WT D MINUTES:  28 OCTOBER 2010

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

Apologies: None

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

Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White

STANDING AGENDA ITEMS

1.  Roll call - 5 min.

2.  Review of AIs from 14 Oct 2010 - 5 min.

a.  Dev to send ver. 2 draft of ALAC/At-Large PAD flowchart to the WT D list for comments.

  • Status:  Done; latest version (now ver. 3) to be reviewed below. 

b.  Staff to add ver. 2 draft of ALAC/At-Large PAD flowchart to WT D workspace.

  • Status:  Done.  Versions 1, 2, and 3 are in Google Docs and are linked to WT D Workspace.

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/DECISION

3.  New WT D At-Large Improvements Implementation Outline - Seth, 5 min.

Seth:  There are two updates to the WT’s tools that I quickly want to point out:

  • First, we’ve created a version of the Simplified At-Large Improvements Outline that contains only the recommendations for which WT D is responsible – that is, Recs. 8, 12, and 13.  This should make navigating between the recommendations via the tabs a the bottom easier.  Everyone in the WT should have editing rights to this document, so please test that and let me know if there’s any problem.
  • Second, you’ll see in the Adobe Chat Room there is a new pod – a small Web links pod underneath the participants’ list.  This will stay on the page and will contain both major links needed virtually every meeting, such as the link to the WT D Workspace and to the new WT D At-Large Improvements Outline that we just discussed.  Plus, I’ll update it with specific links needed for any particular meeting.  All you do is highlight the name of the link in the pod and then click the Browse button.

4. Update of consumer outreach and overview of related documents - Beau, 10 min.

Dev:  Let’s postpone this topic until Beau is on the call.

5.  Latest version (ver. 3) of ALAC/At-Large PAD flowchart and revisions to flowchart – 10 min.

Dev:  One problem that was pointed out last meeting is that my using two different ways in the flowchart to indicate the time – both from the start of the process and then from the end of the process – is confusing.  In this new version, I’ve gotten rid of those ways of marking the time and, instead, have divided the whole process up into different stages by time, indicated by the horizontal dashed lines.  And, ultimately, each separate stage can be divided into its own document or flowchart section and depicted vertically, as now, or horizontally.

Dev:  The first of these stages I’ve labeled “Before policy is made available for comment.”  Of course, Rec. 13 deals with what happens in this pre-process work, before the policy is available for comment.  What we need to do with this section are the following:

  • We need to discuss it in the group, of course.
  • As you see, at this point, I’ve filled in only notes; I’m still figuring out how to diagram it.  I might suggest more of a calendar rather than a timeline, but the group can decide.
  • We must indicate how the regions are gotten involved (for example, in briefing calls before the policy is even made available for comment).  This is, of course, very important in getting the rank-and-file organized to comment. 

Cheryl:  It must be noted the rank-and-file organizations, the ALSes, may meet only every 2-3 months, so, in the diagram and in reality, it can be a complicated matter to get the rank-and-file involved in policy comments during this pre-process period.

Dev:  The next stage I’ve indicated is when the “Policy is available for comment.”  My first question is:  Is 10 days enough time for this stage, or do we want to make it 14 days?

Cheryl:  Of course, too much time can be as much of a problem as too little time, as we all know.  People tend to wait until the last minute, regardless of the how much time they have. 

Cheryl:  Or perhaps the amount of time should be flexible, depending on what other tasks At-Large is facing – for example, right now we have a lot to do because we’re coming up on an ICANN meeting. 

Cheryl:  For this and other reasons, I strongly encourage you to write flexibility, rather than hard rules, into these procedures.  One reason is that there are certainly people out there whose goal it is to interfere with a process if they can, and one way they do so is to point out a group’s own hard rules that it itself has violated.  Certainly, people have not infrequently attempted to attach At-Large on such grounds.  

Dev:  My second question is:  In the part where ICANN requests a Community call, should we actually have a decision tree in a side bubble?

Cheryl:  Yes.

Dev:  We can come up with a feedback mechanism regarding the RALOs, which I’ve tried to integrate into the decision box here of the flowchart.  It should include a way to tell the regions whether this policy is or is not important to them.  And for the regions to say what they think. 

Cheryl:  This actually could be a way of stimulating to decide what type of input they expect/want to have month-after-month.  For this reason, this part of the tree excites me very much.

Cheryl:  There is something else that we need in this section of the flowchart.  It must be clear that regional and ALS input directly into the process is highly welcome.

Dave:  Are there any provisions regarding when the ALAC considers it extremely important to comment to the Board?

Cheryl:  As an Advisory Committee, the ALAC is free to give advice to the Board on any topic at any time it wishes.

Heidi:  And when the ALAC does decide to make a comment, we should update our PAD.  That, of course, needs to be in the flowchart.

Heidi:  In addition, do we want, in this chart or another one, to include the process for cross-constituency WGs?

Cheryl:  Let’s hold that interesting thought for another meeting.  We need to explore the mechanisms involved before adding them to the chart.

Heidi:  Another small correction needed is that the term used in the chart, “Language Department,” should be “Language Services Manager.”

Dev:  Are there any other comments on the next two stages of the flowchart – “At most 10 days after policy is available for comment” and “At most 23 days or 38 days”?

Heidi:  I myself think the chart reads better now as a vertical timeline.

Dev:  Yes, it could stay vertical or be done horizontally, if we want.  Either way, each stage can go on its own page, as well, if we’d like. 

Dev:  Okay, for now it seems as though there are no other comments. 

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

6.  Discussion of which discrete subtasks under Recs. 8 (ALAC may request public comment period be extended to 45 days), 12 (consumer representatives should have input into decisions and policy advice), and 13 (ALAC/At-Large policy advice mechanisms should be strengthened) the WT should prioritize for completion and how to do so.

Dev:  Which subtasks within Recs. 8, 12, and 13 do we think we should target for “quick wins”?  My instinct is Rec. 13.

Cheryl:  Do you have any thoughts about which subtasks within the recommendations you want to report on in Cartagena?  I’d certainly think the ones related to this flowchart would be among them. 

Dev:  In Rec. 13, it looks as though the flowchart addresses all or most of the subtasks, except for task 13.2.

Cheryl:  But I would think that task 13.2, would properly come later in the Improvements process, despite the target completion date listed for it.  And, in fact, I believe some of the cross-Community cooperation is in the process of being done, of course, so we could put some metrics on that.

Heidi:  Could you confirm in Cartagena that the flowchart covers tasks 13.1 and 13.1.1?  For example, included in the obstacles it has identified are the issues of translation, advance notice, and perhaps a better mechanism to get the RALOs’ input earlier.  And then it also covers task 13.1.2 in that the obstacles raised can be sent through to the proper ICANN people to deal with them.

Dev:  The answer is “yes.”  The flowchart does apply to tasks 13.1 and 13.1.1, as well as to 8.1.1 and 8.3, etc.

Heidi:  Does the WT want Seth to continue the Simplified Outline to add perhaps a column indicating if a task is completed or the outcomes, etc.?

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

Heidi:  Finally, consumer outreach and Rec. 12 are connected to the AoC this year.  If we can show some positive movement on this front, it’d be of interest to ICANN to have it highlighted as early as Cartagena.

Dev:  Regarding consumer outreach, my initial thoughts are along the lines of questions such as “How is outreach achieved?” and “How many consumer organizations should we reach?”

Heidi:  We could suggest some new documents, such as the Beginners’ Guide to ICANN for Consumers mentioned last meeting.

Cheryl:  I suggest that 50% of the agenda for the next meeting be dedicated to the consumer recommendation (Rec. 12).  We just have to make sure that Beau can join us.

>>  AI:  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).

7.  Any other business - 5 min

No other business was introduced.

8.  Confirmation of next meeting:  Thu, 11 Nov 2010, 19:00 UTC - 5 min

The next meeting was confirmed for this day and time.

  • No labels