[alac] ALAC Kuala Lumpur Meeting Notes

ALAC Kuala Lumpur Meeting Notes
(Others in attendance - please add to/revise these meeting notes.)

Monday, 19 July, Tuesday 20 July, and Thursday 22 July

Participants (in all or some of these meetings): Vittorio Bertola, Roberto Gaetano, Tommy Matsumoto, Hong Xue, Izumi Aizu, Erick Iriarte, Sunday Folayan, Clement Dzidonu.

· Agreed to hear from/meet with sTLD applicants just for informational purposes.

· Agreed Vittorio would make an informal statement during the IDN Workshop to reinforce the need to examine/discuss/develop/publicize implementation policies that take into account users? rights and needs.

· ALS certification process (voting) -- See attached background paper. Agreed to propose to the rest of the ALAC lowering the threshold/changing the bylaws as discussed in the attachment, and commit to a target of 6 weeks to conclude certification process once an applications is received.

· Future committee activities/efforts and assessment of work -- Procedures approved by the Board call for a periodic review of the At-Large framework. Specifically, At-Large Structures and RALOs are to participate in periodic reviews (at least once annually) of how they are contributing to the ALAC charter and fostering informed participation of individual Internet users in ICANN, and they will contribute to the ALAC's reports to the ICANN Board on the structure, activities and results of the ALAC and the At-Large infrastructure.

o Agreed to propose to the rest of the ALAC that an annual report will be prepared and submitted to the Board in December in Capetown to provide a status report and assessment of At-Large, and Denise will provide proposed outline and timeline for the report.

· Changes to the NomCom process ? ALAC discussed potential changes to the Nominating Cmt. process in the future:

o It was suggested that the NomCom process is too closed/secretive, is not transparent, and the ICANN community needs more insight into, and input to, the Committee's activities. It was suggested that if individuals are applying for high level positions they should do so in public and there should be a public review of possible candidates.

o Specific ideas discussed include making public the list of candidates to enable a public review of individuals under consideration, and providing the public with information on the reasons for the Cmt.'s selections.

o Interest was expressed in having a closer working relationship with the At-Large NomCom delegates to provide more input to the NomCom process and have greater understanding of the NomCom's activities and decisions. ALAC should discuss the restrictions placed on NomCom delegates sharing information.

o Question was raised as to why the Cmt. does not tell candidates for which position they are being considered.

o The problem of filling vacancies when the NomCom is not operating was raised, and it was suggested that we should explore the possibility of the NomCom selecting alternate appointees who could fill a position in the event that a vacancy occurs during the period in which the Cmt. cannot fill it.

o Avoiding conflicts of interest ? It was suggested that the NomCom should review procedures for vetting candidates to further ensure that conflicts of interest among appointees are avoided.

· NomCom criteria -- It was suggested that the ALAC should discuss the criteria used by the NomCom for appointments to the ALAC and other bodies. **(Note: ALAC provided the NomCom with input on criteria last year; see <http://www.alac.icann.org/correspondence/nomcom-comments-07may03.htm>. It was noted that the ALAC needs people who can devote time and can take care of broader interests.

· Outreach/recruitment of candidates ? Should discuss what else the ALAC should be doing to help fill ICANN positions. ALAC has asked ALS and ALS applicants for recommendations/volunteers for open positions and has highlighted openings/NomCom activities in its monthly newsletter.

· NomCom delegates ? It was suggested that the ALAC should create a set procedure for appointing NomCom delegates and ensure that the ALAC follows-up with delegates. A conference call with delegates was suggested.

· Communication/outreach -- Although the number of At-Large Structures is increasing, participation in ALAC activities is not. ALAC should consider additional activities to address its need for advocacy input and general At-Large participation.

o Meeting ICANN VP Communications, Kieran Baker ? has translated basic ICANN explanatory material into multiple languages, including all major Asia languges, issued first ICANN newsletter and will publish it online, revised ICANN press kits. ICANN is trying to explain its work in accessible ways, and wants to measure involvement. Doesn?t have a strategic communications plan yet, nor any details on how ICANN will spend the communications and outreach money included in the ICANN budget proposal.

o ALAC agreed to propose specific activities that fall into the ?communications and outreach? budget categories that will advance ICANN goals in each region and help At-Large.

· ALAC appointments ? It was suggested that the ALAC review its current appointments and discuss whether any changes are needed/desired:

?RALO liaisons? TBD (Vittorio suggested 1 person be the lead contact for organizing in each region)

· It was suggested that appointments should be addressed at the Capetown meeting in early December, after the NomCom appointments are added. The ALAC should discuss whether the current structure is adequate (Vittorio asked if the Chair/2 Vice Chair construct is effective?). The issue of involving ALS representatives as liaisons/working group members was also raised for further discussion. It was suggested that the ALAC define the role of liaison and that the liaisons do more outreach on their work.

· NomCom will appoint an ALAC member from North America and one from Europe. Roberto Gaetano is willing to serve another term.

· ICANN regional offices ? ALAC members have asked for more information on ICANN?s plans for regional offices and want to make sure that appropriate support is given for At-Large activities.

o ICANN Operations VP, Kurt Pritz ? ICANN has received offers to host regional offices, which will save money on overhead expenses, etc. This is contingent on approval of the budget.

o Kurt Pritz ? bulk of ALAC budget request is included in 2 areas in the proposed budget ? communications and outreach -- including travel for ALAC and ALS members to ICANN meetings, support for RALO creation, in-region travel and organizing support.; Regarding budget approval process ? Board will vote on budget proposal on Friday in KL and then 2/3 of the Registrars have to approve it; if 2/3 is not reached the budget will be reduced until it is approved. If this is the case, commensurate reductions can be expected for At-Large.

· WSIS - ALAC is coordinating (along with other constituencies) another WSIS Workshop to share information and encourage participation in the WSIS process. The attached ?template? will be distributed to ICANN constituencies/stakeholders to complete to assist with the development of a joint-constituency statement.

o Markus Kummer, who will run the Secretariat for the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), spoke to the ALAC & NonCommercial Constituency members ? Started July 1 as Director of Secretariat; WGIG taken out of WSIS due to non-satisfactory participation of NGO?s; WGIG will consist of members appointed on their personal merit by the UN Secretary General, but they?ll represent some constituencies; important to have dialogue with all stakeholders; a meeting will be held in Sept. on WGIG issues; the UN Secretary General will select members; challenge is to find right balance w/ regions and stakeholders and percentage of civil society and businesses, etc.; some have suggested WGIG composition of 1/3 govt., 1/3 business, 1/3 civil society, and some govts suggested govt majority on the WGIG.

o Asked what is the boundary of WGIG and is there equal opportunity for comment under its process -- Kummer -- yes, but WGIG needs to find right modalities, will invite contributions, will develop working definition of Net governance at the end of its work ? sees this as end point and will identify actors first; noted ICANN remarks at UNICT and ICC matrix ? WG will have larger approach; noted some govts want to reduce issue to ?for? or ?against? ICANN ? mistake to do this; raison d?etre is to have reasoned approach to this issue and once fact-finding is done say what is Net governance; bottom-up approach inviting lots input ? democratic approach.

o Asked if definition will be driven by making people happy or functional ? Kummer ? will listen to all, eg UNESCO, WTO, etc.; WGIG will sift through claims and determine relevance; recognizes that they may need to push issues.

o It was noted that we are *doing* ?Net governance?; experience w/ ICANN is an important benchmark and WGIG should understand the positive experiences and lessons learned;

· At-Large liaisons' voting rights in PDP task forces ? should discuss this issue in the future ? ALAC liaison can vote in GNSO PDP task force if appointed as outside expert, but cannot vote if appointed as liaison; it was suggested that ALAC liaison should have a vote since we claim that, for the first time, under our current structure, At-Large has a ?seat at the table? in policy development, and to cede an At-Large vote in the policy development process would further erode confidence that At-Large has a meaningful role in ICANN.

· Use public list for AL discussions ? it was suggested that non-confidential discussions should occur on publicly-archived ALAC email list.

· RALO -- Discussed moving towards RALO now or waiting for bigger ?critical mass?; critical mass doesn?t mean effective RALO; explore why it?s difficult to get people involved in ALSs; Clement wants to do study in Africa to determine if on right track;

· At-Large organizing - Roberto will contact cc?s and ask for referals and search for new contacts to increase ALSs in Europe. Clement ? important question to be addressed is do you want cc?s organizing ALSs?

=============================

ISSUE: Revising the At-Large Structure (ALS) certification process (voting) ? ALAC members have suggested that the ALS certification process be ?streamlined? and, in particular, that the voting requirements for ALS certification be modified so as to be less stringent and less time consuming for the ALAC, while still providing the oversight and due diligence needed to maintain the integrity of ICANN?s At-Large infrastructure. It has been suggested that the threshold for ALS certification for any group that makes the effort to apply should be low, recognizing that the ALAC has the ability to de-certify an ALS if warranted.

PROPOSAL: (For discussion) ? ICANN staff is required to conduct due diligence (with ALAC guidance and input), and make a written recommendation (via email), with supporting documentation, to the ALAC on certification of each ALS applicant. Two weeks after ALAC members are notified (via email) of the staff recommendation, ALS applicants would be certified, or certification denied, unless 1/3 of the ALAC objects (via email).

BACKGROUND: Under the ICANN bylaws, the ALAC is responsible for certifying organizations as meeting the criteria and standards for At-Large Structures. Decisions to certify or de-certify an ALS require a 2/3 vote of all of the members of the ALAC and are subject to review according to procedures established by the Board. On an ongoing basis, the ALAC may also give advice as to whether a prospective ALS meets the applicable criteria and standards. The criteria and certification process for ALSs, as approved by ICANN?s Board, is:

Minimum criteria for an At-Large Structure:

· Commit to supporting individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions.

· Be constituted so that participation by individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of countries within the Geographic Region in which the ALS is based will predominate in the ALS' operation. The ALS may permit additional participation by others that is compatible with the interests of the individual Internet users within the region.

· Be self-supporting (not rely on ICANN for funding).

· Post on the Internet (on the ALAC's website or elsewhere) publicly-accessible, current information about the ALS's goals, structure, description of constituent group(s)/membership, working mechanisms, leadership, and contact(s).

· Assist the RALO in performing its function.

Certification process for At-Large Structures (ALS):

Submit to the ALAC, in electronic form (provided by the ALAC), a completed ALS application (in English) and provide the ALAC with any requested documentation.
The ALAC will conduct due diligence, reviewing the application and performing necessary tasks in an effort to ensure that the established ALS criteria has been/will be met. This could include requesting references, interviewing the applicant's contact(s), gathering/requesting additional information on the applicant, and (for existing organizations) requesting information on applicant's leadership and operations, verifying general funding sources, and requiring the applicant to demonstrate the identity of their individual constituents.
Upon completion of its due diligence, all ALAC members will review the application and related documentation; the ALAC will then vote on certifying the applicant an ALS, with each ALAC member voting ELIGIBLE or NOT ELIGIBLE.
Decisions to certify an ALS require a 2/3 vote of all of the members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according to procedures established by the Board. The ALAC will notify the applicant of its certification decision, and, if applicable, provide information on requesting a review of the decision.
Decisions to de-certify an ALS require a 2/3 vote of all of the members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according to procedures established by the Board. Reasons for the ALAC to pursue de-certification action, and to de-certify an ALS, may include persistent non-compliance with significant ALS requirements. The ALAC will provide advance notice to the ALS in question, and the ALS will have an opportunity to be heard and respond to the ALAC prior to a decision on de-certification. The ALAC will notify the ALS of its de-certification decision and provide information on requesting a review of the decision.
On an ongoing basis, the ALAC may give informal advice and support to organizations seeking certification. It is intended that the ALAC work informally with organizations over time to assist with their efforts to comply with the criteria and achieve the necessary standing to seek certification.
ALS applications, ALAC decisions on applications, and other information, as appropriate, will be publicly posted by the ALAC.

The ALAC developed the following form used to conduct due diligence on ALS applications:

1. Commit to supporting individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions.

2. Be constituted so that participation by individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of countries within the Geographic Region in which the ALS is based will predominate in the ALS' operation. The ALS may permit additional participation by others that is compatible with the interests of the individual Internet users within the region.

3. Be self-supporting (not rely on ICANN for funding).

4. Post on the Internet (on the ALAC's website or elsewhere) publicly-accessible, current information about the ALS's goals, structure, description of constituent group(s)/membership, working mechanisms, leadership, and contact(s).

5. Assist the RALO in performing its function.

6. Is the contact information for the organization and its contact person complete and reasonable?

7. Does the listed URL work?

8. Did you already know about this organization?

9. How active and well known is the organization? (I'd recomment a Google search on the organization's name).

10. Does the website seem to be regularly updated?

11. Do the membership, leadership and internal mechanisms described in the application correspond to those exposed on the website?

12. Apparently, how is the organization funded? Does the funding mechanism show dependence on other interest groups (ie industry, governments etc)?

13. Are the leaders of the organization involved in other organizations or entities? Who are their employers? Were they already involved in Internet governance issues in the past, and in which role?

14. Is the mission / policy statement actually related to ICANN / Internet governance issues and to the advocation of users' interests?

15. Does the organization really have individual members? Do they actually (directly or indirectly) rule the organization? Are these members active, or do they mostly just sign up and delegate to their leaders?

16. Are these individual members "generic" users from a broad spectrum of sources, or do they belong to a specific sub-group? (For example, Internet professionals, engineers, lawyers...)

17. Which geographical area is "covered" by the members of the organization?

18. Does the organization have online discussion forums? If archives are publicly available, do these forums show signs of activity?

19. Did the organization set up any event, meeting, or real-life activity pertaining to Internet governance issues, or other issues related to the interests of individual users? What kind of issues does it focus on mostly?

20. Is the organization already active in international, regional or national Internet governance issues? (ccTLD policy making, for example)

[alac] ALAC Kuala Lumpur Meeting Notes - Re-sending for posting