Date: Tuesday, 19 February 2019
Time: 19:00 - 20:00 UTC For the time in various timezones click here
Meeting Number: AL.EU/CC.0219/1
How can I participate in this meeting?
Web conference tool: Adobe Connect
https://participate.icann.org/euralo/
English Conference ID = 1638
Participants: Joanna Kulesza, Roberto Gaetano, Desara Dushi, Erich Schweighofer, Wale Bakare, Bastiaan Goslings, Yrjo Lansipuro, Sebastien Bachollet, Christopher Wilkinson, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Anne-Marie Joly Bachollet, Natalia Filina, Collin Kurre, Nenad Marinkovic,
Apologies: Maureen Hilyard, Oksana Prykhodko, Matthias Hudobnik, Annette Muhlberg
Staff: Silvia Vivanco, Andrea Glandon
Call Management: Andrea Glandon
Action Items: EN
Recording: EN
Transcript: EN
AC Chat: EN
AGENDA
EURALO
Roll call - Staff - Adoption of the Agenda - Olivier Crépin-Leblond
Review of pending Action Items: 2019-01-22 EURALO Monthly Teleconference (5 minutes)
Review of ALAC Public consultations – Olivier Crépin-Leblond (15 minutes)
At-Large Policy Resources
2019 ALAC Policy Comments & Advice
At-Large Policy Summary
At-Large Executive Summary page
Multistakeholder Advice Development graphicEPDP Resources
Web Page of EPDP
EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data
Keep Up with EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data
EPDP Background DocumentsICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025
The ALAC stressed the importance of ICANN’s role in the multistakeholder model of Internet Governance (including 6 recommendations to improve its effectiveness), suggested a rebalancing of representation on the ICANN Board to enhance the Internet end user perspective, and noted that more fulsome cost/benefit analyses of programs like the gTLD expansion should be available in order predict the future impact on total resources. The ALAC also commented on strengthening the security of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the DNS Root Server System, evolving the unique identifier systems to continue to serve the needs of the global Internet user base, addressing geopolitical issues impacting ICANN’s mission to ensure a single and globally interoperable Internet, and ensuring ICANN’s long-term financial sustainability.2nd Comment: ICANN Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update
The ALAC Chair determined to submit an additional ALAC statement on this public comment, in accordance with new rules regarding FY20 Additional Budget Requests (ABRs). As ABRs are no longer intended to request travel support to ICANN meetings, the ALAC decided to submit an additional comment to the FY20 Budget public comment, requesting two travel slots to support the attendance of active At-Large policy/outreach leaders in At-Large work session activities at ICANN meetings.1st Comment: ICANN Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update
Of principle concern to the ALAC/At-Large is their ability to achieve the objectives of the At-Large Review Implementation Plan. The comments in the statement relate to particular portfolio or project areas and incorporate specific At-Large concerns, namely: language services, raising stakeholder awareness of ICANN worldwide, engage stakeholders regionally, support policy development, policy related and advisory activities, reinforce stakeholder effectiveness, collaboration and communication capabilities, coordination of ICANN participation in Internet Governance, supporting organizational reviews, and supporting stakeholder participation.Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level - Supplemental Initial Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process
The ALAC notes that there has yet to be a discussion about whether any new gTLDs are needed. In case of an expansion, first and foremost, (1) strings with geographic connotations should not present harm (eg. risk for confusion) to end-users and (2) end-users, as residents of a given geographic entity, should have a say, through their governments or public authorities, in how its name is used. The ALAC prefers preventative protection mechanisms for country, territory, sub-national place and capital names. In the case of non-capital city names, there is a balanced support within the ALAC for either (1) requiring support or a non-objection letter from the relevant authority only if the applicant intends to use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city or (2) requiring support or a non-objection letter in any case. As to the 2012 AGB, ALAC thinks that its final version generally worked well and supports, in general, its treatment of geographic names.Current Statements (ALAC Advice, Comment or Correspondence)
Public Comment Name
Public Comment Close
Status
Penholder(s)
Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews
COMMENT
COMMENT
Initial Report on CSC Effectiveness DRAFTING
