1/ Adoption of the 28 April 2009 Summary Minutes
S Bachollet had the last line under the ‘ratification of the ALAC Statement on the Report on Improving Institutional Confidence Plan’ moved under the ‘new gTLDs WG’ heading as it belonged to that part of the Summary Minutes.
A Peake commented that, for the sake of transparency and of easy understanding, the summary minutes should be longer than just two pages. N Ashton-Hart explained that producing even more detailed minutes was not At-Large staff’s intention. Staff was currently in the process of hiring new transcribers and, in future, they would soon be full transcripts of the meetings available within 48 hours after each meeting. As a complimentary tool to these, there will be more extensive action items but no more summary minutes.
Adam and Cheryl reminded that it was important to have substantial records of the meetings for the sake of transparency and accountability so that the community, and not only the ALAC members, could have greater detail in the discussion aspects and not just the outcome aspects. Adam further added that his main preoccupation was for ease of understanding but if transcripts could be more easily available then that should not be a problem.
2/ Review of the 28 April 2009 Action Items
H Ullrich signaled the wiki page that indicates which people are responsible for which responsibility and also the status of each of the issues that ALAC is working on: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rJKtp8gl3W5-ZcY_xMpPg5w
H Ullrich will send again the link of the Policy Advice Development to the At-Large public list. That wiki page will be examined by Cheryl in Sydney and staff is currently developing a similar officer’s page for each RALO. Besides, At-Large staff is also developing an A4 form template destined to the ALSes. Each ALS will have to complete online the form with their information regarding their ALSes’ government structures, membership, communication tools, subscription details, policy interests, the meetings they attend and how often they have meetings with their members. The At-Large staff will store the returned information in the ALSes tags on their RALO’s Google maps.
3/ Review of current status of ALS applications (Google Docs account needed to access)
H Ullrich informed that NARALO had ICANN send Papergate an e-mail asking for more information. As there followed no reaction to it from Papergate, NARALO advice to ALAC is to reject the application.
The EURALO advice regarding the pending applications for Asociacion Usuarios de Internet de España and E-Seniors.be is to accept both applications.
An online vote on the three ALS Applications ready for the decision by the ALAC will be set up and running until 03 June at 2359 UTC. The vote will be on accepting the regional advice to approve the EURALO ALSes and to accept the NARALO regional advice to reject Papergate as an ALS.
4/ ALAC Voting Process and Secrecy’
Click here to see Alan's original proposals from April 28th.
Should transparency be ongoing or appear just at the end of the vote?
A Peake objected to the suggestion that, as the vote is proceeding, everybody should be able to see how each person has voted. He argues that, contrary to the vote by show of hands in a in a face-to-face vote, the voters don’t vote all at the same time in an online vote and consequently, the voters might be swayed by how they saw the majority voting. Besides, ongoing transparency opens some risks for influence and lobbying the voters in cases of a close interim vote outcome.
A new proposal was based on A Greenberg’s original one but having the line: ‘as the vote is proceeding, we can see how each person has voted’ deleted and the line ‘Full transparency of how members voted is available at the conclusion of the vote’ replaced by ‘at the end of the vote, we can see how each person has voted’
Alac was asked to vote on the two proposals:
a) the original proposal from A Greenberg qualified by him as a ‘complete transparency’
C Aguirre, S Bachollet, J Salgueiro and A Peake were not supportive of it.
b) Ask A Greenberg whether he would accept a friendly amendment.
S Bachollet suggested voting on the friendly amendment first and then, if the amendment was accepted, including it in the final draft for a second vote. In case the amendment was not accepted, the next vote would be on A Greenberg’s original proposal.
C Aguirre moved for the vote to be delayed until it is further discussed. The chair reminded that ALAC had had a month already to discuss that matter online. Eventually, C Aguirre’s move was put to vote. Given that the number of votes in favor and the number of those against a postponement were very close - a six to five vote in favor of running the vote – it was decided that the should be postponed until Sydney.
(Votes against delaying it: G Shearman, A Greenberg, T Hue; votes in favor of an adjournment: P Vande Walle, C Aguirre, V Vivekandan, J Ovidio Salgueiro, H Diakite, A Peake, C Langdon-Orr, Abstaining: S Bachollet)
As a result, Alan, Adam and Sebastien will redraft a proposal that will integrate the different points of view to allow the people to fully understand the different options before the Sydney discussion and vote. The draft will introduce the matter for a 12 minutes debate in the Sydney meeting.
5/ Supplementary Statement On the PSC's most recent draft. https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?wg_response_to_psc_report
That supplementary statement was sent to the ALAC internal list on May 11th by Sebastien Bachollet, Chair of the Working Group on the Future Structure and Governance of ICANN. It can be reviewed under: https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?psc_report_supplementary_statement.
The public comment period on the draft from the PSC closed on 11 May. S Bachollet thinks that it is too late to send the supplementary comment to the ICANN Board or to the PSC list. He was surprised to note the lack of feedbacks on the supplementary statement on the ALAC internal list. In theory, it is better to ask for At-Large comments, but in practical terms, this supplementary statement may receive even fewer feedbacks from them.
Therefore, Sebastien prefers to ask directly for a vote of the ALAC and have some accompanying note explain to the community that the statement is just a compilation of what was already discussed in the WG during the summit and of different exchanges held with WG4 and WG5. The supplementary comment follows the organization of the PSC document and the numbering of the comments corresponds to the paragraph numbering (and text) of section 5 – Findings and Recommendations – of the Draft Implementation Plan document and, more specifically, the – Detailed Proposals to Address the Key Areas – discussion within section 5 of that document.
C Aguirre seconded S Bachollet’s suggestion to have ALAC vote directly on the statement rather than have it sent to the full At-Large public commentary and ALAC agreed to that decision. Consequently, there will be an ALAC vote running for fives days between the 27 May and 4 June. ALAC members are advised to resort to Google translation tool as the translations will not be available in time for the vote. The document will eventually be translated into all ALAC’s languages but not in time for the ALAC vote.
6/ Sydney Meeting plans including schedule and topics for Agenda(s)
H Ulrich said it was an initiative of At-Large in order to be transparent and bottom-up. ALAC members have posting rights and can thus post there their suggestions for the various meetings of At-Large by the 5 June. There are already some suggestions and they have been translated in all three languages.
Members submitting topics for the agenda should think about which documents they would like to be available by the meeting and whether they need translations. This information must reach At-large staff by 29 May. In case they plan to prepare a presentation, they should send it to At-Large staff by 5 June. The topics for the briefings sessions need to be identified so as to advise in time the staff people that are needed for them.
H Ullrich pointed out to the point ‘2’: review of Sydney schedule and, more particularly, the non At-Large issues and ALSes, saying that it was important to allocate the people to cover the non At-Large meetings.
Peter Dengate Thrush and Paul Towney must still confirm their presence for the ALAC and Board members to the ALAC and Board members breakfast.
S Bachollet asked whether ALAC needed to ask the liaisons where they wanted to participate.
A Peake would like ALAC to think of a way to persuade ICANN that they should have the Seoul meeting somewhat oriented towards the interests of the consumer organizations. He suggested that this could be a topic for the Board meeting. He suggested preparing the Board members first so that they could have a discussion on the Board list about that topic and take the input from At-Large back to the ICANN Board. C Langdon-Orr pointed out that she did not want the community to run the risk of being accused of not going on with policy development and meaningful work. It was suggested to use the Breakfast scenario for raising that type of issue with the Board members.
7/ Current subjects open for Public Comment
7/1 Plan for Enhanced Internet Security, Stability and Resiliency (SSR) (ends 28 June 09)
Patrick said he has not heard much from At-Large regarding this report and he is not sure that they will be able to comment the final report before the 19 June. Cheryl suggested they could always reiterate the matters that they raised in the now endorsed aspects of summit declaration from the WG.
The Staff will organize will be a briefing within the next 10 days.
Patrick commented that there were already some studies being done, not directly from an ICANN perspective, but several root servers operators said already that they tried to simulate what would happen in the case of the root zone growing up to 10 000 gTLD and that does not seem to be an issue now.
7/2 Draft FY10 Operating Plan and Budget (ends 17 June)
ALAC will make a declaration on that draft.
7/3 Other currently open public comment periods:
Plan for Enhanced Internet Security, Stability and Resiliency --> (ends 19 June 09)
Single, Two and Select Three Character Names in Dot-pro (ends 5 June 09)
Revised Conflicts of Interest Policy (ends 5 June 09)
Proposed Registrar Disqualification Procedure (ends 28 May 09)
These issues will be taken to the list to decide on what else ALAC will study further.
8/ Review of the At-Large Policy Advice Development Schedule to ensure that it captures all relevant work going on and to set any deadlines required.
The public consultation on the SSAC final should be added to the At-Large to-do tasks.
The IRT WG is about to issue its final report and there will be a public consultation on it. Patrick will write a new draft statement on the final IRT draft, since he wrote the first one and a teleconference will be arranged within the next ten days to allow these people to have the time to read the document and participate in the discussion.
9/ At Large Officers and Working Group Leaders - follow up on action item from last month ( to include other web & wiki page changes discussion) and planning for a meeting with WG leads/co-ordinators.
S Bachollet raised two issues:
1/ for the At-Large IRT process, the list of the people does not seem to be complete. At least two people (Irina from ISOC France and Patrick Vande Walle) are not listed.
2/ Future structure and governance of ICANN: Seth should be added as being the rapporteur of this WG.
Staff needs to organize a meeting between the WG leaders and At-Large, if possible before Sydney
