Work Group on Future Challenges (WGFC)
Minutes: 6 June 2011
Present: Jean-Jacques Subrenat, CherylLangdon-Orr, Danny Younger, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Darlene Thompson, Dave Kissoondoyal, Evan Leibovitch, Marc Rotenberg
Guests: Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Carlton Samuels (AC Room only)
Apologies: Alan Greenberg, Sandra Hoferichter, Sergio Salinas Porto
Absent: Vanda Scartezini
Staff: Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber
PROCEDURAL/OPERATIONAL ISSUES
2. Welcome and purpose of WG – Jean-Jacques (3 min)
This WG began with Jean-Jacques asking in San Francisco if At-Large needed to look at more forward-looking issues for the sake of the end Internet users. The result is this WG.
The model used to organize this WG should be that of a standing WG of the ALAC, which would help to turn the At-Large’s mode of operating from reactive to proactive and to ensure transparency.
Also, agreed to use the GNSO Guidelines for WGs.
It was agreed that the WG should focus on forward-looking issues.
>> AI: WG members to list priority issues for WG on wiki page (Priorities for FCWG) before the next WG meeting.
>> AI: Staff to set up wiki page for listing FCWG priorities.
>> AI: Cheryl and Evan to look for Interim ALAC Priority List (2005-07) page. Once found, staff to link it to FCWG priorities wiki page.
3. WG resources – Seth (3 min)
See: WG on Future Challenges main workspace
See: Charter workspace
See: Draft ALAC Statement on the Summit for Developing Countries
Mailing list: future-challenges@atlarge-lists.icann.org
4. Decisions re which officer positions WG wants – Cheryl (5 min)
Possible positions:
Chair/Co-Chairs
Vice-Chair/Vice-Chairs
ALAC Liaison
Rapporteur
Decided that the WG officers would be two co-chairs (chosen by the WG) and an ALAC liaison (appointed by the ALAC). Liaison, as opposed to co-chairs, would report back to ALAC regarding any problems re WG, co-chairs, etc. In vote of 6 (in favor) to 0 (opposed), decided request for ALAC to appoint a liaison would be part of WG charter. Appointment by WG of two co-chairs would also be in charter.
5. Nominations and show-of-hand elections of officers – Cheryl (10 min)
Nominations for two co-chairs were Jean-Jacques, Evan, and M. Rosenberg. Informal show-of-hands (plus write-in votes) vote results: Jean-Jacques 7 (including 2 write-ins), Evan 6 (including 1 write-in), and M. Rosenberg 1 (including 1 write-in); and there were 4 abstentions (Jean-Jacques, Evan, M. Rosenberg, and D. Younger).
Result is that WG co-chairs are Jean-Jacques and Evan.
6. Charter: Resources – Matt (3 min)
See: Charter workspace
Charter resources to be used include two example charters, relevant WG e-mail exchange, and GNSO Guidelines.
7. Charter: Discussion and next steps – Co-chairs (10 min)
Two approaches were discussed:
- Traditional approach, represented by the example charter on the wiki.
- Evan proposed an alternative approach (one that is out-of-ordinary): What Evan called the “unchartered” option as a charter.
>> AI: Evan to explain his “unchartered” option for a FCWG charter to the WG in a document.
>> AI: Evan and Danny to create a draft charter for WG that reconciles the traditional and “uncharter” approaches to a charter by Singapore Meeting.
8. Decisions re WG calls – Co-chairs (5 min)
How often – weekly, biweekly, monthly?
When – day and time?
Doodle needed?
Decided that WG calls would:
- Be held monthly, with other meetings allowed;
- Rotate times to “share the pain” among time zones; and
- Each last for 1.5 hours.
According to GNSO Guidelines, no decision can be taken without two meetings. So, for a decision, this means the time of two months would be necessary, or one meeting plus calling an extra meeting. This WG will not be taking many formal decisions, however.
Interpretation on WG calls:
- Decided would not have translation for now. (Of course, At-Large would like all calls to be interpreted, but there is practical issue of cost. Also, there is an automated tool that At-Large will soon be using to translate text in the AC Room.)
- Danny stated that he remains uncomfortable with the fact that one of the WG members will not be getting the interpretation he requested, and he believes the money is, in fact, available, if ICANN chose to use it for the purpose of translation. Furthermore, Danny announced that he would refrain from attending WG calls until this issue is resolved.
- It was also pointed out that the interpretation on calls is often quite bad and not best for the listeners.
- In addition, ICANN is a California-based company with California Bylaws and members must be able to conduct business in English.
>> AI: The WG, in conjunction with the ALAC, to seek a solution to having interpretation on its calls. A variety of solutions should be considered.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
9. ALAC Statement on Summit for Developing Countries – Danny Younger (10 min)
See: ALAC Statement on Summit for Developing Countries workspace. This is a statement by
Danny.
The ALAC may wish to ask this WG to get more involved in the planning of this Summit.
A question considered was: What is the relationship between this WG and this Summit?
The WG discussed the possibility of issuing a strong statement in favor of this Summit, proposed by Katim. As of now, there is no actual budget for this Summit.
>> AI: WG members to comment on Danny’s draft ALAC Statement on Summit for Developing Countries workspace via the wiki page.
CLOSING ITEMS
10. Any other business – Co-chairs (5 min)
No other business was raised.
11. Confirmation of next meeting – Co-chairs (1 min)
It was decided that the day and time of the next meeting would be discussed on the mailing list. Depending on the discussion, the co-chairs might request a Doodle poll be issued.
