ALAC ExCom 07.08.12 Summary Minutes

ALAC ExCom - Tuesday 07 August 2012 at 1400 UTC

• Participants: Olivier Crépin-Leblond (OCL), Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO), Tijani Ben Jemaa (TBJ), Evan Leibovitch (EL ), Alan Greenberg (AG), Rinalia Abdul Rahim (RAR), Julie Hammer (JH), Carlton Samuels (CS)
• Apologies: Sebastien Bacollet (SB)
• Staff: Heidi Ullrich (HU), Silvia Vivanco (SV), Matt Ashtiani (MA), Gisella Gruber (GG)

Summary Minutes and Action Items: 

1.  Roll call and apologies – Staff (2 minutes)

• The roll call was conducted.
• The agenda was reviewed and adopted. 

2. Review of Action Items from 25 July 2012 ExCom Meeting - Olivier (15 minutes)

• The action items were reviewed
• Evan - Public comments - Evan to follow up. Holly's comment to be incorporated.
• JH to monitior SSR Review Team issue and recommend whether a comment should  be made - JH to follow up by end of week of 6 August.
• OCL to send Staff a copy of the Steve Mettalis' text regarding the .com renewal. A vote is to then commence will be sent to the ALAC for a vote. AI: OCL to write letter toSteve Crocker (cc'd to AC/SO leadership) inquiring on the decision to not hold face-to-face Board meetings in July and August.
• HU to follow up with DS regarding the August Board Meetings - HU to follow up.  Concern was shown over the lack of face-to-face Board Meetings. AG: Through trying to meet efficiency, they are missing the other elements of meeting face-to-face.
• OCL: It is my understand that there will only be a Board Meeting if there is an issue that needs to be discussed.
• EL: Can I recommend that the letter to be sent to Steve Crocker (cc'ed to the AC/SOs) also be sent to the members of the Constituencies. Perhpas they may wish to join with us in nothing this lack of transparency.
• CLO: Perhaps we could rely on our liaisons rather than emailing their constituencies.
• OCL: I believe Evan wanted the information sent to the SGs.
• Evan: I was just noting that this should go beyond the GNSO Council.
• EG: I dont know if the chairs of the stakeholder groups are on the council mailing list. I don't have an explicit list of those members so I can try to dig up addresses, but I also can;t guarantee that I will remember everyone.
• OCL: There is an SO/AC Chair list available. I suggest we CC those on that list.

3.  Policy Advice Development Page -- Tijani, Olivier (20 minutes) - a. Recently approved ALAC Statements, Documents or Groups:

• i. Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDS
• ii. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report - Vote closed 24 July
• iii. IDN Prioritization in the New gTLD Program Targeted at the ICANN Board -  Adopted and sent to the Board
• iv. ALAC Statement Endorsing the IPC's Statement on the .com Renewal and Thick Whois - Sent to IPC Chair Steve Metalitz
• v. Request for Community Input on Formulation of 2013-2016 Strategic Plan - Submitted. Vote closing soon.
• vi. Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Final Report - Adopted and submitted.

3.  Policy Advice Development Page -- Tijani, Olivier (20 minutes) - b. Statements currently being voted on or reviewed by the ALAC

• i. Request for Community Input on SAC054 - Domain Name Registration Data Model - Comments requested through 23 August. - Staff are to send out a reminder on the call to comments to the ALAC Announce mailing list and the Technical Issues working list.

3.  Policy Advice Development Page -- Tijani, Olivier (20 minutes) - c. Current open policy forums:

• i.  Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures - No Statement is to be produced. PC Comment Period closes 30 July; Reply Period closes 20 August - no statement
• ii. .name Registry Agreement Renewal - No Statement is to be produced. Period closes 2 August; Reply Period closes 23 August - no statement.
• iii. Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Comment Period closes 15 August. Reply Period closes 5 September. - no statemetn
• iv. Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse - Comment Period closes 15 August. Reply Period closes 5 September. AG has indicated that the ALAC not submit a statement for this PC.
• AG: I think this is an issues that requires quite a bit of research on this issue. The Council has not had a discussion on this topic so I don't know how they will react. However, I dont think we need a Statement on this issue.
• RAR: How do we actually make sure that ICANN actually does somehting about this?
• AG: Well, it depends which part of ICANN. Preliminary Reports give us two options - review the issue and encourage the GNSO to vote in a speicific way.
• EL: If this is a matter of implementation, Staff should be able to do this. If it is a matter of policy, then the GNSO should weigh in.
• AG: I don't think it is that simple. We dont have a policy that all contracts must be uniform - we are moving towards registry agreeemnts. However, in this issue, we are moving to registry and registrar agreements - which I am unsure of how much control ICANN has over these issue. Some of the things we are speaking of may require formal policy, some may not. Remember, the GNSO doesn't need GNSO action to implement conract changes. However, the GNSO can do a PDP on contract changes. The Board is then required to implement it (unless 2/3 vote it down).
• CS: Sure, but there should be some information that is standard in alll contracts.
• OCL: Perhpas we should first wait to see if the GNSO will provide a PDP on this issue.
• v. R3 White Paper
• EL: I will work with JJS and get back to the group once the redraft will be completed.
• OCL: Will we then have a public comment:
• EL: That could be completed, but I see this more as an ALAC Statement with greate community comment as a whole. However, given the recent requests from the Board, I think we have already anticipated the community input and we now have some answers to that.
• HU: Will this paper go out for a public comment? Or will it be the focus of a meeting in Toronto?
• EL: We have already gone through an ALAC comment period, I think now it is time for a public commet once the ALAC reviews the changes.
• HU: I will plan for mid-September. Keep in mind that there is a 15 day cut off date for meetings.
• vi. At-Large RRR WG – RAA Section 3.7.8 Modification
• OCL: Evan, can you please follow up with Garth on this Statement.
• EL: 3.7.8 is not necessarily related to the R3 paper. Once is regarding changes in the RAA and the other is the compliance staff's willingness to comply with the requirements.
• EL: If the intent is to wrap this up into a single document, that's fine. But I think at that time it becomes and overarching issue vs. sending specific AIs to those responsible for it.
• AG: To be clear we are allowed to give advice to the Board, but that doesn't mean we can't send messages to other places. We should not feel that every message we have must go through the Board.
• CLO: One of the advantages is putting a bow on this. If they are integrate the two, I don't think its effectiveness will be lessened. I do suggest that the advantage of putting it one package. There is also the issue that ICANN Compliance should not be tethered to ICANN Legal. Part of the problems is that even public comments have a cause and effect on that topic. I think we put forward a pivitol proposal that reduces this control mechanism.
• OCL: I suggest that EL is tasked with putting this RAA Statement together and then for it to be sent to compliance CCing the Board and Policy Staff.
• OCL: During Chatham House Rules, we just spoke about deficincies in contract enforcement. Alan, can you please help us?
• AG: In Prague the Board asked for advice on Whois implementaton. There was no date on that request, but the effected date is August 31. Although the ALAC has subitted a comment to the PC and Board, that we recommend that the Board imlement the full Whois Report, if there are any items in that list of recommends that we feel are of particular import, and that the Board implement it, that we make an explicit Statement to the Board. This Statement should be short and taregt the issues we feel are the most important. The only that I feel is most relevant is the report structure. I think it is important that Compliance is no longer subserviant to another department. Compliance is not only working with contracted parties, they are also working with 3rd parties. I suggest that we maybe comment on one or two of the issues in the report, but I think that this needs to be our primary concern.
• AI: The ALAC is to send its advice to the Board regarding the implementation of key Whois report item recommendations.

4. Discussion of Toronto ALAC Meetings and Agendas - Olivier and Staff (20 minutes)

• OCL: There has been much discussion on this topic. As such, I advise you to go look at the At-Large meeting agendas.
• Heidi Ullrich reviewed the current meeting schedules.
• EL: I think we should dedicate more time to interactive activities.
• RAR: I would like to discuss some of the points I made via email.
• OCL: Regarding the ICANN Academy, the update will either be that it happened or it did not happen.
• HU: Rinalia, I am more than happy to go over the suggestions in your email with you, let's work together following this call.
• RAR: Regarding the Outreach WG with global partnerships, is this group active? I just think that we need to have some preplanning before we meet with the VPs so we have a more productive conversation.
• EL: We have had discussions about increasing the efficiency at the meetings. Can we please give some breathing room to our schedule and stream these meetings. I think it is best to give people the ability to stream the conversations -i.e. they are in parallel
• OCL: I believe there are some challenges with streaming: translation, people voting on issues they are uninformed of, etc.
• CS: We need face-to-face meetings. One of the problems that we always have in this regard is the lack of preparation. That is a bone of contention that I have. Meetings would go much faster if we were prepared to have substantive conversations. Moreover, the effectiveness and the quality of the conversation are diminished when the preparation takes place at the meeting.
• CLO: Regarding the outreach as noted by Rinalia, I would suggest than an ideal part of outreach would be what Evan suggests - an experiment in parallel streaming.
• RAR: We need to ensure that APRALO has its meeting scheduled.
• TBJ: We need to keep our contacts about the policy issues, but we don't have to continue in the same way. We need to find a more efficient system.
• OCL: I think that we have less Staff briefings this time and than previous times.
• CS: Where we need to have full ALAC sessions, we need to pick where we want them. We also don't need to sit through any dog and pony shows.
• AI: Sunday session 4b as parallel Tuesday block session.
• RAR: There are three regional leadership session scheduled. Can you please provide more detail on these meetings?
• AI: Evan to contact the R3 group on the rescheduling of the meeting, Carlton to contact the RRR.

5. Topics for the August ALAC Meeting - Olivier (10 min) - a. SOI update - At-Large Statements of Interest wiki page

• At-Large Statements of Interest- https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/tPXuBQ

6. Any other Business - Olivier (5 minutes)

• No other business was discussed.