Page History

WT B MEETING MINUTES:  12 JANUARY 2011

Participants:  Fouad Bajwa, Annalisa Roger, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Gordon Chillcott, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Darlene A. Thompson, Sandra Hoferichter, Sébastien Bachollet

Apologies:  Yaovi Atohoun, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Michel Tchonang, Wolf Ludwig, Moataz Shaarawy

Absent:  Baudouin Schombe, Carlos Aguirre, Antonio Medina Gómez, Gareth Shearman

Staff: Seth Greene, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White

WT B AGENDA:  26 JAN 2011

STANDING AGENDA ITEMS

1.  Roll call – 5 min.

2.  Review of AIs from 12 January meeting – Co-Chairs; 5 min

   a)  Seth to send WT B mailing list (a) WT B workspace url and (b) Sandra Hoferichter’s PowerPoint presentation on capacity building.

      -  Status:  Done

   b)  Heidi to check on the status of ICANN’s in-progress Language Services Policy.

      -  Status:  Done

Heidi spoke to Christina Rodriguez, ICANN’s Translation Manager.  The new Language Services Policy, covering translation and interpretation, is targeted for completion by San Francisco.  Seth will request that Christina get us a copy of the new draft Language Services Policy.

Christina is happy to meet with WT B, if it would like.

   c)  Seth to create a Confluence page summarizing the list of the potential initiatives and proposals that WT B has discussed, in preparation for making its proposals to the ALAC.

      -  Status:  Done.  See WT B Proposals in Development.

   d)  All WT B members to review the Confluence page summarizing the previously discussed potential initiatives and proposals before next meeting.

      -  Status:  TBD

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

3.  Deadlines and final reporting – Seth; 5 min

      -  See WT B’s Proposals in Development

      -  See WT B Simplified Improvements Outline

Seth reported:  The only deadline important to the SIC and Board was for Recommendation 2 (the At-Large-selected Board member).  The deadline for all the other recommendations has been self-imposed as the end of March 2011.  There will probably be some but not a lot of leeway around that date.  Of course, it would be ideal if all the recommendations could be resolved by the ICANN San Francisco meeting, but it’s likely that some of the WTs are lagging behind that timeline.

Seth also reported:  We’re looking into the form of the final reporting that will need to be done.  The final reporting, of course, is the responsibility of the ALAC.  There’s no precedent.  But the Improvements project previous project plan and status report were well received by the Board and SIC, so we could consider sticking to that format, which basically was a short report covering each recommendation, with annexes containing any needed details.  But there will be some leeway, up to the ALAC and the WTs’ writers, regarding the form of this reporting.

Note that Cheryl added the following in the WT A meeting on 27 January 2011:

• The ALAC would likely appreciate a careful synopsis by each WT that could basically be dropped into its overall report on Improvements.  For some of this synopsis, the WTs could likely refer to their presentations prepared for Cartagena (and now to be delivered in the next ALAC meeting), with some updating added.

4.  Need to begin interacting with and making proposals to the ALAC – Olivier and Cheryl; 10 min

The work teams need to finalize their proposals and action plans regarding how to implement.  The ALAC will make the final decisions about requesting budgeting for these proposals how they fit into the ALAC and ICANN strategic plans.  So the WTs must translate their ideas into proposals for the ALAC; specifically, the WT needs to look at its proposals under development and decide which are mature enough to bring to the ALAC (for example, Sandra’s proposal on training). 

Furthermore, Olivier requested the WTs prioritize any proposals certainly that would need ICANN Bylaw changes and even those that would require RALO Bylaw changes to send to the ALAC as soon as possible.  Such changes take a long time.  Perhaps, if the WTs move quickly and prioritize this group of proposals, the ALAC could handle them in San Francisco.

Olivier also suggested that the WTs consider using the FY12 Budget request template as part of their proposals to the ALAC.  If the WT does not know the actual dollar amount that a proposal would cost, it should just leave that blank.  The ALAC or the Staff can often help with that.

Possible Bylaw changes needed by WT B:

Fouad described that WT B’s discussion of making RALO membership more available to individuals not affiliated with ALSes may require Bylaw changes – likely to the RALO Bylaws but not the ICANN Bylaws.  Fouad has proposed this to APRALO.  They are going to discuss it further, and Fouad can report back at the end of February. 

Olivier’s suggestions:

• WT B should prioritize this proposal at the top, because of the time it takes for even RALO Bylaw changes. 
• Also, important to perhaps try to discuss this on Secretariat level, so can possibly do in same way across regions (given that each RALO has different Bylaws).
• In WT B’s proposal, might want to be careful not to change voting structure within RALOs, because that could cause problems.
  

Different RALOs handle individual members unaffiliated with ALS differently.  NARALO has one “ALS” for them in every country, so they can vote.  EURALO has a work team looking at different options to allow for voting unaffiliated members.  One option is to have them join in a certain class; another is have one “ALS” for them throughout the whole RALO (not one in every country, because that would possibly take members away from actual ALSes; EURALO’s goal is still to have regular ALSes be the main way to join EURALO). 

5.  The ALS Survey and how it relates to Rec. 3 (remove any obstacles in ALS-RALO-ALAC structure) and WT B’s other recommendations – Dev, 10 min

      -  See ALS Survey Analysis: Draft report (Dec 2010)

      -  See ALS Survey Analysis: Presentation (June 2010).

Several of the Survey questions involve the ALS-RALO-ALAC structure. 

Most directly related to the At-Large structure is question # 12:  On a scale of 1 to 5, how well is your ALS integrated in the overall ALAC/RALO/ALS policy structure?  22% of ALSes feel isolated.  32% feel in between.  Based on this, the Survey team made these recommendations:

• ALAC activities need to be documented and stored, so that ALSes not involved can easily find out about them.
• When Global Partnerships meets in a region, that region’s ALSes don’t even know.  We recommend more feedback from Global Partnerships so that the local ALSes can informally meet with them.  (Dev is actually working a lot in this area.)
  

Question # 1:  Name and Contacts of ALS Representatives.  One-third do not have secondary contacts.  Most do not have tertiary contacts.  This means that there are not enough members in these ALSes to take part in their activities.

Question # 6a:  How often does your ALS meet?  Most ALSes meet every 2--3 months and not face-to-face.  Given that most of ICANN’s public comment periods on policy issues are on a 30-day cycle, this means that most ALSes can not comment on most policy issues.  We, therefore, recommended that online material might help this situation, as well as letting ALS members directly subscribe to ICANN and give input into policy work.  (Plus, the idea of letting ALS members themselves directly subscribe to ICANN relates to our question #5 below.)

Question # 5:  Communication Tools used by ALSes.  We found that the most-used tools are mailing lists, Skype, and Facebook.  The use of RSS feeds is low.  However, RSS feeds are the best way to keep track of ICANN issues and information, such as At-Large Confluence-page changes.  Therefore, we recommended that new communication tools, which make it easier to access information, be considered.  One example is Posterous, which WT B is looking at.

>>  AI:  Dev to write summary of how the ALS Survey relates to WT B’s recommendations, especially Rec. 3 (remove any obstacles in ALS-RALO-ALAC structure).

6.  Next steps regarding Rec. 9 (ICANN should strengthen its translation/interpretation tools), particularly related to ICANN’s in-progress Language Services Policy – Co-Chairs, 10 min

We should keep in mind that some regions – LACRALO and AFRALO – are more affected by the translation tools used than are other regions.

Language Services is about to introduce some changes that are in progress, including:

• The introduction of a new translation tool; and
• The translation team will be kept the same on each recurring call.
  
  

7.  Report on ALSes’ interest in and specific planned use of AC Rooms – Annalisa, Gordon; 5 min

Annalisa reported that the Board of her ALS discussed the possibility of using an AC Room made available to it by At-Large.  They did not turn down the offer but were not exited about it.  The members did not know what they would use it for.  Annalisa felt as though she did not have enough information about what it might be used for in order to “sell” the idea to them.  She also suggested that it would be easier to pitch if we organized an event that required its use.

Annalisa’s ALS meets both face-to-face and using Skype.

Gordon reported that the idea was discussed at length by his ALS.  It also did not see much use for it because its meetings are face-to-face. 

Sebastien pointed out that the use of AC Rooms would be more appealing:

• To ALSes spread over a wider area;
• For opening participation abroad; and
• For collaborating on documents.
  

Other ideas regarding communication tools that Gordon’s ALS was more receptive to:

• Confluence page(s); and
• Being on an ICANN mailing list.  The members would like to be notified when something new occurs re ICANN.
  

Darlene believes that one of her two ALSes would be interesting in using an AC Room for meetings. 

>>  AI:  Darlene to propose the use of an AC Room to her ALS.

>>  AI:  Heidi to inquire within ICANN how it would offer an AC Room to an ALS.

8.  Any other business -- Co-Chairs; 5 min

Sebastien announced that he feels he must resign from WT B due to his new Board position.

>>  AI:  Seth should remove Sebastien from the membership and mailing list of WT B.

9.  Confirmation of next meeting time:  Wed, 9 Feb, at 13:00 UTC – 5 min, Co-Chairs

The members agreed to this meeting time.

The meeting was adjourned.