Meeting Chaired by Siranush
Participation was not bad, though again those people, who usually are present, were on the call this time again. I am not sure how we can encourage all to participate actively at least in the monthly calls (see Attendees for today’s call: Ali AlMeshal, Hong Xue, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Lianna Galstyan, Pavan Budhrani, Siranush Vardanyan, Satish Babu, Gunela Astbrink, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Winthrop Yu, Maureen Hilyard and the staff).
We moved based on the agenda (posted).
1. Though no representatives from newly accredited APRALO ALSs were not on the call (180 Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN); 181 South Pacific Computer Society and (182) ISOC Nepal), but they were all welcomed to APRALO.
2. Then Satish did very informative presentation of his ALS and the information also is posted on wiki page (https://community.icann.org/display/APRALO/APRALO+ALSes+Spotlight).
3. Satish also gave brief update for Meeting Strategy Working Group Summary – Satish Babu. And here are some highlights from his update:
Some of the important areas that have evolved in the discussions within the MSWG and also after discussions with several stakeholders including ALAC, are:
a). The number of meetings per year
Some constituencies have pointed out that they may not required three meetings a year and can do with 2 meetings in the current format and one smaller regional meetings. Others (including most ALAC members) have felt that we should continue to have the current number of 3 meetings per year.
b). Rotation of Venues and the criteria for the rotation
While there have been some requests to enlarge the number of cities, it has been pointed out that scalability of venues becomes an issue. As ICANN grows in terms of its constituencies (and the number of their representatives), there will be fewer and fewer cities with sites that can accommodate this size of meetings. This limits diversity of meeting cities.
c). The meeting format and infrastructure
It has been pointed out that often there are meetings held at conflicting times, rendering it difficult for participants to attend all of them. While staff have been planning these meetings taking to account such conflicts, there are last minute meeting schedule changes that upset some of these balances. A better system of handling conflicts should be worked out.
d). Support arrangements: Travel, Visa
For ALAC and ALSes, it is particularly important to enable participation and not be kept out of meetings because of extraneous factors such as visa. The ALAC has already pointed out the difficulty it had in 2012 with some of its representatives in the Nominating Committee who could not make it toToronto.
e). The timeline of the next steps in MSWG: First draft: 10 Sep 2013; Internal Discussions in the MSWG: 12 & 19 Sept 2013; Presentation to the Board: 25/26 Sept 2013; Comment period: 42 days; Additional discussions:Buenos Aires
4. Policy rundown was done by Olivier as agreed. He presented those policy issues, which had been voted already, as well as talked about those, which are in the process of public comments and discussions. Me and Olivier once again asked ALSs to come up with their suggestions and participate actively in public comments (staff provided all appropriate links for the policy issues being in the process of discussions).
Silvia also posted the At Large Policy Development page: (https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Policy+Development+Page) for all ALSs to review.
5. a) The cooperation between APRALO and APNIC was brought to the attention. The points of your report were highlighted. Maureen mentioned that there is already a very good cooperation established in Pacific. As you mentioned in your report, I have asked participants to come up with their suggestions, how they see our cooperation should be, what should be included in the MOU, any trainings needed to be asked from APNIC. Olivier also mentioned that APNIC is providing some funds for participation in the regional events, so our cooperation would be mutually beneficial. And this was taken by the staff as an action item as well.
b) APRALO processes and whether they are in line with the revised ALAC Rules of Procedure: I asked for volunteers to form a group to check and come up with the ideas and Cheryl volunteered to be there, which was noted by the staff.
6. Action Items for ALS:
6.1 Updating APRALO ALS – I asked everyone to visit the wiki page for ALSs and provide updates for their respective ALSs and if needed the staff will support them technically. Silvia also asked to provide the logos and information to be posted.
6.2 Call for webinars- The next point was bring to the participants’ attention (again pointed out on your report) to come up with the suggestions of topics on policy issues for the webinar to be organized. Staff is ready to support and Olivier also welcomed the suggestion.
All suggestions can be sent via APRALO mailing list, and/or to me, Fouad, you and/or the staff.
All action items had been noted by the staff.
I also congratulate APRALO representatives who were selected as ICANN fellows to participate in ICANN Buenos Aires meeting.
