[EURO-Discuss] WG: FW: [ALAC] URGENT: Process to select ALAC representative to AoC Review

Wolf Ludwig wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net
Tue Feb 16 15:23:05 CST 2010

Dear all,

as discussed and agreed at our monthly call earlier today, below please find 
some further infos regarding point 5 of the agenda.


Matthias Langenegger wrote Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:53:
>Hi Wolf, 
>Alan designed a process outline for the AOC review team selection process
>for At-Large over the weekend and sent it to the ALAC discuss list
>yesterday. I slightly modified the agenda item on the AOC review for today's
>meeting to incorporate the process outline.
>We might need a little more time to discuss this agenda item after the
>latest changes. However, EURALO has already put forward Christopher
>Wilkinson (and Jeanette Hoffmann) as a candidate has therefore already done
>part of what the ExCom asked for.
>Here is what the ExCom asks EURALO to do:
>* 1. Selection of Candidates for the AOC Review Team
>RALOs should select and forward any preferred candidates to the ALAC and to
>the designated ICANN address through whatever mechanism they choose,. The
>earlier this can be done, the better, but if ALAC members will have the time
>to adequately review the documentation, they must be received no later than
>the end of February 20th. The candidates must follow the specific
>requirements specified in the Call for Applicants PLUS must include a
>statement of why they believe:
>a.) they are in a position to fairly access ICANN¹s accountability,
>transparency and the focus on the interests of global Internet users;
>b.) they will be able to do this from the perspective of the global ICANN
>At-Large Community and the ALAC.
>NOTE: EURALO, through its Chair, has expressed its support for Christopher
>Wilkinson's application for the Accountability and Transparency review team.
>The EURALO Chair also suggested Jeanette Hofmann's to the review committee.
>Jeanette has not submitted her application yet.
>* 2. Advise ALAC on AOC Review Team Selection Process
>All RALOs, through whatever mechanism they choose, decide how their
>representatives can help the ALAC come to closure on the decisions on the
>AOC Review Team Selection Process for At-Large that the ALAC need to make
>during its teleconference on February 23rd. The ALAC has to make a decision
>on February 23rd and cannot defer these decisions.
>A tentative ALAC meeting is scheduled on Friday, February 26 to finalize the
>endorsements in case the ALAC does not do so at our ALAC meeting on February
>Best Regards,
>Matthias Langenegger
>Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>Email: matthias.langenegger at icann.org
>Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35
>Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44
>Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger
>------ Forwarded Message
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:46:19 -0800
>To: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Subject: [ALAC] URGENT: Process to select ALAC representative to AoC Review
>I am distributing this on behalf of Cheryl.
>Since the last ALAC meeting and the submission of
>the approved ALAC comments on the Affirmation of
>Commitments review process, there have been
>numerous discussions at many levels on the review
>process. From an At-Large perspective, we need to
>decide how we will address the selection of one
>or more people to be candidates for the first
>review team - the one assessing ICANN's
>accountability, transparency and support of the
>interests of global Internet users.
>Attached is a document that summarizes the issues
>and identifies what decision we must make.
>Because it includes a lot of background
>information, it is not short. The important
>issues are listed at the end, and most
>importantly, it includes a series of steps that
>we must take WITHOUT DELAY. For your convenience,
>the text of the document is also appended to this e-mail.
>If we do not act quickly, we will lose the
>ability to effectively participate in the very important review.
>Proposed ALAC Process for the "endorsement" of
>candidates responding to the Call for
>Accountability & Transparency (A&T) Review Team
>applicants (further to the discussion at the
>January 26th ALAC Meeting on this matter).
>·        The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC -
>calls for several reviews to be carried out
>periodically, with the first review being one on
>ensuring accountability, transparency and the
>interests of global Internet users (for short
>Accountability and transparency ­ A&T). The AoC
>requires that this review be concluded no later than December 31, 2010.
>·        The review team will include the
>following (or their designated nominees): the
>Chair of the GAC, the Chair of the Board of
>ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications
>and Information of the DOC, representatives of
>the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and
>Supporting Organizations and independent experts.
>·        Composition of the review team will be
>agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in
>consultation with GAC members) and the Chair of the Board of ICANN.
>·        The team composition will be published
>for public comment, but the draft review proposal
>does not seem to allow for changes based on these comments.
>·        The Call for Applicants for membership
>in the review team was issued on January 13, 2010
>·        The draft review proposal calls for one representative of the ALAC.
>          -         Our comments suggested that
>one was insufficient. We know that other
>organizations have made similar comments. At this
>point there is no indication that it will change, but it may.
>          -         Note the term
>³representative² ­ defined as a person who has
>been chosen to act or make decisions on behalf of
>another person or a group of people.
>·        The draft review proposal requires that
>any candidate to be considered for the review
>team be ³endorsed² by the group they are to represent.
>·        The draft review proposal requires that
>applications be submitted directly to ICANN.
>          -         We have been assured that we
>will receive copies of any such applications.
>·        The original deadline for submitting
>applications was February 17th at 23:59 UTC with
>the intent of selecting the final review team by
>February 20th. The submission deadline has since
>been extended to February 22nd and we have been
>told that the deadline for us submitting
>endorsements is March 1, 2010 at 23:59 UTC.
>·        The call for applications did not allow
>for any ALAC-specific criteria, but since that
>time, the GNSO indicated that they may want to
>collect additional information on their behalf.
>·        Any people who we endorse but who are
>not selected for the A&T review will be kept on
>file and may be appointed to a later review
>without further consultation with us.
>·        The GAC and the Board are given the
>courtesy of being represented on the review team
>by their Chair or a delegate (it is unclear when
>they must decide whether they themselves are
>participating or replaced by a delegate), but the ACs and SOs are not.
>Current Situation
>As of February 11th we are told that there have been just two applications.
>One is from a Kurt Snyder. He is not currently
>affiliated with any At-Large entity, but
>(according to his e-mail to the ALAC Chair ³I
>have been looking for ways to volunteer with
>ICANN and I believe this would be a fantastic
>opportunity for me.  Moreover, my background is
>well suited for such an endeavor.  I am an
>attorney with technology and assessment
>experience.² Mr. Snyder apparently incorrectly
>interpreted a reply from the ALAC Chair as
>implying that we had already formally endorsed him. This has been corrected.
>The second is from Christopher Wilkinson, an
>At-Large participant from Europe. Wolf has sent
>an e-mail saying that EURALO supports his
>candidature. Christopher has a long and
>illustrious history with ICANN. He is a member of
>EURALO/ISOC Chapter of Wallonia (Belgium) and is
>a former EU representative to the GAC, former GAC
>vice-chair, and former Secretary of the GAC.
>We have argued that the time-frame is
>unreasonable, particularly given the hierarchical
>structure of At-Large, but there is no indication that it will be altered.
>It is unclear to what extent our representative,
>once selected, will be allowed to interact with
>us once he/she is appointed to the review team.
>Although not planned for the purpose, we have an
>ALAC meeting scheduled for February 23, 2010, a
>few hours after the close of the application period.
>In communications to date, we have assumed that
>we will publicly post the submitted information
>of all applicants seeking our endorsements on out
>wiki/web site (URL to be determined).
>Decision Requirements
>·        Do we wish to ³endorse² all applicants to want to represent us?
>·        If not, how do we select one or more?
>·        Regardless of the above, do we want to
>indicate an order of preference?
>·        If we do any sort of selection, what
>criteria do we use? Specifically, how do we
>recognize the person(s) who we will endorse to
>represent us. To what extent should prior
>knowledge of ICANN, prior involvement with ICANN,
>and prior involvement with the formally defined
>At-Large Community be factored in?
>·        Given the time frame, to what extent can
>the entire At-Large Community - the ALSs, RALOs
>and even the entire ALAC MEANINGFULLY participate?
>·        To what extent do we wish to require
>ALAC specific information from the candidates? If
>any, what? Note that the inclusion of the
>Assistant Secretary for Communications and
>Information of the US Department of Commerce sets
>the tone for this group ­ it is a HIGH-level group of people.
>·        To what extent, at this late date, do we
>issue a further call for applications?
>·        Do we wish our endorsed but not accepted
>candidates to be held for future reviews?
>·        Do we want to consider the option of
>equity with the GAC and the Board by allowing our
>Chair or her/his delegate to participate in the
>process? Among other merits, it makes the
>representative responsible to and answerable to
>the ALAC and implicitly At-Large?
>*Immediate Action*
>The earliest that we can formally act on these
>questions is during our ALAC meeting of February
>23rd. That will be too late to solicit
>applications or additional ALAC-specific information.
>It is therefore suggested that IMMEDIATELY:
>1.      All RALOs, through whatever mechanism
>they choose, should select and forward any
>preferred candidates to the ALAC and to the
>designated ICANN address. The earlier this can be
>done, the better, but if ALAC members will have
>the time to adequately review the documentation,
>they must be received no later than the end of
>February 20th. The candidates must follow the
>specific requirements specified in the Call for
>Applicants PLUS must include a statement of why they believe:
>         a.      they are in a position to fairly
>access ICANN¹s accountability, transparency and
>the focus on the interests of global Internet users;
>         b.      they will be able to do this
>from the perspective of the global ICANN At-Large Community and the ALAC.
>2.      All RALOs, through whatever mechanism
>they choose, decide how their representatives can
>help the ALAC come to closure on the above
>decisions on February 23rd. We do NOT have the
>option of deferring these decisions. If we do not
>formally make them in a timely manner, we may
>lose our say in the process of selecting an ALAC
>representative and we lose our ability to adequately participate in the
>3.      We should schedule a tentative ALAC
>meeting on Friday, February 26 to finalize our
>endorsements in case we do not do so at our ALAC meeting on February 23rd.
>------ End of Forwarded Message

phone +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig

Digitale Allmend
http://blog.allmend.ch -

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ALAC-AoC-Process.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 26313 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20100216/3cbc89cc/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 268 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20100216/3cbc89cc/attachment-0001.txt>

More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list