Page History

On 28 March 2010, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Alan you are indeed correct and Adam I'm happy to take the point you raised re closing a communication loop and feedback as will as the briefings issue (and it has been a matter many of us have harped upon) so I believe it can be characterized as an issue of concern for ALAC and At-Large forward to the A&T-rt when appropriate... Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)

On 28 March 2010, Alan Greenberg wrote:

EL: But all Board Advisory Committees are not created equal. It's my
understanding that the Board must respond to GAC advisories but under
no similar obligation with regard to ALAC.

If memory serves me, there is a point in the ALAC review report about this and the Board has approved it.

EL: Not having a Liaison takes all of their excuses away, which at some level, is a good thing._

May be. But with neither a Board liaison nor a requirement for it to respond
to ALAC initiatives, this seems the worst of both worlds.
Alan

On 28 March 2010, Adam Peake wrote:

Very much agree. We, and I mean all SO/AC not just ALAC, really need that feedback loop of how advice has been taken into consideration, and if not taken up why not. We've been asking for years. And to move forward with the discussion we had with the NCUC about a joint resolution regarding access to staff briefings to the board., which I hope I have the final text of:
"ICANN's transparency commitment demands the adoption of a principle of default openness for all Board communications except in those specific instances where it is overridden, in writing, by the principle of personal privacy or an explicit requirement for confidentiality.
It is especially critical that the contributions of supporting organizations and advisory committees be presented to the Board accurately and completely. While we appreciate the need for staff to summarize matters that are often complex, we must stress the importance of ensuring that these summaries accurately report the relevant facts and positions. Openness and public review will minimize inaccuracies, facilitating the role of staff while enhancing public confidence in the Board's decision-making process.
We request that the Board change its policy so that all briefing documents are made publicly accessible in advance of presentation, except for those for which explicit legitimate reason is given in writing for the requirement of confidentiality."
We should move forward with this.
Adam

On 28 March 2010, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

AG: First, we are still a Board Advisory Committee.

But all Board Advisory Committees are not created equal. It's my understanding that the Board must respond to GAC advisories but under no similar obligation with regard to ALAC.

AG: Not having a Liaison takes all of their excuses away, which at some level, is a good thing.

May be. But with neither a Board liaison nor a requirement for it to respond to ALAC initiatives, this seems the worst of both worlds.

-Evan

On 28 March 2010, Alan Greenberg wrote:

I disagree about our being reduced to only interacting in Public Comment periods. First, we are still a Board Advisory Committee. We need to ensure that when we "advise" the Board, it really is substantive. And given that, we need to AGAIN point out that feedback is a necessary part of the process. Not having a Liaison takes all of their excuses away, which at some level, is a good thing.
That being said, I would not depreciate the impact of public comment period comments on issues that are not immediately at the stage of a Board decision. These days, they are listened to and a lot harder to ignore than even a year ago.
Alan

On 28 March 2010, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

If the Board wants to "redeem" itself, it will work with At-Large to help deal with our loss of a conduit once the transition happens from official liaison to Board member. Once that transition is complete, At-Large's ability to initiate policy as a constituency will be severely reduced. We will be reduced to reacting through conventional public comment mechanisms.
Perhaps At-Large PDP needs its own board-blessed PDP process?
Sorry for the diversion from the original issue, ICANN's own particular approach to "T&A". But the challenges that At-Large faced with getting its voice heard at this committee appear to be symptoms of being part of policy-making that we facing throughout ICANN. There are some encouraging steps – we have been invited into forums that are certainly new to us. But there is still much to be concerned about.

-Evan

On 28 March 2010, Alan Greenberg wrote:

Evan, I will be the last person to defend what I believe was a very flawed process, and not just because of the outcome. But we need to be careful to get the facts correct, or we will be shot down for the wrong reasons.
The final composition of the review team is 4 from the GNSO (an unbelievable increase from the original 1), 4 from Governments - not quite the same as the GAC since the IS DOC was ex officio included.
The ccNSO has 2 not three (still a doubling of the original 1). Our count (like that of the ASO) did not get cut, since it was 1 in the original proposal - it did get cut from what we believed it would get changed to however. The loser was the SSAC/RSSAC which were to have shared 1 rep, and that slot disappeared.
Lastly, it was not the Board that made this decision, but rather the Chair of the Board along with the Chair of the GAC. That doesn't make the outcome any more palatable in my mind, but based on a number of actions at the Nairobi Board meeting, the current board is showing some signs of redeeming itself, so I wouldn't want to blame the entire Board for what was an extremely untransparent and unaccountable lead-off to the review whose purpose is "Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users".
Not to belabour the point, but has anyone else noticed how the last phrase of the review title is conveniently omitted most of the time?
Alan

On 28 March 2010, Carlton Samuels wrote:

I must sound like a warped LP when I say this but always top of mind is this fact. ICANN is an American corporation, no matter what is said. Its sensitivities are of type and its behaviour follows suit. I therefore take it as some progress when manifestly non-corporate interests are invited to the table. Carlton

On 28 March 2010, John R. Levine wrote:

The allocation of the seats on this committee is done, not much point in complaining about it now.
In any event, we have much bigger fish to fry. Here's a few to start
with:

• The board's frequent failure to do what the bylaws require them to do, e.g., reconsideration, .XXX. ...

• An institutional lack of compliance. Every clause in every contract that ICANN has with registrars and registries needs to be monitored and enforced. The failure to implement registrar data escrow for ten years, until the Registerfly fiasco made it too embarassing to ignore, is the most obvious example, but it's a chronic problem.

• The so-called Ombudsman (Ed Hasbrouck is right, the board has never properly appointed him) is simultaneously ineffective and out of control.

R's,
John

On 28 March 2010, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:

Evan (and John ask for a mile to get an inch can be so exhausting but I guess if we 'must' we will ; ) => I hear what your saying and will take these points 'to the table' = > indeed Evan your specific list of very recent 'incidents' (so where not talking old days or old baggage here) where depite ALAC and At-Large being a very differnetly engaged entity within ICANN, and one that is increasingly being 'listed' as a desired inclusion (gets the "public input" check box ticked I guess) for so many things....What we are seeing is where there is a potential or maximum ration and an absolute (often mandated) minimum were get the later ; ( Certainly a 'novel way' to supposedly increase interaction, engagement and public participation in a much needed trust building exercise isn't it... sigh

Apart from taking this 'to the A&T-rt 'table' I would like to explore via Vanda as our liaison to the Board, this specific issue so we'll add the matter to this weeks ExCom meetings Agenda...

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)

On 28 March 2010, John R. Levine wrote:

Good point. So in the future we must remember to propose twice what we expect to get. R's,
John

On 28 March 2010, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

May be, but things have already been off to a rough start, regarding trust, as far as I'm concerned. Four committee members from GAC, four from GNSO, three from ccNSO, just one from ALAC. For all the private kind words and public bluster from the top about the value of At-Large, the Board still doesn't trust us as a full participant. The contracted parties (half of
GNSO) have more representation at table than the organ that ICANN has itself entrusted to speak for the Internet user worldwide. Issues that At-Large has identified such as the secrecy of ICANN's regional meetings, are almost guaranteed to be shunted aside, as those within ICANN who benefit from the secrecy have double our voice.
This has happened too often to be a coincidence. Three times within the last year, (the At-Large board seat allocation, the STI trademark issues review and now this) the final allocation for ALAC on major committees has been half of what was originally proposed, without other constituencies being similarly cut down. Those looking for conspiracy theories have much from which to feed.
In closing (and I suspect this won't be the last time I say or type

> this with reference to the A&T-RT) "we can but try"... And as I try
> my best in this role, I trust you will be part of the community
> At-Large, that guides and assists me...

I will remain hopeful. One seat is better than none, so at least we are at the table. And we couldn't have a better representative. Still, there is an awful lot within ICANN that a transparency review team needs to address. And I was hoping for more confidence from the Board in At-Large's willingness to fulfill the role assigned it.
Evan

On 27 March 2010, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:

Hi there Bill, Some response to your points (in reverse order) :-
Firstly, Thank you for the good luck wish and 'the bolder up the hill image'
I may quote that when the opportunity arises in the RT's deliberations... (with your permission I'll even reference it to you).
The terms relationship beween Accoutability & Transparacy and ICANN:

• Even if it was a slam to me (which I understand it is not ; ) In my (admittedly biased) view the only way to change the lack of trust and the issues raised by parts of the community in terms of ICANN's A & T record is to be part of, and work in a system that allows FOR changes and improvement;
• Thus my roll as the ALAC representative in this review team's

activities, in my mind at least, is less of a 'to push things up a hill' but rather to find ways to get TO the top of the hill and find a pathway to
allow more of us to follow there.

Blessing or a Curse?- Life is full of 'mixed blessings' at least for me and change often improves some things and seems to damage others, but I've been a 'change agent' for a long time now and have learnt that there is advantage in not accumulating and carrying with you 'too many' negatives in a process... Recognizing them Yes! Dealing with them - Certainly! But accumulating them as baggage and worse ignoring them -> NEVER a good idea! (Unless the outcome aim your after is the failure of the change process...

So I'll go into this with 'a curse grows with curse returned' as a bit of a mantra and I can assure you that I see the Review Team model within the AoC and indeed this appointment (though we should have had more seats at the table) as an opportunity for real review and recognition for changes much needed...
Finally re changing my nomenclature I'll stick to Cheryl (CLO) for now thanks=>

Recognition of the pushing it up hill image beside, the whole 'Son of the founding King bit' sounds like when I set up my second life character from a character pre set list and selected female but stayed somehow with a male voice for ever more ,

I have a real issue with the deceit, duplicity and trickery associated with this character (and I certainly know when to move on ; ) so whilst the frustration and futility of the punishment set for him was (as a Myth/fable) highly apt; I think my 'sins' are rather different ones so I'm not meshed with the comparison of the Myths character set at all... Peer to the Gods (or powers that be) well yes I could be prevailed upon to wear that mantel I suppose... (Sorry but my eldest son did a course on Myth in his degree and I remember all too well proofreading far too many essays for him)...

That said however if your taking the Albert Camus approach and analysis with of the Sisyphus myth as your meaning where "The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart." then I'll take that very specific part of the 'public record on Sisyphus' as an apt simile indeed

In closing (and I suspect this won't be the last time I say or type this with reference to the A&T-RT) "we can but try"... And as I try my best in this role, I trust you will be part of the community At-Large, that guides and assists me...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)

On 27 March 2010, Bill Silverstein wrote:

Cheryl, or is it Sisyphus now? Is being appointed to Accountability and Transparency Review Team a blessing or a curse?
Not to slam you, but accountability and transparency have never been terms that come to mind when I think of ICANN.
Good luck, you have your work cut out for you as you push that boulder up that hill.

On 27 March 2010, Adam Peake wrote:

First, congratulations And a very good idea to set up a wikispace - thanks.
I don't see the need for ExCom advice. It's a great idea, go with it.
Adam

On 26 March 2010, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:

Thanks Frank... Now the work begins! From my POV I think ALAC should set up a Wikispace/Commons where any one can raise issues or opinions on this important matter and to encourage discussion and debate on what is raised there... In this way I can refer to current input from our community and use that to develop whatever outreach planning the Review Team will be no doubt discussing early on its processes. So I'll discuss this at the next ExCom meeting and let these lists know what and when things will be set up... Another thought is (in case anyone wished to forward matters via email for my attention) is to set up an @at-large-lists address for this purpose...
What do you think any views??
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)

On 26 March 2010, Franck Martin wrote:

> Congratulations!

On 26 March 2010 Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:

Subject: Fwd: Status of your application for a position on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team
Received overnight (well for me overnight it's my Sat morning here in the
antipodeas) from Alice Jansen... The following informs me that I have been retained as part of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)

On 26 March 2010, RT Candidatures wrote:

Subject: Status of your application for a position on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team
Dear Mrs. Langdon-Orr,
We are contacting you on behalf of Mr. Janis Karklins, Chair of the GAC, and Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush, Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors (the Selectors of the first Review Team), and we would like to update you on your application status for a position on the Accountability and Transparency review team.