NARALO Meeting Summary
May 14, 2012
Present: DarleneThompson, Gordon Chilcott, Allan Skuce, Gareth Shearmen, Garth Bruen, Beau Brendler, Glenn McKnight, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Evan Leibovitch
Staff: Heidi Ulrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Silvia Vivanco
Regrets: Seth, Eduardo
Agenda:
1. Roll call
2. Review of Action Items of call 16 April 2012
3. Policy Statement Update
Policy Advice Development Calendar
See: ICANN Public Comment page
a. Recently adopted ALAC Statements:
i. .com Registry Agreement Renewal
ii. Draft ALAC Statement on the Fake Renewal Notices Report
iii. At Large Draft Advice Letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice and Competition
Evan, Beau and others were involved in this.
iii. At Large Draft Advice Letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice and Competition
EL: He explained that intent of WG is associate some metrics that gTLD program is actually increasing consumer choice and so on. It gets into the definition of consumer, which ICANN is defining too broadly, and metrics as increase in number of registries, and doing these kind of things isn't properly really addressing whether the program is addressing consumer choice. There is a paragraph added that says that the program is not complete without measuring external factors.
OCL: Points made by Evan are very valid. One of the problems is "consumer trust" whether consumers are being properly served. This equating consumer = users comes from US dept. of Commerce. This could be addressed by the ALAC when it meets with the GAC for example. This is something for the future. The Statement was drafted by some people in EURALO, which added that using the word consumer was not appropriate. The group is defining a large number of metrics, which is going to measure many variables, but the Board will decide whether to accept them as some are costly to measure.
iv. Draft Statement on the IDN Variant Issues Project - Proposed Project Plan for Next Steps
b. Statements currently being reviewed by the ALAC
i. Second Annual IDNccTLDFast Track Process Review - Comment period closes 30 April - ALAC to submit statement
c. Current open policy forums:
i. ICANN Draft FY13 Operating Plan and Budget- Comment period closes 24 May - TBJ to lead on this issue.
ii. IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan - Comment period closes 25 May
4. New gGLD Program Update
a. New gGLD Review Group - Next Steps
See:At Large New gTLD Review Group Workspace
DT gave a description of the time lines that we are working with for this working group.
DT: Review: Today is the last day you can put in your interest in joining the group. Today you must put your statement of interested and proper SOI and COI as staff sent parameters.
BB mentioned that there were 6 volunteers and we need to have a vote.
HU mentioned that there is only ONE person who has not submitted the SOI.
DT emphasized that the COI are EXTREMELY important, urged all to send them.
AI: There will be a big pulse on Wednesday vote to select the 2 NARALO recommended people
5. Recap of projects and issues
MA is completing the entry of the text into the Survey monkey. We can launch in 24 hrs.
6. Discussion on proposal for RALO Rules of Procedure Working Group (Darlene Thompson)
DT gave an update on the working of this group with Alen’s help. This group is NOT to discuss the ALAC metrics but to discuss what the RALO will do if the ALAC’s metrics show a substantial deficiency on the part of an elected ALAC member. This is what we need to discuss. Alan pointed out that some of the metrics are quite draconian but Darlene pointed out that this is not what this WG will be discussing. The Metrics WG will be discussing the Draconian or non-Draconian performance measurements whereas the RALOs will decide on what will be done if an ALAC member is booted for whatever the metrics end up being. Darlene explained that Rule 21 of ALAC rules, if you elected ALAC member is not working, what do you do? What happens? What do we need as a group to do about this? This has not happened but we should be considering the questions, as we need to change our By laws. All Ralos are looking at this.
EL: Rule 21 has draconian language. The implementation is softer, but the rule is in the process of being re-written.
DT: This group will not be talking about the METRICs of the ALAC, it is if person is kicked back to the Ralo then what do we do then?
7. Any Other Business
Please make sure you look at the ICANN work on taking down domain names. It’s very important.
Although we’ve decided not to do a NARALO showcase, we need to do some kind of event. Volunteers?
GB has some issues with things that he has submitted in the past but he would like to read the report in full before he gives an opinion.
AG: The URS is for the fast take-down of domain names that were misbehaving. The “Powers that Be” have said that the cost of doing such would be much too costly and ICANN isn’t willing to fund it. There was no active “heads up” to the GNSO group that this was the case. Can this be done at a reasonable cost? That is the question. People that know how much this will cost say that this will be VERY costly. This bears watching.
EL: How quickly can we resolve this? It can be a ticking time bomb.
AG: How it will unfold is the question. If we can find a reasonable cost on this, fine, but if not, it’s a huge problem. If there is a site masquerading as another, that’s more of a problem over another group that may just be poking fun at the site.
GB: Are there mitigation providers that can do it at a lower cost?
AG: Not that we know of yet – there were several that bided on it and none came in at under $600, rather than the $200 that they were hoping for.
TORONTO MEETING
EL: Perhaps we can do an open house rather than another type of venue there. This may be useful in recruiting others into ICANN for potential ALSs. This could be an excellent idea for outreach.
Glenn, Gordon and Darlene offered to help Evan in this endeavor.
Call for volunteers to lead NARALO Toronto "event" effort.
We took consensus opinions, first call for volunteers to see what is feasible to do, to do some showcase, showing the video, etc.
Report from WHOIs Policy Working Group:
Summary: AG: Report is good, it is masterful it cites all the real controversial issues, it put the blame on ICANN because not policing internet properly, the group must report directly to the group. The deadlines are too tight for the Board, but the report is well done. Alan thought that the WHOIS summary was good. It put the blame solidly on ICANN for not policing the system and for not doing adequate reporting.
AG: URS comment: In the middle of the budget doc to fund Summits to find the URS, which is to fund the procedure to fine the domains who are misusing trademarks. The providers of dispute resolution mechanisms have said there is no way we can do that for that price. It is defined to be self-funding. There is no active heads up to the GNSO.
This is going to take away some of the check and balances that the IP people want to implement. It does have the possibility of blowing up, because of the key provisions is not implementable. The URS was developed from IRT, staff came up with a new version on their own and as a result the Board said, so something better, and that is what happened. Is that abuse of volunteer time?
This has a potential to reignite the flame between the GAC and ICANN Board. It has the potential to make the TAS problems pale in comparison.
GB : Is there room for a lower price ? If there are other providers who can do it for a lower price, yes.
OCL: Note on TAS interruption. Targeting May 22 and closing May 30th. It appears that they have 4 types of users.
EL: Idea is "Open House" rather than a Showcase. I am recalling the kind of events that recruited Darlene and I into ICANN and I think that would be less ambitious than a Showcase but it would assist recruiting potential ALS
DT would be happy to help but not lead
AI: NARALO will send a call for volunteers for the organization of the Toronto event.
