An At-Large community call with the candidates will be held on Saturday, 13 November at 1300 UTC. You can find the draft agenda and participation instructions under:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Community+Call+on+At-Large+Board+Director+Candidates+11.10+-+Teleconference
On 28 October 2010, the At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee (BCEC) announced the slate of three candidates for the position of At-Large selected voting Board Director. The three candidates, in alphabetical order by family name, are:
Sébastien Bachollet
Pierre Dandjinou
Alan Greenberg
This Candidate-Community Forum page is a space intended to facilitate information exchange between the candidates for the position of At-Large selected Board Director and the At-Large community.
Statements and Additional Information from the Candidates
Questions to the Candidates from the RALOs and Answers from the Candidates
AFRALO
Questions prepared by Tijani Ben Jemaa:
As a Board Director selected by At-Large,
- How would you support the At-Large community?
- What kind of support would you provide the RALOs and ALAC?
- Even if you are not obliged, will you report to ALAC?
- Will you meet with the ALAC and listen to the At-Large concerns and ideas? How often?
- Will you help to implement the At-Large projects and activities? How?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
Pierre Dandjinou
Let me thank you for the questions. Let me also thank all who has put so much effort in Baining that seat no15 which actually is a mark of the many envolements undergone by the ICANN and the Special SO which is the ALAC.
As a Board Director selected by the At Large Community, I understand that my role should be to become a voice of the At Large on the Board . Of course, while the by-laws of ICANN has precise requirements from its Board members who, once elected, should strive to represent the ICANN and not its SO, I do believe there is something special with this new position; thus, one of my constant effort will be to make sure the importance of the users’ voice be understood by my fellow Directors. In this regards, I will take initiatives to further explain why it’s so important that we listen more to the at large community, and that our Policy development strategy further integrate their interests and needs. This means that I consider myself on a special mission; therefore, I will find ways in which to communicate with and support the at large community.
Indeed, one of the plaguing issue affecting the at large community is the difficulties in outreaching to all our ALS; most of them require more face to face meetings so as to effectively socialize and brainstorm over the many issues that the user at large is dealing with when it comes to Internet development and usage. I will therefore support any budget increase to effectively contribute to more global and regional forums for the ALS. Whenever possible, I should report back to the community through the bureau of the ALAC, an also will help formalize regular feedbacks from the Board to the ALAC.
More than the past, I will strive to make myself accessible to the community and of course I will support any initiatives and projects deemed useful to the At large community. As a former Chair of the AFRALO, I have some fair knowledge of our problems and would not spare my efforts to help solve them.
Alan Greenberg
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
APRALO
The following questions were prepared by Hong Xue 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:
-Improve visibility among stakeholders of the work the Board undertakes in steering ICANN’s activities;
-Develop complementary mechanisms for consultation with SOs and ACs on policy issues that will be addressed at Board level.
If you agree with these recommendations, what would be your work plan to implement them?
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
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
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?
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
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
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?
4. Enhancement of involvement and participation of at-large community is essential for ICANN's next decade. Do you have a holistic plan to outreach user community? Would you support another at-large summit or make summit a regular channel for users' direct participation in ICANN activities?
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?
6. Under the present policy, at-large director elected will replace ALAC Liaison on the Board. Do you think, despite the addition of at-large director, ALAC Liaison should be retained, through which at-large community's views could be streamlined to the Board?
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.
My impression of your participation in the Post Expiry Domain Name working group and the Vertical Integration working group is that you are soft on the Domain Industry and muted and weak on the real issues of concerns to users. If elected to represent at Large to take the only available seat for at Large representation in the Board, wouldn't you be equally soft on broader issues of greater importance? You have a rich experience and an impressive background, but wouldn't it be apt for you seek to be elected to the ICANN Board as a Business nominee rather than as a user's nominee?
If I am wrong in my impression, would you be be kind enough to clarify on your choice of seeking this position as from at Large? In other words, would you list arguments as to why ALAC members and leaders should back you formally and informally as a candidate?
EURALO
The following 8 questions were prepared by Avri Doria on behalf of EURALO:
1. To what extent do you think that the ALAC should be equivalent in its influence within ICANN to the GAC. Should the by-laws be changed to give the ALAC the same right of advice as the GAC has?
2. How do you plan to balance your commitment to doing what you believe is best for ICANN as a California corporation with your role as a representative of the members of the At-Large? How do you propose handling it when your vote runs counter to the advice of the ALAC and At-Large.
3. What do you plan to do about the Culture of Secrecy that exists in ICANN. What role does the Board have to play in making ICANN more transparent and accountable?
4. What degree of oversight do you think the Board should exert over the Staff and its activities.
5. Do you accept that ICANN remains a US based corporation or do you have a plan for increasing its International status.
6. Do you agree with the current salary levels of the senior managers in ICANN. Do you think the Board should change the levels of compensation to be more in keeping with the non-profit of ICANN. If so, how do you plan seeing this dealt with?
7. What is your plan for any excess funds that may be derived from new gTLD auctions?
8. Do you think it is necessary for ICANN to make serious adjustments to the new gTLD process and application fees in order for it to be possible for there to be applicants from the developing economies. what sort of changes would you be in favor of seeing?
The following 3 questions were prepared by Wolf Ludwig on behalf of EURALO:
1. Please present a precise definition of the "public interest".
2. What would you say is the relevance of the "public interest" in the ICANN context?
3. What is the relevance of the PI for the candidates and how best it could be pursued by them (once seated on the Board)?
Questions to specific candidates prepared by Adam Peake on behalf of EURALO:
Pierre, Sebastien:
I understand you are both involved in potential applications for new gTLDs: Pierre, dot AFRICA (perhaps already controversial, with rival applications in play), Sebastien perhaps a few projects. If I am wrong about this, you have no involvement, please accept my apologies.
However, if correct, my concern is whether you will be able to participate fully in discussions about new gTLDs. I think we can be sure issues arising from the new gTLD program will be among the most important ICANN will face over the coming 2-3 years.
If selected as At Large Director will you stop any involvement with new gTLD application? Or how would you handle the possibility of having to recuse yourself from some or all discussions? Can a Director be involved in both an application and making policy that affects that or all applications?
To be fair: Alan, are you involved with any potential/planned gTLD applications?
A general question, but first for Alan.
The ATRT's proposed recommendations include:
"ICANN should establish [by INSERT DATE] formal mechanisms for identifying the collective skill-set required by the ICANN Board including such skills as public policy, finance, strategic planning, corporate governance, negotiation, and dispute resolution. Emphasis should be placed upon ensuring the Board has the skills and experience to effectively provide oversight of ICANN operations consistent with the global public interest and deliver best practice in corporate governance."
1. What skill sets do you feel currently missing from the board and how will your skills fill those gaps?
2. Please describe your experience with the following, as relevant to ICANN's mission "public policy, finance, strategic planning, corporate governance, negotiation, and dispute resolution".
LACRALO
Question from Carlos:
We heard skills and capacities of his own voices. But, and the direct question is: Why not the other two candidates? What are the wiknesses of the other two candidates?
NARALO
Questions for all Candidates:
1. How do you define "end-user," "consumer," "registrant," and where do those terms intersect?
2. Describe your level of satisfaction with ICANN's current performance in responding to end-user and registrant concerns.
3. Is the current speed of the new gTLD creation process happening too fast, too slow, or at the right pace?
4. What is, in your opinion, the scope of ICANN? What are the limits of its authority?
5. As a Director, what would be your interest in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement?
6. Describe, in as much detail as possible, your assessment of WHOIS, specifically stating your opinions on
- the desired balance between registrant privacy and registrant accountability
- the suitability of WHOIS to accomplish its intended purpose
- whether WHOIS needs to be fixed, replaced, discarded or left untouched
7. What initiatives will you *personally* undertake to increase ICANN's transparency and accountability?
8. Do end-users and registrants have rights within ICANN? Should they? If you answered yes to either, state how you would encourage the rest of the board to effect this.
9. As you replace the accountable At-Large liaison to the Board in a role that is explicitly not accountable, describe the relationship you intend to have with ICANN's At-Large Community.
- Are you prepared to make any commitments to levels of engagement with At-Large?
- Are you willing to resign if incapable of meeting those committments?
10. How would you describe the "maturity" of ICANN's At-Large infrastructure?
- What is the effect of this on ICANN policy-making?
- What would you do to improve this?
11. What is your analysis of the recent Board decision regarding vertical integration, specifically from the point of view of Internet registrants and end-users?
12. All three candidates have, at least once, been appointed to their At-Large positions rather than chosen by the community. How does this impact your view of ICANN and its relationship with the public?
13. What is the best possible outcome of this election process? What is the worst possible outcome?
14. Do you consider yourself a "people person"? In other words, do you like people and do you make yourself available because you enjoy spending time listening to people's ideas and concerns?
15. How many hours of a time commitment per week do you expect will be needed of you as an ICANN Board of Director? Can you dedicate more than that?
16. Are you a founder, officer, leader or executive management of an organization planning to submit a new TLD application to ICANN? And if so, how does that affect your ability to represent end-users at the Board?
Questions to specific candidates:
Question for Pierre:
17. Some longtime participants in At-Large have expressed concern about your level of participation and achievement during your tenure on the Interim ALAC. Can you please describe some specific initiatives in which you had leadership or significant participation while on ALAC?
Question for Sébastien:
18. If selected as Director, will you resign your NomComm seat on ALAC or retain it?
Questions from Individuals
1. Question for the Candidates: The Root Scaling Study Team wrote: "Beyond the very near term, we can’t know in advance exactly how many TLDs can be added to the root, or how fast they can be added, because as soon as you start to add entries to the root each of the root system components adapts and changes in ways that cannot be predicted or effectively coordinated. That’s why it’s so important to build an “early warning system” that can (a) detect signs that one or more of the root system actors is reaching its limit for absorbing changes without major replanning, and (b) take effective mitigating action when those signs are detected."
As an ICANN director, would you approve the launch of new gTLDs prior to having this "early warning system" built?
Thanks,
Danny Younger
2. Question for the Candidates: The IGF process effectively uses "remote hubs" for participation. These hubs are the focal point of local discourse and workshops. While some remote hubs were established on an ad-hoc basis for the ICANN Nairobi meeting (in Bangladesh, Virginia & San Francisco), there has been no institutional support to encourage and develop a sustainable approach to further such efforts. As activities within ALAC's remit include "Establishing an outreach strategy about ICANN issues in each RALO's Region", will you, as a Board director, see to it that a program is established by the ALAC to support an ongoing regional "remote hub" outreach strategy?
Thanks,
Danny Younger
3. Question for the Candidates: The ICANN Board's decision with respect to Vertical Integration has the potential to negatively impact the registrant community. Registrants "may be harmed by an integrated registry/registrar operation’s ability to identify high value domains, hold those domains off the market (either directly or through affiliates) and to then monetize them at a premium price. These practices render the domain name unavailable to the “first-come” registrant or force that registrant to pay a higher price than the standard retail offer." What action will you take as a board director to monitor the domain name marketplace so as to ensure that registrants aren't abused by domain name scalping?
Thanks,
Danny Younger
