At-Large Director Candidate-Community Forum - 11.10

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

The question of supporting the At-Large Community and the RALOs and ALSs is both easy and difficult. A Director is not on the Board to be an advocate FOR the groups that put him or her there. But presumably if selected by those groups, the Director understands the needs and desires of that group, and generally agrees and supports these needs. As such, an At-Large Director (including me if I am selected) is likely to be an advocate for specific initiatives coming out of At-Large. I think that one of the largest contributions that the Director can make is to ensure that the ALAC and RALO leadership understand the perspective with which the Board will approach its decisions. More likely, there will be multiple perspectives since the Board may well be divided on issues. Understanding these positions will allow At-Large to make stronger arguments for what it wants to see happen.

“Reporting back” is probably not the correct term for the interactions between the Director and ALAC. Certainly there will be regular interactions. I think that it is a given that schedules permitting, the Director would participate in some ALAC meetings both at ICANN meetings and teleconferences. Only experience will allow a reasonable prediction of the exact frequency. I am presuming that the Director will be on the standard ALAC and At-Large lists, and will therefore be able to monitor and intervene as appropriate. That has certainly been the case with some GNSO Directors in my experience. It would be foolish for the At-Large Director OR the ALAC to not ensure that there is a regular exchange of issues, and I do not consider either myself or the current ALAC foolish!

I alluded to “helping to implement At-Large projects and activities” above. I do not think that it is the work of the Director to create such proposals, but it may be his or her job to act as an advisor on them. Since actually being an author of a proposal going to the Board could be viewed as a reason that the Director would have to recuse themselves from the Board discussion and vote, this is certainly not the way to go. Participation in At-Large activities is an option that will depend on the specific details.

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

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

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!

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?

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

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!

Alan Greenberg

I don’t know how the new vertical integration policy will play out. I can see ways in which it could help registrants, but equally I can see some appalling possible outcomes which may or may not be fixable. I do not think that the policy will have a major impact on non-registrant users. ICANN has proposed rules on data sharing, but it is unclear how one could audit it when we are talking about the access to data that is wholly within a single company. Certainly compliance would have to be strengthened, but it is unclear if that alone is enough.

In general, I think that the decision is the right long-term one, but it is a decision that was taken prematurely because we do not have sufficient understanding of the new gTLD marketplace to have formulated the right rules.

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?

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

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.

Alan Greenberg

In a perfect world, with only one Director, I think that the Liaison should have been preserved, at the very least for some moderately long transition period. We do not live in a perfect world.

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. 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.

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?

Alan Greenberg

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 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.

Regarding the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, perhaps I have not met your expectations, but I was the person who initiated this PDP and it has proceeded despite the regular claims by some in the domain industry that there is no case for it existing and there is no need for change.

On the Vertical Integration PDP, I took a position that would have severely restricted the ability of domain industry parties and rejected the proposals that they should be given free reign with minimal restrictions. I class that as just the opposite from “soft”.

At-Large leaders, presumably influenced by their constituencies, will make their decision based on my track record of working for At-Large and users. A review of my Statement of Interest, my Candidate Statement and the answers to these questions hopefully will suffice. But I am always willing to answer additional questions.

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?

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

For the ALAC to become equivalent in its influence within ICANN as the GAC, we should further understand why the GAC has its current influence; It’is a Government led constituency with certain power in policy making; It has a financial basis with most government participants covering their own fees to participating to Icann’s meetings. I am not quite sure whether a change in the by-laws would suffice in giving the ALAC the same right of advice. Having said that, I do believe we have come a long way with ALAC now being fully recognized as a major constituency with more and more ALS being created. ALAC has got its legitimacy within ICANN, but I think its real power and influence will come when the user at large is fully contributing to the ICANN process, as a consumer, a registrant and an end user.

Alan Greenberg

There are two aspects to this question. a) What should the Bylaws say? b) What will the real impact be?

As we have seen recently, even with the Bylaws saying that the GAC has special status, the Board has not always acknowledged that or treated them in the prescribed way. That notwithstanding, the GAC will always have a special status regardless of the Bylaws, because there are members of the GAC who hold immense power, including, at the moment, control over the IANA contract and the ability to seriously hurt ICANN initiatives through government intervention or action. Those governments can act independently from the GAC, but to the extent that they choose to exercise some of their power to strengthen GAC actions, they in turn strengthen the GAC.

So my belief is that the two organizations will not be equal. But where we should be is quite far from the present situation. The Bylaws say the following regarding the Board<==>GAC relationship:

h. The Board shall notify the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee in a timely manner of any proposal raising public policy issues on which it or any of ICANN's supporting organizations or advisory committees seeks public comment, and shall take duly into account any timely response to that notification prior to taking action.

i. The Governmental Advisory Committee may put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies.

j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.

k. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the Governmental Advisory Committee advice was not followed, and such statement will be without prejudice to the rights or obligations of Governmental Advisory Committee members with regard to public policy issues falling within their responsibilities.

The comparable section for the ALAC is:

a. The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”) shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.

There is a huge gap between the two, and I believe that this must be adjusted. I do not believe that we will immediately or perhaps ever get full parity. But along with the recommendations in the ATRT, we should be kept appraised of issues where our input is needed, and we should expect feedback and an explanation of how our advice was followed or why it was not.

We are doing a far better job of acting as a Board Advisory Committee now than we were even a year ago. But it is essential that we work to ensure that the focus and quality of our “advice” is of such a high quality that it will be obvious to Board members that we deserve more formal acknowledgement of this enshrined in the Bylaws.

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.

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

The question is a tricky one. As per the by-laws of ICANN a Director does not represent a constituency as such. However, seat no15 being a special one for the At large community, I believe there should be a way in which the Director find the good balance between what he thinks is good for ICANN and also what better for the At-Large group.

I understand the Board acts on consensus and I will strive to defend the ALAC position and advice. When faced with a situation where my vote runs against the advice of the At large I will seek to dialogue and built a consensus. If I failed to pursuade other Directors, then I will certainly vote according to my personal conviction or abstain.

Alan Greenberg

This question cannot be answered as it stands, because it is in error. The Bylaws explicitly state (bold emphasis mine):

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 entity that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or constituencies.

A Board must balance many viewpoints and needs, and I would be surprised if there were not occasional situations where the interests of users are overpowered by some other more compelling need. That is why one has advocates of specific needs in the organization – they can each represent their position but ultimately, a decision must be made and not everyone will be happy.

If a situation arises where my vote is counter to the advice of ALAC and At-Large, I presume that there will likely have been discussions ahead of time that foresaw the possibility and there will almost certainly be some after the fact. All one can do in situations like this is be sufficiently honest and forthright.

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?

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

I have no plan as such to deal with the ‘culture of Secrecy’ in ICANN. But I do hope I could work toward more transparency and accountability as I think this is key to maintaining that multistakeholder structure of the ICANN. The board should be in a position to design new mechanisms for promoting more accountability and transparency. The ATRT has listed a few recommendations to that effect and I believe the mechanisms will be worked out. One idea should be that the Board members be more specialized in key areas that are crucial to accountability, transparency and the overall corporate governance. Another means will be to increase independent reviews and audits.

Alan Greenberg

I am not sure it deserves such a important sounding name, but there is a pervasive feeling through much of the organization, staff, volunteers, and Board the “need to know” is the operative phrase.

I am a very firm believer that organizations take their signals from the top. In a traditional business those signals typically come from the CEO. I have seen large organizations (and an occasional country) change almost overnight based on the attitude of the leader. From a staff perspective, that is true for ICANN as well. For the volunteer part of the organization, the signals will come largely from the Board.

If the Board does not practice what it preaches about openness, no other part of ICANN will likely practice it either. So I believe ATRT is correct in that an early focus must be on the Board.

As a single Board member, one does not have a lot of power, but if there are at least a few on the Board who recognize problems and call then out, I think that things may get better.

I have the advantage of having spent 4 years both in the ALAC and the GNSO, and so can recognize the problems from many perspectives (including how some of the GNSO Constituency/Stakeholder groups view the Board, and how others, including the ALAC, view them.

4. What degree of oversight do you think the Board should exert over the Staff and its activities.

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

The Board should not deal with the day to day activities of the staff. However, it will demand regular reporting from the Executive Director, and appoint Board members to special task force to provide any oversight deemed necessary.

Alan Greenberg

The Board does not (and should not) have any direct control over staff (other than the CEO) with the exception of in relation to the services and information provided directly to the Board.

That said, it is up to the Board to direct the CEO if changes are necessary. And the Board must be conscious of any attempt, consciously or not, to impact its decisions by the availability, quality or precision of the information it gets from staff.

There is always a real problem with the competing needs to compress the information the Board receives to a manageable volume, but not to filter or modify the important aspects of that information. Being conscious of the possibility is part of the solution.

5. Do you accept that ICANN remains a US based corporation or do you have a plan for increasing its International status.

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

While I do think current situation is due to historical reasons I strongly believe that ICANN should increase its international status; It has started some points of presence through a few offices outside the US, but there should be ways in which it could retain a formal international status. This possibility was debated within the president strategy committee and some useful recommendations were made. There is a need to revisit them and act upon them.

Alan Greenberg

I do not see the formal status changing in the next few years, but would not object to some change if it made sense. That being said, I think that it is imperative that ICANN view itself as an international organization, and consider the obstacles to it being considered as such by stakeholders throughout the world. Where it is incorporated need not restrict how it acts with respect to most of its interactions.

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?

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

I must confess I do not have much insights on the level of compensation of the senior managers of ICANN, but I do agree that their compensation should be more in keeping with the non-profit status of ICANN. I will suggest that an evaluation be made and that some benchmark be used to revisit the levels of salaries.

Alan Greenberg

I have periodically looked at the salaries of ICANN’s senior managers, and did so in preparing my answer to this question. I am not an expert on what salary levels are in either Southern California or Brussels, so my impressions are not the best measure. Nevertheless, I find some of the salaries rather outlandish, and was surprised that others were as low as they are. If you were to compare salaries to other organizations, you would need to be careful in compare not only non-profit to non-profit, but more importantly what salary levels people with the skills we need can command elsewhere. There is no point in paying lower salaries if we cannot maintain the quality. However, I am well aware that there are certainly a number of cases where in the past, we have paid VERY high salaries and not received the expected level of quality. THAT we should not stand for.

7. What is your plan for any excess funds that may be derived from new gTLD auctions?

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

I have no plan per se, But I will strongly advise that any excess money be used to boost participation to the ICANN processes and the outreach of our current ALS. Also, for the sake of inclusiveness, such excess money could be used to develop more capacities in areas where the Internet revolution is still slow.

Alan Greenberg

I think that the term “plan” may be to strong, but I certainly have ideas. I can summarize them with three directives:

Don’t merge the auction funds into general revenue.
Do good things with it
Since much of the revenue will likely be one-time-only and may not be repeated in later rounds, try to make it last

Within those constraints, I think that we should consider helping advance the Internet in developing countries (perhaps by subsidizing gTLD applications for some classes of applicants), advance the use of IDN, and a variety of education and fellowship opportunities. If the funds were sufficient, I would not object to allocating some to the operating reserve to get it to the desired level and not have it hanging over our heads forever.

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?

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

Yes, I think it is necessary to make serious adjustments to the new gTLD process in order to promote applications from developing economies. The applications fees should be revisited and wavers should raised on specific TLDs (namely the geographic and/or community ones. Plans should also be made available for providing some more capacities to the few registry/registrars from those developing economies.

Alan Greenberg

I have been one of the active members of the SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group which has met twice-weekly for the last several months. I support the recommendations of that report and will not repeat them here. The WG's Milestone Report can be found at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pdf.

The following 3 questions were prepared by Wolf Ludwig on behalf of EURALO:

1. Please present a precise definition of the "public interest".

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

Public Interest is a complex concept and political economist hardly agree on it. Generally, public interest’ will refer to a sort of common well-being or general welfare which then become central to policy development and policy debates. Public interest also refers to the concept of public goods which should be made affordable and accessible to the public.

Alan Greenberg

I do not believe you can find a precise and definitive definition. I find the introduction to the Wikipedia’s description of “Public Interest” useful:

The public interest refers to the "common well-being" or "general welfare." The public interest is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government itself. While nearly everyone claims that aiding the common well-being or general welfare is positive, there is little, if any, consensus on what exactly constitutes the public interest, or whether the concept itself is a coherent one.

In the context of ICANN, I think it perhaps refers to the interests of those who are not represented by those with a direct financial stake in ICANN matters. It can also be a reference to the overall state of the Internet as a whole, to the extent that we can put metrics on it - for instance, if there were a major Denial-of-Service problem, that would not be in the public interest.

2. What would you say is the relevance of the "public interest" in the ICANN context?

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

In the ICANN context, I see Internet itself as a public goods and therefore, ICANN should be promoting public interest from the coordination of internet resources. It is therefore important that the ICANN ecosystem integrates more actions and policy towards promotion of the public interest. Thus, domains name system as well as numbering systems should all be handled to the benefits of all, be they the business, the user at large.

Alan Greenberg

I think my previous answer partially addressed this. ICANN is entrusted with overseeing the Internet Name and Number systems. This is a general resource not just to serve those who can lobby ICANN for what they want but for the rest of the world’s users as well. There is an old expression in the United States that goes:

What's good for General Motors is good for the country.

Perhaps it was once true in the US that what was good for big business was good for the nation, but it is certainly not true with respect to the Internet and the largest of the corporations that provide much of its infrastructure. ICANN is here to protect and enhance that infrastructure on behalf of everyone, not just the large contractors or businesses.

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)?

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

Public interest for me requests that actions and policies benefit the population at large. Therefore, this calls for more inclusive policies. If elected on the Board, I will certainly aim at promoting the interest of the users at large as this is my sincere belief. I was once a member of the advisory Board of PIR and could appreciate how best to include the users community into policy making. My close to 15 years within the UN also prepared me for an inclination towards the promotion of public interest.

Alan Greenberg

Given the lack of formal definition, and the likely varying perceptions of people, the only solution is to select someone who you believe (or hope) shares a common view with you had that they are then vigilant when the board is faced with decisions.

I strongly believe that one of the reasons that we needed At-large to have voting privileges is to ensure that during the discussion and vote, there is always SOMEONE on the Board who is considering the impact on the user instead of just that on the various other stakeholders or the corporation itself. That is not to say that all other directors ignore these issues, but it is important to make sure that they are always represented.

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?

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

Dear Adam, thanks for these questions. I do appreciate. In fact, I am not at all involved in any future application for the new gTLD round. As for DotAfrica, my contribution so far should be put within its context. I happen to be one of the promoters of the African stars (AF*) which is a loose organization which has been promoting African related Internet institutions and associations. My position within the UNDP as a regional Adviser on ICT prompted me to assist those nascent groupings which have now become AFRINIC, AFNOG and AFTLDs. The Africa Union has now appointed a group of Experts to assist it understand the new gTLD process and work out a registry for dot Africa in an open manner. I am one of those experts, and I do not plan at all to apply for the dot Africa registry. Whatever I have been doing was to facilitate a process.

Of course if I were elected on the Board, I will stop any advisory services that could hamper my participation to the Board. As you say, I will easily recuse myself from any on going discussions in Africa as relates to the dot Africa registry.

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".

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Alan Greenberg

Regarding involvement in potential or planned gTLD applications, I have no such involvement.

On what skills are missing from the Board, I really have no idea. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about most Board members to assess their various skills, nor is such analysis something that I would consider myself competent in.

What skills do I possess from that list? I have some moderate financial skills, but far from at a professional level; I have training decades ago in strategic planning; most it probably now out of date; I have some limited corporate governance experience; and I have good negotiation skills.

None of those are the reason that I feel I can contribute on the ICANN Board. My strengths are that I have the ability to assimilate unfamiliar and complex situations and make some sense out of them, identifying core problems and solutions. I am rational and analytical, and I have a very wide range of knowledge in many relevant areas that can be pulled together to help address issues and problems. I take the work seriously and am willing to devote sufficient time to doing the job well. I am passionate about both ICANN and ensuring that user-related issues are kept front-and-centre in discussions. I am moderately articulate (both writing and speaking) and at times have the ability to convince others. At the same time, my scientific background allows me to discard a position when it has been shown to be wrong.

As perhaps might be expected, I do not completely agree with the tone of the ATRT recommendation. All of those skills are needed, but a Board also need some really bright, committed people even if they are generalists.

For the record, I think that this is an excellent question and I am not sure why it was directed solely at me.

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 weaknesses of the other two candidates?

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Alan Greenberg

I do not feel that it is appropriate to approach this competition in such a manner. Those who have to vote, and their advisors, will have to judge the candidates and decide for themselves.

NARALO

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

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?

Answers from Candidate

Pierre Dandjinou

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Question for Sébastien:

18. If selected as Director, will you resign your NomComm seat on ALAC or retain it?

Answers from Candidate

Sebastien Bachollet

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

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

Content

Space Tools

At-Large Director Candidate-Community Forum - 11.10

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

Sébastien Bachollet

Pierre Dandjinou

Alan Greenberg

Questions to the Candidates from the RALOs and Answers from the Candidates

AFRALO

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

APRALO

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Question to Alan Greenberg from Sivasubramanian M, from APRALO, but question posed as an individual

EURALO

The following 8 questions were prepared by Avri Doria on behalf of EURALO:

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

The following 3 questions were prepared by Wolf Ludwig on behalf of EURALO:

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Questions to specific candidates prepared by Adam Peake on behalf of EURALO:

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

LACRALO

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

NARALO

Questions for all Candidates:

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)

Questions to specific candidates:

Answers from Candidate

Answers from Candidate

Questions from Individuals

Comments