Page History
...
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
Wiki Markup
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.
...
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
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.
...
