• Participants: Olivier Crépin-Leblond (OCL),  Evan Leibovitch (EL), Tijani Ben Jemaa (TBJ),  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO), Alan Greenberg (AG), Rinalia Abdul Rahim (RAR), Carlton Samuels (CS)
  • Guest Speaker: Sebastien Bachollet (SB), ICANN Board Member selected by At-Large
  • Apologies: none
  • Staff: Heidi Ullrich (HU), Silvia Vivanco (SV), Matt Ashtiani (MA), and Nathalie Peregrine (NP)

Summary Notes and Action Items:

1.  Roll call and apologies – Staff (2 min)

  • Roll call and apologies were conducted 

2. Guest Speaker Sebastien Bachollet, ICANN Board Member selected by At-Large (20 Min)

  • OCL: The conflict of interest that a re present on the board have led us to determine that it would be a good idea for SB to discuss his conflicts. I believe, in a way, that that there are shades of conflict so it would be a good idea to have a frank discussion with SB on what his conflicts are. 
  • SB: As a Board member, we must fill out many documents related to conflicts. I have two conflicts. #1-In September I was working on a project related to open data. #2-Because of my participation on the i4 Board (a policy body).  I was asked to participate on this board to be the voice of internet users. 
  • OCL: Can you please name the company?
  • SB: Item International. They are in charge of reviewing  the ccNSO and ISO - one for ICANN and one for the NRO. 
  • SB: I am participating on the board of i4 and I think these COI Statements are going too far. 
  • SC: Are you saying that those who are conflicted now have the technical knowledge? To be honest, I looked at the list and those who are conflicted seem to be the ones with the technical knowledge to complete this. 
  • SB: Yes. We need to draw a line but I think these COIs are going too far. 
  • OCL: It seems the Board is trying to resolve this COI. Perhaps it was too much, but some think it was not enough. Perhaps we could create a cross-community commission?
  • AG: I disagree with previous comments that have been made. Given what happened with the former chair of ICANN, I don't think that given the level of criticism is inappropriate, I only think that the Board can take an extreme position and maybe loosen it in the future. 
  • OCL: One of the problems is an actual conflict and perceived  conflict
  • CS: What is the relationship of Board member and their votes? Also, how do you create a situation where you have a multi-stakeholder organization and you have to embrace the fact that one set of stakeholders have interests. What is their role? What is the approach? It may be useful for us to have guidance on this issue. 
  • SB: I would like to raise one more issue - At-Large being able to elect a Board member. The fact that they have lost their liaison is painful. This is a subject we need to put on the table. We need to look at the relationship between the ICANN Board and ALAC.

3. Review of AIs from Executive Committee meeting of 30 March 2012 and ALAC meeting of 17 April 2012 - Olivier (20 min)

  • The action items were reviewed 
  • AG: We need to fix the BigPulse issue to past votes
  • CLO I am concerned with the over-emphasis of the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean scripts being seen as in some why as being greater in terms of variants. 
  • AI: Matt to work with BigPulse on the past votes issues 

4.  Policy Advice Development Calendar -- Tijani, Olivier (20 min)

  • TBJ: Regarding the Statement, as Rinalia said, the Statement more or less addresses the concerns of Hong. 
  • EL: Regarding the comment that there is an over emphasis of the Chinese variant issue, over the Japanese and Korean one, I believe there was a point where from a linguistic perspective there was not a problem with the variants. 
  • CS: Technical variation in the scripts, not the numbers of persons. 
  • CLO: I am trying to ensure that we think of the code points, not the number of people who have a variant issue. 
  • EL: To refer to the document, the Statement itself notes that the Chinese variant issues were due to code and not population. On purely technical issues, there are variant issues in Chinese that do not occur in Japanese or Korean. 
  • CLO: There is a small, but dedicated team working on the IDN WG. This is quite important. 

5. Review of the 17 April ALAC Meeting (10 min)

  • The meeting was reviewed 
  • EL: I am happy to note that there is a planned change in the Board-ALAC Meeting
  • OCL: Can you please give us an update on the Beginner's Guide.
  • HU: The next BG will be targeted towards end users and consumers. We have sent out a request for topics and information. 
  • AG: Just because I chaired the group that made the recommendation does not mean that I am the most qualified individual - all who are interested should get involved. 
  • OCL: There is one item I would like to note - the reinstatement of the SO AC Sessions. 
  • EL: I am strictly interested in COI. There has also been a lack of follow up on GAC-ALAC issues. OCL, can you please work with the chair to coordinate our work?
  • AI: OCL, by Sunday, to have contact Heather regarding GAC-ALAC issues. 
  • AG: We need to be clear that just because a GAC members makes a commet does not mean it is an actual GAC comment. 
  • CLO: This opportunity to work together and encourage forward moevement is quite useful. 
  • EL: We should obtain Heather's consent on contacting individual, interested members on specific issues.
  • OCL: I do not think that we need to obtain Heather's consent. 
  • EL: I don't think we need permission, but awareness is a good idea. 
  • OCL: Agreed. It is common courtesy to CC a Chair. 
  • AI: OCL to send the ICANN Academy invites to the Chairs of the SOs/ACs.
  • AG: To reinforce what was just said, ALAC interacting with a GAC member may not even require a CC to Heather. 

6. Developing an At-Large SOI Template - Olivier (10 min)

  • AG: We need to realize that a common SOI is impractical. This is not to say that they wouldn't be highly related, but At-Large has certain questions it needs to ask which the GNSO may not need to ask.
  • EL: I am surpirsed at the thought that an SOI to At-Large would be exceedingly different than and SOI for the GNSO. 
  • TBJ: I think that we should develop our own SOI, even if we are inspired by the GNSO one. Perhaps we ca harmonize all of the SOIs amongst the community, but At-Large must define its own SOI.
  • AG: I disagree with the previous Statements. We should develop our own and then see if we can harmoize amongst other SOs/ACs later. 

7.  Any other Business - Olivier (5 min)

  • HU: Please confirm any meetings you would like to hold, the forms are almost due.
  • HU: Please tell us if there are any GAC topics you would like to speak about, the GAC has contacted Staff with this request. 
  • No labels