• ATTENDEES: Cheryl Lanédon Orr, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Darlene Thompson, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Yrjo Lansipuro, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Natalia Enciso
  • APOLOGIES: None
  • STAFF: Heidi Ullrich, Gisella Gruber, Matt Ashtiani, Silvia Vivanco

NOTES

  • Attendance and roll call was held and action items were reviewed 
  • CLO: The meeting with the SIC went well. I would like to, at the following meeting, is ask the WG to utilize the wiki and other technology options we have to watch/maintain project milestone. This will ensure that we are on track and on target. 
  • HU: Regarding the meeting with the SIC, Ray wanted the format for the final report to be short and to the point. IN terms of graphics, just a simple table that says things are complete.
  • HU: We did not hear any feedback for the new beginner's guide from the WGs, but we did hear that a general "how to participate in ICANN" guide would be useful. This document may in fact help us complete Rec. 12.
  • CLO: There is not enough time for us to develop a guide, as mentioned in Rec. 12, between now and Prague. 
  • HU: There is a document that has already been created on the proposed Consumer Trust Document.
  • CLO: Who can redevelop it? Olivier, can the Registrant Rights group focus on that? Should we call for a volunteer?
  • OCL: I think it would be interesting to look at the document. However, I am concerned that we are starting to group things together that may not necessarily go together. As such, it is imperative that we take a look at the document as ascertain its usefulness. 
  • CLO: Who could volunteer on this issue?
  • TBJ: While I am quite busy at the moment, I will see if there is an AFRALO member who can contribute to this paper. 
  • CLO: I think it would be good to have fresh eyes on this matter. If there are any ALS members who have a particular focus on consumer issues, please ask these individuals to take a look into the matter. 
  • OCL: Yes, this would work. The document itself is not very long, so the workload may not be too strenuous. Perhaps we can follow up on this via email.
  • CLO: Heidi, can you please give us an over view of timelines?
  • HU: As long as the final draft is completed by the end of the June meeting, we should not have a problem. However, we should follow up with the SIC.
  • CLO: We will need something separate than the beginner's guide for the consumer issue.
  • CLO: The people on this taskforce are not the same people who should be building this information. we literally need individuals who are the consumer advocates.  Olivier, do you see this as being in competition with your RR WH? How do you wish to manage that?
  • OCL: I think we should just inform Beau and Holly, who are mentioned at the bottom of the current document. I do not see any problems with this approach, it isn't even duplicating work. 
  • TBJ: I would like to reiterate that I will see if there is an individual in AFRALO who can contribute. However, I would like to suggest that we send a call for volunteers to all of the RALOs?
  • DAT: I can send a call to LACRALO.
  • DT: Perhaps we can have a message sent to the Secretariats List which can then be forwarded to the RALOs.
  • CLO: Agreed, depending upon Olivier mentioning it to the Co Chairs of the RR Group. 
  • AI: Olivier Crépin-Leblond to follow up with Beau and Hong on the development of the consumer document. After this task is completed, Silvia Vivanco to send a message to the Secretariats List asking for members of ALSes with a particular consumer focus on consumer issues to assist on the early draft and editing of a consumer organizational and individual interests document. 
  • CLO: Olivier, how would you like the SIC portion managed?
  • OCL: I will think about it and follow up with you.
  • HU: We need to finish the Staus Report and identify the timeline, issues, and criteria for the next review.
  • OCL: As you mentioned, the group's mandate was to produce the report but I wonder if it is not for the ALAC to add the paragraph on the next steps beyond this task. 
  • CLO: I am concerned that us, as a Taskforce, taking on more than we were mandated to do. There are many design aspirations for how future review should go, but what we need to develop is - from the TF point of view - is somewhat that can be used as a benchmark for the next step. This is in contrast to designing the next step. 
  • HU: I agree fully, this task if not for the TF. 
  • CLO: In the Staff report, you may wish to make some recommendation from the logistics point of view. Perhaps it would be useful to know what we can do to complete this taks in a more timely way.  Olivier, do you agree?
  • OCL: Yes, I agree. 
  • CLO: We need to sure that Rec. 13 is completed as well.  I am concerned that this Rec. is necessarily an on going Rec. Perhaps we should not how we plan on interacting with the ASOs. 
  • CLO: How do you wish to manage ongoing tasks? Should we give them a 99.99% complete? How would we manage this graphically? 
  • OCL: Perhaps marking them as 100% completed but with an asterisk to note that it is an ongoing activity 
  • CLO: Perhaps we could note on the chart's page to make any notes that relate to the ongoing tasks. 
  • AI: Matt to make a workspace on "At-Large Improvements Implementation Project Status Report - Feb 2012 and Appendix" where individuals can make comments on each section (i.e. break the document up into different sections so members can make specific comments). 
  • CLO: Have we developed a meeting with the SIC?
  • HU: We have developed a tentative schedule, but this time cannot be confirmed until closer to the meeting. 
  • No labels