At ICANN62 in Panama, the joint ALAC-GAC meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 27, from 11:30 AM to 12:30 AM in Salon 1-3 (GAC Room) The agenda, agreed at the meeting of the ALAC and GAC leadership teams on May 30, is as follows:
1. An introduction to the ALAC
2. GDPR (one month later)
3. Geographic Names (work track 5 matters)
4. The ICANN Information Transparency Initiative and how it relates to the joint ALAC-GAC Abu Dhabi statement on lowering barriers
5. Status and update on At-Large review
6. The process for chartering organization evaluation of the Work Stream 2 recommendations
Herewith some annotations to the agenda, based on the May 30 discussion.
1. A short presentation on At Large and ALAC was deemed useful and necessary because there are so many newcomers in the GAC, where turnout has recently been very.
2. In its Communiqué from ICANN61, the GAC reiterated its previous advice “to
maintain, to the greatest extent possible, the current structure of the WHOIS, while ensuring full and timely compliance with GDPR.” Its detailed Consensus Advice included ten elements, of which six had been answered the Board by the time of the May 30 call, and four were still open. – The GAC is by no means unanimous about the WHOIS/GDPR dilemma. There are - both between and within governments – differences about the relative merits of privacy, on one hand, and the needs of LEA’s and cybersecurity actors, on the other. GAC is trying to achieve consensus among governments, but there is nothing it can do about the differences on the national level. ALAC has not come to a closure either, because the same kinds of divisions exist in its ranks.
3. On geographic names, GAC is now in the process of collecting opinions from its members in order to achieve a unified GAC position, to be submitted to WT5. According to Alan, in the ALAC/At Large, not many people care about what the final decisions are goingto be in detail, but there is concern that the final outcome would not be a strong victory for one side and a clear defeat to the other. Compromises are needed. Cheryl pointed out that the PDP as a whole cannot wait too long for WT5. If it does not manage to come to conclusion, 2012 Applicants’ Guidebook is the fallback position, with the modifications that the work track eventually will be able to agree upon.
4. In its Communiqué at ICANN60, as a Consensus Advice, GAC reiterated the main points of the Joint GAC/ALAC Statement “Enabling inclusive, informed and meaningful participation in ICANN” regarding an improved document managing system and producing easily understandable summaries for main issues. In its answer, the Board had referred to the Information Transparency Initiative on the former point and to various existing information activities (eg., newsletters) on the latter. Manal felt that the answer neither maps to the Joint Statement nor to the advice, and the matter is so far open between the GAC and the Board. Alan agreed but felt that now, with so many critical issues pressing on, focusing on the problem at ICANN62 would not yield results. It was decided to keep the matter on the ALAC-GAC agenda just as a reminder but not go into an in-depth discussion on it.
5. GAC is interested in an update on the ALAC review process, and it will be presented.
6. GAC and ALAC will compare notes on WS 2 recommendations. Alan pointed out that they number more than a hundred, and that taken as a whole, the investment in the implementation by staff and volunteers will be a a huge one.
Yrjö Länsipuro, ALAC Liaison to the GAC