Participants:
Board: T Narten, J-J Subraynat, D Jennings P Dengate Thrush (Chairman)
ALAC: B Brendler, , I Aizu, J Morris (ccNSO liaison), S Bachollet, C Langdon-Orr (Chair), V Scartezini, A Greenberg, C Aguirre, J Ovidio Salguero, R Guerra, F Seye Sylla, H Diakite, M El Bashir, A Muehlberg
ICANN Staff: P Twomey (CEO), N Ashton-Hart, F Teboul, M Langenegger, D Michel
The Board members T Narten, JJ Subrenat and D Jennings introduced themselves.
1. Short review from ALAC on our recent activities including our WG's and OneDay#3
The Staff gave a short overview of the ALAC briefings during the one day workshop.
The IDN liaison H Xue gave an update on the IDN working group activities.
I Aizu gave an update on the activities on the IPv6 working group.
B Brendler gave an update on the recent activities of the new gTLD working group.
W Ludwig and E Leibovitch gave an update on the recent activities of the Summit working group.
2. Briefing from the Board on the current situation of IDN ccTLDs
H Xue asked the Board on the current status of the fast track IDN ccTLDs.
T Narten noted that the Board did not take action before it had received a formal request and often material arrived late for review by the board members before the discussion.
H Xue she would like to hear from Board members on their perspective on the IDN ccTLD arangemtents with ICANN. She noted that many within the cc community would not like to go through the re-delegation process with its triangular scheme as this is considered to be complicated and time-consuming and hence making the fast track slow.
D Jennings note that his understanding was that the local Internet community including the Government will make a proposal who the IDN ccTLD managers will be. This has not been confirmed yet as the Board did not receive the relevant document yet. There is an assumption within the cc community that an IDN ccTLD is identical to an existing ccTLD. He noted that this was not a view shared by all the Board members.
3. GNSO Improvement (starts at 48:00 on audio file)
P Dengate Thrush, Chairmain of the Board, presented his personal views on the GNSO improvements process (starting at 49:10 in the audio stream file).
P Twomey noted with regards to the GNSO constituencies that they were self-defined and that the swing vote belonged to the NomCom. He asked the community why it seemed to be more interested in the numbers of votes in the GNSO than in criteria and standards the NomCom based its decision on.
V Scartezini took over the chair of this meeting at 11:25 Paris times.
It was discussed whether the GNSO improvement discussion should be more centred on the number of votes or the quality of the role of the NomCom.
A Greenberg noted that from the ALAC viewpoint the most important issue was that the individual users were represented at the table. Although the registrants were represented through the Business constituency and the NCUC, the individual user without registrations did not have a seat at the table.
W Kleinwaechter noted that the NomCom was very careful not to choose candidates who had their own agenda.
3. New gTLDs (starts at 1:04:20 on audio file)
B Brendler noted that ALAC had difficulties with the recommendation 6 and more specifically with the conept of “Morality and Public Order”.
P Twomey clarified that the GNSO did in fact make policy recommendations but that the question of implementation would present itself at a later stage. He added that the policy did not put Morality as a criterion for acceptation but rather for objection. ICANN is currently exploring who has standing to raise such an objection and is closely working with international bodies in order to find ways to implement such a framework. He noted that ICANN was not in a position to make a decision on Morality and Public order.
R Guerra noted that this has been an issue of passionate discussion and that At-Large was worried about the new gTLD program. Further, recommendation 6 implied that ICANN had the legitimacy of an international organisation, which is something that is not shared by everybody in At-Large.
P Twomey clarified that every body in ICANN from senior staff to the GNSO council and the Board has been equally passionate about some of the issues in the recommendation and were aware of the delicacy of some of these issues.
4. ALAC review (starts at 1:13:10 on audio file)
I Aizu said that the ALAC review was not precise enough in his view.
A Greenberg noted he was pleased that the review did not suggest changing everything completely.
P Dengate Thrush encouraged the ALAC not to bury the review all together as he was sure that there was a lot to build upon.
T Drakes urged the At-Large community members to submit their comments on the review document before Thursday’s session to make sure subsequent work on the draft final report, which should be presented in Cairo, can begin. She noted that the final report should be ready for the ICANN meeting in March.
A Muehlberg raised concerns that some of the views within the At-Large community were not represented in the review.
JJ Subrenat thought the report was interesting because it left a lot of different options for the implementation process. Secondly, he noted that to make the work of the Board efficient there is a need that the ALAC comments closely on the report and added its own suggestions.
W Kleinwaechter noted that the focus of the review might have been too limited as it only dealt with one body and missed some context. He encouraged T Drakes to look into some of the roles civil society plays in other multi-stakeholder frameworks such as the IGF or the OECD.
E Leibovitch said that he was looking forward to provide constructive comments on the review.
T Narten noted that the question whether ALAC should have voting rights at the Board level might not be in the purview of the review.
V Bertola said that he agreed with W Kleinwaechter that the question of how ICANN is accountable to the general pubic would need to be addressed at a some point perhaps with regards also to the JPA and that the scope of the review was too narrow.
A Greenberg noted that the reviewers were challenged with the definition of their assignment, as it was not clear if they needed to review the ALAC, At-Large or individual users in general. At-Large will need to discuss the structure of user representation in ICANN.
W Huelsmann stressed the need to have more than two weeks for comments, as most members were volunteers.
T Narten noted that it was in nobody’s interest to rush through the comment period.
C Aguirre noted that it was impossible to expect a quick answer for an extensive document written in a foreign language. If we ask for user participation, we need to provide documents that people can work with.
H Diakite added that it was important to have experts translating the documents.
V Scartezini stressed that it will be necessary to use English as a working language to have a global dialogue.
With regards to the public comment period, E Leibovitch asked the Board to consider that the length was too short even for volunteers that have the documents in their native language.
S Bachollet suggested using the expert skill within At-Large to help with the translations.
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 1231.
