ALAC:Meeting Notes/2006.06.28 Marrakech Wednesday

Marrakesh Schedule & Session Notes > ALAC#Marrakesh_Schedule_and_Notes > MOR2006 06 28 ALAC Meeting

[edit] Morning Session

10:00-12:00 (notes by Wendy Seltzer)

Thanks from Paul Levins, executive officer and corporate affairs, ICANN newcomer whose communications background is sorely needed in this organization. Mission: improve ICANN's communications with constituents and community; improve ICANN's internal efficiency.

Sees confused or missing messages. An external person can come in and make criticisms.

Yet despite criticisms, it is a great participatory model.

As an outsider, ICANN can seem to be mysterious, rule-bound, and legalistic. Very text-bound.

Simple questions like how the money flows, e.g. from registrars and registrants, aren't simply answered.

But posting is not dialogue. [ed. seconds that concern] We need simpler messages about ICANN, need to behave less defensively, need to be open when we get things wrong. As a consequence of openness, we shouldn't expect a caning from the community.

Transparency. ICANN is a transparent organization, but it is not accessible. [ed. disagrees] We don't have the right lenses for different constituencies to view clearly what is happening in ICANN. Need more dialogue.

Wants to start a blog, robust forum for conversation. Conscious that there will be concern that having a blog opens to litigation. [ed. thinks that behaving in a way less likely to invite litigation is better than stopping communicating] Regular newsletter. Better, simpler, faster website.

Jacqueline: concerned about language issue. A global organization should not be communicating only in English. It is important that ICANN internalise its global-ness and consider language needs in every aspect of its work.

PL: Agrees. Also need better non-text tools. There is concern that the website maybe too bloated for dial-up users if more images/animation in included, but will find a happy middle groud.

Annette Muehlberg: Languages are an issue, as well as abbreviations. There is a need for explanations of procedures. Explaining would be helpful in defining those procedures and important questions.

Vittorio Bertola: Suggests looking at ALAC's Lux statement on transparency and public participation. Give people explanatory materials at the meetings.

PL: I see my appointment as a clear indicator that the Board hears what the community is saying about the need for better communication and transparency and is responding to those concerns.

Hong Xue: Happy to know that ICANN is going to use blogging and online tools. Also note that print materials are helpful in regions where Internet is censored. Decentralize the production of materials.

Jean Armour Polly: Thanks. Points to our new icannalac.org website. Along with lenses and windows for us to see ICANN, find ways for us to talk to them (Board and Staff).

Robert Gaetano: Is it time for an operational plan on communications needs between comm. dir and ALAC outreach? Coordinate these joint efforts.

PL: I am very keen to work with ALAC but let's recognise that Denise and Bruce are key liaison points for ALAC [ed. is this building up a multi-tier structure yet again??]

[edit] Reports from Liaisons

Roberto Gaetano, Board Liaison, ICANN has addressed problem of past due meeting minutes. More to report later, just rebooted PC.

Wendy Seltzer WHOIS update. PDPs in the GNSO: new gTLDs; existing contract revision; IDNs. ALAC Action submit policy discussions on these PDPs. DEADLINE: (_from PDP_)

Erick Iriarte Ahon ccTLDs. Accountability frameworks being signed. Relationship, contract between ccTLD and ICANN. Need to work with local law. 5 ccTLDs have signed (.de, Norfolk Islands, Lithuania, Namibia, Chile). Brazil and Mexico possible. Regional dvision of ICANN - some countries are not happy with the division, don't feel they reflect real positions. Regions control where you pay membership dues, regions get votes.

Hong Xue IDN. Technical advice. Policy issues taken to GNSO. GNSO May 28 published issue paper on IDN at the top level. Especially IDN tlds, both gTLD and ccTLD, and selection of operators. ALAC Action suggests ALAC respond to that paper. IDN test and virus database being discussed in President's Committee. Hong suggests working group, (Hong+ tech: Vittorio and Siavash; policy, Wendy and Bret). DEADLINE: (_from PDP_ end of July). IDN meeting tonight. users' perspective to present?

Roberto: Key user interest - that ICANN not use lame excuses for delay. e.g., don't stop ccTLDs from proceeding while we wait for a global solution

Sebastian Ricciardi: WIPO2 Assistance Group submitted final report July 2004, posted on ICANN website. The group did not reach agreement. WIPO and IPC keep pushing for exclusions (sometimes with different interests).

Annette Muehlberg Budget Committee. After spending 3 weeks working on the budget, we sent it in and don't know what happened from there. We were told we don't have the authority to approve workshops. How can we find out what is on the budget. ALAC Action Bruce, please help us to find out what is on the budget. Bruce will be going over the budget requests with Denise, comparing with Board's allocation of money. Requests for financial expenditure have to go through procedure. No expectation that there will be any unreasonable delay in approvals. [Jacqueline] Ask us if you have questions about the narrative we'd put into the draft budget. Bruce putting together document on expense procedures.

Yes, we do not have fiscal signing approval. But we do have a list of who has this power, with contact information. We have a process to submit proposals and get them funded. Therefore it should not be a difficult thing to get the approvals necessary if we go through the proper procedures, for example - before hiring a consultant, we need to do a TOR, we need to have a list of candidates, etc.

The budget is not a great big secret - it's published. What we need to do is reconcile the overall ICANN budget to our line items, and Bruce and Denise will be doing that. Also, the budget was apparently discussed yesterday in the Public Forum while we were in our internal ALAC meeting. --Jacqueline

Wendy Seltzer Research subcommittee would like to get a statistician (grad student) to help us prepare a plan for research ALAC Action WS to draft description; Siavash asks for review for all items on Policy list.

Hong Xue Re: Issue paper on IDNs, para 2. If GNSO will be working closely with GAC, it should also work closely with ALAC.

Jean Armour Polly Website: almost 30 registered users. Resolving mail issues. ALAC Action Post materials to the website, participate in forums.

Annette Muehlberg Outreach material: After hiring someone to produce outreach materials for which we thought there was approval, we were told that the contract wouldn't be approved. Resolution: Author will be paid, but we won't be permitted to use the materials prepared. ICANN legal got involved (ALAC legal did not). Let's clarify procedures so that our volunteers can be effective. Jean suggests that the author donate material to ICANNwiki. Lesson learned: formalize all communications; we need to make authorizations happen faster; we need to get escalation path of alternate contacts when we don't get timely authorizations (Bruce says was sent); Committment to business operation: if we don't get approval in time (e.g. 1 week), need response / explanation. [ed. ALAC HAS NO AUTHORITY> ALAC HAS NO POWER> ALAC SHOULD JUST GO HOME.] It's not that we're demanding spending authority, just a clear procedure for getting support for ALAC work. Question: do other committees have more authority?

No, other committees do not have approval authority. This was asked by Alice, and the answer was no. Can't see this in the notes, but maybe i'm missing it. Also missing: JM asked JP about number of visitors to the site who are not registered. Answer from JP - in progress.

Another question - do we have an ALAC legal? Is that a subcommittee? --Jacqueline

Roberto Gaetano Board report. [Saturday] Communications discussed. Paul Twomey announced that Paul Levins, will deal also with outreach and communications. Roberto asked a meeting of PaulL with ALAC to coordinate communications. IANA, issues related to modifications to ccTLD records. WHOIS. Vint communicated that he was getting letters from organizations, against GNSO decision on WhoIs WG scope. Discussion of the risk of underestimating privacy in favor of some specific stakeholders. Perhaps tiered access can balance privacy with need for access by those claiming specific rights. Signature of agreement with .cl (Chile). Renewal of agreements with .biz, .info, .org, request to start procedure, go to public comment. Comments in public forum expected. Status of GNSO review? [Sunday] briefing from "consumer protection" agencies (same as in GAC-GNSO meeting) Roberto, as representative of the users, reacted against this claim to speak for users. Sees substantial pressure on GNSO to revise their decision. [Monday] Meetings with constituencies. gTLD Constituency concerned about IDN. X-Consituency (IP, ISP & Business) is concerned with WHOIS; raised issue about Name Council voting balance. Registrars: domain name marketplace / tasting a concern. USG MOU renewal. USG statement: "The USG is seeking the input of the stakeholders to establish the maturity and stability of the multi-stakeholder model that is ICANN". ALAC Action schedule Board report early in ALAC meetings

[edit] Paul Twomey visit

Paul Twomey joins us to discuss President's Advisory Committee on Strategy, on which ALAC has raised concerns about lack of representativeness. Apologizes for not being able to join us last night. Committee members are very conscious that the committee is not fully representative (linguistic, north-south, gender, background...) Wld appreciate receiving more names for committee. Especially developing countries, government.

Purpose is not to replace the advisory committees and constituencies, but to bring further perspectives. Be an instrument that could conduct consultations without being formalized

Seeking feedback on multi-stakeholder model. Doesn't want it misinterpreted. Not trying to replace existing process or committees

Trying to get outside perspective Wants input.

MOU. USG's position has been made clearer. Wants input on MOU as well.

Vittorio Bertola Appreciate the discussion. Still concerned that there's not more openness, more progress since Wellington. Concerned that this group is organizing the IGF workshop and coordinating submissions to US Gov't. Where can we participate in this consultation?

U.S. having function on the 26th. Thought we should get first-blush comments. ICANN itself doesn't feel it's appropriate to make comments

Vittorio Bertola Is this another underground reform of ICANN without public discussion? We are concerned, in general and not just for ALAC, that there is no public scrutiny and discussion. Of course there is some private consultation with governments, but we need ICANN to be more transparent.

PT: I don't see this as an ICANN 2.0. Discussion with the USG, focusing on long-term maturity of multi-stakeholder org, looking for community perspective. Trying to find community input. It's partly a community expression of where we want to go. Partly private discussions with USG, which is still thinking about where it wants to go. Most of the process is from the USG, not ICANN.

Izumi Aizu: concerned that there's no opportunity for feedback, interaction.

PT: "I take that as so implicit in ICANN process"

IA: Remember that the first WSIS workshop was organized by ALAC, its members participating in IGF. ALAC tried to get all stakeholders participating. Now this time, we're cut out. No substantive interaction.

Theresa Swinehart: context. In Wellington, Internet NZ wanted a particular type. Here, with IGF so close, thought that we should have Markus give an update. They are different kinds of workshops.

PT: Committee didn't organize workshop, but asked to make a presentation. Organized by ICANN staff.

Marilyn Cade: Thanks ALAC for help in organizing broad participation in WSIS. Since WSIS, different mode of moving forward. Should we bring back multi-stakeholder org?

VB: real problem is not just workshop, but who's involved in reform, consultations. We're like a team preparing to play its first World Cup match, but we don't know where the stadium is.

IA: Please help us to help you! Tell us what's going on.

PT: There's not much to add, all can do is re-emphasise the original points. [ctrl-c][ctrl-v]. Issues. Strategy committee. At-Large role in Board process.

IA: We often face the question whether we're making substantive process or we're just window dressing. Outsiders criticize us for being just for show.

PT: We're very interested in progression of RALOs. I think that's incredibly important for full representation and full international participation. You should have a lot of confidence that your input is considered carefully by members of the Board. Sometimes there's issue of confidence that input is being considered, valid question. Nobody thinks in multi-stakeholder model that 'if you don't do everything I say, you're not listening' but need more feedback to show it's been considered. Distinction between transparency and accessibility.

MC: in some policy areas, using public forum has not been so productive as ideal. GNSO experimenting with other means of providing input. What are the most effective means for communities to provide input that is digestible? Input that committee can read, while drinking from the firehose.

Sebastian Ricciardi: Online tools. Comment for record on the very useful work of the regional liaisons.

VB: Transparency! Reciprocal dialogue! Sorry if we seem aggressive, but lower pitched communications don't seem to get through.

PT: Need to take away the incentive to make these communications more strident. Ensure that you feel that you're being heard.

IA: It's more effective to team with us. It's difficult to have a dialogue if the others are remote. We don't know who's driving the process, with whom we need to communicate. The Advisory Committee is giving advice. I haven't seen any other AC that has regional structures underneath. Why are we forced to focus internally on these structures that often serve as barriers to participation? Unfortunate communication problems with staff support. Even with staff, we seem to give input and get little feedback.

note: Denise is not present

JP: What's the ICANN structure with regard to ALAC. Are we hierarchically positioned below Exec.Dir - Denise - PT ?

PT: Trying to diminish the number of direct reports to the CEO as the org grows.

JP: Perhaps the policy development vp is not the appropriate person for that report.

PT: Always welcome advice.

JM: Re: Public participation position: How does that relate to the At-Large and ALAC?

PL: Of course it would be interacting with ALAC. Thinking through how that role works. If position will have large interaction with ALAC, open to having rep from ALAC participating as interviewer.

AM: Could we have more transparency on how all these supports fit together? They have multiple responsibilities, of course. On what resources can ALAC call?

IA: can we participate in selection of Exec. Dir.

PT: don't want to speak for Denise. Obviously, management is responsible for selecting staff, but reasonable for ALAC to participate in some way.

PT: Board thinks there will be several RALOs by Sao Paulo.

AM: "Who told you that?" (i.e., it's not likely, sorry)

: APRALO needs to understand the timeline. 

Siavash Shahshani: Have to start the process for RALO MOU. Who facilitates? Bruce B.

Alice Wanjira Munuya: African region finds the RALO process extremely difficult without resources. Would like the whole process reviewed. [applause]

PT: Please communicate with us. You should have confidence in the intent of ICANN and its staff. Don't assume there's an assumption against the participatory model.

[edit] Afternoon Session

16:00-18:00

Report. ralo workshop voting tools 6 new alss ? regional outreach material: we're happy to know that staff has now been hired to write these materials. Policy areas:

• Domain name tasting
  • JP: Propose that we get an Issues Report from staff on domain tasting ALAC Action decide if this is how we want to proceed
  • research
• WHOIS
• IDN
• new gTLDs
• IGF
• Put on our website a Call for NTIA input from individual Internet users ALAC Action add to website
  • Ask whether ICANN can put our call for input on the main ICANN website. Bruce B. looking into it.
  • [NTIA Call for Comment http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2006/NOI_DNS_Transition_0506.htm]

Research

[edit] Circulated Agenda

Wednesday, 28 June

ALAC Latin America/Caribbean Islands RALO (8:30-10:00) (Fez1a) Maybe APRALO Meeting (9:00 - 10:00) (Lobby Fez1a)

ALAC Meeting (10:00-12:00) (Fez1a) ALAC Working Lunch - (12:00-13:00) (Fez 1A) Reports from liaisons and subcomt.s. SHORT Board GNSO if Bret can join

          WHOIS 
          CCNSO 
          IDN 
          WIPO2 
          Budget (Bruce and Subcommittee) 
          ALAC-Website (Jean)
          Research (hire a statistician,...) (Wendy)
          table each item of interest in the reports for discussion 

report on development concerning ALAC outreach material (Annette)

10:30 Communication, Paul Levins (10 min.)

Prepare report for public forum (include report on problems with lack of authority? Staff and ALAC)

          RALO workshops 
          new ALSes approved 
          regional outreach / material 
          African issues? (Pierre? ccTLDs)
          "Remember us??" 
          We didn't get our dinner 
          ALAC participation in workshops 

Start addressing topics (see below)

ALAC taking part in PUBLIC FORUM: 13-16:00

ALAC Meeting (16:00-18:00) (Fez1a) dicussing/vote on ALSs What administrative things does ALAC need from ICANN staff?

          contract, budget authority
          travel policy 
          communication with the ALAC (when you want someone for a panel) 
          -email to Paul Twomey 

Domain Tasting, identifying the next steps. IDNs. Same. DOC IANA contract, and MOU 45 Minutes (Izumi) Strategic plan (draft Vittorio)

Organizing policy topics (Siavash) preparing Public Forum Thursday

Thursday, 29 June

ALAC Meeting (14:00-18:00) (Fez1a) This meeting did not make it to the public schedule - request that the meeting be listed. -Continue topics from Wednesday. -DOC IANA contract, and MOU

-RALO roadmap. -website. -self-review (Brandon, Annette talk) - technical MAX 15 -17:00 George Sadowsky (Annette to invite him)

-prepare Sao Paulo (soccer team) SHORT

Friday, 30 June

Board Meeting

Fin ;-) Start of soccer Argentina : Germany