FCWG
Participants: Beau Brendler, Wolf Ludwig, Sandra Hoferichter, Oksana Pryhodka, Yrjo Lansipuro, Eduardo Diaz, Dave Kissoondoyal, Fatimata Seye Sylla, Cintra Sooknanan, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Evan Leibovitch, Garth Bruen, Charles Mok, Holly Raiche, Darlene Thompson, Ganesh Kumar
Apologies: Rinalia Abdul Rahim
Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber
Background:
Jean-Jacques Subrenat (JJS) reviewed the operation of WG.
Theme A: Maximizing the Effectiveness of At-Large:
ALAC Review WG and its recommendations – one impact was to allow At-Large to propose a Board member. This increased the visibility of the At-Large community.
The 2009 At-Large Summit was a landmark for the At-Large community.
Evan Leibovitch (EL) reviewed the composition of the WG.
With the assent of this group, EL would like to get others involved, including a Board member and a former Board member.
Eduardo Diaz (ED) asked if others were involved, how would the members of the WG know they won’t become disengaged. He also inquired whether membership in the WG was by invitation only.
JJS noted that the WG has approximately 5 members. Membership could go up to 10-12.
Holly Raiche (HR) stated that she thought that the members of the WG should reserve the right to decide whether individual non-At-Large members could become members. She added that the WG could consist of At-Large and then those whose outside expertise is needed.
EL pointed out that non-WG members could serve as peer reviewers.
Calendar issue:
JJS: There is a fairly short efficacy – to have an impact right from the start – a set of findings and if possible recommendations and conclusion. We suggest:
- Middle of Feb 2012 – Working paper to present to the ALAC through the Chair on the findings and recommendations. That would leave time for the ALAC to call for discussion on the papers. The chair of the ALAC then might be able to convey to the Chair of the Board. Discussion of contents (in Costa Rica?)
Garth Bruen (GB) asked how to get more people engaged in At-Large. He noted that Alan Greenberg said the biggest issue is [domain-related abuse]spam and there is nothing we can do about it. There is no reason for us not to discuss it. If this is indeed the main consumer concern, we can bring this discussion forward.
EL: He – aware. But is conc of limits of ICANN’s scope
JJS: any comments re timeline
Ganesh – timeline seems ok. However, we need to define scope – effectiveness has a broad scope
ALAC or At-Large?
OCL: Effectiveness of At-Large is not possibility as At-Large is not possible as that is a broad group. ALAC is more defined. ALAC/efficiency of its policy development
JJS: We need to take a wide picture (to give us context), but we need to drill down – what are the issues for the end user. One ex was that given by Garth re scam.
Sandra: To clarify – See Theme A as a standing issue, but Theme B will be a changing issue which can change
EL: Agree…
JJS: It is our duty to propse to the alac a complete view with possible solutions. However, a choice of a way forward.
Garth: Sandra’s statement of making spam abuse go away is useful. However, … should be the top agenda item.
EL: term of abuse has been used a lot within ICANN – but narrow def. Part of the role we can play is that registration abuse goes wider
Holly: RAA recs should be picked up. Also, the Registrant Rights Charter should also be included.
Yjro: Point 3 – ALAC Improvement recs – bylaws article was amended – EL and Y were aprt of that. New text creates slightly broader scope for AL. One approach would be to see how AL could fill up this new space. Also, if we are to rep end users worldwide, we should have more research. Perhaps the RALOs and aLSes could provide ALAC with more evidence so we could have more facts when we make …(our
The new bylaws text was read.
ALAC is the primary org home for indiv end users – interests of indiv users this includes … created by other AC/SOs…
JJS: Agrees that this bylaw does give wider scope.
JJS: what are one or two key items for Theme A
Ganesh: We are only 15, so time to what we can have as output. Current members of WG, we should ask ourselves how we can optimize our work. There should be a prioritization mechanism.
Holly: Suggested each RALO picking topic they feel they are competent with. Holly would like to focus on Registrant Rights.
Beau: It is difficult to see/generate…clarify…communications to the Board, direct communication to the Compliance department, etc.
Operational approach:
JJS: Wider challenges for internet user.. part of the …for the listening capacity of the Board vis the ALAC.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond (OCL): Yes, we had a reply from Steve from the letter OCL sent. Steve said he thought the ALAC was going in the right direction. We have a positive reply from the chair of the Board
Theme B: registration abuse
EL: Introduced theme B
Beau Brendler (BB): Registration abuse report – said that domain abuse was outside ICANN’s scope – you could use each point of that report to point out why they are indeed aprt of ICANN’s scope.
EL: Agree – re-delegation of ccTLDS, etc – there are all sorts of things that we could do research on. So ICANN does research that goes against public interest, …
GB: We could say, that one of the reasons we could put this point across as main theme, as internet access expands into developing countries, they need to be informed of dangers.
HR: Asked whether the WG should separate domain abuse/internet abuse.
EL: Correct. This is a long march that begins with a single step. First thing might be to acknowledge how big the task is and start with first step. The first deliverable might simply be a rec of what that first step is.
JJS: Would like to reply to Beau. Might not be one standard – one might be exploratory – one might be to see to what extent do we think ALAC might be able to suggest one way forward. To have a better understanding of the issue.
Next Steps:
JJS: This WG is not a talking shop. Call for membership for subgroups.
Sub-WG A: Ganesh, Holly, Edmon, Yjro, Sandra, Oksana (Rinalia – confirm)
Sub-WG B: Garth, Eduardo, Ganesh, Beau, (Jose, confirm)
Not present: Rinalia, Carlton, Sala, Cintra, Alan,
EL: White Paper, etc. and to create wiki pages for the two Sub-WG . It will be a living doc and bring it back to the ALAC.
Mechanics:
Single mailing list for FCWG – Exists already
ED: Would agree as he will contribute to both.
EL: We also need to designate chairs.
JJS: Anyone who is interested should send to list – send in ideas and comments for first draft. The chair/co-chair will emerge naturally through this process.
AOB
No any other business was noted
