Brendler, Beau wrote:

I'm closer to supporting this than anything else I've seen yet.

Danny, Evan, what do you think (the document is a little difficult to read as it's very wide, I'm referring to Nick's revisions on the right).

It is a massive step in the right direction, specifically in suggesting that ALAC may still play a role in GNSO while drafters are aware of its flowchart-rewriting consequences. I hope that there are lessons learned going forward -- certainly mistakes were made to get us to this point -- but on the immediate issue of "what do we send regarding the GNSO improvements" I like Nick's draft. Please -- especially amongst those who took issue with the original "final" versions -- if anyone has suggestions to make please offer them now. - Evan

Yes, this seems much better than before. 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@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Brendler, Beau Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:48 AM To: Nick Ashton-Hart; At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits I'm closer to supporting this than anything else I've seen yet. Danny, Evan, what do you think (the document is a little difficult to read as it's very wide, I'm referring to Nick's revisions on the right). BB -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Sat 4/26/2008 11:24 AM To: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits Dear All: I have been requested to provide some language which might act as a 'bridge' which could help to reconcile the views expressed about the Joint Proposal on GNSO Reform which has been the subject of considerable discussion in the NARALO in the last several days. I hope that what I have crafted is at least close to what is required. As always, whether it is used or not is entirely up to all of you. I have taken the liberty of doing the drafting using the wiki version of the ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on GNSO Improvements, since it seemed to me that this would make it easy for everyone to see the original text of that document and also the changes that I have introduced, Here are some URLs for you: 1. Side-by-side view of the original ALAC draft and the drafting work just done: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_na me=al_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statement_on_gnso_improvements&mode=source &new_revision_id=20080426152144&old_revision_id=20080423215537&Button=Co mpare+Revisions 2. Original text of the ALAC Statement, unmodified: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_name= al_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statement_on_gnso_improvements;revision_id=20 080423215537 3. Joint Proposal of Users: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/docTwl3R0M9fY .doc NOTE: All three members of the At-Large staff are travelling either Sunday, or Monday, to the ICANN HQ in Marina Del Rey for a staff meeting of the Policy Unit. We are therefore unlikely to see emails sent to us on this subject until Sunday night. Please keep this in mind if you need to reach us. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

Danny just a minor point on the relationship between ALS's and the ALAC... ALS's coalesce into RALO's (and here there is both opportunity and need for input into ICANN Policy development at both these structural element/levels. Further we are in absolute agreement that this needs radical improvement for the At-Large Community to be properly engaged and involved .... However the ALAC is an "AC to the ICANN Board" that is constituted by equitably balanced regional representation. Currently where 3 appointments are made to represent each Region (AF; AP; EU; LAC & NA) that being two (2) directly from the respective RALO's and one (1) by NomCom appointment... We do keep seeing the use of interchanging 'nomenclature' and descriptions of 'purpose' in these conversations, a confusion (to some) that I believe is best avoided if at all possible. CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:55 AM To: Brendler, Beau; Nick Ashton-Hart; At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits Sorry to have to disagree, but if I were sitting on the Board Governance Committee I'd be scoffing at the ridiculous demands being made in this document as no case has properly been made for ALS (user) constituency status within the GNSO. A few questions: 1. The GNSO has made it possible for participation within their committees, task forces, ad-hoc groups, and volunteer drafting teams -- how many ALSs have availed themselves of the opportunity? 2. The GNSO is a policy formulating body that discusses policy matters on-line -- how many ALSs have participated in any online DNS-related policy discussion? 3. GNSO Constituencies are self-supporting and each charges a fee for membership -- how many ALSs are willing to pay a constituency membership fee? 4. GNSO Councillors travel to ICANN sessions without the benefit of ICANN travel support -- how many ALSs will be willing to regularly send their members at their own expense to GNSO functions? 5. Can you name even one ALS that knows the status of the ALAC letter sent to the Board regarding front-running? 6. Can you name even one ALS that knows the status of GNSO discussions on fast-flux or inter-registrar domain transfers or the GNSO's current position on IDNC? 7. Although the ALAC always has some sort of comment to make on the topic of WHOIS (that lends itself to armchair philosophers), how many ALSs actually volunteered to participate in an effort to define the next range of WHOIS studies? You know, when we consider topics like fast-track for IDNs, we factor in considerations such as demand and capability -- when I look at the GNSO restructuring I see no widespread demand for ALS involvement, nor do I see a capability to engage in serious policy formulation discussions. Just look at the regional lists -- has any ALS from anywhere in the world other than North America expressed an interest in an ALS constituency? New constituencies are supposed to be able to demonstrate that they are: 1) broadly representative; and 2) that the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities. Based on the track record of ALAC's ALSs, you couldn't convince me that they will act to improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development obligations... they haven't even managed to put together a proper working group on any topic whatsoever or for that matter discuss DNS policy on their own discussion lists. I will not support the current text as I believe it to be detrimental to a GNSO that suffers enough already from the presence of certain constituencies that only rarely choose to participate. We don't need more of that. --- "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:

I'm closer to supporting this than anything else I've seen yet.

Danny, Evan, what do you think (the document is a little difficult to read as it's very wide, I'm referring to Nick's revisions on the right).

BB

-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Sat 4/26/2008 11:24 AM To: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits

Dear All:

I have been requested to provide some language which might act as a 'bridge' which could help to reconcile the views expressed about the Joint Proposal on GNSO Reform which has been the subject of considerable discussion in the NARALO in the last several days.

I hope that what I have crafted is at least close to what is required. As always, whether it is used or not is entirely up to all of you.

I have taken the liberty of doing the drafting using the wiki version of the ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on GNSO Improvements, since it seemed to me that this would make it easy for everyone to see the original text of that document and also the changes that I have introduced, Here are some URLs for you:

1. Side-by-side view of the original ALAC draft and the drafting work just done:

https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=a l_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statement_on_gnso_improvements&mode=source&new_rev ision_id=20080426152144&old_revision_id=20080423215537&Button=Compare+Revisi ons

2. Original text of the ALAC Statement, unmodified:

https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_name=al_a lac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statement_on_gnso_improvements;revision_id=2008042321 5537

3. Joint Proposal of Users:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/docTwl3R0M9fY.doc

NOTE: All three members of the At-Large staff are travelling either Sunday, or Monday, to the ICANN HQ in Marina Del Rey for a staff meeting of the Policy Unit. We are therefore unlikely to see emails sent to us on this subject until Sunday night. Please keep this in mind if you need to reach us.

--

Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

*** Scanned

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

At 28/04/2008 08:47 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:

...

However the ALAC is an "AC to the ICANN Board" that is constituted by equitably balanced regional representation. This is inaccurate.

Only two-thirds of ALAC is regional representation. The other third is regionally balanced but not representative of, voted by or responsible to anyone.

ALAC is not, in its entirety, a representative body and should stop advancing itself as such.

In the interest of accuracy please describe ALAC as "_partially_ constituted by equitably balanced regional representation".

The two RALO appointed members do indeed represent the RALO and its ALSs. It is subject to debate whether you believe that in every region and at every point in time, a RALO and its ALS fully and accurately represent all USERS of that region. The NomCom appointed ALAC members are charged with doing just that. No doubt this latter task is also potentially as fraught with problems, but it does give some balance to the committee.

If ICANN wants to use the NomComm to pick an advisory board of (what it believes to be) sage voices it is welcome to do so. But calling these voices representatives of anyone -- let alone the public grassroots -- is incorrect and potentially misleading.

...

We do keep seeing the use of interchanging 'nomenclature' and descriptions of 'purpose' in these conversations, a confusion (to some) that I believe is best avoided if at all possible. I'm happy that you are interested in accuracy. So I hope you'll appreciate my correction above and consider it in the future when describing the ALAC to others.

- Evan

PS: The GNSO, in its revision proposal, sees merit in having 100% of its council be representative, and its NomComm appointees as non-voting advisors. Why is this approach not reasonable for ALAC?

Just to be clear, this is, as you noted, a "proposal". At the moment, all NomCom appointees are full voting members of the groups to which they are appointed, and one of the motivations is to add some measure of balance to the other members who represent specific organizations (just as RALO appointed members represent their RALO and ALSs). Alan

Evan:

PS: The GNSO, in its revision proposal, sees merit in having 100% of its council be representative, and its NomComm appointees as non-voting advisors. Why is this approach not reasonable for ALAC?

First of all, what you call the revision proposal of the GNSO is not the proposal of the whole GNSO, but of a part of it. I am mentioning this only to show how it is sometimes easy to use a generalization, in short, that is not 100% accurate, which was probably also the case from CLO's statement about representativity of ALAC. Anyway, the main rason for my reply is a different one, and is related to ALAC. The structure, that calls for 67% RALO representation, and 33% NomCom (subject to the same geographical constraints) was a highly welcome approach in the beginning, when not even the 67% were representative of anything, because they have been hand-picked by the Board. The 2/3 vs. 1/3 approach has at least served the purpose, for a good couple of years, and for some regions even more, of ensuring that at least two bodies were independently nominating ALAC representatives, therefore contributing to diversity (or at least lowering the risk of capture). Now, that all RALOs are up and running, it is, IMHO, appropriate to ask the question on whether all 15 ALAC members should be nominated by the ALSes, via the RALOs. That would not exclude, still IMHO, the possibility of having some "additional" members, maybe without voting rights, tha the NomCom could appoint to cover specific situations that are not covered by the normal process. However, this matter should be dealt with mainly by the ALAC Review WG, and probably also by the NomCom Review WG. I am sure that a discussion on this issue will be part of the WG reports. Cheers, Roberto

Evan,

It is reasonable that existing NomComm members of GNSO would not want to see their privilege removed, so unanimous consent within the current body was never to be expected. I am simply pleased to see it as a majority recommendation.

Maybe we are talking of different proposals. I am referring to the one that was proposed by Philip Shepard in name of the Cross Constituency (BC, ISPC, IPC), plus NCUC, plus ALAC. What is missing is not only the NomCom members, but also Registries and Registrars. And that is what I wanted to point out.

[about the upcoming ALAC review to address the matter]

This is exactly what I am suggesting. The ALAC will always benefit from outside advice and assistance. Even now it has the capacity to appoint special advisors of unlimited numbers. However, internal leadership and direction should come exclusively from accountable members.

We agree. Cheers, Roberto