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
Yes.
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
ICANN is organized as a non-profit corporation “for charitable and public purposes” under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law.
The AoC stated: “Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users”.
Therefore I don’t see many risk to have often a huge difference between: ”what you believe is best for ICANN as a California corporation with your role as a representative of the members of the At-Large” .
If it’s to happen I will explain the reasons to the At-Large and ALAC.
By the way the Director will not be formally a representative of ALAC (but see the discussion of that in NARALO question N° 18).
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
See APRALO question N° 1.
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 the 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
Full.
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
I don’t have a plan. I hope that one day At-Large / ALAC will have such a plan and will propose it to ICANN community.
But I am sure that there are some steps needed and possible to increase the International status of ICANN. Like increase the physical location (open to the various stakeholders) of ICANN. Currently 3 (MdR, Palo-Alto and Was) in US, 1 in Belgium (Europe) and 1 in Australia.
It is not balanced. http://www.icann.org/en/contact/
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
It is not so much the non-for profit status of ICANN but more the discrepancy between the budget allocated to Stakeholder participation and specifically end-users that we need to change. RALO AG and a triennial Summit is more important than…
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 common 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 to 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
Hope that the gTLDs process will not end-up with just auctions ;) Because then yes excess funds will be available but no project.
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 too 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
Decrease the ICANN fees for those applicants.
My rational is: why ask those applicants to pay the time needed to develop the program?
Did we ask the new Telco to pay upfront the cost of the already landlines install?
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, Chair of EURALO, 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
I will trust Wikipedia more accurate that I can be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest
“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.
Ambiguities of the concept
There are different views on how many members of the public must benefit from an action before it can be declared to be in the public interest: at one extreme, an action has to benefit every single member of society in order to be truly in the public interest; at the other extreme, any action can be in the public interest as long as it benefits some of the population and harms none.
Put simply; to be in the public interest a matter might have the potential to adversely affect any person at any time in their life in any situation if a core matter is not put into the public arena or handled in a more reasonable way when the problem clearly becomes evident as symptomatic of an underlying unreasonableness.”
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 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
Internet is a "critical resource" and therefore it is of the "Public Interest" that the "Internet Ecosystem" taking care of the resource must be safeguarded and enhanced.
For ICANN it is very important to keep at the frontispiece the "public interest" and to avoid any capture by the "vested interests".
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 used to be 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
It is importance to look at the wider picture, which is very much what At Large often does and needs to do.
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 and 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, EURALO ALAC member, 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
From my SOI
• I do not have any current conflicts of interest.
• I currently act as Advisor and European Liaison for the .green project (volunteer work without compensation).
• In the past, I have authored feasibility studies for several new gTLD projects. While I have no current affiliation with any of them, some of these projects may be submitted to ICANN as gTLD applications.
• I have acted as the working group coordinator for the original feasibility study of the .paris TLD project from 2007 to 2008. This project is now handled by the office of Mr. Jean-Louis Missika, Deputy Mayor of the City of Paris.
I will steer clear of any conflict of interest.
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.
