[ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA
Carlton Samuels
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Thu Feb 13 01:20:27 UTC 2014
Dear Wolf:
Bless you for being straight.
When I say volunteer, I always mean the one you describe.
I'm glad Alan kept the ATRT straight. Anybody at the level of the Board in
ICANN knows and ought to know that there are persons embedded in ICANN
processes are paid to be there. I do not find this unusual. Afterall,
contracted parties and their ages are part of the community.
So frankly, any other interpretation of 'volunteer' is nothing less than
wilful ignorance.
-Carlton
On Feb 12, 2014 8:27 PM, "Wolf Ludwig" <wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net> wrote:
> Thanks Alan -- what a strange mis/interpretation of the term "volunteer".
> Here in Europe a volunteer is clearly known as a strange species who spends
> loads of work hours in public, charitable but - in any case - *non-paid or
> re-funded* endeavors. Any confusion with an employee who can do this work
> during his / her working hours would be simply fanciful!
>
> But your explanations and quotes clearly show and explain such confusions
> that, in fact, the ICANN (or business driven) culture, terminologies, rules
> and habits still haven't got a clue what *real* volunteers involvement is
> in fact! After years of talk about "internationalization" etc., it's still
> the same old and narrow perception of the "rest of the world" or their
> strange terms, languages or tribal habits. And they do not even understand
> why we are getting frustrated about such hegemonial ignorances -- sorry for
> being straight.
>
> Best, Wolf
>
>
> Alan Greenberg wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:48:
> >One of the real problems is that we throw around
> >the word "volunteer", but it means very different
> >things to different people. A Verisign or GoDaddy
> >employee who participates in ICANN is, by the
> >normal ICANN definition, a "volunteer". Perhaps
> >in some cases they may truly believe in ICANN and
> >put far more effort into their "volunteering"
> >that their terms of employment could call for,
> >but they are still a very different beast that
> >the typical active At-Large volunteer.
> >
> >The ATRT2 made a strong statement to this effect:
> >
> >Recommendation 10.5: The Board must facilitate
> >the equitable participation in applicable ICANN
> >activities, of those ICANN stakeholders who lack
> >the financial support of industry players.
> >
> >Although I was subjected to some strong
> >"suggestions" to change the end of the sentence
> >to make it more generic, that is the wording that
> >went in. It does not give the Board a lot of
> >wriggle room other than to just reject it, and I
> >got no negative feedback from Steve Crocker
> >during the process. So perhaps something will happen. Or not.
> >
> >Alan
> >
> >At 12/02/2014 06:34 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
> >>Plus 1 - thanks Carlton! This was exactly my
> >>thinking when following these exchanges. They
> >>still haven't got a clue what volunteers
> >>involvement is in fact, the time, continuous
> >>investment and dedication it means ... Come on
> >>guys, if you have nothing better to do -- your
> >>problem! Let's be frank: this is one of the key
> >>reasons why we are so few and haven't multiplied
> >>or exploded in numbers of volunteers over the
> >>years. Because non-profit or volunteer's work is
> >>still not accredited in this enterprise --
> >>besides some occasional opening statements.
> >>
> >>Best, Wolf
> >>
> >>
> >>Carlton Samuels wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:21:
> >> >Oops! Added on principle no doubt.....and fueled by nickels n dimes.
> >> >
> >> >You know something, what bothers me is how easy it is to overlook and
> >> >devalue, even dismiss, the investments - the co-spends! - volunteers
> make
> >> >in this enterprise.
> >> >
> >> >-Carlton
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >==============================
> >> >Carlton A Samuels
> >> >Mobile: 876-818-1799
> >> >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> >> >=============================
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Dev Anand
> >> Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> As a FYI, the Board Resolution "Bylaws Revisions Re TLG" on 28
> September
> >> >> 2013 that the resolutions of 7 Feb 2014 referred to can be viewed at
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2.e
> >> >>
> >> >> This resolution was originally redacted at the time and published on
> >> >> October 30 2013. That resolution stated "This action is not
> anticipated to
> >> >> have a fiscal impact on ICANN."
> >> >>
> >> >> The staff analysis of the ALAC comment dated 3 Feb 2014
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-bylaws-amend-tlg-03feb14-en.pdf
> >> >> contains the text included in the rationale, except for the "This
> >> >> action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The
> >> >> removal of the Liaison to the Board and the
> >> NomCom will provide a financial
> >> >> savings to ICANN." part.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dev Anand
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <
> devtee at gmail.com
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Also of note, the Technical Liaison Group
> >> Bylaws Revisions which the ALAC
> >> >> > submitted a comment on (https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg)
> which was
> >> >> > on the consent agenda.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It noted the ALAC comments (referred to as
> >> the commenter): "The commenter
> >> >> > expressed support for the intent to increase the availability of
> >> >> technical
> >> >> > advice to the Board and the effectiveness of the TLG. The commenter
> >> >> > recommended that the elimination of the TLG Liaison not occur
> until, at
> >> >> > least, a mechanism to seek regular advice from the TLG is in
> place. The
> >> >> > commenter opposed the removal of the NomCom TLG delegate on the
> basis
> >> >> that
> >> >> > the removal is likely to hinder the NomCom's community outreach to
> >> >> > technical communities."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > However, the outcome was the the Board approves the Bylaws
> revisions as
> >> >> > they were posted for public comment at
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/bylaws-amend-tlg-30oct13-en.htm
> >> >> ,
> >> >> > subject to two non-substantive changes made solely for
> clarification.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The rationale given was as follows:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "With respect to the strengthening of TLG advisory mechanism, the
> Board
> >> >> > notes that this issue has already been addressed by the Board on 28
> >> >> > September 2013 in resolution 2013.09.28.15.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > With respect to the concern regarding outreach to the technical
> >> >> > communities, the Board notes that each of the four organizations
> that
> >> >> make
> >> >> > up the TLG are already engaged in ongoing
> >> community outreach efforts. The
> >> >> > removal of the NomCom TLG delegate does not prevent these
> organizations
> >> >> > from continuing with their outreach efforts.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This action is anticipated to have a
> >> positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The
> >> >> > removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a
> >> >> financial
> >> >> > savings to ICANN. Further, the anticipated evolution and
> enhancement of
> >> >> how
> >> >> > ICANN receives advice on technical matters could have a positive
> impact
> >> >> on
> >> >> > how ICANN addresses matters relating to the security, stability or
> >> >> > resiliency of the DNS."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dev Anand
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg <
> >> >> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Of note:
> >> >> >> - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on
> the
> >> >> NGPC.
> >> >> >> - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations
> on
> >> >> >> IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that
> they
> >> >> could
> >> >> >> simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may
> be
> >> >> done.
> >> >> >> - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom.
> >> >> >> - They approved the recommendation on Thick Whois! Note that this
> was
> >> >> not
> >> >> >> on the consent agenda so it will be interesting to see the
> minutes and
> >> >> >> whether there was any substantive discussion.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Alan
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/
> >> >> >> resolutions-07feb14-en.htm
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board
> >> >> >> 7 February 2014
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 1. Consent Agenda
> >> >> >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
> >> >> >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability
> >> >> Advisory
> >> >> >> Committee
> >> >> >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions
> >> >> >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2. Main Agenda
> >> >> >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP
> >> >> >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating
> Committee
> >> >> >> Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition
> >> >> >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process
> Recommendations
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 1. Consent Agenda:
> >> >> >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
> >> >> >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability
> >> >> >> Advisory Committee
> >> >> >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions
> >> >> >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2. Main Agenda:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy
> >> >> >> Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO-INGO
> Identifiers in
> >> >> All
> >> >> >> gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group
> >> >> Charter
> >> >> >> at
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf[PDF,
> >> >> >> 189 KB].
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in
> the
> >> >> ICANN
> >> >> >> Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report
> >> >> delivered to
> >> >> >> the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs
> Working
> >> >> >> Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus on twenty-five
> recommendations in
> >> >> >> relation to the issues outlined in its Charter.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and
> >> discussed the recommendations of
> >> >> >> the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations
> by a
> >> >> >> unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see
> >> >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a
> >> public comment period was held on
> >> >> >> the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been
> >> >> >> summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/
> >> >> >> public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm ).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board
> >> in the Buenos Aires Communiqué
> >> >> >> that it remained committed to continuing the dialogue with the
> NGPC on
> >> >> >> finalizing the modalities for permanent protection of IGO
> acronyms at
> >> >> the
> >> >> >> second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the
> GNSO
> >> >> >> Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO
> >> >> >> Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the IGO-INGO WG's Final
> Report
> >> >> >> (see
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf[PDF,
> >> >> >> 644 KB]), and requests additional time to consider the
> recommendations
> >> >> so
> >> >> >> that it may take into account advice from the GAC addressing the
> same
> >> >> topic.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New
> gTLD
> >> >> >> Program Committee to:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as
> it
> >> >> >> continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC
> advice
> >> >> on
> >> >> >> protections for IGOs; and
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC
> advice
> >> >> >> and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the
> Board at a
> >> >> >> subsequent meeting.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee
> >> >> Recruitment
> >> >> >> & Selection Process and Size & Composition
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the
> NomCom
> >> >> >> Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 (
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm)
> >> >> >> , which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the
> >> >> >> composition, size and recruitment function of the Nominating
> Committee.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) recommends
> that it
> >> >> is
> >> >> >> time to complete the follow-up work anticipated in the Final
> Report and
> >> >> >> that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment
> of a
> >> >> >> Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) in
> accordance
> >> >> with
> >> >> >> the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will
> be
> >> >> >> addressed by the Board Governance Committee.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Related materials:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization Group issued in
> January
> >> >> >> 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-
> >> >> >> review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf
> >> >> >> Nominating Committee Improvements
> >> Implementation Project Plan adopted in
> >> >> >> March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-
> >> >> >> improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process
> Recommendations
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy
> >> >> Development
> >> >> >> Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries,
> both
> >> >> >> existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at
> >> >> >> https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed
> >> PDP procedures as stated in the
> >> >> >>> Bylaws and due process resulting in a Final Report delivered on
> 21
> >> >> October
> >> >> >>> 2013.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG) reached full
> consensus
> >> >> on
> >> >> >>> the recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the
> Charter.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the
> recommendations of
> >> >> >>> the Thick Whois PDP WG, and adopted the Recommendations on 31
> October
> >> >> 2013
> >> >> >>> by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/
> >> >> >>> council/resolutions#20131031-1).
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the required voting
> threshold
> >> >> set
> >> >> >>> forth in the ICANN Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on
> ICANN
> >> >> >>> contracted parties.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a Thick Whois
> >> >> >>> Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing
> the
> >> >> >>> implementation details for the new policy should it be approved
> by the
> >> >> >>> ICANN Board.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was
> held
> >> >> on
> >> >> >>> the approved recommendations, and the comments received strongly
> >> >> supported
> >> >> >>> the recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/
> >> >> >>> public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm).
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the GNSO Council
> Policy
> >> >> >>> Recommendations for a new Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set
> forth
> >> >> in
> >> >> >>> section 7.1 of the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/
> >> >> >>> issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 1.23 MB]).
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the President and
> CEO to
> >> >> >>> develop and execute on an implementation plan for the Thick Whois
> >> >> Policy
> >> >> >>> consistent with the guidance provided by the GNSO Council. The
> >> >> President
> >> >> >>> and CEO is authorized and directed to work with the
> Implementation
> >> >> Review
> >> >> >>> Team in developing the implementation details for the policy,
> and to
> >> >> >>> continue communication with the community on such work.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> ALAC mailing list
> >> >> >> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> >> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >> >> >> ALAC Working Wiki:
> >> >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
> >> >> >> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> ALAC mailing list
> >> >> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >> >>
> >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >> >> ALAC Working Wiki:
> >> >>
> >>
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >> >>
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >ALAC mailing list
> >> >ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >> >
> >> >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >> >ALAC Working Wiki:
> >>
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>EuroDIG Secretariat
> >>http://www.eurodig.org/
> >>mobile +41 79 204 83 87
> >>Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
> >>
> >>EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
> >>http://euralo.org
> >>
> >>Profile on LinkedIn
> >>http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>ALAC mailing list
> >>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >>
> >>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >>ALAC Working Wiki:
> >>
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
> >
> >
>
> EuroDIG Secretariat
> http://www.eurodig.org/
> mobile +41 79 204 83 87
> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
>
> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
> http://euralo.org
>
> Profile on LinkedIn
> http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list