[AFRI-Discuss] Fwd: [ALS-Mob-WP] Next week's meeting

Fri May 22 22:27:14 UTC 2020

Sorry for cross posting as I used the wrong email address
Pastor Peters Omoragbon

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Peters Omoragbon <petersomoragbon at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020, 21:37
Subject: Re: [ALS-Mob-WP] Next week's meeting
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Cc: ALS-mob-wp <als-mob-wp at icann.org>, AfRALO internal list <
afralo-internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, AFRALO ROP WG <
afralo-rop at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Peters Omoragbon <
peters.omoragbon at gmail.com>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>,
ATLAS III Participants <atlasiiiparticipants at icann.org>, HELEN A <
helenaegbums at yahoo.com>

Dear Colleagues,
I hope you are well, good and keeping safe in this pandemic?

Please, find attached and also copied and pasted into the body of the email
our position as an ALS and member of the ALS mop WP on the current review
of the ALSs Activities. *Please, be informed that I on May 18 2020, I put
the WP on notice that we shall be sharing our position for all to see,
which was not objected to. So, no one should feel we are acting outside the
prescribed guidelines of WGs.*

Our aim is to enlarge and increase the volume of the voices of the affected
communities. This was one lesson we learnt in Montreal during our
leadership training-*to increase the volume of the voice of our
various constituencies in ICANN.*

*Take your time to read through.*

Thank you for your time.

*THE POSITION OF NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS TO THE ALAC ALS MOP WP REVIEW AS
IT RELATES TO THE PROPOSED ALS ACCREDITATION PROCESS AS AN ALS TO ALAC AND
MEMBER OF THE ALS MOP WP*

*Introduction*

Fellow members of the Empowered Community and the ICANN family.

This document is our position as it concerns the above subject matter. I
must remind the members of the ALS MOP WP that I am sharing this document
to the MOP WP directly in their emails and the AFRALO mailing list because
the issues and the proposals contained in the document for review concerns
the largest and most powerful section of the ALAC community; as such,
because of the far reaching proposals if not openly debated and discussed,
a lot within the WP and the RALOs may be wrongly influenced to sign up to
what may even hunt them in the future, when they realized they have been
misled by a section of the community with an agenda. (See Section
1.2.(a)iv, ICANN Byelaws: *Employ open, transparent and bottom-up,
multi-stakeholder policy development processes** that are led by the
private sector (including business stakeholders, civil society, the
technical community, academia, and end users), while duly taking into
account the public policy advice of governments and public authorities.
These processes shall (A) seek input from the public, for whose benefit *
*ICANN** in all events shall act, (B) promote well-informed decisions based
on expert advice, and (C) ensure that those entities most affected can
assist in the policy development process;*). Secondly, not very few of the
ICANN family have taken time to familiarise themselves with the ICANN
Byelaws which should be the ‘bible’ of our operation within ICANN. As a
result I shall rely copiously on relevant sections of the Byelaws to
support our position in this document.

There are TWO documents attached to this email-First, the draft ALS
ACCREDITATION PROCESS PROPOSAL that was shared on Google and this very
document elaborating on our comments in the former document.

Permit me if you will, to ask the following questions: (*they may have been
answered, we do not think we are satisfied)*

1.    What informed this very review process in the first place?

2.    What was working well with the process in review?

3.    What is/was not working well with the process in review?

4.    If some areas within the process in review did not work well, does it
warrant this elaborate and expansive review that has taken the shape of an
*Assizes*?

5.      Why would the ALSs not be availed the opportunity to review the
draft of this WP before going to ALAC for approval?

6.    If ICANN is to *Employ open, transparent and bottom-up,
multi-stakeholder policy development processes…** and (C) ensure that those
entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;*)- See
Section 1.2.(a)iv, ICANN Byelaws, why then would this review process be
made a top-bottom instead of the other way round? Or better still why would
the ALSs not have a say in its review before ALAC consideration of our job?

These were and are still our concerns because the fervour and enthusiasm
being manifested by the WP leadership on this review, even to proposing a
consideration OUTSIDE of the existing policies and practice of ICANN
like *allowing
an application from an ALS that has no region to be admitted into ICANN* to
me is worrisome. Note that, majority of the members of the WP do not belong
to any ALS nor have some been members of an ALS in the past. They came into
ICANN as individuals and rose to their positions. One can now see why some
of the proposals being made do not have bearing on them, because they stand
to lose nothing at the end whichever way the pendulum swings.

*Nothing about us without us is apt in this setting.* For any meaningful
achievement from this review to stand the test of time, it must include the
inputs of those to be affected by the review or policy.

*POINTS OF OBSERVATION IN THE PROPOSAL AS THEY RELATE TO THE ICANN BYELAWS*

1.    The drafters of the ICANN Byelaws foresaw a situation like is playing
out now in the WB when they laid the foundation of ICANN’s structure and
activities on Section 1.2 (a) iii, iv, v under *Commitments and Core
Values.* These provisions I would implore every member of the WP and other
stakeholders reading this document to read and reflect on this as it
relates to their decisions in reviewing the ALS activities. For ease of
reference, I have copied these sections hereunder:

*1.2  *(a) *Commitments: * *In performing its Mission, **ICANN** must
operate in a manner consistent with these Bylaws for the benefit of the
Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity
with relevant principles of international law and international conventions
and applicable local law, through open and transparent processes that
enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets.
Specifically, **ICANN** commits to do the following (each, a "Commitment,"
and collectively, the "Commitments"):*

*(a)  * iii,   *Respect the creativity, innovation, and flow of information
made possible by the Internet by limiting **ICANN**'s activities to matters
that are within **ICANN**'s Mission and require or significantly benefit
from global coordination;*

iv, *Employ, open, transparent and bottom-up, multistakeholder policy
development processes that are led by the private sector (including
business stakeholders, civil society, the technical community, academia,
and end users), while duly taking into account the public policy advice of
governments and public authorities. These processes shall (A) seek input
from the public, for whose benefit **ICANN** in all events shall act, (B)
promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (C) ensure that
those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;*

v, *Make decisions by applying documented policies consistently, neutrally,
objectively, and fairly, without singling out any particular party for
discriminatory treatment (i.e., making an unjustified prejudicial
distinction between or among different parties); *

1.2 (b) under *Core Values*

*i, **To the extent feasible and appropriate, delegating coordination
functions to or recognizing the policy role of, other responsible entities
that reflect the interests of affected parties and the roles of bodies
internal to **ICANN** and relevant external expert bodies;*

*vi, **Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain
names  where practicable and beneficial to the public interest as
identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development
process;*

*vii, **Striving to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of
different stakeholders, while also avoiding capture; and*  *at the rate the
WP is going and if the lines of proposed changes are allowed, it will
negate the principle of achieving reasonable balance between interests of
different stakeholders. What is staring us now is a CAPTURE MENTALITY.*

Furthermore, section 1.2.(c) summarises the importance of both the
commitments and core values, take specific notice of the underlined portion
of this core value: *The Commitments and Core Values are intended to apply
in the broadest possible range of circumstances. The Commitments reflect *
*ICANN**'s fundamental compact with the global Internet community and are
intended to apply consistently and comprehensively to **ICANN**'s
activities. The specific way in which Core Values are applied, individually
and collectively, to any given situation may depend on many factors that
cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated. Situations may arise in which
perfect fidelity to all Core Values simultaneously is not possible.
Accordingly, in any situation where one Core Value must be balanced with
another, potentially competing Core Value, the result of the balancing must
serve a policy developed through the bottom-up multistakeholder process or
otherwise best serve **ICANN**'s Mission*. *To what extent would the
current review serve ICANN’s best interest different from what is currently
operational? Where is the application of the ‘bottom-up’ process if ALSs
would await ALAC decision before it can make inputs (if at all) into our
current review?*

Suffice to mention also, that Section 3.1 vehemently reinforced the need
for transparency when it stated as follows: *ICANN and its constituent
bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and
transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure
fairness, including implementing procedures to (a) provide advance notice
to facilitate stakeholder engagement in policy development decision-making
and cross-community deliberations, (b) maintain responsive consultation
procedures that provide detailed explanations of the basis for decisions
(including how comments have influenced the development of policy
considerations), and (c) encourage fact-based policy development
work. ICANN shall also implement procedures for the documentation and
public disclosure of the rationale for decisions made by the Board
and ICANN's constituent bodies (including the detailed explanations
discussed above).*

The above to us should form the fulcrum of any policy review. The WP as far
as we are concerned by the body language of its current leaders are
diametrically opposed to the above standards. For example, at the meeting
of Monday May 18, 2020, the Chairman of the WP was very clear, when he
stated that the *ALSs would not have the opportunity for inputs or sighting
the draft of the WP before it is submitted to ALAC. *That is not bottom-up
policy formulation, nor is it transparent. Let us be very clear that, most
of the leaders in this WP were never members of any ALS, as stated earlier,
and they have at various times benefitted from ICANN in ITS BEST OF TIMES,
have remained in every leadership positions by gyrating from one committee
to the other in the name of EXPERIENCE as was the response to me in
Montreal during the General Assembly. *This to me is pure recycling and not
experience.* This same behaviour is permeating every strata of the ICANN
community in all the regions as anyone in a position of leadership after 4
years is not satisfied but would use that position to influence his/her
choice for further roles. *If there must be review, it has to be on how to
prevent the recycling of ICANN leaderships in its community as currently
practiced. There must be tenure limits! There is no Empowered Community if
we keep repeating the same thing to expect a different result. *Very soon,
majority of these leaders would retire from active roles in ICANN because
of the current reality as members are becoming restive. And when they
leave, what legacy would they leave behind without *empowered successors
instead of adopting successors based on blind loyalty?*

*SPECIFICS IN THE PROPOSED DRAFT REVIEW*

Flowing from the WP meeting on 18/5/2020, I raised concerns on the
following proposed drafts, *Item 2*: *For Review*: the set of actions that
is to be done under Due Diligence is too probing especially the item that
stated:* …verifying sources of funding*… ICANN or any of its constituents
cannot exercise such powers when viewed against its Byelaws in *S12.2(d)vii*
as the ALSs are SELF-SUPPORTING entities.

*Item 3(a):* We do not see the need for current RALO leadership to still
constitute a ‘Body’ within a ‘Body’ known as “LARGER REGIONAL LEADERSHIP”
made up of ex RALO leaders. *This like breeding a collection of ‘Mafia-like
-group’ that pulls the strings behind the curtain like a puppet show in the
RALO.* Since these ex leaders would remain as members of their various ALSs
or individual members of the RALOs, they could still made their
contributions like any other ordinary members. Their roles ended with their
tenures. *It is practices like this that breeds the recycling of leaders
and constrict offices for the other members in the community stifle the
leadership growth of the ‘next-generation-Generation Gap.*

*Item 7: *The role of ALAC in this regard is unnecessary. Once the At large
staff has completed their DD and referred to the RALOs, and it is approved
or accepted by the RALO, their recommendation should not be subjected to
ALAC review for another 5 days!

*The following observations were made directly inside the document and
herein was/is our observations highlighted accordingly:*

Decisions are made in accordance with the standard ALAC majority decision
process as per ALAC RoP 12.2.1. It is very interesting that the only
section of the ALAC RoP referenced by the proponents of these changes was
12.2.1. What about section 12.2 (d) (vii), (viii), ix (E)?

Decisions to accredit, or refuse to accredit, an ALS shall be subject to
review as provided by the ICANN Bylaws, Section 4.2 Reconsideration. Why
would the proponents ONLY prefer that it is ONLY the decision of ALAC to
accredit or refuse accreditation of an ALS that should be subjected to
Section 4.2? That is a smokescreen, why not subject this entire review with
its stringent conditions be subjected to Section 4.2? This, in fact, will
be the consideration of most existing ALSs individually or collectively
should ALAC go-ahead to adopt these measures being proposed as they are
very draconian.

The ALAC will notify the applicant of its accreditation decision, and, if
applicable, provide information on requesting a review of the decision. In
the case of a decision to not accredit, the ALAC, at the sole decision of
the ALAC Chair, may include a rationale for the rejection. Communication of
official decisions to entities within ICANN should be the duty of the ICANN
Staff not ALAC.

Except as provided below under ‘Suspension of an Application', the ALAC and
the At-Large staff shall work concertedly to ensure that the process of
reaching a decision to accredit, or not to accredit, an At-Large Structure
shall normally take no longer than ninety  (90) calendar days from the date
at which an application is received to the date at which the applicant is
notified of the decision. Should it become apparent that this norm may not
be achieved, the applicant shall be notified of the situation. ALAC should
not overbear on the ICANN staff in performing their paid administrative
duties. It will defeat the purpose of objectivity by the ICANN staff in
performing DD because of undue influence by ANY MEMBER of ALAC with a
vested interest. What is wrong with the present practice by the way

*Note that under decisions to accredit or refuse to accredit…S4.2 of the
ICANN Byelaw was the only section referenced. That is selective ‘redress,’
capitalizing on the ignorance of ICANN Byelaws by most the ALSs and other
members of both the WP and the community. We would address this later on.*

Suspension of an Application

An application for ALS accreditation may be suspended where:

   1. The suspension is requested by the Applicant; or
   2. Additional information is requested by ICANN Staff during the Due
   Diligence process; or
   3. The RALO Secretariat of the region the applicant is based in
   determines that further information is required from the applicant which is
   essential to the evaluation of the application; or
   4. Members of the ALAC believe that additional information is essential
   to the evaluation of the application Once, due DD has been performed and
   the RALO are satisfied with the applicant’s meeting its standards as
   contained in its MOU and recommendation for approval made, ALAC should
   respect that recommendation. ALAC members are elected by the RALOs and such
   it is high-handed for ALAC to engage in scrutiny of a decison of the RALO
   especially when it was adopted by the consensus of the membership of the
   RAOL not just its leaders but members.
   5.

Wherever an application is suspended under part 1 of this section, that
suspension shall be lifted upon the request of the applicant.

When notifying the applicant of the additional information, it shall be
obligatory to also notify the applicant that the application is suspended
until the information is received.

An application that is suspended at the request of the applicant, or
waiting for information from the applicant for more than 90 days shall be
considered to be withdrawn.

QUESTION TO STAFF & WP: Are there cases where we may need to suspend an
application other than to request new information? e.g. to get information
other than from the applicant or due to the need for further evaluation? If
so, how do we constrain the time required?I would suggest the time frame
should be unify across any suspension reason

De-accreditation

An ALS may be de-accredited at the request of the ALS  or by a decision of
the ALAC.

   1. If an ALS voluntarily decides to give up its ALS Status, the
   situation should be duly documented and the ALAC informed. ALAC Members may
   request additional investigation to ensure that the request is voluntary on
   behalf of the ALAC and may request that a formal vote of the ALAC be
   required. A simple majority in accordance with the ALAC RoP 12.2.1 is
   required.
   2. A RALO may request de-accreditation of one of its ALSes. The
   rationale would normally include non-adherance to ALS minimum criteria, but
   other issues may be considered. The ALS must be given adequate opportunity
   to correct the problem(s), generally being given no less than 6 months to
   do so.
   3. Any RALO action(s) in relation to ALS de-accreditation should be
   thoroughly dicumented.

A super-majority ALAC vote of the ALAC is required for such
de-accreditation.

4.              ALAC Members may request de-accreditation of an ALS. The
RALO leadership must be consulted and given an opportunity to explain why
it believes that the ALS accreditation should remain. In all other
respects, the process followed for case 2 shall be followed.Why would any
member of  ALAC be given the power to request de-accreditation of an ALS?
Which section of the ICANN Bye laws is this proposal fulfilling? Remember
what absolute power does? Someone who may not belong to the region of the
ALS, not even a member of that RALO leadership, may because he does not
like the  way Pastor Peters is outspoken would wake up one day to put
before the 15 wise men in ALAC the request to de-accredit his ALS. That is
exactly what we are breeding. What criteria would the ALAC member fulfil
before even contemplating such request?

*CONCLUSION:*

Our conclusion shall be made by drawing attention to SOME very salient
sections of the ICANN Byelaws that *should guide this WP and every other
member when contributing to this draft below from Section 12(d) ix F-G:*

*(F) Decisions to certify or decertify an At-Large Structure shall be made
as decided by the ALAC in its rules of procedure, save always that any
changes made to the rules of procedure in respect of an At-Large Structure
applications shall be subject to review by the RALOs and by the Board.*

*(G) Decisions as to whether to accredit, not to accredit, or disaccredit
an At-Large Structure shall be subject to review according to procedures
established by the Board.*

*(H) On an ongoing basis, the ALAC may also give advice as to whether a
prospective At-Large Structure meets the applicable criteria and standards.*

*The underlined sections in F above further supports our position that the
ALSs have  greater roles in any review that attempts to promote their
activities. The powers of ALAC in section H is not absolute but a
POSSIBILITY. These are subject to G above. Perhaps at this juncture, it is
pertinent to ask if this review was/is in line with section 4.4 (a) or
rather was this review the recommendation of this section?*

*(a)   **The Board shall cause a periodic review of the performance and
operation of each **Supporting Organization**, each **Supporting
Organization** Council, each **Advisory Committee** (other than the
Governmental **Advisory Committee**), and the Nominating Committee (as
defined in Section 8.1) by an entity or entities independent of the
organization under review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken
pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be
to determine (i) whether that organization, council or committee has a
continuing purpose in the **ICANN** structure, (ii) if so, whether any
change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness
and (iii) whether that organization, council or committee is accountable to
its constituencies, stakeholder groups, organizations and other
stakeholders. *

*Item 1  *in the draft proposal identifies 3 *possibilities* and a 4TH for
accrediting an *ALS that will not be affiliated to any region* below;

When reviewing the form, determine which questions are mandatory. Also, if
we will be accepting global (non-regional) ALSes, the application may need
to be adjusted.

NOTE: We spent a lot of time during the last meeting discussing ALSes which
do not fit into our regional structure. The three possible options going
forward were:

a.              Change the Bylaws to allow assigning such an ALS to a
region;

b.              Interpret the Bylaws to allow assigning such an ALS to a
region;

c.              Reject the application.

A 4th option might also be possible:

a.              Have an ALS not associated with any region.

*Why would anyone contemplate the option in red above? ALSs according the
Byelaws operate in RALOs either as a group or as individuals. It is
ludicrous to begin to formulate an academic exercise in futility. That
option should be deleted without ANY DEBATE.*

Take notice also of S4.6 b (i):  *The Board shall cause a periodic review
of **ICANN**'s execution of its commitment to maintain and improve robust
mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to
ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making reflect the public interest
and are accountable to the Internet community ("Accountability and
Transparency Review").*

*Caution:* It is hoped that the WP and other well-meaning members of the
community would take time to peruse this document and reflect using the
Lion’s club Four-Way Test of the things we think, say or do:

·      Is it the TRUTH

·      Is it FAIR to all concerned

·      Will it build GOOD WILL and BETTER FRIENDHIPS

·      Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

If in the event our appeal above is not convincing enough to pause and
review the basis again, then we may have no choice than exercise our rights
under the ICANN Byelaws in Section 4.2(G)ii, 4.3 of annexe, d, and (H), (I)
and (J). 4.3 (ii), (iv)

You have the assurance of our esteemed regards, always.

*For Nurses Across the Borders.*

*Pastor Peters OMORAGBON*

*President/CEO*

*Pastor Peters Osawaru OMORAGBON*

*-Financial Secretary, Central Association of Nigerians in the United
Kingdom-CANUK*

*-Executive President/CEO-Nurses Across the Borders-An NGO in Special
Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations-ECOSOC*

*-Designated Contact Person-United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change-UNFCCC*

*-International Liaison Officer-Nigerian Nurses Charitable
Association-NNCA-UK*

*-Board Member-Conference of NGOS in Special Consultative Status with the
United Nations-CONGO*

*-Member Steering Committee Regional Committee for Africa-CONGO*

*-General Secretary, Civil Society Network of NGOs on Climate Change*

*-Fellow Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers-ICANN*
*-Fellow Open Society Institute-Budapest*

On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 03:25, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> I understand that it is a US holiday on Monday next week (just as it
> was a Canadian holiday this Monday).
>
> At this point we are behind schedule and I have asked that a meeting
> be scheduled. I understand that we may be a bit thin on staff and
> NARALO members, but hopefully we can still make headway and as usual,
> any decisions will be reviewed the following week. I will make sure
> the revised document is ready well before the end of this week, so
> everyone will have a chance to review it.
>
> Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALS-Mob-WP mailing list
> ALS-Mob-WP at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/als-mob-wp
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/afri-discuss/attachments/20200522/6673a715/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: POSITION OF NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS ON DRAFT ALS PROPOSAL REVIEW 2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 212300 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/afri-discuss/attachments/20200522/6673a715/POSITIONOFNURSESACROSSTHEBORDERSONDRAFTALSPROPOSALREVIEW2-0001.pdf>