April 2007 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Information on ICANN's structure
by Luc Faubert April 29, 2007

April 29, 2007

Hello all, During our teleconference some participants said they would like more information on ICANN's structure. I've posted a diagram of the composition of the board and a link to more ICANN information at the bottom of http://www.icannwiki.org/The_North_American_Regional_At-Large_Organizati on , _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/>

3 3

Minutes of Friday's conference call
by Luc Faubert April 29, 2007

April 29, 2007

Hello all, Here are the minutes of last Friday's coference call. Thanks a bunch to Darlene Thompson for taking the notes. ================================================================ Minutes of Tele-Conference April 27, 2007 NARALO Telcon Attending: Darlene Thompson (ALS), Evan Leibovitz (ALS), Luc Faubert (ALS), Gareth Shearman (applicant), Brett Fausett (ALS), Jean Polly (unaffiliated user), Gerry Singleton (ALS), Randy Glass (ALS) Brett Fausett moderating as Nick Ashton-Hart was missing. Meeting started at 3:10. 1. Validation of our NARALO formation schedule by ICANN staff Brett: We are presently voting on the OP and COC on the NA ALS list. Each accredited ALS has two votes. Darlene: So far 9 have voted with 2 against. Brett: We haven't set a final date for votes but we should leave it open for about a week. Luc: We need 70% for quorum but two have not been participating much so this might be difficult. Brett: We can't really act as a group until we have a "group". We need to ratify the OP and then sign the MOU. Brett: We need to have a procedure for un-certifying an unresponsive ALS. Luc: The OP needs to be approved by 70% of the active ALSs as per the OP. General: There are several ways to classify as "inactive" - postings on the list, registration on the Wiki, try to contact them and get their feedback. Luc: He has definitely done outreach to all to try to get them involved. Nobody on this call has voted "no" to the OP or COC. So far, we have two unaffiliated (individual) users who have submitted their candidacy on the list as unaffiliated user voting delegates (Jean & Wendy). The two "no" votes that we have raised concerns over the COC that we all pretty much agree on so how can we agree to vote on the amendment? Perhaps we should just wait and see how the voting goes. If we get 70% yeses, then it's a moot point. If after Tuesday night, we do not have 70%, then maybe we need to make the changes and then revisit. Why are we allowing 2 reps per ALS? Is it done that way in other regions? It allows unaffiliated individuals to have 2 votes and it also allows for differing opinions coming out of one organization. If an ALS is divided internally, they can then express that through their voting process. Since we cannot discuss this with the dissenters, there probably isn't much more to talk about. In regards to the bicameral structure, we should try to get set up as best we can right now and then revisit later (by following the ICANN model for now). Let's demonstrate that we can get the basics down before we try something new. Randy: Lets consolidate the wording on the COC so that we can all agree on it and then also add some provisional statements into the OP to state that we are not opposed to more individual representation and will re-visit. Luc: Lets make the changes to the COC right away if we all agree and then re-vote. Jean: The reason why the "individual" thing is important is because it's revisited in the MOU (as to whether they are allowed or not) so we should get this nailed down as soon as possible. The code of conduct is binding but the consequences are not. Some may find this to be a little weird. The main purpose behind this is so that people know that there is a code of conduct and *hopefully* we never have to use it. Should there be some consultation by the chair to the group if there is a perception of abuse, et al? 2. Discuss MOU between NARALO and ICANN The ratification of our MOU is scheduled for May 11. We need to have closure on our OP before moving onto the MOU. ICANN legal will not approve the MOU with the two last paragraphs in there so we will need to revisit/eliminate them. Although there are some battles that we really need to fight, this isn't one of them. 3. Brainstorm issues/positions to raise at ICANN San Juan meeting Luc: We could push to have 5 new voting board members (one from each region) representing individual users. Brett: We will be able to vote on a member of the nominating committee once we get formed. The present person serving has been doing so for the maximum amount of time so we will have to find somebody else. We need to have a clear picture of who does what in ICANN and who has voting privileges and who is simply an observer. We need to ask ICANN to prepare some kind of orientation document for all ALSs. Luc will post a chart on the composition of the ICANN board. We need to give ICANN information as to who from each ALS is going to San Juan so that they can make up an "approved delegates" list. 4. Other business We need to get "pending" ALSs approved. Apparently there will be a vote on this next week.

1 0

Changes to OP
by Luc Faubert April 28, 2007

April 28, 2007

Hello all, I've made changes and additions to our OP: - added criteria for individual reps to the GA, - added compliance to our Code of Conduct (still to be determined), - added wording to say we vote for our Secretariat, - made explicit that ALAC terms are for 2 years. I hope this is all satisfactory. We still need to define our Code of Conduct. If anybody wants to help, we should ideally do this before ratifying our OP this week, as the OP parag. 17 now says that participation to NARALO implies agreement to the Code of Conduct, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/>

9 24

Link to NARALO information (reminder)
by Luc Faubert April 27, 2007

April 27, 2007

A reminder to all that you will find the information relevant to NARALO at: http://www.icannwiki.org/The_North_American_Regional_At-Large_Organizati on _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/>

1 0

vote
by G. Roderick Singleton April 27, 2007

April 27, 2007

op prov -- yes code of conduct -- yes -- G. Roderick Singleton <gerry(a)cluecan.ca>

1 0

Operating Principles and Code of Conduct
by Scott Hazen Mueller April 27, 2007

April 27, 2007

As one of the representatives for CAUCE, I vote NO on the proposed Operating Principles and Code of Conduct. -- Scott Hazen Mueller | zorch(a)cauce.org or scott(a)zorch.SF-Bay.ORG Chairman and Founder, CAUCE (US); http://www.cauce.org/. Director and Founder, International Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (iCAUCE); http://www.international.cauce.org/.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [NA-ALS] ACTION REQUIRED: Vote for our Operating Principles
by Wendy Seltzer April 27, 2007

April 27, 2007

Re: the Code of Conduct Note that any email that forwarded another's mail could be alleged to infringe a copyright (though in many instances there'd be a fair use defense, I don't really think that copyright or trademark belongs in the code of conduct). --Wendy Luc Faubert wrote: > Hello all, > > Today we vote to ratify our NARALO Operating Principles and Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > > Please send your votes to this list. I will tally the votes. > > Each ALS has 2 votes. I'm copying the 2 reps from IP&T because they are not subscribed to the list yet. > > My vote as one of the reps for ISOC Québec is to accept our OP and Code of Conduct, > > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

1 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP
by Evan Leibovitch April 26, 2007

April 26, 2007

Wendy Seltzer wrote: > I don't want to devalue the ALSs, Yet you proposed a system that does just that. > but I do want to empower the individuals within and outside them. > The creation of a catch-all pseudo-ALS, offers fair involvement; anything beyond that empowers some to the penalty of others. As I've said before, the goal here is should not be to give multiple points of entry to the existing insiders who know how to exploit the fine print, but to provide encouragement to those who aren't even yet part of the process. The emphasis should be to encourage participation through ALSs -- existing or potential -- with bypassing them through direct participation being seen as a last resort rather than a preferred method of access. We need a process that is not only fair but that _appears_ fair, and that means not elevating the influence of the would-be elite at the outset. In my own opinion, anyone who is more interested in policy than ego should have no problem participating through an ALS (or -- failing that -- joining a NPO that shares their views and spearheading a move for that NPO to become an ALS). I have little sympathy for those who are too self-important to give the ALS process a chance; their greed and impatience should not be rewarded. - Evan

4 5

ICANN Seeks Public Comments on Proposed Terms of Reference for Independent Review of the ALAC
by Robert Guerra April 26, 2007

April 26, 2007

Please note that the deadline to send comments is - April 30th - THREE DAYS FROM NOW. I would encourage all those who have expressed a comment on the NA RALO process and/or comments on ALAC in general to submit comments . regards Robert Guerra -- http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07.htm ICANN Seeks Public Comments on Proposed Terms of Reference for Independent Review of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) 30 March 2007 Português - http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07- pt.htm Español - Français - http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07- fr.htm ICANN is seeking public comments on proposed Terms of Reference, which detail questions that would guide the independent review of ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee. The public comment period will last from 30 March 2007 to 29 April 2007. Send comments to: <alac- review-tor(a)icann.org>. View comments at: <http://forum.icann.org/ lists/alac-review-tor/>. ICANN's Board Governance Committee (BGC) approved a proposed plan for the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) review, and ICANN's Board agreed and directed staff to post proposed Terms of Reference for public comments. Proposed Terms of Reference Review of the ALAC will be conducted in an objective way by an entity or entities independent of it, under guidance from the Board on the Review's Terms of Reference. The results of the Review shall be posted for public review and comment, and shall be considered by the Board not later than its second scheduled meeting after being posted for 30 days. ICANN's bylaws require that Supporting Organisations, Councils and Advisory Committees be independently reviewed. As provided in the Bylaws, consideration by the Board includes the ability to revise the structure or operation of the ALAC by a two- thirds vote of all members. Recognizing that the ALAC and the global At-Large infrastructure that includes "Regional At-Large Organizations" and groups certified as "At-Large Structures" are interconnected, the Review will address all of these elements of At-Large involvement in ICANN. There are several important questions that the Review should address, which are listed below. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, particularly as the initial results of the Review may suggest related questions that should also be answered. A. Scope of Review In accordance with Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 of ICANN bylaws, the review of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is designed to determine: * Whether the organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure; and * If so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. Both of these questions should be answered as comprehensively as possible, taking into account the rationale for the ALAC and its functioning so far. Key questions that the Review should consider are indicated below. As noted above, this list is not intended to be exhaustive, particularly as the initial results of the Review may suggest related questions that should also be answered. It will be important to consider the questions from different perspectives relevant to the ALAC, including the views of individual Internet users, the ALSs, the RALOs, past and current members of the ALAC, and many others within (and perhaps outside of) the ICANN community. B. Rationale for the ALAC The rationale for the ALAC, as described in Article XI, Section 2, 4 (a) of the Bylaws, is "to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users." PART I. Does the ALAC have a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure? 1. What purpose does the ALAC serve? 2. Why should an ALS seek certification and work to create a RALO? 3. Why should an individual Internet user seek to participate in the ICANN process through the ALAC? 4. To what extent has the ALAC provided advice on the activities of ICANN insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users? 5. Are these interests different than the interests represented by other parts of the ICANN structure? 6. How does the ALAC determine what advice to provide on particular ICANN activities? 7. Are individual Internet users appropriately represented by an advisory committee to the Board, and the ALAC specifically? 8. What should be the purpose of the ALAC going forward? 9. What other ways might exist to provide advice on ICANN activities from the perspective of individual Internet users? 10. Is it appropriate, as recommended by the LSE GNSO Review, to combine the At-Large community and the Non-Commercial Users Constituency in one GNSO constituency? 11. What are the current benefits, drawbacks and costs of the ALAC and the At-Large structure? 12. What are the benefits, drawbacks and costs of these other options? PART II. Is there any change in structure or operations that could improve the ALAC's effectiveness? Structure 13. Are the criteria for certifying ALSs and creating RALOs sufficient? 14. How many ALSs have been certified, and how does this level compare to expectations and goals? Are there identifiable trends among entities that have been certified (e.g., ISOC chapters)? Are there identifiable trends among entities that have not been certified? 15. Why are all RALOs not yet established? Are those that have been established structured and supported in a way that will enable them to fulfill the responsibilities described in the bylaws? 16. To what extent do the ALAC's three different levels - ALSs, RALOs and the ALAC itself - provide advice on ICANN activities? Does this advice ever conflict? 17. Should any of these three structural levels be changed and, if so, how? 18. Given that the ALAC has more voting representatives on the Nominating Committee than any other ICANN structure (five out of 17 - almost 30%), what has been the ALAC's impact on the selection of persons for ICANN leadership positions? 19. To what extent have the ALAC's Liaisons to the Board, the GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council provided advice on ICANN policy and activities? Do non-voting liaison seats on the Board and Councils, and non-voting seats on policy Task Forces, provide sufficient input and representation for the At-Large community? 20. How do the At-Large Liaisons ensure that their advice to the Board and Councils reflect ALAC and At-Large community views? To what extent are the Liaisons conduits for information to and from the At- Large community and the Councils on which they served? Composition 21. Do the members of the Interim ALAC, and those selected (or elected) already by RALOs, indeed reflect the interests of individual Internet users? 22. What is the optimal size of the ALAC to be effective? 23. Are members of the ALAC chosen in a transparent way? 24. Have members of the ALAC had the skills needed to conduct their work effectively? 25. What should be the role of the Chair of the ALAC, and how should that person be selected? 26. Should the ALAC have other officers? Internal Procedures 27. Are the ALAC's procedures sufficient to guide all aspects of its work? 28. To what extent are the ALAC's decisions and actions consistent with its procedures? 29. How are decisions made regarding certification of ALSs and RALOs? 30. Are certification decisions subject to review and, if so, how? 31. To what extent have the recommendations of the Ombudsman been followed? 32. How can the ALAC's procedures, decisions and actions be made more transparent? 33. How have any actual or potential conflicts of interest between the ALAC members and candidates for ALS status been resolved? 34. Are safeguards in place to identify and address potential or actual conflicts of interest? 35. What kind of support has ICANN provided to the ALAC, and is this level appropriate? 36. Do members of the ALAC community believe they have the information needed to make informed decisions, in a language they can understand? 37. How are decisions made regarding ALAC positions, recommendations, resolutions, and other input provided to the Board, the GNSO and other ICANN entities? 38. How does the ALAC ensure the involvement of ALSs and RALOs in making decisions regarding policy advice, and that their advice reflects the views of the At-Large community? Outreach 39. What is the aim of At-Large outreach? 40. How effective has outreach been in recruiting ALSs and establishing RALOs? 41. How effective have online tools, include websites, wikis, blogs, and email forums been in outreach to the At-Large community? 42. Has outreach at ICANN meetings and Internet-related events had a discernable impact on the informed participation of the At-Large community? Overall 43. What are the annual costs of the ALAC process? 44. Has the ALAC had the resources necessary to accomplish its tasks? 45. What other general or specific measures could enhance its effectiveness? 46. What, if any, are the cost implications of such measures?

3 2

ALAC Review Terms of Reference Multilingual / TOR de la revisión de ALAC multilingüe / revue d'ALAC multilingue
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 26, 2007

April 26, 2007

Dear Community: The translated versions of the Draft Terms of Reference for the ALAC review are now available in Brazilian Portuguese and French. The spanish version will be available shortly. If you have not yet put your comments in please do so soon. ----FRANCAIS ---- La chère Communauté : Les versions traduites du mandat d'ébauche pour la revue d'ALAC sont maintenant disponibles dans portugais brésiliens et français. La version espagnole sera disponible bientôt. Si vous n'avez pas encore mis vos commentaires satisfont dedans font ainsi. --- PORTUGUES ---- Cara comunidade: As versões traduzidas dos termos do esboço de referência para a revisão de ALAC estão agora disponíveis em Portuguese e francês. A versão espanhola estará disponível logo. Se você não puser ainda seus comentários satisfazem dentro fazem assim. ---- ESPANOL --- Estimada comunidad: Las versiones traducidas de los términos del bosquejo de la referencia para la revisión de ALAC están disponibles ahora en portugués brasileños y francés. La versión española estará disponible pronto. Si todavía no has puesto tus comentarios adentro satisfacen hacen tan. French: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07-fr.htm Brazilian Portuguese: http://www.icann.org/announcements/ announcement-2-30mar07-pt.htm English: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07.htm --- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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

1 0