Date: Thursday, 19 September 2019
Time: 06:00 - 07:00 UTC (for the time in various time zones click here)
Meeting Number: AL.AP/CC.0418/1
English Conference ID = 1638
Chinese Conference ID = 2038
Zoom room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/168672108
Action Items: EN
EN: Satish Babu, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Maureen Hilyard, Kaili Kan,
Apologies: Ali AlMeshal (tentative), Bikam Shrestha, Hong Xue, Bikram Shrestha, Lianna Galstyan, Holly Raiche
Staff: Silvia Vivanco, Gisella Gruber, Yeşim Nazlar
Call Management: Yeşim Nazlar
1. Roll call - Staff (2 min)
2. Welcome and APRALO Membership Matters (Satish, 3 min)
|Newly Certified (4)||Internet Governance Institute|
Azadur Rahman Sarker
|Pending ALAC Vote|
|Awaiting RALO Feedback (1)||None|
|Processing Due Diligence (2)|
#299 China Internet Development Foundation (awaiting applicant feedback)
Internet Society Rural Development Special Interest Group
|On Hold (2)|
#267 Surabhi Softwares
#112 Arab Regional ISPs & DSPs Association (ARISPA)
3. Presentation on Universal Acceptance: Sarmad Hussein and Harish Chowdhary - (15 min and 10 mins Q&A)
4. ALAC Policy Update - Maureen/Holly/Kaili (10 min)
At-Large Policy Resources
At-Large Capacity Building Workshop - An Introduction to Policy Development at ICANN
2019 ALAC Policy Comments & Advice
At-Large Policy Summary
At-Large Executive Summary page
Multistakeholder Advice Development graphic
Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG)
Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collisions Analysis Project
The ALAC considers the issue of Name Collision in the DNS an area of importance for the minimization of unintended consequences for Internet end users. The ALAC appreciates the need to have a Name Collision definition for purposes of scoping the inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP), in order for the NCAP Study One to be manageable and on point, and therefore supports the Proposed Definition of Name Collision and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project of 1 July 2019. Of particular importance to us are:
(1) The recognition and inclusion of Type B situations (ie. B. In scope but not intended to be the subject of data studies) which provides built-in peripheral consideration of such situations with decision for examination through data analysis at a later stage if a compelling case were to arise within Study One; and
(2) The possibility of amending the Definition of Name Collision and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project should further pertinent information come to light at a later stage either through the ongoing work of the NCAP DG, NCAP Working Party and/or input obtained from the party/ies eventually contracted to undertake NCAP Study One.
Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System
The ALAC strongly supports the overall proposal and appreciates the opportunity to comment. The RSS, according to RRSAC37, needs to evolve so it remains a reliable, resilient, and sustainable service in the face of increasing traffic and cyberattacks. However, the ALAC finds it difficult to accept that ICANN is not considered a primary stakeholder with regard to the RSS, given that the Domain Name System and its reliable and trusted operation is a prime reason for ICANN’s existence. The ALAC also encourages that Internet users, the ultimate user and beneficiary of the DNS, should be listed as having a stake in the existence and evolution of the RSS.
The financial model is also of some concern to the ALAC. No figures are provided to allow even order-of-magnitude estimates. It is surely time that we begin to understand exactly what level of funding will be required and hypothesize on where such funding will come from.
Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the development of Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan
The ALAC considered the Draft Financial Assumptions, Projections and Operating Initiatives, and offered comments on the following topics among others:
- The ALAC is not optimistic that Financial Assumptions A (Roll-out of New gTLDs) and B (New Business Models – Geographic gTLDs and Brand gTLDs) will be highly successful vehicles to new revenue. Although the first round of new gTLDs did bring in considerable revenue, the ALAC notes that these earlier rounds represented the “low hanging fruit” in the new gTLD market.
- The ALAC agrees that ICANN continue to put money towards the an urgent need to resolve current challenges around Universal Acceptance, as well as the primary strategic goal of security, stability and trust.
- The ALAC agrees that work which needs to be done on evolving the multistakeholder system is substantial and complex and that it must be ongoing with adequate resources directed towards its completion. The objectives related to diverse and inclusive participation in policy making in an efficient and effective way are essential to improving the system, underlining that face-to-face meetings are essential to the functioning of the multistakeholder model.
- The ALAC/At-Large community propose some clarity via a listing of priorities and statements on the impact of each project on ICANN org and on each of the unique ACs and SOs. The community believes that while policy development and implementation activities are integral to the planning process, so are other activities, such as those that enable communication, collaboration, and outreach, between RALOS, At-Large members and other constituencies.
Public Comment Name
Public Comment Close
|Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model|
As per 17 July CPWG AI, this is an informal At-Large workspace on the topic.
5.APRALO Updates (Satish, 5 min)
- APRALO RoPs Review Working Group
6. ATLAS III Update (Maureen, 5 min)
7. ICANN Board announcements : (Satish, 5 min)
8. AOB (5 min)