APRALO Monthly Call
Wednesday 19 December 2012 at 0500 UTC
Summary Minutes and Action Items
1. Roll call - Staff
2. Holly : There are 3 main items, Beijing OC, we need a brainstorm in terms of multistake holder.
3. OCL: Policy Advice : Look at the links. We do not have much time to review each of the items. I would like to thank the people who held the pen on this. There are a couple of statements currently being developed. I have to congratulate all the pen holders. For example the IDN statements, Edmon and Rinalia, for example. It is not the quantity but the quality.
The ALAC Demarche to ICANN, drafted by Yjro, started out as EURALO initiative, it has to do with VISA issues. We really need to get ICANN to find a way to better obtain IVSA.
Strawman solution- Trademark clearinghouse. The new CEO tried to ammend the trademark clearing house to make it more implementable. There were a few things that had to be changed and that is why this comes to public comments. There has not been much comment, period statement to 15th Jan. Evan Leibovitch is holding the pen.
There are several Open PCs. It is quite unfortunate because of the busy period, because of the festive season in December and January in APRALO. region.
Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the Suspension of a PDP - Comment period closed 12 November 2012; Reply period closes 3 December 2012 - This is a quite technical I assume we will not have an statement
i. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration - No Statement- We have filed statements on this issue in the past.
ii. Expert Recommended Improvements to ICANN's Accountability Structures - No Statement - Comments on the type of experts appointed. No statement necessary.
iv. Application for New GNSO Constituency Candidacy-"Public Internet Access/Cybercafe Ecosystem" - This is highly politically charges when the issue is adding consittuencies in the GNSO.
Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D -
At-Large White Paper on Future Challenges Entitled Making ICANN Relevant, second time that At Large is sending a PC. This is called the R3. I recomend t the Webminar.
Consultation on IANA Secure Notification Process - Comment period closes 10 Jan. OI am not sure if we should be filing a statement or not. I would ask the ASO if we need a statement.
We need to focus on the survey, I will ask in the ALAC call. The separation of IOC and Ac is there.
Heidi: Webminar on R3. Today at 15: UTC
WCIT: OCL
This conference took place in Dubai, the last one was 24 years ago and the big difference is that Internet is our main means of communicaations. Several countries thought that the Internet needed to be under the ITU.
ITU was put together to deal with international standards and charging in telephony and telegraph.
There was a push from some of the Member countries, and handful of sector members (used to be monopolies).
What has happened is that those countries met in Dubai and we had 2 weeks og going line by line looking at proposals and see if we could agree on proposals. There was vehement oposition. We ended up a bipolar world, some supporting and some opposing. Due to the multilateral model we ended at a war. The conference went from bad to worse, Europe was a key component because the EU stuck together. All of EU defended the multistake holder model and rejected the idea that the ITU had somethoing to do with the internet. And that the ITRs were not going to relate to content. As time went on, there was an unfriendly ammendment we were told that there was a consolidated proposal from the UAE and other parts of the world, the proposal was leaked over the weekend and it explicitily mentioned the IP numbering and address under ITU. Then, this got more and more difficult.
The proposal was removed and recalled by proposers. On Monday morning the members countries said we do not want to file it. But next day Russia filed it. Then Wednesday a vote that there was not a vote, the Chairman of the conference, the Chairman of the UAE telecom authority By asking people of having the resolution in the ITRs, there was broad consensus for the internet to be included, which several countries expressed points of orders. This was not a vote, but broad consensus of the Chair . This created a level of distrust. Tunisia for example asked for "human rights" to be included in the regs" and some countries were totally against this notion.
The last session, IRAN asked for some points to be taken, states having rights to telecoms. Swiss were absolutely opposed. The whole atmosphere was poisoned.
The conference finished and 55 countries decided that at the moment they are not ready to sign, some have said that need to go back to their countries. The US has not signed, the EU countries have not signed. There are some regs which are absoluteoly terrible. If you are going to lock the door to any network by asking "credentials" you infringe in freedom of speech. We had the support of Nigel, and several countries implemented the multistake holder model in their delegations, the US, UK, Australia, several african countries, and I hope in the future the model will widen. You can notice the lack of knowledge of the delegates without the multistake holder model.
Multistake Holder Event in Beijing:
Holly- Suggested to look at outcome of gTLDs, IDNs
Anybody has any thoughts please go to the WIKI and put your comments there.
Maureen asked all to take a look at the WIKI for the Showcase and capacity building.
What is possible for the Showcase? Can we get a lay out?
Capacity Building - Have you heard from Sala on this?
Maureen: Have not have any feedback.
AI: Maureen to get a hold of Sala
Heidi: Invitations, we will send a reminder to all ALS.
Please all look atvthe APRALO Beijing Workspace.
Look at the topics for the Multi-stake holder model
Fouad Bajwa: We are having a small problem in pakistan, our ministry of interiror has run out of passport paper and are not delivering passports for the past few months and waiting times have gone upto six months.
OCL: On WCIT. There is a statement on WCIT and I will be drafting a report on ICANN to inform ICANN and the Boars what happened. I noticed the absolute need to support the multistakeholder model. I believe that we are not doing enough, some countries said, ICANN is not doing anything for us. Our reception was very negative, because it was a very expensive process, while the ITU helps us.. A statement that pushes in that direction is really required. I was really surprised at yhe size of the problem, I do not want to see anothyer WCIT like this again.
Finally Holly wished everyone Happy Holidays!
