FCWG:
JJS reviewed the agenda
Agenda:
- R3 paper, the way forward:
- Will be used as a reference in the NPOC session in Toronto, being prepared by Alain Berranger.
- What other contacts?
- Increased revenue at ICANN: an opportunity to serve the global public interest?
- Compliance in ICANN: should this discussion continue within the FCWG, or elsewhere in ALAC?
- AOB
JJS – We needed to have an elevated view of our work. This is why we wrote this paper. We hope it will be the base of wider discussion within ICANN.
EL: We are starting on putting the R3 in the hands of people outside of At-Large. Kieren McArthy – but didn’t publish. We can try to contact other journalists and bloggers. We’d like to ask you for you opinion on who we should approach.
JJS Asked that the group review the translated versions of the document. We ask that you get in touch with us or staff and point out any inaccuracies and suggested revisions.
JJS: How would you like to have the next steps of the R3?
Siva: My first thought is to suggest that we take this WG to the next level and turn it into a CWG. I would also like to note that Fadi Chehade mentioned this morning – that the way the AC/SOs are organized has some scope for structural change. For ex. on the end users side we have ALAC and the NCUC. On the business side, there is the GNSO, etc. Is there scope we could suggest a long-term structure?
Peter Knight – I find this paper very relevant paper. However, it is written in ICANNese. The general public can’t possibly understand. It needs an executive summary, why it is important to the average end user. It sounds like what Fadi was talking about this morning. Most executive won’t read more than one page and a sound bite is 9 seconds.
EL: Thinking of sending to ITU, IGF, etc, so groups that are somewhat familiar of the context and language. To get there, we need more discussion.
JJS: We have no intent in limiting this to the North American continent. Target is internet users worldwide. Other reactions?
Maureen – We have 22 different countries. Currently, we have only 2 ALSes in the Pacific. By introducing this paper, this could be a good way to get them involved.
GM: I’m going to the Workspace and it said the comments period closed in June 2012. How many comments did you receive.
EL: We need to put this doc out on the email blasts, for example the emails that David Olive sends out.
JJS: I’d like to repeat the names of the core authors: Rinalia, Yjro, Evan, Carlton, JJS, Hong.
Hong: I noted that ALAC voted on the paper and it is thus endorsed. What is the next step for this doc?
Peter Knight – the Dubai WCIT conference is in Dec, it is time to reach out to beyond ICANN. We need more of a sense of urgency here. If the CEO is in favor of it, then let’s get on with it.
RAH: Start with the suggestion that we push it out to the ALSes. However, to have meaningful …I think that the ICANN leadership will be working on this. I think that a longer term follow up is needed.
GM: This is a choir book to the community, so it makes sense it was written in the language they understand.
EL: Three of the authors of the R3 is on the ExCom. Sally Costerton could be a way to move this forward. They have external contacts to external contacts. The fact that that the CEO has said things that are aligned with this, it does not mean that the community agrees. This is not an ICANN document. The communication strategy
AI: Staff to work with the Chairs of the FCWG to make sure that the ICANN communications department be approached for purposes of outreach for the R3.
AD: Has Fadi been given a copy of this document and have you had discussions with him?
Siva: The Future Challenges of ICANN are the future challenges of the wider internet community. One AI I would suggest is to either have an open forum at the IGF in Baku or a side event – Giganet…
Peter Knight – Agree with the last two speakers. How do you get it to be an ICANN document?
JJS: I’d like to suggest: 1) turning an ALAC White Paper into an ICANN paper is another step. However, I’m not sure doing so would give it more clout. It would takes months. So, I’m prepared to discuss this further outside this discussion, but note that there is a time constraint: 2) We ask the ALAC Chair to send the R3 to the Chair of the Board – and then it will be distributed to the entire Board. The idea of going to Sally Costerton is a good idea. I suggest we ask her to facilitate our distribution plans. The Board, CEO – but also Sally and Tarek, - that in this letter from the ALAC Chair to the Board – that he inform his interlocutors of the plans. CWG….The idea of transmitting it to our ALSes – yes, we will do that. With a suggesting that we ask them to further distribute the document in their local networks. The suggestions to organize a webinar – yes, good idea.
JJS: In the shorter term, I suggest we have Beijing ICANN 46 be a marker.
RAH: I suggest that in Beijing, we note whether there has been any updates. We hold a public session to assess this.
JJS: We give him credit for any changes. We can do this in Beijing.
Increased revenue at ICANN: an opportunity to serve the global public interest?
Item 2
JJS: It could start off by soliciting funding by ICANN. It would be internet centric but not ICANN centric. In rough terms this is what I submit to you
I am in the Committee which assigns community grounds we submit 100,000 k, we very much value a matching idea and welcome any corporation that would like to grant internet related projects we are tackling the same community.
Glenn: How much money are we talking about
JJS: It really depends on definition, what is the scope? A modest start with no limits to auditions.
It depends on how we start. If we present one or two very concrete projects. It maybe a good idea that ICANN as a body can fund things that are not in the main stream
This is just a floating idea
Glenn: I understand that the same challenge was faced with IEEE and we went for funding with USAID, Soros foundation and other organizations that deal with digital divide issues.
Rinalia: The idea that JJ has outlined is under ICT development. But we need to understand what is unique about JJ proposition.
Evan: The Gtld is supposed to be revenue neutral. The concept of cost neutrality was a central point of the new gTLD Program.
Avri: Indeed we have seen several times that we have a commitment to look at it. Various things have been mentioned overtime. There has been a conversation about getting a fund started for a while. I am very much in support of doing that until it succeeds. ICT for Development, as supposed to create Registry-Registrar capacity. I would like to suggest that is a “Directed thing” as supposed to ICT for development.
JJS: When I was member of the Board the issue came up but
3. Any Other Business
Compliance: Maguy came to talk to us on Sunday and in a different mood. Tone was cooperative and trying to fix things and some conversations focused that compliance wants to work with us on an ongoing basis, what is that we consider bad actions and what RAA can do to fix it . So one of the things was our frustration on the RAA negotiations and the opaque negotiations which have been held in private.
We have to start to think of a broader approach and look at this in the sense of look at the actions.
Holly: There were a couple of pieces that fell out apparently the word revocation was in the contracts, the representative of .dady was very upset. There is no modified text from June but there is some movement.
Evan: Perhaps the movement is already happening? We have to continue with the move that started yesterday.
Carlton: The flash point seems to be the revocation. Then there was the issue of WHOIS accuracy data and there was a lot of discussion on WHOIS enforcement. Distinction between European and American data privacy. The other issue is data retention.
What disturbs me is that there seems to be now a movement to have a bi-[polar world with respect tp WHOIS data, which would make people in Tehran happy. What is a concern is that ICANN staff seems to be inching along. There was a question on accuracy. Our objective is to have a piece of data which we can use to contact one human person. At some point there was a point that we do not want to break national laws. That answer for me is indicative of a mindset.
Few comments before concluding the meeting
2 issues:
1) Immediate Dec deadline. What the Future challenges needs a higher level view on what needs to be fixed.
2) Evan asked Holly and Carlton, and ask Holly to hold the token to start something rolling and enumerate the idea to start a position that develops into a rationale.
3) Holly: I would like to involve Garth. Garth accepts.
JJS: To conclude a general remark
Here we are in the FS WG, our next assignment is the R3 paper and now we are working on how to get around the difficulties regarding compliance. The reason this group was formed is to look at challenges outside of ALAC. The second thing is something more concrete with implications in the short term. This is the link between the two.
