Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
This will serve as my April-May liaison report. Preliminary minutes from the Board's April 20 meeting are now online. <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-30apr08.htm> I was unable to make this meeting because it was 2 am locally, and a power outage cut my alarm clock. From the minutes and from follow-on conversations, however, I note several items of interest to At Large: The At-Large Summit, ALAC review, and GNSO improvements. While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in the 2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with compelling explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN. With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both process and substance.
From the minutes: The Chair was interested in the GNSO review and improvements and inquired as to whether Susan Crawford was working with the GNSO on implementation of the recommendations. Roberto Gaetano advised that Susan was not chairing but participating, and that she is acting as liaison to the GNSO in order to facilitate the possible implementation. Gaetano continued that the comment period had just ended and that one proposal to have different structure for GNSO Council, or alternatively to go with new proposal of the three stakeholder groups to lump registries and registrars in one group. The proposal came from Philip Sheppard and it is signed by the cross constituencies, NCUC and ALAC. Roberto Gaetano indicated that he would leave it to ALAC Liaison Wendy Seltzer to comment to the Board, but that in his understanding there is a significant discussion about whether ALAC endorses the proposal. Gaetano indicated that there would be additional discussion with the goal of making a decisi on at the Paris ICANN meeting.
The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC" review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN structure. The Board also authorized steps toward DNSSEC. Please let me know if you have questions or comments. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
Thank You Wendy... The Item from the Board Meeting relating to the Cairo Meeting and Summit was noted and discussed at today's Summit WG Teleconference... But thank you for noting it to the At-Large list... The matter of specific instructions to the Board liaison regarding the ALAC Statement will be discussed further at the ALAC Meeting... CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 7:35 AM To: At-Large Subject: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting This will serve as my April-May liaison report. Preliminary minutes from the Board's April 20 meeting are now online. <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-30apr08.htm> I was unable to make this meeting because it was 2 am locally, and a power outage cut my alarm clock. From the minutes and from follow-on conversations, however, I note several items of interest to At Large: The At-Large Summit, ALAC review, and GNSO improvements. While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in the 2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with compelling explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN. With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both process and substance.
From the minutes: The Chair was interested in the GNSO review and improvements and inquired as to whether Susan Crawford was working with the GNSO on implementation of the recommendations. Roberto Gaetano advised that Susan was not chairing but participating, and that she is acting as liaison to the GNSO in order to facilitate the possible implementation. Gaetano continued that the comment period had just ended and that one proposal to have different structure for GNSO Council, or alternatively to go with new proposal of the three stakeholder groups to lump registries and registrars in one group. The proposal came from Philip Sheppard and it is signed by the cross constituencies, NCUC and ALAC. Roberto Gaetano indicated that he would leave it to ALAC Liaison Wendy Seltzer to comment to the Board, but that in his understanding there is a significant discussion about whether ALAC endorses the proposal. Gaetano indicated that there would be additional discussion with the goal of making a decisi on at the Paris ICANN meeting.
The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC" review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN structure. The Board also authorized steps toward DNSSEC. Please let me know if you have questions or comments. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hi Wendy,
While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in the 2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with compelling explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN.
This issue was raised in the Summit WG confcall just concluded. It was noted that -- the ICANN meeting following Cairo (spring 2009) is scheduled for Latin America, and not necessarily likely to be less expensive. -- The Cairo meeting is a 10th anniversary for ICANN and thus has special significance (and publicity potential) -- ICANN has not to date considered finances of accessibility when planning meeting locations; it should not penalize At-Large because of this.
With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both process and substance.
Unfortunately, so far it appears that NARALO is the only region to have expressed concern so far; I wonder if we are alone in our objections. To my knowledge, so far other regions are OK with the current joint statement, though I am not aware of a formal vote or consensus in approval. NARALO is considering whether to issue a side comment but I'm not sure if that does (or can) affect the content of the joint statement as it has currently been negotiated.
The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC" review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN structure.
This strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Given the central role of ALAC in the current constitution of At-Large, it is impossible to completely separate the two. Can you clairify what they meant? - Evan
Evan,
The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC" review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN structure.
This strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Given the central role of ALAC in the current constitution of At-Large, it is impossible to completely separate the two.
Can you clairify what they meant?
Since this is was the report to the Board of a discussion that happened at the BGC, I might have first hand information. The point is that what is mandated by the bylaws is the review of ALAC, not the review of the concept of AtLarge. This said, since some of the questions that are part of the charter do imply a review also of the concepts behind ALAC, it is absolutely true that it is impossible to separate the two. For instance, there's a question on whether the ALAC has still a role. Of course, if the approach to AtLarge changes, this change will affect the way this question is answered. But we should not encourage the contractor to start from scratch. Maybe a good example can be the parallel discussion we had a couple of months ago about the review of the RSSAC: it was pointed out, discussed, and accepted, that the scope of the review is the functioning of the Root Server System Advisory *Committee*, not the Root Server System in itself. In simple words, the RSSAC review should not discuss improvement of the root server system in itself, but assess the performance of the committee. Same thing for ALAC: the focus is on how the Committee functions, given the current AtLarge environment and policy. Since I am at it, I would like to comment also on another item.
With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both process and substance.
Unfortunately, so far it appears that NARALO is the only region to have expressed concern so far; I wonder if we are alone in our objections.
To my knowledge, so far other regions are OK with the current joint statement, though I am not aware of a formal vote or consensus in approval. NARALO is considering whether to issue a side comment but I'm not sure if that does (or can) affect the content of the joint statement as it has currently been negotiated.
I was extremely embarassed in reporting on the status of the GNSO Review. On one hand, there was a fact , that ALAC signed the document proposed by Philip Sheppard, but on the other hand, another fact, that the position of the ALAC had been questioned in discussions in the list. So, I made both facts known to the Board, but my recommendation would be to have a consensus ALAC position, even if the comment period is over, for documenting exactly what ALAC wants. Cheers, Roberto
At 01:26 08/05/2008, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
The point is that what is mandated by the bylaws is the review of ALAC, not the review of the concept of AtLarge. This said, since some of the questions that are part of the charter do imply a review also of the concepts behind ALAC, it is absolutely true that it is impossible to separate the two. For instance, there's a question on whether the ALAC has still a role.
One of our members suggested on this list there is a need to carry a survey on the ALSes. What they really are. How they view themselves, what they expect from ICANN and are ready to retrofit. We started discussing this a little bit. Two ideas emerged quickly: (1) to try to identify if they are ultimately interested in controlling the ALAC, benefiting from ICANN, or making the Internet work through ICANN. This has a real impact on the way they can organise, be motivated, and be of use. However, to have a full picture, one also needs to know what ICANN plans regarding the other fora our members attend ... (2) there should be a very simple rated questionnaire ALS should answer every months to report their informed opinion on ICANN issues. With a possibility to add comments. This would permit to obtain users tendencies. Documented reports by mails are inadequate for trend analysis and are too complex to spot, work on, write in English, etc. jfc
Hello Roberto,
The point is that what is mandated by the bylaws is the review of ALAC, not the review of the concept of AtLarge. This said, since some of the questions that are part of the charter do imply a review also of the concepts behind ALAC, it is absolutely true that it is impossible to separate the two. For instance, there's a question on whether the ALAC has still a role. Of course, if the approach to AtLarge changes, this change will affect the way this question is answered. But we should not encourage the contractor to start from scratch.
Thank you for the detail. I understand and agree.
I was extremely embarassed in reporting on the status of the GNSO Review. On one hand, there was a fact , that ALAC signed the document proposed by Philip Sheppard, but on the other hand, another fact, that the position of the ALAC had been questioned in discussions in the list. I am sorry that you were put in this position. I am not aware of the situation at other regions, but it was very upsetting at NARALO that there was no awareness or consultation of what was being negotiated until it was too late for us to have input, even though significant changes were made to earlier drafts we had been shown. Even now it is unclear how or even whether ALAC has officially endorsed the final draft it signed.
So, I made both facts known to the Board, but my recommendation would be to have a consensus ALAC position, even if the comment period is over, for documenting exactly what ALAC wants.
It is totally possible that an ALAC consensus position does exist; that does not guarantee that all RALOs are in accord, especially if the RALOs were not consulted for their input. How could each RALO properly consult with its ALAC reps if they were not kept aware of the situation? - Evan
Evan, If you or NARALO have any concerns or objections to the joint statement worth mentioning, just enumerate them here. I think, at this stage, the new structure needs not be entirely clarified. In my opinion, the important think to decide now is whether to fix the main model based on 3 or 4 groups. Notwithstanding the strange circumstances under which the statement was negotiated, issued and barely discussed, the joint statement based on 3 stakeholder groups seems to me quite reasonable. Sure, there may be questionable/disputable details in the statement, but I think there will be an additional room to allow for a further refinement. However, if your objections are of serious nature we can then update or reconsider the statement. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:17 AM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: At-Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting Hi Wendy,
While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in the 2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with compelling
explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN.
This issue was raised in the Summit WG confcall just concluded. It was noted that -- the ICANN meeting following Cairo (spring 2009) is scheduled for Latin America, and not necessarily likely to be less expensive. -- The Cairo meeting is a 10th anniversary for ICANN and thus has special significance (and publicity potential) -- ICANN has not to date considered finances of accessibility when planning meeting locations; it should not penalize At-Large because of this.
With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed
on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both process and substance.
Unfortunately, so far it appears that NARALO is the only region to have expressed concern so far; I wonder if we are alone in our objections. To my knowledge, so far other regions are OK with the current joint statement, though I am not aware of a formal vote or consensus in approval. NARALO is considering whether to issue a side comment but I'm not sure if that does (or can) affect the content of the joint statement as it has currently been negotiated.
The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC"
review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN structure.
This strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Given the central role of ALAC in the current constitution of At-Large, it is impossible to completely separate the two. Can you clairify what they meant? - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (6)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Dominik Filipp -
Evan Leibovitch -
JFC Morfin -
Roberto Gaetano -
Wendy Seltzer