Discussion of At-Large Improvement Outline
Date: Thursday, 17 December 2009
Time: 1000 UTC - 1100 UTC For the time in various timezones click here
Meeting Number: AL/CC.1209/1
Adobe Connect Room: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/impplan161209/
Action Items: Action Items 17 December 2009 Improvement Plan
Transcript: Transcript 17 December 2009 Improvement Plan
Participants: S.Bachollet, C.Langdon-Orr, T.Ben Jemaa, V.Vivekanandan, C.Samuels, D.Anand Teelucksingh, L.Donnerhacke, H.Xue
Staff: H.Ullrich, M.Langenegger, K.Nordstrom, G.Gruber-White
A G E N D A
Suggested Agenda Items
1. Introduction and Purpose of Call - 5 mins (Cheryl)
This call seeks to further the project planning and implementation processes for the undertaking of the recommendations made in the recent ALAC Review WG Final Reportand the Board Resolution on the ALAC Review WG Final Report. Thus, the purpose of this community call is for At-Large and the ALAC to take the next steps regarding the priorities identified during the Seoul meeting (see: Copy of Draft At-Large Review Implementation Outline v2.1 - EN.xls ) including allocation of tasks, specific assignments, and time-lines. This process should use a Working Group model that is both responsible for their particular tasks as well as provide ongoing support and input into the wider implementaion project management to be led by a project manager.
2. Review of At-Large Review Improvements Outline - 15 mins (Cheryl)
See Google Spreadsheet of the At-Large Review Improvements Outline
3. Allocation of Priortized tasks
4. Organization of Work
5. Next Steps
(Also sent by e-mail to ALAC and At-Large lists)
I will not be on the call, but I thought I would offer a few thoughts here.
First, I really like the new Google docs format with multiple tabs. I can see the entire width at once (in a font I can read!) and the larges one is just a bit over two screens long.
There is one bug however - I don't know if it is a Google Spreadsheets feature or we did something wrong, but if a section number is 4-deep (such a 220.127.116.11) Google thinks that it is an IP address and tried to go there if you click on it. Probably not in conformance with some RFC.
1.1 (Bylaws) The note says that the Bylaws should, among other things, clarify roles of Liaisons. I note that the trend in re-writing the GNSO Bylaws was to keep to a minimum what is in the Bylaws to allow things to evolve over time without the significant complexity of having to revise Bylaws. I would suggest that we do the same.
1.3 (ALAC involvement IIC/Post-JPA) The note talks about At-Large having an effective voice in various forums (fora?). I hypothesize that we will accomplish this not by simply getting slots allocated to us, but by identifying (and perhaps grooming) people who can speak eloquently and knowledgeably on behalf of Users. Without such people, we do ourselves more harm than good by getting seats on various bodies.
4.5.2 (Sanctions for non-performance) I hope to have a revised version ready for discussion shortly. Although we cannot change the words in the report, I would really like to see the focus of this section be remediation (fixing the problem) and not solely "sanctions".
5.1.1-5.2.2 (Strategic/Operational Planning) I will say what I have said before. It is important that we state our views on these plans, and try to influence them where appropriate. A PART of our work will be driven by the ICANN plans. But a part (perhaps the larger part) will always be driven by the issues of the day. Ultimately, I think that the ICANN plans must be modified to reflect this reality (it is true for all SOs and ACs) but until then, we must continue to address users issues even if the plans do not give them sufficient visibility.
6.1 (Budgets) We really need more granularity here or we will never get pass the impasse we seem to be at.
8 (Public Comments) I don't know if Carlton will be on the call, but I can report that we have started to talk about what the Rapporteur needs to do to get control of the process and start making it more effective. From the initial discussions it is clear that we need some tools (but really simple ones - nothing that will be difficult) and we need to coordinate what staff and volunteer staff are doing.
9 (Translation/Interpretation) The title lists both Translation and Interpretation but the subsequent items only discuss translation. I think that ALAC/At-Large has more experience about the effectiveness of interpretations with teleconferences. I think that we need to have this experience used in how ICANN proceeds in this areas. And to make MY position clear, I think that our experience had NOT been very good in ensuring that we can EFFECTIVELY involve people speaking multiple languages in a single teleconference. I think that our HONEST input is ESSENTIAL if ICANN is to make any head-way in this direction.
12.2 (Consumer Constituency in the GNSO) I note that at the mst recent Board meeting, the Board rejected three of the four petitions for new constituencies, but the Consumer Constituency petition is still pending.
13.2 (Inter AC/SO Policy development) I note that in the GNSO STI, At-Large was a significant player. A good model for going forward.
contributed by Alan Greenberg on Dec 16 10:18pm