ALAC suggestions:
-Start with GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
-Include WG goals.
-Include requirements for WG performance -- for example, clear target dates, reported at each ALAC meeting.
Example charter
- DSSA-WG Charter (Cross Community Charter)
- Board Technical Relations WG Charter
- Data Consumer Protection WG Charter
Draft text by WG members can be inserted below .Original text file 4th June 2011.
As proposed by the membership of the Working Group in response to the 26 April 2011 ALAC informal recommendations regarding the creation of this charter.
General
The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users. Art. XI, Sec. 9(4)
The At-Large Working Group on Future Challenges is formed as an open ALAC Standing Working Group with an initial chartered working term that corresponds with ICANN’s 2012 fiscal year (subject to presumptive renewal considerations); it will be responsible for:
•Proposing a limited list of priority issues and/or emerging strategic challenges (which owing to their potential impact on the global Internet, on ICANN and on the at-large community, should be addressed in the near future by the ALAC)
•Discussing these issues and challenges and the manner by which the ALAC should address them
The exploration of these issues shall constitute the core of the work programme for the Working Group
Working method
To the maximum extent possible, the Working Group will be guided by the "GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf ", as deemed appropriate; the Working Group will be open to all members of the at-large community.
During the term of this mandate the specific strategic issues to be covered in each reporting cycle will be decided upon by the Chair after sufficient discussion by the membership.
The Working Group is expected to carry out the activities identified in this Charter. In carrying out these activities, the Working Group may opt to use sub-teams or work teams to carry out part of the tasks for which it may attract at-large volunteers that are not current members of either the At-Large Advisory Committee or the regional at-large organizations. In the exercise of this option, the At-Large Working Group on Future Challenges retains responsibility for reviewing and approving any and all work team recommendations intended for submission to the ALAC for its consideration.
At its initial meeting the Working Group should nominate a Chair and a Vice Chair from its membership. The Chair and Vice Chair are expected to act in a neutral manner and avoid any situation where a conflict of interest may arise.
Observers of the Standing Working Group
As this entity is being formed not on an ad-hoc or single-issue-specific basis, but rather as a Standing Working Group, it shall warrant that its membership will be diverse and will include representatives from each of the regional at-large organizations. The Working Group will also resolve to accept an ALAC-appointed liaison.
Staff Support
The ICANN Staff assigned to the At-Large Working Group on Future Challenges will fully support the work of the Working Group as directed by the Chair including meeting support, the maintenance of archives, document drafting, editing and distribution and other substantive contributions when deemed appropriate. Staff assignments to the At-Large Working Group on Future Challenges will include personnel drawn from the At-Large Staff to perform secretariat functions, and personnel from ICANN’s policy staff.
Decision making
Unless otherwise determined by the Working Group members, decisions will be made by using a "full consensus" process as described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
Reporting
At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the Working Group Chair shall provide the ALAC with an update concerning the issues dealt with by the Working Group, any recommendations to be tendered, and an activity timeline.
Work Group Members (alphabetical by last name) and links to their SoI's (may or may not be included in the Charter)
Tijani Ben Jemaa
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Jean-Jacques Subrenat (Co-Chair)
Alan Greenberg
Sandra Hoferichter
Cheryl Langdon-OrrEvan Leibovitch (Co-Chair)
Sergio Salinas Porto
Vanda Scartezini
Darlene Thompson
Danny Younger
Former Members:
Marc Rotenberg.
33 Comments
Anonymous
submitted by Danny
Charter - At-Large Working Group on Future Challenges
– as proposed by the membership of the Working Group in response to the 26 April 2011 ALAC informal recommendations regarding the creation of this charter.
General
The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users. Art. XI, Sec. 9(4)
The At-Large Working Group on Future Challenges is formed as an open ALAC Standing Working Group with an initial chartered working term that corresponds with ICANN’s 2012 fiscal year (subject to presumptive renewal considerations); it will be responsible for:
• proposing a limited list of priority issues and/or emerging strategic challenges (which owing to their potential impact on the global Internet, on ICANN and on the at-large community, should be addressed in the near future by the ALAC)
• discussing these issues and challenges and the manner by which the ALAC should address them
The exploration of these issues shall constitute the core of the work programme for the Working Group
Working method
To the maximum extent possible, the Working Group will be guided by the "GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf ", as deemed appropriate; the Working Group will be open to all members of the at-large community. During the term of this mandate the specific strategic issues to be covered in each reporting cycle will be decided upon by the Chair after sufficient discussion by the membership. The Working Group is expected to carry out the activities identified in this Charter. In carrying out these activities, the Working Group may opt to use sub-teams or work teams to carry out part of the tasks for which it may attract at-large volunteers that are not current members of either the At-Large Advisory Committee or the regional at-large organizations. In the exercise of this option, the At-Large Working Group on Future Challenges retains responsibility for reviewing and approving any and all work team recommendations intended for submission to the ALAC for its consideration. At its initial meeting the Working Group should nominate a Chair and a Vice Chair from its membership. The Chair and Vice Chair are expected to act in a neutral manner and avoid any situation where a conflict of interest may arise.
Observers of the Standing Working Group
As this entity is being formed not on an ad-hoc or single-issue-specific basis, but rather as a Standing Working Group, it shall warrant that its membership will be diverse and will include representatives from each of the regional at-large organizations. The Working Group will also resolve to accept an ALAC-appointed liaison.
Staff Support
The ICANN Staff assigned to the At-Large Working Group on Future Challenges will fully support the work of the Working Group as directed by the Chair including meeting support, the maintenance of archives, document drafting, editing and distribution and other substantive contributions when deemed appropriate. Staff assignments to the At-Large Working Group on Future Challenges will include personnel drawn from the At-Large Staff to perform secretariat functions, and personnel from ICANN’s policy staff.
Decision making
Unless otherwise determined by the Working Group members, decisions will be made by using a "full consensus" process as described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
Reporting
At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the Working Group Chair shall provide the ALAC with an update concerning the issues dealt with by the Working Group, any recommendations to be tendered, and an activity timeline.
Anonymous
Some remarks/suggestions by Jean-Jacques:
- Many thanks to Danny for providing this well-designed draft Charter.
- Chair, Vice-Chair, Co-Chairs? My suggestion was/is to have the WG membership elect 2 Co-Chairs. If that solution is accepted, is there need for a Vice-Chair.
- Liaison? As the Co-Chairs are called upon to report to the ALAC in any case, what would be the specific purpose of having a Liaison?
Anonymous
Comment from Danny Younger
With regard to the specific purpose of the liaison function, the language in the proposed charter stems from the informal ALAC discussions on 26 April wherein the comment was made: "And we would need at a later point to allocate who belongs to that structure, but what we do have to have on all Work Groups that are formed by the ALAC is an ALAC conduit – a member of the ALAC recognizing that it may be later run by a non-ALAC member; but a member of the ALAC, a current member of the ALAC whose job it is to act as conduit or lower-case L liaison between the activities of the Work Group and the ALAC itself." As the ALAC is the entity that will be chartering this group, we might as well acknowledge their authority to appoint a liaison to the group.
On the topic of co-chair(s) or vice-chair(s): GNSO Working Group Guidelines state: "A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs." My own thoughts on the topic are these: we should honor the man that came up with the idea for this Working Group by according him the role of Chair. If the group eventually grows to a size of more than fifty members, then we should probably elect an additional vice-chair, but for now, a single vice-chair is functionally sufficient.
Anonymous
Remarks from Jean-Jacques:
Dear Danny, Marc, Evan,
thank you Danny for your well-researched and finely-worded draft Charter. Marc and Evan, although very belatedly, thank you for the suggestions you made many weeks ago about the purpose of the WG and elements of its Charter.
As you know, I requested Staff to select 2 or 3 charters among those reviewed and approved by the BGC, which could serve as a model. This is to make sure that our Charter includes all the aspects required by California law, ICANN's Bylaws, as well as in line with more general principles (e.g. where applicable, those enunciated or confirmed in various documents, such as the Affirmation of Commitments).
Dear Staff,
Could you please get in touch with Danny, Marc and Evan and see, together, which of their suggestions should be included in this WG's Charter? Thank you.
When you arrive at a consolidated draft, the WG will be able to discuss it.
Anonymous
Remarks from Jean-Jacques:
Dear Danny,
LIAISON
- taking into account your useful reminder, I suggest something along the
following lines:
- "when neither of the Co-Chairs is a member of the ALAC, the Working
Group shall appoint a member of that Advisory Committee to serve as
Liaison"
- the logic behind this suggestion is that as long as one or both
Co-Chairs is/are ALAC member(s), her/his/their natural duty will be to
report to, or liaise with ALAC.
VICE-CHAIR
- IMO, 2 Co-Chairs is better than Chair + Vice-Chair, and in fact removes
the necessity of a Vice-Chair.
- The WG, in its initial stage, looks like it is going to have a
complement of about 10, not 50 members: this fact reinforces the
suggestion of 2 Co-Chairs, which is a simple and efficient arrangement.
Evan Leibovitch
Allow a contrary opinion.
ICANN and ALAC are overflowing with working groups -- many of which are well-chartered but dormant or nearly so -- which have formal charters, formal rules and well defined deliverables.
The last thing ALAC needs, IMO, is another one of the same.
Personally, I would like to suggest something radically different, to tackle an unconventional challenge in unconventional ways.
This means, for instance
Anyway, these are just my thoughts. This has the potential to be a very different WG from the others within ALAC and ICANN, and I believe that such potential demands unorthodox strategy. If the radical change in structure demands that this is not even considered a Working Group per-se, but something else like a Task Force etc, then so be it. The results of such a body are far more important to me (and, i would suggest, the global end-user community) than what it's called or how many vice-chairs it has.
- Evan
Anonymous
Following on Evan's latest post on this Wiki, I wish to make a confession and offer 2 remarks.
The confession: after joining the ALAC, I observed that our AC is well-endowed with references, rules and processes. I was also impressed by the fact that a fairly large amount of the ALAC's work involves reacting to things initiated by, or happening in other parts of ICANN. In the course of our meetings in San Francisco, these first impressions were strengthened, and as a result I was led to propose that the ALAC put more emphasis on the public interest and the challenges for the Internet user, while continuing to react as required to solicitations from our cousins elsewhere on the ICANN map. This is the background for the proposal to bring together a small group of people to examine Future Challenges. When I made this proposal, the administrative form it would take (task force or working group) seemed to me less crucial than the proper choice of themes requiring in-depth examination and workable solutions.
Remark 1: while I feel close to Evan's suggestion that we take an innovative approach, this is a matter for the whole of ALAC to decide, which escapes the smaller perimeter of the WG we're in the process of setting up. Given the current calendar (the WG's first meeting is scheduled within the next thirteen hours), I wonder whether it's reasonable to start on a different track. Because of their potential importance, Evan's analysis and proposal deserve a thorough discussion, requiring more than a day or two.
Remark 2: in light of the previous remark, I would suggest that Evan's proposal be submitted to the WG in a more complete, written form in the weeks to come. Two outcomes are possible: the WG may wish to implement all, most or some of Evan's suggestions, and that would require rescinding or substantially modifying the WG Charter (but then, even religions occasionally modify doctrine); or the proposal would not be accepted, and the WG would continue on its familiar tracks.
Jean-Jacques.
Carlton Samuels
Evan's offerings do strike a chord with me and I generally support the framework advocated.
To wit, with respect to the Futures WG, the traditional approach to WG framing, management and processing runs the risk of limiting its effectiveness. Experience teaches wisdom. And if it looks like a duck, then maybe it is rational to anticipate that it will walk and quack like a duck. For the myriad of reasons the existing At-Large WGs don't work, more of the same is likely indigestible.
I am quite intrigued by this recurring charge that the current At-Large represents 'registrants' rather than end users. That is an alien concept from the point of my inception to the At-Large; from the RALO structure. Because the declarative is absolutely the other way; RALOs, being part of the At-Large construct, were to function as a voice for Internet end users.
I happened to have been one of the principal drafters - along with Nick Ashton-Hart of Staff - of the very first ICANN/RALO MOU which framed that relationship. This strategic outlook declared in that document was informed by interaction with others that were involved in the foundation of this part of the At-Large. With serendipity, it became a blueprint for all others formed thereafter.
Therefore insofar as the engaged At-Large membership of Latin America and the Caribbean goes, we were clear from the beginning that the larger At-Large organization represented the interest of "Internet end users" in ICANN councils.
Anonymous
Hello Carlton,
yes, it is unfortunate that so many of those that now position themselves within the at-large weren't here during the at-large wars, and have no sense of the struggle that was bitterly fought by at-large members for registrant representative rights. Doubtless many still remain unaware of the sizable and active groups that were involved. You can get a feeling for the history and fervor of the active membership by way of recourse to the wayback machine -- see for example http://web.archive.org/web/20021210142552/http://www.icannatlarge.com/view.php?sortorder=chrono
After Accra, when ICANN decided to wipe out the elected at-large director positions, it redrafted the bylaws, redefined the notion of at-large and relegated the remaining community into the ALAC playpen where it could readily be ignored.
Some of us still remember our founding principles and what it meant to be an at-large member.
regards, Danny
Anonymous
I am of the view that most newcomers to the at-large world are relatively clueless as to the meaning of "at-large", and most have swallowed hook-line-and-sinker the ICANN post-Accra definition that at-large exclusively equates with end-users. A bit of history... the first definition of at-large may be found in the Membership Advisory Committee's "Principles of the at-large Membership" which states: "At-large membership should primarily represent those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations (SOs)." In short, from its inception, the at-large was envisioned as the catch-all group.
A Final Report on At-Large Membership was issued two-and-a-half years later by the At-Large Study Committee that further defined At-Large members as "individual domain name holders."
This definition stemmed largely from the widely held sentiment that emerged after the publication of Stuart Lynn's "Roadmap to Reform" that ICANN's organizational effectiveness required "vested" participants. As Stuart Lynn wrote: "we should explicitly and permanently abandon the notion that every individual with an interest in DNS policy has some "right" to equally weighted participation in ICANN, no matter what the impact on ICANN's effectiveness. This conclusion is driven by a focus on the core ICANN mission of effective management of global name and address policies. The general public should have a right to an effective notice and comment process, to give input before major decisions are made, and to observe the policy-making process, but we have seen that unlimited "rights" to full and equal participation by every individual who finds this area interesting are not consistent with an effective ICANN."
In light of this history, I will not abide by the notion put forth by Evan that the interests of registrants are off-limits. Moreso than any other group, registrants are the at-large.
Evan Leibovitch
"unlimited "rights" to full and equal participation by every individual who finds this area interesting are not consistent with an effective ICANN"
I guess it boils down to the question of "Effective at what"? If the aim is to render ICANN as industry cartel, yes indeed those nasty end-users will just get in the way and should be relegated to the sidelines. I'm glad to know that the current formulation of At-Large has generally rejected this elitist notion, as does the current definition of At-Large in the ICANN bylaws.
In any case, as I already noted, both business and non-commercial registrants are already well-served in ICANN by their own formally mandated and chartered stakeholder groups, all of which actively serve within GNSO. Some of ICANN's hottest issues such as trademark protection are registrant-initiated. So in primarily representing end-users, At-Large indeed does speak for those who are not registrants, end users who are not represented by the SOs but are impacted by what ICANN does (or doesn't do).
I will gladly defer to the WG and ALAC itself to determine if indeed agreement exists with the notion that "registrants are the at-large".
Anonymous
Comment from Danny:
As I look around ICANN, I see some highly effective groups. The GAC relies upon formal structures and processes and achieves an impact that resonates throughout ICANN. The SSAC is known for its comprehensive analysis and its remarkably informative documents. Formal GNSO working groups, ranging from Vertical Integration, to IRTP-B, to PENDR, to Registration Abuse, to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Drafting Team have all proven themselves to be highly effective tools that add substantive recommendations which serve to spur ongoing policy debates. On the other side of the coin are the mostly non-existent, ill-managed, nonformal and nonproductive ALAC working groups (most of whom have yet to offer anything of substance to the broader community).
The ALAC's willingness to tolerate laxity in the working group approach has thus far failed to reap any meaningful rewards. Its failure to engage in any protracted discussion of key issues has resulted in nothing more than a plethora of mostly useless "Statements" that the rest of the world ignores. I see no value whatsoever in a further loosening of the rules. Our goal should be to turn the ALAC into an effective voice that well-represents our interests. That will not be accomplished by recourse to tweets.
Evan Leibovitch
I think that much of the ICANN community would look at the current state of paralysis of the GNSO and think twice about Danny's POV expressed above. I would especially wish to draw readers to the "substantive recommendations" made by the Vertical Integration Working Group which Danny used as an example.
(Hint. There are none except "we give up".)
If that, or the RAA team which continues to draft documents that are hostile to the interests of end users, are held up as examples of "effective" governance, to me that simply enforces the need for different approaches. The status quo may be effective at entrenching vendor capture, but certainly does not produce results that are satisfying to the needs of end-users.
Anonymous
Comment from Danny:
Some concerns about the WG's officer elections:
In reviewing the transcripts of recent Ex-Com meetings, I noted the following recent comments:
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: We’ll discuss the applicant guidebook comments later on in the call. At-Large Working Groups, some future challenges, Jean-Jacque Subranet and Evan Leibovitch to be interim co-chair of the At-Large Working Group on the future challenges, and Marc Rotenberg to be interim ALAC and liaison rapporteur.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you. Okay, next action item -- or any other comments? Nope. So next, Jean-Jacques Subrenat and Evan Leibovitch to be interim Co-Chairs of the At-Large Working Group on future challenges, and Marc Rotenberg to be interim ALAC liaison and rapporter that's still an open action item. It's a work in progress as we heard Jean-Jacques is now taking the lead on this.
It certainly appears as if the ALAC Ex-Com has already decided upon who our officers will be and in what capacity each will serve. That strikes me as more than a bit arrogant and disrespectful of the rights of working group members to arrive at their own decision on the matter. An explanation is most certainly in order.
Evan Leibovitch
Danny,
Last I checked, the meeting hasn't started yet. No chairs or liaisons have been selected.
What you quote was just what it was... a discussion of shared preferences, amongst people who have given some serious thought to this committee (and indeed have roles that require such contemplation) but have no more authority in the final choice than any other WG members. You even quote the acknowledgement that this is a "work in progress" .. hardly the language of a final decree, let alone any kind of formal decision.
The executive committee meetings, like the transcript quoted, are open meetings.
This is the whole point of transparency -- not preventing discussions from happening, but ensuring that what happens is done in a process arguably more open than most other that people are having on the same issue.
Anonymous
Evan, Thanks for explanation.
I see on v25 of the membership roster that you & Marc are listed as a candidates for co-chair, but on v-26 you somehow became listed as an interim co-chair while Marc is described as Interim ALAC Liaison/Rapporteur...
Evan Leibovitch
This is a perfect example, to me, of irrelevant wastes of time and energy that should be put into policy and ideas. This "discussion" further confirms my assertion than obsession with process is a deadly diversion that should be avoided by this group.
In fact, rather than encouraging mind-numbing arguments over how many interim co-chairs can dance on the head of a pin, Danny's dwelling on process leads me to suggest that perhaps we might simply abandon the concept of "chair". Instead, we could simply appoint two people -- one facilitator and one alternate -- to run meetings that eliminate assumptions of hierarchical, top-down thinking. Rather than a single liaison, all FC-WG members should be encouraged to use our discussions to inspire and fuel their own initiatives within ALAC, their RALOs, or elsewhere.
I'll make this a part of my formal proposal as requested by Jean-Jacques. Thanks, Danny.
Anonymous
on the other hand, you might reasonably consider this to be a responsible effort to avoid gaming of an election process -- but then again, as the designed interim chair I'm sure you have your reasons for the use of a disparaging remarks.
Anonymous
From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marc Rotenberg [rotenberg@epic.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 11:14 AM
To: Jean-Jacques SUBRENAT
Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposal for ALAC work on future challenges
Dear Jean-Jacque, all,
A few comments:
As for the Work Plan, it would be good to find categories and themes that do not duplicate current ICANN topics. So. for example, instead of "new TLDs" and "WHOIS," which have been on the ICANN agenda for many years, could we consider "consumer protection" or "transparency" as possible topics? In other words, the Work Plan should provide an opportunity to explore new themes that could help shape the direction of ICANN
It would also be good to begin with the mission statement for ALAC set out in the ICANN Bylaws. This is the key excerpt:
The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users. Art. XI, Sec. 9(4)
http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm
This should be the touchstone for our work going forward.
As for the name, it would be in keeping with our intent to avoid an acronym, or at least to treat it is as a secondary designation. Perhaps "ALAC Task Force on the Future of the Global Public Interest" or "ALAC Task Force on the future of the Internet" or "ALAC Task Force on the Future of ICANN." Any of these titles could be abbreviated "ALAC TF-F" but each title will convey additional meaning.
I would suggest also that we explicitly consider techniques for receiving comments from the RALOs, ALSs and the larger user community.
Thank you for considering these comments. I would be interested in being considered for co-chair if that is appropriate.
Regards,
Marc Rotenberg.
On Mar 27, 2011, at 12:57 AM, Jean-Jacques SUBRENAT wrote:
Dear All,
After the initial e-mail from a week ago, here are the suggested next steps.
WORK PLAN: as discussed before the vote, the idea is to have a limited number of themes (not more than 5?) to effectively cover areas the At-Large structures consider to be strategic. This does not imply any shift of attention away from other areas currently covered, nor from existing or expected obligations of the ALAC (response to Board request for advice, etc). To start the ball rolling, here are my own suggestions:
- The global public interest (definition, overlap or separation of roles between various parts of the ICANN community, desired contribution from At-Large structures, action and possible impact by the ALAC on ICANN policy and orientations);
- Key areas of possible ALAC action to uphold the global public interest (for starters: new TLDs, WHOIS,...);
- Beyond the ALAC Review recommendations: how to increase the impact of At-Large within ICANN (policy formation, working with other components of ICANN, a communications policy for At-Large).
MEMBERSHIP, CHAIR(s): Please indicate if you are interested in being part of this team, and if you'd accept being co-chair. It is suggested that once the membership has been approved by the ALAC for 2011-2012, the Task Force will designate its 2 co-chairs (2 in order to cope with temporary unavailability of either, and because it's a best practice). When a member leaves, (s)he may be replaced numerically by another volunteer.
CHARTER: this should cover the term of the mandate (2011-12), strategic areas to be covered (see above), membership, mode of selection of the two co-chairs, and the usual administrative aspects (Staff support, frequency of meetings, reporting, archives, etc.). If our Chair or the ExCom agree, I would be grateful if Staff sent around what they consider a workable charter model (when I was on the Board, this was dealt with extensively by the BGC).
NAME: during the discussion before the vote, TF-F (ALAC Task Force 'Future') was put forward. What's your view?
We'll have time to cover other aspects, or go into more detail, at the next stage.
I'd be grateful for your input.
Regards,
Jean-Jacques.
On 17/03/11 10:42, "Jean-Jacques SUBRENAT" <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
- thank you Chair for accommodating my request to make a quick oral presentation this morning (Thursday 17 March);
- I am grateful to Evan and Gareth for moving and seconding a motion, and thank you colleagues for supporting it.
Taking into account remarks made so far by members of the ALAC, my proposal now reads:
PURPOSE AND NAME
It is suggested the group be called, at least for the time being, ALAC Task Force F (for Future), or TF-F. The notion of "task force" underlines its temporary nature, the fact that its duty is to address a given set of issues, and that it is expected to deliver results within a given time frame.
MEMBERSHIP
It is hoped the composition of TF-F will be fairly representative of overall geographic diversity of the At-Large structures, but clearly personal motivation is of prime importance. Once the list of members has been established and agreed upon by ALAC, the members of TF-F will choose their two co-chairs (this can be done by e-mail, or in a conference call).
Once constituted, TF-F may call upon experts, as required.
PROGRAMME
The first task of TF-F will be to propose a limited list of (perhaps 3 or 4) priority issues which the ALAC should address in the near future, because of their impact on the global Internet, on ICANN, on At-Large.
ALAC members are encouraged to consult their regional communities on the topics which are considered of importance. Once the ALAC has established the initial list of issues, these shall constitute the core of the work programme for TF-F for 2011.
STAFF SUPPORT
In parallel to the membership of TF-F being finalized, it would be necessary to finalize arrangements for Staff support for TF-F.
VERY NEXT STEPS
ALAC members interested in taking part in this work are requested to reply to this e-mail to
* make known their candidacy
* list the 3 to 5 topics they consider At-Large should take a position on, with regard to the future of the Internet, ICANN, or At-Large (in their order of priority, 1 being the most important or urgent). At this stage, the wording of these topics should be brief and self-evident.
**
I'd be glad to respond to any questions or comments.
Regards,
Jean-Jacques.
Anonymous
From: Jean-Jacques SUBRENAT <jjs.global@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:45:52 +0800
To: "alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposal for ALAC work on future challenges (updated 1 April 2011).
Dear All,
you are kindly requested to take note of the updates, and respond to the highlighted points below.
Since the previous update (30 March 2011),
MEMBERSHIP
Colleagues having expressed interest:
- Tijani Ben Jemma, TBJ
- Sandra Hoferichter, SH
- Dave Kissoondoyal, DK
- Evan Leibovitch, EL (also candidate for Co-Chair)
- Mark Rotenberg, MR (also candidate for Co-Chair)
- Sergio Salinas Porto, SSP
- Jean-Jacques Subrenat, JJS (also candidate for Co-Chair)
- Darlene Thompson, DT
As membership in this Task Force is open to At-Large, the deadline is extended to Thursday 7 April 2011, 23:00 UTC, for expressions of interest to be posted on this list.
Reminder: when closed, this list will be submitted to the ALAC. The designated members will then elect two Co-Chairs.
NAME
There are three potential pitfalls in choosing such a name:
Many interesting suggestions were received. They fall into 2 categories:
A) Upholding the global public interest
-
At-Large Outlook Mission, ALOM (DK suggested ALACOM when we were working on an ALAC name)
-
At-Large Task Force on Future Challenges, TF-F (EL, JJS)
-
Public Interest Task Force, PITF (MR)
-
a number of notions such as Consumer Protection (MR), Internet Governance (DK), End-users' Rights (EL), Transparency (MR)
B) Enhancing the role of At-Large
-
At-Large Further Development, ALFD (SH), covering several notions such as wider input from and outreach At-Large, cross-constituency cooperation (TBJ, SH, MR)
-
At-Large input into ICANN policy development (SH)
As no single designation has emerged as a natural winner, please choose one of the first three listed above (A). The chosen name will indicate the general orientation or purpose of our work. The Work Plan is meant to identify not more than 5 topics (such as Enhancing the role of At-Large), which would implement that general orientation or serve that purpose.
CHARTER
Staff is kindly requested to find, among the models studied by the BGC, one suitable for this Task Force.
It was also pointed out (MR) that the Task Force might need a Mission Statement, quoting the relevant section of the ICANN Bylaws, Art. XI, section 9(4), "The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.”
It was further suggested (MR) that such a Mission Statement include "Internet Rights & Principles", as set forth by the Internet Rights & Principles Coalition,
http://www.irpcharter.org/images/IRPflyer.pdf
WORK PLAN
- The global public interest, including definition, overlap or separation of roles between various parts of the ICANN community, desired contribution from At-Large structures, action and possible impact by the ALAC on ICANN policy and orientations (JJS)
- Key areas of possible ALAC action to uphold the global public interest (JJS)
- Beyond the ALAC Review recommendations: how to increase the impact of At-Large within ICANN, inter alia policy formation, working with other components of ICANN, a communications policy for At-Large (JJS)
- Transparency (MR)
- Consumer protection (MR), Consumer interests (EL)
- Improving outreach to and input from At-Large structures (TBJ, SH, MR)
- At-Large further development (SH, JJS)
- Working with other components of ICANN to maximize impact (SH, JJS)
- Internet governance (DK)
- End-users' Charter of Rights (EL)
You are requested to choose not more than five of the above, in your order of preference (from 1 crucial, to 5 less important).
Your comments are most welcome.
Regards,
Jean-Jacques.
Anonymous
On 7 April 2011 18:42, Jean-Jacques SUBRENAT <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Olivier,
Dear Executive Committee,
taking into account the orientation you gave on the membership of the Task Force, I've changed the title of this message from "ALAC work on future challenges" to "At-Large work on future challenges".
The deadline for receiving statements of interest was extended to Thursday 7 April 2011, 23:00 UTC. That deadline has arrived. I now seek guidance from you on the desirable number of members and, if that number is smaller than the number of candidates, I request that you establish the list of members. As agreed in San Francisco, the members will then elect two Co-Chairs. Here is the list of candidates (alphabetical order, family name):
The name, purpose, work programme, charter, and other aspects of the Task Force were discussed through an exchange of e-mails or other communications. Having been the facilitator thus far, and based on comments received, I have the pleasure to propose the following:
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Regards,
Jean-Jacques.
Anonymous
From: evanleibovitch@gmail.com [evanleibovitch@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch [evan@telly.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 7:23 PM
To: Jean-Jacques SUBRENAT
Cc: Olivier CREPIN-LEBLOND; alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ALAC Internal List; ICANN At-Large Staff; Tijani BEN JEMAA; sandra hoferichter; Dave Kissoondoyal; Marc Rotenberg; presidencia@internauta.org.ar; Thompson, Darlene; Danny Younger
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposal for At-Large work on future challenges (used to be ALAC work on...)
Hi Jean-Jacques,
I'm OK with everything you've proposed, including the name.
I have had some minor concern, as you and I have discussed personally, about this Task Force getting involved in issues that are beyond ICANN's ability to affect. However, I have confidence that this group has the skill and professionalism to direct its considerable skills at issues upon which we can achieve results. It's my personal hope that this group may also establish relationships with other Internet governance bodies in order to co-ordinate efforts, reduce duplication, and benefit from complementary talent. Such logical lines of communications have been noticeably lacking to date and would benefit us all. (to this end I might suggest changing the word "ICANN" to "broader Internet" under the Work Program ... but if not that's fine too.
I look forward (pun intended) to working with you and the other WT members on this.
- Evan
Anonymous
From: Marc Rotenberg [rotenberg@epic.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:47 AM
To: Jean-Jacques SUBRENAT
Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ICANN At-Large Staff
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposal for ALAC work on future challenges
Further to the work of this committee, we should take into account the recent statement of the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition:
http://www.irpcharter.org/images/IRPflyer.pdf
This is an important articulation of the interests of Internet users. Perhaps we could adopt "Internet Rights and Principles" as one of our five topic areas, though "Charter of Rights" would also meet this task.
As for the final five topics, we could select four that have a specific program focus and reserve the fifth as a general catchall.
Regards,
Marc.
On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Jean-Jacques SUBRENAT wrote:
Dear All,
this is an update on the project, incorporating comments and suggestions received thus far (30 March 2011).
MEMBERSHIP
Expressions of interest received from
- Tijani Ben Jemma, TBJ
- Sandra Hoferichter, SH
- Dave Kissoondoyal, DK
- Mark Rotenberg, MR (also candidate for Co-Chair)
- Jean-Jacques Subrenat, JJS (also candidate for Co-Chair)
Once the list of members has been finalized by the ALAC, members of the Task Force shall elect two Co-Chairs. Those interested in being a member (and Co-Chair, as the case may be) are requested to send in their candidature on this list, by Friday 1 April 2011 23:00 UTC.
NAME
You are requested to choose one of the following suggestions:
- ALAC Task Force on Future Challenges, or ALAC TF-F (suggested by JJS)
- ALAC Task Force ŒFuture¹, or ALAC TF-F (JJS)
- ALAC Task Force on the Future of the Global Public Interest (MR)
- ALAC Task Force on the Future of the Internet (MR)
- ALAC Task Force on the Future of ICANN (MR)
- ALACOM, or ALAC Outlook Mission (DK)
- Public Interest Task Force (EL)
- Forward-looking Task Force (EL)
- Task Force on Future Challenges (EL)
CHARTER
It was suggested (JJS) that Staff be asked to find, among the models studied by the BGC, one suitable for this Task Force.
It was further suggested (MR) that the Task Force be given a Mission Statement, quoting the relevant section of the ICANN Bylaws, Art. XI, section 9(4), "The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.²
WORK PLAN
- The global public interest, including definition, overlap or separation of roles between various parts of the ICANN community, desired contribution from At-Large structures, action and possible impact by the ALAC on ICANN policy and orientations (JJS)
- Key areas of possible ALAC action to uphold the global public interest (JJS)
- Beyond the ALAC Review recommendations: how to increase the impact of At-Large within ICANN, inter alia policy formation, working with other components of ICANN, a communications policy for At-Large (JJS)
- Transparency (MR)
- Consumer protection (MR)
- Improving outreach to and input from At-Large structures (TBJ, SH, MR)
- ALAC further development (SH, JJS)
- Working with other components of ICANN to maximize impact (SH, JJS)
- Internet governance (DK)
- End-users' Charter of Rights (EL)
You are requested to choose not more than five of the above, in your order of preference (from 1 crucial, to 5 less important)
Your comments are most welcome.
REMINDER: please send your input before Friday 1st of April 2011, 23:00 UTC.
Regards,
Jean-Jacques.
Anonymous
Hello,
Please add me to the list of interested people.
As I have said to many, my own interest within At-Large (looking beyond the new gTLDs issues which will eventually be resolved one way or the other) involve moving the public interest from the occupation of an Advisory Committee (and underlying structure) into an integral part of ICANN's DNA. Such an effort will need to be proactive as we cannot count on other corners of ICANN to initiate such a broad agenda.
One tactical component of this effort IMO is the creation of an end-users Charter of Rights that IMO must frame all policy development and ICANN operations, and ultimately become part of the bylaws. We addressed that briefry during the RAA amendments WG where that was (probably rightfully) deemed to be out of scope for that particular activity.
As far as naming, my first choice would be "Public Interest Task Force", my second would be "Forward-Looking Task Force" and my third would be "Task Force on Future Challanges".
- Evan
Anonymous
Evan, this is my first edit.
Danny.
Working method
To the maximum extent possible, the Working Group will be guided by the "GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf ", as deemed appropriate;
[CLAUSE & HYPERLINK DELETED: Rationale – as the ALAC in their informal comments offered this guidance as a “suggestion” it was included in the initial draft. However, inasmuch as this was only a suggestion and was not framed as a firm recommendation, it is indeed up to the WG membership to determine whether the modalities governing the creation of their work product should include adherence to guidelines created by an organization other than their own, namely the GNSO. Members of this WG have voiced opposition to the notion of having such constraints placed upon them that originate with another ICANN entity, and I choose to respect such sentiments. It is the view of this editor that ALAC Working Groups should properly be governed solely by (1) those guidelines that have been issued by the ALAC that are relevant to working groups, (2) by the instructions of their Chair, and (3) by the Code of Conduct measures set out in the January 2008 ICANN Management Operating Principles (section F).
Research has thus far revealed only one ALAC guideline relevant to this discussion (which originates with the Resolution on Announcement of Public Consultations to Working Groups (AL.ALAC-RES.0709/2)), namely: “That the draft (on the subject for consideration by the At-Large community), whenever time allows, should be available for comment by the broader At-Large community for at least a week, and that the working group would then be asked to incorporate those comments received to the extent practical in advance of a vote by the ALAC.”
However, beyond this single working-group-specific guideline there do remain certain other considerations which must still be examined that stem from the ALAC’s own Ordinary Rules of Procedure. These rules offer definitions and regulations that govern a “virtual meeting” -- “Virtual Meeting” shall mean a meeting in which all participants are unable to participate synchronously with all other participants, such as a meeting conducted over time via an electronic mailing list.” Of significance is clause #19: “When a Virtual Meeting of the Assembly is held, the following Rules shall not apply: 6, 12.5”. Rule number six is the quorum requirement. Accordingly when the WG chooses to hold a teleconference call, there is no quorum requirement posited.
As these appear to be the sum total of guidance to ALAC Working Groups, one can only conclude that each WG is reasonably at liberty to innovate with process elements, subject to approval by their Chair.]
Anonymous
Evan, this is my second edit.
Danny
At its initial meeting the Working Group should nominate a Chair and a Vice Chair Co-Chairs from its membership. The Chair and Vice Chair Co-Chairs are expected to act in a neutral manner and avoid any situation where a conflict of interest may arise.
[REFERENCE TO VICE CHAIR ELIMINATED: Rationale -- the WG has accepted the proposal tendered by Jean-Jacques Subrenat to proceed on the basis of co-chairs rather than on the basis of a chair/vice-chair arrangement]
Anonymous
Evan, this is my third edit.
Danny
As proposed by the membership of the Working Group in response to the 26 April 2011 ALAC informal recommendations regarding the creation of this charter.
[PREAMBLE DELETED: Rationale: a preamble is not a necessary or required Charter element]
Anonymous
Evan, this is my fourth edit.
Danny
The At-Large Working Group on Future Challenges (FC-WG) is formed as an open ALAC Standing Working Group
[ACRONYM ADDED: per the recommendation put forth by Jean-Jacques Subrenat on the first teleconference call of the Working Group, an acronym to better identify this working group has been added]
Anonymous
Evan, this is my fifth edit.
Danny
During the term of this mandate the specific strategic issues to be covered in each reporting cycle will [jointly] be decided upon by the Chair [Co-Chairs] after sufficient discussion by the membership.
[REVISION TO REFLECT A CO-CHAIR ARRANGEMENT: Rationale -- the working group decided upon a co-chair management approach; as such, decision-making activities on the part of the co-chairs are to be jointly conducted]
Anonymous
Evan, this is my sixth edit.
Danny
The Working Group will also resolve to accept an ALAC-appointed liaison.
[SENTENCE STRICKEN: Rationale – The Working Group is not entitled to resolve to accept or reject any ALAC appointed liaison – it is the prerogative of the Chartering body to determine whether a liaison will be provided to the Working Group. Further, language pursuant to the subtleties of liaison arrangements (either with the ALAC or with other ICANN constituent bodies), should not be located within a charter, but rather should reside with any Rules of Procedure that may govern operations.]
Anonymous
Evan, this is my seventh edit
Danny
The ICANN Staff assigned to the At-Large Working Group on Future Challenges will fully support the work of the Working Group as directed by the Chair Co-Chairs
[REVISED TO REFLECT CO-CHAIR ARRANGEMENTS]
Anonymous
Evan, this is my eighth edit
Danny
Decision making
Unless otherwise determined by the Working Group members, decisions will be made by using a "full consensus" process as described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. [Decisions will be made by consensus.]
[SENTENCE REPLACED: Rationale -- Working Group members have already rejected the notion of working under the rubric of GNSO Guidelines. While the use of consensus procedures is not codified within the ALAC Ordinary Rules of Procedure, it nevertheless remains a time-honored modus operandi within ICANN]
Anonymous
Evan, this is my ninth edit
Danny
Reporting
At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the Working Group Chair(s) shall provide the ALAC with
[CHAIR IS MODIFIED TO A PLURAL FORM: Rationale -- This revision accommodates the co-chair arrangements that have been accepted]