WT D MINUTES:  03 FEBRUARY 2011

Participants: Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Rudi Vansnick, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Dave Kissoondoyal, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Chris Grundemann

Apologies:  None

Absent: Antonio Medina Gomez, Carlos Vera, Charles Mok, Hong Xue, Beau Brendler

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

STANDING AGENDA ITEMS

1.  Roll call – 5 min

2.  Review of AIs from 20 Jan 2011 meeting -- Dev, 10 min

   a)  Dev to discuss with Carlton (a) the work of the proposed cross-regional committee to determine policy issues warranting RALO comments and (b) the inclusion of this input into the new ALAC/At-Large PAD flowchart.

  • Status:  Completed.  Dev reports that Carlton is in full agreement.

    b)  WT D members to review New ALAC/At-Large PAD flowchart (Dec 2010)_ver 6 and WT D Simplified Improvements Outline and suggest updates for presentation to ALAC on 25 January.  (Any input from the ALAC to be discussed in 3 Feb meeting during AI review.)

  • Status:  There were no suggestions.  Note:  The 25 Jan ALAC presentations were canceled.

   c)  Heidi, along with Beau, to make the updating and consolidation of the consumer documents a priority (see WT D outline of consolidated consumer documents).

  • Status:  In progress.  See above link for work to date.

   d)  Rudi to check with the ccNSO PDP WG regarding whether (a) there is material WT D can review and (b) its PDP contains a means of considering ALAC input (see ccNSO IDN PDP at http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ipwg1.htm).

  • Status:  Report form IDN PDP is on the ccNSO Workspace, which the WT can discuss.

   e)  Dev, with Seth’s help, to reach out to Charles and Hong to get their suggested times for WT D calls.

  • Status:  Dev asked Seth to do this before next meeting.

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

3.  Deadlines and final reporting – Seth; 5 min

Seth informed WT D of the deadlines and final-reporting information being told to all WTs:

The only deadline important to the SIC and Board was for Recommendation 2 (the At-Large-selected Board member).  The deadline for all the other recommendations has been self-imposed as the end of March 2011.  There will probably be some but not a lot of leeway around that date.  Of course, it would be ideal if all the recommendations could be resolved by the ICANN San Francisco meeting, but it’s likely that some of the WTs are lagging behind that timeline.

We’re looking into the form of the final reporting that will need to be done.  The final reporting to the Board, of course, is the responsibility of the ALAC. 

There’s not much precedent for this final reporting.  We’re one of the first groups to go through the review and implementation cycle.  The original intent of project was that its final report would be a set of recommendations, predictions, and plans that will continue beyond the life of the Improvements project and WTs as continuous improvement.  Note that the actual work of the WTs and the WTs themselves will end – with a hard stop.

While the form of the final report of the Improvements project from the ALAC to the Board   does not have a precedent, the Improvements project’s previous project plan and status report were well received by the Board and SIC, so we could consider sticking to that format.  The format basically is a short report covering each of the 13 Improvements recommendations, with annexes containing any needed details.  But there will be some leeway, up to the ALAC and the WTs’ writers, regarding the form of this reporting.

Cheryl has said that the ALAC would likely appreciate a careful synopsis by each WT that could basically be dropped into its overall report on Improvements.  For some of this synopsis, the WTs could likely refer to their presentations prepared for Cartagena (and now to be delivered in the next ALAC meeting), with some updating added.

Dev has already begun putting together some notes in outline form regarding WT D’s final reporting; the link is on the process flowchart.

4.  Upcoming need to interact with the ALAC – Olivier or Cheryl; 5 min

Olivier and Cheryl informed WT D of the ALAC-interaction information being told to all WTs:

The final output of the WTs will be final proposals made to the ALAC and an accompanying final report.  For WT C, this refers to Recs. 5 and 6.  The work teams need to finalize their proposals and action plans regarding how to implement. 

The WTs will formally begin making their recommendations to the ALAC in San Francisco.  There will be 120 minutes in the ALAC and Regional Leadership Session on Sunday and another 45 minutes during the Wrap-Up on Thursday.  During Sunday, the WTs will here feedback from the RALO.  Likely the procedure will be:

  • The WTs each send their recommendations to the At-Large list before San Francisco so they can be prepared;
  • The WTs each limit their number of slides to three or perhaps one slide per recommendation.

The ALAC will make the final decisions about requesting budgeting for these proposals  based on how they fit into the ALAC and ICANN strategic plans.  So the WTs must translate their ideas into proposals for the ALAC; specifically, the WT needs to look at its proposals under development and decide which are mature enough to bring to the ALAC.

Furthermore, Olivier requested the WTs prioritize any proposals certainly that would need ICANN Bylaw changes and even those that would require RALO Bylaw changes to send to the ALAC as soon as possible.  Such changes take a long time.  Perhaps, if the WTs move quickly and prioritize this group of proposals, the ALAC could handle them in San Francisco.

Olivier also suggested that the WTs consider using the FY12 Budget request template as part of their proposals to the ALAC.  If the WT does not know the actual dollar amount that a proposal would cost, it should just leave that blank.  The ALAC or the Staff can often help with that.



5.  WT D’s consolidated consumer document – draft 2 – Heidi, 10 min

To create WT D’s new, consolidated consumer document, Heidi went through the available consumer documents and picked most useful passages.  

  • For example, the first paragraph was taken from Consumer Constituency document and edited.
  • Heidi did not use the Top Five Reasons to Join ICANN document, because she felt that its information was already covered in passages from other documents.
  • She did include the FAQ document, which she updated.

The document is not completed yet. 

  • The WT members are welcome to give input (see below).
  • Also, Heidi and Seth will contact Beau (not on today’s WT call) for his feedback.
  • Once WT D considers the document ready, we should post it on the Consumer Comments for feedback/comments.

WT D’s suggestions/edits re consumer document from meeting chat:

  • CLO: Yes  there needs to be a couple of edits  to the App 2 as suggested   some changes  to current  tense and details  of  NCSG  and NCUC  and  the GNSO  definition needs updating to show the 2 house structure leading to the other edits.

>>  AI:  Heidi to add WT D’s consumer document to the Consumer Commons for comments, once the WT considers it ready,

 

>>  AI:  Seth to contact Beau for feedback on consumer document.

Generally speaking, this new document would be used in various ways for outreach and engagement, including:

  • It should be put onto ICANN’s Web site.
  • Both hard copies and the PDF should be made available to the RALOs and ALSes for their own use as they wish in reaching out to consumer groups.
  • Perhaps we could work with Scott in Communications to make it a more effective, “fancier” document – perhaps it’s even worth making it one in the series of Beginners’ Guides.
  • Beau might find it useful to use in his efforts with his proposed Candidate Consumer Constituency. 

And, more specifically and immediately, this document:

  • Could help clarify questions being asked by consumer groups (for example, by many consumer groups in Egypt that were recently asking questions) – suggested by Rudi; and
  • People have a negative view of ICANN’s Web site, which can be utterly confusing.  But this document, once put on the site, would be an excellent step in the right direction – suggested by Olivier.

6.  Review of tasks under Rec. 8, 12, & 13 to determine any needed next steps – Dev, 15 min.

   a)  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

There are now two points in the flowchart at which the ALAC can request an extended public comment period.  It was discussed that some other points should be added.

  • One should be in the pre-notification phase.  There have been obvious instances in which, due to the complexity of the issue of the time of year, it’s known early that outreach will take longer than usual.  So the public comment period can even be started as 45 days, before the policy is even published.
    • This need shows the importance of the ALAC’s having formal liaisons to different WGs.
  • Another should be for extenuating circumstances, such as when the ALAC, etc. has no choice but to turn to a policy issue late in the process.  Perhaps, in such circumstances, less than a 15-day extension would be sufficient and possible to request.
    • So perhaps allow for request of a variable amount of time.  Granted, it could be difficult implement variable-length extensions of time (as well as to add to the flowchart).
  • Perhaps another point for an extension to consider is just after 23 days.

Question to consider:  Can a second extension of time be requested after one has already been granted?

>>  AI:  Dev to consider incorporating into main flowchart:  (a) additional points at which extensions can be requested (see details in 3 Feb meeting notes) and (b) a way of “extending an extension” (i.e., of requesting a second extension) with all information and reasons specified.

   b)  Task 8.3.1 (Review activities in advance of the beginning of the public comment period) and 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)

The WT discussed having a new cross-regional, cross-constituency ICANN committee that would actively monitor policy calendar in order to coordinate public comment periods, group related policies together, decide release dates, report back to SOs/ACs, etc.

  • This is integral to the ATRT’s recommendations regarding improved forecasting and planning of public comment periods.
  • However, this is beyond being driven solely by the ALAC.  Some people might oppose idea.
    • Perhaps committee should not be from community.  Perhaps should be from staff, or perhaps heads of SOs and ACs. 

>>  AI:  Dev to add to flowchart Before policy is available for comment:  An ICANN committee will actively monitor policy calendar in order to coordinate public comment periods, group related policies together, decide release dates, report back to SOs/ACs, etc.

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

No other business introduced.

8.   Confirmation of next meeting:  Wed, 17 Feb 2011, at 19:00 UTC --  Dev, 5 min

Next meeting was confirmed for this day and time.

The meeting was adjourned.


  • No labels