[ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Feb 13 02:28:10 UTC 2014
The ICANN definition of volunteer is not really
that strange. You just need to be looking at it
from the right angle. An "ICANN volunteer" is
soome who does work for ICANN, but is not paid *BY* ICANN.
Think of it as having a benevolent employer who
says that on Freidays, you should not come into
work, but make yourself available to drive old
folks or disabled people to doctor's
appointments. YOU are getting paid for your time,
but from the point of view of those who you are helping, you are a volunteer.
ICANN is *SO* good at using words in multiple
(often more than 2) ways, and presuming that
everyone will understand which usage is being
used. Rarely happens! Think of the word "consensus".
Alan
At 12/02/2014 07:27 PM, Wolf Ludwig 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