Page History

There are a number of efforts that can be implemented to have a Board that’s close to internet users and specifically to engage with those users that are not aware of either ICANN or At-Large. Some of this efforts, which I would certainly propose if elected are:

a)    Identify users groups through the five ICANN regions and coordinate with the GSE team in order to organize or participate more (inter)actively in engagement events like Rightscon which is currently sponsored by ICANN. By more interactively I mean that Board members should not only attend this type of events but also be closer to the attendees and provide workshops or interactive sessions;

b)    Take advantage of the Board retreats to setup meet-ups with local users’ communities and evangelize them on ICANN’s mission.

c)    Propose the implementation of a pilot program that allows translating key basic information into non-official UN languages. I think of languages that are spoken both in developed and developing countries. For example, German, Zulu, Quechuan, Afrikaans, Swahili, Berber, Otomi, Hebrew, Filipino, Japanese, Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi and Turkish.

Yes. Although I cannot speak to the reasons why the reviewers didn’t survey users that are currently not engaged with ICANN, I do believe that surveying those users could have provided with a better understanding on why they are not engaged and also help identify if this lack of engagement is due to the need of more outreach or due to other reasons. Surveying users outside of ICANN would’ve been very helpful in many ways.

If elected I can bring to the Board the following special qualities:

a)    A fresh and independent approach;

b)    Regional diversity.

c)    Ability to build bridges and alliances.

d)    Ability to negotiate.

e)    A community based perspective, solidly grounded in user experience.

f)     I am a solid expert lawyer in governance issues and have the capacity to make informed difficult decisions about ICANN, in my best capacity, consistent with the views of At-Large.

My leadership skills which have been demonstrated through my work as Co-Chair of the CCWG on enhancing ICANN accountability.

I have solid legal experience in governance issues that allow me to make difficult decisions with legal soundness. Also my views are provided from the regional perspective that comes from the view of a developing country and a non-English speaking environment that enriches ICANN’s diversity, which places me in a unique position to contribute in the specific context of the Board given the delicate times ICANN is going through after the transition.

Section 7.7 of the ICANN bylaws reads as follows:

“Section 7.7. DUTIES OF DIRECTORS

Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN and not as representatives of the EC, the Nominating Committee, Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee that nominated them, as applicable, their employers, or any other organizations or constituencies.”

From this section, it is clear that it is a duty of all Directors to act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN. Should there be a situation in which the interests of individual internet users conflicts with that of the ICANN corporation, I would have the duty to make my decisions following the duty stated in section 7.7 of the ICANN bylaws. However, any decision I made under said hypothetical circumstances, would take into account the points of view from the RALOs and the ALAC, as well as those from other end users communities outside of ICANN, as a source to better form my criteria and be able to make an informed and balanced decision.

During the CCWG on enhancing ICANN accountability discussions, there was a division between the Board and the community. Part of this division was because the Board intervened, late into the process, to express their fiduciary responsibilities.

While I understand the fiduciary responsibilities of Board members, I will do my best to consult, as soon as possible, and seek advice of the At-Large community to prevent divisions from board members and the community. Therefore, I will also ensure that the Board is fully aware and cognizant of the views of the ALAC/At-Large during all discussions and deliberations.

I firmly believe that board members are part of the community. And the interests of ICANN as corporation should be aligned with those of the community.

With my capacity to build bridges and bring people together, I would foster the approach between the two communities so that the communities themselves can first identify topics of common interest and then build cross-community strategies that help them address their specific concerns in a coordinated fashion that will allow them to create synergies to optimize time and efforts while avoiding unnecessary duplications. This will also impact the time spent by volunteers on common topics and help each constituency come out of their silos and have a more integral view and common understanding of each other’s interests and needs.

I will be the first champion to promote and explain the successes and different milestones reached by the ALAC. However, ALAC’s and At-Large’s resonance and relevance depends more on their own work and not directly on that of any Board member.

From my part, I will continue to give my best to our community and the organization as I truly believe that, if elected, my work as Board member will speak on behalf of the At-Large community and the ALAC, as I am part of this community and will continue to work closely with you.

ALAC’s influence depends more on its own work and performance than that of the Board member designated by the At-Large community. Nonetheless, if elected, I will do all I can to facilitate ALAC’s work.

Also, I will be the first champion to promote and explain the successes and different milestones reached by the ALAC.

RALO members are the soul of the At-Large community. With the new Empowered Community, RALO members will be able to influence decisions made through this new body if the bottom up process is carried out properly.

Through the EC, At-Large will be able to have a say in exercising the new community powers, namely approving or disapproving bylaw changes, appointing or removing Board members, recalling the entire Board, etc.

ICANN needs to create awareness of its existence and work on large business in developing regions. ICANN is, so far, mainly populated with large companies from developed economies but we lack presence of those large companies from developing countries.

ICANN needs to engage with these companies and show them what might be at stake for them and consequently have them participate in the ICANN ecosystem.

There is currently a CCWG working on the issue. At a general level, funds should be used to promote activities that guarantee ICANN’s mission. If elected I will continue to follow the CCWG’s work closely so that the community is able to guide the Board as to which are the best ways in which that money can have the most meaningful impact. 

I believe that Internet governance is and should remain as horizontal as possible. The multi-stakeholder model relies on the equal footing of all its players. Therefore, I believe that IGOs should continue to contribute to the internet governance ecosystem but keeping in mind the equal footing principle and where this principle is not met, then they should be leveled accordingly to preserve this equal footing principle.

I believe States/Countries should continue to have the same say they have today regarding ccTLD policy, because policy decisions are made within the FoI developed by the community and ICANN cannot intervene in local government matters.

If the At-Large community wants to effectively take part in the review process and influence the outcome, it needs to encourage more people to join the WG. Currently there are only 4 members and 2 observers participating in the WG that identify themselves as linked to the At-Large community. If we don’t have people participating, then it will be more difficult for the At-Large community to influence any outcome. 

In the ALAC statement on the preliminary issue report for the review I raised two questions regarding the effectivity of the current RPMs and the barriers of access to those PMs from the individual user perspective. I also proposed that any outcome should take into account lowering the cost of access as many times individual users aren’t able to access said protection mechanisms.

There are a number of efforts that can be implemented to continue engaging with internet users and specifically to engage with those users that are not aware of either ICANN or At-Large. Some of this efforts, which I would certainly propose if elected are:

a)    Identify users groups through the five ICANN regions and coordinate with the GSE team in order to organize or participate more (inter)actively in engagement events like Rightscon which is currently sponsored by ICANN. By more interactively I mean that Board members should not only attend this type of events but also be closer to the attendees and provide workshops or interactive sessions;

b)    Take advantage of the Board retreats to setup meet-ups with local users’ communities and evangelize them on ICANN’s mission.

c)    Propose the implementation of a pilot program that allows translating key basic information into non-official UN languages. I think of languages that are spoken both in developed and developing countries. For example, German, Zulu, Quechuan, Afrikaans, Swahili, Berber, Otomi, Hebrew, Filipino, Japanese, Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi and Turkish.