Date: Thursday, 08 July 2021                                   

Time: 21:00-22:00 UTC

...

Zoom

...

: 

...

https://icann.zoom.us/j/97083295809?pwd=eXV5ZllsL1FVZlhXNGQvUnUvc0lJQT09
Webinar ID:

...

970 8329 5809
Passcode: XYr^PQcc7?

International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/agzxFop23 [icann.zoom.us]ac554K7LcM
Phone Passcode: 4104623868

...

Interpretation available: Yes (ES & FR - Simultaneous)

How can I participate in this meeting? English Conference ID = 9001

¿Cómo se puede participar en la teleconferencia? Spanish Conference ID: 9003

Comment participer a cette teleconference?  French Conference ID = 9002

...

AFRALO Abdulkarim Oloyede, Dave Kissoondoyal, Sarah Kiden

...

Liaisons Andrei Kolesnikov(SSAC), Barrack Otieno  (ccNSO), Cheryl Langdon-Orr (GNSO), Yrjö Lansipuro Länsipuro (GAC)

...

Dial Out Participants

EN: Barrack Otieno, 

ES: 

FR: 

Apologies: 

Staff:

...

Action items: EN

Recording: EN, ES, FR

Transcript: EN, ES, FR

Zoom chat: EN

Zoom Recording: EN

AGENDA - TO BE UPDATED 

AGENDA 

1. Welcome: Maarten and Maureen (3 mins)
2. Issue 1:ALAC Advice to the Board - Best practice in format, approach,  feedback and process

   1. ALAC Speakers: Jonathan  Zuck and Olivier Crépin-Leblond (5 mins)

   2. Board response/s and discussion (10 mins)

3. Issue 2: ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Subsequent Procedures 
   1. ALAC Speaker: Justine Chew (10 mins) 
      • Does the ALAC need to further clarify the complex issues touched on in this advice?
      • How can the ALAC support the Board in its consideration of the Advice? Especially in areas where other ACs have also given advice.
      • When could the ALAC expect a formal reply from the Board on this advice?
      • If the Board is initiating an ODP on the SubPro Outcomes: 
        • What is the timeline for this? 
        • What (broad) areas does the Board intend to focus on via the ODP?
        • Would ALAC/At-Large have a role in the same beyond just participating in a call for public comments?
   2. Board response/s and discussion (10 mins)
4. Issue 3: Holistic Review
   1. ALAC Speakers: Holly Raiche, Greg Shatan, and Sébastien Bachollet 
      1. i. ATRT3 and the ‘holistic review’: Holly Raiche (2 mins)
         
         1. This past year of lockdown has served to break the established ICANN ‘silos’ as we all join  the fewer meetings on offer - more often now involving participants from across the ICANN community.  It has proved that we can and do communicate across communities to address the range of issues facing ICANN. 
         2. The ALAC,therefore, supports the ATRT3 recommendation for a ‘holistic review' that asks whether the structures put in place 20 years ago still best serve the whole community, or if changes in operations and structure will better achieve ICANN’s  objectives, including ensuring optimal representation of community views.  
      2. The importance of the ICANN Multistakeholder Model: Greg Shatan (4 mins)
      3. Questions about the ‘holistic review’: Sébastien Bachollet (4 mins)
         1. The Board proposal regarding the ‘holistic review’ is to do a pilot review. Could you please provide the view of the Board on why a pilot review was agreed rather than the first full Holistic Review?  Could you also please provide a description of this pilot review? 
         2. The Board did not consider that ICANN can do the Holistic Review within the time frame included in the ATRT3. Could you please elaborate? Finally,  could we discuss if and whether the Holistic Review could be completed within the ATRT3 time frame?

   2. Board Response/s and discussion (10 mins)

5. Closure: Maarten (2 mins)
6. Welcome -  León Sánchez, ICANN Board Vice Chair and Director selected by At-Large
7. Opening Comments from Maarten Botterman, ICANN Board Chairman, and Maureen Hilyard, ALAC Chair
8. Questions from the ALAC to the ICANN Board:
   1. Introduced by Marita Moll, ALAC Member from NARALO and Christopher Wilkinson, Member of EURALO
      1. Currently, various activities are being rolled-out under Strategic Objective #2: Improve the effectiveness of ICANN's multistakeholder model of governance. Under this banner, we are interested in how we can work together to make sure the end user in ICANN's MS model is a visible and well-understood part of the process. We would also like to hear more about how the "understanding the global public interest" project will intersect with the work on the MS evolution.
   2. Introduced by Alan Greenberg, Member of NARALO:
      1. We talk about a "holistic" review of ICANN with the potential outcome of significant changes in how we are organized and how we conduct business. There is certainly a lot of talk about this being an important step for ICANN. My sense is that EVERYONE wants to see significant change, but not in THEIR OWN area (NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard). Is such a review really possible, and if so, ho do we go about it?

   3. Introduced by Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Member of EURALO:

      1. With two Policy Development Processes currently reaching milestones that require Board action, namely the EPDP and the Subsequent Procedures PDP, there still appears to be divergence amongst the ICANN community on many sticky points.The ALAC has the ability to comment and provide Advice directly to the Board on both of these issues, and indeed, it has used this ability. Other advisory Committees also have the opportunity to provide Advice. However, when asked, the ICANN CEO has mentioned that according to the Bylaws, the only body that makes policy for Generic Top Level Domains is the GNSO. Yet, some matters clearly appear to be going around in circles. 

      2. Is the Board willing to take into account the balance of all stakeholders in ICANN? For example, prior to the last round of new gTLDs, the Board took steps to organize an ICANN key stakeholder meeting specifically to address new gTLDs with the GAC and other parties.
      3. On the contrary, is the ICANN Board now a rubber-stamping body?
      4. How does the Board plan to find a solution to deadlocks that get some topics to go in circles ad-infinitum? Or is it not for the Board to find a solution? After all, Board members have fiduciary duty.
   4. Introduced by Jonathan Zuck, ALAC Vice Chair, Policy
      1. Recent board communication seems to imply that ICANN Compliance shouldn't be engaged in enforcing elements of a registry agreement that fall outside of ICANN's remit. While we understand that existing gTLDs are "grandfathered," it seems as though we are at an impasse if we are to have a mechanism for enforceable commitments to be made. For example, PICs were suggested as the means of making commitments to the community on behalf of PIR on a number of issues that might be considered outside ICANN's remit. What does the Board believe to be the best means for applicants to a new round (or changes to existing PICs) to make commitments that have teeth. Another issue that came up, related to PICs, has to do with the PICDRP, in which you need to be the injured party to initiate a proceeding. Is there a practical way for the ALAC to be given standing to bring a PICDRP (or now RVCDRP?) on behalf of "individual users'' generally, if we find that their interests are threatened?
9. Concluding Comments - León Sánchez, ICANN Board Vice Chair and Director selected by At-Large