WT D MINUTES:  17 FEBRUARY 2011

Participants: Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Rudi Vansnick, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Dave Kissoondoyal, Chris Grundemann, Antonio Medina Gomez, Carlos Vera, Jean-Jacques Subrenat

Apologies:  Charles Mok, Hong Xue, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond

Absent: Beau Brendler

Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White

STANDING AGENDA ITEMS

1.  Roll call – 5 min

2.  Review of AIs from 3 Feb 2011 meeting -- Dev, 5 min

a)  Seth to contact Beau for feedback on consumer document.

   -  Completed.  Beau had no further comments.

b)  Heidi to add WT D’s consumer document to the Consumer Commons for comments, once the WT considers it ready.

   -  See:  WT D's consolidated consumer document – draft 2 
               WT D outline of consolidated consumer document(s) workspace

   -  In progress.  Further suggestions made for document by WT during this meeting.

In response to WT D’s previous suggestions, new definitions (by Rob Hoggarth) had already been put into the glossary for GNSO, NCSG and NCUC.

WT D’s further suggestions for glossary portion of updated consumer document: 

• Add separate new definitions (including, in each, a link to the simple GNSO structural org. chart showing the two houses, on the ICANN Web site) for:
  • Contracted Party House;
  • Non-Contracted Party House;
  • Commercial Stake Holders Group; and
  • Non-Commercial Stake Holders Group (since this would mainly be the entry point for consumer groups).
• Add to the GNSO a link to the GNSO structural org. chart showing the two houses, on the ICANN Web site.
  

>>  AI:  Seth to incorporate WT’s further suggestions for glossary portion of updated consumer document (as per discussion in 17 Feb 2011 meeting).

c)  Dev to consider incorporating into main PAD flowchart:  (a) additional points at which extensions can be requested (see details in 3 Feb meeting notes) and (b) a way of “extending an extension” (i.e., of requesting a second extension) with all information and reasons specified.

   -  In progress; see agenda item below.

d)  Dev to add to Before policy is available for comment flowchart:  an ICANN committee will actively monitor policy calendar in order to coordinate public comment periods, group related policies together, decide release dates, report back to SOs/ACs, etc.

   -  In progress; see agenda item below.

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

3.  Revision of PAD flowcharts (continued discussion) – Dev, 5 min

      -   Main PAD flowchart to include (a) additional points at which extensions can be requested and a way of “extending an extension” (of requesting a second extension)

      -  Before policy is available for comment flowchart to include proposed ICANN committee that monitors policy calendar to coordinate public comment periods, group related policies together, decide release dates, report back to SOs/ACs, etc.

Main PAD flowchart

How should allowing for variable-length extensions be incorporated into the flowchart?

• It was decided that the variable-length extension could simply be added as follows:  If the regular public comment period = y, then the variable-length extension could be added simply as x, where x = a calendar month or any length thereof.  Then the timeline along the right-hand side of the flowchart can be updated accordingly.
  

Comments can come in until the last minute of the public comment period, of course.  The ALAC should have the ability to review these comments and respond to them in its own comment or in any other way change its own comment based on them. 

• To do this, if responding to a comment to come in very late in the period, it would need:
  • Access to these other comments; and
  • Ability to request a last-minute extension.
• The ATRT final recommendations address this issue, as well as many other issues regarding the public comment period with which WT D is dealing. 
  • The ATRT recommendations deal with (a) allowing interaction between parties submitting public comments and (b) situation of a comment coming in late in the process that causes others commenting to rethink their comments or react.
  • So, in WT D’s final reporting to ALAC (and, then, in ALAC’s final reporting to Board), it should support these recommendations from the ATRT.
    • In WT D’s reporting to ALAC, there should be clear links to or excerpts from ATRT recommendations that WT D supports.
      

Before policy is available for comment flowchart

The WT continued discussing the idea of an ICANN community, cross-constituency committee that:

• Monitors policy calendar to coordinate public comment periods;
• Groups related policies together;
• Decides release dates and opens public comment periods on a predictable schedule; and
• Reports back to SOs/ACs.
  

The potential problem with proposing such a community, cross-constituency committee:  The other ACs/SOs might consider it over-reaching (vis-à-vis the At-Large Improvements).

• Possible solutions to alleviate other constituencies’ complaints that might arise:
  • Instead, make it a purely At-Large committee – including representatives from all regions and perhaps the liaisons to ALAC from the other ACs and SOs (which would serve some of the same purposes as having it be a cross-constituency committee).
  • Alternatively, make it a staff-only cross-constituency “committee” (though “committee” might not be correct word in terms of staff) to handle this policy calendar monitoring and coordination.  That would not require over-reaching of WT D’s and the At-Large Improvements’ mandate, but also could be effective.
    • Such a group would be most effective as a macro or high-level organization.  As such, it could include David Olive, perhaps Rob Hoggarth, perhaps Legal, staff from the various SOs/ACs, the Language Services Manager, etc.    
    • In fact, the topic proposed for discussion by the WT was initially meant to be for a staff “committee,” not a community committee, although that aspect was overlooked in the discussion.
      

>>  AI:  Heidi and Seth, perhaps conferring with David Olive, Rob Hoggarth, and/or Legal, to come up with a word (other than “committee”) and model for this staff group that might monitor and coordinate public comment periods ICANN-wide.

The WT discussed whether or not it should consult with other existing committees that already deal with issues regarding the public comment period, regarding whether they consider the ideas the WT is proposing (in particular, the idea for a committee to monitor the policy calendar) to have merit. 

• These other committees include the:
  • Public Participation Committee – which deals with the number of days for which items are available to the public for comment; and
  • SIC – which overall deals with structural issues, including those related to the public comment period.
  • ATRT – which made recommendations covering many of these same issues.
• WT D, in fact, has not consulted with these other committees.
• It was agreed that this issue – as long as the recommended measures stay within the ALAC/At-Large, as discussed above -- is correctly within the mandate of this WT and perhaps some of the other Improvements WTs.  So the ALAC will recommend in its final reporting the changes that WT D is considering to this flowchart – including an At-Large monitoring committee or, possibly, a staff “committee.”
  

In light of the above, a two-step approach to this proposal was suggested:

• A high-level staff group (including David Olive) could be put together to monitor and coordinate all public comment periods; and
• It could be suggested to the chair of the SIC that there be contact between the SIC and WT D members to ensure that the efforts of both in this area are synchronized and cross-checked with each other.
  

>>  AI:  Dev to modify both Main PAD flowchart

4.  Review of tasks under Rec. 8 (except 8.3.1, done last meeting), 12, & 13 to determine any needed next steps – Dev, 30 min.

         -  See WT D At-Large Simplified Improvements Outline

Rec. 8:  The public comment period should remain 30 days, except in the case of special circumstances, for which ALAC may request an extension to 45 days.

Left to do:  For the individual tasks, all the WT needs to do next is identify the right flowchart that corresponds to the task and come up with the proposal(s) it wishes to make.

Rec. 12: ICANN should develop a mechanism that allows the voice of those bodies recognized as representing consumer interests to be heard at critical points in key decisions and to provide input into policy processes.

Left to do:  For the individual tasks, all the WT needs to do next is send its updated consumer document draft, when it’s ready, to the Consumer Commons for comments.

Rec. 13: ALAC should strive to provide policy advice on any issues that affect individual Internet users. To this end, the following should be strengthened:  (a)  the processes within ALAC for developing and providing policy advice; (b) the processes within the SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues; and (c) the processes within the SOs, ACs, and the Board for providing ALAC with feedback about how its policy advice has been used.

Task 13.4:  Ensure the GNSO PDP incorporates measures that guarrantee input from ALAC is requested, included, and considered integral to the process

Task 13.5:  Ensure the ccNSO PDP incorporates measures that guarantee input from ALAC is requested, included, and considered integral to the process

Task 13.6:  Ensure the ASO PDP incorporates measures that guarantee input from ALAC is requested, included, and considered integral to the process

Left to do:  The WT has discussed 13.4, 13.5, 13.6 in previous meetings and knows its related proposals.  It now needs to simply include its related proposals in its final reporting and presentation to the ALAC.

For many of these tasks, it’s important to:

• Start by ensuring that members of each constituency working within the other constituencies’ WGs (liaisons).  But this is often not enough. 
• Must also make sure that input from an AC does not have less priority than input from any individual or any organization that submits a public comment.  (In fact, input from an AC should perhaps have more priority.)  For example:  Recently, much time has been devoted to considering whether and when the GNSO Council will even accept input from ACs’ WGs.
  • Helps – but is not enough – to make sure there’s diligent communication and input on both community-to-community and staff-to-staff levels.
  • But this is not enough.  Based on Rec. 13, the ALAC and other ACs will need to deal with this issue – but on a higher, ICANN-wide (GNSO-ATRT-SIC-Board) level than WT D.  WT D has done everything it can via Rec. 13.
  • Must also make sure that input from all ICANN constituencies has equal priority.
    • An ALAC proposal must be submitted to David Olive to ensure that tasks 13.4, 13.5. and 13.6 are followed through on.
      • It’d be very useful to list these points in the WT’s final reporting.
        

>>  AI:  Heidi to look into possibility of ensuring tasks 13.4, 13.5, and 13.6 via an ALAC recommendation to David Olive.

>>  AI:  Seth to put on agenda for next meeting:  Idea-storming regarding the possibility of ensuring tasks 13.4, 13.5, and 13.6 via an ALAC recommendation to David Olive.

5.  Any other business -- Dev, 5 min

No other business was introduced.

6.   Confirmation of next meeting – Dev, 5 min

         -  Possibilities:  19:00 UTC (as usual) or 22:00 UTC on Wed, 03 Mar 2011

The WT agreed to hold its next meeting at 22:30 UTC (instead of 19:00 UTC) on Thu, 03 Mar 2011 – in order to make it easier for its Asian members to participate.

The meeting was adjourned.