[At-Large] Fwd: Advice to the Board?

Sat Apr 30 01:55:00 UTC 2022

Please add me as a support.

The work done by the community is certainly what we all have stood for.

I agree with the point of the statement that in safeguarding ICANN itself,
it shouldn't make the volunteer feel different.

Regards

Shreedeep

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 5:14 am Maureen Hilyard via At-Large, <
at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

> Dear At-Large Community
>
> If you have been following the At-Large community discussion list, you
> will have noted the concern that has been raised about a waiver that ICANN
> is imposing on the volunteer community to provide their signature to the
> document, as a prerequisite to being granted travel sponsorship to attend
> F2F ICANN Meetings.
>
> The waiver absolves ICANN of any responsibility for an ICANN
> participant'sgetting ill or is harmed in any way, even if it is ICANN's
> fault.  This is the core concern for us as volunteers. It is seen as an
> unreasonable ask of volunteers who have always known that they have to take
> responsibility for themselves not only when attending ICANN meetings, but
> also when they participate in other F2F meetings and working group
> activities that occur in between ICANN meetings.  We can appreciate that
> ICANN needs to protect itself, but while doing so they should not abdicate
> their duty of care to all those members of the ICANN community who have
> dedicated many years to providing personal inputs into ICANN's important
> work - to produce policy that will help to protect the DNS. It is taken for
> granted that "years" is the normal measurement in time which is required to
> produce  formal outputs from ICANN.
>
> During the At-Large community discussions, a raft of reasons developed
> which related to how this waiver that has been imposed as a pre-requisite
> to any travel support, impacts volunteer communities throughout ICANN.
> These reasons were noted and transformed into a list of 10 reasons why the
> waiver is not one of the best decisions that has come out of ICANN - more
> especially because it did not adhere to one of its core principles "the
> bottom-up, multistakeholder model".
>
> I have called the ALAC members together to make a decision about the
> waiver (the invitations for them to do so is below) to seek their support
> for "*the waiver and the expectation that it is signed before any
> travel sponsorship is provided, to be withdrawn*"  Although we have to
> consider that this course of action may not be actionable before ICANN74,
> we would ultimately like to return to what was the practice of the past
> when the community was trusted. We have always known that we were attending
> ICANN meetings at our own risk and would not have earlier contemplated
> taking action against ICANN for any illness or harm that might befall us if
> it was the fault of the individual during an ICANN meeting. There was also
> some need to address the section that had been identified as a key sticking
> point "*I knowingly and freely assume all risks related to illness and
> infectious diseases, including but not limited to COVID-19, even if arising
> from the negligence or fault of ICANN "*
>
> I already have a majority of the ALAC members who have immediately added
> their support to my request to submit Marita's 10 reasons why the waivers
> should be removed, *as the basis of our Advice to the Board that the
> waiver be withdrawn*. In case they are otherwise engaged, other ALAC
> members still have a bit of time to respond (by Sunday 1 May 23.59utc)
> before the request is formally submitted as ALAC advice to the Board.
>
> *Although many of our community already participated earlier, I would hope
> that others in our At-Large community will also support this request.
> Please let me know if you would like to add your name to our letter of
> Advice to the Board.*
>
> Maureen
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 11:14 PM
> Subject: Advice to the Board?
> To: ALAC Members <ALAC-members at icann.org>
>
>
> Dear ALAC members
>
> It has been suggested that we propose Marita's email to the community as
> ADVICE to the Board of the community's feelings about the waiver, so that
> the Board has to officially respond.
>
> Earlier messages of concern about other issues about volunteer support
> have only been noted because they were not formal advice, even though they
> reflected many discussions by the At-Large community, particularly during
> the pandemic.
>
> If you have any concerns about this summary list, please let me know
> before Sunday 23.59UTC.  I think it is an important issue and that we need
> to make sure that it is given the consideration that it deserves. I realise
> that any change may not happen for ICANN74 but if can address these issues
> for future meetings we will have achieved something at least.
>
> I look forward to a yay or nay from members about sending this as advice.
> Regards
> Maureen
>
>
> Marita Moll via At-Large
> 2:32 AM (20 hours ago)
> to At
>
> With apologies to former late show host David Letterman and thanks to all
> those who provided input, here are my top 10 reasons why this waiver is a
> bad idea for ICANN and for the community:
>
> 10. It is insensitive to the global community as it can be interpreted as
> an exportation of U.S.-based litigious culture
>
> 9. It disregards the fact that participants at ICANN meetings have always
> willingly and knowingly accepted personal responsibility for health issues
> that arise during meetings
>
> 8. It is a disincentive to attending ICANN meetings in person, thereby
> damaging the ability of the community to work together
>
> 7. Concerns which have arisen throughout the community about the broad
> scope of the waiver are not being addressed – including legal opinions
> warning potential participants against signing.
>
> 6. No one is taking ownership of this waiver. The Board position on it is
> unclear
>
> 5. There has been no general explanation to the community or any attempt
> seek buy-in for this waiver
>
> 4. This kind of blanket waiver could be unenforceable and in that case,
> serves only as intimidation
>
> 3. The waiver infringes on individual rights
>
> 2. ICANN appears to be abandoning its duty of care to the participating
> community who are voluntarily contributing their time and energy to
> fulfilling ICANN's mandate to operate as a bottom-up multistakeholder
> organization
>
> *Top reason why this waiver is a really bad idea:*
>
> *1. It leaves a lasting unpleasant taste in the mouths of participants
> contributing to ICANN's multistakeholder model -- which is presented as a
> source of pride and accomplishment to the internet governance community.*
>
> Marita (now signing off on this topic -- thanks for bearing with me)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20220430/12fc1a22/attachment-0001.html>