November 2010 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

ATRT Issues Request for Public Comment on its Draft Recommendations
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 4, 2010

Nov. 4, 2010

Dear All, The Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) issued a request for public comment on a set of set of draft proposed recommendation today. You can find the full announcement (in English) and the draft proposed recommendations (available in the English, Spanish, French, Chinese, Russian and Arabic) under: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03nov10-en.htm The Public Comment period will be open for 30 days and will close on December 3, 2010. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Revised Timeline for Board Director Selection Process
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 4, 2010

Nov. 4, 2010

Dear All, During its extraordinary meeting on Monday, the At-Large Board Director Selection design team (ABSdt) confirmed the following, revised timeline for the Board Selection Process: Please note that petition by RALOs now has a closing date of 7 November 28 October: BCEC to announce slate of 3-7 candidates and SOI details; 28 October - 15 November: Campaigning period for candidates; On or before 7 November: RALO petition processes to be completed; 12 - 15 November*: A community call with the final slate of candidates will be held; 15 - 22 November** : RALO discussions on candidates 22 - 25 November: First round of online voting on final slate of candidates; 26 28 November: Second round of online voting on final slate of candidates (only if necessary) 10 December: Successful candidate takes seat on ICANN Board. (*) early UTC time (**) RALOs can extend this deadline until 25 November if desired Attached you find the updated flowchart for the At-Large Board Director Selection process. Detailed information about the candidates and the selection process are available under: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Director+Candidate+2010 +Workspace -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Crude ICANN quote
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 4, 2010

Nov. 4, 2010

.org -- in the public interest .xxx -- in the pubic interest *Richard Sexton, on Facebook*

1 0

FW: Seat 15: request for inclusion in the Final Candidate List.
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

Please find below a message forwarded from Jean-Jacques Subrenat. You can find Jean-Jacques¹ Statement of Interest for Seat 15 of the ICANN Board under: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/2265195/At-Large+Director+A pplicant+-+Jean-Jacques+Subrenat.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=128832185600 0 Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ------ Forwarded Message From: "jjs.global(a)gmail.com" <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 04:02:42 -0700 To: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: Seat 15: request for inclusion in the Final Candidate List. Dear At-Large Staff, this is to formally request that my Statement of Interest for Seat 15 of the ICANN Board, already presented to and considered by the BCEC, be submitted to the RALOs. The reference for my above request is ³ALAC Internal Rules of Procedure², section 27.6 on ³Final Candidate List². In support of my renewed candidature, I wish to underline three facts: - my candidature was already submitted to and considered by the BCEC for the establishment of its Slate of Candidates, so I am not sending you my Statement of Interest, which you hold and which is now also online; - the time between the online publication of the BCEC Slate of Candidates, and the upcoming deadline for candidatures to be considered and submitted by RALOs (7 November, if I¹m not mistaken), is now extremely short, which is why I request that you, as At-Large Staff, forward this request to the RALOs as soon as possible; - currently attending the ICANN Board Retreat in California, I am quite occupied with my duties as a Board Director. Would you be so kind as to acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, so that I can be certain it has reached you? Thanks. Regards, Jean-Jacques. ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] The At-Large ICANN Board Candidate Selection
by Chris Grundemann Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 08:45, Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com> wrote: > The notion that a petition process supported by multiple RALOs would > be taken as a mark of disrespect to the committee and its work is > groundless. A committee would have to have a rarified view of itself > and its own importance to think anything like that, and I am sure > that isn't the case with the committee in question. > > The petition process just adds to the transparent and open flavor of > ALAC. And perhaps it is a tad "mavericky" which is ALAC's birthright > after all. :-) I must agree. Petitions are a part of the process, and not without reason. A successful petition shows that the system works, not that it's broken. ~Chris > -- > "These young kids today don't remember the packet wars of the early > 90s, when we had to carry a SPARC station through the snow for > hundreds of miles until we reached a POP...." -- Jean Armour Polly > http://www.netmom.com/ > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ > -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] The At-Large ICANN Board Candidate Selection
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

Dear Colleagues & Friends: I hope you don't mind my 2 cents but I would wish to support the position argued by Darlene and others. We cannot disavow the role personality plays in these matters but let us be cautious on this. I like and have tremenduous respect for Avri. I deeply respect several others on the list who, too, didn't make the cut. But I hold that invoking the petition process at this time is counterproductive and, even more corrosive, rubbishes the work of the BCEC committee. The objective remains; the At-Large wishes to fill Seat No 15 on the ICANN Board with a member sympathetic, if not committed, to the At-Large agenda. The ABSdt Committee collected attributes and spent many months defining the candidate attribute set and selection criteria. Do have another look at the SOI; it was laid out to play like it was an infomercial - for the candidate. The process devised separated determination of the selection criteria from the evaluation process; the BCEC is peopled by members from the edge of the At-Large; ALS members. They collectively designed a selection process that included, among other steps designed to reduce the influence of personality, anonymised candidates for their process. They had two passes at the candidate list. And they produced 3 finalist candidates. Now, maybe our preferred candidate did not emerge from this process. And perhaps, like doting parents who are unanimous that our children are above average, our candidate is, of right, first among equals. But in the universe of things that could've happened and until I am otherwise convinced, this is hardly reason to say of the BCEC 'you did not get this right'. Maybe the next go-round will be more favourable to our favourite candidate. Let it be. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 16:39:04 +0000 > From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1(a)GOV.NU.CA> > Subject: [NA-Discuss] FW: Fwd: ALAC BoD Candidates > To: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Message-ID: > <97657EF9087F754BBF54D3D0322DAD0F0294AE(a)IQALUITMX07.nunavut.local> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > Hi all, > > Actually, Garth Bruen did reply and stated that although he was on the > slate, too, he would oppose this. > > Why aren't we campaigning for Garth? He is excellent, too. > > This is why I *personally* think that we should allow the process to > continue and assume that the BCEC did its job. Elsewise, it comes down to > personalities and who we all like. I like Avri very much and think she > would do an excellent job but there were other people on the slate that I > thought just as qualified. > > This is just my opinion but it is also why I would be against this. I am > not going to go second guessing the very qualified people on the BCEC. > > D > > Darlene A. Thompson > CAP Administrator > N-CAP/Department of Education > P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 > Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 > (867) 975-5610 > dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > ________________________________________ >

2 1

Fwd: ALAC BoD Candidates
by Avri Doria Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

To the members of NARALO: I sent the message below to Evan and he recommended I make my appeal directly to the list. My membership in NARALO is based on membership in ISOC-NY. I, therefore, ask this RALAO directly to consider endorsing me as a petition candidate to the ICANN BoD list. I believe that I offer an alternative to the candidates already on that list and that I would represent a strong position in favor of the interests of Internet users. As I mention below, I am available to answer any questions you might have. Thanks a. Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > Date: 29 October 2010 20:38:17 EDT > To: evan(a)telly.org > > Dear Evan, > > I would appreciate it if NARALO would consider endorsing my applications as a petition candidate. > > My statement can be found at: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/2265195/At-Large+Director+…> > > I am available to answer any questions the RALAO might have. > > Thank you, > > Avri

8 12

FW: My Issues with the At-Large Election Process
by Heidi Ullrich Nov. 2, 2010

Nov. 2, 2010

Dear All, Please see below a message sent by Danny Younger on the subject of the At-Large Board Director selection process. Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 6:11 AM To: ICANN At-Large Staff Subject: My Issues with the At-Large Election Process [Please forward to all the appropriate at-large and RALO lists] Dear members of the At-Large community, By now you are aware that in the At-Large Board Director selection process 43 Statements of Interest (SOIs) were received by the Board Candidate Evaluation Committee (BCEC). Three of those SOIs were from current and sitting members of the ALAC; forty were not. By an amazing coincidence only current and former ALAC members were selected for the candidate slate. On this basis alone, there are some that might wonder whether the at-large director selection process has, in fact, been captured. Others will look at the fact that the BCEC was entitled to select as many as 7 candidates (which would have allowed for more than one gender to be considered, or would have allowed for some "non-insiders" to be considered), and yet the BCEC for some unfathomable reason decided to narrow the field of otherwise qualified candidates down to only the three that were sitting or prior ALAC members... still another reason to suspect capture. We know that the ICANN Board Governance Committee had concerns about capture; their meeting minutes state: "Reviewed the proposed At-Large Board member selection process and potential risks of capture identified within the process." While their assessment was that the risk of capture was low, the preliminary election results tendered can readily lead one to a different conclusion. One also has to look at the fact that 49% of all SOIs were rejected before the process even began (ostensibly because they were deemed to be too incomplete to proceed further). In what other election process are that many candidates rejected out of hand before the election even begins? Clearly there is something seriously wrong with this picture. If the Statement of Interest application form was so poorly written that almost half of all applications were improperly completed, then it is an inescapable conclusion that the process itself was seriously flawed. We know as well that ICANN Staff has provided a certain degree of support to some of the 22 candidates that hadn't fully completed their SOIs. At issue is why Staff didn't offer comparable support to the other 21 applicants who were initially rejected. Additionally, we are confronted with the fact that the at-large director selection process was announced on the internal ALAC-related lists on 21 July, but press releases in Arabic, Chinese (Simplified), French, German, Portugese (Brazilian), Russian and Spanish weren't issued until 26 August -- you will note that the deadline for applications was only 11 days thereafter (on 6 September). One has to wonder how many SOIs weren't received owing simply to the the short time span between the international press release date and the final application deadline. One also has to wonder about how much of an advantage was thereby given to "insiders" that were aware of the process for a full month longer than applicants who first heard about the election when the Press releases were issued in languages other than English. Recently, the ABSdt announced a revised timeline that requires the RALO petition process to be completed on or before 7 November, yet no e-mail notices have gone out to any of the candidates to advise them of the timeline changes. Is this fair to the bulk of the candidates that may not even know of the existence of the ABSdt mailing list? All of us intuitively understand that a flawed process can certainly yield a flawed outcome. So what do we do at this point? While I understand the rush to have an at-large director seated (just as I understand the rush to have new gTLDs launched), I also understand that as a community we are better served by "doing it right" than by adhering to the results of what may be perceived as a tainted or seriously flawed election process. Yes, I recognize that it is always exceedingly difficult to stop a moving train, but I remain of the view that this election process has already been damaged to the degree that it should be stopped dead in its tracks for the good of the at-large community. I understand that these views may not be popular with some, but this election process, in my opinion, has proven to be not as fair and properly orchestrated as it could have been. best regards, Danny Younger

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: Fwd: ALAC BoD Candidates
by Beau Brendler Nov. 2, 2010

Nov. 2, 2010

right...we don't have time to be exhausting ourselves on process when we should be spending our energy advocating for users...why would we waste time and hours convening them to review the backgrounds of the candidates if we are then going to disregard their choices? Surely they had to take things like geographic representation and gender into account let's move on -----Original Message----- >From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca> >Sent: Nov 2, 2010 12:39 PM >To: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [NA-Discuss] FW: Fwd: ALAC BoD Candidates > > >Hi all, > >Actually, Garth Bruen did reply and stated that although he was on the slate, too, he would oppose this. > >Why aren't we campaigning for Garth? He is excellent, too. > >This is why I *personally* think that we should allow the process to continue and assume that the BCEC did its job. Elsewise, it comes down to personalities and who we all like. I like Avri very much and think she would do an excellent job but there were other people on the slate that I thought just as qualified. > >This is just my opinion but it is also why I would be against this. I am not going to go second guessing the very qualified people on the BCEC. > >D > >Darlene A. Thompson >CAP Administrator >N-CAP/Department of Education >P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >(867) 975-5610 >dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >________________________________________ >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Evan Leibovitch [evan(a)telly.org] >Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 5:58 PM >To: Eduardo Diaz >Cc: NARALO Discussion List >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: ALAC BoD Candidates > >On 1 November 2010 17:05, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have only received emails supporting Avry. I have not seen the opposing >> ones. >> >> Evan: Can you generalize the reasons why some are against it? >> > > >Some are opposed to a specific petition (for Avri). > >Others are against having a petition at all (ie, the BCEC did its job and we >trust its people that did what they were asked to do). The implication is >that, since the BCEC _could_ have put more than three candidates on the >ballot, it must have had sufficient reason to limit the final cut to the >three that it did. > >That's as much of a generalization as I feel comfortable doing. > >As for the reasons why these comments were made privately, I can only >speculate that it's because we're talking about people rather than policies >... and some NARALO members commenting may believe that they could be >treated differently by their peers for speaking their opinions honestly. >It's not for me to judge if those beliefs are warranted. > >Those people have, for certain, read the calls here for open debate. It is >their call how they choose to proceed. I am simply noting the fact that, >unusually for NARALO, we have a significant divide. > >I myself am genuinely undecided. I like Avri personally and professionally, >I work with her on committees and greatly appreciate what she brings to >end-user advocacy. I also trust the judgments of the people on the BCEC, >including NARALO's two representatives. I know they had a very difficult >task, and I am confident that a suitable advocate for Internet end-users can >be elected from amongst the three people that the BCEC *did* submit. At this >point I am more concerned about the campaign becoming a Jerry Springer >episode on a global stage than I am about sending an unqualified person to >the position. > >Right now the only thing of which I am certain is that I am thoroughly >exhausted by this whole process, long before the vote takes place. > >- Evan >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: ALAC BoD Candidates
by Michael Maranda Nov. 2, 2010

Nov. 2, 2010

I don't know Avri, but I have respect for those who have publicly endorsed her, and I see no problem with a petition process. MM

2 1