WT A MINUTES: 18 NOVEMBER 2010
Participants: Evan Leibovitch, Yrjö Länsipuro, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Apologies: Carlos Aguirre, Peters Omoragbon, Baudouin Schombe
Absent: Sylvia Herlein Leite, Eric Brunner-Williams, Matías Altamira, Daniel Monastersky
Staff: Seth Greene, Heidi Ullrich, Gisella Gruber-White
STANDING AGENDA ITEMS
1. Roll call - 5 min, Co-Chairs
2. Review of WT A 4 Nov AIs - 5 min, Co-Chairs
Seth to place on WT A’s 18 Nov meeting agenda: Drafting of suggested ALAC public comment on ATRT draft recommendations (focusing on treatment of ALAC advice and perhaps ACs’ advice generally by Board).
- Status: Done.
Seth to place on WT A’s 18 Nov meeting agenda: Drafting needed ICANN Bylaw changes.
- Status: Done.
Seth to create two collaborative spaces for:
- WT A’s suggested ALAC public comment on ATRT draft recommendations; and
- Draft revisions to relevant ICANN Bylaws.
- Status: Done.
WT A members to read both “Final Report: References to ALAC/At-Large’s continuing purpose” and “ICANN Bylaws - Required Board response to GAC advice” documents (to which there are also links on the WT A Workspace) in preparation for discussion/drafting during 18 Nov meeting.
WT A members who will not be on the 18 Nov call to e-mail their suggestions regarding ICANN Bylaw revisions beforehand.
Yrjo to write first draft of suggested ALAC public comment on ATRT recommendations (on collaborative page), focusing on the treatment of ALAC (and possibly other AC) advice by Board.
Heidi to schedule WT A for an informal meeting over a light breakfast in the convention center in Cartagena on Monday at 8:00 am (local time), and to request that a member of ICANN Legal be present to discuss revisions to ICANN Bylaws (incl. Article XI, 4, a).
Cheryl: The obvious members of ICANN Legal to join us would include Sam.
ITEMS FOR DECISION/DISCUSSION
3. Discussion of option to stagger days/times – Co-Chairs, 5 min.
Yrjo: Would anyone on the call like to stagger the day or time with some alternative to make the call easier for others to attend? Of course, perhaps it’s from the people not on this call that we really need to hear.
Cheryl: My vote is against staggering.
Evan: From the look of the few e-mail replies, it also seems not worth the bother.
Yrjo: I agree. So, then, we’ll have no staggering.
4. Discussion/drafting of suggested ALAC public comment on ATRT draft recommendations (focusing on treatment of ALAC – and perhaps other AC -- advice by Board) – Co-Chairs, 15 min.
Cheryl: My plan is to put forward in the approaching ALAC meeting of 23 November whatever the WT’s draft at that time is of this comment on the ATRT draft recommendations. I’ll request ALAC comments at that time.
Yrjo: I agree with that plan.
Cheryl: I think the draft is a great introduction. Now we need to insert the actual changes to the Bylaws. These changes should reflect a certain equality in the principled treatment of the ACs. We all agree how bizarre it is that, first, the ACs are treated differently by the Board and, second, that even the GAC’s own interaction with the Board is understood differently by different components. We want clear, understood guidelines regarding how the components of ICANN (especially the ACs) interact. The ATRT, of course, is looking at the GAC, which makes the position of the other ACs all the more precarious.
Evan: Do people feel our goal is to clone the revisions recommended by the ATRT to the GAC guidelines onto the ALAC or is it more to fashion what we think would work best for us, which could even be used as a model for the GAC revisions?
Cheryl: Certainly the latter.
Cheryl: Of course, the ATRT’s focus is based on the AoC’s ensuring multi-governmental input into ICANN as an important commitment.
Evan: Could the AoC be seen as putting the GAC’s role above that of other ACs?
Cheryl: I would turn that question on its head. I think the AoC is saying that the GAC’s role needs to be strengthened. As is the case with the GAC, we need to ensure that the role of the ALAC, as well as of other ACs, continues to develop and is taken seriously in it advisory role within ICANN’s multi-stakeholder structure.
Yrjo: Yes, that was my intention when I wrote this first draft of the WT’s suggested comment for the ALAC on ATRT draft recommendations.
Evan: As an example, I’d like to mention the situation with Rec. 6. In a cross-constituency effort, the ALAC and other ACs wanted to do something. Then the Staff made a statement that it disagreed with the action and so it was not implemented. What is missing from the bottom-up process that allowed this, and how can we prevent it from happening in the future?
Yrjo: By the way, the EURALO Board, Evan, has sent you an e-mail supporting your opinion on this.
Cheryl: Evan, I think the example you cite and the questions it raises are relevant to cite in WT A’s suggested ALAC public comment on the ATRT. We now have cross-constituency work being done and WGs being created by the GNSO, GAC, ALAC, etc. But this cross-constituency recommendation regarding Rec. 6 was not seen as legitimate by ICANN’s Board Chair. And only because the ACs then supported the recommendation did this change. Even though this cross-constituency activity is very beneficial for our multi-stakeholder model, there is actually no set, predictable mechanism for creating such cross-constituency activity, recognizing it, or reporting it. Similarly, WT A’s recommended ALAC statement on the ATRT draft recommendations should clarify the role of Staff.
Evan: That’s exactly right. I don’t want repeated what, for example, happened in the Summit. We broke up into separate work groups that came up with quite constructive recommendations. But nothing ever came out of it beyond, perhaps, our getting a thank-you.
Cheryl: Yes, since everyone gets busy, there must be a set procedure or flowchart on the books that determines exactly what happens and who does it when, for example, such recommendations come up from the constituency.
Evan: And the Staff’s role in such a case needs to be clarified. I don’t want the situation again where a community, multi-stakeholder consensus is formed in support of some action, and the Staff is just able to say “no.”
5. Discussion/drafting of needed ICANN Bylaw changes – Co-Chairs, 15 min.
- See ICANN Bylaws pertaining to ALAC/At-Large (Confluence).
- See WT A Drafts: ICANN ByLaw Changes (Confluence).
Yrjo: No comment has yet been made to my draft revision of Article XI, 2, 4, a, which can be found on the Confluence pages.
Cheryl: Of course, let’s recognize that there is only one group that can draft Bylaw changes – ICANN’s Legal Staff. So, we must make sure that they do that and that, before they start, they are aware of the right opinions and have the right materials, so that our needs are met. This is the reason it is important that either Sam or Pam from Legal is involved in a face-to-face meeting with us in Cartagena.
Cheryl: We have one bit of the Bylaw changes done, pertaining to the At-Large-selected Board member. Now we need the rest of the Bylaw changes done – probably in a single lump, since we know how long these things can take.
Yrjo: In the draft revision of XI, 2, 4, a, I tried to incorporate the ALAC Review WG’s view, from the Final Report, of what the ALAC’s role should be. Of course, what I have so far is just a preamble or introduction. Following it, we need to explain exactly what the ALAC’s role is in advising on policy, etc.
Cheryl: Yes, for example, we’ll explicitly need rules that indicate the priority of, let’s say, a RALO’s public comment versus one from Mr. or Ms. “X.” Which is given more priority and taken more seriously? There is not a clear understanding of what it means for the Board to receive a piece of advice from a RALO or ALS.
Evan: Or from a corporate entity, which I’ve seen during some public comment periods.
Cheryl: I will put into the Chat pod two current Bylaw passages that address the RALOs.
Following are the Bylaw passages that Cheryl posted in the Adobe Connect Chat pod:
CLO: from By Laws... j. The ALAC is also responsible, working in conjunction with the RALOs, for coordinating the following activities:1.Making a selection by the At-Large Community to fill Seat 15 on the Board. Notification of the At-Large Community’s selection shall be given by the ALAC Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1).2. Keeping the community of individual Internet users informed about the significant news from ICANN;3. Distributing (through posting or otherwise) an updated agenda, news about ICANN, and information about items in the ICANN policy-development process;4. Promoting outreach activities in the community of individual Internet users;5. Developing and maintaining on-going information and education programs, regarding ICANN and its work;6. Establishing an outreach strategy about ICANN issues in each RALO's Region;7. Making public, and analyzing, ICANN's proposed policies and its decisions and their (potential) regional impact and (potential)
CLO: Note Particalrly => Each RALO shall serve as the main forum and coordination point for public input to ICANN in its Geographic Region and shall be a non-profit organization certified by ICANN according to criteria and standards established by the Board based on recommendations of the At-Large Advisory Committee.
CLO: That last bit is from 4 g
Yrjo: At-Large comments represent two billion Internet users, and they must be seen as such.
Cheryl: Yes, the comments received during these public comment periods need to be ranked in a certain way, rather than leaving their priority up to lobbying, which is what the case has so far been.
Cheryl: There is not even a clear definition of what the ICANN public comment process is. Ultimately, the entire public comment period and mechanism likely needs to be reviewed and redesigned, but that, of course, is beyond the scope of this WT.
Yrjo: I will volunteer to look at the Bylaws relevant to At-Large before Cartagena and come up with language that speaks to the issues in this discussion.
>> AI: Yrjo to draft revisions to At-Large-relevant Bylaw passages (including but not only XI, 2, 4, a) that incorporate WT B’s 18 Nov 2010 discussion ideas (see 18 Nov minutes, agenda item 5), including:
- The ALAC’s role in advising on policy; and
- The priority of public comments from the ALAC, a RALO, or an ALS.
Evan: Our experience with Rec. 6 should be good preparation for this.
Cheryl: I would expect that WT A’s agenda in Cartagena would focus on these bylaw changes.
6. Identification of easily completed tasks (“quick wins”) within Recs. 1, 10, 11 – Co-Chairs, 10 min.
Yrjo: We have discussed much of this already in this meeting.
7. Any other business – 5 min, Co-Chairs
No other business was introduced.
8. Confirmation of next meeting – 5 min, Co-Chairs
- If decide not to stagger, next meeting would be on Thu, 2 Dec, 18:00 UTC.
The members of the WT agreed that the next meeting would be on Thu, 2 Dec, 18:00 UTC.
The meeting was adjourned.