Page History

Summary Minutes

2. Review of AIs from 24 January ALAC Meeting and 9 January ExCom Meeting

3. Policy Update

.CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes -  CS proposed that the ALAC NOT prepare an individual statement on this issue. Some of the issues that come up in this issue will be addressed in the ALAC statement on the Whois RT Report.

Framework for the FY 13 Budget  - Tijani to prepare draft.

TBJ: We will have the call with Xavier with soon. After this call, I will begin to draft the statement.

Whois Policy Review Team Draft Report  -

CS: Not much feedback yet. Only Fatima C. on the list. The major interest for us ...they have made two significant ....for us to handle. 1) Declared policy - I tend to go along with that. Any contract that ICANN has with parties should by right reflect the consenusus of the community. 2) Privacy and Proxy Services - recommendation of the RT is that there needs to be more discussion. That is where I believe we will have some long discussions. My personal view is that if we agree that Whois is a public interest issue, we need to also need to accept that there is some element of privacy for people who use the Internet. We need to find some way to accommodate some privacy of communications. My own view is that you can have privacy issues...We'll see what happens.

4. Follow Up from the ALAC Meeting of 24 January 2012

OCL - We achieved a lot of work during the call. Certainly on the policy advice we have our soldiers lined up for the differenct PCs. The FY13 Budget Requests, there is a call with Xavier Calvex that will explain the FY13 Framework PC. There is one question I have to ask. I may not be able to be on thac call.

Monday, 16:00 UTC.

CS will be able to chair the meeting with Xavier, but defers to Tijani as he is on the FBSC.

OCL - given that TBJ has had technical problems, would like CS to be a back up.

Development of the At-Large Objections Process

OCL - The Academy budget has not yet been submitted as the PC needs to review it. The other FY13 requests have been sent to Finance. OCL will send the Academy request in later today.

GG - Whois RT team call - timing is likely to be Tuesday, 04:00 UTC
5. San Jose, Costa Rica - Initial Agenda Development

CS: SIC/ALAC meeting is only 30 minutes - seems short. I thought that issues comiing out of the cross-constituency WGs were to be discussed.

OCL - This meeting is only to push the specific points for the Taskforce.

CS: I would think two issues: 1) Cross-constituency WGs; 2) Taskforce

HU: The meeting was initially set up to discuss only the Taskforce

RAR: Is there time for more time on capacity building?

HU: Will extend the time on Sunday morning.

RAR: That is workable.

6. SOPA, DNS takedowns, etc -- is there a role for ICANN to play?

OCL: Is there a role for ALAC to play? It is such a hot issue, would it distract us from our primary functions?

CS: I don't think that if you are minefield...you should have a situation where the lawful action of ... do not make it right for unlawful national actions. It seems to me that we should show concern for users who do nothing wrong but are impacted by national actions. We should continue to say in a global shared resources we cannot support unilateral national actions as it tends to damage people who are using the internet legally in other parts of the world.

OCL: RAR, you have strong connections with civil society. What is your take on this?

RAR: If I look at the role that ALAC is supposed to play, that we are to look out for the endusers, we have something to say. The issue is that if we say something, how is it perceived from the outside? Is it seen as an integral part of ICANN?

OCL: That is the question. You are correct. How would this be seen? Would it bring ICANN into a political arena that they do not wish to be seen.

RAR: It is extremely political. The question is whether whether we are prepared to deal with it from the outside and inside.

CS: That is exactly right. We need to be aware of the risks, both internal and external.

OCL: Is this something that we should discuss with the GAC?

CS: It is always good to hear what they think with this.

OCL: If you have any thoughts on this, including Evan, please send them to the lists. SOPA takedowns will be around for a long time. Trying to see the temp of the water.
I think it is within our remit to do something on this.

RAR: One of the ways to work on a sensitive issue is to have an open discussion with other groups.

OCL: We could have an open discussion in CR on this. Include other constituencies. There are some that are for SOPA and some against. Let's prospect this to see if there is any interest.

CS: We can flag this.

7. Any Other Business

OCL - Letter to Seb re ALAC being stronger in their demands. To follow up with Finance, the Board Chair, Sebastien, and the chair of the Board Finane Committee. I'm feeling quite positive about this. I would like to hear your feedback before committing.

TBJ: I think that it is the right way to address the issue. If we don't show our longterm issue concernint the General Assemblies, we will never have satisfaction. We did before. I do think it is the right way to address the issue. I will send you soon some text showeing how the GAs need to be organized.

OCL: I will draft a letter to the Board chair and send it to you for review. My concern is that the RALOs have come to me and saying that they have made requests for GAs and not funding.

CS: In LACRALO, nothing upsets them more than a lack of a f2f GA. Even though we have told them that a GA doesn't need to be f2f, LaCRALO wants a f2f GA. They believe that ICANN is falling away in its commitment to the RALOs.

RAR: I think that is APRALO doesn't get funding for a GA, there will be disengagement in the future.

OCL: I see it  as a problem of not having f2f GAs for a while. As we are encouraged to grow, our regions are going to continue to grow. We are growing at a fast rate. This would make an ICANN funded GA more expensive each year. If we end up with 200 or 300 ALSes in each RALO, do we expect ICANN to pay for a GA? Or do we need to begin asking the RALOs re limits (x number of ALSes from each country).

CS: You are opening a bucket of worms. Issue of public interest There is a movement in LACRALO is for more people to sign up.

TBJ: Please don't enter into this kind of consideration. We don't have countries, we have ALSes. The ALSes have different perspectives. It will be the most active country that will be penalized.

OCL: Do you have a suggestion when we have 200 ALSes in one RALO?

TBJ: When we have that many, everything will change.

OCL: Would it be up to the RALOs to decide?

TBJ: We can have the RALOs look into this.

RAR: The first thing we need to decide is whether scholarships will be accepted. If that is the case, there are external agencies that support scholorships. However, some part of the funding will need to come from ICANN. Another way that we manage to somehow raise funding for scholarship is to organize these learning events similar to the Academy. Different organizations will want to participate and they will pay fo it.

OCL: Learning event - broader internet related or how ICANN works?

RAR: Issues that ICANN works on.

OCL: So related to ICANN. Let's think about this and get input. It is not something that we need to do before CR. Certainly something that we need to look at...

CS: When it comes to the budget discussions in CR, this will be a hot topic.
The way the GAs were constructed, is that they were opportunities for capacity building in the ICANN community. This would give the ALS reps greater oppty for them to learn about ICANN issues.

OCL: COI/SOI statements - question that has been asked and a poll.

MA: The poll passed. Twenty in favor, one abstention.

OCL: The question is now next steps. We can either make it manditory or optional.

MA: The poll indicates that the majority are in support.

OCL: Anyone strongly against it?

OCL: Any other AOB?

OCL: Call is adjourned.