Page History
The following questions were prepared by Hong Xue, Chair of APRALO, on behalf of APRALO.
1. You must have read ATRT Proposed Recommendations, which are now available for public comments. What are your comments on following two recommendations:
...
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
Pierre Dandjinou
Thanks to my colleagues from APRALO and greetings to Hong Xue!
With regards the ATRT , I concur with the two sets of recommendations which you are highlighting. I agree that stakeholders should be fully aware of how the Board has been steering the organization and also. As for the complementary mechanisms for consultations with the Sos and Acs, while I think they will create further opportunities for the Board to interact with the community on Policy issues, I am also convinced that Directors may have to be more visible and if possible more active in the different constituencies.
The workplan to implement these recommendations will not be mine, but the one of the Board! However, my suggestion will be that a) a board committee be established to work on those recommendations; b) that further time be given to the community to elaborate on a set of mechanisms to be put to place to effectively bring the community at par with the Board’s achievements and c) the defined mechanisms to be put in place.
Alan Greenberg
I wholeheartedly support the first item on improving visibility. I believe that the community needs to be aware of what the Board will be looking at, and to the extent possible and prudent, the community should have access to the materials that the Board will use in its deliberations – certainly FAR more than is available today. When one considers that there have been two Board meetings in the last months that were not even announced to the community ahead of time, we do have plenty of room to improve.
I think that I support the second issue, but am a bit mystified by the meaning of “complementary activities” (complementing to what?). That being said, I think that it is mandatory that the Board at least try to understand the wishes of the community prior to making decisions. The Board members are required to vote based on their own beliefs of the correct path for ICANN, but it is essential that they do this with the full knowledge of community views. I do recognize that it will be difficult to do this well. Typically there are reasonably long lead times for most ACs and SOs to come to a position where they can state what “the SO as a whole believes”. More often, there will be multiple statements from different parts of the group. It will vary based on the organization. The ALAC can probably come up with overall positions on may issues. The GNSO can really only come to closure after significant discussions between the stakeholder groups and constituencies and this can be a lengthy process.
I have no specific plan at this stage. As noted in the ATRT report, there are already a number of ongoing initiatives to increase visibility. For getting the input from the ACs and SOs, we will have to look at various options. The current comment process does not work well at all, and only a few of the formal ICANN bodies have been using it for input to the Board.
2.At-Large Community had expressed strong interest in supporting the Independent Objector mechanism defined in Final Guidebook, i.e. "acts solely in the best interests of the public who use the global Internet", particularly at Mexico At-Large Summit. What is your view on IO and at-large's involvement as the public-interest goalkeeper?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
Pierre Dandjinou
As the Independent Objector mechanism is meant for objecting to anomalous applications on behalf of Internet users, and particularly in the public interest, I see it as a necessary and required safeguard in the process. This will promote more independence in the dispute resolution process, while also addressing risks to the process by ensuring that the proposed TLDs that are clearly encompassed by the limited Community-based and morality & public Order objection standards are not entered into the root. Because the At large community represents the users at large, I will be in favour of a close relationship of the AC with the process of the selection of the Independent objector.
Alan Greenberg
I support the concept, but am a bit leery of the detailed implementation. Based on the most recent discussions, it is a way that the ALAC or GAC can raise objections without the costs that ICANN is planning to assess for objections through other paths. That I think is a good thing. I do have some worries that this “independent” voice will not be truly independent, but may consider things from a point of view of ICANN management, which is far from Independent. As such, I think that the oversight of the IO should be outside of ICANN staff and Board.
I do note that the comments that came out of the Summit were largely suggesting that the ALAC/At-Large itself could take on the role of the IO. I do not agree with that, as I do not think it is a volunteer job, nor do I think that we would have the skills and background that may be required for such a task.
3. ICANN's fast-track IDN ccTLDs program meets the pressing need of IDN communities but also introduces a couple of ad hoc solutions, such as character variants allocation and management. Do you believe new gTLD program should maintain these policies when evaluating IDN gTLDs for consistence or overrule them?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
Pierre Dandjinou
Ideally, I would say the new gTLD programme should maintain these IDN ccTLDs related policies for consistence reasons. However, there will be a need for an assessment of the impacts of those policies in a set of IDN ccTLDs before any generalization of the policies.
Alan Greenberg
I support these recommendations. Not yet a work plan but some ideas:
- On time delivery to the ICANN community of both the documents send, given and explained to the Board prior or during a Board meeting and the ones’ explaining the decision,
- Some consultations are already made at the level of the Chairs of the SOs and ACs and some time including the leaders of SOs and ACs. Maybe more formal liaisons from each and to each SOs and ACs and a coordination group formed by the liaisons and when needed by the Chairs could be a good venue to address this issue.
- An overview of the ACs and SOs reviews to avoid the silos moving one from the other.
Pierre Dandjinou
Thanks to my colleagues from APRALO and greetings to Hong Xue!
With regards the ATRT , I concur with the two sets of recommendations which you are highlighting. I agree that stakeholders should be fully aware of how the Board has been steering the organization and also. As for the complementary mechanisms for consultations with the Sos and Acs, while I think they will create further opportunities for the Board to interact with the community on Policy issues, I am also convinced that Directors may have to be more visible and if possible more active in the different constituencies.
The workplan to implement these recommendations will not be mine, but the one of the Board! However, my suggestion will be that a) a board committee be established to work on those recommendations; b) that further time be given to the community to elaborate on a set of mechanisms to be put to place to effectively bring the community at par with the Board’s achievements and c) the defined mechanisms to be put in place.
Alan Greenberg
I wholeheartedly support the first item on improving visibility. I believe that the community needs to be aware of what the Board will be looking at, and to the extent possible and prudent, the community should have access to the materials that the Board will use in its deliberations – certainly FAR more than is available today. When one considers that there have been two Board meetings in the last months that were not even announced to the community ahead of time, we do have plenty of room to improve.
I think that I support the second issue, but am a bit mystified by the meaning of “complementary activities” (complementing to what?). That being said, I think that it is mandatory that the Board at least try to understand the wishes of the community prior to making decisions. The Board members are required to vote based on their own beliefs of the correct path for ICANN, but it is essential that they do this with the full knowledge of community views. I do recognize that it will be difficult to do this well. Typically there are reasonably long lead times for most ACs and SOs to come to a position where they can state what “the SO as a whole believes”. More often, there will be multiple statements from different parts of the group. It will vary based on the organization. The ALAC can probably come up with overall positions on may issues. The GNSO can really only come to closure after significant discussions between the stakeholder groups and constituencies and this can be a lengthy process.
I have no specific plan at this stage. As noted in the ATRT report, there are already a number of ongoing initiatives to increase visibility. For getting the input from the ACs and SOs, we will have to look at various options. The current comment process does not work well at all, and only a few of the formal ICANN bodies have been using it for input to the Board.
2.At-Large Community had expressed strong interest in supporting the Independent Objector mechanism defined in Final Guidebook, i.e. "acts solely in the best interests of the public who use the global Internet", particularly at Mexico At-Large Summit. What is your view on IO and at-large's involvement as the public-interest goalkeeper?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
It seems that Independent is very often associated with “outside” of ICANN, no stakeholder participants, no staff… We have at least one example to demonstrate that Independence could be achieved with current or ex-participants of the ICANN work: the NomCom. The Review Teams will also I am sure show us that.
It is time to discuss the need to have more “internal” committees and less external.
Pierre Dandjinou
As the Independent Objector mechanism is meant for objecting to anomalous applications on behalf of Internet users, and particularly in the public interest, I see it as a necessary and required safeguard in the process. This will promote more independence in the dispute resolution process, while also addressing risks to the process by ensuring that the proposed TLDs that are clearly encompassed by the limited Community-based and morality & public Order objection standards are not entered into the root. Because the At large community represents the users at large, I will be in favour of a close relationship of the AC with the process of the selection of the Independent objector.
Alan Greenberg
I support the concept, but am a bit leery of the detailed implementation. Based on the most recent discussions, it is a way that the ALAC or GAC can raise objections without the costs that ICANN is planning to assess for objections through other paths. That I think is a good thing. I do have some worries that this “independent” voice will not be truly independent, but may consider things from a point of view of ICANN management, which is far from Independent. As such, I think that the oversight of the IO should be outside of ICANN staff and Board.
I do note that the comments that came out of the Summit were largely suggesting that the ALAC/At-Large itself could take on the role of the IO. I do not agree with that, as I do not think it is a volunteer job, nor do I think that we would have the skills and background that may be required for such a task.
3. ICANN's fast-track IDN ccTLDs program meets the pressing need of IDN communities but also introduces a couple of ad hoc solutions, such as character variants allocation and management. Do you believe new gTLD program should maintain these policies when evaluating IDN gTLDs for consistence or overrule them?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
The policy developed for the ".china" IDN ccTLD is a responsible way of handling the technical necessity of providing two variants of the same TLD to the respective IDN TLD community. It should also be available for gTLDs.
"synchronized IDN ccTLDs" è "synchronized IDN gTLDs" – only if necessary.
Pierre Dandjinou
Ideally, I would say the new gTLD programme should maintain these IDN ccTLDs related policies for consistence reasons. However, there will be a need for an assessment of the impacts of those policies in a set of IDN ccTLDs before any generalization of the policies.
Alan Greenberg
As I understand it, the Board has already decided that during the first As I understand it, the Board has already decided that during the first round, we will not delegate gTLDs which involve strings deemed to be confusingly similar (even if that is a desirable characteristic in the particular case) or TLDs which use variants. I do not see that this will be revisited for the first round unless there is a very loud outcry. I am neither an expert on this, nor have I studied the various positions in depth. I applauded the allowance of ad hoc solutions for the ccTLDs because I felt that the need was pressing (both real and from a public relations point of view). However, for the gTLD case where the number of possible TLDs is far greater and under less control, I support the current Board position. If there is a need that I am misunderstanding, I would be delighted to be educated!
...
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
Pierre Dandjinou
I believe the next decade will see an increase of other billions of Internet users, namely due to the broadband facilities and mobile telephony. Issues related to security and personal data handling as well as privacy will be come paramount. I also believe the key challenges of ICANN in coming decades will be how best to preserve its multistakeholders structure in the face of those creeping’ missions’ Enhanced participation of the at large community is hence unavoidable and any holistic plan to outreach user community should include use of social networks as well as other mechanisms to make the users more aware of their rights and up coming issues. Outreaching the user community will mean that we strive to highlight their interests and needs, and while ICANN with its technical coordination role will still have a central role in helping with the outreach, other stakeholders might come on the fore to deal with security issues, and privacy issues. An action plan should integrate who and how best to approach these stakeholders so that they also contribute to integrating the user community in their overall policy making process.
I will favor the users the Summit as a regular channels for direct participation of the users in ICANN’s activities.
Alan Greenberg
I agree that having credible input into the ICANN processes from the perspective of the user community is absolutely essential for ICANN. It is needed to ensure that we make the right decisions, and it is mandatory that we can demonstrate that we are factoring in these issues when we make decisions.
How this should be done remains somewhat elusive. There are those who believe that the current layered At-Large structure is doomed to failure. In fact, there are some who believe that it was deliberately created that way so it would not work. I do not accept that it was a deliberate conspiracy to yield failure, but I have voiced the opinion that perhaps some change in the structure might make it far more effective. I do not know what that change might be. I supported the idea that the overall structure should not be changed as a result of the recent ALAC review, but perhaps the next review would be a proper time.
The bottom line is that we MUST make At-Large work. With the current structure I agree that regional assemblies and summits are one component that has been shown to help. As such I support them and once I have a better understanding of the Board decision process, I would be happy to work with At-Large leaders to help them understand the kinds of arguments which might help such a proposal succeed.
The current discussion is to have one general assembly per region over the next 2-3 years, and then a summit during the following 3 years. So according to that schedule, the next summit might be in 3-6 years and the one after 10-12 years from now (presuming the same pattern). For an organization that is as relatively fluid as ICANN, to talk about what will happen 10 years out makes little sense, so the question of whether summits will be held regularly is not particularly helpful.
5. ICANN Board recently approved the policy regarding vertical integration in gTLD domains. Do you believe the new policy would enhance competition and benefit Internet users, including but not limited to registrants? Under the new policy, how would ICANN strengthen oversight over registries that acquire the opportunity to directly provide registration services?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
I push the idea from the ICANN meeting in Lisbon (Portugal) and it finally happen that an ALS summit was conduct during the ICANN meeting in Mexico.
My plan is not anymore my plan but it is the one of At-Large/ALAC express during the last year discussion about the Strategic planning of ICANN:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/stratplan-2010/pdfNNwy32lraJ.pdf
“ALAC wishes to add one strategic project for the strategic objectives [All stakeholders have a voice at the table]: “ALSes in every country”.
This will support the implementation of the community recommendations discussed and defined during the first ICANN At‐Large Summit in Mexico in March 2009 to improve ICANN’s transparency and accountability.
In this context it was stated that a further empowerment of ICANN’s At‐Large structure is necessary. More incentives and enabling mechanisms for ALSes and user communities are essential to strengthen multi‐stakeholder participation and the voice of Internet users in the ICANN’s decision making process. In this framework, RALOs (which were set‐up by an MOU between ALSs and ICANN in the 5 regions) need more institutional support and funding to allow them to organize regular General Assemblies and outreach activities (such as, in Europe, the ICANN‐Studienkreis meeting, EuroDIG etc.). With this assistance from ICANN, RALOs will be given the opportunity to reach, during the next 3 years, an ambitious goal to double the number of countries where, at least, one ALS will join the RALOs (see some more details next page).
During the next strategic plan (e.g. 2013 – 2016) the goal of At‐Large, with the strong support of ICANN, will be to organize a second ICANN At‐Large Summit.
Timeline:
2010 – 2013
o One RALO General Assembly in each region,
o To recruit new ALSes to cover 80% of the countries in each region.
2013 ‐ 2016
o A second ICANN At‐Large Summit,
o New ALSes to join.
This project should be undertaken in conjunction with GAC and ccNSO (and possibly with stakeholder groups of the non‐contracted House of the GNSO). ALAC hopes that a synergy could be found along similar objectives.”
Pierre Dandjinou
I believe the next decade will see an increase of other billions of Internet users, namely due to the broadband facilities and mobile telephony. Issues related to security and personal data handling as well as privacy will be come paramount. I also believe the key challenges of ICANN in coming decades will be how best to preserve its multistakeholders structure in the face of those creeping’ missions’ Enhanced participation of the at large community is hence unavoidable and any holistic plan to outreach user community should include use of social networks as well as other mechanisms to make the users more aware of their rights and up coming issues. Outreaching the user community will mean that we strive to highlight their interests and needs, and while ICANN with its technical coordination role will still have a central role in helping with the outreach, other stakeholders might come on the fore to deal with security issues, and privacy issues. An action plan should integrate who and how best to approach these stakeholders so that they also contribute to integrating the user community in their overall policy making process.
I will favor the users the Summit as a regular channels for direct participation of the users in ICANN’s activities.
Alan Greenberg
I agree that having credible input into the ICANN processes from the perspective of the user community is absolutely essential for ICANN. It is needed to ensure that we make the right decisions, and it is mandatory that we can demonstrate that we are factoring in these issues when we make decisions.
How this should be done remains somewhat elusive. There are those who believe that the current layered At-Large structure is doomed to failure. In fact, there are some who believe that it was deliberately created that way so it would not work. I do not accept that it was a deliberate conspiracy to yield failure, but I have voiced the opinion that perhaps some change in the structure might make it far more effective. I do not know what that change might be. I supported the idea that the overall structure should not be changed as a result of the recent ALAC review, but perhaps the next review would be a proper time.
The bottom line is that we MUST make At-Large work. With the current structure I agree that regional assemblies and summits are one component that has been shown to help. As such I support them and once I have a better understanding of the Board decision process, I would be happy to work with At-Large leaders to help them understand the kinds of arguments which might help such a proposal succeed.
The current discussion is to have one general assembly per region over the next 2-3 years, and then a summit during the following 3 years. So according to that schedule, the next summit might be in 3-6 years and the one after 10-12 years from now (presuming the same pattern). For an organization that is as relatively fluid as ICANN, to talk about what will happen 10 years out makes little sense, so the question of whether summits will be held regularly is not particularly helpful.
5. ICANN Board recently approved the policy regarding vertical integration in gTLD domains. Do you believe the new policy would enhance competition and benefit Internet users, including but not limited to registrants? Under the new policy, how would ICANN strengthen oversight over registries that acquire the opportunity to directly provide registration services?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
From my SOI:
• I fully support the last ALAC statement on new gTLDs and I would like to emphasize one sentence I am particularly committed to: "From the At-Large perspective, the core issues remain maximizing the benefits and minimizing the confusion from the introduction of new gTLDs to the average Internet user...".
• New gTLDs must not be just considered as a "market". They must not be just a way to invest money. New gTLDs must be for new users and new usages. Their goal must therefore be to serve new communities. The policy development for new gTLDs was largely controlled by incumbents. Together with the current, yet to be completed implementation phase, it has taken already more than 6 years. Rather than treating the new TLDs as an entitlement for any investor, priority must be given to projects in the public interest that contribute to the improvement and the development of the Internet.
In addition:
The compliance policies and implementation of those policies are key for the Internet users.
At-Large will have to be very involved in that both at the registry and registrar level (and/or function)Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
Pierre Dandjinou
I believe vertical integration in gTLDs domains should enhance competition and lower the costs for the end users and registrants. I believe ICANN could strengthen oversight over registries that provide direct registration services through strict and specific agreements on the one hand, and through a facilitation of constant evaluation by an independent consumer authority or group; by the way, the RALOS of the ALAC could play that role in a certain measure!
...
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Candidate has not yet submitted answersYes.
Pierre Dandjinou
It is a pity the ALAC liaison to the Board is being replaced by an at large Director elected. As per the bylaws of iCANN, once a Director is appointed, he normally should not report to his/her constituency and only ‘defends’ the Interest of ICANN. I think we should continue to press for the r establishment of the liaison’s position as it’s crucial that a mechanism is still available for streamlining the community’s view to the Board…Unless this new At large director to occupy the No 15 seat, is given such a prerogative to serve as a liaison and also report back to the ALAC..But for this , a review of the bylaws must occur, and I could push to this if elected as the At large Director.
...
It remains to be seen exactly what the impact will be. Certainly without a person sitting there and reminding the Board of At-Large issues, we should demand that we get far better feedback on the advice that we do give. My experience being the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO is that for the majority of discussions and debates, I have not been acting under explicit orders but have participated based on my understanding of At-large beliefs coupled with my own. I suspect that this has been the case with Board Liaisons as well. If that is correct, then that responsibility is simply transferred to the new voting Director with no harm. The problems may occur when there ARE differences between the At-Large Director and an At-Large position, or at times when some other message must be relayed from the ALAC to the Board. Additionally, if a Director is TOO involved with the ALAC/At-Large, there may be a potential conflict when the Board discusses or votes on issues directly related to them. I suspect that there will not be a very large number of these times. If that is correct, the impact of losing the Liaison may not be that large. Only time will tell.
Question to Alan Greenberg from Sivasubramanian M, from APRALO, but question posed as an individual
As more and more at Large leadership positions are filled by people from the business constituency, It is becoming very important for ALAC and at Large to preserve at Large as a user's constituency to TRULY balance the business stakeholder group. Any leadership position within ALAC and at Large should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user.
...
I completely agree that any leadership position within ALAC and at Large should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user. I am not at all sure that this excludes people who also have other interests or involvements in their lives. Most people find it necessary to work and this often means having some business involvement. It is also common, particularly in developing countries, that people wear many hats. Restricting someone from participating in At-Large because they also play other roles nad may unreasonably restrict the number of interested workers. That being said, it is up to each RALO and the ALAC to set the rules covering their organization. Some RALOs do have rules restricting some people (employees from ICANN contracted parties, for instance) from holding some offices.
The criteria for the At-Large Director explicitly includes such a restriction:
Independence from the ICANN stakeholders whose financial situation is significantly impacted by ICANN decisions.
For the record, I meet this criteria.
...
