Summary Minutes NARALO Call 14 February 2011
Dear All, The summary minutes and action items from yesterday¹s call have now been posted under: https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+14.02.2011+Teleconference The summary minutes are also attached below. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org NARALO 14.02.2011 Summary Minutes Participants: Alan Greenberg, Marc Rotenberg, Beau Brendler, Darlene Thompson, Gordon Chillcot, Allan Skuce, Joly McFie, Seth Reiss, Garth Bruen, Evan Leibovitch, Eric Brunner-Williams, Danny Younger, Eduardo Diaz, Glenn McKnight, Apologies: Gareth Shearman Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger ALAC Statement on the current situation in Egypt Marc: I was disappointed with the statement. The ALAC missed an opportunity here. Joly: It was good that the ALAC sent a statement but its too bad there wasn¹t more in it about ANY government being able to shut down the Internet. Alan Greenberg feels that we need to be careful of both ICANN¹s scope and what people on the ground there felt. ICANN is walking a careful edge in this so should a part of ICANN make a stronger statement than ICANN feels it could/should. We need to balance all of those concerns but should come down on the side of caution. Joly: We can make strong statements to ICANN about what they should say but should not be making strong statements to others. Marc: Silence in these situations can also be a decision, not just a lack thereof. Update on Current Policy Developments Board/GAC Consultation on New gTLDS Evan: He has been in contact with some on the GAC and there is a lot of frustration within the GAC because of suggestions being ignored by ICANN. There is a meeting happening in Brussels at the end of this month and on the GAC, Board and certain consultants may speak. The GAC has identified issues with which they have certain concern in this process that they feel are flawed. (trademark protection, objectionable strings) The GAC has been pushing for this meeting and there will be three people from ALAC that will be attending this meeting as observers (Olivier, Rudi, Avri). There will be streaming audio and video and so this part will be public. Joly would be interested to know where the GAC and ALAC have common grounds. Evan: We are agreed on many of the things we don¹t like such as objectionable strings and trademark protection. Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 Beau: Should we have a separate call later in the month with specialists on this? Yes. DNNSEC We also need a briefing call on this. Discuss NARALO Input into WT C SWOT analyses Beau: Our income is requested into this. The time is running short on this and we need to get into this document and get our hands dirty. Perhaps we need to schedule a separate call. If we don¹t make our statements known here, it will be difficult to complain further down the road. Do we agree with their analysis of the situation? Perhaps we don¹t need a separate call. AI: Beau will send a follow up message on the SWOT analysis to the NARALO list and provide preliminary input on behalf of NARALO. Preparations for the NARALO Activities at ICANN SF Meeting Update on the Townhall Event at Stanford University What do we need to do here to make this come off? Marc: We need to get an update but there is a lot of interest. Heidi: They¹ve discussed this with the executive committee and they would like to start a mailing list of interested members in order to move forward on this. We need to discuss the organization of this. There has been interest from Stanford and from ISOC SF. Annalisa Roger wouldn¹t mind helping to organize this. Saturday won¹t work for this and neither will Sunday. The timing is an issue. Even the evenings are getting filled up. Tuesday is music night but this could be held at the same time and will draw a different crowd. This will happen physically at Stanford but will also be cyber-cast. We would need to charter a bus for this. We also need to look at sponsorships. Do we have presenters set up for this? No, but we don¹t think there will be much difficulty for this. AI: Heidi will add the participants of this call to the mailing list of the Townhall Meeting. Update on SF Showcase Event We are attempting to get sponsorships for this event. Darlene is collecting information for the fact sheets. We have also set up the agenda for this. Our keynote speaker is Vint Cerf and Rod Beckstrom will also be speaking. We will be giving Vint a speaker gift. Each ALS will be given a chance to speak. Adam will be talking about our outreach efforts. It should be a very exciting meeting. We have a conference call on this every Thursday. NARALO Budget Requests for FY12 Beau: We have asked for a general assembly, presence at three large international technology conferences, and presence at NA meetings. ALAC has not put forward a judgment call on what is important and what not. Heidi: All regions¹ ideas have been collected together and then taken to ICANN financial staff to see if it fits with the strategic plan. We will hold a community call in the last week of February with Juan where he will give us an update, they will also brief At-Large in San Francisco about the current status of the At-Large requests. Evan: Scott Pinzon will be meeting with us in regards to outreach, in-reach and general communications. He has already completed one podcast and another is being done right now and it should be ready SF. Scott is also looking at a newsletter for At Large. We also expect French and Spanish versions of the NARALO brochures. Update from the At-Large Improvements WTs WT A: ALAC¹s continuing purpose Unlike bodies like GNSO, there is not restriction on the scope of At Large to participate, not just in GTLD policy but also Internationalization, security initiatives, ICANN policy functions. These are being put into ICANN¹s bylaws for At-Large. WT B: ALS participation Have a closer look at alternative communicative tools like Posterous and staff has been tasked to look into that more closely. We advanced the other issues like using Adobe Connect for ALS meetings. WT C: ALAC planning processes They have been working mainly on the SWOT analysis. WT D: ALAC¹s policy advice development This is a consolidation of documents that staff and Beau has put together. This will then be hosted on the consumer commens wiki for further comment. Recent and Upcoming Activities of ALAC Alan Greenberg has agreed to draft the proposed process for recognition of new GNSO constituencies. Edmond Chung has agreed to draft the ALAC statement on the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group Interim Report. Carlton Samuels has agreed to put in a late comment into the public consultation on GNSO Working Group Guidelines. Recent and Upcoming Activities of NARALO members. Joly: June 14 for the INET Vint Cerf and somebody as keynoters Danny: The GAC thinks that they can veto so many things about ICANN and this is unacceptable to At Large. The meeting was then adjourned.
Joly: It was good that the ALAC sent a statement but its too bad there wasn¹t more in it about ANY government being able to shut down the Internet.
That wasn't me. Joly: We can make strong statements to ICANN about what they should say but
should not be making strong statements to others
say or do On the SWOT item it was pointed out that, for the most part, ALS's have only to rank the various choices +1,+2,+3 etc - it's not necessary to create more items. The deadline is Thursday Feb 17. June 14 for the INET Vint Cerf and somebody as keynoters somebody = Tim Berners Lee
Danny: The GAC thinks that they can veto so many things about ICANN and this is unacceptable to At Large.
In response to Danny's point, Evan repeated that he had discussions with USG GAC reps and that they had been surprised to hear that ALAC shared many concerns. GAC had felt that they were out on a limb and thus were resorting to desperate measures. A solid area of consensus was opposition to ICANN's proposed further outsourcing of dispute resolution. Evan assured the call that the board, particularly with Sebastien included, were well briefed on At-Large concerns. On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:35 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff < staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
The summary minutes and action items from yesterday¹s call have now been posted under: https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+14.02.2011+Teleconference
The summary minutes are also attached below.
-- Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff
email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org
NARALO 14.02.2011 Summary Minutes
Participants: Alan Greenberg, Marc Rotenberg, Beau Brendler, Darlene Thompson, Gordon Chillcot, Allan Skuce, Joly McFie, Seth Reiss, Garth Bruen, Evan Leibovitch, Eric Brunner-Williams, Danny Younger, Eduardo Diaz, Glenn McKnight,
Apologies: Gareth Shearman
Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger
ALAC Statement on the current situation in Egypt Marc: I was disappointed with the statement. The ALAC missed an opportunity here.
Joly: It was good that the ALAC sent a statement but its too bad there wasn¹t more in it about ANY government being able to shut down the Internet.
Alan Greenberg feels that we need to be careful of both ICANN¹s scope and what people on the ground there felt. ICANN is walking a careful edge in this so should a part of ICANN make a stronger statement than ICANN feels it could/should. We need to balance all of those concerns but should come down on the side of caution.
Joly: We can make strong statements to ICANN about what they should say but should not be making strong statements to others.
Marc: Silence in these situations can also be a decision, not just a lack thereof.
Update on Current Policy Developments
Board/GAC Consultation on New gTLDS Evan: He has been in contact with some on the GAC and there is a lot of frustration within the GAC because of suggestions being ignored by ICANN. There is a meeting happening in Brussels at the end of this month and on the GAC, Board and certain consultants may speak. The GAC has identified issues with which they have certain concern in this process that they feel are flawed. (trademark protection, objectionable strings) The GAC has been pushing for this meeting and there will be three people from ALAC that will be attending this meeting as observers (Olivier, Rudi, Avri). There will be streaming audio and video and so this part will be public.
Joly would be interested to know where the GAC and ALAC have common grounds.
Evan: We are agreed on many of the things we don¹t like such as objectionable strings and trademark protection.
Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 Beau: Should we have a separate call later in the month with specialists on this? Yes.
DNNSEC We also need a briefing call on this.
Discuss NARALO Input into WT C SWOT analyses Beau: Our income is requested into this. The time is running short on this and we need to get into this document and get our hands dirty. Perhaps we need to schedule a separate call. If we don¹t make our statements known here, it will be difficult to complain further down the road. Do we agree with their analysis of the situation? Perhaps we don¹t need a separate call.
AI: Beau will send a follow up message on the SWOT analysis to the NARALO list and provide preliminary input on behalf of NARALO.
Preparations for the NARALO Activities at ICANN SF Meeting
Update on the Townhall Event at Stanford University What do we need to do here to make this come off?
Marc: We need to get an update but there is a lot of interest.
Heidi: They¹ve discussed this with the executive committee and they would like to start a mailing list of interested members in order to move forward on this. We need to discuss the organization of this. There has been interest from Stanford and from ISOC SF. Annalisa Roger wouldn¹t mind helping to organize this. Saturday won¹t work for this and neither will Sunday. The timing is an issue. Even the evenings are getting filled up. Tuesday is music night but this could be held at the same time and will draw a different crowd. This will happen physically at Stanford but will also be cyber-cast. We would need to charter a bus for this. We also need to look at sponsorships. Do we have presenters set up for this? No, but we don¹t think there will be much difficulty for this.
AI: Heidi will add the participants of this call to the mailing list of the Townhall Meeting.
Update on SF Showcase Event We are attempting to get sponsorships for this event. Darlene is collecting information for the fact sheets. We have also set up the agenda for this. Our keynote speaker is Vint Cerf and Rod Beckstrom will also be speaking. We will be giving Vint a speaker gift. Each ALS will be given a chance to speak. Adam will be talking about our outreach efforts. It should be a very exciting meeting. We have a conference call on this every Thursday.
NARALO Budget Requests for FY12 Beau: We have asked for a general assembly, presence at three large international technology conferences, and presence at NA meetings. ALAC has not put forward a judgment call on what is important and what not.
Heidi: All regions¹ ideas have been collected together and then taken to ICANN financial staff to see if it fits with the strategic plan. We will hold a community call in the last week of February with Juan where he will give us an update, they will also brief At-Large in San Francisco about the current status of the At-Large requests.
Evan: Scott Pinzon will be meeting with us in regards to outreach, in-reach and general communications. He has already completed one podcast and another is being done right now and it should be ready SF. Scott is also looking at a newsletter for At Large. We also expect French and Spanish versions of the NARALO brochures.
Update from the At-Large Improvements WTs WT A: ALAC¹s continuing purpose Unlike bodies like GNSO, there is not restriction on the scope of At Large to participate, not just in GTLD policy but also Internationalization, security initiatives, ICANN policy functions. These are being put into ICANN¹s bylaws for At-Large.
WT B: ALS participation Have a closer look at alternative communicative tools like Posterous and staff has been tasked to look into that more closely. We advanced the other issues like using Adobe Connect for ALS meetings.
WT C: ALAC planning processes They have been working mainly on the SWOT analysis.
WT D: ALAC¹s policy advice development This is a consolidation of documents that staff and Beau has put together. This will then be hosted on the consumer commens wiki for further comment.
Recent and Upcoming Activities of ALAC Alan Greenberg has agreed to draft the proposed process for recognition of new GNSO constituencies.
Edmond Chung has agreed to draft the ALAC statement on the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group Interim Report.
Carlton Samuels has agreed to put in a late comment into the public consultation on GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
Recent and Upcoming Activities of NARALO members. Joly: June 14 for the INET Vint Cerf and somebody as keynoters
Danny: The GAC thinks that they can veto so many things about ICANN and this is unacceptable to At Large.
The meeting was then adjourned.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
Danny: The GAC thinks that they can veto so many things about ICANN and this is unacceptable to At Large.
At present, all new registries are blocked, in fact. The hypothetical of a loss of access through the specific intervention of ICANN actors directed at a specific application is difficult to compare with the actual loss of access through the general intervention of ICANN actors directed at all applications. Just here in North America, where Indians have tried to get access, either to a unallocated 3166 code point, or to an allocated but unused 3166 code point, or to a gtld string, since the mid-1980s, and significant regions and demographics are unserved or underserved by network access at speeds greater than 56k, and are only served by for-profit name space operators, there are unmet, non-hypothetical needs. I never hope to be more than a minority of one, but the absence of any vehicle for Indians, and others, to replicate what the Catalans have managed, and for less than $50,000, troubles me a lot more than the GAC or the USG potentially "vetoing" an application for an Indian or other registry. Obviously, I don't share the sentiment to which this comment is a comment upon. Eric
On 15 February 2011 15:09, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
the absence of any vehicle for Indians, and others, to replicate what the Catalans have managed, and for less than $50,000, troubles me a lot more than the GAC or the USG potentially "vetoing" an application for an Indian or other registry.
Obstacles take many forms. That particular impediment comes from the very top of ICANN. In its response to previous work done by the JAS committee (that was endorsed by ALAC but not even "received" by GNSO), the Board said that the financial barrier to entry for new gTLD applications is untouchable in this round. This is based on a core GNSO requirement that all gTLD activities be done on a cost-recovery basis, combined with ICANN staff's risk assessment which has demanded that the fee of $185 be maintained and cannot be waived or lowered based on the status of the applicant. Restricted this way, the JAS is now primarily in a role of determining external fundraising activities, a field in which I have next to zero expertise (and why my participation in the group has plummeted despite my ongoing attendance). Of course, the JAS could stand on principle and insist -- despite the Board's existing refusal and against GNSO policy -- that the price be lowered for economically challenged applicants. The likelihood of such a request being heeded is extremely low. But it's no worse than the current state in which the Board/GNSO direction has totally shifted the JAS focus away from ICANN's own responsibility to support such efforts, and turned to external funders willing to pay ICANN's full fare. - Evan
Hi, On 15 Feb 2011, at 15:37, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
In its response to previous work done by the JAS committee (that was endorsed by ALAC but not even "received" by GNSO), the Board said that the financial barrier to entry for new gTLD applications is untouchable in this round. This is based on a core GNSO requirement that all gTLD activities be done on a cost-recovery basis, combined with ICANN staff's risk assessment which has demanded that the fee of $185 be maintained and cannot be waived or lowered based on the status of the applicant.
I will point out that the GNSO was quite specific about not requiring that all applicants pay the same fee. --- Implementation Guideline B
Application fees will be designed to ensure that adequate resources exist to cover the total cost to administer the new gTLD process.
Application fees may differ for applicants.
Also, one could also argue that the risk costs built into the fee are not part of the administrative costs of the new gTLD process. It is also intersting to note Implementation guideline N
ICANN may put in place a fee reduction scheme for gTLD applicants from economies classified by the UN as least developed.
--- So yes, cost recovery for the entire program, but not necessarily cost recovery application by application. And where is the fee reduction program?
Restricted this way, the JAS is now primarily in a role of determining external fundraising activities, a field in which I have next to zero expertise (and why my participation in the group has plummeted despite my ongoing attendance).
Of course, the JAS could stand on principle and insist -- despite the Board's existing refusal and against GNSO policy -- that the price be lowered for economically challenged applicants.
I do not think it is for the JAS to so insist. The JAS make the recommendation to its chartering bodies. If anything it is for the ALAC to insist. And GNSO, of course, but good luck with that. It can also be used by the GAC as an argument. a.
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
I do not think it is for the JAS to so insist. The JAS make the recommendation to its chartering bodies. If anything it is for the ALAC to insist. And GNSO, of course, but good luck with that.
It can also be used by the GAC as an argument.
a.
I also imagine that this is a cause ISOC Chapters will readily embrace.
j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
On 15 February 2011 16:46, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
I will point out that the GNSO was quite specific about not requiring that all applicants pay the same fee.
Thanks for reminding about this. So it was explicit GNSO policy that ICANN is allowed to set differential prices, it just chooses not to. It is also intersting to note
Implementation guideline N
ICANN may put in place a fee reduction scheme for gTLD applicants from economies classified by the UN as least developed.
So using "may" gives ICANN an out.
So yes, cost recovery for the entire program, but not necessarily cost recovery application by application. And where is the fee reduction program?
Well, JAS was working on that until the Board indicated it would refuse to do it.
Of course, the JAS could stand on principle and insist -- despite the Board's existing refusal and against GNSO policy -- that the price be lowered for economically challenged applicants.
I do not think it is for the JAS to so insist. The JAS make the recommendation to its chartering bodies. If anything it is for the ALAC to insist. And GNSO, of course, but good luck with that.
Point (well) taken. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
On 15 February 2011 14:48, Internet Society - NY Chapter <admin@isoc-ny.org>wrote:
Danny: The GAC thinks that they can veto so many things about ICANN and
this is unacceptable to At Large.
In response to Danny's point, Evan repeated that he had discussions with USG GAC reps and that they had been surprised to hear that ALAC shared many concerns. GAC had felt that they were out on a limb and thus were resorting to desperate measures. A solid area of consensus was opposition to ICANN's proposed further outsourcing of dispute resolution. Evan assured the call that the board, particularly with Sebastien included, were well briefed on At-Large concerns.
This is generally accurate with an exception or three: (1) I would want to replace "the Board" with "a number of Board members". Presentations made to "the Board" -- ie, at Board meetings -- are done by senior staff. The briefings of which I spoke have been in semi-formal (Board member attendance at open ICANN workshops) and informal (The Board/ALAC lunch in Cartagena, private conversations) settings. (2) Since my conversations have been with many different GAC representatives, I would ask to remove the USG-specific reference since that was only the most recent of many consultations. (3) It's also generally a mistake to say "the GAC had felt" since it's a very diverse organization. It's more accurate to say "many GAC members". - Evan
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
ICANN At-Large Staff -
Internet Society - NY Chapter