The Chair started the meeting at 0930.
The minutes were accepted
The agenda was slightly amended.
Budget:
A discussion was held as to whether the summit budget should be published in its current version. It was generally felt that the Summit WG needs to be transparent and publish its current budget.
Summit Results:
Staff presented the draft version of the summit results, commenting that another 4 ALSes needed to be added. He said they had received questionnaire responses from 3 ALSes which were not yet certified. They had also received 2 questionnaires from individuals. He said that he had not added into the draft the ALSes which were not yet certified but that he would send an updated draft. They had a total of 67 ALSes. He added that a regional breakdown would be interesting.
R Guerra noted that NARALO counted unaffiliated members. It was decided that they will be able to participate on behalf of ALSes which cannot send a representative. (recording -31:15)
W Ludwig noted that it would be important to have a regional breakdown of the topics the regions are interested in. Analyse the regional differences.
S Bachollet suggested breaking the meeting into regional breakdown groups for the analysis of the questionnaire results.
The Chair announced that they would break into regional groups to do an analysis of the data and then the respective groups would share their comments with the assembly before the lunch break. She praised the fact that they had received at least 18 feedbacks. (recording - 43:08)
There was some discussion on whether there should be a second questionnaire focussing on the content.
V Scartezini noted that it was important to form an idea about the actual participants.
The Summit WG then split up in regional groups and discussed the results for their respective region (recording - 45:51)
Summaries from regional breakout groups
The regional groups gave short summaries about the specificities of their region in the context of global ALS responses.
The Chair asked the participants to reflect on how they would involve the other parts of ICANN. She reminded that the summit ALAC meetings were open to public participation. She added that the key players should be advised well in time about the Mexico Summit dates.
NARALO
E Leibovitch noted that his region differed greatly from the rest of the regions with regards to question 1 but was in general similar to the global outcome. A lot of people wanted to know more about ICANN functions and culture. He suggested doing a demo of what ICANN does at the next summit. (recording - 48:31)
D Thompson suggested that if there were large regional differences, then these issues should be discussed in break-out sessions. She will present such a spreadsheet.
LACRALO
Scartezini noted that in her sector, as it was a developing region, funding was fundamental. Exchanging experiences with the others, increase participation and have tutorials. 10 ALSes out of 18 considered funding as fundamental as well as self-sustainability, discussions about the ALSes expectations and how to communicate information to the ALSes and RALOs. (recording - 53:40)
The Chair summarized the LACRALO priorities: 1)learning about the issues, 2 declaration of user’s rights, 3) being the exchange of experiences and collaboration.
EURALO
Rudy Vansnick said that to collaborate with other regions was the first priority, the second was to work with other At Large community members and the third being to initiate work by the At Large community. Europeans wanted to network a lot, because of the internal language and cultural barriers. His region had also a majority of ‘no’s for the key-note speaker. Question 6 of the questionnaire did not draw enough responses for comments. Concerning the summit outcome, the region wanted specific At Large responses, a plan for action for further work and a declaration of internet user’s rights. (recording - 57:43)
APRALO
K Taiuru said that the APRALO region was also faced with language diversity issues. (recording: 1:34)
C Langdon-Orr concluded that the top three priorities in APRALO were firstly collaboration, secondly learning about ICANN and thirdly sharing issues and experiences
AFRALO
H Diakite commented that holding tables of discussion, sharing issues and experiences were the most important points for AFRALO. They favoured key-note speakers. The outcome they expected was firstly funding, secondly future plans of actions and thirdly, a declaration of user’s rights. There was some confusion about the questionnaire grading system.
The staff commented that the lowest average value was rated as the most important thing and there was no inaccurate representation.
The Chair remarked that some questions had not been answered by some regions: The key-note speaker and the preferred formats (a panel or a combination). She asked AFRALO to set out what they meant by a key-note speaker and whether they expected some tutorial representation.
R Guerra said that in his region, they had discussed on how to use the event as a catalyst to get more regional people involved. He suggested brief separate videos of each speaker and having it online. That could be effective for the people who could not come to the summit and would help capturing the younger public. (recording - 1:18)
S Bachollet commented that it could only be audio sessions.
Actual mechanism of presentation and format
W Ludwig noted that the summit questionnaire led to clear results regarding the format of the summit and indicated that collaboration and exchange of ideas were seen as more important than “broadcast-style” meetings.
F Seye Sylla added that the key-note speakers should not necessarily be from outside the ICANN community. The outcome they expected from the summit was the declaration of internet principles and the internet User Rights. The answer to question 2 was the option 5 and do a round table conversation, considering the cultural diversity of the region.
R Guerra noted that costs needed to be considered when opting for a key-note speaker and that they should think of people who had already attended ICANN meetings since the funds would be better applied trying to get as much people as possible to the summit.
W Ludwig said that his ALSes did not want a broadcasted-format summit and that the summit should not be overly conventional. He noted that the contradictions that are part of ICANN should be openly displayed and on the agenda.
E Leibovitch suggested having two tracks for the summit participants: an “initiation process” for those who are new to ICANN and a faster track for the others.
A Peake suggested that the senior staff could do a keynote speech at the beginning of the meeting. Care should be given to the nature of the key-note speech. Paul Twomey would certainly be willing to comply, for instance. There were plenty of people willing to do speeches about ICANN structures or other issues in the Senior ICANN staff.
S Carlton suggested Goldstein as keynote speaker.
A Muehlberg said she would like to see a keynote speaker that was not part of ICANN staff, preferably somebody from the early ICANN days, with a clear statement about the potential outcome of the summit and thrust in ICANN.
E Leibovitch added that a key-note speaker should be inspirational, not just repeat some of the technical sessions. He should speak about the long term of ICANN .
The meeting was then adjourned at 12 00 until 1400 for lunch
Discuss Suggestions made by Dharma Dailey
R Vansnick: expressed that there were 4 issues that should be addressed at the summit: security, privacy, openness of the internet and accessibility, since some organizations began using untraceable names to hijack domain names and that there was no security without privacy.
The Chair added that regarding the key-note speaker, she thought Vint Cerf should definitely be considered.
W Ludwig thought that Vint or another internet pioneer would be an excellent incentive and this would be preferable to having an ICANN executive.
C Langdon-Orr said she could talk to Vint Cerf and he would certainly accept or provide them with an interactive DVD. Likewise, Paul Twomey had some good, short and concise presentations that could serve as introductory work.
R Guerra suggested that Steve Crocker as he had worked with Vint Cerf on DNS.
C Langdon-Orr remarked that Steve Crocker was the current Chair of SSAC.
R Vansnick thought about the current young pioneer as a vision for the future.
The Chair suggested that there could be an opening key-note speaker and another for closing the session.
S Bachollet said that he did not think that Vint Cerf was the appropriate person for the summit. It would reinforce the association of Vint cerf, Google and ICANN. He preferred to have exchanges with the ALSes representatives and maybe get to know some Mexican pioneers of the internet.
A Muehlberg agreed with Sebastien. She added that the key-speaker should be someone that is user-oriented, has a vision for the future and if possible come for a region where Internet is developing strongly, not a list of big speakers.
The Chair remarked that there were many remarkable people within their entourage who could be encouraged to make a speech.
W Ludwig argued that there was not a contradiction in having the high-level experts and that it would be useful to know the historical context too. Having some sophisticated input as well could not hurt.
E Leibovitch agreed on that. It would certainly be good to have some kind of message giving a vision of the past and of what was anticipated when At-Large was created, the logic behind the creation of At-Large.
The Chair suggested returning to the Dharma Dailey’s proposals and had the first section of them read aloud.
(2:14 - <First few sections then read out> The questions concerned the venue, open space, ad-hoc meeting room,
V Scartezini said that costs could be reduced if food could be previously arranged and possibly at another place than at the host hotel.
Staff commented that due to the fact that the Mexico meeting was very large, there would probably be some spreading around of the participants but a majority of the At Large contingent would stay at the same hotel directly across the main venue. The amount of space available at the main hotel, Alac meetings excluded, was at its maximum. They were, though, several meeting spaces of the right size in the same hotel across the street from it. The public workshops could be held at the main venue. There would probably be a third hotel 500 yards away.
The Chair noted for the record that she wishes that there would be some coherence in that planning and that the At Large participants would be relatively close to one another.
A discussion was held on whether there should be open spaces/workshops.
A Peake noted that it should be a requirement for ALSes to put up a website with basic information with some pictures.
C Langdon-Orr said that she would like the ALSes to bring some posters
S Hoffberg from ICANN Staff joined the meeting (2:51)
C Landgon-Orr asked her how far apart the hotels were from each other and noted that it was very important that they be close to each other.
S Hoffberg noted that there were all in walking distance from the meeting venue and gave some more details about the Mexico arrangements and asked for their requirements.
C Langdon-Orr noted that she would send a final room list to Stacy by the end of Cairo.
It was discussed how to ensure that everybody would have their Visas in time.
N Ashton-Hart from Staff noted that he knew a company that deals with Visas and might be able to help to accommodate visas for the Summit participants.
V Scarteznini suggested getting in contact with the local government to facilitate the distribution of visas. S Hoffberg will bring up this issue at the next meeting.
D Thompson noted that S Hoffberg should get into contact with the NARALO representatives.
P Hinojosa from ICANN Staff said he had been in contact with the local organizers and that they were delighted to host the next ICANN meeting and the At-large Summit.
Draft Agenda
H Xue noted that many ALS were interested in Policy and that they should expect policy documents coming out of this meeting. She noted that there should be more discussion on actual outcomes such as the “basic principles” and the “Users Bill of Rights”.
A Muehlberg suggested K Taiuru as the Chair of the Users Bill of Rights declaration WG.
C Samuels noted that user rights issues needed to be combined as most of the work on user rights is already done.
V Scartezini noted it was important to connect the people from ICANN with IGF participants.
Summit Programme Scheme
W Ludwig made a short presentation of the Summit Programme. http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dmqxr8w_22gjmn4cgv&invite=cf889pn
The Staff noted that one day of the summit would be dedicated to regional general assemblies.
W Ludwig noted that this could make the production and adoption of policy instruments much more complicated.
C Langdon-Orr said that the program and especially the workshops needed to be crosschecked with the policy preferences that resulted from the Summit Questionnaire. She asked the participants to quickly summarize what they had gained from the meeting and what they expected from the summit.
R Guerra, D Thompson, S Bachollet, H Xue and A Muehlberg gave a short summary of this meeting.
C Langdon-Orr expressed the opinion that the summit should not be about a users’ bill of rights.
E Leibovitch pointed to his document “Summit Session List", which can be found under http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pUpiVjaBgeT2gaykfPMciew&hl=en (Google account needed)
The meeting was then ended
