ALAC Leadership Team
Nominee | Leadership Position | Nominated By/Supported By | Date Nominee Accepted | Role Previously Held By (Reelection Possible) | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olivier Crépin-Leblond | Chair | 30 October 2013 | Olivier Crépin-Leblond (Yes) | Term automatically renewed through the 2014 AAGM | |
| Tijani Ben Jemaa | Vice-Chair | Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Alan Greenberg | 20 November 2013 | Carlton Samuels (No) | Was selected by acclamation at the 2013 AGM |
| Evan Leibovitch | Vice-Chair | Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Alan Greenberg | 13 November 2013 | Evan Leibovitch (Yes) | Was selected by acclamation at the 2013 AGM |
| Holly Raiche | ALT Member | Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Alan Greenberg | 18 November 2013 | Rinalia Abdul Rahim (No) | Was selected by acclamation at the 2013 AGM |
| Dev Anand Teelucksingh | ALT Member | Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Alan Greenberg | 18 November 2013 | Tijani Ben Jemaa (Yea) | Was selected by acclamation at the 2013 AGM |
| |||||
|
Proposed ALT Schedule:
Call for Nominees: 11 November - 18 November
Nominees acceptance period: 18 November - 20 November
ALAC votes by consensus: 21 November
Relevant ALAC ROP Text:
6. ALAC Leadership Team Requirements and Responsibilities
6.1 Members of the ALT support and collaborate with the Chair in the overall administration and management of the ALAC.6
6.2 The ALT shall have no other explicit responsibilities and is not empowered to make substantive decisions on the part of the ALAC unless urgency or confidentiality precludes consulting the ALAC. In such a case, the decision needs to be ratified with the ALAC as soon as practical.
6.3 Paragraph 6.2 notwithstanding, the ALAC may, from time to time, assign specific responsibilities or tasks to the ALT.
6.4 All ALT Members must be ALAC Members.
6.5 A person nominated for an ALT position does not need to be in the ALAC at the time of nomination but must have an expectation of being an ALAC Member after the next AAGM.
6.6 Should a person selected as an ALT Member not be an ALAC Member after the upcoming AAGM, a new selection must be conducted.
6.7 ALT Members are expected to participate in all ALT meetings, both face-to-face and teleconferences, and to the extent that such participation from time to time may not be possible, provide advance notice of the planned absence where practical.
6.8 An ALAC Member occupying the role of Vice-Chair agrees to take on a heavier workload than the untitled ALT Members.
17.1 Ordinary ALAC Leadership Team selections
17.1.1 Ordinary selections of the ALT Members will be held in connection with the AAGM.
17.1.2 The incoming Chair must be selected prior to the initiation of the selection process for the other ALT Members.
17.1.3 The Chair/Staff shall send via Approved Distribution Lists, a Selection Call for the ALT Members identifying the positions to be filled, giving the schedule and modalities of the selection process and requesting nominations (including self-nominations) by ALAC Members. The Selection Call will allow at least seven days for nominations.
17.1.4 The requirements to be met by Leadership Team nominees are listed in Paragraph 6.
17.1.5 A nominee must send a message of acceptance to the same list on which nominations were solicited within seven days of the close of nominations. The acceptance should be sent via Staff if the nominee does not have sending privileges to that list. An ALAC SoI must be completed prior to the close of the acceptance period if the nominee does not have one.
17.1.6 The selection of the ALT Members (excluding the Chair) shall be carried out prior to or during the AAGM using the standard ALAC process of Consensus if possible, and barring that, by secret ballot. If a vote is required for any position, the winner requires a majority of votes as per standard ALAC voting methodology. A voting method incorporating instant runoff may be used if deemed necessary. There must be no more than one person selected from each of the regions not represented by the Chair.
ALAC Liaisons
Nominee | Liaison Position | Nominated By/Supported By | Date Nominee Accepted | Role Previously Held By (Reelection Possible) | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maureen Hilyard | ccNSO Liaison | Holly Raiche, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Alan Greenberg, Samvel Martirosyan, Fouad Bajwa, Ali AlMeshal, Siranush Vardanyan, Gunela Astbrink,Chaitanya Dhareshwar, | 13 November 2013 | Cheryl Langdon-Orr (Yes) | Was selected by acclamation at the 2013 AGM |
| Alan Greenberg | GNSO Liaison | Alan Greenberg, Rinalia Abdul Rahim | 12 November 2013 | Alan Greenberg (Yes) | Was selected by acclamation at the 2013 AGM |
| Eduardo Diaz | .MOBI Liaison | Rinalia Abdul Rahim | 19 November 2013 | ||
| Darlene Thompson | .MOBI Liaison | Darlene Thompson (Self-Nomination) | 13 November 2013 | ||
| Murray McKercher | ALAC Liaison to .MOBI | Glenn McKnight | Murray McKercher ( YES) See note below on relevant experience | Murray McKercher was selected by an ALAC consensus on 17 Dec. 2013 | |
| Julie Hammer | SSAC Liaison | Alan Greenberg, Rinalia Abdul Rahim | 13 November 2013 | Julie Hammer (Yes) | Was selected by acclamation at the 2013 AGM |
Proposed Liaison Schedule:
Call for Nominees: 11 November - 18 November
ALAC votes by consensus: 21 November
Relevant ALAC ROP Text:
7. ALAC Appointee Requirements and Responsibilities
7.1 The ALAC may from time to time appoint individuals to represent the interests of the ALAC and the At-Large Community, to act on behalf of the ALAC or to meet other specific obligations, to various bodies within or outside of ICANN. Such individuals will be referred to in these RoP as Appointees, and the body to which they represent the ALAC referred to as the Target Group (TG).
7.2 Based on the arrangement with the TG, some Appointees may bear the title Liaison.
7.3 Liaisons need not be ALAC Members, but they will normally be current or past ALAC Members, or otherwise familiar with the ALAC and At-Large and the TG to whom they will liaise.
7.4 Appointees not bearing the title of Liaison generally do not need to be ALAC Members but must have sufficient knowledge of the ALAC and At-Large and any other group or subject related to their appointment so as to be able to properly represent the ALAC/At-Large
7.5 Appointees are responsible for communicating ALAC positions to the TG, and for reporting on TG activities, meetings and actions that may be of interest to the ALAC, to the extent that the confidentiality rules of the TG allow.
7.6 Appointees shall generally have the same responsibilities as ALAC Members, with the following exceptions.
7.6.1 Appointees do not participate in ALAC consensus decisions or votes unless they are ALAC Members.
7.6.2 Appointees may be relieved of the responsibility to attend all ALAC meetings by decision of the ALAC.
7.6.3 Appointees have no requirements to participate in the ALAC and other WGs other than those related to the TG unless they are ALAC Members. That notwithstanding, Liaisons are encouraged and expected to be active participants in the activities of the TG.
7.7 Appointees have an obligation to ensure that it is clear whether they are speaking on behalf of themselves, the ALAC or any other organization that they are affiliated with. Moreover, Liaisons must fairly represent positions of the ALAC where they exist.
7.8 When representing the ALAC, Appointees have an obligation to solicit ALAC and At-Large views on the matter where practical and possible. Appointees should be selected knowing that in many instances such consultation may not be possible or practical and thus the ALAC needs to select people who understand the philosophies or guiding values and principles of the ALAC and At-Large.
7.9 Appointees shall accept, while acting in their capacity on behalf of the ALAC, to put the collective views of the ALAC ahead of their own, to the extent that such views are known.
7.9.1 When the personal views are in conflict with ALAC views, the Appointee must make clear which position is which.
7.9.2 To the extent that such ALAC views are not known, personal views should not be misrepresented as ALAC views.
7.10 Liaisons may serve in this capacity to only one TG at a time.
7.11 Appointee appointments are from the period of the end of one AAGM to the end of the following AAGM unless otherwise specified by the ALAC at the time of the appointment.
7.12 Any appointment where the TG has internal participation qualifications is conditional upon acceptance by the TG.
7.13 The TG should make their requirements known ahead of time to the extent possible and practical.
8. Terms
8.1 All appointments begin at the conclusion of one AAGM and continue until the conclusion of the following AAGM, unless the ALAC specifically identifies a different timeframe.
18. Procedures for Other Appointments
18.1 Appointments of At-Large Appointees to various bodies both inside and outside of ICANN will be made by the ALAC. Such appointments will normally be initiated by a call for volunteers, posted by the Chair/Staff to the Approved Distribution Lists, and on other lists if appropriate, allowing at least seven days for people to volunteer. The decision regarding appointments is typically made via Consensus. However, the Chair will initiate a secret ballot to determine which candidate is to be appointed if Consensus cannot be reached or if this is requested by any ALAC Member.
18.2 By the decision of the ALAC, a current Appointee who is willing to continue in that role may be reconfirmed instead of initiating a new selection process.
18.3 In the case of selections requiring complex criteria evaluation, the ALAC may choose to form a sub-committee to carry out the analysis and to make recommendations to the ALAC based on that analysis.
18.4 For situations where the ALAC is not empowered to make appointments but rather to endorse one or more candidates, essentially the same process as described here for appointments should be used, but with the outcome being an endorsement.
18.5 ALAC Representatives to the ICANN Nominating Committee, one from each ICANN region, will be selected by the ALAC in consultation with the RALOs.
.MOBIi liaison will carry out the following duties;
providing advice and commentary on various proposed MOBI policy development and implementations.
1 Comment
Glenn McKnight
Summary of Relevant Experience
Murray McKercher
September 1981 – 1984 (3 years)Toronto and Ottawa
Responsible for the implementation and administration of a selected group of Information Service Providers (ISPs) for the Phase 2 iNet market field trial. Incorporated experience gained as part of the implementation team for the Bell VISTA pilot project operational in Toronto.
April 1985 – April 1985 (1 month)Canadian External Affairs Department - Various European Capitals
Conducted training courses on behalf of the Canadian External Affairs Department. Trained numerous staff at nine embassies and consulates throughout Europe on videotex communications equipment and international data communications procedures.
November 1985 – September 1989 (3 years 11 months) Melbourne Area, Australia
Conducted Industry Market Analysis of the Shipping and Transport Industry in Australia
Established and assisted in the management of a specialized Application Solution Sales Team
Provided professional consulting on market entry strategies for electronic messaging and information access technologies supplied to Telecom Australia from Bell Canada
Negotiated and assisted in the establishment of a joint venture company funded by Telecom Australia and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to market and sell Telemail and Dialcom electronic mail systems in Australia
Co-ordinated the establishment of an internal e-mail system for Telecom Australia based upon their Telemail product.
1989 – 1990 (1 year)Toronto
As a member of the Mobitex Data Division my responsibilities included: input to the overall business plan; the recruitment of systems integrators; monitoring of complimentary and competitive technologies and services; developing an integration strategy for Satellite-based communications Technology and land-based data communications technology
A brief Backgrounder from Wikipaedia
DotMobi domain names have been available for registration by the public since 26 September 2006.
dotMobi engaged with the W3C Mobile Web Initiative (MWI) to help formulate the MWI Best Practices for mobile content. The practices outlined a number of ways to achieve good user experiences on mobile Web-enabled devices, and recognized several methods of implementing these practices.
mTLD has released a free testing tool called Ready.mobi (see mobiForge) to analyze the mobile readiness of websites. It does a free page analysis and gives a .mobi Ready score from 1 to 5. This report tests the mobile-readiness of the site using dotMobi's recommended best practices.
dotMobi does not itself mandate any particular technology, but does require that .mobi sites produce user experiences consistent with their guidelines and specifically optimized for mobile phones.
The domain has been the target of criticism due to allegedly breaking the principles of device independence.[5] Providing content tailored to particular devices can be done by other means than a specific TLD, such as using hostnames within an existing domain, HTTP content negotiation, cascading style sheets, or other forms of adaptation.
All mobi sites must be optimized for viewing on a mobile phone, providing the major advantage of the domain, from the users' perspective, of compatible content. Websites may be optimized for the special capabilities and restrictions of mobile devices, such as smaller screens, device form/size, device input/output options, existence of embedded sensors (acceleration, location, touch, etc.), as well as human factors such as expectations of immediacy of results, context awareness under a shortened attention span (compared to non-mobile device use of the Internet). Although other top-level domains can technically employ the same optimizations for mobile phones, in practice, only a fraction of them do, thus necessitating content adaptation solutions. These retrofit the content to target devices independent from the original process of creating the site.[6]On the other hand, dotMobi promotes creating two separate device-dependent World Wide Webs, one desktop-based and the other mobile-based, and thus risks producing redundant content.[7] From a content provider perspective, having to maintain two separate websites also represents more work.
Tim Berners-Lee of the World Wide Web Consortium, claims that dotMobi breaks the device independence of the web:[7]
It is fundamentally useful to be able to quote the URI for some information and then look up that URI in an entirely different context. For example, I may want to look up a restaurant on my laptop, bookmark it, and then, when I only have my phone, check the bookmark to have a look at the evening menu. Or, my travel agent may send me a pointer to my itinerary for a business trip. I may view the itinerary from my office on a large screen and want to see the map, or I may view it at the airport from my phone when all I want is the gate number.
Critics pointed out that "mobi" is an unfortunate choice for mobile phone text entry interfaces, requiring nine or ten keystrokes in many common setups, compared to seven for "com", or what could have only been three if "wap" was used. There is a possibility that mobile phone manufacturers may in the future default their mobile internet browsers to .mobi or that predictive-text input features will reduce this to one keystroke, either of which would effectively eliminate this issue.