- EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community
by Kleinwächter, Wolfgang June 11, 2008

June 11, 2008

Thanks JFC I do not know whether I am really ICANN centric. I am more Internet centric and if ICANN in the cneter of the Internet than I can accept this. It is not a secret that I am a long time critical supporter of ICANN. Regardless of all the failures and setbacks, I see ICANN as the best of all worst case scenarios we have so far for the future of Internet Governance. I also have the impression that ICANN has still a lot of potential, that it is still a laboratory and that ICANN 3.0 will look much better than the original version. It is up to the community to make ICANN better and better. Anyhow, below are some comments ot your comments wolfgang ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von JFC Morfin Gesendet: Mi 11.06.2008 12:37 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community Dear Wolfgang, I suppose that these answers are also here to be discussed? Your points are well made. We obviously have a slightly different vision of the network.May I say that I feel you are more ICANN centric, ISO is user centric and WSIS and I are person centric (this in my mind is neither a critic, nor a something very differentiated, just a flavor - evolutions and transitions make the things fuzzy anyway). At 10:45 11/06/2008, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Medienstadt Leipzig e.V., EU-RALO: > >1. What issues being debated in ICANN do you believe are the most >important to your RALO? >User and consumer rights, in patricular with regard to the so-called >ICANN issues (including freedom of expression, date protection, >privacy, prices, security, stability, diversity, multilingualism) JFC: I fear there is a mission creep when you speak of freedom of expression? IMHO, ICANN claims two products: - IANA operations - NTIA root g/sTLD coordination Wolfgang: No it is not FOE or so as such, it is the FOE dimension of the management of critical resources (FOE & new gTLD is just one exmaple) >2. How can we help make the time you spend on ICANN issues as >valuable and efficient to you as possible? >a. To avoid long and time consuming buerocratical procedures and discussions >b. to concentrate on substance and relevant issues >c. to imrpove the interaction with other ICANN constituencies >d. to work towards a more significant AL representation in the BoD >(from Voice to Vote) JFC: Amen. Except that Staff cannot work against corporate policy rules and by-laws without a BoD reformation mandate. My feeling is that it is up to us to obtain that mandate. Since we only have Voice and no Vote, we can only use external pressure until ICANN respects its Charter again. Wolfgang: External pressure is always good but you should not say good bye before you havestarted to try to do something. >3. What challenges and opportunities do you see for your RALO and >for At-Large more generally (in the context of ICANN work)? > >ALAC and the RALO mechanism have a great opportunity (and >responsibility) to become the center of gravity for individual >Internet users around the globe. JFC: I disagree it would be an opportunity for the Internet community (please remember that a global system is a closed system and there are only win/win or lose/lose situation). In a distributed system a center of gravity is bring the system back to decentralization. This would introduce/maintain a rigidity which would split the network. Wolfgang: Yes and know My wording is obviously misleading. The way you put it you are right. My point is that ALAC/RALO should become a recognozed and well accepted key player ina decentraliced system. >If ICANN can achieve this, it will be much safer against a new wave >of efforts by various (governmental) groups to get a more direct >governmental oversight over the management of critical Internet >ressources. This is in particular important in the context of the IGF. JFC: If Governments were a danger through the IGF it would mean that @larges have poorly participated to the IGF they obtained. @larges' legitimacy as the IGF leaders (as being in each of the poles of governance as we made them defined and documented) is THE @large dramatic success at the WSIS. The IGF is "us", the ALAC may be "you" when ICANN is "they". This is were we have two different point of view: for you @larges should help ICANN to control the Internet, for me @larges should help ICANN to become the best possible example of support of the @large control on their own Internets throughout the common Internet. Wolfgang: I do not see the contradiction. ICANN will never control the Internet. Nobody cn control the Internet. ICANN coordinates some critical components. And users shuold have a say in how this is planned and executed. A strong ICANN is not bad but ICANN will get strong only with a strong at large. > 4. How interaction between and within RALOs be increased? > >Specialized F2F meetings, also on the local/rgional level are important. Yes. > Workshops, Round Tables etc. with opportunities for remote > participation are very helpful but have to be prepared carefully. > There has to be substance für such events, not just "coming > together and strengthening relationships". A workplan which would > identify three to five main priority topics for individual Internet > users for a period of three or five years would helpful. Based on > working papers, such a process could produce a discussion around > issues aimed at a final document which could lead to an "At Large > Publication Series" where users get quick access to answers. JFC: I am somewhat less practically optimistic than you. There is a growing france@large/FGI-FR consensus that we need a new comprehensive set of tools, based upon the state of the art (webDAV, RSS, ATOM, Wiki, Semantic Wiki, Mioga2, and more to come) to build an on-line maieutics oriented towards a new ad-hoc understanding of documents and document presentation to support multiconsensus (to possibly present in the same document opposing local consensus and their interoperations possibilities). Wolfgang: Agreed, more toosl Internet based no "classical academic staff" are need. You are right. >5. What are the top three things you would like your RALO to achieve? >a. to stablize its still fragile institutional structure >b. to do more outreach to get a sub-regional geographical balance >(in case of EU-RALO this means CEEC, Russia but also Northern Europe >(Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Greenland) .... and france@large :-) >c. to produce more substance / input Yes. But I am afraid there is a big split between the world as ICANN wants us to evangelize it and the world as we observe and make it. To realise that, I suggest you access our flow-chart: http://franceatlarge.org/org.htm. We have not understood the second reason why Staff opposed france@large, but we feel it is because a part from not existing, we are existing too much. This, certainly is a problem. What an ALS is permitted to do. There is a confusion to clarify in Paris : @larges are Internet @larges, not only ICANN @larges (at least in our opinion). This is why we consider much substance, including but not dedicated substance about/for ICANN. Wolfgang I did not really undertand the disucsison on france@large. You will help me to understand it better in Paris. >d. to become a key player in the EURO-IGF you are more than welcome - both to http://euro-igf.eu <http://euro-igf.eu/> and http://euro-igf.org <http://euro-igf.org/> . >6. What are the top three things you believe ICANN Staff could do >to help your RALO? >a.reduce the burocratical barriers to get things done >b.organize financial support for local and regional activities >c. fight for ALAC interests and positions within the ICANN burocracy >d. help to transform ALAC into an ALSO which would give the AL the >same right as the three other SOs have, that is to send two voting >directors to th Board. As I indicated, c and d are things Staff cannot loyally do unless for example we obtain a joint review committee to be convened by the BoD. These are things ALAC should certainly do. I will give you an example of key mission for an ALSO. ICANN is in charge (MoU with IETF) of the IANA operations and of what is related to Names and Numbers, IETF retaining control on Parameters (even if ICANN tend to pretend it is in charge of Parameters too). Now there is another important IANA area which is not allocated which is the description of the inter-users direct exchange protocols. This means all what users need to communicate in addition to addresses, domain names and protocol parameters. This includes for example : language documentation (IANA ccTLD Tables and Language Sub-Tag Registry), new product specifications (ALSO should review all the IETF/WG-Charters as IAB does. IAB is for architectural consistency, ALSO should be for usage convenience and interoperability with non-Internet solution of the digital convergence. Netiquette should also be documented, there. Terminology too. Etc... Wolfgang: Agreed, but even if in your opinion ALAC staff would become illoyal if they do c&d we should ask for doing this. The staff is not an instrument to control the consituencies, the staff is a service provider for the consituencies. This is my reading from the ICANN bylaws. And this is part of a bigger story if it comes to the relaitonshipo between the Board and the ICANN staff _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>

2 1

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community
by JFC Morfin June 11, 2008

June 11, 2008

At 13:24 11/06/2008, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Wolfgang: >External pressure is always good but you should not say good bye >before you havestarted to try to do something. hmm... I do things for 9 years :-) I am not kissing good-bye. They just do not want us in :-) Because they know that external pressure is more efficiently managed when you are in? >I disagree it would be an opportunity for the Internet community >(please remember that a global system is a closed system and there >are only win/win or lose/lose situation). In a distributed system a >center of gravity brings the system back to decentralization. This >would introduce/maintain a rigidity which would split the network. > >Wolfgang: > >Yes and know My wording is obviously misleading. The way you put it >you are right. My point is that ALAC/RALO should become a recognized >and well accepted key player in a decentralized system. ICANN and IETF want the internet to be decentralised under them. Real life world is distributed. The "conflict" with @larges is that the digital ecosystem is therefore distributed under @larges (WSIS's Society of Information as people centric). This is what the initial by-laws accepted in giving 50% to the Future (@large) and 50% to the Legacy. But the Legacy won at ICANN, and UK representing Europe in Tunis also agreed in giving the Legacy control to the USA (and emergent issues to the IGF). This is why ICANN must support status quo and contain @larges, as long as they do not have a clear understanding of their future mission. ICANN is quite consistent with itself. Our role is to help/force it to stay consistent with reality. For 9 years my ICANN motto is "get real". >Wolfgang >I did not really undertand the disucsison on france@large. You will >help me to understand it better in Paris. We did not either. And we still do not even understand the answer we received in English. (We do not expect French to be clearer, but the text to have been reworded. This is probably why translations will take months). >Wolfgang: >Agreed, but even if in your opinion ALAC staff would become illoyal >if they do c&d we should ask for doing this. The staff is not an >instrument to control the consituencies, the staff is a service >provider for the consituencies. This is my reading from the ICANN >bylaws. And this is part of a bigger story if it comes to the >relaitonshipo between the Board and the ICANN staff I said BoD in thinking to the one who is in control :-) (he actually is the one who signs the Staff's pay checks !) He has an architectural policy, as Google has another one. I have a third one. This boils down to where the IANA is. At ICANN, at Google or at each @large. Which one is the most stable, secure, resillient, innovative and credible: none scores 5/5 today due to the credibility factor computed from what people think, not from what things are. I do not oppose this: this is an Internet traditional way to filter our crazy ideas: "running code". "Test it !" We could have done it together (this is what ICANN proposed in 2001 [ICP-3]). france@large did it on a large scale enough, and as per ICANN requirements. We know we are wasting time now. We also know it is a startegy against us :-) jfc

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] TR : Improvement of the win-win relationship between theStaffand the At-Large Community
by Tommi Karttaavi June 11, 2008

June 11, 2008

Frederic, all, Below, please find the answers of ISOC Finland to the questions 1 through 5. We didn't manage to come up with anything to the last two. Best regards, Tommi ------------------------------------- 1. What issues are most important to your RALO and your region? Reliability of the current DNS service, both technically and as a service independent of politics. Maintaining the current independence of ICANN is very important. 2. How can we help make your time efficient? Some kind of document that outlines all the documents, tools, websites, guidelines etc. that are available for At-Large Structure organisations would be helpful. If such a document/web page exists, a pointer to it would be nice. In general, we would like to know better what is going on. The web sites Pertaining to At-Large should be better organised and structured and give more information. Having to go through hundreds of received emails is not a very efficient way of finding information when you need it. A mailing list for Finnish people who are interested in ICANN would be a big help. Can ICANN provide that? 3. What challenges and opportunities do you see for your region? It is difficult to find people who are interested or even aware that ICANN exists. 4. How could we increase interaction between communities? That's a tough one. Everybody has a zillion other fora besides this they are supposed to follow. So community website is not the answer, if it is "just another wiki I have lost the password to". Mailing lists are a good but very limited tool. Building real interaction is a difficult task. 5. What are the top three priorities you would list for your regions? - keeping ICANN independent - having a working DNS - implementing IPv6 6. What are the top three objectives you would like to see achieved for your regions? 7. What are the top three activities you would like to see implemented and practiced in your region?

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community
by JFC Morfin June 11, 2008

June 11, 2008

Dear Wolfgang, I suppose that these answers are also here to be discussed? Your points are well made. We obviously have a slightly different vision of the network.May I say that I feel you are more ICANN centric, ISO is user centric and WSIS and I are person centric (this in my mind is neither a critic, nor a something very differentiated, just a flavor - evolutions and transitions make the things fuzzy anyway). At 10:45 11/06/2008, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Medienstadt Leipzig e.V., EU-RALO: > >1. What issues being debated in ICANN do you believe are the most >important to your RALO? >User and consumer rights, in patricular with regard to the so-called >ICANN issues (including freedom of expression, date protection, >privacy, prices, security, stability, diversity, multilingualism) I fear there is a mission creep when you speak of freedom of expression? IMHO, ICANN claims two products: - IANA operations - NTIA root g/sTLD coordination >2. How can we help make the time you spend on ICANN issues as >valuable and efficient to you as possible? >a. To avoid long and time consuming buerocratical procedures and discussions >b. to concentrate on substance and relevant issues >c. to imrpove the interaction with other ICANN constituencies >d. to work towards a more significant AL representation in the BoD >(from Voice to Vote) Amen. Except that Staff cannot work against corporate policy rules and by-laws without a BoD reformation mandate. My feeling is that it is up to us to obtain that mandate. Since we only have Voice and no Vote, we can only use external pressure until ICANN respects its Charter again. >3. What challenges and opportunities do you see for your RALO and >for At-Large more generally (in the context of ICANN work)? > >ALAC and the RALO mechanism have a great opportunity (and >responsibility) to become the center of gravity for individual >Internet users around the globe. I disagree it would be an opportunity for the Internet community (please remember that a global system is a closed system and there are only win/win or lose/lose situation). In a distributed system a center of gravity is bring the system back to decentralization. This would introduce/maintain a rigidity which would split the network. >For ICANN as a whole such an acceptance would produce a much higher >level of legitimacy and would help ICANN to become - as stated in >the Annex to the JPA - a model of a multistakeholder organisation. To be a model implies there are other similar organisations which can copy from it. I fully agree with this. The role of @larges, as I see it, is to be the lubricant which permits their intergoverance not to grip. >If ICANN can achieve this, it will be much safer against a new wave >of efforts by various (governmental) groups to get a more direct >governmental oversight over the management of critical Internet >ressources. This is in particular important in the context of the IGF. If Governments were a danger through the IGF it would mean that @larges have poorly participated to the IGF they obtained. @larges' legitimacy as the IGF leaders (as being in each of the poles of governance as we made them defined and documented) is THE @large dramatic success at the WSIS. The IGF is "us", the ALAC may be "you" when ICANN is "they". This is were we have two different point of view: for you @larges should help ICANN to control the Internet, for me @larges should help ICANN to become the best possible example of support of the @large control on their own Internets throughout the common Internet. > 4. How interaction between and within RALOs be increased? > >Specialized F2F meetings, also on the local/rgional level are important. Yes. > Workshops, Round Tables etc. with opportunities for remote > participation are very helpful but have to be prepared carefully. > There has to be substance für such events, not just "coming > together and strengthening relationships". A workplan which would > identify three to five main priority topics for individual Internet > users for a period of three or five years would helpful. Based on > working papers, such a process could produce a discussion around > issues aimed at a final document which could lead to an "At Large > Publication Series" where users get quick access to answers. I am somewhat less practically optimistic than you. There is a growing france@large/FGI-FR consensus that we need a new comprehensive set of tools, based upon the state of the art (webDAV, RSS, ATOM, Wiki, Semantic Wiki, Mioga2, and more to come) to build an on-line maieutics oriented towards a new ad-hoc understanding of documents and document presentation to support multiconsensus (to possibly present in the same document opposing local consensus and their interoperations possibilities). >5. What are the top three things you would like your RALO to achieve? >a. to stablize its still fragile institutional structure >b. to do more outreach to get a sub-regional geographical balance >(in case of EU-RALO this means CEEC, Russia but also Northern Europe >(Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Greenland) ... and france@large :-) >c. to produce more substance / input Yes. But I am afraid there is a big split between the world as ICANN wants us to evangelize it and the world as we observe and make it. To realise that, I suggest you access our flow-chart: http://franceatlarge.org/org.htm. We have not understood the second reason why Staff opposed france@large, but we feel it is because a part from not existing, we are existing too much. This, certainly is a problem. What an ALS is permitted to do. There is a confusion to clarify in Paris : @larges are Internet @larges, not only ICANN @larges (at least in our opinion). This is why we consider much substance, including but not dedicated substance about/for ICANN. >d. to become a key player in the EURO-IGF you are more than welcome - both to http://euro-igf.eu and http://euro-igf.org. >6. What are the top three things you believe ICANN Staff could do >to help your RALO? >a.reduce the burocratical barriers to get things done >b.organize financial support for local and regional activities >c. fight for ALAC interests and positions within the ICANN burocracy >d. help to transform ALAC into an ALSO which would give the AL the >same right as the three other SOs have, that is to send two voting >directors to th Board. As I indicated, c and d are things Staff cannot loyally do unless for example we obtain a joint review committee to be convened by the BoD. These are things ALAC should certainly do. I will give you an example of key mission for an ALSO. ICANN is in charge (MoU with IETF) of the IANA operations and of what is related to Names and Numbers, IETF retaining control on Parameters (even if ICANN tend to pretend it is in charge of Parameters too). Now there is another important IANA area which is not allocated which is the description of the inter-users direct exchange protocols. This means all what users need to communicate in addition to addresses, domain names and protocol parameters. This includes for example : language documentation (IANA ccTLD Tables and Language Sub-Tag Registry), new product specifications (ALSO should review all the IETF/WG-Charters as IAB does. IAB is for architectural consistency, ALSO should be for usage convenience and interoperability with non-Internet solution of the digital convergence. Netiquette should also be documented, there. Terminology too. Etc... jfc

1 0

Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community
by At-Large Staff June 10, 2008

June 10, 2008

In case you did not get this Email today, please find below the Email sent by the At-Large Staff Dear All: You will have received At-Large Staff¹s (Frederic Teboul¹s) recent email asking some questions of you as a member of the At-Large community and some of you have already replied. As there have been a few questions about the message, we would like to provide some additional information. Firstly, we want to emphasize that this effort is meant to be a collaborative process we are asking you to provide information so that we can combine your answers with others in the At-Large community and create a summary of the community¹s views on how its involvement in ICANN can be better supported. We will share the aggregated input with you, along with an analysis of the trends that we see, and our thoughts on how we might collectively Staff and community - respond to the Regional At-Large Organizations¹ needs to support greater involvement in ICANN. After community discussion and concurrence, an Action Plan will be publicly posted and implemented. To be clear, the questions you have been asked to respond to relate only to the At-Large community and its involvement in ICANN. To avoid any confusion, we are re-stating the questions below, and would appreciate receiving your thoughts. This exercise is part of Staff's ongoing effort to better serve the At-Large community. It is not related to the completely separate and independent ³ALAC Review² currently being conducted under the auspices of the Board as part of their process for reviewing all ICANN structures. We know you are all busy and that you volunteer for your At-Large group and ICANN in your spare time. On reflection, we therefore think the original deadline was overly ambitious. It would be a great help if we could get a good set of responses on or before the end of the Paris ICANN meeting (25th June). This will allow us to move on to the next steps in the process mentioned above in due course. That said, of course the kind of input we seek in this short questionnaire is always welcome we are always glad to hear your thoughts, concerns and ideas. For your convenience, below you will find a restated set of the same questions. 1. What issues being debated in ICANN do you believe are the most important to your RALO? 2. How can we help make the time you spend on ICANN issues as valuable and efficient to you as possible? 3. What challenges and opportunities do you see for your RALO and for At-Large more generally (in the context of ICANN work)? 4. How interaction between and within RALOs be increased? 5. What are the top three things you would like your RALO to achieve? 6. What are the top three things you believe ICANN Staff could do to help your RALO? Many thanks in advance for your time with these questions but also with ICANN! Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

[Reminder] new gTLD Briefing Session @ Wed 11 Jun 13:30 – 14:30 ()
by Google Calendar June 10, 2008

June 10, 2008

euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, this is a reminder for Title: new gTLD Briefing Session Time: Wed 11 Jun 13:30 – 14:30 (Time zone: GMT (no daylight saving)) Where: Adigo Teleconference Calendar: Description: 1330 UTC. Please visit the following URL for details. There will also be an Adobe connect meeting room. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?briefing_session_on_new_gtld_programme You can view this event at http://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=cTEybTIyMTVvaWFoNGh1cz… You are receiving this courtesy email at the account euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google account at http://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.

1 0

CONFIRMED: new gTLD Briefing Session 11 June 1330 UTC
by At-Large Staff June 7, 2008

June 7, 2008

Dear all, The Briefing Session on ICANN¹s new gTLD program will be on Wednesday, 11 June at 1330 UTC. Ms. Karla Valente, from ICANN¹s new gTLD program and Mr. Olof Nordling, Manager of Policy Development Coordination will give a presentation on the new gTLD programme, including an update on the staff implementation planning. The briefing is designed to focus on the programme from an Internet end-users¹ perspective; members of GNSO constituencies are being invited to join the briefing. Subsequently, they will be available to answer some of your questions, both about the GNSO Policy presented to the Board and the implementation planning for the programme. Please visit the meeting page to find participation instructions and reference material for this presentation. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?briefing_session_on_new_gtld_programme We will soon upload Karla Valente¹s PowerPoint presentation to the meeting page and you will also be able to follow the presentation in real time, chat and ask questions using the Adobe Connect meeting room for this presentation. The Adobe Connect link is also on the meeting page. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] [ALAC-Internal] Notice of Opening for Board Liaison Nominations Period
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 5, 2008

June 5, 2008

As a point of clarification, nominations or self-nominations per the Rules of Procedure (Rule 9.2) may only be made by ALAC members. On 05/06/2008 14:23, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> wrote: Dear Wolf, I nominate Sebastien Bachollet. jfc PS. I know that france@large Members who do not exist cannot nominate candidate right-now nor france@large to vote. But who knows if this will not have been corrected before the closure of the vote. I also suppose that, as one of the largest and most involved European ALS, our opinion should be considered. I do not nominate Sebastien because he is French and because I know him well, but due to his long and successful experience with ICANN issues as a non-American citizen, a former BC active leader, a specialist of the Internet Governance, the founder and organiser of the EGENI leading meeting on Naming Governance, the French ISOC Chapter Chair, an active Civil Society actor at the IGF and the Chair of the AGIFEM project which made ICANN to come in Paris and made the resulting costs financed. IMHO this is the kind of experience and of doer ALAC need to liaise with the BoD and keep them moving in the proper direction (which is necessarily @large oriented) if we want ICANN to survive the transition (JPA and IGF) as an international entity. At 13:01 05/06/2008, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >we received a call from the ALAC Chair recently on the Opening for >Board Liaison Nominations Period for the position of the At-Large >Liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors. This position is currently >held by Wendy Seltzer, a law professor from the US who I had the >pleasure to meet in February in New Delhi. _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

Re: [EURO-Discuss] [ALAC-Internal] Notice of Opening for Board Liaison Nominations Period
by Wolf Ludwig June 5, 2008

June 5, 2008

Dear all, we received a call from the ALAC Chair recently on the Opening for Board Liaison Nominations Period for the position of the At-Large Liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors. This position is currently held by Wendy Seltzer, a law professor from the US who I had the pleasure to meet in February in New Delhi. For more details about Wendy and her background see http://wendy.seltzer.org/. Wendy was nominated now again by several members of the At-Large community. I would have preferred to discuss this issue at our meetings in Paris but the Nominations will close at 1800 UTC 16th June, 2008, and must be sent to the Public ALAC list – that means in about ten days and before our Paris reunions. If there are no other ideas from the EURALO community, I would like to support Wendy’s nomination but I prefer to do this with prior consultations of our Board members and the list. Please let me know your opinions on this issue within the next eight days whether we can express such a support in the name of EURALO. Thanks and regards, Wolf Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote Mon, 2 Jun 2008 22:14: >Notice to: At-Large, ALS, RALO and ALAC Members. > >As required by Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the At-Large Advisory >Committee, I hereby (at 1200 UTC on June 2nd 2008), open the nominations for >the position of the At-Large Liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors. The >successful candidate will serve in this position from the end of the 2008 >ICANN Annual General Meeting, for a period of one (1) year. > >Nominations will close at 1800 UTC fourteen (14) days from today, 16th >June, 2008, and must be sent to the Public ALAC list. > >Nominees are required, per Rule 9.3, to accept their nomination (also to the >Public list) not less than seven (7) days from the close of nominations, or >1800 UTC on 23rd June, 2008. > >I shall announce the opening and closing dates and times for the votes, with >an "election summary and election call message to the Public List", >subsequent to June 23rd. > >Rules relating to this position include:- > >4.4 All liaisons serve for a term of one year starting from the >closure of an Annual General Meeting and ending at the closure of the >following Annual General Meeting. > >4.5 Liaisons shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the >following criteria: > >4.6 They shall normally be persons who are current or former members >of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of >ICANN and of the ALAC; > >4.7 They shall accept to serve on behalf of the AT LARGE COMMUNITY by >acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences >and build consensus, but also recognizing difference and enabling different >opinions to be shared; > >4.8 They shall accept, while acting in their capacity as ALAC >representative, to put the collective views of the ALAC, always, in front of >their own. > > > The complete Qualification Criteria found in Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules of >Procedure found at ><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi/ALAC%20ROP's%20Adopted%20October%202007 >.doc?action=attachments_download;page_name=rules_of_procedure;id=20071023183 >147-0-6223> >https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi/ALAC%20ROP's%20Adopted%20October%202007. >doc?action=attachments_download;page_name=rules_of_procedure;id=200710231831 >47-0-6223. > >Regards, > >Cheryl Langdon-Orr > >ALAC Chair, 2007-2008 > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Internal mailing list >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > >ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net http://blog.allmend.ch - Digitale Allmend

3 3

Re: [EURO-Discuss] [ALAC-Internal] Notice of Opening for Board Liaison Nominations Period
by JFC Morfin June 5, 2008

June 5, 2008

Dear Wolf, I nominate Sebastien Bachollet. jfc PS. I know that france@large Members who do not exist cannot nominate candidate right-now nor france@large to vote. But who knows if this will not have been corrected before the closure of the vote. I also suppose that, as one of the largest and most involved European ALS, our opinion should be considered. I do not nominate Sebastien because he is French and because I know him well, but due to his long and successful experience with ICANN issues as a non-American citizen, a former BC active leader, a specialist of the Internet Governance, the founder and organiser of the EGENI leading meeting on Naming Governance, the French ISOC Chapter Chair, an active Civil Society actor at the IGF and the Chair of the AGIFEM project which made ICANN to come in Paris and made the resulting costs financed. IMHO this is the kind of experience and of doer ALAC need to liaise with the BoD and keep them moving in the proper direction (which is necessarily @large oriented) if we want ICANN to survive the transition (JPA and IGF) as an international entity. At 13:01 05/06/2008, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >we received a call from the ALAC Chair recently on the Opening for >Board Liaison Nominations Period for the position of the At-Large >Liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors. This position is currently >held by Wendy Seltzer, a law professor from the US who I had the >pleasure to meet in February in New Delhi.

1 0