Wednesday, 21 August 2019

Time: 19:00 - 20:30 UTC (for the time in various timezones click here) 

How can I participate in this meeting?   

English Conference ID = 1638

Spanish Conference ID = 1738

Zoom Room:  https://icann.zoom.us/j/126006470

RTT Link: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net]

Action Items:  EN      

Recording: EN, ES

Zoom Chat: EN

Transcript: EN, ES

Dial out Participants: 

EN:  Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Maureen Hilyard, Jonathan Zuck, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Kaili Kan, 

ES: 

Apologies: Hadia Elimiawi, Yrjö Länsipuro

Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Evin Erdoğdu, Gisella Gruber

ES Interpreters: 

Call Management: Claudia Ruiz

At-Large Policy Resources

At-Large Capacity Building Workshop - An Introduction to Policy Development at ICANN
2019 ALAC Policy Comments & Advice
At-Large Policy Summary
At-Large Executive Summary page
Multistakeholder Advice Development graphic

EPDP Resources

Web Page of EPDP
EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data 
Keep Up with EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data
EPDP Background Documents

Agenda - EN  TO BE UPDATED

1. Welcome and roll call - staff (2 minutes)

2. Adoption of agenda, review of Action Items 14 August - Olivier Crepin-Leblond (3 minutes)

3. EPDP Phase II Update - Alan Greenberg (15 minutes)

4. SubPro Updates - Justine Chew (10 minutes)

See: SubPro Updates Workspace for Updates to Issues/Topics under Deliberation by the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG

4.1 Update on String Similarity as at 16 Aug

4.2 For information: Revised Update on Reserved Names, Closed Generics & Registrant Protections as at 20 Aug  

4.3 Time permitting / For information: Update on WT5 Geographic Names new proposals as at 21 Aug

5. WT5 GeoNames Scenarios (comment-only) - Jonathan Zuck and all (30 minutes)

» GeoNames Survey
In an attempt to move the At-Large discussion of Geo Names away from abstract rhetoric and identify priorities and potential for consensus, we will explore a series of scenarios that involve possible conflicts surrounding the application for a particular string and potential outcomes. Once this list is developed, we’ll make it available as a survey to get as many At-large individuals and organizations to weigh in.

See draft questions in EN | Ver borradores de preguntas en ES

6. CPWG Charter & "Ideal" Process - Jonathan Zuck and all (10 minutes)

» Please provide your feedback on the CPWG Charter and "Ideal" Process by commenting on the Google Doc here.

Note: Slide 8 to become a new CPWG resource (for print/distribution during ATLAS III and ICANN66).

7. Policy comment updates - Jonathan Zuck, Evin Erdoğdu and all (10 minutes) 

Recently Ratified by the ALAC (including executive summaries)

Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collisions Analysis Project
The ALAC considers the issue of Name Collision in the DNS an area of importance for the minimization of unintended consequences for Internet end users. The ALAC appreciates the need to have a Name Collision definition for purposes of scoping the inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP), in order for the NCAP Study One to be manageable and on point, and therefore supports the Proposed Definition of Name Collision and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project of 1 July 2019. Of particular importance to us are:

(1) The recognition and inclusion of Type B situations (ie. B. In scope but not intended to be the subject of data studies) which provides built-in peripheral consideration of such situations with decision for examination through data analysis at a later stage if a compelling case were to arise within Study One; and

(2) The possibility of amending the Definition of Name Collision and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project should further pertinent information come to light at a later stage either through the ongoing work of the NCAP DG, NCAP Working Party and/or input obtained from the party/ies eventually contracted to undertake NCAP Study One.  

Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System
The ALAC strongly supports the overall proposal and appreciates the opportunity to comment. The RSS, according to RRSAC37, needs to evolve so it remains a reliable, resilient, and sustainable service in the face of increasing traffic and cyberattacks. However, the ALAC finds it difficult to accept that ICANN is not considered a primary stakeholder with regard to the RSS, given that the Domain Name System and its reliable and trusted operation is a prime reason for ICANN’s existence. The ALAC also encourages that Internet users, the ultimate user and beneficiary of the DNS, should be listed as having a stake in the existence and evolution of the RSS.

The financial model is also of some concern to the ALAC. No figures are provided to allow even order-of-magnitude estimates. It is surely time that we begin to understand exactly what level of funding will be required and hypothesize on where such funding will come from.

Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the development of Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan
The ALAC considered the Draft Financial Assumptions, Projections and Operating Initiatives, and offered comments on the following topics among others: 

• The ALAC is not optimistic that Financial Assumptions A (Roll-out of New gTLDs) and B (New Business Models – Geographic gTLDs and Brand gTLDs) will be highly successful vehicles to new revenue. Although the first round of new gTLDs did bring in considerable revenue, the ALAC notes that these earlier rounds represented the “low hanging fruit” in the new gTLD market.
• The ALAC agrees that ICANN continue to put money towards the an urgent need to resolve current challenges around Universal Acceptance, as well as the primary strategic goal of security, stability and trust.
• The ALAC agrees that work which needs to be done on evolving the multistakeholder system is substantial and complex and that it must be ongoing with adequate resources directed towards its completion. The objectives related to diverse and inclusive participation in policy making in an efficient and effective way are essential to improving the system, underlining that face-to-face meetings are essential to the functioning of the multistakeholder model.
• The ALAC/At-Large community propose some clarity via a listing of priorities and statements on the impact of each project on ICANN org and on each of the unique ACs and SOs. The community believes that while policy development and implementation activities are integral to the planning process, so are other activities, such as those that enable communication, collaboration, and outreach, between RALOS, At-Large members and other constituencies.

Public Comment for Decision

None

Current Statements (ALAC Advice, Comment or Correspondence)

8. Any other business (AOB) - Olivier Crepin-Leblond and all (3 minutes)

9. Next Meeting(s) after Doodle Poll - Olivier Crepin-Leblond and staff (2 minutes)

Agenda - ES

1. Bienvenida y asistencia - staff (2 minutos)

2. Adopcion de la Agenda, revision de los Items de Accion 14 Agosto - Olivier Crepin-Leblond (3 minutos)

3. Actualización EPDP Fase II - Alan Greenberg (15 minutos)

4. Actualizaciones de SubPro - Justine Chew (10 minutos)

Consulte: SubPro Updates Workspace para actualizaciones de temas / temas bajo deliberación por los procedimientos posteriores PDP WG

4.1 Actualización sobre la similitud de cadenas al 16 de agosto

4.2 Para información: Actualización revisada sobre nombres reservados, genéricos cerrados y protecciones de registratarios al 20 de agosto

4.3 Si el tiempo lo permite / Para información: Actualización sobre las nuevas propuestas de Nombres Geográficos WT5 al 21 de agosto

5. Escenarios WT5 GeoNames (solo comentario) - Jonathan Zuck y todos (30 minutos)

» Encuesta GeoNames
En un intento por alejar la discusión de At-Large de los Nombres Geográficos de la retórica abstracta e identificar las prioridades y el potencial para el consenso, exploraremos una serie de escenarios que involucran posibles conflictos que rodean la aplicación para una cadena particular y resultados potenciales. Una vez que se desarrolle esta lista, la pondremos a disposición como una encuesta para que la mayor cantidad de individuos y organizaciones de At-large puedan evaluar.

See draft questions in EN | Ver borradores de preguntas en ES

6. Carta del CPWG y proceso "ideal" - Jonathan Zuck y todos (10 minutos)

» Por favor, envíe sus comentarios sobre la Carta del CPWG y el Proceso" Ideal "comentando el documento de Google aquí.

Nota: Diapositiva 8 para convertirse en un nuevo recurso CPWG (para impresión / distribución durante ATLAS III e ICANN66).

7. Actualizaciones de comentarios sobre políticas: Jonathan Zuck, Evin Erdoğdu y todos (10 minutos)

Recientemente Ratificados por el ALAC 

Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collisions Analysis Project
The ALAC considers the issue of Name Collision in the DNS an area of importance for the minimization of unintended consequences for Internet end users. The ALAC appreciates the need to have a Name Collision definition for purposes of scoping the inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP), in order for the NCAP Study One to be manageable and on point, and therefore supports the Proposed Definition of Name Collision and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project of 1 July 2019. Of particular importance to us are:

(1) The recognition and inclusion of Type B situations (ie. B. In scope but not intended to be the subject of data studies) which provides built-in peripheral consideration of such situations with decision for examination through data analysis at a later stage if a compelling case were to arise within Study One; and

(2) The possibility of amending the Definition of Name Collision and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project should further pertinent information come to light at a later stage either through the ongoing work of the NCAP DG, NCAP Working Party and/or input obtained from the party/ies eventually contracted to undertake NCAP Study One.  

Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System
The ALAC strongly supports the overall proposal and appreciates the opportunity to comment. The RSS, according to RRSAC37, needs to evolve so it remains a reliable, resilient, and sustainable service in the face of increasing traffic and cyberattacks. However, the ALAC finds it difficult to accept that ICANN is not considered a primary stakeholder with regard to the RSS, given that the Domain Name System and its reliable and trusted operation is a prime reason for ICANN’s existence. The ALAC also encourages that Internet users, the ultimate user and beneficiary of the DNS, should be listed as having a stake in the existence and evolution of the RSS.

The financial model is also of some concern to the ALAC. No figures are provided to allow even order-of-magnitude estimates. It is surely time that we begin to understand exactly what level of funding will be required and hypothesize on where such funding will come from.

Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the development of Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan
The ALAC considered the Draft Financial Assumptions, Projections and Operating Initiatives, and offered comments on the following topics among others: 

• The ALAC is not optimistic that Financial Assumptions A (Roll-out of New gTLDs) and B (New Business Models – Geographic gTLDs and Brand gTLDs) will be highly successful vehicles to new revenue. Although the first round of new gTLDs did bring in considerable revenue, the ALAC notes that these earlier rounds represented the “low hanging fruit” in the new gTLD market.
• The ALAC agrees that ICANN continue to put money towards the an urgent need to resolve current challenges around Universal Acceptance, as well as the primary strategic goal of security, stability and trust.
• The ALAC agrees that work which needs to be done on evolving the multistakeholder system is substantial and complex and that it must be ongoing with adequate resources directed towards its completion. The objectives related to diverse and inclusive participation in policy making in an efficient and effective way are essential to improving the system, underlining that face-to-face meetings are essential to the functioning of the multistakeholder model.
• The ALAC/At-Large community propose some clarity via a listing of priorities and statements on the impact of each project on ICANN org and on each of the unique ACs and SOs. The community believes that while policy development and implementation activities are integral to the planning process, so are other activities, such as those that enable communication, collaboration, and outreach, between RALOS, At-Large members and other constituencies.

Comentarios Publicos para decision

Ninguno

Declaracion actual (Consejo del ALAC, Comentario o Correspondencia)

8. Otros temas (AOB) - Olivier Crepin-Leblond y todos (3 minutos)

9. Próximas reuniones después de la encuesta de Doodle - Olivier Crepin-Leblond y staff (2 minutos)