GAC/ALAC leadership call 12 February 2018
A GAC/ALAC leadership call was held on 12 February, 2018, to prepare the joint GAC/ALAC meeting at ICANN61. The agenda items of the call were seen as likely candidates for the agenda of the joint meeting in San Juan as well.
1) Geographic names in the Subsequent New gTLD procedures
Originally, both ALAC and GAC wanted CCWG rules for WT5, but ALAC didn’t insist, since GNSO can be expected to keep it inclusive in order not to risk contrary advice to the Board from ALAC and GAC at the end of the PDP process.
GAC submitted conditions that would have made WT 5 a quasi-CCWG and received a response (“not a clear acceptance or a clear refusal”) that is now being discussed within the GAC. However, the GAC participates in the work of WT5.
2) Interim models for the GDPR
Rather than supporting any of the three interim models, GAC proposed combining different elements from them. GAC is in favor of a long retention period and third-party certification and wants as may public data elements as possible, compliant with GDPR. A concept paper is being prepared about a possible GAC role in the accreditation process. (GAC comment: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-comments-gac-icann-proposed-compliance-models-29jan18-en.pdf)
ALAC did not submit a comment because time was too short for working out a consensus and extension was refused. Some in ALAC look at the GDPR from a privacy point of view, some are closer to the GAC position. Instead, there were individual comments.
For both GAC and ALAC, lack of time is a great challenge. ICANN had been late to recognize the impact of this EU regulation (on the books already for a couple of years!). To prevent such surprises in the future, Olivier suggested that, as advisory committees, GAC and ALAC should try to make ICANN more proactive on things that are over the horizon.
3) Cooperation in capacity building in underserved regions
Positive comments were made on the recent of GAC capacity building event in Nairobi which had brought government and end user representatives together for mutual benefit, and continuing cooperation in capacity building is seen as useful. As Cheryl noted, leveraging existing resources jointly is especially important in budget-cutting times.
Manal observed the growing need for general back-to-zero capacity building within the GAC with its quick turnover of government representatives: in 2017, over 90 new representatives have joined the GAC.
At Manal’s suggestion, the ALAC-GAC Liaison will discuss cooperation in capacity building with the Co-Chairs of the GAC Working Group on Underserved Regions in order to try to coordinate efforts and maximize benefits for both communities.
4)Follow-up to the joint GAC-ALAC statement on enabling inclusive, informed and meaningful participation in ICANN
Board responses to the joint statement have raised question marks on the minds of both GAC and ALAC on whether the advice had been correctly understood, what if any immediate steps the Board is going to take and to what extent real improvements are going to be referred to the Information Transparency Initiative (ITI). As Manal observed: “Obviously, there is an acceptance in principle of the importance of everything we mentioned (...) but we need to put that in action. So we all agree on the principle, but what’s next?”
Alan pointed out the connection to issues raised in the At Large Review. Understandable information is a pre-requisite of involvement.
There will be as session on the ITI in San Juan. Cheryl urged both ALAC and GAC to have clear and obvious presence at the session to show that the advisory committees are taking a very close watching brief on it.
5) Agenda of the joint GAC/ALAC meeting in San Juan
It was noted from both sides that the agenda items of the call at this stage look like good candidates for the agenda of the joint GAC/ALAC meeting in San Juan. New developments can be expected on many of those issues by the second week of March.
In addition, a possible new item for discussions in San Juan emerged during the last minutes of the call. In the view of both GAC and ALAC, the ICANN FY 19 budget lacks clarity and is likely to be discussed in San Juan. Olivier raised the possibility of a joint GAC/ALAC statement on budget issues. According to Manal, GAC would be happy to issue a joint statement, if warranted after it receives the response from the Board.
In closing, both Chairs expressed their satisfaction with the development of the GAC/ALAC cooperation since 2016, and wished to keep the momentum. As a major step toward even closer cooperation, Manal welcomed the ALAC/GAC Liaison to attend GAC calls as necessary for certain agenda items.
Yrjö Länsipuro
Transcript: https://gac.icann.org/transcripts/public/20180212_gac_alac_leadership%20transcript.pdf
