At-Large Community
30th October 2007
Meeting with the ICANN Board Members
Present (ALAC): I Aizu, J Salguiero, A Greenberg, V Cretu, T Hue, B Brendler, new African member (Fatimata ___), H Diakite, C Langdon-Orr, S Shahshahani, A Muehlberg, C Aguirre, S Bachollet, M El Bashir, A Munyua-Wanjira
Present (Liaisons): W Seltzer, H Xue,
Present (Secretariats): R Singh, H Xue, D Thompson, C Samuels, D Kasole, E Leibovitch
Present (Board): V Scartezini, T Narten, S Goldstein,
Introductions of Board Members, ALAC members, and Liaisons were provided
The Chair thanked all the outgoing members and welcomed those incoming and wished them the best in their terms on the Committee.
ALAC Strategy Session
V Cretu provided an overview of the Sunday strategy session and noted that a full report would be made available in due course.
The importance of this event is in helping the ALAC have a vision for itself and its future work, which will lead to a division of work, an elaboration of proposals for the budget, implementation of the work programme, which can then allow the ALAC to be monitored and evaluated based upon its objectives.
Proposal for an At-Large Summit
E Leibovitch noted that there was cross-regional interest in a meeting of ALSes from around the world. A plan is being prepared based upon hosting a summit at the 2nd or 3rd ICANN meeting in 2008.
S Bachollet followed noting that this was a good summary of the situation. With 5 RALOs being established at least one meeting of all regions was necessary rather than operating only within regions.
S Goldstein noted that if support from ICANN would be needed it would be helpful to have that information soon as the next year’s budgeting process would begin after the strategy consultation was concluded.
V Scartezini asked for clarification about the scope of the summit – was it a one-day meeting next to an ICANN meeting. S Bachollet confirmed the idea was to get worldwide ALSes together at a meeting perhaps divided by thematic or issue/based subgroups.
S Bachollet answered that the idea is that this meeting would be in addition to the meetings of each RALO. The objective is to hold this meeting at the June 2008 ICANN meeting. This would therefore be related to this year’s budget and not in next year’s budget.
S Goldstein followed up suggesting that since it had been mentioned that it could be at the 3rd meeting that would be in the next year’s meeting. He felt sure that you could let the staff work out the budget if you gave them an idea of the magnitude of what you were proposing.
S Bachollet followed up that the idea was for it to be one representative per ALS, or about 100 people.
A Muehlberg intervened to say that it was important that a dialogue is conducted about this idea, which is a very good one.
E Leibovitch understands that the magnitude of the cost of something like this was an important consideration and those involved in the planning are taking this carefully into account. The objective is to get the maximum value for ICANN out of the project.
W Kleinwachter noted the successful conclusion of the work of organising the RALOs and that the increase in the multistakholder approach would be important to the JPA review announced yesterday. It should be high on the priority of the ICANN board that the users of the world meet under ICANN auspices to highlight the multistakeholder approach.
A Greeenberg noted that more inter-regional communications was important and whether the summit was the right way to achieve that or not it was important.
T Narten suggested that clearly articulating what the objective outcomes would be for this would be important so a cost/benefit analysis of the project could be undertaken.
GNSO Improvement
A Greenberg noted the paragraph in the current working proposals was incorrect in suggesting there was no difference between users and registrants as this effectively disenfranchises the end-user population of the world in favour of domain registrants. The second point was whether or not the At-Large should be in the GNSO as a constituency or not. He thought it was more important to have a stronger link by participating in the policy development process rather than commenting on it after the fact as an Advisory Committee does. The third point is that more communication should exist between bodies and chairs should talk ignores that liaisons exist and that these individuals should be a part of any such dialogue.
T Narten asked if these were personal or ALAC views.
C Langdon-Orr clarified that everyone today was speaking on behalf of the ALAC.
T Narten clarified that this was not a board document per-se but a working group text.
T Narten and S Goldstein reiterated the importance of ALAC making these comments to the board formally.
V Scartezini asked a clarifying question as to whether there was a communiqué or the like from ALAC at the end of every meeting or not. How does ALAC work as an advisor to the Board.
The Chair noted that the ALAC did send communications to the board on issues but didn’t send a communication like the GAC does after each meeting.
A Greenberg noted that we were in a transition period and that the objective of this meeting was to conclude the debates about how to work as a community, which had been time-consuming, and he hoped ALAC would now be in a position to engage much more on policy.
ICANN Budget
During the final consultation on the present year’s budget, there was only one substantive comment from anyone, which was from the ALAC, and that there had been no response at all.
The comment had been that the suggestion in the issues report suggesting that ICANN should not waive the fee for domains deleted in the AGP.
S Goldstein did apologise for there not being a reply to the comment made but he also reiterated the importance of commenting on the strategic plan, from which the operation plan would be created. This year the Ops Plan and the first draft of the Budget would be issued simultaneously, probably in February.
E Iriarte Ahon noted that as a past member he remembered that ALAC used to be far more engaged in policy and not administrative work and related with RALOs. It is important to lay out the way in which the RALOs work with ALAC so that the Board can be advised on an inclusive way. He wondered how many members of ALAC would actually be doing any work online if there were not face-to-face meetings.
S Shahshahani noted that if ALAC was to be an effective body it had to have its staff and its budget and be responsible for it. Without this they would never be about to effectively advise the board. The budget that’s allocated to ALAC and the way it is spent have to be managed by ALAC.
The Chair asked if it would be OK to skip to the budget item on the budget (Agenda Item 8). This was generally agreed.
Budget
A Muehlberg stated that in December we were promised forms that never arrived and the budget came out without input. With RALOs in place it is important to have a budgeting process.
C Langdon-Orr followed-up that there was a much longer discussion with staff on Thursday on the Budget with Doug Brent and Denise Michel. The point of the exercise was having a project planning process and that we are not talking about having control of funds as we understood the fidicuary situation.
V Scartezini said that it was important to decide what goals we want to reach and then budget for those goals. Sometimes there would have to be adjustments due to availability of funding and sometimes we would need to look outside of ICANN for other funding possibilities.
S Goldstein asked for a clarification about what the disconnect was.
C Langdon-Orr said that an example of this is that in the response by the staff to the ALAC proposal there was a disconnect between how the ALAC meant to incorporate RALO submissions as what the ALAC wanted was to work with the RALOs to produce a prioritised list in conjunction with the RALOs.
A Muehlberg noted that the importance was that the process be clear and transparent.
T Narten noted that the importance was to look forward and not backwards.
A Greenberg said that what he is looking for is that the ALAC should have some ability to see how funds are being spent and an ability to influence how this is done.
T Narten said he’d be surprised if the board felt differently than that.
E Leibovitch wanted to express that he wanted to ensure that all expenditures should be accessible including staff costs.
V Scartezini noted that this year the structure within the staff was much improved – starting with hiring Doug Brent and his work on structuring the financial management of the company in a more organised fashion that is clearer to everyone. ICANN is a young organisation but there has been huge improvement – Kevin as CFO has been hired and this has been another real improvement – having a CFO for the first time. She has been the Chair of the Audit Committee of the Board and the ability of the Board to be well informed is much improved.
I Aizu noted that we have been warned that too much exposure of budget detail could endanger the community’s funding levels. T Narten noted that he didn't accept that this was a reasonable premise and that it didn't seem logical to him.
I Aizu continued by noting that the Secretariats had said that ALAC wastes money and should be abolished. He read the draft minutes of the Secretariats minutes of the meetings of the 28th October on open wiki and expressed his concern of possible negative impact.
The Chair noted that this (the Secretariat question) was the minutes of another body and not really something that related to this meeting.
The Staff noted as a point of clarification that the minutes in question were in draft form and until the minutes were adopted it was not a final statement.
T Narten believes that everyone on the board would want ALAC to succeed. The view is that if ALAC were to fail the organisation would be harmed.
W Kleinwachter noted that the current budgeting process was a top-down process. This should be changed to a bottom-up process.
T Narten noted that a lot of these discussions about the budget are conversations you want to have with Staff, especially Doug Brent. If things with the staff aren’t working raise this with the Board via your liaison. You should do this only if you really feel that there is a problem you cannot resolve via regular dialogue and work with the staff though.
S Shahshahani said he didn’t believe Doug Brent could necessarily solve the problem. He believed the board needed to be involved.
T Narten noted that Doug Brent is the COO and therefore is the person to deal with on this question.
The Chair noted that the ALAC repeatedly discusses the budgeting process and it really needs to be resolved once and for all.
New GTLDs
A Greenberg noted that the community was working on a process to come up with advise but a bottom-up process within a global community and the ability to respond to a consultation in 20 days was really unrealistic.
V Scartezini noted that she understood the problem.
C Langdon-Orr noted that putting things in simple language and summaries was also a big issue.
C Samuels noted that the policy documents produced were not easily digested. User participation requires summaries and simplified language.
D Younger suggested that since it was clear that members of the board were unfamiliar with the community’s work and situation why don’t you join the At-Large worldwide list – at least one board member should do so.
IDNs
H Xue introduced the concluded IDN statement.
