- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN v. RegisterFly
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 10, 2007

May 10, 2007

I cannot myself, no, but I can ask that someone who does provide information. I'll have a word internally and see what we can come up with. I've copied in Kieren on this email since me may wish to have this query on his radar screen too. On 10/05/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Nick, > > Yesterday morning at 10AM a hearing was scheduled on > the Ex Parte application for civil contempt sanctions > -- see > http://www.icann.org/legal/icann-v-registerfly/icann-v-registerfly-notice-h… > > Can you tell us what was the outcome of that session? > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] At-Large budgeting and related issues (was: Regional Fellowships)
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 10, 2007

May 10, 2007

See below... On 05/05/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > Hello Nick, > > Thanks for your working to help me through this. :-) > My pleasure - I hope it is actually helpful! > > The RALOS and the ALAC are, combined, the At-Large community. > > ICANN has staff, and a budget line, to provide services and support as > > a secretariat basically to the community as a whole. > OK, then. Do ALAC and the RALOs have any specific say over the > allocation of these budgets? > To a large extent, the budget is driven off of their input and spent directly on them. For example: the majority of the At-Large budget which is discretionary (not salary or overhead) is T&E costs for ALAC members and regional ALS representatives to attend ICANN meetings. Of the rest, much is spent on things like translation of documents, hosted servers, icannalac.org maintenance, and the like. There is some money which is fungible and the process I provided to you allows the community to ask for the funds to be used in specific ways. The process is itself new - only since last November - but in all but one case the requests have been granted so far, and that case is still under review. It would be the exception if a properly-supported request were denied. > Do ALAC and the RALOs -- jointly or separately -- have any specific > authority to determine > - how much funds exist to serve the at-large community > - the budgets that determine how these funds are spent > By participating in the budgeting cycle, sure. For example, I proposed, and it was widely seen as useful, that this coming year a full-time member of staff should be hired who would do nothing but provide support to the RALOs. If the RALOs have projects in mind, they should work with us to ensure that these get put into the budget - it is MUCH easier to get those higher-up to allocate money to us if the community is asking for something than if I am asking for something nobody has asked for but which I think will be useful. > > Each RALO may define most aspects of its structure and operation as it > > pleases. > I understand this -- but it makes life much easier if I have an idea of > what resources are available to our RALO, and our ability to direct > staff to utilize such resources. > A RALO cannot directly supervise staff people, because the staff are employed by ICANN, so ICANN has a fiduciary responsibility to manage them. That said, we take serving the community seriously and responding to their needs is expressly part of our job description. > (I suppose it actually helps to _have_ a formal RALO first...) :-) > It does, yes. > > The thing to remember is that the funds of ICANN are ICANN's funds, > > and good organisational governance requires that staff exercise > > ultimate control over the expenditures of the organisation. ICANN's > > directors have actual legal liability in certain circumstances if > > funds of the organisation were not administered properly, so this will > > always mean that staff exercise ultimate control over spending money. > > I've been in enough non-profit and for-profit organizations to > understand fiscal prudence, and I would surmise that most of my > colleagues here do as well. If, as John has suggested, staff's "ultimate > control" extends to the rejection of a RALO's request for a specific > person or travel allocation (for which budget funds are available), then > this is unacceptable interference. > I am not actually familiar with the example John is mentioning (at least I cannot recall anything that fits this scenario). For example, every meeting I've supervised travel support for has provided the opportunity for all ALSes in a region, plus all candidate ALSes, to send a delegate on ICANN's dime. The ALSes can choose whomever they wish to be the designated person; we have no role in that. > Outside of "we've already spent the allocated funds" or "doing this > would get us sued" or "this is outside the ICANN mandate", there is _no_ > reason for ICANN staff to reject a procedurally-correct request from > _any_ of its contituent advisory bodies. And even issues of "what is > within the mandate" can be contentious -- some leeway should be allowed. > On the surface that sounds great. But when you get to specific examples it could sound not-so-great. For example, we have an obligation to be even-handed in providing services and funding to all the regions equally. If we were in a position to have to agree to every proposal that was good which was put forward, that would mean we would likely give very uneven support, financial and otherwise. > In your response to Jean you said: > > > ICANN's At-Large staff and infrastructure is not inclusive of ALAC or RALOS or anyone else: ICANN's At-Large staff is the staff, and that is all. > OK -- but who directs them? In whose interests do they serve? Do > At-Large staff serve the At-Large community, or just some bureacratic > assumption, on the behalf of the at-large community but without its > direct participation? > ICANN's staff are directed by their supervisors, up to the CEO, who is answerable to the board - hence we are all indirectly answerable to the board. That said, my entire job is to serve the community. If I were perceived to be very bad at doing that, I'd get replaced. > Of course, the decision to make the RALO process had to come from > somewhere external to the At-Large structures it was designed to > attract. But at a certain point, the RALOs and ALAC should be trusted to > be able to direct the resources allocated to the service of their > constituencies. The only limits on that direction should be legal > exposure, fiscal prudence, and alignment with ICANN's mandate and bylaws. > > Nick, I don't know you or ICANN staff, but it's been my experience with > most organizations that staff is resistent to change, all that differs > is in the level of resistance. There is a delicate balance between the > need for continuity and the need to adapt to meet the evolving needs of > stakeholders. It's vital that safeguards exist -- if the advisory > process is to work properly and effectively -- to ensure that staff > oversight does not inhibit creativity or flexibility, while being > sufficient to ensure maintenance of the mandate and sane use of resources. > All people are resistant to change to one degree or another so we agree there. As to the delicate balance, there definitely is one; all secretariats of international organisations are in a difficult spot there and ICANN is no different. There is no magic model or framework that will ensure the balance is kept; we all have a part to play in ensuring that. I and my colleagues can only do the best we can, and listen closely to our various constituencies. I know with At-Large that I will hear very quickly if I get the balance wrong. I personally wouldn't have it any other way. FYI, I'm pretty change-friendly myself. I know it is inevitable and a part of every day of life, so why fear it? It is like fearing death, or sunrise. I've been often accused as a change agent. > What policies currently exist to describe the limits of ICANN staff > ability to overrule its advisory bodies? If, indeed, staff authority is > _absolute_, I find this worrisome since it goes against the most basic > principles of good corporate governance. At a macro level the > stakeholders must instruct the staff, not vice versa. > The above is a very long subject which I couldn't hope to comprehensively address; I know there are many others with many opinions, and longer experience with ICANN, who can give better answers than I can. > > They don't have the ability to reject ALAC's mandate - but see above > > vis a vis spending money. > It's critical, then, that there are known budgets ahead of time so that > money is not arbitrarily added or taken away, to fund pet projects or > deny funding to contentious ones. We can't spend money we don't have -- > so let's know how much we have to work with. That way, we can determine > the bounds and allocate appropriately. Without a budget, everything is > arbitrary and _any_ request can be met with "we don't have the funds for > that". > The budgets of ICANN are very public, and subject to public consultation in their draft form. I will shortly be producing a version of the budget for At-Large in the current draft form for all of you to look at (I just need to take out all the staff costs and the like for privacy reasons). The entire company budget is about to get reviewed for the upcoming FY. > > Hopefully things are clearer now :) > Yes, to the extent of answering some questions while raising many others > :-). > Don't mind Q&A at all. Beats a number of other kinds of email exchanges one could be having for sure. > - Evan > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

7 12

CIRA Board of Directors Election Nomination Process
by Mr. Robert Guerra May 8, 2007

May 8, 2007

Thought this might be of interest to the .CA domain holders in the NA region. if you know of individuals who might be interested in running on the elections - please, do forward the message to them :) regards Robert -- CIRA Board of Directors Election Nomination Process The 2007 CIRA Board of Directors Election features a split ballot comprised of candidates from the Final Nomination Committee Slate (chosen by the Nomination Committee from public nominations) and candidates from the Final Members’ Slate (nominated and supported by Members.) Member Nominations will be conducted in a separate process commencing July 9, 2007. CIRA has selected a Nomination Committee responsible for choosing Nomination Committee Candidates for the Final Nomination Committee Slate. A final list of candidates will be posted on CIRA’s website on July 5, 2007. CIRA Board of Directors Election CIRA Members will elect three Directors from the Final Nomination Committee Slate and one Director from the Final Members Slate. CIRA Members can cast their 2007 CIRA Board of Directors Election votes from 6pm (18:00h) Ottawa time on September 6, 2007 to 6:00 pm (18:00h) Ottawa time on September 13, 2007 through the CIRA Election website. CIRA Members attending the CIRA Annual General Meeting on September 6, 2007 at Le Royal Méridien King Edward Hotel in Toronto, Ontario can cast their ballots in person from 6pm (18:00h) to 7pm (19:00h) Ottawa time. Additional information on the 2007 CIRA Board of Directors Election is available at https://elections.cira.ca. CIRA is accepting your Director nominations for eligible individuals from noon (12:00h) Ottawa time on April 23, 2007 to 6:00 pm (18:00h) Ottawa time on May 21, 2007 The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) invites you to submit your nominations for the 2007 CIRA Board of Directors Election. Submit your nomination at: https://elections.cira.ca About CIRA The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) is the not-for- profit, member-driven organization responsible for the management of Canada's dot-ca domain namespace, the policies that support Canada's Internet community, and Canadian involvement in international Internet governance.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Fellowships program
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007

Jean, I think you've mixed up descriptors here and the result is likely to give people an incorrect understanding as a consequence. At-Large = the COMMUNITY as a whole, including ALAC ALAC = At-Large Advisory Committee. ICANN staff = ICANN staff At-Large and ALAC are not interchangeable. At-Large and ICANN Staff are not interchangeable, either. At-Large - the community and ALAC the committee have funding via a budget line in the ICANN budget. On 05/05/07, Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com> wrote: > > > At 12:50 PM -0700 5/4/07, Danny Younger recently said: > > Peter Dengate-Thrush offered congratulations on the > development of the program but asked why the > fellowships appeared limited only to ICANN supporting > organizations or committees. Theresa explained that > while any resident citizen of a qualifying country > could apply, the target audience for the program will > be government representatives that wish to participate > in the Governmental Advisory Committee, the ccTLD > community and the non-profit sector not associated > with the At-Large Advisory Committee. The At-Large > Advisory Committee already administers its own funding > for these purposes. > > > This is not strictly true. There is a difference between At Large and the At > Large Advisory Committee. The former has direct ICANN funding, the latter > does not. At Large has funding that it administers but it is incorrect to > say that the At Large Advisory Committee administers any funds at all. ALAC > can propose expenditures of funds from At-Large, which it sometimes gets, > and sometimes does not get. The point is that ALAC cannot just direct > At-Large to go out and pay for travel for ICANN constituents, services, > research, or anything else. There's a proposal process that has to move up > through channels. > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

6 5

Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Fellowships program
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007

There are a bunch of questions below; I'll have a go at answering them: On 05/05/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > Jean, I think you've mixed up descriptors here and the result is > > likely to give people an incorrect understanding as a consequence. > > > Well, you've both confused me. :-P > Sorry to hear that :( > I was under the impression that the RALO structure was supposed to allow > _the_ means for participation of the at-large community. It (supposedly) > includes provisions for structures, and for individuals who don't belong > to any such structures. > Those are both true statements. > (Haven't we just been blowing our collective brains out trying to derive > the best way to do this?) > > > At-Large and ALAC are not interchangeable. At-Large and ICANN Staff are not interchangeable, either. > > > This of course begs the question of how and why there is an at-large > infrastructure in ICANN separate from ALAC. How can this _not_ be seen a > utterly redundant? If the "ICANN At-large" mechanism offers a process > through which individuals may have a consultative voice, what the heck > is the reason for all of _our_ thrashing around on this issue? Let me put it a different way, as I think you've misunderstood what I was saying. The RALOS and the ALAC are, combined, the At-Large community. ICANN has staff, and a budget line, to provide services and support as a secretariat basically to the community as a whole. Each RALO may define most aspects of its structure and operation as it pleases. > > Why are these separate budget and structural items? If the RALOs select They aren't really - see above. > the members of ALAC, why isn't this integrated? And why do ICANN staff > have the authority to veto an explicit democraticly-made requests from > ALAC? If the ALAC is supposed to serve the interests of the At-Large The thing to remember is that the funds of ICANN are ICANN's funds, and good organisational governance requires that staff exercise ultimate control over the expenditures of the organisation. ICANN's directors have actual legal liability in certain circumstances if funds of the organisation were not administered properly, so this will always mean that staff exercise ultimate control over spending money. That said, there is a procedure in place for the allocation of funds to projects which RALOs, or the ALAC, or both - or even individual ALSes - wish to request and the decisions on whether ICANN should fund these projects are driven very largely by the community. I've attached it below so you can see it if you haven't already. > community, I can understand it making advice to the Board that may be > considered and rejected -- but I don't understand why staff have the > ability to reject ALAC's mandate. They don't have the ability to reject ALAC's mandate - but see above vis a vis spending money. > > Or maybe the answer is dead simple and I've just read it wrong. This > comes across to me like one of those areas in which the long-time > participants here and ICANN staff seem to know some sort of secret > handshake that the newcomers need to learn over time. Hopefully things are clearer now :) > > - Evan > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Fellowships program
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007

No, I'm afraid there really are several problems in the statements you've made below. I'm guessing you are not aware that you are actually making inaccurate statements: ICANN's At-Large staff and infrastructure is not inclusive of ALAC or RALOS or anyone else: ICANN's At-Large staff is the staff, and that is all. There are ICANN staff people like me who provide services and support, as I said, to the At-Large community, but that doesn't mean we're all mixed together - we aren't. There are to my mind quite a few good reasons for this, not least, that my role doesn't include policy formation or development; simply helping provide infrrastructural and other support to develop transparent processes for those in the community. At-Large is the community - that does include ALAC, RALOS, and the Rest of You. The Regional Liaisons do not work for ALAC, or for me, or even for Denise; they are ICANN's external 'face' to all the constituencies. They do provide some service and assistance to the At-Large community, but they provide the same services generally speaking to all the other constituencies. That's why ALAC never met them until they were hired; they don't even report administratively to the same part of ICANN as I do. I agree that the term ALAC is often used to mean the At-Large community. This has historical precedents, from the days when there was the Interim ALAC, and very few ALSes and zero RALOS, and I have and continue to make the ICANN staff aware that ALAC is the committee, At-Large is the community, and eventually everyone will no longer use these terms interchangeably, including in budgets :) Your point about expenditures is of course well made. On 05/05/07, Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com> wrote: > > > Hi Nick, no I have explicitly not mixed up descriptors, at least in my own > mind, though perhaps I could have expressed myself more clearly. My exact > point is that there is the ALAC committee itself, then there is ICANN's "At > Large" staff and infrastructure, which is inclusive of ALAC but also > includes services to RALOs, ALS's, and the Rest of Us. As evidence I point > to the fact that your own title is the Director of At-Large, not ALAC. > http://www.icann.org/biog/ashton-hart.htm and the regional > liaisons work for ICANN's At-Large group, not ALAC. ALAC never even met them > until after they were hired! > > > But there is some confusion in the ICANN budget. Have a look. > http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposed-budget-2006-07-clean-24jun06.pdf > Unless I am missing something-- I note that "ALAC" is mentioned as follows: > 4B Improve and deepen participation in the ICANN process - End Users > (ALAC) ALAC FTE 1.50 $690 ,000 > "ALAC" is given 1.5 FTE (full time equivalent) employees of its own, > according to this budget. > It seems ICANN's "At-Large" staff and infrastructure itself is not > mentioned, but perhaps I missed it. > > > Is there a confusion of descriptors in ICANN's own budget? > > > That is perhaps one reason why there has been quite a bit of internal > confusion in ALAC over whether or not ALAC can actually direct ICANN to > expend any of "its" funds, as long as the ICANN financial procedures are > followed. The approval of the expenditure of any of ALAC's funds does not > lie with ALAC, but with yourself, Denise Michell (Vice President for Policy > Development), and those higher up. My point remains: It is a mistake to say > that ALAC has administrative control over its own budget. > > > best wishes > JP > Ex ALAC North America from Nomcom > > > At 12:33 PM +0100 5/5/07, Nick Ashton-Hart recently said: > Jean, I think you've mixed up descriptors here and the result is > likely to give people an incorrect understanding as a consequence. > > At-Large = the COMMUNITY as a whole, including ALAC > ALAC = At-Large Advisory Committee. > ICANN staff = ICANN staff > > At-Large and ALAC are not interchangeable. At-Large and ICANN Staff > are not interchangeable, either. > > At-Large - the community and ALAC the committee have funding via a > budget line in the ICANN budget. > > On 05/05/07, Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com> wrote: > > > At 12:50 PM -0700 5/4/07, Danny Younger recently said: > > Peter Dengate-Thrush offered congratulations on the > development of the program but asked why the > fellowships appeared limited only to ICANN supporting > organizations or committees. Theresa explained that > while any resident citizen of a qualifying country > could apply, the target audience for the program will > be government representatives that wish to participate > in the Governmental Advisory Committee, the ccTLD > community and the non-profit sector not associated > with the At-Large Advisory Committee. The At-Large > Advisory Committee already administers its own funding > for these purposes. > > > This is not strictly true. There is a difference between At Large and the > At > Large Advisory Committee. The former has direct ICANN funding, the latter > does not. At Large has funding that it administers but it is incorrect to > say that the At Large Advisory Committee administers any funds at all. ALAC > can propose expenditures of funds from At-Large, which it sometimes gets, > and sometimes does not get. The point is that ALAC cannot just direct > At-Large to go out and pay for travel for ICANN constituents, services, > research, or anything else. There's a proposal process that has to move up > through channels. > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > > > > > > > -- > -- > Regards, > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > PO Box 32160 > London N4 2XY > United Kingdom > UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / > Skype: nashtonhart > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Fellowships program
by Alan Greenberg May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007

At 5/5/2007 09:56 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >See below > >On 05/05/07, John L <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > > At-Large - the community and ALAC the committee have funding via a > > > budget line in the ICANN budget. > > > > Yup, we've seen that. > > > > >> The At-Large Advisory Committee already administers its own funding > > >> for these purposes. > > > > This is not true. ALAC makes requests, ICANN staff decides what to spend. > > I can think of at least one case where the committee made a specific > > request to pay someone's way to an ICANN meeting and staff said no. > > > >And it is important to note that the source of the second phrase was >Jean, not myself, and yes John your interpretation is indeed correct. If you mean the phrase "The At-Large Advisory Committee already administers its own funding for these purposes.", the source was the report of an ICANN Board Meeting and seems to have been attributed to Theresa Swinehart - http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-25apr07.htm about 40% into the document. Alan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Fellowships program
by Alan Greenberg May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007

Nick, Jean was incorrect in that she said that the ALAC has no direct ICANN funding. It does. But as she and John pointed out, the ALAC has no administrative control over At-Large or ALAC funding (not claiming it should, just pointing out today's situation). Alan At 5/5/2007 07:33 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >Jean, I think you've mixed up descriptors here and the result is >likely to give people an incorrect understanding as a consequence. > >At-Large = the COMMUNITY as a whole, including ALAC >ALAC = At-Large Advisory Committee. >ICANN staff = ICANN staff > >At-Large and ALAC are not interchangeable. At-Large and ICANN Staff >are not interchangeable, either. > >At-Large - the community and ALAC the committee have funding via a >budget line in the ICANN budget. > >On 05/05/07, Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com> wrote: > > > > > > At 12:50 PM -0700 5/4/07, Danny Younger recently said: > > > > Peter Dengate-Thrush offered congratulations on the > > development of the program but asked why the > > fellowships appeared limited only to ICANN supporting > > organizations or committees. Theresa explained that > > while any resident citizen of a qualifying country > > could apply, the target audience for the program will > > be government representatives that wish to participate > > in the Governmental Advisory Committee, the ccTLD > > community and the non-profit sector not associated > > with the At-Large Advisory Committee. The At-Large > > Advisory Committee already administers its own funding > > for these purposes. > > > > > > This is not strictly true. There is a difference between At Large > and the At > > Large Advisory Committee. The former has direct ICANN funding, the latter > > does not. At Large has funding that it administers but it is incorrect to > > say that the At Large Advisory Committee administers any funds at all. ALAC > > can propose expenditures of funds from At-Large, which it sometimes gets, > > and sometimes does not get. The point is that ALAC cannot just direct > > At-Large to go out and pay for travel for ICANN constituents, services, > > research, or anything else. There's a proposal process that has to move up > > through channels. > > _______________________________________________ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > --- > > Draft MoU with ICANN: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > > > Draft Operating Principles: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > Draft Code of Conduct: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > > > > >-- >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart >PO Box 32160 >London N4 2XY >United Kingdom >UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 >USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 >Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 >mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 >Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / >Skype: nashtonhart >Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > >_______________________________________________ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >--- >Draft MoU with ICANN: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >Draft Operating Principles: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > >Draft Code of Conduct: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Fellowships program
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007

See below On 05/05/07, John L <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > At-Large - the community and ALAC the committee have funding via a > > budget line in the ICANN budget. > > Yup, we've seen that. > > >> The At-Large Advisory Committee already administers its own funding > >> for these purposes. > > This is not true. ALAC makes requests, ICANN staff decides what to spend. > I can think of at least one case where the committee made a specific > request to pay someone's way to an ICANN meeting and staff said no. > And it is important to note that the source of the second phrase was Jean, not myself, and yes John your interpretation is indeed correct. > Regards, > John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", > Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor > "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

History of the At-Large definition
by Danny Younger May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007

Shortly after ICANN's creation a Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) was formed that examined issues related to At-Large membership. The MAC found consensus on the following definition of who/what is an at-large community member: "1. At-large membership is for those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations. It includes individual users and should not be limited to IP address holders or domain name holders. We want as large and diverse a representation of users as possible." http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/conrades.html One might reasonably ask "as ICANN has a home for both commercial and non-commercial organizations (the BC and the NCUC -- and logically, that should cover the entire gamut of organizations out there), what type of organizations don't have representation within the Supporting Organizations?" There are certain commercial interests (such as domain name resellers) that are not granted participatory opportunities within the BC due to BC Charter exclusions. There are also noncommercial organizations that are denied membership in the NCUC owing to charter considerations: Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC specifically excludes: -- Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials -- Commercial organizations and associations of or for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form) -- Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization The MAC wanted to make sure that the At-Large would constitute the catch-all category so that no entity would be excluded from the ICANN process (this is why their definition included "organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations"). This consensus definition of the At-Large was later changed (some would say perverted) by members of the At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) that were hand-picked by former ICANN Chairman of the Board Esther Dyson after ICANN had eliminated all elected At-Large directors. The new definition created by these ICANN insiders allowed for almost any organization (even those already represented by constituency structures) to become part of the At-Large. This change of definition served to divide the community of civil society organizations and to dilute their collective impact and well-served ICANN's interests (as they had described the Civil Society element that kept raging for ICANN reform as ICANN's single largest distraction). Instead of the At-Large being recognized as a body that was primarily comprised of individuals (with an occasional organizational entity as part of the mix), the new at-large definition posited organizations as the primary stakeholders in the at-large with individuals treated almost as an afterthought. In most RALOS now, individuals either don't have voting rights or their rights are not on a par with those of organizational entities). The broad At-Large community has never accepted the new definition of the at-large that was foisted upon us. The current definition has no consensus-based support and it primarily serves to exclude the very individuals that are what the at-large community was all about. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

4 4