...

Response to the Board topics: 

With the mandate to represent the interests of "individual end users," the ALAC is painfully aware our representation, in the ICANN community, is anemic compared to the proportionate interests of our constituency as stakeholders. The multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-economic and overall heterogeneous nature of our community presents unique challenges both in terms of outreach and consensus development. We are much like a third party participant to a legal dispute, reminding the parties (and adjudicators!) that there are downstream consequences to their actions. Our mantra to "remember the users," leads us to focus on two areas primarily when it comes to ICANN policy development: Security/Stability and Trust. Therefore, we often take issue with the almost "entitled" drive to expand the the namespace before truly understanding, and accounting for, the implications. We were vocal in 2012 about the lack of operational readiness for the new round and were largely vindicated in those concerns. Hence our focus on DNS Abuse and Universal Acceptance.  With the near total failure of the new safeguards and the near total failure in take up of the new strings by even the biggest of websites, the ICANN community should be devoting nearly ALL of its energy to resolving those issues. Much like a software company constantly developing new versions of their product while spending insufficient resources on testing and debugging,  ICANN must be ever vigilant of drifting into the realm of trade association and away from it's public interest mandate. Improving the lives of applicants and registrants is certainly a noble goal and a core mandate for the organization but doing so at the expense of the public, at-large, is to call into question ICANN's legitimacy as a 501c(3). As such, our "priorities" for 2020 are implementation of security, stability and trust oriented recommendations from both the CCT and SSR2 reviews. Our organizational priorities are to ensure that the "evolution" of the multi-stakeholder model doesn't unduly limit our participation in GNSO policy development because our voice, while often annoying, is at the crux of ICANN's credibility as a public interest organization and community.

Questions to the ICANN Board: 

...

The ALAC would welcome any color commentary from individual Board members on how they perceive this is playing out. We submitted advice to the ICANN ORG, via the Board, that the .ORG contract be amended to ensure the ideals of .ORG survive this and future transactions. What are your current reflections on where things stands and where they might end up? While the ALAC are most certainly not the voice of non-profits, individual end users benefit from their work and also represent a portion of the registrations in .ORG. Our primary concern is that the broad “character” of ORG registrants and PIR as a thought leader among registries might change leaving us all poorer for it.

...

While it may seem like a strange question, how are things with the GAC? The ALAC believes that the GAC, along with the ALAC, plays an essential role in the legitimacy of ICANN as a multi-stakeholder, public interest organization. There are, in fact, three areas in which the GAC might imagine the system is rigged in such a way so as to downplay their interests. These areas are:

1. An overly conservative cautious outcome from the EPDP
2. An overly liberal laissez faire outcome from WT5 (Geonames) of the Subsequent Procedures Working Group
3. Insufficient focus by ICANN on DNS Abuse

 In all three instances, the case could be made that, the outcome of the policy deliberations have reflected the  economic interest of the contracted parties. While the ALAC is, by no means, in lock step with the GAC and, in some instances, the GAC, itself,  lacks consensus, the ALAC remains concerned that too many “defeats” "disappointments" for the GAC could result in less cover for ICANN at national levels and an overall drop in trust in and credibility in of ICANN. The Our intention is never to speak for the GAC but the ALAC joins the GAC in expressing their concern about each of the above topics but wonders, in particular, if any of the board Board are concerned about ICANN’s relationship to the governments that make up the GAC.

Agenda for Joint Board/ALAC Session: 

1. Introductory Remarks by the Board - Leon Sanchez, Vice Chair of the ICANN Board

2. At-Large Priorities during 2020 - Maureen Hilyard, ALAC Chair

a. At-Large Review Implementation Plan
b. Evolving Multistakeholder Model (Marita Moll, ALAC Member)
c. Capacity Building (Joanna Kulescz, ALAC Vice-Chair)
d. Collaboration and Partnerships with other ICANN communities

3. Policy Discussion: At-Large & the Board (Jonathan Zuck, ALAC Vice-Chair

a. DNS Abuse

b. PIR/.ORG

c. ALAC-GAC

CEO Questions:

1. Key achievements of ICANN67 from an ICANN org perspective.
2. In your perspective, how did the first virtual ICANN Meeting go? How do you see the future of ICANN Meetings?

ICANN Board Chairman Questions:

1. Key achievements of ICANN67 from an ICANN Board perspective.
2. In your perspective, how did the first virtual ICANN Meeting go? How do you see the future of ICANN Meetings?

GAC Questions: