WT D MINUTES:  11 NOVEMBER 2010

Participants: Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Dave Kissoondoyal, Chris Grundemann

Apologies: None

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

Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Marilyn Vernon

STANDING AGENDA ITEMS

1.  Roll call – Co-Chairs, 5 min.

2.  Review of AIs from 28 Oct 2010 -- Co-Chairs, 5 min.

a)  Dev to revise ALAC/At-Large PAD flowchart to incorporate suggestions and discussion from WT D’s 28 Oct 2010 meeting.

  • Status:  Done; see discussion item below.

b)  Seth to add, to Simplified Outline, a means of reporting if tasks are completed, outcomes, etc. (for use in preparation for Cartagena, etc.).

c)  Co-Chairs and Seth to dedicate 50% of agenda for next WT D meeting on 11 Nov 2010 to Rec. 12 (consumer representatives should have input into decisions and policy advice).

  • Status:  Done.  Closer to 33.33% of agenda for this meeting.

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/DECISION

3. Decision on WT D call time options vis-à-vis end of daylight savings time:  (a) move from 19 UTC to 18 UTC or (b) keep UTC time the same – Co-Chairs, 5 min.

Those on the call in favor of not changing the UTC time were Cheryl and Chris.  Those in favor of changing it included only Dave.  So, Dev announced that WT D calls would remain at 19:00 UTC.  No change would be made regarding the end of daylight saving time in the US.

4.  Update of consumer outreach and overview of related documents - Beau, 20 min.

  • The main documents are on the WT D Wiki page (see “Documents: Consumer outreach”).

Beau, to whom this agenda item was originally assigned, was not on this call. 

Cheryl:  The four consumer documents on the WT D Workspace for us to consider are the following:

  • Briefing on Consumers Constituency - updated - Nov 2091 (which Cheryl called the “consumer commitment document)
  • Top Five Reasons Your Organization Should Join ICANN
  • Frequently Asked Questions About ICANN
  • Glossary of ICANN terms

Cheryl:  The Briefing on Consumers Constituency is a bit outdated. 

Dev:  One initiative we could suggest is the Beginners’ Guide to ICANN specifically aimed at consumer-interest groups, which Heidi had suggested in a previous meeting.

Cheryl:  But isn’t the Five Reasons document basically a Beginner’s Guide to ICANN aimed at consumer-interest groups?

Dev:  Well, the specific problem is that ALSes do not understand how domain names work (and, even worse, some that don’t unfortunately think they do).  And then there’s a backlash against ICANN when something goes wrong and they look for someone to blame.

Cheryl:  There is one problem with the Five Reasons document that Beau produced, though.  The baseline material is fine; of course, it could be “prettied up” a bit.  But the problem is that the document links civil rights to consumer advocacy.  While they’re not unrelated, they do not need to be tethered for the purposes of ICANN.  While we all personally believe in civil rights issues, ICANN, technically speaking, should not care about civil rights issues per se.  ICANN needs to focus on its mandates.

Heidi:  Let me suggest a way forward regarding these documents.  I would recommend we combine them, as well as update and edit them.  I suggest starting with the Briefing on Consumers Constituency; updating it would involve deleting the parts on the Consumer Constituency and, I’d recommend, adding more on ICANN and issues of interest to consumers.  Finally, we could discuss the fact that bringing in consumers is part of ICANN’s current Strategic Planning goals, AoC, and the ATRT Review.

Cheryl:  Similarly, we could update the Top Five Reasons Your Organization Should Join ICANN by deleting the civil rights aspects and adding information about ALSes and individuals can actually join an ICANN community – specifically, for example, which community to join based on your interests, whether GNSO, At-Large, etc.  In fact, we could create another flowchart or decision tree for deciding which community to join.

Cheryl:  And, also, the Glossary could be updated somewhat.

Cheryl:  Plus, all these documents could be linked to new resources that ICANN is putting together, such as downloadable videos, etc.  And, of course, there’s the new Registrants’ Rights Report being presented in Cartagena at a consumer session. 

Dev:  So, we’re saying we should consolidate these consumer documents we’re looking at. 

Chris:  Yes, I totally agree.  I believe we should have a 1-2 page summary geared toward and easy for consumers.  But, frankly, I also think its important to have longer documents that contain the necessary details.

Cheryl:  Perhaps we could also put together a video or Webinar, etc.

Heidi:  Unfortunately, the member of ICANN’s Communications Dept. who works on such things – Sara Stohl, a technical writer – is leaving, so that might be difficult right now.

Cheryl:  In terms of marshalling resources that might be useful in creating new documents and resources, we will be having a presentation by Barbara Clay and Scott from the Communications Department in Cartagena early on Sunday.  During this meeting, I think it’s imperative that we all stress how important the consumer outreach is for At-Large.  We need to own this initiative.  Of course, Avri’s, Alex’s, and Rosemary’s faces should be on it, as well, but At-Large needs to manage it.

Cheryl:  One way we should do this is that you, Dev, if possible, as the co-chair of WT D, should present to Barbara and Scott the flowchart and related concepts.  We should get them to prioritize both the flowchart and our consumer outreach.

Heidi:  I can tell you that Barbara is going to be asking At-Large for a favor.  So this could be a good time for At-Large to want something from the Communications Department.  They are going to ask you if At-Large could serve as ambassadors to new gTLDs by presenting on what ICANN is doing, emphasizing what is being done for new gTLDs.  And, in fact, for At-Large to do this with a variety of resources, including slideshows, videos, etc.

Cheryl:  We’ll, we’re happy to oblige, but of course we’ll need these resources that you’ve listed in order to do this.  So it does seem as though we both have requests of the other timed perfectly in synch. 

>>  AI:  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).

Dev:  Okay, to reiterate, we are going to start creating a new outline for the consumer documents, or a consolidated document, on a Confluence page.

Cheryl:  Perhaps more storyboarding, rather than outlining.  It should include links to embed to material coming out of ICANN from other groups that’s relevant.

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

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

Cheryl:  The result will be a good outreach resource we’re creating, one that the regions could use.

Dev:  For example, a slideshow that any ALS could use to reach out to consumers.

5.  Discussion of current version of New ALAC/At-Large PAD Flowchart.

Dev:  The New ALAC/At-Large PAD Flowchart is basically ready to present in Cartagena.  It speaks to Recommendations 8 and 13.

Dev:  There are a few issues that I’d like the group’s opinions on, which I’ll ask you about now. 

Heidi put New ALAC/At-Large PAD Flowchart_ver 4 in the AC Room for the group.

“Before policy is available for comment” segment of complete flowchart

Dev:  In the first segment, “ Before policy is available for comment,” of the complete flowchart, I’ve not replaced the earlier notes with a flowchart diagram.  In addition, the color coding of the different shapes is mean to represent the different groups acting; for example, blue represents ICANN.

Cheryl:  I’d appreciate your making the ALAC shapes purple, our official color, of course.

Dev:  Yes, certainly, that’s doable.

Dev:  In ALAC box “ALAC submits request to ICANN requesting 15 day extension for its comments”:  I tried to add a path for the possibility of a “no” answer, to indicate what really happens.

Cheryl:  What really would happen is this if the ALAC has decided that it can not submit its comment within 30 days but the extension is denied.  If the ALAC considers the issue or comment important enough, one option is to notify the Board.  Then, the time for the Board to respond would actually be longer than the requested 15-day extension.  So, even though the ALAC’s comment would not get into the public comment period, this other path opens up room certainly to communicate with the Board on the issue.  Another option would be to deal with the other ACs and SOs on the refusal of the extension, the goal being to get cross-constituency support for submission of a comment.

Dev:  Okay, I’ll consider how to make some changes regarding how to depict this.

Dev:  Next, I’m trying to divide the complete flowchart into separate segments that can be shown on separate sheets for convenience.  The separate “Before policy is available for comment” diagram (see Before policy is available for comment (chart seg)_ver 1) focuses on the information flow (as opposed to the main flowchart’s depiction of the decision tree) during this period, and shows what I’m calling, for now, a “Policy Publish Schedule.”  It shows what each ICANN group (ALAC, ASO, ccNSO, etc.) should contribute at this early stage.  Note, for example, that, because certain material must be publicly accessible globally, it indicates where PDFs are necessary.

Cheryl:  I would think this is excellent content, Dev, for you to include in the discussion with Barbara Clay and Scott from the Communications Dept. on Sunday from 9:00 to 10:30 in Cartagena.  Of course, that’s ultimately up to you.

Dev:  Yes, I agree, absolutely.

“Before policy is publishedt” segment of complete flowchart

Dev:  Next, let’s look at the separate “Before policy is published” diagram (see Before policy is published (chart set)_ver 1).  The Policy Publish Schedule leads into this as an input.  With this version 1, you’ll see, I’m still trying to figure out how to diagram as a flowchart the text at the bottom that starts with “ALAC can decide to ask an At-Large WG or ad hoc WT to come up with recommendations….” 

Cheryl:  Yes, there are three options here that need to be depicted, possibly in a trifurcated diagram.

Dev:  Interestingly, I think that, even though we could turn it into a flowchart-like diagram, I’m not convinced that, in this portion, it makes it any clearer.

Cheryl:  Perhaps try just using a thick arrow to point to each of the three options.

6.  Discussion of which tasks under Recs. 8, 12, and 13 to report on in Cartagena – Co-Chairs, 15 min.

Cheryl:  A lot has been accomplished of relevance to consumers that we simply need to start recording better.  It’s happening, we just need to record and report it.  For example, within the ALAC and GNSO, consumer-interest groups have held formal meetings in Brussels and will again in Cartagena.  We should record these meetings as outcomes.  Also, there’s the new Registrants’ Rights Report being presented in Cartagena at a consumer session.  And, finally, there are new resources that ICANN is putting together, such as downloadable videos, etc. 

Cheryl:  All this work being done elsewhere in ICANN -- along with the work WT D has been more involved in, especially the new PAD flowchart and rewrites of the consumer documents (if it can be done by Cartagena), etc. – constitutes excellent “ticks” that WT D and Dev should report on in Cartagena at the ALAC and Regional Wrap-Up session on Thursday.

>>  AI:  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).

7.  Any other business – Co-Chairs, 5 min

Encouraging participation with the New PAD flowchart

Cheryl:  Can we use the New ALAC/At-Large PAD Flowchart that Dev is creating to either encourage or show, on the chart, some aspects of how we actually get people to show up and do the work? 

Dev:  Perhaps we show the flowchart to a large audience, let’s say in Cartagena, and anyone interested enough to comment will also be interested enough to join our WT.

Cheryl:  Okay, in other words, use it to lure in new blood.

Legitimizing advice from smaller groups such as the ALAC or WT D

Cheryl:  Also, when dealing with policy suggestions from smaller groups, such as WT D or the ALAC, how do me legitimize those suggestions, as opposed to suggestions from large groups – i.e., suggestions that have widespread backing initially?  Perhaps we need a middle ground of participation, between those who do a lot of the work and those who done none.  That way, even small groups proposing suggestions could have a way of getting some wider backing.

Dev:  For example, on Facebook there is a “Like” button.  You click it if you want to register your approval of something you’ve supposedly seen – let’s say “reviewed” – but have done no more work than that.

Cheryl:  Yes, a Read/Not Read metric would be quite useful.  It would allow is say something along the lines of  “This is a piece of advice from the ALAC, supported by such-and-such a number of At-Large members.”  Such metrics would be quite useful, if we could get access to them without risking their turning into potential barriers to our work.

8.  Confirmation of next meeting – Co-Chairs, 5 min

Because Thu, 25 Nov, is the Thanksgiving holiday in the US, the WT decided to attempt simply to work together online during 11-25 Nov on getting things ready for Cartagena (in particular, the PAD flowchart and new consumer documents), rather than having an actual WT call on 25 Nov.. 

However, if not enough work gets done online, the WT decided that, as a backup, it would have a call on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, at 19:00 UTC.

>  AI:  Seth to inform Gisella that WT D’s next call is tentatively scheduled for Fri, 26 Nov, at 19:00 UTC, contingent on Dev’s decision (regarding the amount of work getting done online).

  • No labels