Note from Maarten Botterman, ICANN Board Chair:
ICANN Board Interactions with ICANN Communities during ICANN70
From: ICANN Board Chair Maarten Botterman
Dear ICANN community chairs,
First of all, let me take the opportunity to reiterate on behalf of the ICANN Board, our best wishes to you and your families for a healthy 2021. We have all been very affected (and still are) by this long-lasting pandemic and will never spread enough of those positive thoughts and messages of hope for a brighter future! We very much look forward to seeing you in person, hopefully later this year, even if today it is not possible to predict when it will be responsible to do so again.
The ICANN Board has recently been briefed thoroughly on your input to the ICANN Public Meetings Strategy and wanted to thank you all for your constructive contribution to this important survey. The suggested changes will be implemented by ICANN org, and the ICANN Board will of course actively participate in the dialogue to find the best possible way forward in this, together. ICANN70 will mark the next step.
In line with the decision to organize ICANN70 virtually and considering the current global situation with regard to the pandemic, various communities are arranging different times to engage the ICANN Board, either before, during or after ICANN70. We have learned to appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation during ICANN Public Meetings, and the survey conducted after ICANN69 confirmed that you do as well.
Up until ICANN69, the ICANN Board has proposed a subject to you to discuss during our joint meetings. For ICANN70, we would like to invite you to propose questions for the ICANN Board to answer, or a subject to engage in an open discussion during our time together. Please note that we are not changing the current total time allotted per community.
Please send your single topic or list of questions in order of priority to the Board Operations team, board-ops-team@icann.org, no later than Friday, 26 February 2021.
Your suggested questions or topic for discussion will be published and circulated in this digest, which will facilitate transparency and allow all communities to deepen their understanding of community issues and different points of view. We look forward to hearing your thoughts, questions, or topics of interest and to exchange with you constructively.
Best regards,
Maarten Botterman
ICANN Board Chair
ALAC Questions and/or Topics
From Marita Moll and Christopher Wilkinson:
Currently, various activities are being rolled-out under Strategic Objective #2: Improve the effectiveness of ICANN's multistakeholder model of governance. Under this banner, we are interested in how we can work together to make sure the end user in ICANN's MS model is a visible and well-understood part of the process. We would also like to hear more about how the "understanding the global public interest" project will intersect with the work on the MS evolution.
From Alan Greenberg:
We talk about a "holistic" review of ICANN with the potential outcome of significant changes in how we are organized and how we conduct business. There is certainly a lot of talk about this being an important step for ICANN. My sense is that EVERYONE wants to see significant change, but not in THEIR OWN area (NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard).
Is such a review really possible, and if so, ho do we go about it?
From Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
With two Policy Development Processes currently reaching milestones that require Board action, namely the EPDP and the Subsequent Procedures PDP, there still appears to be divergence amongst the ICANN community on many sticky points.
The ALAC has the ability to comment and provide Advice directly to the Board on both of these issues, and indeed, it has used this ability. Other advisory Committees also have the opportunity to provide Advice. However, when asked, the ICANN CEO has mentioned that according to the Bylaws, the only body that makes policy for Generic Top Level Domains is the GNSO. Yet, some matters clearly appear to be going around in circles. Forever!
- Is the Board willing to take into account the balance of all stakeholders in ICANN? For example, prior to the last round of new gTLDs, the Board took steps to organise an ICANN key stakeholder meeting specifically to address new gTLDs with the GAC and other parties.
- On the contrary, is the ICANN Board now a rubber-stamping body?
- How does the Board plan to find a solution to deadlocks that get some topics to go in circles ad-infinitum? Or is it not for the Board to find a solution? After all, Board members have fiduciary duty.
From Jonathan Zuck:
Recent board communication seems to imply that ICANN Compliance shouldn't be engaged in enforcing elements of a registry agreement that fall outside of ICANN's remit. While we understand that existing gTLDs are "grandfathered," it seems as though we are at an impasse if we are to have a mechanism for enforceable commitments to be made. For example, PICs were suggested as the means of making commitments to the community on behalf of PIR on a number of issues that might be considered outside ICANN's remit. What does the Board believe to be the best means for applicants to a new round (or changes to existing PICs) to make commitments that have teeth. Another issue that came up, related to PICs, has to do with the PICDRP, in which you need to be the injured party to initiate a proceeding. Is there a practical way for the ALAC to be given standing to bring a PICDRP (or now RVCDRP?) on behalf of "individual users" generally, if we find that their interests are threatened?
5 Comments
Sebastien Bachollet
One of the many exchanges we have with volunteers.
"if RALO leaders may have even minor stipend, they can spend more time with At-Large activities... Now we have to care about getting money and it eats all the time…".
And more globally "what ICANN (each and all parts) do to help volunteers to still get involved".
How do we continue to value our volunteers in the ATLARGE community?
Can ICANN support them by paying something like stipend for full participation at the ICANN meetings?
Alan Greenberg
I have mixed opinions on this. The precedent was set some years ago when Board members were given remuneration, and if I remember correctly, Board members who put extra time in (Committee Chairs, Board Chair...) got more. There has periodically been talk about giving AC/SO Chairs some level of remuneration as well, although that never really went anywhere.
From a personal point of view, and being someone who has for many years put FAR more time into ICANN that an average Board member, I think that the discussion has merit, at least for the more significant volunteers.
On the other side, if they haven't done it for AC/SO Chairs, the chance of doing it here, and especially for remote meetings where there is no way of evaluating "full participation" the chances of this succeeding are pretty close to nil. Especially since we are talking about a large number of people, many of who are in reality, relatively minor actors in this game. And the potential damage of asking for it in a public meetings is non-trivial and potentially harmful.
So in balance, I would not put this on the agenda.
Alan Greenberg
Here is one:
We talk about a "holistic" review of ICANN with the potential outcome of significant changes in how we are organized and how we conduct business. There is certainly a lot of talk about this being an important step for ICANN. My sense is that EVERYONE wants to see significant change, but not in THEIR OWN area (NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard).
Is such a review really possible, and if so, ho do we go about it?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Here is one that I might suggest — it might be a bit long winded and provocative but it asks a pertinent question when processes like those described below and the overall process "The multistakeholder model at ICANN" that Brian Cute chaired, do not appear to make much progress...
With two Policy Development Processes currently reaching milestones that require Board action, namely the EPDP and the Subsequent Procedures PDP, there still appears to be divergence amongst the ICANN community on many sticky points.
The ALAC has the ability to comment and provide Advice directly to the Board on both of these issues, and indeed, it has used this ability. Other advisory Committees also have the opportunity to provide Advice. However, when asked, the ICANN CEO has mentioned that according to the Bylaws, the only body that makes policy for Generic Top Level Domains is the GNSO. Yet, some matters clearly appear to be going around in circles. Forever!
Jonathan Zuck
Unfortunately, these exchanges are rarely productive because the Board prefers to speak as a single body. I think we get more out of our meetings with individual board members than with the whole board. I'd love to take them to task on their thoughts on Registry Voluntary Commitments and the ICANN remit. They certainly seemed to imply that ICANN Compliance shouldn't be engaged in enforcing elements of a registry agreement that fall outside of ICANN's remit. Seems like we need to press them on this topic, as well as the notion of "standing" for the ALAC to bring a PICDRP, or whatever it will be called for the newly annointed RVCs.