At-Large Advisory Committee & RALO Secretariats Joint (Second) Session

1st November 2007

Present (ALAC): V Cretu, T Hue, A Muehlberg, A Greenberg, B Brendler, R Guerra, J Morris (Chair), A Munyua-Wanjira, S Shahshahani, C Langdon-Orr, C Aguirre, S Bachollet, H Diakite, J Salguiero, M El Bashir

Present (Secretariats): D Thompson, C Samuels, D Kasole, R Singh

Apologies (ALAC): I Aizu

Summary Notes taken by the Staff

Motion by A Greenberg on New GTLDs: Proposed to proceed as in the motion. ALAC would have 2 weeks to comment, the text to be provided to the RALOs for comment by Members during the same period of time, followed by a week vote. (Motion full text available at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?motion)

The Motion passed by unanimous consent.

A Muehlberg noted that R Rader wanted to speak to Members after the close of the session.

T Hue and V Cretu along with A Muehlberg propose that the following items should be added to the agenda:

That a summary of At-Large activities in LA and conclusions with proposed steps be prepared;
That some discussion of the Domain Tasting Working Group being convened should be had;
That a discussion of the number of issues to be worked on should be had;
That there should be a planning committee for the next ICANN meeting
That there should be a discussion of the role of the Staff under point 4(2) in addition to the other categories.

A discussion of the meeting being held over beyond the published start time was held as it was felt these additional agenda items would result in the meeting being unable to conclude on time and this was not widely thought desirable by Members.

A vote was not held on the proposal.

Motion by S Bachollet on At-Large Summit:

The Chair introduced the proposal. A Greenberg suggested that some budget figures needed to be attached first. S Bachollet suggested that it was better to work on principles before budgeting. C Langdon-Orr introduced a point of order to decide whether or not discussion would be online or during the December teleconference. It was generally agreed to discuss on the December teleconference.

Report of the Secretariats

C Samuels noted there were two major areas to mention.

Firstly, we need to expand the participation rate in the RALOs. A number of ideas were put forward on how to do this including public-friendly information being disseminated. What is required is to improve content delivery but also use different channels.

Secondly, to make ordinary users more knowledgeable on ICANN issues. This is a great challenge as it requires different message formats for different audiences. ICANN staff are rightly the people to do the work preparing this information with advice from At-Large. In particular, publicising the Internet in developing countries requires using radio – there are lots of channels in radio to deliver these messages. Outside of most OECD countries’ heavily populated regions this is the most important distribution channel.

Many other ideas were floated for informational products, from comic strips and games, with examples being used in other organisations.

On the Summit, we were unanimous that this was an idea that we fully support and we urge ALAC to give their support too. We are convinced that a Summit would greatly benefit the end users of the Internet.

We face the same challenges. Getting together we find we share similar ideas about how to meet these challenges.

C Langdon-Orr noted that it needs to be reinforced that the reaching-out in the ASO has resulted in cooperation between the RALOs and the RIRs especially including information sharing and leveraging the informational products of the RIRs. We should be proud of the fact that these offers of cooperation are coming in and it is a tribute to the work over the past of the committee. We are meeting with them tomorrow at 1400 to operationalise the cooperation and we need feedback from the RALOs.

C Samuels said he completely supports this view. He has helped distribute information from the RIRs before and it has been really effective.

The Staff noted that the consultations with Communications and Policy were extremely positively viewed by the Staff and would bear fruit, though it might take some time to ramp up especially in considering new communications media (new to ICANN) such as radio programme production.

R Guerra noted that there was a strategic relationship on offer that is really valuable with the ASO/RIR development. Perhaps we should start creating a list of those asking for content so we could match those with content with those who need it. This serves the outreach goals of At-Large. It is important to keep track of initiatives to measure progress.

D Thompson noted the importance of sharing all these materials between regions, with a repository where all of it could be stored and accessed. It was also important that more F2F meetings between Secretariats and ALAC was important to foster coordination. Thirdly could we share the internal list memberships.

A Greenberg noted that modest equipment and interest could produce good radio programming though it should have general internet-related information.

A Muehlberg reiterated the need for an info pool as proposed by D Thompson. She also agreed with the proposal that Secretariats should join the alac-internal list.

M El Bashir noted the importance of using professionals to do radio programmes and that the BBC had a not-for-profit division that produced programming for Africa. Using radio is a great idea.

C Aguirre congratulated Danny on the RAA presentation, agreed with the staff that doing radio programmes was difficult but that getting started was very important. Completely supports the Secretariats proposals.

The Staff noted that an online storehouse was already available at http://atlarge.icann.org/public.

V Cretu noted that she had made an agreement with a radio station in Moldova to do a monthly-hour-long programme on Internet issues, for 12 months. The first one is scheduled for December and she will report back on the results of the first show.

G Shearman noted that his ALS has a board member with a long history in community radio with this kind of programming who could help with this. Dharma Dailey also has a background in radio.

C Langdon-Orr noted that it is important to have the Secretariats on the non-public list but the public list should be retained for a worldwide list, not a working-in-public list.

A Muehlberg motioned that the Secretariats be allowed to join the alac-internal list and to join the next F2F meeting. A vote was conducted where all were in favour with one dissent, S Bachollet, that we should discuss the organisation of the ALAC + RALOs more first before making.

There was no objection to this proposal.

Synthesis of the Secretariat and ALAC’s Views

R Guerra suggested that we should have a recruitment goal – and perhaps other specific targets. We should also increase activity at events in general and be more active. He thought that the structure of work for this meeting really was great and asked that this meeting become a template for future meetings.

C Langdon-Orr noted that some regions had very specific plans and targets that the ALAC should take better account of and encourage.

A Munyua-Wanjira commented that the Sunday meeting was excellent. If this is done again she suggests that the Secretariats and Staff be included.

Post-ICANN Meeting Communique

Volunteers were asked for and the Staff offered to act as “gardener” to a compilation on the wiki if that was helpful. Comments were made that having some draft documents in a private wiki.

This was felt agreeable. On deadlines it was felt that anything close to the IGF would be difficult for many Members. It was proposed that the 13th November 1200 UTC for a final edit by Members was agreed. The Staff agreed to compile what was presently available on or before Wed 7 November. This was unanimously agreed.

The Staff offered to provide training sessions for anyone who wished to have one in the SocialText system. A number of Members expressed interest in this.

R Guerra noted that we should provide newsletter submissions to the ICANN Staff proactively and the Staff noted that this was welcomed – especially throughout the year when there was a weekly and a monthly publication.

C Aguirre noted that he would be attending conferences in the next few months and wanted to know what information he could get to hand out. The Staff noted that this could be provided and also that a CD would start to be available with current information which could be distributed.

M El Bashir asked a question of the Staff about a RALO meeting in Africa would be held in conjunction with the African ICANN meeting and the Staff replied that how travel would be structured in the next fiscal year would be guided by how the regions and the ALAC asked for budgeting for standing meetings to be done.

Fatimata suggested that a space on the website called ‘Training’ should be created to allow access to relevant materials. This would make it easier for new people especially. The Chair proposed a subcommittee of the Staff and Fatimata and other interested Members which was extended to include or liaise with the Secretariats. V Cretu volunteered to join.

C Aguirre noted that it would be helpful to have introductions to many subjects. As an example, having a 15-20 minute presentation on IDNs from Hong, Robert from SSAC, etc. The Staff noted that the documents being written by journalists for public consumption were beginning to come through and were being fact-checked. C Aguirre noted that having briefings from those responsible to the ALAC would be very helpful too and the Staff noted that we could record these so they could be accessed by anyone later too.

H Xue noted that she hoped we could resume the policy briefings we have previously done at other meetings. She proposes that a meetings committee should be created to ensure that this planning is carried out.

C Langdon-Orr proposed in relation to a proposal of A Muehlberg that the Members should review all policy-development priorities and focal points on the next ALAC teleconference.

Division of Responsibilities Between RALOs and the ALAC

The Chair asked the RALOs to provide ideas on how to divide responsibilities.

A request for information on the source of the structure of the At-Large community was requested. It was suggested that this was looking back and it is more useful to look forward.

J Salgueiro noted that each region would have different interests and priorities. ALAC should help to resolve regional differences into common positions.

V Cretu noted that questions were raised about the role of the staff / interference of the staff during the Sunday session. The Chair noted that there were job descriptions for Staff – present and to be hired.

A Munyua-Wanjira noted that these issues were very relative and that these were symptoms of greater problems within ALAC, rather than issues with the staff. Once internal ALAC issues were solved it would be possible to turn to the question of staff roles.

S Shahshahani thought A Wanjira-Munyua’s comment was excellent. Before we talk about budget we should talk about roles and responsibilities.

R Guerra said it was important to address problems rather than point at individuals. The real issue does not really know roles and responsibilities and perhaps ALAC isn’t planning properly so staff tries to react to fix or fill in. Lets be positive. Where there is a possible confict it is helpful to use softer language.

R Guerra noted that the bylaws hadn’t changed and that the ALAC was still 15 members but that we were working closely together.

K McCarthy arrived as a guest of the meeting to discuss issues with the newsletter. He noted that the final sentence of the newsletter item was unfortunate in tone. A discussion was held on the various views of Members related to the way in which the newsletter story portrayed the ALAC. C Langdon-Orr noted that since a conversation happened in a public meeting and was reported Members should take care not to say things in public meetings which they didn’t wish to see reported.

Demonstration of CiviCRM System

R Guerra provided a demonstration of the new Membership Management System.

Members expressed that they were very pleased that this system was being produced and would shortly be made available.

A number of Members asked for a single signon between the new web environment and the MMS.

C Aguirre noted that as an attorney he had some concerns – who administers the site and what safeguards on the information were available?

It was stated that the information is currently publicly available and in fact is emailed around on spreadsheets so the system will actually provide much better security for personal data than is presently available.

C Langdon-Orr noted that when the online application form was rolled out we would need to have a statement related to data privacy clearly available.

Discussion with Doug Brent & Denise Michel on Budgeting

Summary of the Conversation:

Doug Brent, Chief Operation Officer and Denise Michel, Vice President – Policy Development, made themselves available to discuss a number of matters related to Agenda Item #8 ‘Budgeting Process’, (background can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?finance_and_budget_committee) it was clear that; ALAC’s desire for equitable, transparent and proactive involvement in the Budget planning processes, in a manner that maximises the input of and outcomes for Internet users, and ICANN’s request(s) to have the At-Large Communities be involved, have now been recognised as congruent objectives.

It therefore appears that there should be a way that a set of mutually agreed, well documented procedures are established to best facilitate collaboration to achieve these outcomes. ALAC plays a role in the aggregation of the wider community’s needs for project and activity support, as well as finding ways that RALO and ALAC priorities and objectives to be reviewed, analysed, costed and prioritised. This information can form part of the data set ICANN uses in the future production and refinement of budget allocation to At-Large in any given financial year by ICANN; also that, to whatever degree, ICANN funds are being made (or being requested to be made) available to assist these outcomes being met, that the clear fiduciary responsibilities and the allocation of funds, are clearly under the control of ICANN staff, with all the associated accountability to the ICANN community as a whole.

To this end it is essential that the responsible staff at ICANN for these budget planning, processing and allocation activities, meet (at our earliest possible mutual convenience) with a representational group from the ALAC (the natural fit here is the ALAC Finance and Budget Committee*) to further investigate and develop the specifics of such “input into budget planning processes and funded project proposals” for consideration by all parties involved.

Detailed Notes of the Conversation:

Doug noted that the budget issue has been of long-standing and it would be desirable to come up with a common understanding on matters related to the budget.

He said that near the February meeting for the first time a draft budget and operating plan would be proposed at the same time for public consultation. Previously the operating plan had been approved first, and then a budget proposed and approved afterwards.

It is important to get input soon – the staff will start work on this in late November to early December.

He urges that we look forward and that there was no magic formula for submitting comments. A good question for ALAC to ask itself is: What does ALAC want to accomplish during the coming FY? Perhaps some items are funded by ICANN, maybe some things aren’t – we should have clarity on which things are in which category.

ICANN staff owns the fiduciary responsibility for spending money. No part of ICANN is different. The Registrar constituency pays dues, though, to fund website and other constituency shared costs, paying expenses with their own dues. Other constituencies operate the same way. With respect to costs borne by ICANN, in terms of ICANN’s budget, for many reasons, the ultimate fiduciary authority is the staff. That doesn’t preclude sharing better info with ALAC. We can take input from At-Large on programmes, put that together with staff and all the many parts of ICANN to create a unified budget.

A Greenberg said that he believes that we want to interact and not be told this is none of your business.

R Guerra that there was a need for more clarity around processes and that the community sometimes brainstorm in public in a way that might be different from other groups. Perhaps with respect to regional travel an application-based process could be used to administer regional travel.

D Brent noted that the fellowship example was a good one to use – not to look at application forms but rather to look at what the point of the programme is – in that example, outreach and inclusiveness. We have to keep looking at things and evaluate them and fine-tune programmes. Very few constituencies have anything like the level of funding that At-Large has. It would be difficult to do a programme with the GNSO to share costs – there isn’t the funding for the GNSO in that way.

S Shahshahani observed as a leaving member he doesn’t see a distinction between ALAC and the rest of At-Large. ALAC should be the main body that provides input into how money is spent. The whole budgeting process should be conducted in cooperation with ALAC. If for every project we have to send a request and wait for a response we will lose opportunities or priorities may change.

D Brent noted that input is important, but the whole community has input into the budget. The budget is posted and tremendous feedback was received. I’m encouraging you to provide input early.

D Michel noted that the timing was good to start thinking about next year’s budget. What would be useful is to identify the priorities for the community, and from that build the financial needs to support that process.

A Muehlberg noted that combining the ops plan and the budget was helpful. She drew attention to an email proposal sent to the internal list. Regions come up with proposals but that doesn’t mean they’re all approved. The ALAC budget committee would complile all these proposals together and ALAC would review it and it would be presented to the staff. It should all be transparent – we could put all travel costs up on a website. There’s still many months to go for this fiscal year and RALOs have ideas to do things now.

D Brent noted that staff costs had to be kept confidential for person privacy reasons.

A Greenberg noted that not necessarily all budget input necessarily required more money to be spent in absolute terms. A lot of what we are asking for is reallocation. He used as an example that if we could have stayed all together, and then 3 fewer people would come to New Delhi, we would have made that decision.

D Michel noted that hotel allotments are actually determined by how many rooms etc can be locked up in what hotel in advance of the meeting.

E Leibovitch noted the Summit proposals and reviewed them briefly.

D Brent noted that an event of this magnitude would not be a staff decision but a community decision and something that the community as a whole would need to support.

D Michel it would be almost 50% of the entire annual budget to pay for this…

E Leibovitch asked how to get the wide community support.

D Brent suggested that the conversation would best be had in New Delhi live and that the staff would need to confer about the precise way to ask for community support in New Delhi.

E Leibovitch noted he was concerned that this would cut the time very short between Delhi and Paris.

D Michel took that point but noted that this was an unprecedented request so a process would have to be created and we would follow-up on it.

D Brent noted that it was possible that we should consider whether holding the meeting later might be advisable.

D Michel noted that the situation was fluid, the RALOs were new, and there were many elements of interaction not structured yet.

S Bachollet asked how the budget could be changed in mid-year since it was based upon the premise that the RALOs were not all formed yet when it was approved.

D Brent noted that it is always a challenge to budget for a period of time 18 months in the future. The budget this year is bigger than it has ever been and some changes are possible and we’ll help you to raise the idea of changing this with respect to the funding of the Summit. I hope that next year we’ll go through a more thorough planning process but I suspect a year later we’ll still notice how much things have changed.