we would welcome > any and all feedback either as a single document from the EURALO or > from individual members of the EURALO. All feedback will inform our > drafting of the Detailed Implementation Plan. We understand that you > or the EURALO may not have the time to respond to all 27 > recommendations, so we have identified seven where your input would be > most helpful. > > > > Please, limit your response to the process you suggest we follow for > each implementation rather than advocating for any specific outcome of > the recommendation. > > > > *We kindly ask you to provide us with your feedback no later than 10 > June 2019*. If you cannot respond by that time, but would like to > provide input, please, let us know at your earliest convenience by > when we can expect your feedback. > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, either about the list of > questions, or about any other aspect of the NomCom Review > implementation, please, do not hesitate to reach out to us or any of > ICANN’s support staff at any time. > > > > Many thanks and best wishes, > > > > Tom Barrett, Chair NomComRIWG > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG > > Zahid Jamal, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG > > > > > > Cc: ALAC, ASO AC, ccNSO Council, GAC, GNSO Council, RSSAC, SSAC, NCSG, > RrSG, RySG, BC, IPC, ISPCP, NCUC, NPOC, AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO, > LACRALO, NARALO. > > > > > 1. *Recommendation 10*: Representation on the NomCom should be > re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years. > > > > * What process, based on which principles, would you suggest for > the implementation of this recommendation to rebalance the NomCom? > And, what criteria should the overall allocation of all NomCom > seats among the SO/ACs be based on? > This really depends on the actual "balancing". The recommendation suggests the creation of a working group that would be tasked with undertaking an assessment and ultimately making recommendations for the actual re-balancing. The IPT suggests (2) rebalancing could be rotational - the difference in balancing year on year will make this very complicated as the group will not include the same balance of stakeholders and this is likely to affect continuity. IPT suggestion (3) mentions the growth and expansion of SO/ACs - we believe that one has to be careful that gaming the system will not be used to multiply constituencies thus bringing more weight to the NomCom from a particular group of constituencies. At this moment in time, short of supporting a working group to take a deeper look at the issue and to make recommendations, we can only support the process that is currently suggested. > * > > > > > 2. *Recommendation 14*: Formalize communication between the NomCom > and the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board in order to understand > needed competencies and experience. > > > > * What process would you suggest to formalize the communicationof > the needed competencies and experiences of NomCom appointees to > your SO/AC? > This issue is not solely caused by lack of formalised communication. The Nominating Committee meets with SOs and ACs asking what skills are currently needed in their communities. That said, this could well be akin to ask an end user what size of pipe they'd like installed inside their house: they would have no idea. A questionnaire asking the right questions, addressing specific topics, could provide much more insights as to skill gaps in SOs, ACs and the ICANN Board than an open question "what type of profile do you need?" > * > > > > > 3. *Recommendation 16*: Implement and codify a system for providing > feedback to the NomCom regarding the contributions and > participation of members up for re-appointment by the NomCom (i.e. > for the Board, PTI, GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO) > > > > * What process would you suggest to improve feedback to the NomCom > regarding the contribution and participation of NomCom-appointees > members that wish to apply forre-appointment by the NomCom? > In the At-Large Community, the RALOs make recommendations for appointing people and the ALAC makes the appointment. Both need to be aware of a returning member's performance. Establishing member performance is the first challenge. This should be composed of two parts: 1. a member's attendance 2. a 360 evaluation from colleagues - with compounded scores from all NomCom participants so as to avoid identification of the sources of the evaluation. Communication between the ALAC Chair plus RALO Chairs and NomCom Chair would be an ideal channel for the feedback. It is then down to each appointing organisation to devise its own internal processes to make use of the information. > * > > > > > 4. *Recommendation 24*: An empowered body of current and former > NomCom members should be formed to ensure greater continuity > across NomComs, and in particular, to recommend and assist in > implementing improvements to NomCom operations. > > > > * What process do you suggest should be put in place to help ensure > cross-community consensus on developing the Charter and formation > of this body? The Charter would address issues such as membership, > term-limits, number and allocation of seats. > Response A: This "empowered body" should be a cross community group composed of members of the community appointed by their respective component organisation, in the same manner as NomCom participants. The function of this group should be to focus purely on procedural matters and should not influence NomCom selections. Its primary function should be to make recommendations for ICANN component organisations to act on. It should also receive instructions from component organisations to implement recommendations. In no way should it both recommend and implement without the express agreement from NomCom component organisations. or Response B: there is no need for such a group - as periodic NomCom Reviews will perform the same task. > * > > > > > 5. *Recommendation 25*: Improve NomCom selection decisions by > assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom > appointees. > > > > * What process would you suggest for your organization to inform and > improve future NomCom appointments? > Prior to searching for candidates, a questionnaire asking the right questions, addressing specific topics, could provide much more insights as to skill gaps in SOs, ACs and the ICANN Board than an open question "what type of profile do you need?" The SO/AC should also provide candid feedback to the NomCom about a candidate's past performance. This, again, could also be done via a questionnaire to the Chair of the body that the selectee has been appointed to. Both questionnaires could be linked so as to find out of the original skills gap was competently fulfilled. > * > > > > > 6. *Recommendation 27*: Provide clarity on desire for and definition > of “independent directors”. Upon clarification of desire and > definition, determine the number of specific seats for > “independent directors”. > > > > · What are your suggestions regarding the process of > implementing of this recommendation? > > > The NomCom selected directors can be part of the ICANN community, all NomCom selected directors should be, as much as possible, unrelated to the Domain Name industry. They should be completely unconflicted for all decisions of the ICANN Board and should not derive a direct income from the domain name business. Declaring a conflict of interest is not enough here. --- end --- Please review and propose amendments as soon as possible, as these are really my basic, draft answers that I have responded to in the best of my ability to understand our community. If I am wrong on specific points, then please tell me. Many thanks, Olivier

1 0

VOTE RESULTS: 2019 EURALO Elections, Selections and Appointments
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 3, 2019

June 3, 2019

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Chair of EURALO, we are pleased to announce that the following EURALO candidates have been selected by acclamation and election in 2019: Matthias Hudobnik – ALAC Member representing EURALO (Term: 2019 AGM – 2021 AGM; appointed by acclamation) Sebastien Bachollet - EURALO Chairperson (Term: 2019 AGM - 2020 AGM; appointed by acclamation) Natalia Filina - EURALO Secretary (Term: 2019 AGM - 2020 AGM; selected by election) Erich Schweighofer – ALAC Delegate to the NomCom representing the European Region (Term: 2019 AGM – 2021 AGM; re-appointed by acclamation) *** 2019 EURALO Secretary Position – BigPulse Result Number of voters: 26 · Group size: 37 · Percentage voted: 70.27 Rank Options ID Options Votes % 1 15998329 Natalia Filina 14 53.85 2 15998328 Olawale Bakare 7 26.92 3 15998330 Abstain 5 19.23 *** You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=1337395GkX57yRwmzshEc7y8FCL Explanation: In these votes, electorates can only choose one candidate, or to abstain. The vote electorate is anonymous. All results have been posted on the 2019 ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections and Appointments<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2019+ALAC+and+RALO+Elections%2C…>. At-Large staff would like to congratulate Matthias, Sebastien, Natalia and Erich! Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

5 4