At-Large ICANN 52 Meeting Reports Workspace

Present: Alan Greenberg, Cheryl, Jennifer Wolfe, from the GNSO who led that review, Larisa Gurnick, Strategic Initiatives Director

Purpose of the Review: Is part of the ICANN’s accountability and transparency

The last review of ALAC – Final Report June 2009

This review is part of the 5 year Organisational Review Cycle

Process:

Planning the review -  take 6 months (hopefully, to the end of June 2015)

Conduct of the review itself between 9-12 months

With outcomes – plan implementation of recommendations – a further 3-6 months

Implementation – 9-12 months

Working Party of ALAC members – to be formed – will act as liaison between Structural Improvements Committee, ALAC, the AT Large community and the Independent Examiner

Process from now to June:

Will be an independent examiner selected by the SIC – will go out to tender

Will be a 360 assessment – an online tool

In preparation for the review itself:

-       what are the questions to be asked – and a tension between gathering as much data as possible and getting responses.  From GNSO experience, have a shorter and longer version

-       Review documents – last review – to see what should be asked

-       Look at GNSO questions as well

-       Involve independent examiner on both what should be asked and how so involved before the interviews

• (Confidentiality – the Independent examiner will know who responded – but people can indicate that they want their responses not to be identified with them)
• Validation of scope (noting that the last review focused on ALAC) so looking particularly at RALOS, ALSs – plus any issues not addressed in previous review
• Identify who should be interviewed – those in leadership roles (noting the need for multiple languages)
• What kind of outreach/engagement

Tie the review to a meeting – probably Dublin where the interviews can take place (noting how useful that was for the GNSO review – with the Independent Examiner doing a lot of interviews in Los Angeles)

Fellowship meeting  in 7 am, volunteer  to  take pictures of  fellows for Janice

Pictures  available at  .
G

Fellowship Sunday meetings always a pleasure. Seeing old friends (alumni) and meeting new fellows and fellowettes.

There was an addition to the family this time around with the newest and youngest member of the fellowship...

ALAC  Meeting all day

General presentations by ICANN  staff

Next session by Larissa Gurnick on review for  five year organizational review
At-Large/ALAC Review Workspace Home

FBSC lunch time  meeting

Accountability and Transparency

ARIN and  NARALO  Signing  ceremony

Pictures of event

Fellows -Fellowship meeting in evening

DNS and Women Networking

Pictures of event

General Assembly

DNS Women's Breakfast

Always great to join the wonderful women of the DNS with Bubbly Cheryl at 7 in the morning!!!. Lots of networking!!!

Announcements by PIR on their .ong and .ngo as well as their ONGOOD program to support NGOs. Interesting stuff

to take back to base and push our NGOs to take advantage of such. Cheryl reminded the ladies to get more women in leadership positions at ICANN through

a call for applications on the 2015 positions. Overall , great session and a wonderful breakfast of course

attended the gnso/gac consultation group working in policy issues of pdp

attended the ccwg in internet governance discussed on what should be push for thus committee and what will be discussed on thursdays public forum. Later joined the group as a participant. Networking at the business constituency and at the amazon/ncsg party. Talking to newcomers and helping them navigate the icann meetings and also why they may want to join alac.

Attended meeing 'All Things Whois:

The meeting began with an overview of all the current activities relating to Whois. This session will focus of three:

• The NORC study on Whois accuracy
• Review of the RAA specification on Whois Accuracy
• Update on implementation of the EWG

NORC Study

Overview of the findings on data accuracy comparison between those on the 2009 RAA and those on the 2013 RAA. Were different approaches looked at in the RFP for the study. There were some differences between the groups, but not substantial.

Issue raised in the meeting: should there be registrant identity validation.

Response from the audience strongly against validation of identity – the standard should be contactability, not validity of registrant identity.

New RAA requirements

New requirements are being reviewed a year after the specification. Are two areas looking at:  The spec did not establish what was an acceptable level of inaccuracy, and is no sanction other than suspension.  On accuracy – with sheer volume of transactions for the larger players, 100% accuracy is an impossible standard, but with a standard of even 99.9% - leaves up to thousands possibly not accurate. So what is acceptable under the standard.  And with sanctions – suspension is disruptive to industry – are there lesser sanctions to start with. What should be achieved: be able to track back to someone with the RAA information. Further, maybe segregate new and old registrations in checking contactability

Status of EWG

Review of  steps to be taken.  Next steps will be a PDP – but in three stages – looking first at the policy, and processes and then implementation. And prior to PDP, will be pre-WG steps.  Will be a very long and complex process.

Attended meeting to review  of progress on new gTLDs

506 new gTLDs delegated

Were 1930 applicants, 798 contracts signed

4% in dispute resolution,  30% in content resolution

Program extends to 2017

Been 232 registry agreements since LA

Content resolution up to 70%  up to 88% by Buenos Air

Proceeds $32.76m – being reserved until Board determines how should be spend

Human Rights  and ICANN session

Most of the discussion was very generic and it missed the importance of First Nations and the Disabled groups

Attended meeting on Privacy and Proxy services accreditation

Review of progress to date – reviewing the major issues that will be in the initial report – including further defining terms including verification, relay and reveal.

A major issue raised during the meeting was whether ‘transactional’ domains should be able to use P/P services

Discussion was around the difficulty in determining whether applicant is commercial/non-commercial (transactional)

Another major issue is  contactability – when the beneficial registrant does not respond

Attended meeting on Polidy and Impelmentation

Review of the initial report out for public comment

Principles – importantly – difference between policy and implementation less important than principles throughout

Developed 3 new processes

• Process for non-binding advice
• Process for providing advice binding on the board – but not creation of binding advice on contracted parties
• Shortened expedited PDP process

Welcome all comments, including response to the survey

Re difference between outcome of a PDP and outcome of implementation review team – involves different skills sets son won’t necessarily have the same people involved.

Issues raised

• have answered bits and pieces – but has it  addressed the whole?
• What about difference between PDP outcome and outcome of IRT
• Use of independence assessment/independent experts

7 am meet with the  Fellows

Pictures and video available

Fadi's  main comment  to the Fellows  to  ask them to get directly involved

11   Naralo  monthly call

Alert on planning for the  election  ie.  June  for  1-ALAC,1- NOMCOM, 1-Chair and 1-Secretariat
Action items in the minutes

Final meeting of  ALAC  membership

Worked on action items