Summary Minutes and Action Items
1. Discussion and expansion on FY13 comment regarding investments into IDN.
We had a brief dicussion during the ALAC call on Tuesday related to IDN.
There are 2 statements 1) Variant Issues submitted on 30th of January (Pen held by Edmon) 2) Submitted on 21st of February.
Both are ratified and sent. (pen held by Sala)
There was a paragraph.
PARAGRAPH UNDER DISCUSSION:
"Looking at the IDN Variant Management, the ALAC expresses its concern that the Framework shows a
significant surge in the predicted Cost of the related further studies and implementation phase. The already
done IDN Variants studies were undertaken by 6 groups composed of voluntary community members. We
find the $2.8m figure overestimated and are concerned that some of the work might duplicate work
already undertaken by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). We are also concerned about the
reduced levels of transparency associated with contracting out services that might be better served by
staff. External growth based on consultants needs to be kept in check and under control especially given
the anticipated deficit situation."
This is related to IDN, Edmon asked if this can be incorporated into other work.
Should a separate statement being filed and expanded?
Edmon agrees with the concern raised. At this point, we should take a closer look to a project planned.
Hong: Serious concern on the transparency, she wants to know whether the variant issues should not become a barrier.
Critical issue, and it is not very clear a policy for ICANN.
ICANN staff cannot give a clear answer to that,.
The application process is going to be closed.
Are there Ad-Hoc practices to handle this issue?
CLO: Thorny issue of "variant" needs to be adressed. Everything said from a higher point of view is valid.
Edmon: The urgency is first of all, budget is fairly extensive, most of it has been done by the community. The timelines that are set do not take into consideration.
ICANN has given us a difficult question and we need you to prioritize.
OCL: To respond to what CLO mentioned, the statement was amended after the report came out.
The figures were grossly inflated.
A lot of the work has been done by the community.
We have large figures with consultants coming in.
The consultants and those figures were there to slow things up, rather than the opposite.
OCL felt that it was complicating things and making it last for 2 years until something came out fo it.
Edmon: Project 7 and 8 is categorize as too far remote in the future to even schedule it.
It would be useful for ALAC to make a very strong statement on this, we have been talking for a very long time.
So far we have not seen that.
When final report is posted, is final comment period open?
CLO: The days of an ICANN meeting do not count.
Hong: Whether this will be developed as PDP is not clear.
Critical issue.
Edmon: Is this something we want to get the GAC involved?
It is important enough. It is a good topic to join forces with the GAC or others.
Hong suggested to engage as wide as possible constituencies, not only GAC.
CLO: Read a paragraph [..] very strong words deserved a similar response.
Sala: In terms of strategic response we must put a statement. For those who recently joined. Chinese variants are very important.
3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs- 3.- Working Group: More interaction from ALAC.
JIG WG did not receive much support.
JIG group could be expanded and should involve the members from cross-consitituency. For JIG and CCnso we need someone else to push it through.
It possible we can expand the members.
Unfortunate scenario, specially for IDNs.
Expand the composition of the JIG.
CLO: The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) is looking for additional working group members to join the discussions on various IDN TLD-related topics. In order to have a good representation of the ccTLD perspective in the JIG discussions and recommendations, the ccNSO would like to see an increased participation of ccTLDs in this working group.The purpose of the Ad-hoc ccNSO/GNSO Joint IDN Working Group is to deal with issues related to the introduction of IDN ccTLDs under the IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation process and IDN gTLDs under the new gTLD implementation process which are of common interest to both the GNSO and ccNSO.For more information, please visit the JIG website: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg.htmIf you are interested in joining the group, please send an email to kristina.nordstrom@icann.org before 6 March. You do not need to be a ccNSO member to volunteer!
4. Planning for Costa Rica meeting
- Key topic in CR: Structure it in a way we talk about our own statement and endorsement to let ICANN know that this is really of urgency.
Proposal: Spend a chunck of time in our own statement. For CR high level structure or power point for CR.
Edmon: We have a week to plan on our meeting, mainly the VIP Project plan. In the next couple of days will try to send an agenda and few more notes.
Edmon will send some ideas and work through the mailing list.
OCL asked all to take into account the TLD Universal Acceptance1230-1400 / WEDNESDAY, 14 MARCH / La Paz A
