Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) and | Call for Comments | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29.11.2013 | Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group | Adopted 12Y, 0N, 0A | Rinalia Abdul Rahim (APRALO) | 23.11.2013 | 06.12.2013 | 09.12.2013 | 09.12.2013 | 12.12.2013 | 13.12.2013 | 16.12.2013 | Samantha Eisner samantha.eisner@icann.org | AL-ALAC-ST-1213-01-00-EN |
(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
Please click here to download a copy of there PDF below.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The ALAC supports the intent of the proposed bylaw changes to increase the availability of technical advice to the Board as well as the effectiveness of the Technical Liaison Group. It is clear that the current modus operandi is not working and that it has not brought any benefit to ICANN in terms of advice.
However, the ALAC is concerned that the order in which the changes are presented is out of line with the original recommendations of the Board technical relations WG findings, published on (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/tlg/board-technical-relations-wg-final-report-22aug11-en.pdf)
This report specifically recommends:
"Recommendation: ICANN should work to strengthen and better institutionalize the mechanisms for obtaining technical advice and input, including at the Board level. It is the recommendation of this Working Group that, given the ICANN Board’s current mode of operation, the organization continues to need technical advice and expertise within the Board's deliberations, such as the expertise and advice that has been provided by liaisons appointed by the TLG. A decision to disband the TLG should be made only in conjunction with simultaneously addressing this issue.”
The ALAC understands that the proposal is not to disband the TLG altogether but to remove the TLG position from the ICANN Board. We call on the ICANN Board to make sure, in the substitution of the TLG position in the Board, that it be structurally replaced by constant access to the necessary technical competence, not only through a structured, distance consultation.
Therefore, the ALAC considers the actual elimination of the position of a technical liaison to the ICANN Board should not occur until, at least, a mechanism to seek regular advice from the Technical Liaison Group (TLG) be founded. This capability should be a permanent one and, provide for the ability of the technical constituencies to provide advice to the Board on an ongoing basis and not merely when requests are made.
The areas that are in perpetual need of advice center on the DNS, both operationally and strategically. Operationally, advice is continuously required on issues related to DNS security, stability and resiliency as they are affected by developments in ICANN's area of work such as TLD expansion, IDN TLD and upcoming Variant TLD delegation. Strategically, advice/information is needed on how competition and complements to the DNS may be evolving as a continuous viability assessment for ICANN and its future.
The primary technical constituencies are often thought of as the RSSAC and the SSAC, but it should also be noted that the ALAC, given its broad remit, is able to comment and advise on any aspect of ICANN and can thus offer technical advice should the expertise to provide such advice be readily available in the At-Large community. Moreover, competency in technical matters is not limited to these three groups: it also includes the ASO, which includes the different RIRs, the ccNSO and the IETF, which has a permanent seat on the Board.
Designated technical experts/groups should serve both the watchdog (proactive provision of advice) function as well as provide advice upon request and any request should be allowed to come not only from the Board, but also from the community.
The ALAC also notes the absence of the criteria of reciprocity between the ICANN Board and the Boards of some organizations, specifically the W3C, ITU-T and ETSI, that are part of the Technical Liaison Group (TLG). The ALAC recommends that mechanisms for reciprocal advice be explored for ICANN to improve its links with these organisations.
Nominating Committee
On the subject of removing the TLG Liaison from the Nominating Committee, the ALAC is concerned that the proposed changes in the bylaws removes the TLG from appointing a delegate to the Nominating Committee. Yet the recommendation in the final report of the Board technical relations working group (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/tlg/board-technical-relations-wg-final-report-22aug11-en.pdf) says:
"The Nominating Committee is designed for broad participation. The TLG provides for participants in the Nominating Committee who are connected to the broader technical community. ICANN should maintain this connection, and should continue the TLG’s role of fulfilling it."
A significant part of the Nominating Committee’s work is outreach. The TLG Liaison has provided a significant outreach component to technical communities. Given the concerns of having persons on the Board with sufficient technical expertise, this change should NOT be supported and the TLG should continue to be able to select a delegate to serve on the Nominating Committee. Removing this position is likely to hinder the Nominating Committee's Outreach component.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
Designated technical experts/groups should serve both the watchdog (proactive provision of advice) function as well as provide advice upon request and the request should be allowed to come not only from the Board, but also from the community.
The ALAC, given its broad remit, is able to comment and advise on any aspect of ICANN and can thus offer technical advice should the expertise to provide such advice be readily available in the At-Large community.
7 Comments
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
- Operationally, advice is continuously required on issues related to DNS security, stability and resiliency as they are affected by developments in ICANN's area of work such as TLD expansion, IDN TLD and upcoming Variant TLD delegation.
- Strategically, advice/information is needed on how competition and complements to the DNS may be evolving as a continuous viability assessment for ICANN and its future.
3. Designated technical experts/groups should serve both the watchdog (proactive provision of advice) function as well as provide advice upon request and the request should be allowed to come not only from the Board, but also from the community.
4. The ALAC, given its broad remit, is able to comment and advise on any aspect of ICANN and can thus offer technical advice should the expertise to provide such advice be readily available in the At-Large community.
Rinalia
Anonymous
I do not think this reform is going in a good direction. It makes the relationship of the Board with the technical community much more tenuous and indirect.
ALAC as an Interrnet users representation (or voice, at least) should be concerned that the Board may advance more in its debates and decisions without necessary technical views before actually soliciting them, instead of having the Technical Liaison Group's voice as one more when decisions are being shaped, since the early stages.
We run the risk of privileging representation and diversity in the composition of the Board while sacrificing the soundness of its decisions.
The technical liaison acts not only as described - "watchdog" acting as a backstop against decisions which could be technically wrong – but also can push for more creative solutions to problems. It is not only the knowledge of the technology's constraints but the creativity based on the deep awareness of its potential that we could all be losing.
By removing the liaison instead of fixing it, we may be supporting an act of throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Let's not.
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
Anonymous is correct in that the ALAC should be concerned that the Board would advance in its decision-making without seeking advice from technical groups on matters that are implicated by technicalities. In this regard, the ALAC needs to look carefully at what the proposed bylaws changes are attempting to achieve and why, and whether the proposed solutions are appropriate to address problems that have been highlighted.
The Technical Liaison Group comprises ETSI, ITU-T, W3C and the IAB. 3 of those organizations (ETSI, ITU-T and W3C) appoint a liaison to the ICANN Board on a rotating basis - this means every 3 years, one of the organizations gets to appoint a liaison who serves a 1 year term + 1 ICANN nomcom member (here you can already see the inefficiencies of structural design). Note: The IAB is excluded from this arrangement because it is related to the IETF and the IETF already has a separate relationship with ICANN mandated by the Bylaws.
Here is the problem as defined by ICANN: "Instead of focusing their efforts on the appointment of a Board liaison or a Nominating Committee member, the primary task remaining with the TLG entities will be focus on the appointment of the expert panel that the Board can call upon for advice. The (single organization/individual) liaison role does not offer this more global access to expertise, as the TLG liaison role rotates on an annual basis, and no one liaison is able to deliver a coordinated position representing all of the TLG entities. The existence of the expert group will allow the Board to seek coordinated input, if needed, from all four component entities at the same time." Note: underline and brackets are my emphasis.
From what I understand, there has been no advice from the TLG to the board, which says something about the effectiveness of the structural design (note that the TLG has been mandated with both a watchdog role as well as a responsive role). And one should certainly ask the question of whether having representatives from the ETSI, ITU-T and W3C on the NomCom adds value to ICANN.
At this point in time, technical advice really matters (example: the delegation of IDN TLDs plus the upcoming delegation of IDN Variant TLDs, which carries certain risks, and the problem of universal acceptance of IDNs in general,which requires broad cooperation among organizations across the Internet layers). I would support effective mechanisms that allow the Board to access relevant technical information and advice from the 4 organizations rather than a relationship focused on institutional appointments, which privileges 1 organization every 3 years.
Finally, a clarification: the amendments to the bylaws jettison the "liaison", but keeps a panel of 8 experts (2 from each organizations).
Rinalia
Fatima Cambronero
LACRALO Statement on the Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group
The Latin American and Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organization (LACRALO) appreciates the efforts of the ICANN Board Technical Relations Working Group with regards to the modification of the ICANN Bylaws in the corresponding sections of the Technical Liaison Group (TLG).
LACRALO supports these proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws as ICANN already contains within its own structure the bodies responsible for providing this technical advice to the Board. Moreover, this capability is a permanent one and, as such, provides for the ability of the technical constituencies to provide advice to the Board on an ongoing basis and not merely when requests are made.
The primary technical constituencies are often thought of as the RSSAC and the SSAC, but it should also be noted that the ALAC and its diverse membership is also capable of giving technical advice as well. Specifically, in relation to the technical issues that are within the sphere of their knowledge and that may affect their interests. However, the technical constituencies are not limited to these three groups, it also includes the ASO, which participate the different RIRs, and the IETF, which has a permanent seat on the Board.
LACRALO also notes the absence of the criteria of reciprocity between the ICANN Board and the Boards of some organizations, specifically the W3C, ITU-T and EINS, that are part of the Technical Liaison Group (TLG). Doing so can be a potential disadvantage to ICANN with respect to the corresponding relationships between these organizations and ICANN. As this situation should be changed, LACRALO considers that the proposed changes in the Bylaws to be a positive move that are directed to balance that situation.
LACRALO considers that ICANN, at all levels, must have a constant presence of mastery upon the technology that is within its responsibilities. We call on the ICANN Board to make sure, in the substitution of the TLG position in the Board, that it be structurally replaced by constant access to the necessary technical competence, not only through a structured, distance consultation.
Therefore, LACRALO considers the elimination of the position of a technical liaison to the ICANN Board should not occur until, at least, a mechanism to replace the Technical Liaison Group (TLG) be founded. In finding this mechanism, the entire ICANN community as a whole, through various public consultations and meetings, should take place.
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
Dear Fatima,
Thank you for the beautifully worded statement and substantive input from LACRALO. I am delighted that there is interest from the community on the TLG issue, which I consider to be very important to ICANN.
To ensure that there is no confusion as we discuss the matter, here is a review of how ICANN presents the “problem”:
A. (Extracted from http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/tlg/board-technical-relations-wg-final-report-22aug11-en.pdf)
“The Technical Liaison Group (TLG), comprised of the IAB, ETSI, W3C and ITU –T, is chartered by the ICANN by laws to "connect the Board with appropriate sources of technical advice on specific matters pertinent to ICANN's activities." Additionally, the group appoints (in an annual rotation between ETSI, W3C and ITU - T) a non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board, and a voting delegate to the ICANN Nominating Committee. The TLG is, by the ICANN bylaws, prohibited from meeting or formulating positions of its own. According to ICANN ́s bylaws, there are two ways in which the TLG can be used to "channel technical information and guidance to the Board and to other ICANN entities". ICANN can specifically request information from the TLG, or the TLG can provide a watchdog activity, "to advise the Board of the relevance and progress of technical developments in the areas covered by each organization's scope that could affect Board decisions or other ICANN actions, and to draw attention to global technical standards issues that affect policy development within the scope of ICANN's mission." These mechanisms have rarely, if ever been invoked.”
B. (Extracted from Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose in https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Proposed+Bylaws+Changes+Regarding+the+Technical+Liaison+Group+Workspace)
"The Bylaws changes [of removing the TLG Liaison from the Board and the TLD Representative from the composition of the Nominating Committee] do not represent any change to the role of the TLG, which is to "channel technical information and guidance to the Board and other ICANN entities." Nor is there any change to four entities that make up the TLG. This proposed change is directed only towards simplifying how the TLG operates and delivers technical advice to the Board."
Further personal thoughts on the situation:
(1) Problem-Solving Time Lag
I find it curious that the final report of the Board Technical Relations Working Group is dated 22 August 2011 and we are only requested to comment on the proposed bylaws changes now in the final quarter of 2013.
(2) Dilemma in Removal of the TLG Liaison from the Board
In principle, one liaison from one organization per year from a group of 4 different organizations (let’s differentiate IAB and IETF for discussion) can be viewed as a structural constraint in the provision of technical advice. While there is this constraint, there is testimony of excellent TLG Liaison advice/input in the past that had been critical in Board decision-making (see public comments to JAS Communications Report). This does not mean that the one liaison position should not be removed to break the constraint, but it does mean that there needs to be a better mechanism for obtaining advice from the group as a whole. Until now, the mechanism is not yet evident and must be made evident and subject to community input/public comment. In moving forward, to continue receiving excellent input/advice from members of the TLG, criteria to ensure that excellent representatives are selected by the sending organizations would be necessary.
(3) Relevance of Organizations in the TLG
There appears to be no objection to the relevance of the organizations in the TLG, which is good. And no one appears to be suggesting that new entities should be added to the group (so far) even though the Board Technical Relations Working Group has reviewed a wider list of organizations.
(4) Mechanism for a Fully Functional TLG
There is general agreement that the TLG has not worked in the way that it was envisioned/intended. How it was intended was to have Board-issued requests for information/advice as well as proactive “watchdog” advice provision by TLG group members. On the former, I believe that at times it can be difficult for the Board to know what specific questions to ask, and timing also matters greatly. On the latter, the group members may not be aware that they are expected to provide proactive advice, without being asked, and this could be specified in organizational MOUs and Group Member Terms of Reference, and reflected in Group Member KPIs.
Excellent value-additions from the LACRALO Statement:
1. Proposing the criterion of reciprocity to enhance inter-organizational cooperation.
2. Thorough consultations with the entire ICANN community to find an appropriate and effective mechanism to "improve" the current TLG arrangement.
3. A TLG structure and mechanism for obtaining input/advice that allows for constant access to the necessary technical competence, and not only through distance consultation.
4. The reference to the ALAC and its diverse membership as also capable of giving technical advice as well, specifically in relation to the technical issues that are within the sphere of At-Large knowledge and interests.
5. The reference to technical constituencies that includes the ASO, which participate the different RIRs, and the IETF, which has a permanent seat on the Board.
One point that needs to be clarified from the LACRALO Statement
“...ICANN already contains within its own structure the bodies responsible for providing this technical advice to the Board.”
Yes to some extent, but not in the coverage of entities that do not fall under ICANN constituencies/stakeholder groups and who deal with complements to the DNS, such as the W3C, ETSI and ITU-T.
I hope that LACRALO and the ALAC find the above input useful in your respective deliberations over the statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
The proposed changes in the bylaws removes the TLG from appointing a delegate to the Nominating Committee. Yet the recommendation in the final report (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/tlg/board-technical-relations-wg-final-report-22aug11-en.pdf) says:
"The Nominating Committee is designed for broad participation. The TLG provides for participants in the Nominating Committee who are connected to the broader technical community. ICANN should maintain this connection, and should continue the TLG’s role of fulfilling it."
which is strange. Given the concerns of having persons on the Board with sufficient technical expertise, this change should NOT be supported and the TLG should continue to be able to select a delegate to serve on the Nominating Committee.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
Re: "(1) Problem-Solving Time Lag"
What is puzzling is that the Final Report http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/tlg/board-technical-relations-wg-final-report-22aug11-en.pdf makes 4 recommendations (I've bolded and underlined key phrases):
"Recommendation: ICANN should consult with the TLG's constituent bodies individually about what relationship and involvement in governance mechanisms is appropriate for the respective organization. This consultation should be undertaken by the ICANN Board or senior staff.
Recommendation: ICANN should not disband the TLG before it has substantially concluded these consultations. We believe that a time frame of six months should be sufficient to substantially conclude these consultations.
Recommendation: ICANN should work to strengthen and better institutionalize the mechanisms for obtaining technical advice and input, including at the Board level. It is the recommendation of this Working Group that, given the ICANN Board’s current mode of operation, the organization continues to need technical advice and expertise within the Board's deliberations, such as the expertise and advice that has been provided by liaisons appointed by the TLG. A decision to disband the TLG should be made only in conjunction with simultaneously addressing this issue.
Recommendation: The Nominating Committee is designed for broad participation. The TLG provides for participants in the Nominating Committee who are connected to the broader technical community. ICANN should maintain this connection, and should continue the TLG’s role of fulfilling it"
SO, were there consultations done by ICANN Staff with the TLG organisations? What were the outcomes? And how did we reach from that Final report recommendations in 2011 that seems to suggest maintaining the status quo (while calling on ways to strengthen and better institutionalize the mechanisms for obtaining technical advice) to the proposed bylaw changes in 2013 to remove the TLG liasion to the Board AND the removal of the delegate to the Nominating Committee?
Re: "(2) Dilemma in Removal of the TLG Liaison from the Board"
The TLG seems to be very constrained by the ICANN bylaws for obtaining advice from the group as a whole, advice is obtained only from the organisation(s) directly asked by the Board.
Under Article X1, Section 2 (bolded key phrases for emphasis):
"4. TLG Procedures. The TLG shall not have officers or hold meetings, nor shall it provide policy advice to the Board as a committee (although TLG organizations may
individually be asked by the Board to do so as the need arises in areas relevant to their individual charters). Neither shall the TLG debate or otherwise coordinate technical issues across the TLG organizations; establish or attempt to establish unified positions; or create or attempt to create additional layers or structures within the TLG for the development of technical standards or for any other purpose.
"6. Individual Technical Experts. Each TLG organization shall designate two individual technical experts who are familiar with the technical standards issues that are relevant to ICANN's activities. These 8 experts shall be available as necessary to determine, through an exchange of e-mail messages, where to direct a technical question from ICANN when ICANN does not ask a specific TLG organization directly."
The "watchdog" role of the TLG is NOT to watch and comment on the ICANN activities but rather to "advise the Board of the relevance and progress of technical developments in the areas covered by each organization's scope that could affect Board decisions" and to draw attention to global technical standards issues that affect policy development within the scope of ICANN's mission."
Re: (3) Relevance of Organizations in the TLG
I was surprised from my research of the other 4 organisations in the TLG that ICANN isn't formally listed/registered as a member or observer/liaison in these organisations. I fully agree that ICANN should be present in these organisations given the efforts of ensuring technical advice from these organisations in ICANN. Indeed, the presence of representatives from ICANN in these organisation could minimise the need for a TLG construct and the current issues with the TLG.
I note that ICANN has yet to join the Unicode Consortium http://www.unicode.org/consortium/consort.html). Given the issue of IDNs, should this be a candidate for the TLG?
Re: (4) Mechanism for a Fully Functional TLG
Agreed.
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand