WT C MEETING MINUTES:  16 FEBRUARY 2011

Participants:  Tijani Ben Jemaa, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Gareth Shearman, Dave Kissoondoyal, Fouad Bajwa, Fatimata Seye Sylla, Jessel Ackbarali, Dev Anand Teelucksingh

Apologies:  Charles Mok, Sergio Salinas Porto, Sylvia Herlein Leite, Cintra Sooknanan

Absent:  Freddy Linares Torres, Shaarawy Abd Elbaky, James Corbin, Darlene Thompson

Staff:  Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White

STANDING AGENDA ITEMS

1.  Roll call – 5 min

2.  Review of AIs from 16 Feb 2011 meeting -- Co-Chairs, 5 min.

   a)  Seth to ask ICANN Legal if WT C still needs to work on implementation of Recommendation task 5.3.1 (ALAC and staff should develop an annual support agreement).

      -  Completed.  See input from staff (Samantha Eisner and Olof Nordling).

   b)  Dev to make discussed changes to the three WT C process diagrams.

      -  Completed.

  

   c)  Seth to put onto agenda for next meeting:  SWOT contributions from RALOs. 

      -  Completed.

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

3.  Reminder of AI from ALAC meeting:  ALAC F&B Subcommittee to draft ALAC comment on Proposed Framework for FY2012 Operating Plan and Budget.  (Public comment period closes on 4 April.) – Co-Chairs, 5 min.

   -  See public comment details:  http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2012

   -  Would WT C like to work with F&B Subcommittee on this?

Yes, WT C will work on this in the following capacity:

  • The F&B Subcommittee will actually do the work, collect the information, and draft the comment.
  • WT C will observe this process to determine how the new finance/budget process works (how the F&B Subcommittee does this work), and report back to the ALAC, Board, etc.

The details on this matter are, of course, quite complicated, with input from many constituencies, etc.

4.  Process diagrams (as presented in ALAC meeting): Completed – Dev, 10 min.

   -  See:  Before Strategy and Budget_v2 draft

                Current Strategic Planning (as of FY12)_v2 draft

                Current Budget Planning (as of FY12) v2 draft

Dev has incorporated the points made in the discussion during WT C’s last meeting into the process diagrams.

The main changes are as follows:

Still to be done:  Color coding to process charts.

5.  RALO input into SWOT analyses and next steps – Co-Chairs, 15 min. 

Results:

      -  AFRALO's ALS input into SWOT analyses:  Nothing added to tables; agreed to WT C’s points already included.

      -  APRALO's ALS input into SWOT analyses:  Nothing yet added to tables; SWOT coordinator (Fouad) going to follow up with ALSes.

      -  EURALO's ALS input into SWOT analyses:  Nothing added to tables; agree to WT C’s points already included (also discussed ranking them, but has not done so yet).

      -  LACRALO's ALS input into SWOT analyses:  Added points of its own.

      -  NARALO's ALS input into SWOT analyses:  Added points of its own.

Reference:  WT C At-Large Simplified Improvements Outline.

The SWOTs were handed over to the RALOs quite full already.  So, many of the RALOs agreed with points already contributed but didn’t add any new points of their own.  

WT C next evaluated the RALO contributions, with two assumptions:

  • Its default position was to keep an entry by a RALO, if it was not obviously in the wrong SWOT or a repeat of a point already present.
  • Any and all of the RALOs’ points might need rewording.

LACRALO’s contributions

 

A.  SWOT on ALAC/At-Large strategic planning

Strengths:

  • Keep all three points added by LACRALO:
    • Benefit of having a voter from Director At-Large community
    • We are a community
    • We have processes to encourage maximum participation in contests or mechanisms for appointment.

The possibility was discussed that perhaps these three points don’t actually belong as strengths in this SWOT because they are not actually strengths of the ALAC/At-Large’s strategic planning processes (but rather of ICANN’s, etc.).  Same could be said of pt. A.S.10.

  • For example, the Director would contribute to ICANN’s planning, not ALAC’s.
  • Most members did not agree with this view, however (because, even if correct, the point has to do with integrating ALAC/At-Large’s strategic planning with that of ICANN’s; for example, having Director would help integrate ALAC’s planning with ICANN’s).  The members decided that the SWOTs are about both ALAC’s planning itself and about the integration of ALAC’s planning into ICANN’s planning.

Weaknesses:

  • Lack of empowerment to the RALOS "officers" in events related to ICANN:  Decided to take this point out.  LACRALO wants its officers to have a role different than managing regional ALSes.  It would require a whole restructuring of the At-Large structure, which the Review WG’s Final Report has put off until the next At-Large review.
  • Lack of sufficient and updated skills (technical knowledge, social and political agenda of ICANN):  Keep this point.
  • RALO in support of a pattern or policy favoring a single provider or provider group. (For example with new gTLDs, ccTLDs used like generics, and other changes in the domain names):  This point might be dealing with capture.  Can use word “capture” to reword, but be careful, delicate in how use it.
  • Lack of mechanisms for transparency and accountability within and between ALSes:  Keep this point.
  • Lack of minimum requirements for the incorporation of the At-Large ALSes (Annual Report, statutes approved by competent authorities, recent activities):  Keep this pt.  Make it a heading point, with LACRALO’s next three points as subpoints: 
    • Lack of policies of outreach.
    • Lack of policies of “inreach.”
      • Lack of outreach and “inreach” policies:  Rec 5 states that ALAC should develop strategic/operational plans as part of ICANN’s planning process.  Is there a concerted outreach/inreach with ICANN’s processes?  Not really; there is some improvement, but still a long way to go.  This is certainly a weakness, but will likely be with us for a long time.  To fix it would take many more people, more time, more resources, etc. than we have.
    • Must be substantially improved procedures to include profiles, orientation, presence and participation, representation, better options for new leaders, less or no re-election, less or no multiple representation in the same or different agencies, etc.

>>  AI:  Dev to check with Alejandro regarding meaning of these points from LACRALO in SWOT A. Weaknesses:

  • RALO in support of a pattern or policy favoring a single provider or provider group. (For example with new gTLDs, ccTLDs used like generics, and other changes in the domain names):  This point might be dealing with capture.  Can use word “capture” to reword, but be careful, delicate in how use it.
  • Lack of mechanisms for transparency and accountability within and between ALSes:  Keep this point.   
  • Lack of minimum requirements for the incorporation of the At-Large ALSes (Annual Report, statutes approved by competent authorities, recent activities).

 

>>  AI:  Seth to reword as the recognition of a weakness:  Lack of minimum requirements for the incorporation of the At-Large ALSes… and the three subpoints we’re putting under it to clarify. 

Of course, can classify weaknesses as those in ALAC/At-Large’s structure.  But if these were remedied immediately, they be reclassified as Strengths.

Opportunities:

  • The participation of the ALSes  in Out-Rich events can be strengthened by the sponsor and the funding of ICANN:  Keep this.
    • To rectify, would take active involvement.
  • The increase in the remote participation of the At-Large meetings can increase the contribution and participation of the global communities:  Keep this.

NARALO’s contribution

A.  SWOT on ALAC/At-Large strategic planning

Overall (all quadrants of SWOT):

  • Integrate all of NARALO’s contributed points into the SWOTs – keep them all.

Strengths:

  • Decided to add NARALO’s contribution (Volunteer involvement is highly professional and experienced providing a wealth of knowledge and expertise), and then to use some of LACRALO’s Strengths as subpoints to it.

Opportunities:

  • Leadership role in providing foundation grants ( ICANN Is a 501C) to less fortunate groups,  Note the World Wide Web Foundation efforts to promote entrepreneurship in the Third World:  Keep point.  
    • This is Glenn’s point.  Might be related to JAS WG discussion re getting outside funding.
    • It could be related to encouraging growth of a number of ALSes.
    • Discussed whether this funding issue is really about ALAC strategic planning; decided it is, because it gives opportunity for more ALSes to be involved in ALAC strategic planning.  But there was no consensus.

>>  AI:  Gareth to clarify following SWOT point with ALS that provided it:  Leadership role in providing foundation grants ( ICANN Is a 501C) to less fortunate groups,  Note the World Wide Web Foundation efforts to promote entrepreneurship in the Third World.

>>  AI:  Seth to edit following point:  Leadership role in providing foundation grants ( ICANN Is a 501C) to less fortunate groups,  Note the World Wide Web Foundation efforts to promote entrepreneurship in the Third World.  

  • Make it more precise; it could be related to encouraging growth of a number of ALSes.

At this point, it was decided that WT C would continue the review of the RALO’s contributions to its SWOT analyses via e-mail.

6.  Next steps in creating proposal list/presentation for ALAC in SF (Sunday, 13 March) – Co-Chairs, 10 min.

SWOT analyses points still to be mapped to WT C Simplified Outline recommendation tasks, then proposals to be developed.

>>  AI:  Olivier and Tijani to map SWOT analyses points to WT C Simplified Outline recommendation tasks, then to develop proposals.

>>  AI:  Once Olivier and Tijani have mapped SWOT analyses points to WT C Simplified Outline recommendation tasks and have developed proposals, Seth to review whether or not WT C has at least one proposal for each recommendation task.  


7.  Any other business -- Co-Chairs, 5 min

No other business was introduced.

8.  Confirmation of next meeting:  In San Francisco, on Wednesday, 16 March 2011, at 11:00 a.m. PST – Co-Chairs, 5 min

This next meeting time was confirmed.

And the meeting was adjourned.

  • No labels