Participants: Beau Brendler, Evan Leibovitch, Gordon Chillcott, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Gareth Shearman, Avri Doria, Alan Greenberg, Allan Skuce
Apologies: Darlene Thompson, Seth Reisse
Staff: Seth Greene
Standing Issues
1. Roll Call (Staff, 5 min)
Agenda Items
2. Review of summary minutes and action items from 9 May 2011 – Beau (5 min)
None
Any other housekeeping? None
3. Discuss statement on pre-registration: Need additional feedback -- thanks to Wendy for the only comment so far
There was some consensus on the list to review with ICANN what happened 10 years ago with pre-registration. It can be used as a tool by registrars to capture market share. It would be nice to put this statement out while in Singapore. After that, it becomes less valuable.
Evan: It seems to also be a tool for registries to show a demand for TLD before they get it. That way they can point to the numbers to say “look how popular this is” or some such. We need to gauge the effect on end users. He doesn’t see it as harmful as long as those putting their name forward that it means absolutely nothing (there is no authorization by the seller to sell these). As long as there are sufficient “buyer beware” messages, this is not necessarily an evil thing.
Beau: United Domains has quite a bit of detail on its site as to what preregistration actually entails.
Alan: If we are going to issue a statement then we need to know exactly what we are concerned about it. Are we upset that it’s the registrar doing it and not the registry? Are we upset that its happening before the new gTLD process is launched? Some aspects of this are quite legitimate.
Beau: We need to keep this to matters in the public interest.
4. Budget for 2012 -- winners and nonstarters
The NARALO got $5,000 to do a survey of users in regards to ICANN policy and $1,000 to produce an outreach video. Any other requests that other or our regions put forward were rejected. Only general assemblies that were attached to an ICANN meeting were approved, in a limited manner.
Gareth: There is some money for some of the RALOs to send people to these GAs but none for us because the Toronto meeting happens in the 2012 fiscal year.
Beau: We will be able to save a lot of money for the Toronto meeting to be able to bring more people there. Evan is in Toronto and Beau can drive there.
Evan: We can apply for this funding in the 2012/13 FY. It is disappointing that Gareth put in a lot of work at completing the spreadsheet and requesting funds but it was largely ignored. It was a shame that we were not given an idea ahead of time the limited amount of funds available. What ICANN claims in its strategic plans and what it will actually fund are a symptom and not the cause of a core problem. This will be addressed in Singapore with ICANN senior staff.
Evan: There is an ExCom meeting to talk about the budget today. It is a briefing call.
5. Non-performing ALSes – Beau (15 min)
- ALS participation requirements (Beau)
- Restrictions on Chair and Secretariat re working for contracted parties (Alan)
We need to develop some kind of mechanism in order to deal with an ALS that no longer lives up to minimum performance standards. We do not want to alienate ALSs but we need to have some kind of measurement.
Alan: Last time that we talked about this NARALO does have a process by which we can disenfranchise an ALS. They stay on the books but do not affect our quorum. We also have an ALS removal procedure whereby we involve the ALAC.
Beau: EURALO has drafted a decertification procedure. They are looking at having an agreed upon procedure for all ALSs.
Olivier: EURALO’s proposal, which looks at three different types of ALSs: 1 – those that are still around but do not responds; 2 – those that no longer exist; 3 – those that respond but not enough – they miss a lot of votes.
Alan posted the requirements of ALS requirements. There is a list of requirements. Some are in the ALAC documents and some in the NARALO documents. Alan will do more research and post to the NARALO list.
See EURALO draft decertification procedure
See NARALO Rules of Procedure and other organizing documents.
6. Discussion of Singapore policy issues -- doesn't just have to be for discussion in Singapore but for help in building future policy agenda for NARALO this year
Beau: He would like to know where the RAA stands now and what the next phase will be. Others have raised logistical issues in regards to outreach. Any others?
Evan: There have been discussions, not of the topics but of the timing. There is now a new working group called “Future Challenges”. This group would like to work on things without waiting for the standard ICANN response cycle. They would like to inject things into the policy cycle without waiting for a public comment (when there might not be enough time). We have the ability, on paper, to initiate policy discussion but we have never done so, as a matter of course. There have been one-offs.
Beau: There is just such a huge number of items that the At-Large has to respond to that sometimes the really important things tend to get lost.
Evan: So far its Alan, Evan and Darlene on the list.
Avri: In regards to the RAA, there has been a problem with the Registrars saying that no matter what you think about the RAA is that it’s a bi-lateral agreement between registrars and ICANN. It is there stance that any further discussion about the RAA will take place totally in private without any observers or comment or anything.
Beau: We need to make a statement about that.
Alan: We already made a statement. The ALAC made a very strong statement to the board based on the AoC position that the community needs to be involved in things. We have not heard back from them. He doesn’t think it’s the GNSO’s job to say what the procedures should be but the board’s job. It is not in their list of things they have authority over but it is in the board’s.
Avri: She was just using the GNSO as a bit of history. It may not be their job but it is up to ALAC to give the board advice on this. Maybe one letter isn’t enough and we need more follow up.
Alan: Off the record, some of us are following up.
Evan: Every one needs to be aware that there is a massive power struggle going on right now between ICANN and government, especially the US government. The US government wants to propose changes to the current contract. The recent GAC comments to ICANN have now spoken up in this regard. Issues with lack of transparency, registrars putting themselves on both sides of the negotiating table, etc. ICANN needs to get its act together before governments around the world start to take this forward and making this into an international treaty issue. This has brought At Large to the forefront to be listened to more.
Beau: Maybe we should make some sort of dramatic NARALO press release on this. Something like “the NARALO is very concerned about this and want to bring attention to it…” Do we want to do this?
Evan: There are a couple ways to go on this. We could put an article into CircleID or try to get published in other ways. Should we do this?
Alan: He doesn’t know what the rules are as to a part of ICANN issuing a press release. It can be done individually but not as a group. Is there more to be lost or gained. There are potential plusses and minuses as to how we will be treated by the rest of ICANN.
Avri: She is almost always in favour of a process of escalation until a response is given. She is in favour of doing whatever is necessary until we are listened to until we get the attention that we need.
Olivier: Before putting out a press release, it should be put to ICANN policy staff. They will not tell us what to say. It should be put forward from At-Large. He is wary of putting forward something negative as we are starting to be listened to and we need to be careful what we say.
7. Any other business – Beau (5 min)
Mark Rottenberg has resigned his position as the NARALO nom-com.
Travel Allocation of Mark’s Funding: Evan suggested that Eric Brunner-Williams take his place in Singapore – JUST to use his travel funding. We are unable to bank Mark’s travel funding for the future as we are at the end of the fiscal year. Eric will be able to make it.
Permanent Allocation of Mark’s Position: Eduardo: NomCom 2010 needs to look at who will be replacing Mark’s actual position. There were other alternates and these are being looked at.
Olivier: The NomCom was notified immediately when Mark resigned. Oliver is not part of this decision. It is up to the NomCom.
Evan: The ExCom, Evan and Darlene were involved with picking the person to replace Mark in Singapore. He apologized for the lack of transparency but this had to be done so quickly (3 days) that more consulting could not be done.
The NomCom could not possibly find a permanent replacement for Mark prior to the Singapore meeting for that person to attend the Singapore meeting. It might be agreed during the Singapore meeting but not before.
Alan: Question – the by-laws state that it is the NomCom that must replace the resigned member. Is it the current NomCom or the prior one (which would have already been disbanded)?
Eduardo: The NomCom 2011 cannot decide on something that NomCom 2010 did.
Olivier: … was about to answer but got cut off
Evan reports that Heidi’s health is now good.
