Summary Notes and Action Items
APRALO, 31 July 2012
1. Roll call
Staff gave the roll call.
2. Review of action items from Prague APRALO Meeting and Minutes
HR: Reviewed the AIs
HR: Regarding Baku, we have mainly reviewed it in discussion so there is no need to do so now
FB: That AI regarding KISa is regarding the AP IGF, which is happening in Korea
AI regarding OCL is to begin.
HR: We needed to go over what was said, that would be useful.
HU: I believe the 2014 budget will be up in the next month or so, but I do not have any more information on that item at the moment.
CLO: To that extend, one of the things that would be important is what sort of IGF and Regional IGF funding we will be going for. We have an opportunity to get ahead of the game and we should make full use of this opportunity.
HR: When we look at this IGF opportunity we need to know where we want to go and what we want to do.
HR: Yes we need to start to plan for future events in terms of funding and outreach.
3. ICANN policy issues: Open public consultations
a. Recently approved ALAC Statements, Documents or Groups:
HR: Please take a look at the policy development page - https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Policy+Development+Page
EC: With Rinalia, looking at the notes from the ALAC, the position to forward seems to be a good position to take. However, I will defer to Rinalia.
RAR: This Status of the Statement - It has passed. We are trying to say that batching should be reconsidered.
HR - Asked RAR whether more information is needed.
RAR - Many points have been raised in the statement on IDN prioritization in the new gTLDs Targeted to the Board.
AI: RAR to send a note to the APAC-Discuss list to request comments.
RAR: The IDN statement has been adopted. In addition to this, we've been asked by additional information on applicant support.
CLO: Supporting RAR"s comments. However, would like to suggest that there is some benefit if APRALO would send some comments on batching. Perhaps we could start a wiki page for comments.
RIR: Great idea! Would be good to have comments form APRALO
AI: Wiki page to be created to collect comments on batching for APRALO to collect comments. These comments are to be submitted to the PC on behalf of APRALO.
AI: CLO to begin comments on the draft statement on the FY13-16
HR: Urged everyone to make comments on the open PCs
4. Update from Regional IGF meeting
HR gave a summary of her report from the regional IGM Meeting. Two main issues were the discussions on the WCIT and IPv6.
Fouad gave his insights of the meeting. This was his first regional IGF meeting. He said the regional IGFs will grow into their own. We saw some civil society groups participating from the main IGF. In terms of topics, the dominant topics were the WCIT and the RGIF. I see space for APRALO to participate in the Regional IGF. Re the general on the WCIT, re where the UN is concerned, a lot of concern on how open the process is. Should the lobbying be done at the local level? There was thought that the local level is where the lobbying should be done since this is where the national delegations will gather their information. We can't determine what the inclination is, but it seems very tense re the RIRs. Some countries have very limited input. I believe that there is a lot of stuff we can participate in.
HR: Certainly support what FB says. It is still an open debate.
OCL: Currently in discussions with Nigel Hickson, Regional VP on a webinar on ICANN in the WCIT.
HR: I think you already have a yes.
CLO: As long as the webinar is in an Asia friendly time zone
FB: Said there would be a lot of interest for a webinar and how the WCIT will impact ICANN.
HR: May I suggest William Drake - for a run-down on what is going on. He was at the Regional IGF.
IGF in Baku
HR: What is the latest?
RAR: That depends. Edmon has a couple of workshops that were accepted. The other option is sharing the Workshop with AFRALO
EC: One workshop - on increasing engagement. How do we go forward? Today, we need to update the Workshop with speakers. I asked RAR to be a moderator. The question is whether there would be funding from ICANN.
OCL: I have a little concern re sending one or two people to Baku. The request was that there was a Workshop planned. Edmon's workshop he just mentioned sounds promising. There is $90k for the acitivity.
EC: To clarify the situation, APRALO has been discussing putting in a proposal. However, as we didn't have confirmation of the funding, it was difficult to put in a proposal. However, chicken and egg issue. We need to get a sense of timing for the final decision. The Baku organizers need to get things organized as well.
FB: We should be very sure how to work with the IGF. Diversity must be there. ICANN does not go to the IGF just for workshops.
OCL - I suggest that APRALO moves forward with Edmon's workshop on engagement and send a few people on this workshop.
5. New GTLD Working Group update
