GNSO ALAC Meeting
(Held June 23, 2008)
Legend
Name: First name of member of group
Name L: First name plus first initial of last name if there's more than one person with the same first name.
Name?: If we think we might know who's speaking but aren't 100% sure.
Male: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a male.
Female: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a female.
Name: 52 - 0.31.06 We will identify a foreign language in square brackets with a time code for the beginning and end, so that you can quickly identify those passages. At the top of the transcript, we will advise you of the name(s) of the foreign languages you'll need to search for. For example, some transcripts may contain German, so you'll have to search for "GermanFrench" to find all the passages. The speaker identification is the same convention as all the others. i.e. If we know the speaker's name we'll include it, otherwise we'll put a question mark after it, or if we can't even guess, then Male, Female or SP.
O Operator.
XX joined If the phone system has announced that a particular person has just joined the group it will be shown in square brackets at the left margin.
Translator: If translator actually translates French or German for a participant we will note it as "Translator". It will normally be evident from the dialogue who the translator is translating for. If not, we will include a note in square brackets with respect to who they are translating for.
cuts out: Audio cuts out for less than 2 seconds. We may have missed something. We do not put this if it's just natural silence where no-one is speaking. We only put this if we can hear that there was briefly a technical problem with the phone line and/or the recording which resulted in temporary loss of sound.
cuts out 2 secs When the audio cuts out for 2 seconds or more we'll show approximately how many seconds were missed. We will most likely have missed something if it cuts out for this long.
[-ation If we believe that all we missed was the beginning of a word because the audio cuts out, we will just put the end of the word that we can hear. If we are very sure from context what the whole word is, we'll just put the whole word, to make it easier for the reader. However, if the word could be a variety of different things, then we will show only the part of the word we could hear or thought we heard.
[very faint - barely audible We will put this at the beginning of paragraphs where we are having a very difficult time hearing.
********************************************************************************************************
List of Participants
Important Note. Please note that this should not be considered to be an "official" list of the attendees. This is just a list of the participants that we were able to identify during the transcription. There may have been others present that didn't speak and some people may have participated that were not on the official list of attendees published on the Internet.
Reveri Kanuben
Alan last name unknown – acted as lead or meeting interface
Alan Greenberg
Avri Doria
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Chuck Gomes
Edmond Chong
Evan Leibovitch
Fatimata Seye Sylla
Frederic Teboul
Greg Ruth
Izumi Aizu
J. Scott Evans
Jacqueline Morris
Jeff Neuman
Jon Bing
Jordi Iparraguirre
Kristina Rosette
Liz Gasster
Marilyn Cade
Michael Conner
Mike Rodenbaugh
Nick Ashton-Hart
Olga Cavalli
Olof Nordling
Patrick Vande Walle
Philip Corwin
Philip Sheppard
Robert Guerra
Rudi Vansnick
Sébastien Bachollet
Tim Ruiz
Tony Holmes
Ute Decker
Vanda Scartezini
********************************************************************************************************
Cheryl: I’m going to start at least the meeting – even though it’s housekeeping right now – on time, and I think we’ll all appreciate it if it finishes on time as well. One or two points… we are going to need to get more chairs in. So, some people when they wish to speak, because this is recorded and is being transcribed for the public record, the mp3 will be made available. Please just come forward from the seats and use the microphone at the table. We need to also be aware that we have dial-in participants. Assuming that the technologists behind me can make that magic happen, we should have dial-in participants.
We are running this morning’s meeting with simultaneous translations, English, French, and Spanish. So, unless you are multilingual and can understand English, French, and Spanish, you will need to have one of these things hanging around your neck. The channel number one will be for French language. Channel number two is English language. Channel number three is Spanish. Our online and remote participants are also having simultaneous live translation. ALAC does have its monthly meetings with simultaneous live translation, and it has one or two benefits, but one or two problems. The problems include the translator’s voice is what is being heard by the remote participant. So, whilst you all know these happen to be my dulcet tones and you’d probably recognize Cheryl speaking, if 46 starts speaking, you will probably recognize Balal speaking. Going through an interpreter for a remote participant, if you can remember to say, “Alan speaking”, “Avri speaking”, “Balal speaking.” If not, then the Chair, which won’t be me for this meeting, will probably say, “Thank you, Sébastien”, “Thank you, Alan”, so we have a frame of reference. chuckles I’ll write Alan notes, if he doesn’t recognize them.
Now, the other thing, if we can just roll up on screen perhaps, Nick? You’ll see in the agendas, which you probably have on your laptops in front of you, the Adobe connect link. Anyone here is encouraged to click that link, and you’ll also have a stand alone window, where remote participants can question, chat. They will be shown what’s going on in the room. You can, in fact, use this as a polling tool and do all sorts of wonderful things. Testing… I think we were voting did we want ice cream at the meeting, but… that allows people to remotely participate. Please put your own or some meaningful nomenclature for your name in if you login to the Adobe connect room. “Guest user number 37” doesn’t really help any of us know who it is that’s speaking. Nick, is there any logistics that I’ve missed out on there?
Nick: No.
Cheryl: Good. Just to give you an idea of why I am now going to be quiet and become a participant is that the ALAC appoints liaisons, as you well know, and Alan is the liaison to your constituency. Therefore, it’s our opinion that Alan is the lead. He is the interface during the meetings, and he will be the interface during this meeting. Avri, obviously if you want to co-Chair with Alan, you two can fight that out, but I’m certainly stepping back. I look forward to, I think, interesting first steps on communication and working together. Thank you all.
Alan: Does this work? It does. I would suggest we start off by going around the room, so each group has at least a half chance of remembering or knowing who the other people are. Let’s start at John perhaps. Just your name and affiliated… you know, why you’re on whatever committee, organization.
Jon: Hello. My name is Jon Bing. I’m a NomCom appointee to the GNSO Council.
Olof: I am Olof Nordling, ICANN staff.
Patrick: inaudible – mic off
Alan: Your microphone wasn’t working.
Patrick: Okay, sorry. Patrick Vande Walle from ISOC sitting here as representative of ISOC Luxembourg which is 01.
J. Scott: I am J. Scott Evans from Yahoo, and I’m a member of the Intellectual Property Constituency and Business Constituency.
Philip S: Philip Sheppard, GNSO Council, Business Constituency.
Kristina: Kristina Rosette, Intellectual Property Constituency and GNSO Council.
Ute: My name is Ute Decker. I’m on the GNSO Council for the Intellectual Property Constituency.
Olga: My name is Olga Cavalli and I’m a GNSO Council member and a NomCom appointee.
Avri: My name is Avri Doria. I’m on the GNSO Council, also a non-com appointee.
Liz: Liz Gasster, ICANN staff.
Marilyn: My name is Marilyn Cade. I’m a member of the broader business user community, and I’m on the ICANN President’s Strategy Committee.
Alan: Alan Greenberg, a NomCom appointee from North America to the ALAC and GNSO liaison.
Cheryl: Cheryl Langdon-Orr and I come from the ISOC 10 ALS, and I am the APRALO appointee to the ALAC.
Nick: Nick Ashton-Hart, ICANN staff.
Frederic: Frederic Teboul, ICANN staff.
Chuck: Chuck Gomes, gTLD Registry Constituency on the Council.
Rudi: Rudi Vansnick, ISOC Belgium and sitting on the Board of EURALO.
Jordi: Jordi Iparraguirre, Registry Constituency GNSO.
Mike: Mike Rodenbaugh, GNSO Council representing a business constituency.
Greg: Greg Ruth, ISPCP Constituency, GNSO Council.
Tony: Tony Holmes, ISP Constituency and GNSO Council.
Reveri: 03, ISP Constituency.
Evan: Evan Leibovitch, Chair of the North American Region At-Large Organization.
Philip C: Philip Corwin, Council to Internet Commerce Association. A member of the Business Constituency.
Alan: If I may interrupt. There were some microphones, some roving microphones they were trying to get working. Have they got them working?
Cheryl: In progress. Go ahead.
Male: We’ve got one.
Michael: I’m Michael Conner. I’m part of the Business Constituency. This is my wife, Marcy.
dead air 20 sec
Cheryl: If I may, because I can. What I suggest is anyone who hasn’t had the opportunity to introduce themselves, even though you might think we recognize you, if you would like to come forward now, 12 one of the mics. If you don’t wish to come up to the table, then please if you speak, remember to introduce yourself when you take the floor.
Tim: Tim Ruiz, GNSO Council, Registrar’s Constituency.
Jeff: Jeff Neuman with the gTLD Registries Constituency.
Robert: Good morning, everyone. My name is Robert Guerra. I’m representing the ALS Privaterra, and am on the ALAC representing North America, and am also ALAC’s liaison to the 51. Thank you.
Edmond: Edmond Chong, gTLD Registry Constituency cut off.
Vanda: Hello. Good morning. Vanda Scartezini from South America and Caribbean area in ALAC.
Cheryl: And our esteemed past Chair 13 Sébastien who has yet to introduce himself.
Male: inaudible name Registrar Constituency.
Alan: Okay, we’ll go on to the agenda. I hope we’ll have enough time if other people want to add things ad lib as we get to the end, but first let’s go through the scheduled items. The first one is entitled 42. The ALAC… mic feedback problems – 15 sec
Cheryl: Just while there’s a lull and our ears are starting to recover, we have another person who wishes to introduce herself, and 09 if you come and do the same please.
Translator: Good morning, I’m Fatimata Seye Sylla. I’m from Senegal ALAC.
French for a few seconds
Female: 29 I’m the ALAC liaison to the inaudible.
Alan: Are we working again? Okay. I’ll take that as a cheer for my chairmanship. The first item is public comment period length. The ALAC is charged with representing to ICANN and the ICANN Board the views and needs of about one billion Internet users – a somewhat daunting responsibility. The methodology or organization that is being used at the moment to do this is… you got some of this during the introductions. The ALAC is composed of representatives from the five ICANN regions, three from each region. Two are selected by the region itself and one by the NomCom. The regional organizations are called Regional At-Large Organizations – RALOs – and they’re composed of ALSes, a somewhat awkward name At-Large Structure. Not quite sure how someone decided that a bunch of people should be a structure, but nevertheless.
Not only do we have several levels of hierarchy from the ALAC to the RALO to the ALSes, who indeed have real members, but we also… the ALSes typically operate in whatever the correct language is for their own region. The ALSes are made up, in theory, of users who are not particularly familiar with the arcane issues that we are discussing and certainly not with the buzz words. So, we have three levels of complexity. Number one, the number of levels in the hierarchy. Second of all is the multiple languages we tend to use, and third, somehow presenting the issues that are important and that we need feedback from users on in terms that they can actually understand, at least the more technically advanced of them. To be quite candid, we’re having an awful lot of trouble trying to get questions down and answers back and formulate them in acceptable ways, and then get them approved formally by the ALAC in thirty days. It’s close to impossible. It strikes us that although the levels of hierarchy and other complexities are not necessarily there within constituencies, I suspect some of the same problems exist. And I think we’d like to hear a little bit about how the various GNSO constituencies manage to meet the deadlines, and thoughts on what we might do to get closer to meeting the deadline, and in parallel with that, are there going to be opportunities for increasing the various deadlines for various issues. Currently they range from… you know, if you look at the current travel procedures that were put up, there was a twenty day deadline. You know, often it’s more than thirty, but what should we do? What do you do? Phillip?
Philip S: I think you raise a very good point. I mean, even if it’s an issue that we know has been coming up and you have been following, typically you are presented with, you know, the last wording, the last text on that. So, the final text needs to be 08 fresh anyway. Now, our system would be typically to appoint a 12 or volunteer from the group to act as drafts person and to put out the first draft of our opinion. By the time you’ve had thinking time, you’ve had potential absences, etc., you can easily eat up 2 weeks to 15 days of that 30-day consultation period, before you’ve actually got something up for consultation. Now, our own internal rules for most policy development are premised on the fastest track possible being a 14-day common period. So, be coming right up against, you know, that limit to even comply with our own internal rules, and that 14-day period sort of presumes we’re acting as – in consensus anyway – that if you’re putting something out there, you’re going to get some useful comments back to improve the text, but it’s not going to be a major controversial item. If it is, then, you know, 14 days doesn’t work and we have to extend that, and, therefore, we’ll be out of time. So, I think we share precisely the same constraints that you’re discussing.
Alan: And of course, with fewer levels of hierarchy. Anyone else? Chuck first because he has his microphone, and then Tim.
Chuck: Just a clarifying question, I guess, because there’s a couple places where, you know, the comment period comes into play. One would be in the policy work that the GNSO does, and, of course, you know the whole PDP process is going to be coming under review as part of the GNSO improvements. So, we could certainly look at it there. The other area would be and another post from ICANN might be post of amendments to registry agreements or whatever it is, and those I think are in the bylaws. So, are we looking primarily for what we can do as we redefine the PDP process, or are you also looking for support from the GNSO in perhaps changing the bylaws for the other comment periods?
Alan: I’ll give a quick answer. I don’t want to be the only one to talk on behalf of ALAC.
Cheryl: You won’t be. laughter
Alan: We have a real problem. I mean all of us have a real problem. We’re all actively criticized and validly so for processes taking so long at ICANN, and saying we want every 30-day period to be 60 days isn’t going to make that a lot better. I think indeed we’d like to see elongation of the period, where it’s truly something that needs to be commented on in our case by the people representing real users. Many of the items that we’re talking about are not going to be in that category. But I think we’re looking for flexibility and support where it’s necessary, and I don’t know what that is right now, because it comes right up against 19 procedures which are already too long.
Tim: With regards to… before I share my comment, Alan, one response there. It would be really important early in processes for you to identify important ALAC issues, so that we don’t find that out at the end. So, just as a suggestion in that regard.
In the Registry Constituency, our articles of operation require the representatives on the Council to represent views of the whole constituency. That often creates problems, because you’ve got to make sure you have that feedback. One of the things that has helped us early in a policy development process once we have the issues, papers, and so forth, is to develop a statement. When we develop our statement of… the constituency statement and get support for that, if it contains certain principles, that allows us to then respond more quickly in terms of what’s happening. With a base set of principles, we’re able to then react from those principles and respond more timely. So, early in the process and as it’s ongoing. Now, I think it’s really important that none of us – regardless of what organization we’re in – wait until the comment period to be involved. It’s really critical to have that ongoing exchange of information throughout the process, so that it’s not a new document… first time you’ve seen it, first time you’ve discussed the issue. Now, we know some people will always be in that category, but the more we can do to have that ongoing line of communication, the better.
Avri: Just briefly, obviously I can’t speak for a constituency. I think what Tim brought up really brings up the two different cases, because in one case when it’s an ICANN policy that we’re all getting 21 days to review, we’ve really had no advanced notice. We haven’t had a liaison within the staff that’s being following it and reporting to us on, “You know what they just did that you’re not going to like.” or “You know what they did that you’re going to like.” So, there hasn’t been that year or two of being able to follow it, participate. You know, for example, we had working with the 55 on something and we’ve had a liaison in that process who, as part of every one of our meetings, has reported, and how every part of one of our meetings we’ve given feedback on… and so at the end, the comment… it’s still a narrow period. So, as Philip was saying, to actually put together something… but at least, as Chuck was saying, you’re not reading it for the first time. You’ve already got well formed views, so your 25 reporter or whoever is writing it already has an idea of what to put down on the piece of paper for the people to start commenting on and changing.
Alan: Thank you, Avri. I’ll just remind people to start with your name for the translators.
Jacqueline: This is Jacqueline. One of the things that we’ve noticed in Latin America and the Caribbean is that it doesn’t really matter when the comment period starts or how long it is, because the translated documents will only come out like two weeks or a week before the end of the comment period. So, we don’t have a chance actually to read the document. I mean, it would be lovely if we could start discussing it during the process. So, if the documents would start coming out from the beginning of the process in multiple languages, then we could discuss them from early on. If we wait… most times the translation comes… at the end of entire process we get a translation, and that translation… they start doing the translation, I believe, when the comment period starts. So, we get it a couple of weeks later. So, no matter… if you do it 90 days, it’s still going to be shorter for us.
Alan: It’s translating into that Caribbean dialect that you’re using that’s the hard part. laughter in the room J. Scott?
J. Scott: One of the things that we’ve done in the IPC historically is because we have international members, we have not always relied on ICANN staff to provide that kind of thing. What we’ve done is we’ve reached out to the expertise within our own membership and said, “This is a document. Can you have someone in your organization translate this and send it around by email to those that speak in that particular language group.” So reaching out that way. Another thing that we’ve always done is – like everyone has said – is we try to keep everyone advised through email of sort of what’s going on, so we sort of know the temperature of our membership, so that the call when we begin drafting anything is really sort of an executive summary call, because everyone is pretty well positioned on how they feel about things. Then we begin again… we do… we’ve always asked for volunteers that find particular subjects to be something that they are extremely interested in, because interest always has fervour that builds people who will deliver products on time or positions on time. So, those are the things we’ve done, because I think we have 7,000 members at INTA, International Trademark Association, that we have to try to inform. So, we’ve reached out to others in our group to say, you know, you speak this particular dialect, especially in Asia where it’s very difficult and very expensive in the United States to have translated into Mandarin or Cantonese. So, those are the things we’ve done is to try reach in and get volunteer pools. They may not necessarily be involved in the policy aspects, but they are involved in helping us and giving their time by translations.
Alan: Thank you. Our next topic is going to be cooperation. Maybe we could work together and use some of your translations. laughter Patrick.
Patrick: Well, an additional issue we have in the At-Large and especially in the At-Large structure is that we have to collect the position or at least we have to know what our end users think. It’s not only a question of translating an ICANN document, translating the language into another language. It’s also an issue of explaining what all that means. Try writing “DNSSEC For Dummies” and it’s a real challenge.
Alan: Sébastien.
Translator: Good morning. The possibility we have of using the simultaneous interpretation represents a good deal of progress for ICANN. My name is Sébastien Bachollet. I am Chairman of the French Internet Society group, and I would like on behalf of the organizers to welcome you to France and to Paris. I hope that in meetings of all the GNSO Constituency and the GNSO, as well as all of the ALAC meetings, will be useful and will help us make headway in defending the needs of all our members. When it comes to translation, it’s clear that if we don’t have a comprehensive document in English – one that everyone can understand, not just the specialists that many of us are – it will be very difficult for us to have comprehensible text in the other languages. Translation is always complicated. It’s not just a tool, it’s something that transmits ideas. For instance, on a document I saw yesterday where we speak of summit in English, we use the word “summit”, while in French it was sommet or congres. But those two words don’t mean the same thing at all. So, we have real problems understanding the translations. That’s why I’m fiercely in favour of having an abstract of the documents in an English that can be understood by all, and that can all the easier be translated.
Alan: Anyone else?
Cheryl: One of the things… trust me, I don’t think I need to be that close to the microphone. I’m turning it down.
Alan: And who are you?
Cheryl: Cheryl Langdon-Orr here and speaking very much from an ALS perspective right now. One of the things we find challenging from the Internet Society of Australia’s perspective is that our DNS interests are actually a very small part of our volunteer life. We are being called upon to do so much for so many by so few, and it’s a matter of time management that is also the problem. Definitely, I mean I hear… and as you know, we well and truly agree on the need for clear simple language to be used. That’s the first thing that can probably be developed well in advance of a final document. The abstract that Sébastien was just referring to needs to be in clear simple language. We also need to recognize that particularly for ICANN for some reason, you seem to find there’s a cluster of demands. It’s not just can we have a 34 of something, it’s, “Oh, dear. There’s a meeting in two months’ time. Everything has to happen.” And yet strangely enough, it tends to coordinate with other things like end of financial years for not-for-profit organizations who need their audits done, and governments changing and doing budgets for Gee the next financial year. So, I think we need to look at how we can be participants in a process, where… yes, we’re bringing everybody up to speed along the line, but there needs to be predictability. What are we going to be asked for in 6 or 12 months’ time? I tire – and I suspect some of the rest of you may – of living in a totally reactive world. I would like some prior planning to make better performance, and I’d really like to share some of the ways that perhaps working together we could do that.
J. Scott: This is J. Scott Evans. The point about the calendar and how things fall in clusters… if you are perceiving that that is a problem in your organization, I strongly suggest that you go to 44 as they’re looking at where and how they’re going to meetings in the future. They’re taking a look at that. If that seems to happen, maybe moving the meetings from the particular time of year – not just where – would be a way to assist you all, and that is something that needs to be looked at. Maybe you need to look at how it’s affected you calendar-wise and then go to them with some suggestions of maybe pushing it earlier or later, so there’s not as many conflicts.
Izumi: Thank you. My name is Izumi Aizu from 19 or Asia Pacific. Somebody already said, but in Asia Pacific there are… I don’t know how many languages we have, and it’s more than half of the population of the world, and we have three members from 35 that we represent At-Large or ALAC. We have so many suits of different kinds, regional GNSOs or ICANN inaudible, where most of the ALAC members do not have any special sort of expertise in one of these areas, namely DNS or others. For the Japanese, we gave up very early days about translation. We mostly try to just read English. We don’t have the luxury of French or Spanish people we can ask, you know, the translation to ICANN. We would like to rather see – as somebody already said – a very simple language or a simple summary of the policies and processes, but mostly some of the contentious areas inaudible leaving the micro details, right? So, there was there, so it’s very difficult to summarize this and then still be relevant too. I’m not really asking somebody else, but that’s our task and we do not have any immediate answer, but I think it will help understand each other, and those who have sometimes translation and then – as Jacqueline said – two weeks last time. We have some advantage not having translation so that we can go directly into inaudible in the first place in foreign language. I think ALAC or At-Large will have to really inaudible ourselves to perhaps a little more specialized ways those certain people will focus on… which naturally actually happens. Some of the liaisons are focusing on some issues and then, you know, summarize that to the other more general interests inaudible otherwise I don’t think we can really deal with this. Thank you.
Philip C: Philip Corwin. Might I just raise the question since this problem of 24 responding, and translation seems to be a serious issue… why is the comment period generally only thirty days? I know that when I’m dealing with my clients with the U.S. government and there’s a comment period for proposed regulation, the minimum period for comment is 60 days and often it’s 90 to 120 days. I know just for our association we fully understand English, but to get a consensus among our members and then draft a proposed letter and get that approved within thirty days is quite difficult. I know people with our corporation have the same issue. Another issue along the same lines… why is it that on many of these complex issues that we discuss at these ICANN meetings, we’re inundated with final papers in the week before the meeting? And isn’t there a way for ICANN staff to get those things out a few weeks earlier, so people have time to read them and discuss them and think about them before they get here, rather than trying to digest it all on the plane ride?
background applause
Alan: I don’t see any ICANN staff applauding. laughter
Avri: This is Avri again. While it’s easy to agree and applaud with that, it just seems to be – and in any organization I’ve ever being involved with – that the schedules of meetings and the requirements of deadlines for meetings are the forcing functions for getting everything done in a world where there’s an infinite number of things for people to do. So, while one can set earlier deadlines and have those perhaps met, it never seems to work out that way. And I don’t want to be, you know, terribly pessimistic about it at all, but in every organization I’ve ever being involved with we’ve had this, “But the documents only come out two weeks before. How do we read them all?” And no matter what we do… even when we change deadlines, but then people know that those deadlines are really grey, because really, you know, people will read it if it comes out later. So, it’s… I mean, I understand the problem and I have the same problems. I just don’t know… it’s kind of like going against physics.
Alan: Thank you. Marilyn next.
Marilyn: My name’s Marilyn Cade. I have a practical suggestion to make about this. If there is, in fact, agreement about the points that you are making, there is a session on Monday to discuss the operational plan. I’ve gone in depth through the operational plan in the budget, and, you know, it never hurts to have unified supporting comments for focus on a particular area. Clearly, although there is a budget that specifically addresses the issues of translation, etc., perhaps if you agree in today’s meeting, that would be an area to focus on and reinforce. And go to the meeting.
Alan: Thank you. Sébastien.
Translator: Sébastien. Just to comment on what Avri just brought up… we should certainly not move to two meetings a year, otherwise the time frames will be even longer to deal with all of the issues that come before us.
Alan: Thank you. Kristina.
Kristina: I would actually respectfully disagree with Avri’s position. I do think it is possible to structure an organization in such a way so that there are, in fact, very hard and fast deadlines, by which papers must be submitted and meetings must be planned. Just to give you an example, I – in addition to representing the IPC ¬– I also chair one of the subcommittees on the International Trademark Association Internet Committee, and as a general matter for any meeting that INTA is planning, papers must be submitted in final form six months ahead of time. And if you do not submit your paper, you do not participate. Perhaps that may be a model that we need to be moving towards, that there must be either a placeholder on the meeting agenda by a particular date with the final paper coming from staff or whatever the organization is by a final date, and if it does not happen, it just simply will not be discussed at that meeting. Because 30 is absolutely right. It’s absolutely ridiculous that as volunteers, all of us… that in the last two weeks before a meeting where – I can’t speak for everyone obviously – but I personally am working like a maniac to get all of my paying work done, so that I can come here and volunteer. To add, you know, thousands of pages of documents on top of that is frankly unreasonable, unrealistic, and I have yet to see how it contributes to good policy development.
scattered applause in the room
Alan: chuckles Thank you. We’re going to have to wrap up this topic soon. So, I’ve got another two speakers on the list. If there’s anyone else, put up your hand quickly. Otherwise, we’ll wrap this up after that. Next, I have Philip.
Philip S: Thank you. Philip Sheppard. I do find it strange to say that it is impossible to do good planning in terms of process. I work for a trade association. We’re multicultural and multilingual. We have two board and general assembly meetings a year. I start to plan the agenda of the next board and general assembly meeting in the week after the one that’s just finished. We take the output from that, we think it through, and we make a planning process so everybody’s clear as to what is going to be happening in that process. It is all quite terribly easy to do. It’s just a question of good management and good structure and hierarchy and planning. It can be done. I also think that, in general, we’ve had the whole philosophy of what these physical meetings are about. There is for some bizarre reason a desire to have these as where decisions are made, when there’s absolutely no need for that. In fact, decisions are made by decision making bodies, which meet all the time, can meet by telephone. The actual decision in terms of, “Yes, we go for this.” can be made quite happily by telephone conference meetings when you did. The advantage of meeting like this when you’ve got everybody here is not the end of the process, it’s the beginning of the process, where we say, “Here’s a new idea. What does the community think?” Give us all your input. You’re all in the room. We can all discuss it, and then we go away and shape a policy, and it may happen in whatever time in the meeting when it comes to a conclusion. And the whole philosophy is, “We must get this done or the Board’s going to take an important decision by that physical meeting, by that physical meeting…”. We got ourselves, for no logical reason at all, into a mindset of tracking decisions to these physical meetings, and that I think is half the issue. We need to stop that in its tracks.
Alan: Chuck.
Chuck: As everybody can tell, in our discussion we have competing forces working against each other in all this, and they’re all valid. It’s a real problem. Let me talk about one – the amount of time for a comment period. In many cases, and especially in more complex policy issues, there may be at least two, maybe three comment periods. Even if you had a 60-day comment period, you’ve just added a half of a year to your process if there are three of them. Now, I’m not saying that’s not a valid need to have more time, but we have to balance the fact that we’re in a very dynamic environment in the Internet that changes very quickly. If our process or policy development is too slow, we’ve missed it. So, I’m not disagreeing with any of the concerns. I’m just saying there are these competing forces that somehow we have to find some balance to deal with these things. Philip’s suggestion is right, that we shouldn’t force things onto the physical meetings. They can be decided afterwards. That’s very good. But in cases where you do need that in-person interface, if you miss a deadline – and I totally agree with you, we should get things out earlier – but if you miss a deadline and you did need that face-to-face interface, you’re three to four months away, maybe six under the new proposal. So, I’m not disagreeing with anybody. I’m just saying there are competing forces, and we need to try to find some healthy balance so that we have timely processes, as well as allow opportunity for good input.
Cheryl: Just in final, because I’m next to Alan and I can dig him in the ribs if he doesn’t let me. It’s Cheryl here. What we really want to do is not lengthen things because that’s nobody’s best interest. From a registrar’s perspective, we don’t want endless delays on matters that are important to us anymore than the mechanic is going to be advantaged by that. It’s just not. What is important is to work smarter, not harder. And picking up on some of the key points that obviously are going to be 38 out of this meeting – and I trust perhaps woven into how we can work as true constituencies better together – might find some ways forward to doing that. Examples are if we’re not tied to a physical meeting part, as you quite reasonably – and I certainly endorse it – suggested, that we can have the online briefings, which we, as ALAC, have recently done. Because it’s much easier to sit in a one-hour phone call and have an expert explain what those letters, numbers, and nomenclatures mean. So, there are ways of working smarter, not harder. Hopefully, it will benefit us all.
Alan: I think there’s a number of unique problems that ALAC has over the other constituencies. The first one is there’s only one person… the liaison is only one not three. Therefore, you can’t divide the work. We need to handle that. The other thing is there was a very interesting meeting that Sébastien ran on Friday talking about user… my section was talking about users, and when it comes down to it, most users don’t care about these kind of things, but it still impacts them. We need to get input from those among the users who do understand. I think one of our problems is we’ve been trying to translate everything into simple terms, and you just can’t do that on many of these cases. We’re going to have to identify people within each region or within ALS, who are the spokesmen, who can do the local translation. From what we’ve said here, I suspect we can do something cooperatively which leads directly into our second point. Sorry, Avri has something to say.
Avri: Actually, what Avri had to say is kind of similar to the… You had mentioned the working together better. You had mentioned being only one liaison. What I wanted to point out is that on all of the working groups that we’re going to be putting together on many of the 32 teams, it doesn’t need to be the one liaison that is in that, while there’s always opportunities for other people to be the participants in that. I don’t know, did I remember to say I was Avri at the beginning. If not, this was Avri.
Alan: That’s given, but there’s only one person right now in the liaison position as the funnel to identify the issues and make sure people know. I took on the task. I’m not complaining, but it just adds an extra minor impediment. But it brings us to the second item of cooperation. J. Scott led into it a little bit that although there’s not an opportunity for our regions and people within the region and within specific localities to cooperate with the GNSO, there is the potential for cooperating directly with constituencies and groups within constituencies. We’d like to investigate how the people in… I’ll take an example of one of the hardest areas within Africa of how the local people within the ALAC hierarchy can work with people that the various constituencies may have in Africa or the other ones, and get some synergy. Number one we’re talking about making contacts which are going to benefit their real work in addition to ALAC type things. There are common interests. There certainly are common problems. We would like to investigate how we can use the various GNSO constituencies as funnels to make contact with people within regions that we can then work on our own without either the ALAC or the GNSO getting involved. I’d like to hear what you people think about this. Anyone? Marilyn.
Marilyn: Marilyn Cade. I am the Chair of a group called the Global Public Policy Committee, which is affiliated with WITSA, the World IT Services Alliance. We have seventy associations, the majority of which are from the developing countries – Nepal, Sri Lanka, Kenya, etc. I’d be happy… and we have representatives attending the 02. Wada Segunga, who is from Kenya, and also Audrey Plonk will be here. So, I’d be happy if there’s someone who can – maybe Nick and others of you – could sit down with me and talk with them about directly reaching to those associations from the developing countries. I’m not going to propose the ones from the U.K., etc., but what I’d like to do is look at those that are from the developing countries. That would be helpful.
Alan: Thank you, Marilyn. Olga.
Olga: Thank you, Alan. I don’t have a constituency. I’m a NomCom appointee, but I come from Latin America. I 40 in your supporting organization, but I would pleased if I can help you in Argentina and South America to contact with other colleagues.
Alan: Thank you. Alan, go ahead.
Alan G: At International Trademark Association we have people involved in their local governments and their local organizations in most of those countries. So, if you could send me a list, I certainly will – in the difficult countries – reach out to members in those areas that are involved in Internet issues to see if we could find some commonality, and get them plugged into the process through those people. But you’ll have to identify those countries, so that I can then reach out into those areas. I also have a friend that is in policy work for a government that can identify people for me. That would be a good jumping off point to build some small body in those hard to reach and difficult to engage countries.
Alan: Thank you. We’re keeping a list. Anyone else? chuckles That’s in a positive way, Marilyn. laughter
Alan G: And have you all thought about going to ICANN and some of their strategic planning, and talking about the fact that perhaps they need to set up some offices in areas that are difficult to engage?
Alan: Yes. chuckles
Cheryl: I can’t help myself. Cheryl here. In terms of talking with regional outreach and regional co-operational… gee, regional informational sharing with regional meetings in ICANN. Wouldn’t that be nice… at all… with the regional structure we have for At-Large, because it happens in absolute isolation and that is appalling.
Alan: For those of you that are getting translated, there was a lot of irony laughter in her tone. We seem to be hearing only from my right, and not from the left or the far, far, far left. Is there a microphone that’s floating around the right? Did we end up getting a microphone that works, a 55? Does anyone want to speak there? We have Robert trying to get out. laughter
Robert: My name’s Robert Guerra. I think, you know, some of the comments, I think… There’s constituencies at the GNSO that I think are more good partners in terms of outreach, but I think there’s a lot of areas where, you know, if we could decide on ways that we could share information, both outreach and discussion, I think – you know, the constituents work slightly differently – but I think if we could find a way to pool some of the resources… maybe, you know, it was mentioned contact information as well. So, when activities are planned, particularly in countries or regions where there isn’t a lot of input coming into ICANN and where it’s desired, that events could be planned together. I’m thinking particularly going forward in terms of when the meetings are planned. We have the fall meeting, I think, in Egypt that would give the opportunity of countries from Africa, as well as the Middle East. I think if thinking in terms of what outreach events are there before or maybe during the meeting as well to get some of the views, because I know from the At-Large perspective, we don’t have a lot of At-Large groups from that region. It is complex, but I think it would be good to find out what are the issues of interest to the users, but also to the different stakeholders as well. And then planning towards the Asia meeting… I think the call has come out as well too. So, I think if planning could be done between the different structures at ICANN. I don’t think there’s a formal way to do that, and I think maybe an informal process or committee, I think, could be useful, and I would be happy to volunteer for that.
Tony: Tony Holmes. Following on from the last comment… for the ISPs, that’s exactly what we’ve done quite successfully so far. Whenever ICANN holds a meeting in a set region of the world, we use our links 22 through other associations to engage with the local community. If you look back over those meetings, the involvement in the constituency and the participation in those areas have grown substantially. It doesn’t mean that those people follow on and come to other ICANN meetings. But what it does mean is that we continue to engage with them, they come onto our mailing lists, and we keep those links up. It’s proved a pretty successful way of doing it just by having a focussed campaign that aligns with the ICANN calendar.
Alan: Philip.
Philip S: Philip Sheppard here. I certainly support the idea that you’re proposing. I’m just thinking through sort of one simple mechanic… I mean, if things are coming up or 17 some planning, or you want to make contact – besides making contact directly with each individual GNSO constituency, which clearly you can do at any time – you’ve also got this 27 list, which if you send an email to Glen, she will then distribute that. And that goes to all the constituencies straight away in one communication. You can either react in terms of the leadership or the secretary out of those constituencies and/or then cascade it down to their mailing lists. So, if there’s, you know, there’s something… there is an existing simple network to get the message out quite quickly if you need it.
Alan: Thank you.
Translator: Fatimata Thank you. Fatimata from Senegal. I don’t want to shock anybody, but I’d like to turn this debate in a different direction. We haven’t had a lot of contribution from developing countries, and I see that everybody is concerned with this issue. But I think the fundamental reason is that every single time the developing countries – and in particular Africa – say that ICANN isn’t actually there for capacity building. A capacity build, I mean, is one thing, but ICANN isn’t there for this, that, and many other things as well. If you want input from developing countries, I’m very sorry to say that we have to start with grassroots capacity building. As has already being said, in ALAC there are only three people per region, and it’s really difficult for those three individuals to get the grassroots input, if the community at the grassroots level doesn’t understand what is being said. We were talking about – and I think it was Sébastien who said it – we were wondering about getting a resume, a summary document so that people can understand what is actually being discussed in ICANN, and can, therefore, contribute to the discussions. The problem that we have in Africa and in developing countries generally is that we are developing countries, and when you want to provide input, if you can’t actually gauge what is being said, then you can’t get developing countries’ input along the lines that you are hoping for. So, when decisions are made in a certain orientation and developing countries offer their input, it’s not going to match what you expect. Now, this is crazy, because it’s very often our interests are different to the interests that have already being decided upon. So, it’s important for us to be able to express our needs in accordance with those issues. Thank you very much. I would be happy to work with Marilyn if anything can be done together to improve this situation. So, I want to change the direction. If we keep going along the same lines, we hear the same discussions, and nothing has been changed since 2001. We hear the same discourse and I think it’s time to change this around. It’s always the same people deciding, the same one choosing the overall orientations, and it’s time to get our input as well. Otherwise, you’re going to end up with a defeatist attitude from developing countries, and Africa in particular. Thank you.
loud applause
Cheryl: Cheryl here. I’m just going to put on my Asia-Pacific hat and say here, here. We have enormous developing country requirements in the Asia-Pacific. We are being represented by the best developed and most developed, and we do our best to try and keep in contact, but it comes back down to this local action, local connections and the types of things that we perhaps could do with Africa. Thank you, Marilyn. That will be taken up. It’s one step forward, but in Asia… very similar. We need to hear at local levels. We need to work together at local levels as well.
Alan: Okay. We’re just about running out of time. Chuck had his hand up, so we’ll do Chuck, and then Avri if you want to close out.
Chuck: One of the things that’s really clear is that – and I think we all knew this before – is that the ALAC has tremendously diverse needs. Trying to meet those needs on a collective basis is probably not always the most effective way. Some people may need some assistance with regard to registrar issues. Some may need registry help considering that. Some may need something from the Business Constituency or the Intellectual Property Constituency. It seems to me that it would be very helpful if the message was sent out that people that have these various needs are… it’s perfectly legitimate of them to contact the separate constituencies depending on their needs. I think you’ll find that most of us in constituencies would be more than willing – and many people have said that today – to cooperate and work directly with those needs and certainly want to communicate that as an option, because not everybody needs the same thing. Not too many probably are going to need to come to the Registry Constituency, but I know that the Registry Constituency would be responsive if people have needs in that regard.
Alan: Thank you, Chuck. I think that was the original intent. This was never an “ask the GNSO to cooperate”, but to use the people on the GNSO as conduits to get to the right people. So, thank you. Avri, do you have something?
Avri: Yeah, this is Avri. I guess one thing that I was thinking of – and this will actually almost segue into your next topic – but there’s two pieces. As, for example, we start to have more IDN TLDs and we start to have registries and registrars being more diverse and spreading out into the world more, I think we’ll start to see a natural, you know, localization of a lot of the participation. I also think – and this is one of the things that comes within the whole, you know, GNSO improvements and possibly trying to find a way to add registrants’ associations and such in some manner or other of participation should that be the way it goes – that that will be another opportunity where there’s a natural outreach into regions, into developing nations, and such, so that there’ll just be a natural increase, and that will involve more regional, national, and local involvement.
Alan: Okay, thank you. Just a note that there are people filtering into the room for our 10:00 meeting, so they’re not interlopers. They do belong here. And this meeting is scheduled to end by then. The next topic is the whole issue of GNSO improvements, which Avri just sort of segued into. The ALAC and the various parts of ALAC have been involved in discussions regarding the improvements. We strongly objected to the Board governance committee’s description that users can participate – they just have to decide whether their registrations are commercial or non-commercial. We’ve been trying to point out for a while that over and above the many registrants in the world, there’s another billion users, although most users… the vast majority of users have absolutely no ability or desire to understand some of the arcane things that we talk about. At a meeting the other day, I pointed out that the vast majority of our users don’t know what DNS stands for and don’t want to have to know. The things that we decide impact them, and we believe that there should be some level of At-Large and user involvement in the GNSO, and that they need to have a place at the table, regardless of the structure that the Board eventually decides and regardless of the process. I think we’d like to hear a little bit from the GNSO and ALAC, of course, on… does this seem right? Is there a place at the table for representing the users, who are ultimately the reason why the Internet is there? Anyone dare?
Male: Hello?
Alan: Hello. Who’s there?
Male: Hello?
Alan: Can you hear me? Apparently not. Is there anyone at this table who would like to talk?
Male: Hello?
Alan: Who’s ever saying hello, can you tell us who you are? We have Marilyn, then Philip.
Marilyn: I’d like to just maybe ask… my name is Marilyn Cade. I’d like you maybe to make a little bit more clarification of your question if you might, because that was a pretty broad question. The ALAC today… speaking as an individual, my observation would be… and I should preface that by saying many years ago, I was one of the chief proponents of the process that led to the committee, chaired by 28, that did the interviews in a widespread international consultation that led to the creation of the ALAC as the approach to draw individuals together. So, I’ve been very much a proponent of how to interact with individual users and to bring information that helps them feel like they’re informed, and, therefore, can participate. So, I come with an expectation that the idea of increasing the interaction and participation is good. The question is, “How?”. When you asked the question, I didn’t… were you asking… bringing representatives of the… through the ALAC into the Council in a voting way, or were you asking a broader question?
Alan: I’ll answer you, and then we’ll go to Philip. No, we’re talking about participating in the Council as one of the other constituencies, and that implies voting. We’re not saying the ALAC should vote. The ALAC is a properly constituted advisory committee to the Board. The ALAC may facilitate identifying the right people to be part of a GNSO constituency. So, they’re closely linked, of course, but they’re two separate things. Essentially, what we’re saying is right now the ALAC has the ability to comment on things that the GNSO does. We believe that users should – through some reasonable mechanism – be involved in the policy development process, as opposed to just commenting effectively after the fact.
Marilyn: So, can I just ask a followup then 12.
Alan: One very quick followup.
Marilyn: So, then the ALAC would be interested in helping to devise the mechanism by which to identify and elect the individual representatives.
Alan: The ALAC is the only group we have right now, who represents users. So, we would have to be involved, I would think. Philip.
Philip S: I personally see no logic in the whole exercise called At-Large, if the ultimate aim of that is not involving those users and those structures within the policy development process. If this exercise is not about the public interest and the interest of users, then I think ICANN needs to state very clearly what they think it is about.
Alan: I’ll vote for that. 00 had a vote.
silence – 15 sec
Male: cuts out with the ALAC. We’ve seen now, I believe, a NomCom review report that came out about eight months ago that said, I think, on page 36 or 38, that there should be people representing the ALAC on the Board. We’ve had discussion within the GNSO reform process of an increasing user representation or increasing voting, and now we have an ALAC review document that’s come out just prior to this that says the ALAC should not have a vote, or should remain solely in an advisory capacity. So, there seems to be so much confusion on this. Anyone who could clarify, I think, for the ALAC itself, what the GNSO’s perspectives are regarding representation and votes specifically, that would be helpful to us, because within the ALAC it is by no means taken as an article as faith that we don’t want to have a vote. We believe that there should be a vote in some way, many of us that is. So, thanks.
Alan: I’ll just followup. On GNSO reform, there is a lot of discussion about should there be votes at all, and do votes matter. I think what we’re talking about here is participate with equity on the same grounds as other constituencies. Whether that implies a vote or not will depend on what ends up from GNSO reform. The issue is really to get in on an equal basis with the various other people with an interest in seeing where the intent goes. Chuck.
Chuck: Of course, in the proposed working group model, ALAC would be on the same level as everybody else. So, I think that’s a good thing. I’ve always – myself from the very beginning – supported a seat at the table by users and registrants alike. The big problem – and it was mentioned in one word right here – has been representation. How do you get… represent such a large and diverse population. Now, steps look like they’re being accomplished in the last couple of years to really have a structure where you can get that representation and flow input in. Unfortunately in the past, oftentimes there have been a few individuals who were stating positions, claiming to represent the world, when in fact it was a few individuals’ positions. I think the real key – and hopefully that we’re on track for that – to have an organization that really does have that bottom up representation that does represent a good segment of the user community, and I think that’s what makes it legitimate.
Alan: The challenge is always going to be people who can represent users, the many users who don’t have any interest at all, but do it through some sort of equitable way that it’s not deemed or believed to be just their views. It’s always going to be a very small percentage of the population, and how to do that with credibility is the difficulty.
Chuck: And you know it’s on a smaller scale, Alan, but even in a constituency like ours that is relatively small, we have that same issue.
Alan: Except you’ve started out with credibility, and we’ve started out with a lack of it for historical reasons. chuckles Jeff.
Jeff: Is this working yet? Can everyone hear? Great. My name’s Jeff Neuman. I’m with the Registry Constituency. I just wanted to add to what Chuck said. This issues that Chuck was talking about are actually not unique among just the ALAC or individual users. The issues exist with all the constituencies. I think a lot of times, individuals make statements that people associate with their constituencies without ever knowing the true representativeness of those statements being made. So, what Chuck said applies really whether it’s a business constituency, IP, ISP, and, frankly, for registries. I mean, Registry Constituency is much smaller, and it’s, we acknowledge, much easier to document everyone’s opinion. In a couple of years, that may not be the case. So, you know, what Chuck said is really not unique amongst users, but all the constituencies.
Alan: Okay, we have Tim. Tim, behind you.
Tim: Tim Ruiz with the Registrar’s Constituency. Again, to kind of expand a little bit on what Chuck touched on… I think that 58 constituency within the GNSO may not be or mean the same thing after the reform as it does today. If the GNSO Council is primarily, you know, a management by managing a policy process, but it’s the working group model, I think, or whatever other models might be developed and used after the reform that I think are going to be important. And I think there’s no intention that there would be any change in the ALAC having equity in that process even as it does today. I think that’s where the equity is really important is in that actual policy development activity within the working groups or the task forces or whatever comes out of the reform. It probably will be less important on the Council going forward. So, it might be something to just not push today and wait and see.
Alan: Okay. J. Scott.
J. Scott: J. Scott Evans. I think that, you know, I know that the user group has been in the ICANN process in some form or another since its inception, but truly in my experience it’s only really been well organized for like the last two to three years. The fact that you’re having this particular session at the ICANN meeting, where you’re reaching out and trying to gain cooperation and to work with others to help you in your task of reaching users in those areas where your resources and your volunteers are having difficulty is a shining example of how far this group has come. I hope that those on the phone and those that will read the minutes, will know that you all, your leadership, has done a tremendous job over the last couple of years, and they deserve a round of applause for putting users on the map as you go forward in this process. scattered applause
Alan: We have about four more minutes before we have to vacate. Are there any other thoughts? On this topic or any. Go ahead.
silence – 15 sec
Evan: Hi, my name’s Evan Leibovitch. I’m with the North American Region At-Large Organization, and I wanted to touch on something that was said very early on at the beginning about the idea of the difficulty of doing something like “DNSSEC for Dummies”. It’s strikes me that something that would be a very good common interest is the idea of being able to pool resources with the intention of at least making a reasonable stab at taking some of the very complex issues that ICANN has to deal with, and making them, at least to some amount, publicly digestible. We have the additional challenge, of course, of making this accessible in multiple languages in street language as opposed to bureaucratic language. Considering the challenge of actually doing that, I’m wondering if there’s an opportunity here to try and pool resources to something that seems like it’s very much of common interest.
Alan: Any final comments? Sébastien.
Sébastien: I will talk in English to be sure as to be understood. One of the goals of the At-Large structure for the 03 meeting is to try to organize what we call a summit. In the next few days, we will try to come to you and to explain a little bit more about this idea to have the possibility to tell you what we want to realize and to have your support if possible. Thank you very much.
Alan: Avri.
Avri: Yeah, I just had a final comment. I wanted to thank ALAC for inviting us here this morning to speak with them, and let’s continue talking.
Alan: And Nick said he has a quick comment.
Nick: With respect to the point about the way in which documents are written, structured, and making them more accessible even in English… for those of you who haven’t noticed, there was a survey on translation and multilingualism in ICANN, but a number of the questions actually related to how people use information. One of those questions was, you know, did people feel that important documents should have easy to read executive summaries, glossaries of terms, indexes, and the like. And 54% said that was very important and another 34% said it was important. So, some of the comments that have been made here have now been statistically verified by respondents in ten languages from all over the world. So, I’m sure that this information that you’ve given… I’m sure we’ve heard it, but it’s been echoed by many other people in many other parts of the world.
Cheryl: Okay, it falls to me to thank each and every one of the GNSO Council who spent their valuable time at this very early stage in the meeting to be with us. I can speak on behalf of everyone at At-Large and ALAC at this table and in this room to thank each and every one of you deeply. We appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken. We trust that we can continue a dialogue in a full and open communication modality that is yet to be determined, and assume you’ll be partners in that. Thank you all.
silence and background noise for remaining 1 min and 45 sec
End of Audio
