Future Challenges Work Group (FCWG)
Summary minutes: 5 October 2011
1. Roll call -- Staff (1 min)
Present: Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Evan Leibovitch, Alan Greenberg, Ganesh Kumar, Garth Bruen, Avri Doria, Sergio Salinas Porto (first 5 min.), Dave Kissoondoyal, Sandra Hoferichter
Apologies: Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Absent: Vanda Scartezini, Darlene Thompson, Danny Younger
Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber
2. Unfinished Business - Jean-Jacques (3 min)
a. Summary minutes of 6 June 2011 meeting
b. Action items from 6 June 2011 meeting
There’s been an unusually long time between the WGFC’s first meeting and this meeting, for various logistical reasons.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
3. Discussion on Two Main Areas of Work for the WG - Co-Chairs (20 min)
a. How can the effectiveness of At-Large be maximized?
- See: Economist article of 01.10.11 - "Who should run the Internet?"
b. Registrant identification and accountability
- Consideration of Knujon research
Since the last meeting, there have been many members’ suggestions regarding the topics on which the WG should focus. In order to tackle topics in depth, the WG co-chairs, in consultation with other members, have consolidated various of these suggestions into the two topics listed above.
These topics are broad and allow much leeway regarding what can be considered under each, without, however, repeating work already done by, for example, the ALAC Review or ATRT.
>> AI: The FCWG to further refine, in Dakar, its two main areas of work to ensure that this work is not redundant with work being done elsewhere in At-Large and ICANN. The two main areas of work are (a) how to maximize the effectiveness of At-Large and (b) registrant identification and accountability.
>> AI: FCWG members to come to Dakar meeting prepared with ideas regarding (a) how the FCWG can limit/focus its two chosen areas of work (b) how the FCWG can serve the At-Large/ALAC interests within these areas. The two main areas of work are (a) how to maximize the effectiveness of At-Large and (b) registrant identification and accountability.
First FCWG-chosen main area of work: How can the effectiveness of At-Large be maximized?
The Economist article of 1 October 2011 – "Who should run the Internet?" – offers a set of challenges. In short, certain countries’ governments are trying to get a piece of ICANN’s governance – i.e., the ICANN model is under attack. In addition, the article states that ICANN does not have the support of its own communities. These are issues that At-Large must deal with and in which the FCWG has a role.
Other challenges that ICANN will have in the coming months:
- Launch of the New gTLD Program; and
- The new CEO selection process (an internal challenge).
Another issue that comes under the topic of how to maximize At-Large effectiveness is the level of consideration that advice from At-Large/ALAC receives by the ICANN Board. The issue has a number of aspects:
1) At-Large believes this level of consideration should be the same as is given to advice from the other ACs, such as the GAC. This would require a change in the ICANN Bylaws, which would be difficult, but it should be what At-Large works toward. There are two possible paths to such a change:
- Can change how the ALAC is dealt with by the Board; or
- Can change how all the ACs are dealt with by the Board.
2) The ALAC/At-Large must “prove” that it is the legitimate voice of end users – as both part of its legitimacy and as a reason that it should be listened to.
- To this end, when the ALAC delivers its advice, it would be wise to explain briefly the process by which this advice was arrived at (e.g., all the RALOs commented on early drafts, an ALAC vote was taken, etc.). This would diminish the image that ALAC advice represents only a small number of voices. Indeed, the Board has requested such information. While GAC can refuse and still insist on being listened to, At-Large would be wise to take this suggestion.
- A major reason for the incorrect perception that the ALAC is speaking just for itself and not for all of At-Large or all end users is At-Large’s hierarchical structure. It results in just a small number of At-Large members (rather than everyone represented) present in meetings. Other groups have many of the people represented in the room during meetings.
3) Like it or not, there is an obvious comparison often drawn between the ALAC and the GAC. And, in fact, the ALAC should be asking what it can learn from the GAC’s methods, timing, etc. in submitting its advice to the Board. This should be considered in the ALAC’s formulating and presenting its own advice.
- It the ALAC’s advice is well-thought-out and salient, the Board is more likely to listen to it.
- Perhaps it would be interesting to examine 1-2 examples in which ALAC advice was listened to and 1-2 examples in which it was not.
4) There has been an evolution within At-Large (via the At-Large Summit, the ALAC Review, etc.), resulting in At-Large’s being in a better position today to have its advice listened to.
- The FCWG should formulate a general statement describing this.
>> AI: The FCWG Co-Chairs to formulate a general statement describing the recent evolution within At-Large (via the At-Large Summit, the ALAC Review, etc.), resulting in At-Large’s being in a better position today to have its advice listened to.
Second FCWG-chosen main area of work: Registrant identification and accountability
Some members expressed two concerns regarding this area of work:
- It’s in fact too broad; and
- It overlaps with much other activity already going on within At-Large and ICANN.
As a result of these concerns, the FCWG will need to be careful about which aspects of this area it chooses to work on.
This area begins with registrar accountability. To examine this, Garth has done research into registrar behavior, which could be duplicated annually for comparison.
So that the At-Large and ICANN communities do not reject this research because of its association with any one person, the FCWG must decide how to present it. Certainly, this presentation must emphasize the fact that the whole At-Large community is interesting in ICANN’s pursuing this research.
>> AI: The FCWG to plan, in Dakar, how to present research on registrar behavior.
4. Preparing for the ICANN Meeting in Dakar - Co-Chairs (15 min)
In Dakar, topics, as discussed above, will include:
- The two main areas of work and focus for the FCWG (see above); and
- Ways of presenting the research on registrar behavior.
>> The FCWG Co-Chairs to prepare, with Heidi’s assistance, a short statement on what can be expected from the FCWG.
CLOSING ITEMS
5. AOB - Co-Chairs (5 min)
No AOB topics were brought up.
6. Confirmation of next meeting – Co-chairs (1 min)
The FCWG meeting in Dakar will occur on Friday, 28 October, 2011 at 1:30 pm (UTC and local time).
