Cairo Documents

This is the place to find references to the important documents being reviewed by the At-Large community during the Cairo meeting. Check back often or subscribe to the RSS feed for this page at the bottom of the page.

Cairo Meeting PowerPoint template

At-Large Advisory Committee

AL.ALAC/MT.33/1/1 - Proposed Revisions to Rule 21 of the ALAC Rules of Procedure (EN) (ES) (FR)

AL.ALAC/MT.32/6/1.Rev1 - Policy Advice Development Outline - (EN)

NomCom Position Description for ALAC Appointments: (EN)

GNSO Improvements Related

M Mueller Proposal for the GNSO Non Commercial Stakeholder Group - (EN) (ES) (FR)

Public Comment on the Role of Individual Internet Users in the GNSO (EN)
Public Consultation Closes: 28 Nov 2008

GNSO Liaison Report

GNSO Council meeting of 16 October 2008.

At-Large Review

Board Governance Committee ALAC Review Working Group Mid-Point Consultation Report (EN) (ES) (FR)
Public Consultation Closes: 12 December 2008

IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation

Public Comment: Draft Implementation Plan (EN)
At-Large IDN Working Group draft Statement on the above (EN)
Public Consultation Closes: 8 Dec 2008

New gTLDs

New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook and Associated Documents (EN)
Public Consultation Closes: 8 Dec 2008

Improving Institutional Confidence Process

Homepage: http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/

ICANN Strategic Plan

Draft Strategic Plan Priorities (EN)
Highlighted version showing what has changed from the published plan in these new proposals: (EN)
Public Consultation Closes: 17 Nov 2008

At-Large Summit Related

Draft Sessions Schedule for the Summit
Summit Working Group Documents

Proposed Amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)

GNSO Briefing Paper on the proposed RAA Amendments alac:(EN)

Independent Review of the RSSAC

Brief PDF from the Review Team (EN)
Review Homepage: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/rssac/

Independent Review of the SSAC

PDF from the review team with their contact details (EN)
Review Website: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/ssac/

Comments on Documents

If you have any comments you would like to make about any of these documents - including suggestions for links to documents you think should be listed here - please use the Comment button above to leave your thoughts below.

Not sure why someone deleted my comment about AL.ALAC/MT.33/1/1, Proposed Revisions to Rule 21 of the ALAC Rules of Procedure. Happily, it's a wiki, so still in the history:

Wow, these participation requirements are absurd in their level of useless detail! Too bad we can't use our time to come up with /policy recommendations/.

--Wendy

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2008-10-22 09:20:41 GMT

(Comment also sent by e-mail)

I have quite strong feelings about this proposal.

First, those of you who have heard me talk or read my comments about ALAC members who cannot or do not participating effectively know that I fell that this problem must be addressed. However, I feel the documents is totally inappropriate in a number of ways.

If it comes to a vote in anywhere near the current version, I will vote against it.

I could write a lot on this, but I will try to keep this short, and hopefully start a dialogue. Here is gist of my concerns:

The fact that this is a 10 page document, up from the previous 1 page is a first symptom. We should not need to go into things at that level. The people participating in our group should be sufficiently professional and intelligent that we do not have to do this.

As with the previous version, it sets specific, quantitative targets for some aspects of performance and demands 100% compliance or be subject to removal. This version is slightly better in that it gives some option for correction. But it is still relies too much on an automata view of process (that is, prescribed such that it could be implemented by a computer without human intervention).

I object to decision making delegated in such a broad way to the Chair and the Executive Committee (a concept that does not even exist in the rest of the RoP).

I have no problem describing expectations and in fact I strongly advocate it. But writing rules such as these almost sets the expectations that we are going to have a lot of people in violation of them. We should set reasonable expectations, and in the (hopefully rare) cases that people are not meeting them, take effective action.

If we feel that we need such detailed and rigid rules to get effective participation, we are not selecting the right people, and THAT is something that we should be addressing with the highest priority.

contributed by alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca on 2008-10-22 14:30:11 GMT

This updated set of rules are aggressive.

I do agree that there is a need for performance accountability, which could present ALAC as a productive policy development
body within ICANN.

current wording is too much detailed, such details are not needed. e.g we can't solve meeting attendance & etiquette issues by inserting lots of dose and donts in a the minimum participation requirments .

contributed by admin@isoc.sd on 2008-10-23 11:05:11 GMT

This document seems burdensome for a group of volunteers. I am torn between seeing the need for it and being somewhat offended by it – fortunately it stops just sort of threat of sanction for sipping coffee too loudly during meetings.

We could also benefit from some clear language on conflict of interest.

Beau

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2008-10-23 23:01:24 GMT

I was surprised to read this draft. I share most of opinions and sentiments written above.
If we adopt this, I would suggest to change the title from "Minimum Participation Requirements" to "Detailed Participation Obligations", which of course is not what we need.

I am also concerned about the "tone" of this document. While I do agree and understand that our performance should be measured, both individually and collectively, and improved, we have different ideas and habits for "volunteers" or "work" or how to conduct in the meetings etc. By applying "whips", as this document suggests, or detailed text-book like obligations, may be, to me, quite counter-productive.

I also note that there is no mention of kind of "support" ALAC members and Liaisons are expected to receive from Staff or from ICANN.

I also think that there is a need, perhaps, to define the Executive Commitee clearly, in the RoP.

Finally, I like to see the "functional ALAC", that means, have reasonable division of labor, help each other, work as a team in trust. I hope the "minimum" requirements will lead to produce that.

izumi

contributed by iza@anr.org on 2008-10-25 04:03:53 GMT

I don't think this draft if adopted will make anything but destroy the group. As volunteers who are devoting ourselves for a better an human ICANN. With this draft, we are not showing an example of understanding, tolerance, mutual trust and support. For me, this draft reflects the reactions some of us always have when something is not going right. Sometimes, I would prefer to be silent out of frustration and not wanting to respond to inappropriate and disrespectful attacks.

I think, if we want to be inclusive we have to care more about our code of conduct among ourselves. We have made commitments to serve ALAC as mature adults and we have to do our best to achieve our goals. We should be able to explain and be trusted when we cannot accomplish some of our duties. Instead of having a procedure that will treat us as kids in a classroom with sticks and carrots.

Fatimata

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2008-10-25 11:15:39 GMT

I can see that every comments are very similars. I fully agree with all of them, specially with Izumi, Alan and Beau. We will must have very clear the caracteristic of "volunteers" of each ALAC member. And we must have take in account the RALO desition in the member elected case.

Carlos Aguirre.

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2008-10-25 21:06:38 GMT

My response to the Mid-point Consultation Report of Board WG on ALAC Review

This is bit confusing to insert a different topic/comment, but I see no other place, so I post it here with our indulgence..

This is written on my way from Tokyo to Cairo, then the battery died in the middle.

Generally, I welcome the overall direction and most recommendations/suggestions in the WG Report, a significant improvement built on the Westlake Report.
Among all, I appreciate the following points described in the Report:

A clear acknowledgement of the present status of ALAC, the process that led from the beginning of ALAC after “Reform and Evolution”

A clear recognition and enforcement of the role of ALAC at ICANN – provide voices of individual users to ICANN process in three ways (policy advice, input to ICANN operation and structure, accountability)
A healthy suggestion to consider voting seats at ICANN Board
A clear recognition of the need to improve ALAC mechanism and operation
A clear recognition to position ALAC as an important part of ICANN, asking for enforced interaction with other parts of ICANN

When it comes to details, of course, there are several areas where I have different views.

In particular, I have more concern on the effectiveness and sustainability of ALS - RALO – ALAC structure.

The WG report recognized that this three-tier structure is actually "hindering the information flow of ALAC and individual users", or something like that, yet it argues since this structure is only in place for about a year, it remains to be seen.

I would suggest more boldly to address this issue without waiting for the next Review.
I think we better triy to reduce the layers as much as possible, make it a more flat organization for example:

Create a “Global Secretary”function – where more centralized work is carried out by ICANN Staff collectively
Conduct“user polls” in a global manner to find out what users opinions are
Give more opportunity from ALS directly to ALAC witout being filtered by RALO
Allow “global ALS” where individuals can gather together, without belonging to a particular region/RALO

Not all issues need to be decided through RALO - since some issues do not really have relevance to "regions" or geogrpahci/cultural matters

A trial decision making in a “global” way – allowing all ALSs to vote regardless of the region they belong to

Just some initial thinking.

izumi

contributed by iza@anr.org on 2008-11-02 07:30:58 GMT

RE: Proposed Revisions to Rule 21 of the ALAC Rules of Procedure

I understand the intend but I, too, consider the proposed revisions too be too detailed and possibly demotivating for the volunteers we are. In our context, each individual should be evaluated on a case by case basis. We face different issues. Some have technical problems to participate in online discussions and meetings, others with teleconference schedules, etc. I think there actually little common criteria by which all members could be evaluated.

contributed by patrick@vande-walle.eu on 2008-11-02 11:10:25 GMT

I have no standing here but if I were an ALAC member and a division was called on this screed, I would vote AGAINST it. Even with the most recent changes.

My main bugbear is a profound distaste for the notion of participation here exposed. Secondly, I would've also taken exception to the dated - and regrettable! - view of the nature of work implied here; more in keeping with an assembly-line-industrial-type operation. The draft also seems a tad shy of understanding that most of us are not trust-funded.

I am a knowledge worker and work is where I am, not something I go to. I also work for fee and have financial obligations to meet; I have children to feed and sustain, something that might not be as urgent for those of us happily trust-funded. I am forced to do several things at once; duty to those that pay me for knowledge work, clients with unpredictable needs and so on. And I give time and knowledge to volunteer activities. So, I am forced to multitask. I cannot imagine that multitasking remains a mystery, as is apparent from this draft!

Carlton A Samuels

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2008-11-03 09:20:52 GMT

Content

Space Tools