At-Large Advisory Committee
Summary Minutes
14th February 2007
Present (ALAC): C Aguirre, S Bachollet, J Ovidio Salgueiro, V Cretu, I Aizu, V Scartezini, A Greenberg, A Muehlberg, B Brendler, C Langdon-Orr (16:20)
Present (Secretariats and Community): L Allinson, C Samuels, D Farrar, J Morris, D Thompson, E Leibovitch, W Ludwig, P Budhrani
Staff: N Ashton-Hart
Minutes taken by: Staff
The Chair (V Scartezini) called the meeting to order at 1605. The Staff read over the three items on the agenda at the request of the Chair
Item 1: Presentation by Richard Westlake, Westlake Consulting, on the Review of the ALAC
R Westlake provided an overview of the origin of the review and presented the expected process of the review via PowerPoint.
The Chair invited questions from the floor.
I Aizu asked for clarifications on the methodology of the review.
R Westlake noted that the details of this would be forthcoming; the short timeframe since the appointment had been concluded had not permitted development of publishable materials on this subject.
W Ludwig asked who precisely would the reviewers be reporting to.
R Westlake and V Scartezini replied that the direct staff person responsible was Denise Michel, but the review as a whole was commissioned by the board and would be managed by the ALAC Review Committee composed of present and former board members by invitation.
S Bachollet noted (break in minutes due to technical difficulties)
R Westlake noted that it was important for the review to incorporate views of non-fluent English speakers and there was a deliberate attempt to reach out to those concerned.
B Brendler asked about how the report would progress through the reporting chain.
V Scartezini noted that the draft report would be provided to the ALAC and to the ALAC Review Group and then it would go out for public comment, after which it would be amended and eventually adopted by the Board of ICANN.
A Muehlberg asked … (break in minutes due to technical issues)
I Aizu asked (break in minutes for technical issues)
I Aizu asked if there was a summary of the agreement available or if the terms of reference as finally provided to you could be provided. It was also asked what the precise timeline was for the deliverables.
R Westlake and Colin noted that the engagement was signed the day before Westlake Consulting left for New Delhi and so some of the preparatory work had yet to be done; the consultants were ‘front loading’ their interviews now and would then go back to the other elements upon their return from New Delhi.
The Chair (C Langdon-Orr) introduced herself to the reviewers and thanked them for their presentation.
Item 3
The Staff provided a review of the basic features and philosophy of the new website.
Various comments and questions were asked from the floor and the appreciation of the meeting was expressed with the view that this is a very considerable step forward for the community.
Session with Members of the Government Advisory Committee
Introductions
The distinguished delegates of Finland and France introduced themselves. It was made clear that they appeared in their personal capacities and not as representatives of their countries or of the GAC.
B La Chapelle: The GAC appears to be mysterious from the outside. Governments are naturally reticent to expose positions that are not fully formed or yet agreed. There is not a desire to be secretive; it is an element of the way in which governments work with one another. Governments produce work through documents and interaction tends to be triggered by parts of a document. This is different to the way of working of others. With respect to substance, there are issues which are sensitive to GAC members and which have taken up much time – at this meeting IDN ccTLDs are one – the cross-constituency nature of the IDNC is very welcome and an important improvement in developing work on issues. IDNC is particularly interesting because governments are very interested in the subject, as are other stakeholders. The JPA is another area of particular interest though it is not really possible to go beyond the GAC communiqué statements in this regard due to the sensitivity of the issues.
Y Länsipuro: GAC is an advisory body, whether requested by the board or on its own initiative. It is different from other advisory bodies in that if the Board disagrees with GAC advice, it must come to the GAC and explain why. Those who wish for more of a government role complain about this, but he noted that to date the Board had yet to reject GAC advice. Consensus on issues was often challenging. Recently GAC had wished to have more interaction with other communities and developments in this regard in the ALAC are of interest.
Chair: Noted that things were indeed in a state of flux and that the ALAC review team are here today with us.
The Chair asked for interventions from the floor
C Aguirre noted that the GAC seemed interested in interacting with us but he understands that the GAC will not yet accept a liaison from the ALAC and he wondered why this was the case as governments represent the people, as does ALAC.
Y Länsipuro:: This was discussed at the GAC meeting – a discussion was underway about liaisons with all the other bodies of ICANN. He noted there are many more open sessions than previously.
B La Chapelle: On a personal basis I am in favour of liaisons. We are at the same meetings, some of our meetings are closed, some other constituencies’ meetings are closed too. This is a subject of disagreement within the GAC but in the future this is a key question and is directly relevant to the multi-stakeholder process. I encourage governments to make personal statements in other communities. He regrets very much that some GAC representatives did not attend the public forum though he is sure there are practical reasons why this is the case.
I Aizu asked if we could have informal representatives between the two groups. He noted he had enquired if some government representatives were interested in working on IPv4-IPv6 issues and this was widely felt to be a potential area of work at the Paris meeting.
B La Chapelle: He noted that there were many common elements between ALAC and the GAC at the policy level. The two political and social bodies are really ALAC and the GAC in the ICANN community; the others are primarily coming from technical or other perspectives.
Y Länsipuro: :Unofficially I have no objection to contacts between GAC and ALAC.
V Scartezini: As a former GAC member and I can say that it is much more open than it was when I was there. She thinks that members of the GAC could be observers within other groups. If the GAC agreed they could send a liaison/observer who could then report back on what is taking place in ALAC to GAC members.
A Muehlberg: Noted her enjoyment of meetings with GAC members and advance scheduling to identify views for discussion and even if we could not yet have a liaison to the GAC, the GAC are welcome to have a liaison to us. Did GAC provide input on the GAC?
Y Länsipuro: :This discussion will be very valuable when discussion takes place on this issue in the GAC. There was discussion on this in the GAC and in the session with the Board. The GAC communiqué contained what the GAC was corporately able to say on the subject.
B Brendler: Noted that the GAC Chair was interested in a survey on WHOIS and wondered if this could be a subject of joint work.
Y Länsipuro: :GAC cannot undertake a study but we recommend that studies be done. In the communiqué it states that a letter is to be transmitted to the board with ideas as to what questions should be asked in such studies. It is not overtly stated but these studies should be done by a reputable external party.
B La Chapelle: The JPA is a delicate subject clearly however it needs to be discussed. During the midterm review it is difficult for the USA to discuss the subject. This made it difficult even to discuss the response of the ICANN Board. It is anticipated that more can be said at the Paris meeting. He noted on a personal level, whenever the JPA ends there are things that must be addressed before the organisation will be able to stand on its own in order to fulfil the vision of multi-stakeholderism. How do we form a roadmap – there being 4 issues to consider. Is the ending of the JPA the right target date? What issues are there other than those in the JPA which must be planned for? For example, at what level is a PDP – the SO level, or applying to all the stakeholder groups. Three: what are the milestones and deliverables by the end of the JPA. Finally, what is the relationship between the ICANN stakeholders and external stakeholders who are not part of the ICANN family – the IGF being one example. This is his personal position not that of the GAC or of France.
Y Länsipuro: On a personal basis I believe that the end-state of the transition has to be a state which everyone perceives as being an improvement over what exists today, and needs to be a win-win situation for everyone including the USA.
The Chair invited B Brendler to review the position of his organisation. He then briefly recapped his submission.
The Chair invited E Leibovitch to share the view of the NARALO on the subject. He noted that many in the NARALO were submitting but the comments were largely congruent with that of Consumer Reports.
The Chair invited J Morris to review her position. She provided her thoughts, including that there should be no special status for the GAC, and that no oversight of any particular government or intergovernmental agency was appropriate. She was expecting views from the Caribbean as well. She noted that there was insufficient outreach to developing country participants. She noted that ISOC Italy noted that ICANN had done what was required by the JPA and were ready for independence.
The Chair invited C Samuels for LACRALO to comment on the subject. C Samuels noted that he believed that ALAC had a duty to make a comment as ALAC on the subject. There was not sufficient response internally in LACRALO at the present to take a corporate decision. He could make a mild statement. He felt that the statement by ALAC in 2006 was more or less a good basis for a statement today.
S Bachollet supports the statement of C Samuels and it is important to leave this meeting with a statement.
The Chair noted that she was about to summarise the statement of her ALS by reading the second-to-last paragraph of the ISOC Au.
B La Chapelle noted that it was really pleasant to be able to discuss this issue. The question of representation, more balanced representation, more international representation, was a very important point. On a personal level he believes that the oversight idea is an interesting notion. He believes that the transition is a very delicate one, from external accountability to a single government, to an internally supported accountability that is based upon the principles under which ICANN ws founded including transparency and the multi-stakeholder model. If this is in place for 2010, then the accountability will not be in doubt. There is no proposal to transfer the overview to a government, or a group of governments, or an international organisation. This is a major revolution in thought. Can we prove together that we can build a process that is truly accountable? The ball is in our court.
Y Länsipuro: :This principle must be a part of the win-win situation I mentioned earlier. The representation of the users is a central question. How can you represent a billion people? What is the modality for that? If ALAC would think in those terms, that would be a great help.
A Greenberg: The point is that it is fine to say we want to be free of the JPA, but what do we want to replace it? If we can do that before 2009, at the rate we work, I’m somewhat dubious. The real challenge is to figure out what to do in a way accountable, transparent, subvertable, etc.
The Chair noted complete agreement in the room.
C Samuels suggested that we use what was just said as the core of our statement.
B La Chapelle noted with respect to the review that the PSC will report in Paris. There are many reviews going on. The reductionist approach needs to be reconciled to allow a holistic approach to all the reviews.
The Chair offered the thanks of the meeting (to applause) for the attendance of the GAC representatives.
The Chair announced a brief break.
The Chair announced that an ad-hoc drafting group to complete a JPA statement would be formed and the following volunteers offered to conclude a statement by 1000 tomorrow. The members are: C Samuels, B Brendler, W Ludwig, A Muehlberg, A Greenberg.
Discussion with Doug Brent, COO, ICANN
The Chair asked D Brent, ICANN COO, who had just arrived, to address the meeting.
D Brent thanked the meeting for the opportunity to come and speak and was available for any issues the ALAC cared to take. He proposed that rather than go into detail on the budget he suggested a later telephonic conversation about this subject in March or April which provided plenty of time for the consultation.
The Chair proposed that the March teleconference could be devoted to this subject.
D Brent suggested that since the last teleconference on this subject had not been terribly successful he proposed that a subset of ALAC could identify the subjects it wished to have addressed and the conference call could be tailored to those subjects.
W Seltzer suggested that the ALAC should study the budget in detail as early comments were always better than later ones.
The Chair encouraged RALO representatives to feel free to inject themselves into the discussion.
D Brent noted that it was important for the At-Large community to focus on what it needs internally but also it is important to look outwardly at what ICANN as a whole should be focussing on. He noted several communities he was meeting with in this regard.
W Ludwig asked if there was a particular format that needed to be used.
Staff noted that no magic format was required – suggestions could be detailed; they could be narrative and the staff would help to develop ideas if that was helpful.
A Muehlberg noted that it was useful if the subject could contain the word ‘BUDGET’ so that it would be clear and of course these should be sent to the ALAC budget committee and the staff.
V Cretu offered to provide information on the necessary elements related to projects so that you could develop the idea further as you wrote.
D Brent noted that there were some months left to comment and propose ideas.
Update of W Seltzer on Board Meeting Discussions
The Chair invited W Seltzer to update the meeting on the Board meeting.
W Seltzer noted that she did present to the Board on the At-Large summit and whilst she could not predict the Board’s reply she did note a serious interest and that the Board did take seriously any effort to help the community be successful. She was available via Skype when in the meeting.
The Chair offered thanks for the report and offered the floor to comments.
V Scartezini offered her thanks and noted that the ability to work via Skype was really helpful.
S Bachollet noted that he saw Wendy as a liaison to the Board and he hoped you would be able to be here when the Board members came to meet with the ALAC but instead she was sent to another constituency. He also offered his thanks for the work on behalf of the Summit and hoped there would be time to find agreement on all the documents being presented related to the Summit.
A Muehlberg asked to respond to S Bachollet. We made a mistake in planning this meeting. We have so many liaisons going to other places and it means that the liaisons are unable to attend many community meetings of those they represent. She hopes that in future it will be possible to plan timing better.
S Bachollet agreed.
J Morris noted that she and the ccNSO Liaison to ALAC had exchanges between themselves in order to keep up to date.
The Staff noted that it was nearly impossible to avoid conflicts due to the heavy schedule of meetings of the constituencies.
W Seltzer noted that she thought it was useful to try and avoid conflicts and she noted that she wished to say she was being treated as a regular Director and that was why she was in another constituency when At-Large met with other Board members.
The Chair offered the thanks of the meeting and applause as W Seltzer and D Brent left the meeting.
The Chair noted that the GNSO Review, Accountability and Transparency Frameworks, and New GTLDs would need to be discussed at a later time as it was now 1850. She suggested that the relevant working groups should follow up on these items at their earliest convenience. She said that the meeting would spend its remaining time on the JPA statement.
A Muehlberg introduced the current state of the text and the meeting proceeded through the text as it stood with the Chair reading each part of the text and inviting comments.
The meeting offered several comments and it was noted that there were divergent views in the community about whether or not the JPA should be ended, and when.
With respect to the last paragraph it was suggested by several parties that the paragraph should be replaced with some of the concepts mentioned earlier in the meeting and the alternative paragraph suggested was a good start.
The Chair noted that the suggestion of V Scartezini to include language that ALAC was a part of ICANN and would work together with others to design solutions and the future. It was noted that text from the minutes earlier could almost be used verbatim.
S Bachollet asked when the conversation about the Summit would continue.
The Chair noted that we were out of time and that the meeting was adjourned as we were out of time.
