ALAC Meeting Notes
11, 12, 14 July 2005
Luxembourg ICANN Meeting
(Note: these are informal meeting notes provided for public information; they are not transcripts and accuracy
is not guaranteed)
Monday 11 July – Vittorio Bertola, Izumi Aizu, Jean Armour Polly, Annette Muehlburg, Roberto Gaetano,
Bret Fausett, John Levine, Sebastian Ricciardi, Tommy Matsumoto; Denise Michel, ICANN; and members of
the public
• Agenda and scheduling discussions
• Liaison reports
o RG – no consensus yet on approving Strat Plan; it is tied to budget and operational plan; discussion
continues; he recommended Board approve a short strat plan document with key issues and have an
annex that says discussions will continue and details will be added; Board spending lot of time
discussing sTLD applications – particularly long discussions on .xxx and .cat; need to have strategy
for new gTLDs and operational plan for approving them; .NET decision very controversial and
Board was split; Verisign was awarded contract in tight vote; GNSO input stating Telcordia did not
apply criteria was strongest argument in favor of temporarily extending contract and continue
consideration – this was rejected by Board; RG would prefer to speak from consensus of ALAC, but
also shares personal opinion and shares received input/comments with Board.
o BF – WHOIS task force continues to have weekly meetings to “take temperature” of people and
getting reports and gathering information, especially from Registrars and Registries; these two
constituencies have issued a proposal – name servers and administrative contact would be public and
rest would not; registrant contact data would be offline, coupled with tiered access; should consider
giving ALAC support to this; new gTLDs – cross-constituency white paper under discussion at
constituency level and will be raised; expect a task force; Aug 1 deadline on new TLD question
paper and ALAC should provide input; should have public discussion on mail list about this and he
will draft position; message from Board is everyone needs to be working on this; GNSO wants to be
the conduit for all input on new gTLDs (ALAC has responsibility to advise Board as well); GNSO
public forum is evolving as important place to advance At-Large positions – WHOIS privacy should
be addressed now;
• New ALSs
o VB – problems with ALS approval process; many members don’t vote or take too long to vote; have
discussed changing process in past and Denise has circulated proposal for change; need to reconsider
process now;
o AM – need regional ALAC members to verify applicant’s qualifications; should have regional
members report on applicant
o SR – when responsibility is diluted among 3 people it is often difficult to get action/closure; see
proposal he circulated; suggests 1 member be “endorser” of every applicant; co-chair responsible for
ALS/AL network building selects “endorser” if is none;
o VB – asked for focal point member in each region;
o IA – procedural question and commitment question; suggests members be removed if they are not
active;
o AM – all people in region should have first vote on proposal and then all of ALAC votes;
o SR – not practical to not have an enforcement mechanism to make ALAC members do their jobs;
you cannot require all 3 regional members to be involved/approve
o AM – agree; should have short period to allow regional members to object;
o IA – suggest ALAC address issue that we lack quorum; problem is often no responses;
o VB – problem is if there is any problem or question about proposal people don’t vote and you can’t
get 10 votes; problem is if 3-4 people aren’t convinced and abstain we can’t get votes
o SR – need to have outreach strategy and what we want accomplish;
o JL – problem with accreditation process is it is stuck;
• Self Review
o AM – EURALO, new TLD workshop, and GAC meeting yesterday, but not happy with preparation
of ALAC strategy for RALOs; should do more promotion on workshop; for GAC should prepare
and be more strategic and define potential alliance;
o IA – sent draft review in MdP meeting and observation hasn’t changed; has doubts about model
working in timely manner; criticism of ALAC from outside; should try to create RALO under
framework given and think of plan B
o JA – congrats to Bret for successful workshop and pushing policy statements; concerned about lack
of activity by some members; need to look into getting rid of dead wood; on cusp of doing
something great
o BF – if we have people who aren’t responding we need to ask them to resign (move them to observer
status); ALAC can change its procedures when it has quorum
o RG – problem is replacing deadwood with living wood; need to raise with NomCom need to have
stand-by or mechanism to replace someone who resigns; for RALO there is rising criticism about
model and its potential value; try hard until end of year and determine value; if we succeed and
create RALO it will help with outreach and replacing ALAC members; will give up at end of year on
RALO
o JL – no chance of having NARALO; N.Americans have many other ways of influencing ICANN;
At-Large can make a difference with website/communication and engaging members; reduce
quorum and move forward; accrediting ALSs – votes yes on all of the ALS applications to save
time; ALAC doesn’t have much power so don’t see point in encouraging people to become involved
o SR – disagrees; thinks ALAC is one of the most influential bodies; Board asked for our opinion and
community responds to ALAC statements; in ICANN’s bottom-up process At-Large is important
and ALAC has made important accomplishments; if you want more power show more leadership;
o TM – agree with SR and has made much progress; ALAC activity of forming RALO is way of
getting user voices to top is major focus and is promoting involvement – especially for developing
countries; in AP we have small numbers but many here and interested in forming RALO – and this is
very important (along with certifying ALSs).
o Ku Wei Wu – it is good we have chance for individuals participating; difficult to understand
application process and it needs to be more transparent; doesn’t know of better mechanism and will
work to form APRALO;
• Other
o SR – share problems of committed members with NomCom; must address Bret’s proposals on
mission and vision statements
• .MOBI
o Wants 2 At-large representatives on it advisory committee
• Meeting with NCUC
o Agenda bashing… discuss shared issues, ways of coordinating our activities; WHOIS, new gTLDs,
IDNs, .NET, Registrar auctions, WSIS/WGIG and USDOC statement
o New gTLDs discussion… [no notes]; IDNs proposal to split – go forward with ascii TLDs and wait
on IDN TLDs, since the latter needs different process, and IDN policy should not be the purview of
the GSNO; worry about separating it would slow IDNs; Adam Peake drafting a potential statement
for consideration; concern expressed about giving IDNs to ccTLDs and thereby allowing a country
to control a language in the DNS (language communities instead of countries)
o WGIG – VB doesn’t expect much effect on ICANN internally, but should use it to push for ICANN
change – more transparency, accountability, translations; another WGIG member said report would
broadly recommend changes for inclusiveness and a focus on including developing world
participants; another WGIG member also noted civil/human rights and intellectual property issues;
Tuesday, 12 July – Annette Muehlberg, John Levine, Sebastian Ricciardi, Tommy Matsumoto, Vittorio
Bertola, Izumi Aizu, Pierre Dandjinou, Jean Armour Polly, Roberto Gaetano; Denise Michel, ICANN; and
members of the public
• ALS approval process
o RG – identify problem; difficulty approving due to low attendance in voting;
o VB – 3-4 people who don’t vote/participate; not resolving issues, asking questions
o SR – need co-chair to deal with AL building and run process; one person in charge of application
and interact with members and resolve questions/issues
o AM – want regions giving positions; don’t know if some ALAC members are alive or dead; ask
people to resign if they aren’t involved in ALAC; could reduce the amount of number needed for
vote
o IA – some of members aren’t active (raised in MdP); contact them
o JA – likes Annette’s suggestion of regions making recommendations; say here’s the vote and who
recommended
o PD – asked members if they want to continued involvement
o DM – this was done late last year and every member re-confirmed their commitment
o VB – proposal: require clear opinion from members from region (with deadline?); minimum
requirements for member participation, or be excluded from the cmt; change of approval
requirements in bylaws; one person tasked with responsibility to push applications through?
o SR – talk to NomCom about problem of non-participation
o DM – Bylaws created as safeguard facing uncertainty of community response to new AL structure;
quality of groups that have submitted ALS applications to date show that there is not a need for such
a high threshold of approval – do not need 2/3 vote to approve; ALAC challenge is to get people
involved, not keep them out; amend the bylaws and move on to real work.
o TM – thinks process is OK, but how to involve all members in discussion and encourage
participation is important?
o PD – ask colleagues why they aren’t participating; may be scheduling/other commitments; its
important we hear from them and ask them specific questions;
o VB – DM and I will write members who are not here; make proposal for …[no notes]
o IA – wants warning and then impeachment of non-involved members
o SR – emailed members and asked if any questions; requiring full report on pending ALS
applications in their region (as someone suggested) would be burdensome
o RG – discuss application on teleconferences
o RG – a quick response; ask for explanations and suggest corrections; all no votes should respond to
rapporteur
o AM – should have to explain if vote NO
o VB – will make proposal for bylaw changes edit etc.; Pierre and Sebastian will report ASAP on
applications from their regions
• Regional Reports and Outreach
o TM – using APNG sub-group to involve new people and developing country groups;
o IA – APRALO meeting Thurs. morning; does not know if RALO structure will work
o PD – had consultant support in Accra and conducted outreach event earlier in year; Kenya event was
cancelled; did outreach at AfriNIC; interest in forming RALO
o RG – EU RALO meeting; EGENI outreach resulted in ISOC Pacific Islands application for AP;
concerned about predominance of ISOC in Europe; need to provide some value for ALS certification
and focus on involving ALS/RALO in ICANN work SR – MdP ICANN meeting was a big help in
soliciting interest and applications; Carlos Afonso’s comments opposing ICANN was problematic
and hurt Brazilian involvement; more activity in Internet arena so situation improving; focus on
Caribbean this quarter; thinking about how to get real participation from ALSs;
• Ombudsman (Frank Fowlie)
o FF - Took ALAC suggestion on multilingualism; posted information in 6 languages and will post
Ombudsman report in 4 languages; 130-140 complaints thus far, not counting 900 emails from
religious website on .XXX (typical complaint on this was form email opposing pornography/.xxx
and he responded with “outside my jurisdiction” statement); 8 ADR, 2 system improvement
recommendations; others resolved…[no notes]; true ICANN issues - 2 from organizations/large
companies and the rest from individuals (and small businesses)
o IA – any complaints about ALAC?
o FF - Confidentiality – can’t discuss unless notifying ALAC will help resolve; hasn’t received any
about ALAC; has provided Denise advice regarding unreasonable delay
o RG – important to distinguish between complaint and improving system
o FF - Made at least 2 recommendations for system improvements; if he were to receive ALAC
complaint and went through ADR and arrived at recommendation for change, he would give ALAC
formal recommendation; if receives significant # of complaints would examine need for change in
process
o FF - Not an advocate for complainant, is an advocate for fairness
o VB – public comments on .NET
o FF - Determine if issue is they have not followed advise or if they have not given reasons for
decision
o IA – do you see significant change after Ombudsman instituted
o FF - Wasn’t in ICANN before so context difficult; has worked through some individuals
expectations of him being a “policeman” or tool for people’s anger; happy that this program is
unique – probably only ADR program that works entirely over Internet;
o IA – hard to find on website; need explanation of what Ombudsman
o FF - Don’t want to make it too easy… [no notes]
• NomCom (George Sadowsky; Jeannette Hoffman; Adam Peake)
o GS - Process report – data must be opaque; confidential input; don’t allow data sharing from year to
year; distinguished people would not want public to know they were not selected; non-selection due
to geographic, gender balance
o AP – if public it would open NomCom to lobbying, which they aren’t set-up for
o GS – Initial deadline extended; always get applications in the last few days so extend; 20 July;
always encourage submission of more qualified names; concerned about disillusioned rejected
people; will suggest some changes in process; mid-Sept final decisions and vetting selections; need
to announce Oct 27 or before;
o AP – if you’re asked for a reference please give detailed reference;
o JH – if you don’t like someone you can contact person and tell them you can’t give a good reference;
person gives NomCom references to contact; references are a decisive resource
o IA – Does NomCom need any help?
o GS – NomCom and community need to solicit volunteers
o JH – especially need statements of interest from women and developing countries
o SR – people with strong credentials sometimes don’t have time to participate
o GS – changed somewhat to address this; use references
o AP – spent more time telling people how much time it will take to serve
o GS – look at position description of ALAC and determine if it needs to be changed
o PD – challenge of involvement for Africa individuals
o JH – striking difference between ICANN and WSIS; need to make extra effort in developing
countries
o JA – suggests booth at WSIS events (DM – already doing that)
o TM – need to remember important mission of forming RALO; need people with leadership and
vision to help form RALO; outreach ability
o IA – consider some ways to smoothly fill interim vacancies; as Interim would like to go off and use
NomCom process to be involved again’
o GS – are asking people if they want to be considered for interim vacancies; filling vacancy on
GNSO Council
o JH – NomCom still thinking about how to improve process; is it enriching competence, etc;
• Proposed Statements for Luxembourg Public Forum
o Proposed IDN joint statement with NCUC -- Need to get ALAC members input; will email to list
and seek Hong advice tomorrow morning when she arrives
o Budget Advisory Group statement -- Removed “gTLD” and “for the coming year” and emailed to
ALAC list for comment
o Statement on Transparency and Public Participation -- Edited in various places and sent to list
Thursday, 14 August -- John Levine, Sebastian Ricciardi, Vittorio Bertola, Izumi Aizu, Jean Armour Polly,
Annette Muehlberg, Hong Xue; Denise Michel, ICANN; and members of the public
• Budget – VB - Will send email to PT regarding expenditures
• Positions – VB – Will discuss process for new appointments to ALAC positions; Vittorio stepping down in
Vancouver
• Review –
o ? - New developments since previous draft of review; AP meeting well attended and productive this
morning;
o ? - Discussed Malaysia application (Denise will send email regarding closure);
o IA – suggests ending original ALAC members terms; members can be appointed again but important
to avoid perception as “squatters”
o VB – need to ask members again if they are able to serve; present formal set of resignations;
NomCom could possible appoint;
o VB – concern about perception if all resign at once
o DM – bylaw change may be needed
o SR – does not want to send message that we think we have not done a good job; should get on with
our real work
o IA – resignations not tied to review, just that 3 years long enough; although critical in past, we have
done a lot; will this RALO thing really fly; may want to reconsider another structure – global one so
don’t need 5 MOUs, secretariats etc.
o VB – determine if agreement to change bylaws or resign or…
o JL – for bylaw revisions people should draft and share language to consider; don’t think should
change bylaws for temporary appointments, but should determine if RALO feasible and then may
want to change bylaws on that
o HX – need long term planning,
o IA – In MdP agreed to try until end of year
o JA – should not discuss bylaws until Vancouver
o HX – evaluation or self-review?
o VB – ALAC did not receive the self-review and long-term plan Izumi Aizu and Clement Dzidonu
were supposed to do;
o …[no notes]…
o PD – conduct complete review and give to Board by Vancouver
o SR – appears JL is setting inappropriate standard for approving applications; when think of applying
process we decided to invite anyone interested and then once have structure try to improve it; if we
think it won’t work then we can discuss it, but lets not waste time
o JP – can groups have organizations too? (yet) I don’t share JL and WS point that it is hopeless and
will approach groups that haven’t approached; …. [no notes]
o VB – Board was going to do away with At-Large and then used an advisory group that suggested
structure
o AM – Germany disappointed after elections and Board seats done away with
o HX – do we need self-review? And then consider time table for self-review? Should link self-review
with outside evaluation?
o AM – we will have done our job if we do outreach and address policies and involve good people in
process; need to find way to involve individual users by Vancouver
o IA – consensus in CapeTown to write review, wrote TOR, not complete; should be prepared
ourselves for review that is coming up for entire ICANN;
o SR -- will finalize the review by end August; will provide timeline
o VB – original members will be contacted by DM on whether they want to continue or resign ??
o AM – MOU language should be discussed first;
o PD – move on with review
• Positions
o SR – has proposal he sent; if vice chairs don’t have practical functions should not have them; should
have co-chairs responsible for policy and outreach
o AM – could also have functional appointments
o VB – it is important for people to do jobs they volunteer for
o IA – tend to burden chair for too many things; functions should be distributed; still need chair to
coordinate the coordinators
o DM – leader for policy, leader for outreach and 1 person in region responsible for meeting planning
o HX – could have floating chair focusing on outreach;
o PD – agree w/ DM; pose to others
o AM – chair should set agendas, need 1 chair - 2 chairs would be to hard to coordinate,
o BF – proposal would be 3 co-chairs at all times – determined by where ICANN was meeting
o IA – chair is face of ALAC and it would difficult all the time
o JM – chair, co-chair and functions
o HX – need 2 leaders – 1 permanent and 1 rotate to region (permanent policy) (rotate outreach in
region); could be equals or
• Positions/statements
o Keep present practices or change?
o AM – keep
o HX – if joint statement with another constituency we use more formal process for approving
o AM – clear deadline is good
o DM – keep in mind important to solicit At-Large community comment on draft positions when
possible
o SR – getting ALS groups on board and asking them to consider draft statements;
o DM – ALAC members ask ALSs directly for input **send email**
o VB – can ask ALSs about new gTLDs
o AM – meeting with GAC on .city
o IA – should try to get meeting with Board members
o SR – need leadership from ALAC to get good interaction with Board
o BF – silos – Board meeting with constituency groups ..[no notes]
• Outreach
o SR – presented slides on Reaching the At-Large Users, communication issues and some ideas
o IA – likes approach; consider change name of “At-Large”
o SR – change name of newsletter
o SR – would help edit/shape messages on website
o JP – slides on website; could have banner ads and allow ALSs to subscribe .. banner of the week
o SR – use hot topics to start discussions on forum; maybe matter of interest and not accessibility
o JM – likes using different domains
o SR – brainstorm on list for domain names
• ALAC Conference call schedules
o Aug 2 at 22:00 UTC; Oct 4 at 14:00 UTC; Nov – first Tues and first Thurs alternating days and
times
