Page History

Participants: the ALAC and the ccNSO council
Staff: N Ashton-Hart, G Schmittek, B Boswinkel, F Teboul, M Langenegger

C Landgon-Orr called the meeting to order at 1306 Paris time.

Geographic Regions

C Disppain noted that ICANN’s regions were often based on political considerations. However, sometimes other considerations seemed to have played a more important role. He noted that one of the solutions could be that the countries voluntarily chose their regions but that a clause needed to be added to ensure government support.

B Boswinkel noted that originally, the mechanism to assign regions was two-fold: firstly, geographic location and secondly, resident criteria (which is why Cayman Islands is in Europe). One of the reasons why this could be interesting to ALAC is because of representation. This also has an influence on the nomination of Board members.

C Disspain noted that according to the by-laws there would be a review of the regions. And the fact that a working group has been formed will hopefully push the issue.
One of the participants from the ccNSO council asked about ALAC’s considerations with regards to geographic regions.

C Langdon-Orr noted that the ALAC was also suffering from ICANN’s regional assignments. She mentioned Asia as one of the regions that was not well defined.

IDN Fast Track

H Xue asked C Disspain about the status of the Fasttrack document.

C Disspain responded that the process was underway and that it will be passed to the Board subsequently for consideration. He felt that the Board would not pass a resolution before they knew the implementation plan. He noted that the goal was to have a sign-off in Cairo and a release shortly after.

Public Comment period length

C Landon-Orr noted that the public comment period was too short as there were series of circumstances that needed to be considered: documents need to be translated, briefings need to be held and many of the ALAC are volunteers.

F Seye Sylla added that the documents needed to be in simple language.

A member of the ccNSO added that it was impossible to have global consensus in 30 days.

H Diakite added that the translations needed to be double-checked by experts to make sure they are correct.

A member of the ccNSO noted that teleconferences accelerated the process of providing input significantly.

C Langdon-Orr noted that the ALAC had teleconferences but that the difficulty was more related to useful briefing material. She added that the public briefing session they started in June were an important step in this regard.

A Greenberg noted that it was important to start the work in advance. Often the initial documents are short and concise. He added that the work of the GNSO needed to be monitored more closely by ALAC as the issues are often first discussed in the GNSO before they go out for public comment.

C Langdon-Orr noted that it was often hard to get documents in time from ICANN staff.

W Seltzer agreed with A Greenberg and said that the documents were often available in advance.

One of the members of the ccNSO council noted that it was important to have teleconferences based on written documents.

C Langdon-Orr said that there was an opportunity for cooperation between the regional ccNSO organizations and the At-large structures.

C Disspain noted that the regional organisations were independent and that the ccNSO council could only make recommendations to them.

C Disspain asked the ccNSO liaison to come forward with a couple of issues for the next joint constituency meeting in Cairo.

A member of the ccNSO noted that there was a difference of the User constituency at the cc level and at the global level.

The meeting was adjourned at 1405 Paris time.