- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

NA showcase in Toronto
by Beau Brendler May 8, 2012

May 8, 2012

Greetings. So far the sentiment NOT to hold a "traditional" showcase in Toronto appears to be the consensus of the region. We have had suggestions for other ideas, however. Do we have any volunteers for coordinating a North American Toronto activity? I think time permits us to discuss this at the next NA call. Beau

2 1

Meeting Invitation / NARALO TELECONFERENCE -Monday, 14 May 2012 @ 19:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 8, 2012

May 8, 2012

Dear All, The next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 14 May 2012 at 19:00 UTC For other times: http://tinyurl.com/bov79d7 The agenda (TO BE UPDATED) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/AMTbAQ If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: < <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org ------ NA-Discuss mailing list < <mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org < <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at < <http://www.naralo.org> http://www.naralo.org> <http://www.naralo.org> http://www.naralo.org ------ ------ NA-Discuss mailing list <mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at <http://www.naralo.org> http://www.naralo.org ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Call for participants in At-large new gTLD review group - urgent
by Beau Brendler May 8, 2012

May 8, 2012

Thanks for including that additional info, Joly. I wouldn't worry at this point about qualifications vis-a-vis others. We have four respondents (nice!) and if you like I will put your name in the hat. The next step I believe is that the ALAC reviews the names and makes the decisions. The NA is supposed to forward names of interested candidates. -----Original Message----- From: Joly MacFie Sent: May 7, 2012 1:40 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, ICANN At-Large Staff Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Call for participants in At-large new gTLD review group - urgent More info on [1]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+New+gTLD+WG++-+Cal l+for+Review+Group+Members+-+April+2012 Acronym du jour: ANgWG Who do we have? I am interested, but there are others here I feel are way better qualified. How does the additional "member volunteer" process work? j On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Beau Brendler <[2]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> wrote: Greetings. There is an urgent call for participants in the At-Large new gTLD Review Group. Each region is supposed to make its recommendations to the ALAC by Tuesday, 8 May (that's tomorrow) so the ALAC can vote on these recommendations. If you are interested in joining this group, can you reply to me and/or Darlene right away so that we can submit your names? Thanks Beau ------ NA-Discuss mailing list [3]NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [4]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at [5]http://www.naralo.org ------ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - [6]http://wwwhatsup.com [7]http://pinstand.com - [8]http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - [9]http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - References 1. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+New+gTLD+WG++-+Call+fo… 2. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 3. mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org 4. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss 5. http://www.naralo.org/ 6. http://wwwhatsup.com/ 7. http://pinstand.com/ 8. http://punkcast.com/ 9. http://isoc-ny.org/

2 1

FW: Call for Membership in At-Large new gTLD Review Group- Tuesday 8 May
by Thompson, Darlene May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

See below Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca<mailto:dthompson@gov.nu.ca> From: ICANN At-Large Staff [mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 10:45 PM To: Tijani BEN JEMAA; fsylla(a)gmail.com; 'José Francisco Arce'; sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org; Charles Mok (gmail); Pavan Budhrani; beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net; Thompson, Darlene; Wolf Ludwig; Oksana Prykhodko Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff Subject: Call for Membership in At-Large new gTLD Review Group- Tuesday 8 May Importance: High Dear RALO Leaders, This is a friendly reminder that the RALOs have been asked to make their recommendations for membership to the At-Large new gTLD Review Group to the ALAC by Tuesday, 8 May 2012, so the ALAC can vote on these recommendations. The details of the requirements for membership are outlined in the message below. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ICANN At-Large Staff [mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org]> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 3:58 PM To: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; 'afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org'; apralo; Discussion for At-Large Europe; 'LACRALO discussion list'; 'lac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org'; NARALO Discussion List Cc: 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; ICANN At-Large Staff Subject: Call for Membership in At-Large new gTLD Review Group Dear All, The following call for membership of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group is sent on behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC. ** Dear All, Background The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) has approved the procedure by which At-Large and ALAC can submit public comments on and file objections to new gTLD applications as proposed by the At-Large new gTLD Working Group (ANgWG - https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs) This procedure forms the basis of the work of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG - https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+New+gTLD+Review+Group+W orkspace# <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+New+gTLD+Review+Group+ Workspace> ). The gTLD RG needs to be in place and ready to work by the date when applications are revealed and the comment period is set. Therefore, we are asking the RALOs to make their recommendations to the ALAC by 8 May 2012, so the ALAC can vote on these recommendations. The RG should be in place and up to speed by 14 May 2012 (being the approximate commencement date of the 60 day Application Comment Period and the 7 month Objection Period of the First Round). The gTLD RG is tasked with: * receiving the comments from At-Large either directly via email or indirectly via RALO conference calls; * creating/updating the new gTLD wiki comment pages; * giving status updates of which new gTLD received comments each week; * informing RALOs of deadlines for comments during the ACP, and for objection statements during the objection period; * reviewing the comments/objections received and giving ALAC its recommendations on them; * composing the final draft of the comments/objections agreed on in close cooperation with their original authors. gTLD RG term The gTLD RG term period finishes with the end of the objection period of the whole first round. gTLD RG Composition The ANgWG had determined that, at least initially, the gTLD RG be composed of: - 2 members to be recommended by each of the RALOs - 1 member volunteer from each region All members being determined by the ALAC. Should the work load require adding people to the gTLD RG at a later time, that decision can be made by the gTLD RG itself in consultation with the ANgWG. gTLD RG Requirements Members of the gTLD RG are required to: A. understand the approved ALAC procedure (https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Proposal+for+the+ALAC+ to+submit+public+comments+on+and+file+possible+objections+to+new+gTLD+Ap to+submit+public+comments+on+and+file+possible+objections+to+new+gTLD+pl to+submit+public+comments+on+and+file+possible+objections+to+new+gTLD+ic ations+2012+Workspace) by which At-Large and the ALAC can submit public comments on and file objections to new gTLD applications B. be able to use the At-Large wiki to create/edit/update wiki pages C. be able to work in English D. have an understanding of ICANN's Applicant Guidebook (AGB; http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-11jan12-en.pdf) which describes the application process for new gTLDs from start to finish E. be able to give a flexible commitment of time. It is estimated that on the average, 2-3 hours per week would be needed and there would be bi-weekly conference calls over the 7 month objection period. However, in such processes, it is typical that the majority of both comments and objection requests will occur towards the end of the 60 day comment period and 7 month objection period, so the workload will likely be heavier at those times. Presuming no changes to the Applicant Guidebook regarding comments and objections, it is anticipated that the duration of the gTLD RG tasks will be up to 1 year for this first round. F. make a Statement of Interest (SOI) in which they: a. declare that they have no Conflicts of Interest (COI); or b. disclose any possible or existing COI. A COI is defined as having an immediate past (previous 6 months), current or predetermined interest (being financial or other) in a New gTLD Applicant or any other party that is involved in any manner whatsoever with an applicant or the proposed registry. In determining COI, reference should be made to Section 2.4.3.1 at page 84 of the AGB which details some COI Guidelines. All members and RALOs will be informed of any changes in the gTLD RG's COI policy. Please note, the specific RALO the member belongs to will be asked to confirm this SOI to the best of its ALS representatives' knowledge, information and belief. Both the SOI and RALO confirmation will be reviewed by the ALAC to vet the declarations, with final approval to join the gTLD RG being determined by ALAC vote. In some instances it may be necessary for the ALAC to interview the member. SOIs of approved members of the gTLD RG will be posted on the Working Group's wiki page. It is recognized that during the course of the new gTLD Objection period, a COI possibly may occur and in such cases the member is required to promptly disclose such COIs to the gTLD RG. In any event, the SOI will be periodically reviewed by the gTLD RG, either monthly or prior to each gTLD RG call (whichever is more frequent). Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Gisella Gruber-White, Matt Ashtiani, Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

Call for participants in At-large new gTLD review group - urgent
by Beau Brendler May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

Greetings. There is an urgent call for participants in the At-Large new gTLD Review Group. Each region is supposed to make its recommendations to the ALAC by Tuesday, 8 May (that's tomorrow) so the ALAC can vote on these recommendations. If you are interested in joining this group, can you reply to me and/or Darlene right away so that we can submit your names? Thanks Beau

2 1

REMINDER: Call for Membership in At-Large new gTLD Review Group
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 5, 2012

May 5, 2012

Dear All, This is a friendly reminder that the RALOs have been asked to make their recommendations for membership to the At-Large new gTLD Review Group to the ALAC by Tuesday, 8 May 2012, so the ALAC can vote on these recommendations. The details of the requirements for membership are outlined in the message below. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org From: ICANN At-Large Staff [mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 3:58 PM To: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; 'afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org'; apralo; Discussion for At-Large Europe; 'LACRALO discussion list'; 'lac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org'; NARALO Discussion List Cc: 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; ICANN At-Large Staff Subject: Call for Membership in At-Large new gTLD Review Group Dear All, The following call for membership of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group is sent on behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC. ** Dear All, Background The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) has approved the procedure by which At-Large and ALAC can submit public comments on and file objections to new gTLD applications as proposed by the At- Large new gTLD Working Group (ANgWG - https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs) This procedure forms the basis of the work of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG - https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+New+gTLD+Review+Group+W orkspace# <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+New+gTLD+Review+Group+ Workspace> ). The gTLD RG needs to be in place and ready to work by the date when applications are revealed and the comment period is set. Therefore, we are asking the RALOs to make their recommendations to the ALAC by 8 May 2012, so the ALAC can vote on these recommendations. The RG should be in place and up to speed by 14 May 2012 (being the approximate commencement date of the 60 day Application Comment Period and the 7 month Objection Period of the First Round). The gTLD RG is tasked with: * receiving the comments from At-Large either directly via email or indirectly via RALO conference calls; * creating/updating the new gTLD wiki comment pages; * giving status updates of which new gTLD received comments each week; * informing RALOs of deadlines for comments during the ACP, and for objection statements during the objection period; * reviewing the comments/objections received and giving ALAC its recommendations on them; * composing the final draft of the comments/objections agreed on in close cooperation with their original authors. gTLD RG term The gTLD RG term period finishes with the end of the objection period of the whole first round. gTLD RG Composition The ANgWG had determined that, at least initially, the gTLD RG be composed of: - 2 members to be recommended by each of the RALOs - 1 member volunteer from each region All members being determined by the ALAC. Should the work load require adding people to the gTLD RG at a later time, that decision can be made by the gTLD RG itself in consultation with the ANgWG. gTLD RG Requirements Members of the gTLD RG are required to: A. understand the approved ALAC procedure (https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Proposal+for+the+ALAC+ to+submit+public+comments+on+and+file+possible+objections+to+new+gTLD+Applic ations+2012+Workspace) by which At-Large and the ALAC can submit public comments on and file objections to new gTLD applications B. be able to use the At-Large wiki to create/edit/update wiki pages C. be able to work in English D. have an understanding of ICANN's Applicant Guidebook (AGB; http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-11jan12-en.pdf) which describes the application process for new gTLDs from start to finish E. be able to give a flexible commitment of time. It is estimated that on the average, 2-3 hours per week would be needed and there would be bi-weekly conference calls over the 7 month objection period. However, in such processes, it is typical that the majority of both comments and objection requests will occur towards the end of the 60 day comment period and 7 month objection period, so the workload will likely be heavier at those times. Presuming no changes to the Applicant Guidebook regarding comments and objections, it is anticipated that the duration of the gTLD RG tasks will be up to 1 year for this first round. F. make a Statement of Interest (SOI) in which they: a. declare that they have no Conflicts of Interest (COI); or b. disclose any possible or existing COI. A COI is defined as having an immediate past (previous 6 months), current or predetermined interest (being financial or other) in a New gTLD Applicant or any other party that is involved in any manner whatsoever with an applicant or the proposed registry. In determining COI, reference should be made to Section 2.4.3.1 at page 84 of the AGB which details some COI Guidelines. All members and RALOs will be informed of any changes in the gTLD RG's COI policy. Please note, the specific RALO the member belongs to will be asked to confirm this SOI to the best of its ALS representatives' knowledge, information and belief. Both the SOI and RALO confirmation will be reviewed by the ALAC to vet the declarations, with final approval to join the gTLD RG being determined by ALAC vote. In some instances it may be necessary for the ALAC to interview the member. SOIs of approved members of the gTLD RG will be posted on the Working Group's wiki page. It is recognized that during the course of the new gTLD Objection period, a COI possibly may occur and in such cases the member is required to promptly disclose such COIs to the gTLD RG. In any event, the SOI will be periodically reviewed by the gTLD RG, either monthly or prior to each gTLD RG call (whichever is more frequent). Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

COMMENTS REQUESTED: Proposed At-Large Vision Statement
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 4, 2012

May 4, 2012

Dear All, The ALAC Improvements Review WG Final Report included a recommendation that "the ALAC should develop strategic and operational planning processes (including performance criteria and cost information) as part of ICANN's planning process." (Recommendation 5 <https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/Recommendation+5> ). As part of the implementation of this recommendation, the At-Large Improvements Implementation Work Team C created an action item to "articulate ALAC's and At-Large's vision and mission." The At-Large Improvements Taskforce developed a proposed At-Large Vision Statement during their meeting at the 43rd ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica. The proposed At-Large Vision Statement is: . The ALAC and At-Large community catalyzes and facilitates inclusive, meaningful participation of Internet end-users world-wide, aggregates their input and brings their voice to bear in all ICANN matters. Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, and Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chair of the At-Large Improvements Taskforce, have outlined the following next steps for the proposed At-Large Vision Statement: . 4-17 May 2012 - This proposed At-Large Vision statement is open for comments between 4-17 May 2012. Please use the comments function on this wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/esPbAQ> to add any suggestions or send your comments to At-Large Staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. . 21 May 2012 - The At-Large Improvements Taskforce will review and incorporate comments received during their 21 May meeting. . 22 May 2012 - The ALAC will review the proposed At-Large Vision Statement during their 22 May ALAC meeting and vote whether to ratify it. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the Update for Prague
by Beau Brendler May 4, 2012

May 4, 2012

I believe it was discussed and decided fairly quickly last week. It's funny, I find myself without much to say about it, because for at least three years now ICANN has not funded me to stay for Friday's meetings, so I have not attended one. I don't think they are doing away with the public forum, however. Though I know I am in the minority here, I find that to be a waste of time as well. What I have occasionally found helpful are the interactions between the board and the at-large group at the three annual meetings -- sometimes it's a breakfast, sometimes it's a lunch. On a few occasions it has provided an opportunity to grill board members on problematic topics. However, last time, I found the interaction to be predictably scripted. We spent the time talking about cross-functional teams or some sort of useless topic. If this public board meeting is going to go away, then what should happen -- since the at-large is supposed to represent the public interest -- is that the at-large should tell the board what it wants to discuss in its meeting, and it should follow up on each statement ALAC has made since the last meeting to determine what the board has or has not done about it. For instance, in Prague, I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the TAS disaster. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the board conflict-of-interest problems. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of what's being done to address the IANA contract issue. Not be shown some pre-scripted video, but have an actual interaction that's not phony. And it all needs to go on the public record. The at-large needs to take on a role similar to that of a major shareholder in a public for-profit company. Executive behavior should be its business; failure to execute should be its business. ALAC needs to be more outside the process looking in, not submerged in process issues that are essentially meaningless to the general public. If we are arguing to hold on to a meeting so that we can parse the body language of participants, then the entire philosophy of public interaction with the board needs to be re-thought. -----Original Message----- >From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> >Sent: May 4, 2012 8:19 AM >To: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the Update for Prague > >When and how was this announced? > >-ed > >On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro>wrote: > >> I am very troubled by the decision to remove the public meeting. As I see >> it, this presents several issues for the community: >> >> 1) The Board meeting typically closes a cycle of community discussion with >> a vote/resolution on some issue, and these end-of-meeting Board resolutions >> are important. The deadline of closing an issue at a public meeting also >> keeps the Board on track. Do they still intend to meet and close issues? >> This needs to happen. >> >> 2) The public meetings became a bit of orchestrated theater over the >> years, but I still believe they served the purpose of showing the Board's >> professionalism in addressing and resolving difficult issues. Last June's >> meeting on New TLDs is the most recent example of this. Take a look at this >> picture from Singapore that ICANN features on its website: >> http://www.icann.org/en/about That's worth a thousand words. Note the >> people in the foreground using their camera phones to capture the moment. >> We're losing that. >> >> 3) Closing the monthly meetings while leaving these end-of-session >> meetings open was something of a compromise reached between a prior Board >> and the ICANN community many years ago. I am concerned that the Board >> decided to change the status quo without any notice and comment. >> >> 4) As always, ICANN is under scrutiny with the IANA bid still to be >> resolved and issues of transparency at the forefront of some of those >> discussions. The way this was handled (was there a Board resolution? >> Chair's decision?) only makes the optics worse. I can't seem to find any >> background on how this decision was made, or why it was made. >> >> Bret >> ------ >> 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 >> ------ >> > > > >-- >*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or >subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, >disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by >mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >------ >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 >------

6 7

Re: [NA-Discuss] Board Public Meeting - The Update for Prague
by Carlton Samuels May 4, 2012

May 4, 2012

Beau: We're on board with your suggestions. So you know, I requested the TAS issue for the Ex-Com Agenda next week. And the CoI matter was among those put forward when questions for the Board from At-Large were solicited by the Chair. Might be useful if you keep track of the Ex-Com conversations and later, the ALAC monthly meeting to see that your concerns are properly reflected in whatever goes forward. I was happy to see Brett's contribution to the thread; it added some things. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 11:12:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00) > From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the Update > for Prague > To: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com>, Bret Fausett > <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Message-ID: > < > 12375111.1336144341016.JavaMail.root(a)mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I believe it was discussed and decided fairly quickly last week. It's > funny, I find myself without much to say about it, because for at least > three years now ICANN has not funded me to stay for Friday's meetings, so I > have not attended one. I don't think they are doing away with the public > forum, however. Though I know I am in the minority here, I find that to be > a waste of time as well. > > What I have occasionally found helpful are the interactions between the > board and the at-large group at the three annual meetings -- sometimes it's > a breakfast, sometimes it's a lunch. On a few occasions it has provided an > opportunity to grill board members on problematic topics. > > However, last time, I found the interaction to be predictably scripted. We > spent the time talking about cross-functional teams or some sort of useless > topic. If this public board meeting is going to go away, then what should > happen -- since the at-large is supposed to represent the public interest > -- is that the at-large should tell the board what it wants to discuss in > its meeting, and it should follow up on each statement ALAC has made since > the last meeting to determine what the board has or has not done about it. > > For instance, in Prague, I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting > of the TAS disaster. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the > board conflict-of-interest problems. I suggest the at-large demand a full > accounting of what's being done to address the IANA contract issue. Not be > shown some pre-scripted video, but have an actual interaction that's not > phony. And it all needs to go on the public record. > > The at-large needs to take on a role similar to that of a major > shareholder in a public for-profit company. Executive behavior should be > its business; failure to execute should be its business. ALAC needs to be > more outside the process looking in, not submerged in process issues that > are essentially meaningless to the general public. If we are arguing to > hold on to a meeting so that we can parse the body language of > participants, then the entire philosophy of public interaction with the > board needs to be re-thought. > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> > >Sent: May 4, 2012 8:19 AM > >To: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> > >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the Update > for Prague > > > >When and how was this announced? > > > >-ed > > > >On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro > >wrote: > > > >> I am very troubled by the decision to remove the public meeting. As I > see > >> it, this presents several issues for the community: > >> > >> 1) The Board meeting typically closes a cycle of community discussion > with > >> a vote/resolution on some issue, and these end-of-meeting Board > resolutions > >> are important. The deadline of closing an issue at a public meeting also > >> keeps the Board on track. Do they still intend to meet and close issues? > >> This needs to happen. > >> > >> 2) The public meetings became a bit of orchestrated theater over the > >> years, but I still believe they served the purpose of showing the > Board's > >> professionalism in addressing and resolving difficult issues. Last > June's > >> meeting on New TLDs is the most recent example of this. Take a look at > this > >> picture from Singapore that ICANN features on its website: > >> http://www.icann.org/en/about That's worth a thousand words. Note the > >> people in the foreground using their camera phones to capture the > moment. > >> We're losing that. > >> > >> 3) Closing the monthly meetings while leaving these end-of-session > >> meetings open was something of a compromise reached between a prior > Board > >> and the ICANN community many years ago. I am concerned that the Board > >> decided to change the status quo without any notice and comment. > >> > >> 4) As always, ICANN is under scrutiny with the IANA bid still to be > >> resolved and issues of transparency at the forefront of some of those > >> discussions. The way this was handled (was there a Board resolution? > >> Chair's decision?) only makes the optics worse. I can't seem to find any > >> background on how this decision was made, or why it was made. > >

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the Update for Prague
by Bret Fausett May 4, 2012

May 4, 2012

I am very troubled by the decision to remove the public meeting. As I see it, this presents several issues for the community: 1) The Board meeting typically closes a cycle of community discussion with a vote/resolution on some issue, and these end-of-meeting Board resolutions are important. The deadline of closing an issue at a public meeting also keeps the Board on track. Do they still intend to meet and close issues? This needs to happen. 2) The public meetings became a bit of orchestrated theater over the years, but I still believe they served the purpose of showing the Board's professionalism in addressing and resolving difficult issues. Last June's meeting on New TLDs is the most recent example of this. Take a look at this picture from Singapore that ICANN features on its website: http://www.icann.org/en/about That's worth a thousand words. Note the people in the foreground using their camera phones to capture the moment. We're losing that. 3) Closing the monthly meetings while leaving these end-of-session meetings open was something of a compromise reached between a prior Board and the ICANN community many years ago. I am concerned that the Board decided to change the status quo without any notice and comment. 4) As always, ICANN is under scrutiny with the IANA bid still to be resolved and issues of transparency at the forefront of some of those discussions. The way this was handled (was there a Board resolution? Chair's decision?) only makes the optics worse. I can't seem to find any background on how this decision was made, or why it was made. Bret

3 2