ALAC ExCom Meeting
Summary Notes and Action Items
25 July 2012

  • Participants: Olivier Crepin-Leblond (OCL), Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO), Tijani Ben Jemaa (TBJ), Evan Leibovitch (EL ), Julie Hammer (JH), Alan Greenberg (AG), Carlton Samuels (CS ), Rinalia Abdul Rahim (RAR) 
  • Staff: Heidi Ullrich (HU), Silvia Vivanco (SV), Matt Ashtiani (MA), Gisella Gruber (GG)

1.  Roll call and apologies – Staff (2 minutes)

  • Roll call and apologies were held.

2. Review of Action Items from 11 July 2012 ExCom Meeting and 24 July ALAC Meeting - Olivier (15 minutes)

  • The Action Items were reviewed and updated as necessary
  • AI: The ALAC is to discuss the SOI template during the next ALAC teleconference.
  • AI: Heidi to follow up with Diane Schroeder to determine if there will be a Board meeting in August.
  • AG: I believe the Board has moved to online votes, which may not fall in line with the ICANN Bylaws.
  • CLO: Regarding the SAC054 Webinar call, this is an example of worthwhile information. We need to ensure that we have a mechanism of promulgation for the information within the call.
  • JH: I have summarized the main points that were made during the discussion, including the outcome.
  • OCL: Perhaps we should have a page on the wiki that links to all webinars?   
  • AI: Staff are to work on the recording of the Webinar and push the information to the RALOs, perhaps via the Secretariats?
  • AG: Regarding the IPC's Letter, the new Statement focuses on the specific issue, which was initially ignored in the process. If they had an open Board Meeting and vote on it, our last Statement would not have been necessary. However, as they did it ahead of time, we were objection. Steve's current letter also talks about the substance of the Whois Issue, which are two different things. I am still in favor of sending it, but this should be noted.
  • CS: I agree with Alan.
  • OCL: I believe we need to ensure that our requests of finance are dealt with in a reasonable timeframe. Many of our requests are time sensitive.
  • CLO: We need to further our outreach to ensure that the goals of ICANN can be accomplished in Baku. We need to ensure that we do not end up in the too little too late pile in this regard.
  • TBJ: One of the best ways for AFRALO to participate in the IGF is for coordinated participation with ICANN.
  • OCL: All Statements are now on the wiki. I will rephrase the Statements into a more amenable form and update everyone once this has been completed.

3.  Policy Advice Development Page -- Tijani, Olivier (20 minutes)

  • Recently approved ALAC Statements, Documents or Groups
    • Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDS
    • Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report - Vote closes 24 July
    • Statements currently being voted on or reviewed by the ALAC
      • IDN Prioritization in the New gTLD Program Targeted at the ICANN Board - Comments requested. Vote starts 25 July.
      • Request for Community Input on SAC054 - Domain Name Registration Data Model - Comments requested through 23 August.
      • ALAC Statement Endorsing the IPC's Statement on the .com Renewal and Thick Whois - No close date, but submission is to occur soon.
    • Current open policy forums:
      • WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey - DRAFT - No Statement is to be produced - PC Comment Period closes 20 June; Reply Period closes 16 July
      • Interisle Consulting Group's WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey - No Statement is to be produced - PC Comment Period closes 25 June; Reply Period closes 16 July
      • ICANN's FY 13 Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework - No Statement is to be produced - PC Comment Period closes 2 July; Reply Period closes 3 August
      • Request for Community Input on Formulation of 2013-2016 Strategic Plan - CS to draft brief Statement. PC Comment Period closes 4 July; Reply Period closes 30 July
      • ICANN Board Conflicts of Interest Review - Independent Expert Report - No Statement is to be produced. PC Comment Period closes 6 July; Reply Period closes 28 July
      • Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Final Report - JH to draft brief Statement. PC Comment Period closes 30 July; Reply Period closes 29 August
      • Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures - No Statement is to be produced. PC Comment Period closes 30 July; Reply Period closes 20 August
      • .name Registry Agreement Renewal - No Statement is to be produced. Period closes 2 August; Reply Period closes 23 August

4. Review of ALAC Meeting of 24 July Meeting - Olivier (15 minutes)

  • OCL: Regarding ICANN Academy, the consensus was that there would be a final curriculum for Toronto. If that were not the case, the newly selected leaders would be able to brush up on their knowledge in Beijing. 

5. Discussion of Toronto ALAC Meetings and Agendas - Olivier and Staff (20 minutes)

  • HU: Toronto Meeting and Agenda - Can you please give us a greater indication of the meetings you would like in Toronto? I know that there has been earlier discussion of this topic so an extended discussion, particularly on Sunday, on this topic would be appreciated.
  • OCL: When I chair meetings sometimes I feel like we have to cut and run, or even just stop discussions. There is also the aspect of policy vs. process. Perhaps less Staff briefings should be taking place.
  • AG: We are always going to have conflicts over our focus.
  • OCL: I think we should meet with compliance. Do you agree? What about Language Services.
  • AG: I only think we should meet with, for example, Language Services if they positions has actually changed.
  • AG: I think this is a fair question to ask on the mailing list. In the RoPs Meeting we had yesterday, we tried to decide what the ExCom does. The conclusion we came to was that the group acts in concert with the chair to make decisions that do not require the whole consensus of the group.
  • CLO: I think I should also note that, as the Chair, you set out agendas.
  • OCL: Well, we have to decide if we wish to speak with other SOs/ACs. When we had conversation with other SO/ACs we end up moving it to the wiki and having very little input.
  • AG: ICANN puts out policy briefings on a month basis. I think they are good docs and they should be disseminated. I also think that, just because we had a meeting with someone previously does not dictate that we should meet with him or her again.
  • TBJ: I am in agreement with Evan. We need to be more effective with our time.
  • EL: There is a need to break things up. We had a good straining system at the summit, which I think was a better system. This would allow people to gravitate to their areas of interest and it would allow those who are not pulling their weight to be seen.
  • AG: I can see the benefits and drawbacks to Evan's suggestion. I think a more pragmatic approach would be for us to be more selective of what we are discussing.
  • CS: We need to be more selective in what we discuss. I agree with Evan that we need themes in our discussion. I suggest that the themes be selected and we table them as appropriate. I just don't think that we need all Staff coming in. We can control what we ask from Staff and people. I think doing so would improve the policy discussion.
  • OCL: I think that our policy discussion on Sunday or Tuesday will not be as full. Perhaps less session so we can further discuss what we need to discuss in further detail.
  • AG: We have heard regularly that there is too much o read before ICANN Meetings. To be candid, one does not hear that comment from ALAC and At-Large in general. I think that is because ALAC and At-Large are not doing a huge amount of prep before the meeting. I think there is a cultural issue that needs to be address - people need to read the policy updates before the meeting. I simply don't believe people are doing their homework.
  • CS: I think that is precisely what the problem is. This roadshow of various executives coming in is so positive for those who have not done their homework. If people actively participated in the webinars and reading, we would not need a roadshow. This is why we need the Chair and ExCom need to set the agenda. Doing so will lead to more policy discussions and probably a better meeting to boot.
  • TBJ: I agree this can lead to a more positive discussion.
  • AI: Based on these discussions, Heidi to draft a tentative agenda and send it to Olivier.

6. Any other Business - Olivier (5 minutes)

  • There was no additional business.

 

 

 

  • No labels