WT D MINUTES:  26 NOVEMBER 2010 

Participants: Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Dave Kissoondoyal (in AC Room)

Apologies: None

Absent: Rudi Vansnick, Beau Brendler, Chris Grundemann, Antonio Medina Gomez, Carlos Vera

Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene

STANDING AGENDA ITEMS

1.  Roll call – 2 min.

2.  Review of AIs from 11 Nov 2010 meeting -- Dev, 5 min

a)  Dev to begin considering informal presentation he’d like to make regarding WT D’s work and needs to Barbara Clay of ICANN Communication Dept. during Sunday morning session in Cartagena (see related discussions in WT Minutes, 11 Nov 2010, agenda items 4 and 5).

  • Status:  In progress.

b)  Seth to create a collaborative WT D Confluence page on which WT can begin outlining/storyboarding a consolidated consumer-outreach document(s).

c)  WT D members to begin outlining/storyboarding a consolidated consumer-outreach document(s) on collaborative WT D Confluence page.

d)  Dev to incorporate suggestions from WT D 11 Nov 2010 meeting into New ALAC/At-Large PAD Flowchart (see WT D Minutes: 11 Nov 2010, agenda item #5).

  • Status:  Done (Dev to distribute new version of Flowchart); will be reviewed in WT D's 26 Nov meeting (agenda item #3); 

e)  Dev to begin considering WT D’s reporting during the ALAC and Regional Wrap-Up on Thursday in Cartagena (see related discussion in WT Minutes, 11 Nov 2010, agenda items 6).

  • Status:  In progress.

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

3.  Presentation of latest version of New ALAC/At-Large PAD Flowchart – Dev, 5 min.

Before policy is published (chart seg)_ver 2 (also known as "Ongoing review of policy issues from At-Large & ALAC_ver 2")

Dev:  Two main changes, as requested in our last meeting, were made to create this flowchart segment:

  • Colors were adjusted, so that purple represents ALAC/At-Large; and
  • Shows the four possible options at the end in schematic format.

Cheryl:  This will be enormously useful.  I’d like to see more flowcharts developed, as opposed to long text documents, to clarify what steps and interactions within ICANN groups, structures, and constituencies are needed.

Before policy is available for comment (chart seg)_ver 2

Dev:  Here the main change made was simply that the colors, again, were changed.

New ALAC/At-Large PAD flowchart (Oct 2010)_ver 5

Dev:  And, yet again, the colors were changed, as well as any changes made in the segmented parts of the flowchart were, of course, duplicated here.

Rec 8_ALAC may request extension_ver 1

Dev:  I wanted to put this segment into a separate document before integrating it into the main flowchart.  This segment represents the part of the process in which the ALAC asks for a 15-day extension to the public comment period, which ICANN either accepts or rejects.  It shows what happens next. 

Cheryl:  I’d like to emphasize – and just confirm with you – one point regarding the purple decision diamond shape that asks, “Does ALAC commit to submit a comment within the 30 days?”:  It’s clear that, if the answer is “yes,” then the process moves right back into the main flowchart series of actions, including the ALAC’s putting in a comment, the regions becoming engaged, etc.  However, if the answer is “no” – i.e., the ALAC does not commit to submitting a comment within the 30 days – then a region or coalition of regions or cross-constituency group including a region(s) certainly still could do so, without the ALAC.  This must be shown on the chart and where much of the work for next year needs to get done.  We must encourage At-Large individuals, ALSes, regions, etc. to use their voices to put in public comments when they want to, even when the ALAC chooses not to do so.

Dev:  Yes, understood.  But is it clear to us what else has to happen if the request for an extension is not grant and the ALAC does not commit to putting in the comment in the allowed 30 days?  Does the ALAC contact the other ACs, etc. to get support for opposing/questioning ICANN’s refusal to grant the extension of the public comment period?

Cheryl:  Well, that’s largely or certainly partly for this WT to figure out, to lead on.  Maybe the answer is that the public comment process comes to a stop.  Or perhaps it continues but with a clear understanding that a main constituency, At-Large, can put in a comment later or is protesting.  Perhaps this is a good topic about which to give people options to think about in Cartagena.

4.  Review of WT work outlining/storyboarding consolidated consumer document(s) – Dev, 5 min.

Dev:  I went ahead and started putting some information up on our new collaborative Confluence page where we’ll be outlining the new consolidated consumer document(s) we want to create.  No other WT member had commented on it yet, the last time I looked.  In short, I think what our new consumer document(s) must explain – and my entry on the Confluence page reflects this – is the following:

  • How DNS works;
  • What the important acronyms mean;
  • Domain names;
  • What ICANN is;
  • What issues is ICANN working on; and
  • The reasons to participate.

Heidi:  Also on this topic, there will be meetings in Cartagena on SSAC 44 (on Wednesday, 8 December 2010, at 8:30 am, “Promoting Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice” meeting) and on consumer issues.  Also relevant is the fact that, hopefully, the first of the two Beginners’ Guides that ICANN is publishing will be coming out.  These first two are a Beginners’ Guide to gTLDs and a Beginners’ Guide to IPv4 and IPv4.  The first one had started within At-Large; it was going to be the At-Large Guide to gTLDs, and I think we should be sure to note that where useful for this WT.

Heidi:  I look forward to working on the topic of consumer outreach with this WT after Cartagena.

        

5.  Task-by-task discussion of Recs. 8, 12, & 13 to identify “quick win” tasks to be reported in Cartagena, as well as tasks to be edited, deleted, added – Dev, 35 min. 

In updating the WT C Simplified Improvements Outline, Cheryl suggested (in light of Seth’s concern regarding the technical problems encountered with Google Docs) that single links to each document used as “evidence” of progress be placed at the top of the recommendation page, rather than repeating the same link for a number of tasks.  Furthermore, the link could even be just to the main work team Confluence page, where all the necessary documents can be found.

Rec 8: The public comment period should remain 30 days, except in the case of special circumstances, for which ALAC may request an extension to 45 days

  • Status overall:  Rec. 8 is completed.  See specifics below.

8.1.:  ALAC internal processes

8.1.1.:  Develop process for requesting extended consultation window

  • Status:  Completed

Dev:  The WT has examined the current request processes, such as they are, and have developed a clearer, more detailed step-by-step process.  Evidence:  Show main New PAD Flowchart and Rec. 8 Flowchart.

8.1.2.:  After ALAC endorsement, 8.1.1 draft process is presented to Board for approval

  • Status:  WT’s work here is completed.  Next step must be taken by ALAC (give its endorsement). 

Dev:  Still to be done:  Perhaps get feedback in Cartagena and modify flowchart accordingly; get support from community and ALAC

8.2.:  Staff & Board processes

8.2.1.:  Develop process for implementing extension requests received

  • Status:  Completed

Evidence:  Show main New PAD Flowchart and Rec. 8 Flowchart.

8.3.:  Review of public comment processes

8.3.1.:  Review activities in advance of the beginning of the public comment period

  • Status:  Completed

Evidence:  Before policy is published (chart seg)_ver 2 flowchart (also known as "Ongoing review of policy issues from At-Large & ALAC), which shows policy publication schedule and translation policy.

8.3.1.1.:  Review internal processes on staff level to determine how advance notice of comment periods and availability of prerelease drafts could be successfully implemented.  Propose recommendations for community review

  • Status:  Completed

8.3.1.2.:  Review internal processes to determine how various materials could be prepared and released in advance of the opening of comment periods to support advance understanding of issues

  • Status:  Completed

8.4.:  Review measures to make policy development activities across ICANN's communities more accessible. Propose measures for community review.

  • Status:  Work of this WT is completed.  (ALAC must now act.)

Dev:  Substantive measures built into New PAD Flowchart and ready to be proposed across ICANN’s communities. 

Cheryl:  Making this proposal to the other AC and SO leaders is the job, not of this WT, but of the ALAC.  We need to show the WT’s model to other AC and SOs to see what they think.

Heidi:  What are some evidence within the Flowchart that the WT’s role here is done?  In the Flowchart, we see:

  • Translation component; and
  • Means of putting policy development activities into other communities’ bins, when appropriate.

Cheryl:  It is actually role of this

Rec 13: ALAC should strive to provide policy advice on any issues that affect individual Internet users (since providing policy advice is part of ALAC’s purpose). To this end, the following should be strengthened:  (a)  The processes within ALAC for developing and providing policy advice; (b) The processes within the SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues; and (c) The processes within the SOs, ACs, and the Board for providing ALAC with feedback about how its policy advice has been used.

13.1.:  Review ALAC's/At-Large's Policy Advice Development processes

  • Status:  Completed

Evidence:  The entire New PAD Flowchart.

13.1.1.:  Review ALAC's/At-Large's internal processes, identifying any barriers to policy-advice development

  • Status:  Completed

13.1.2.:  Given 13.1.1 results, staff is to prepare proposed measures to reduce identified barriers

  • Status:  In progress (partially done)

Cheryl:  From here, the proposed measures to reduce identified barriers would go to Improvements WT B. 

13.1.3.:  Review external processes that create barriers to ALAC's development of policy advice

  • Status:  Completed

Dev:  In the New PAD Flowchart, we have identified the problems by looking at potential “ifs” in the flowchart processes.  The problems occur, for example, if ICANN does not approve the request for a 15-day extension of the public comment period, if ALAC/At-Large is not given the needed information before the comment period begins, etc.

13.1.4.:  Given the results of 13.1.3, staff/consultants are to prepare proposals for measures to reduce barriers identified; these proposals are to be presented to At-Large for review

  • Status:  Near to completion. 

Cheryl:  Actually, the WT has basically done everything it can do on its own.  The substantive work is done, and the WT knows substantively what it will be proposing.  The next step is simply to have the ALAC schedule the proposals/presentation.

13.2.:  Strengthen policy-development processes within the SOs and ACs for requesting and considering ALAC input

  • Status:  In progress

Cheryl:  Task 13.2 picks up the completed work of task 8.4 and take it the next step.

13.2.1.:  Review current process in each AC and SO

  • Status:  In progress (see 13.2. above).

13.2.2.:  Develop recommendations to make relevant changes for community consideration

  • Status:  In progress (see 13.2. above).

13.3.:  "Processes between SOs, ACs and the Board need to be developed/strengthened to provide feedback on how ALAC advice has been considered and used within their processes."

  • Status:  In progress

13.4.:  Ensure the GNSO PDP incorporates measures that guarantee input from ALAC is requested, included, and considered integral to the process

  • Status:  Completed

Cheryl:  We now have established liaisons in other constituencies’ work groups, which guarantees our input into policy development.  And, if we’re ignored, it gives us a mechanism for addressing it. 

Evidence:  GNSO PDP Guidelines version 5.  Furthermore, can state that the ALAC Chair was part of the design team that wrote the guidelines; Cheryl, Alan, and Vanda were involved in all three levels of the GNSO policy review process.

>>  AI:  Seth to contact Margie and Marika to find out if there is an additional report that can be used to as evidence of the completion of task 13.4 (ensure the GNSO PDP incorporates measures that guarantee input from ALAC is requested, included, and considered integral to the process).

13.5.:  Ensure the ccNSO PDP incorporates measures that guarantee input from ALAC is requested, included, and considered integral to the process

  • Status:  Not completed

Cheryl:  We have not gone through the same exercise with the ccNSO.  But the process is beginning to improve with them, in that they’re beginning to reach out to the ALAC.

13.6.:  Ensure the ASO PDP incorporates measures that guarantee input from ALAC is requested, included, and considered integral to the process

  • Status:  Not complete

Cheryl:  Similar to the ccNSO, this process is beginning to improve in that they’re beginning to reach out to the ALAC.

Rec 12: ICANN should develop a mechanism that allows the voice of those bodies recognized as representing consumer interests to be heard at critical points in key decisions and to provide input into policy processes

Dev:  I went ahead and started putting some information up on our new collaborative Confluence page where we’ll be outlining the new consolidated consumer document(s) we want to create.  No other WT member had commented on it yet, the last time I looked.  In short, I think what our new consumer document(s) must explain – and my entry on the Confluence page reflects this – is the following:

  • How DNS works;
  • What the important acronyms mean;
  • Domain names;
  • What ICANN is;
  • What issues is ICANN working on; and
  • The reasons to participate.

Heidi:  Also on this topic, there will be meetings in Cartagena on SSAC 44 and on consumer issues (on Wednesday, 8 December 2010, at 8:30 am, “Promoting Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice” meeting).  Also relevant is the fact that, hopefully, the first of the two Beginners’ Guides that ICANN is publishing will be coming out.  These first two are a Beginners’ Guide to gTLDs and a Beginners’ Guide to IPv4 and IPv4.  The first one had started within At-Large; it was going to be the At-Large Guide to gTLDs, and I think we should be sure to note that where useful for this WT.

12.1.:  Consumer representatives and At-Large

12.1.1.:  Outreach related to 12.1

  • Status:  Ongoing

Cheryl:  This task must be ongoing, of course, as must be any outreach process.  Once the Consumer Constituency in the GNSO is approved, it will increase the ability of At-Large – and for the co-chairs of this work group -- to reach out to consumers.

Cheryl:  Evidence of the progress that’s been made on this front:

  • The consumer meeting planned for Cartagena;
  • The SSAC 44 Report (on Wednesday, 8 December 2010, at 8:30 am in Cartagena’s “Promoting Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice” meeting); and
  • The various DNS panels on consumer outreach, on which At-Large representatives have served.

12.2.:  Consumer representatives and the GNSO

12.2.1.:  Outreach related to 12.2

  • Status:  As complete as the WT can now do (ongoing), pending the Board’s decisions regarding the criteria for future constituencies generally and regarding approval of the Consumer Constituency in particular.

Cheryl:  The goal of the general guidelines is to make approval of new constituencies in the future more automatic.  Once the Board approves the criteria and the Consumer Constituency, then we can reach out and recruit people for the constituency, of course.  But, for now, there’s no constituency for them to join.

Heidi:  The person really following the Boards progress on these issue is Rob Hoggarth.

6.  Any other business -- Dev, 5 min.

No other business was introduced.

7.  Confirmation of next meeting – Dev, 2 min.

  • Note:  Next regular meeting would be Thu, 9 Dec 2010, at 19:00 UTC – during Cartagena.  Keep, move, or cancel?
  • Reference:  At-Large Cartagena schedule.

It was decided that the regular WT D meeting on Thu, 9 Dec 2010, would be canceled, since it falls during ICANN’s Cartagena meeting, where WT D will be participating in various meetings related to and reporting on its work.

The next regular WT D meeting per se will be on Thu, 23 Dec 2010, at 19:00 UTC.

The meeting was adjourned.





  • No labels