Notes on the preparatory ALAC/GAC leaderships call, 17 May 2017
GAC Secretariat
Thomas inquired whether the ALAC had any experience of or plans for an independent secretariat, and the answer of course was no. (Many GAC members insist on a non-ICANN secretariat for policy work, and over more than a decade, many solutions have been tried out, including member countries taking turns in providing the services. Now the problem is funding, still open for one third to half of the required amount)
Community-based applications (CBA’s)
Names of geographic significance
These items were on the call agenda as a follow-up from the joint ALAC/GAC meeting in Copenhagen. Neither yielded new information, but instead lead to a discussion on a new approach that could combine the two, plus other elements of joint interest on the subsequent new gTLD procedures.
Alan noted that CBA’s might very well be absent from the subsequent procedures. Instead, a new distinction might be made between commercial and not-for-profit applicants. Thomas pointed out that a new approach might also be needed on names of geographic significance, where better ways should be found to judge the claims of applicants for geographic names than last time. Thomas stressed that this should not be treated as a question of “rights” but of deciding, which of the applicants has the best founded claim (Anspruch) due to relationships with the area in question.
It was noted that both GAC and ALAC would need to be more involved in the PDP on subsequent procedures, but also that there are important resource constraints on both sides, compared to other (commercial) stakeholders. Thomas expressed his concern that the process is going too fast for all stakeholders to be able to be involved.
ALAC Review
Alan briefed the GAC leadership on the disappointing ITEMS final report, predicting that ALAC will reject a substantial part of its recommendations. Thomas noted general problems with what he called ICANN’s review industry and suggested it might be good to step back and try to define the intent goals of the review institution.
Underserved regions
Both GAC and ALAC are preparing their comments to the CCT Review that also touched the topics underserved regions and applicant support. It was noted (in the chat) that it might be a good idea to exchange information on this subject well before the deadline.
In Johannesburg, there will be a report on the GAC capacity building workshop in Fiji where 17 Pacific governments participated. Possible cooperation with partners ( eg., Pacific Islands Forum) will be discussed.
More concrete ALAC/GAC cooperation
As an outgrowth of the discussion on underserved regions, but possible not limited to that issue only, there arose the question of how to move the ALAC/GAC cooperation to the next stage, from mere discussions at the ICANN meeting to getting things done jointly. This should be possible without creating new formal structures; small groups including subject matter leads from both sides could use opportunities for informal meetings. Both chairs supported moving into this direction.
Domain Abuse Reporting
Alan pointed out a new radical approach for reporting domain abuse by actually naming names (of registrars) which are in public domain. The Domain Abuse Reporting Tool (DART) has been developed in the office of the CTO SSR Team. Both GAC and ALAC are interested in being briefed in Johannesburg, jointly if allowed by the schedule, or separately.
Suggestion for the agenda of the joint ALAC/GAC meeting in Johannesburg
The meeting in Johannesburg will be just 45 minutes, so that the agenda has to focus on very few items. My suggestion for the substantive agenda:
- Ways to make GAC/ALAC cooperation more concrete
- New approaches to the subsequent new gTLD procedures; setting up small joint group
- Underserved regions (including briefing on the Fiji workshop as a example); setting up a joint small group
- AOB
Yrjö Länsipuro
Liaison to the GAC
