<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"></head>
<body>
Just a few facts:<br><br>
1. The group in question was open to EVERYONE to join. See the call for
members of the AFRALO list:
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/afri-discuss/2019-October/006223.html" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/afri-discuss/2019-October/006223.html</a>
<br><br>
2. The group was created as part of the At-Large Review Implementation
and our work was outlined in the Review Proposal that went to and was
approved by the Board. That Proposal was unanimously supported by the
ALAC and ALL RALOs including AFRALO.<br><br>
3. The overall work of the group is following the proposal
above.<br><br>
4. The group is charged with making recommendations to the ALAC. The ALAC
in composed of two members selected BY each RALO and presumably those
members will seek input from their RALO if they feel it is
appropriate.<br><br>
5. The claim was made that a majority of group members were not ALS
members. In fact 19/23 are ALS members (see their SoIs -
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+New+SOIs+Workspace).<br>
<br>
6. It was claimed that ALSes would not have an opportunity to review the
proposals. What was said was that the current group would not go to
ALSes. Once it goes to the ALAC, what happens is up to the ALAC members
including those from RALOs. And as this thread shows, the documents are
public and anyone on the group can use them as they see fit. <br><br>
7. The original writer is objecting to decisions that were made by the
group when he chose not to participate or to comment.<br><br>
8. Note that parts of what was distributed were NOT decisions of the
group but in many cases, text from the current processes.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br>
At 2020-05-23 06:45 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Thanks Mr. Peter for this head
up, especially for ALSes.<br><br>
Its very unthinkable the undertones going on in our ICANN communities.
Its now obvious that for us the ALSes to correct the imbalance, ALSes
need to wake up and also make themselves available in various
committees/parties. Its actually wrong to form committees without a given
number of ALSes since they are the real members of ALAC.<br><br>
<a href="mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org">@Info@At-Large Community</a>
<br>
Please add me to this Working Party. I made this request earlier but yet
to get any response.<br><br>
Regards<br><br>
<br>
____<br>
REMMY NWEKE, <font size="1">mNGE</font>, <br>
Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, <br>
DigitalSENSE Africa Media [<i>Multiple-award winning medium</i>]<br>
(<a href="http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews">DigitalSENSE
Business News</a>; <a href="http://www.itrealms.com.ng">ITREALMS</a>,
<a href="http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng">NaijaAgroNet</a>)<br>
Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction,
Oshodi-Lagos<br>
M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T:
<a href="http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms">@ITRealms<br>
</a>Author:
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria%E2%80%8E">
A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria</a><br><br>
<font color="#FF0000"><b>2020
<a href="http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng">Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum
on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable</a></b></font> <br>
JOIN us!!<br><br>
*Vice President, <a href="http://www.acsis-scasi.org/en/">African Civil
Society on the Information Society (ACSIS</a>)<br>
_________________________________________________________________<br>
<font size="1">*Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document
and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information.
It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does
not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you
are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete
this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any
other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court
persecution.<br>
</font><br><br>
<br>
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:38 PM Peters Omoragbon
<<a href="mailto:petersomoragbon@gmail.com">
petersomoragbon@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Dear Colleagues,<br>
<dd>I hope you are well, good and keeping safe in this pandemic?<br><br>
<dd>Please, find attached and also copied and pasted into the body of the
email our position as an ALS and member of the ALS mop WP on the current
review of the ALSs Activities. Please, be informed that I on May 18 2020,
I put the WP on notice that we shall be sharing our position for all to
see, which was not objected to. So, no one should feel we are acting
outside the prescribed guidelines of WGs.<br><br>
</b>
<dd>Our aim is to enlarge and increase the volume of the voices of the
affected communities. This was one lesson we learnt in Montreal during
our leadership training-to increase the volume of the voice of our
various constituencies in ICANN.<br><br>
<dd>Take your time to read through.<br><br>
</b>
<dd>Thank you for your time.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>THE POSITION OF NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS TO THE ALAC ALS MOP WP
REVIEW AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPOSED ALS ACCREDITATION PROCESS AS AN ALS
TO ALAC AND MEMBER OF THE ALS MOP WP<br>
</u></b><br>
<dd> <br>
</u></b><br>
<dd>Introduction<br>
</b><br>
<dd> <br>
</b><br>
<dd>Fellow members of the Empowered Community and the ICANN
family.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>This document is our position as it concerns the above subject
matter. I must remind the members of the ALS MOP WP that I am sharing
this document to the MOP WP directly in their emails and the AFRALO
mailing list because the issues and the proposals contained in the
document for review concerns the largest and most powerful section of the
ALAC community; as such, because of the far reaching proposals if not
openly debated and discussed, a lot within the WP and the RALOs may be
wrongly influenced to sign up to what may even hunt them in the future,
when they realized they have been misled by a section of the community
with an agenda. (See Section 1.2.(a)iv, ICANN Byelaws: Employ open,
transparent and bottom-up, multi-stakeholder policy development
processes</u> that are led by the private sector (including business
stakeholders, civil society</u>, the technical community, academia, and
end users</u>), while duly taking into account the public policy advice
of governments and public authorities. These processes shall (A) seek
input from the public, for whose benefit
ICANN<a name="m_-3518939457630231295__Ref444423103"></a> in all events
shall act, (B) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice,
and (C) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy
development process</u>;</i></b>). Secondly, not very few of the ICANN
family have taken time to familiarise themselves with the ICANN Byelaws
which should be the ‘bible’ of our operation within ICANN. As a
result I shall rely copiously on relevant sections of the Byelaws to
support our position in this document. <br><br>
<dd>There are TWO documents attached to this email-First, the draft ALS
ACCREDITATION PROCESS PROPOSAL that was shared on Google and this very
document elaborating on our comments in the former document.<br><br>
<dd>Permit me if you will, to ask the following questions: (they may have
been answered, we do not think we are satisfied)<br>
</b><br>
<dd>1. What informed this very review process in the
first place?<br><br>
<dd>2. What was working well with the process in
review?<br><br>
<dd>3. What is/was not working well with the process in
review?<br><br>
<dd>4. If some areas within the process in review did
not work well, does it warrant this elaborate and expansive review that
has taken the shape of an Assizes</b>?<br><br>
<dd>5. Why would the ALSs not be availed
the opportunity to review the draft of this WP before going to ALAC for
approval?<br><br>
<dd>6. If ICANN is to Employ open, transparent and
bottom-up, multi-stakeholder policy development processes…</u> and (C)
ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy
development process</u>;</i></b>)- See Section 1.2.(a)iv, ICANN Byelaws,
why then would this review process be made a top-bottom instead of the
other way round? Or better still why would the ALSs not have a say in its
review before ALAC consideration of our job?<br><br>
<dd>These were and are still our concerns because the fervour and
enthusiasm being manifested by the WP leadership on this review, even to
proposing a consideration OUTSIDE of the existing policies and practice
of ICANN like allowing an application from an ALS that has no region to
be admitted into ICANN</b> to me is worrisome. Note that, majority of the
members of the WP do not belong to any ALS nor have some been members of
an ALS in the past. They came into ICANN as individuals and rose to their
positions. One can now see why some of the proposals being made do not
have bearing on them, because they stand to lose nothing at the end
whichever way the pendulum swings.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Nothing about us without us is apt in this setting.</b> For any
meaningful achievement from this review to stand the test of time, it
must include the inputs of those to be affected by the review or
policy.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>POINTS OF OBSERVATION IN THE PROPOSAL AS THEY RELATE TO THE ICANN
BYELAWS<br>
</u></b><br>
<dd> <br>
</u></b><br>
<dd>1. The drafters of the ICANN Byelaws foresaw a
situation like is playing out now in the WB when they laid the foundation
of ICANN’s structure and activities on Section 1.2 (a) iii, iv, v under
Commitments and Core Values.</b> These provisions I would implore every
member of the WP and other stakeholders reading this document to read and
reflect on this as it relates to their decisions in reviewing the ALS
activities. For ease of reference, I have copied these sections
hereunder:<br><br>
<dd>1.2 </i>(a) Commitments: </b> In performing its Mission, ICANN
must operate in a manner consistent with these Bylaws for the benefit of
the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in
conformity with relevant principles of international law and
international conventions and applicable local law, through open and
transparent processes</u> that enable competition and open entry in
Internet-related markets. Specifically, ICANN commits to do the following
(each, a "Commitment</b>," and collectively, the
"Commitments</b>"):<br>
</i><br>
<dd>(a) </i> iii, Respect the creativity, innovation,
and flow of information made possible by the Internet by limiting ICANN's
activities to matters that are within ICANN's Mission and require or
significantly benefit from global coordination;<br>
</u></i><br>
<dd>iv, Employ, open, transparent and bottom-up, multistakeholder policy
development processes that are led</u> by the private sector (including
business stakeholders, civil society</u>, the technical community,
academia, and end users), while duly taking into account the public
policy advice of governments and public authorities. These processes
shall (A) seek input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN in all
events shall act, (B) promote well-informed decisions based on expert
advice, and (C) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in
the policy development process;<br>
</u></i><br>
<dd>v, Make decisions by applying documented policies consistently,
neutrally, objectively, and fairly, without singling out any particular
party for discriminatory treatment (i.e., making an unjustified
prejudicial distinction between or among different parties); <br>
</u></i><br>
<dd>1.2 (b) under Core Values<br>
</b><br>
<dd>i, </b><a name="m_-3518939457630231295__Ref444423106"></a>To the
extent feasible and appropriate, delegating coordination functions to or
recognizing the policy role of, other responsible entities that reflect
the interests of affected parties and the roles of bodies internal to
ICANN and relevant external expert bodies;<br>
</u></i><br>
<dd>vi, </b>Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of
domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public
interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy
development process;<br>
</u></i><br>
<dd>vii, </b>Striving to achieve a reasonable balance between the
interests of different stakeholders, while also avoiding capture;
and</i> at the rate the WP is going and if the lines of proposed
changes are allowed, it will negate the principle of achieving reasonable
balance between interests of different stakeholders. What is staring us
now is a CAPTURE MENTALITY.<br>
</b><br>
<dd> <br>
</b><br>
<dd>Furthermore, section 1.2.(c) summarises the importance of both the
commitments and core values, take specific notice of the underlined
portion of this core value: The Commitments and Core Values are intended
to apply in the broadest possible range of circumstances. The Commitments
reflect ICANN's fundamental compact with the global Internet community
and are intended to apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN's
activities. The specific way in which Core Values are applied,
individually and collectively, to any given situation may depend on many
factors that cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated. Situations may
arise in which perfect fidelity to all Core Values simultaneously is not
possible. Accordingly, in any situation where one Core Value must be
balanced with another, potentially competing Core Value, the result of
the balancing must serve a policy developed through the bottom-up
multistakeholder process or otherwise best serve ICANN's Mission</u></i>.
To what extent would the current review serve ICANN’s best interest
different from what is currently operational? Where is the application of
the ‘bottom-up’ process if ALSs would await ALAC decision before it
can make inputs (if at all) into our current review?<br>
</b><br>
<dd> <br>
</b><br>
<dd>Suffice to mention also, that Section 3.1 vehemently reinforced the
need for transparency when it stated as follows: ICANN and its
constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an
open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to
ensure fairness, including implementing procedures to (a) provide advance
notice to facilitate stakeholder engagement in policy development
decision-making and cross-community deliberations, (b) maintain
responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed explanations of
the basis for decisions (including how comments have influenced the
development of policy considerations),</u></b> and (c) encourage
fact-based policy development work. ICANN shall also implement procedures
for the documentation and public disclosure of the rationale for
decisions made by the Board and ICANN's constituent bodies (including the
detailed explanations discussed above).</i> <br>
</u><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>The above to us should form the fulcrum of any policy review. The WP
as far as we are concerned by the body language of its current leaders
are diametrically opposed to the above standards. For example, at the
meeting of Monday May 18, 2020, the Chairman of the WP was very clear,
when he stated that the ALSs would not have the opportunity for inputs or
sighting the draft of the WP before it is submitted to ALAC. </b>That is
not bottom-up policy formulation, nor is it transparent. Let us be very
clear that, most of the leaders in this WP were never members of any ALS,
as stated earlier, and they have at various times benefitted from ICANN
in ITS BEST OF TIMES, have remained in every leadership positions by
gyrating from one committee to the other in the name of EXPERIENCE as was
the response to me in Montreal during the General Assembly. This to me is
pure recycling and not experience.</b> This same behaviour is permeating
every strata of the ICANN community in all the regions as anyone in a
position of leadership after 4 years is not satisfied but would use that
position to influence his/her choice for further roles. If there must be
review, it has to be on how to prevent the recycling of ICANN leaderships
in its community as currently practiced. There must be tenure limits!</u>
There is no Empowered Community if we keep repeating the same thing to
expect a different result. </b>Very soon, majority of these leaders would
retire from active roles in ICANN because of the current reality as
members are becoming restive. And when they leave, what legacy would they
leave behind without empowered successors instead of adopting successors
based on blind loyalty?<br>
</b><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>SPECIFICS IN THE PROPOSED DRAFT REVIEW<br>
</b><br>
<dd>Flowing from the WP meeting on 18/5/2020, I raised concerns on the
following proposed drafts, Item 2</b>: For Review</b>: the set of actions
that is to be done under Due Diligence is too probing especially the item
that stated: …veerifying sources of funding</i></b>… ICANN or any of its
constituents cannott exercise such powers when viewed against its Byelaws
in S12.2(d)vii</b> as the ALSs are SELF-SUPPORTING entities.<br><br>
<dd>Item 3(a):</b> We do not see the need for current RALO leadership to
still constitute a ‘Body’ within a ‘Body’ known as “LARGER
REGIONAL LEADERSHIP†made up of ex RALO leaders. This like breeding a
collection of ‘Mafia-like -group’ that pulls the strings behind the
curtain like a puppet show in the RALO.</b> Since these ex leaders would
remain as members of their various ALSs or individual members of the
RALOs, they could still made their contributions like any other ordinary
members. Their roles ended with their tenures. It is practices like this
that breeds the recycling of leaders and constrict offices for the other
members in the community stifle the leadership growth of the
‘next-generation-Generation Gap.<br>
</b><br>
<dd>Item 7: </b>The role of ALAC in this regard is unnecessary. Once the
At large staff has completed their DD and referred to the RALOs, and it
is approved or accepted by the RALO, their recommendation should not be
subjected to ALAC review for another 5 days! <br><br>
<dd>The following observations were made directly inside the document and
herein was/is our observations highlighted accordingly:<br>
</b><br>
<dd>Decisions are made in accordance with the standard ALAC majority
decision process as per ALAC RoP 12.2.1. It is very interesting that the
only section of the ALAC RoP referenced by the proponents of these
changes was 12.2.1. What about section 12.2 (d) (vii), (viii), ix (E)?
<br>
</u><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Decisions to accredit, or refuse to accredit, an ALS shall be subject
to review as provided by the ICANN Bylaws, Section 4.2 Reconsideration.
Why would the proponents ONLY prefer that it is ONLY the decision of ALAC
to accredit or refuse accreditation of an ALS that should be subjected to
Section 4.2? That is a smokescreen, why not subject this entire review
with its stringent conditions be subjected to Section 4.2? This, in fact,
will be the consideration of most existing ALSs individually or
collectively should ALAC go-ahead to adopt these measures being proposed
as they are very draconian.<br><br>
<dd>The ALAC will notify the applicant of its accreditation decision,
and, if applicable, provide information on requesting a review of the
decision. In the case of a decision to not accredit, the ALAC, at the
sole decision of the ALAC Chair, may include a rationale for the
rejection. Communication of official decisions to entities within ICANN
should be the duty of the ICANN Staff not ALAC.<br><br>
<dd>Except as provided below under ‘Suspension of an Application', the
ALAC and the At-Large staff shall work concertedly to ensure that the
process of reaching a decision to accredit, or not to accredit, an
At-Large Structure shall normally take no longer than ninety (90)
calendar days from the date at which an application is received to the
date at which the applicant is notified of the decision. Should it become
apparent that this norm may not be achieved, the applicant shall be
notified of the situation. ALAC should not overbear on the ICANN staff in
performing their paid administrative duties. It will defeat the purpose
of objectivity by the ICANN staff in performing DD because of undue
influence by ANY MEMBER of ALAC with a vested interest. What is wrong
with the present practice by the way<br><br>
<dd>Note that under decisions to accredit or refuse to accredit…S4.2 of
the ICANN Byelaaw was the only section referenced. That is selective
‘redress,’ capitalizing on the ignorance of ICANN Byelaws by most the
ALSs and other members of both the WP and the community. We would address
this later on.<br>
</b><br>
<dd>Suspension of an Application<br><br>
<dd>An application for ALS accreditation may be suspended where:
<dd>The suspension is requested by the Applicant; or
<dd>Additional information is requested by ICANN Staff during the Due
Diligence process; or
<dd>The RALO Secretariat of the region the applicant is based in
determines that further information is required from the applicant which
is essential to the evaluation of the application; or
<dd>Members of the ALAC believe that additional information is essential
to the evaluation of the application Once, due DD has been performed and
the RALO are satisfied with the applicant’s meeting its standards as
contained in its MOU and recommendation for approval made, ALAC should
respect that recommendation. ALAC members are elected by the RALOs and
such it is high-handed for ALAC to engage in scrutiny of a decison of the
RALO especially when it was adopted by the consensus of the membership of
the RAOL not just its leaders but members.
<dd> <br>
<dd>Wherever an application is suspended under part 1 of this section,
that suspension shall be lifted upon the request of the
applicant.<br><br>
<dd>When notifying the applicant of the additional information, it shall
be obligatory to also notify the applicant that the application is
suspended until the information is received.<br><br>
<dd>An application that is suspended at the request of the applicant, or
waiting for information from the applicant for more than 90 days shall be
considered to be withdrawn.<br><br>
<dd>QUESTION TO STAFF & WP: Are there cases where we may need to
suspend an application other than to request new information? e.g. to get
information other than from the applicant or due to the need for further
evaluation? If so, how do we constrain the time required?I would suggest
the time frame should be unify across any suspension reason <br><br>
<dd>De-accreditation<br><br>
<dd>An ALS may be de-accredited at the request of the ALS or by a
decision of the ALAC.<br><br>
<dd>
<dd>If an ALS voluntarily decides to give up its ALS Status, the
situation should be duly documented and the ALAC informed. ALAC Members
may request additional investigation to ensure that the request is
voluntary on behalf of the ALAC and may request that a formal vote of the
ALAC be required. A simple majority in accordance with the ALAC RoP
12.2.1 is required.
<dd>A RALO may request de-accreditation of one of its ALSes. The
rationale would normally include non-adherance to ALS minimum criteria,
but other issues may be considered. The ALS must be given adequate
opportunity to correct the problem(s), generally being given no less than
6 months to do so.
<dd>Any RALO action(s) in relation to ALS de-accreditation should be
thoroughly dicumented. <br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>A super-majority ALAC vote of the ALAC is required for such
de-accreditation.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>
4.
ALAC Members may request de-accreditation of an ALS. The RALO leadership
must be consulted and given an opportunity to explain why it believes
that the ALS accreditation should remain. In all other respects, the
process followed for case 2 shall be followed.Why would any member
of ALAC be given the power to request de-accreditation of an ALS?
Which section of the ICANN Bye laws is this proposal fulfilling? Remember
what absolute power does? Someone who may not belong to the region of the
ALS, not even a member of that RALO leadership, may because he does not
like the way Pastor Peters is outspoken would wake up one day to
put before the 15 wise men in ALAC the request to de-accredit his ALS.
That is exactly what we are breeding. What criteria would the ALAC member
fulfil before even contemplating such request?<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br>
</b><br>
<dd> <br>
</b><br>
<dd>CONCLUSION:<br>
</b><br>
<dd>Our conclusion shall be made by drawing attention to SOME very
salient sections of the ICANN Byelaws that should guide this WP and every
other member when contributing to this draft below from Section 12(d) ix
F-G:<br>
</b><br>
<dd>(F) Decisions to certify or decertify an At-Large Structure shall be
made as decided by the ALAC in its rules of procedure, save always that
any changes made to the rules of procedure in respect of an At-Large
Structure applications shall be subject to review by the RALOs and by the
Board.<br>
</u></i></b><a name="m_-3518939457630231295__Ref444422629"></a><br>
<dd><a name="m_-3518939457630231295__Ref444421397"></a>(G) Decisions as
to whether to accredit, not to accredit, or
disaccredit<a name="m_-3518939457630231295__Ref444421397"></a> an
At-Large Structure shall be subject to review according to procedures
established by the Board.<br>
</i><a name="m_-3518939457630231295__Ref444422630"></a><br>
<dd><a name="m_-3518939457630231295__Ref444421398"></a>
(H<a name="m_-3518939457630231295__Ref444421398"></a>) On an ongoing
basis, the ALAC may also give advice as to whether a prospective At-Large
Structure meets the applicable criteria and standards.<br>
</i><br>
<dd> <br>
</i><br>
<dd>The underlined sections in F above further supports our position that
the ALSs have greater roles in any review that attempts to promote
their activities. The powers of ALAC in section H is not absolute but a
POSSIBILITY. These are subject to G above. Perhaps at this juncture, it
is pertinent to ask if this review was/is in line with section 4.4 (a) or
rather was this review the recommendation of this section?<br>
</b><br>
<dd>(a) The Board shall cause a periodic review of the
performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each
Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the
Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee (as
defined in Section 8.1</u>) by an entity or entities independent of the
organization under review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken
pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall
be to determine (i) whether that organization, council or committee has a
continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, (ii) if so, whether any change
in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness and
(iii) whether that organization, council or committee is accountable</b>
to its constituencies</b>, stakeholder groups</b>, organizations and
other stakeholders. <br>
</u></i><br>
<dd> <br>
</i><br>
<dd>Item 1 </b>in the draft proposal identifies 3 possibilities</b>
and a 4TH</sup> for accrediting an ALS that will not be affiliated to any
region</b> below;<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>When reviewing the form, determine which questions are mandatory.
Also, if we will be accepting global (non-regional) ALSes, the
application may need to be adjusted.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>NOTE: We spent a lot of time during the last meeting discussing ALSes
which do not fit into our regional structure. The three possible options
going forward were:<br><br>
<dd>
a.
Change the Bylaws to allow assigning such an ALS to a region;<br><br>
<dd>
b.
Interpret the Bylaws to allow assigning such an ALS to a region;<br><br>
<dd>
c.
Reject the application.<br><br>
<dd>A 4th</sup> option might also be possible: <br><br>
<dd>
a.
Have an ALS not associated with any region.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Why would anyone contemplate the option in red above? ALSs according
the Byelaws operate in RALOs either as a group or as individuals. It is
ludicrous to begin to formulate an academic exercise in futility. That
option should be deleted without ANY DEBATE.<br>
</b><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Take notice also of S4.6 b (i): The Board shall cause a
periodic review of ICANN's execution of its commitment to maintain and
improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and
transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making
reflect the public interest and are accountable to the Internet community
("Accountability and Transparency Review</b>").<br>
</u></i><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Caution:</b> It is hoped that the WP and other well-meaning members
of the community would take time to peruse this document and reflect
using the Lion’s club Four-Way Test of the things we think, say or
do:<br><br>
<dd>· Is it the TRUTH<br><br>
<dd>· Is it FAIR to all concerned<br><br>
<dd>· Will it build GOOD WILL and BETTER
FRIENDHIPS<br><br>
<dd>· Will it be BENEFICIAL to all
concerned?<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>If in the event our appeal above is not convincing enough to pause
and review the basis again, then we may have no choice than exercise our
rights under the ICANN Byelaws in Section 4.2(G)ii, 4.3 of annexe, d, and
(H), (I) and (J). 4.3 (ii), (iv)<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>You have the assurance of our esteemed regards, always.<br><br>
<dd>For Nurses Across the Borders.<br>
</b><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Pastor Peters OMORAGBON<br>
</b><br>
<dd>President/CEO<br>
</i></b><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font face="comic sans ms" color="#9900FF">Pastor Peters Osawaru
OMORAGBON<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="comic sans ms" color="#FF0000">-</font>
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#9900FF">Financial Secretary, Central
Association of Nigerians in the United Kingdom-CANUK<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="comic sans ms" color="#FF0000">-</font>
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#9900FF">Executive President/CEO-Nurses
Across the Borders-An NGO in Special </i>Consultative Status with the
Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-ECOSOC<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="comic sans ms" color="#FF0000">-</font>
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#9900FF">Designated Contact
Person-United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change-UNFCCC</i><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="comic sans ms" color="#FF0000">-</font>
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#9900FF">International Liaison
Officer-Nigerian Nurses Charitable Association-NNCA-UK<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="comic sans ms" color="#FF0000">-</font>
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#9900FF">Board Member-Conference of
NGOS in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations-CONGO<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="comic sans ms" color="#FF0000">-</font>
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#9900FF">Member Steering Committee
Regional Committee for Africa-CONGO<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="comic sans ms" color="#FF0000">-</font>
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#9900FF">General Secretary, Civil
Society Network of NGOs on Climate Change<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="comic sans ms" color="#FF0000">-</font>
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#9900FF">Fellow Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers-ICANN<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="comic sans ms" color="#FF0000">-</font>
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#9900FF">Fellow Open Society
Institute-Budapest<br>
</b></font><br><br>
<dd>On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 03:25, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>I understand that it is a US holiday on Monday next week (just as it
<br>
<dd>was a Canadian holiday this Monday).<br><br>
<dd>At this point we are behind schedule and I have asked that a meeting
<br>
<dd>be scheduled. I understand that we may be a bit thin on staff and
<br>
<dd>NARALO members, but hopefully we can still make headway and as usual,
<br>
<dd>any decisions will be reviewed the following week. I will make sure
<br>
<dd>the revised document is ready well before the end of this week, so
<br>
<dd>everyone will have a chance to review it.<br><br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>ALS-Mob-WP mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:ALS-Mob-WP@icann.org">ALS-Mob-WP@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/als-mob-wp" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/als-mob-wp</a><br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of
Service
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link
above to change your membership status or configuration, including
unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery
altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.<br><br>
</dl>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>afralo-rop mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:afralo-rop@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
afralo-rop@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/afralo-rop" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/afralo-rop</a><br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of
Service
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link
above to change your membership status or configuration, including
unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery
altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.<br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>