Participants: D Younger, D Dayley, E Leibovitch, A Greenberg
Staff: N Ashton-Hart
There was no specific agenda posted for this meeting.
The meeting started by D Dayley and D Younger expressing their disappointments regarding the lack of feedbacks from the RALO’s secretariats on the Cairo summit.
D Dailey said they should think at a structure that would allow for a free flow of information coming in and out of the Mexico summit at all time. She referred to her email to the NARALO list of 17 November in which she commented about the efficient IRC channel at the last ARIN meeting. The secretariats should send out briefing emails after every meeting for Mexico.
D Younger said that the different time zone made it difficult for him to participate remotely to the Cairo summit. He pointed out that every session used to be broadcasted before.
Staff informed that recordings of the At-Large meetings would be posted shortly.
D Dailey suggested a mapping out the Internet user’s and their interests. She praised the Pew Internet Research done during the Brazil IGF meeting.
E Leibovitch remarked that based on their MoU, the individual members taken collectively had the same status as an ALS and as such had the entitlement to send at least a person to the Mexico summit. It was important in order to make sure there would be people with an understanding of the policy issues and the processes and able to come up with a practical approach.
D Younger replied that he would agree to go on condition that there was a specific function for him to serve on it.
E Leibovitch said that he had offered himself as an ALAC liaison to the President Strategy Committee but had been turned down by ALAC ‘s argument that the PSC had no liaisons and that there was P Dandjinou who came from ALAC. However, he noted, P Dandjinou had no accountability obligations towards ALAC since he had been appointed to the committee. He was now waiting for the PSC response to his proposal for a link between the ALAC and them.
Staff informed E Leibovitch that they feel he was viewed by ALAC as the informal liaison but that they would come back at him for confirmation on that.
D Younger asked for updates on P Twomey promise to review the RAA.
A Greenberg informed D Younger that the RAA process had been turned over to the GNSO by way of an ICANN Board resolution.
D Younger said that the BGC Alac review report had been well received. There was some divisions about the details regarding the election of an At-Large member to the ICANN Board but the principle of direct representation on it was accepted.
The Staff reminded that this issue was still under discussion and was only a recommendation at this stage.
E Leibovitch said he agreed on the recommendation that ALAC should be more proactive but, to his views, there were no more than 5 people effectively contributing.
D Younger added that even at NARALO meetings, some did not meet the attendance requirements.
E Leibovitch said he was still waiting for a move from the Code of Conduct WG and that participation in a working group was difficult to obtain. Nobody seemed interested to participate in them. Discretionary systems were not working. He further stressed that those that were the more active at meetings were often the most silent between these meetings. RALO’s elected their ALAC members sometimes on political grounds.
D Younger commented that the North Americans had a keen interest in the policy issues but not in ccTLDs or numbering considerations. Consequently, they were thinking of forming a constituency that would work within the GNSO and introduce policy matters directly as opposed to an ALAC filtering process. It would be a self-identified group having liaisons and relationships with NARALO and other regionals.
D Dailey agreed that there was no harm in creating an At-Large individual user constituency that was neither commercial or non-commercial . She said that at At-Large they should articulate multiple strategies of participation appropriate for various people with different capacities of participation. These should be tailored to what the respective realities are in terms of regions and internet development.
Staff informed that M Langenegger wanted to set up a meeting the week after for the logistical issues and the room allocations for Mexico. It was agreed it would be move forward to the current week.
D Younger said his RALO was disappointed about the other region’s lack of reactions to their ideas.
E Leibovitch argued that ALAC mission was to get people from all the regions coalesce on the worldwide user needs but this mission turns out to be an obstacle
to the expeditious turning of policies.
D Dailey said their first concern was the North-American internet users and that the other regions could also self-organize themselves. She said it would just be a question of organizational development if they were to build up their own articulation around the North-American internet impacts. It would be more consistent with their prime duty to their RALO.
E Leibovitch commented that the only contribution to the PSC came from NARALO.
D Dailey suggesting that mapping the internet user should be prepared as a group for the Mexico summit.
E Leibovitch referred her to Wolf Ludwig.
D Dailey promised to email him and copy the email to D Younger. She suggested she could coordinate a per region mapping.
E Leibovitch said that in the logistical planning for the summit, there was an intention to have workshops based on issues, then have the people that working on
the workshops would consult with their respective regions and get a regional consensus to submit to their policy workshop.
D Dailey promised to contact Wolf for the mapping out.
The meeting was concluded.
