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.
á Agreed to hear from/meet with sTLD applicants just for
informational purposes.
á 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 usersâ rights and needs.
á 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.
á 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.
á Changes to the NomCom process ö 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 ö It was suggested that the
NomCom should review procedures for vetting candidates to further
ensure that conflicts of interest among appointees are avoided.
á 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>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.
á Outreach/recruitment of candidates ö 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.
á NomCom delegates ö 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.
á 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 ö 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. Doesnât 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 ãcommunications and outreachä budget categories that will
advance ICANN goals in each region and help At-Large.
á ALAC appointments ö It was suggested that the ALAC review
its current appointments and discuss whether any changes are
needed/desired:
Internal
Chair Vittorio Bertola
Vice-Chairs Erick Iriarte Ahon, Clement Dzidonu
GNSO liaison Thomas Roessler (Wendy Seltzer)
Board liaison Roberto Gaetano
CcNSO liaison TBD
GAC liaison ?
ãRALO liaisonsä TBD (Vittorio suggested 1 person be the lead
contact for organizing in each region)
ASO liaison ?
Task forces/Working Groups
Whois TF 1 Thomas Roessler
Whois TF 2 Wendy Seltzer
Whois TF 3 Vittorio Bertola
WIPO 2 Sebastian Ricciardi
Dot Net Thomas Roessler
WSIS planning Izumi Aizu, Vittorio Bertola
Registry services Thomas Roessler
New gTLDs Wendy Seltzer
á 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.
á NomCom will appoint an ALAC member from North America and
one from Europe. Roberto Gaetano is willing to serve another term.
á ICANN regional offices ö ALAC members have asked for more
information on ICANNâs plans for regional offices and want to make
sure that appropriate support is given for At-Large activities.
o ICANN Operations VP, Kurt Pritz ö ICANN has received offers
to host regional offices, which will save money on overhead
expenses, etc. This is contingent on approval of the budget.
á Budget
o Kurt Pritz ö bulk of ALAC budget request is included in 2
areas in the proposed budget ö 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 ö 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.
á WSIS - ALAC is coordinating (along with other
constituencies) another WSIS Workshop to share information and
encourage participation in the WSIS process. The attached
ãtemplateä 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 ö Started July 1 as
Director of Secretariat; WGIG taken out of WSIS due to
non-satisfactory participation of NGOâs; WGIG will consist of
members appointed on their personal merit by the UN Secretary
General, but theyâll 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
ö sees this as end point and will identify actors first; noted ICANN
remarks at UNICT and ICC matrix ö WG will have larger approach;
noted some govts want to reduce issue to ãforä or ãagainstä ICANN ö
mistake to do this; raison dâetre 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 ö democratic approach.
o Asked if definition will be driven by making people happy or
functional ö Kummer ö 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* ãNet governanceä;
experience w/ ICANN is an important benchmark and WGIG should
understand the positive experiences and lessons learned;
á At-Large liaisons' voting rights in PDP task forces ö
should discuss this issue in the future ö 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 ãseat at the tableä 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.
á Use public list for AL discussions ö it was suggested that
non-confidential discussions should occur on publicly-archived ALAC
email list.
á RALO -- Discussed moving towards RALO now or waiting for
bigger ãcritical massä; critical mass doesnât mean effective RALO;
explore why itâs difficult to get people involved in ALSs; Clement
wants to do study in Africa to determine if on right track;
á At-Large organizing - Roberto will contact ccâs and ask
for referals and search for new contacts to increase ALSs in Europe.
Clement ö important question to be addressed is do you want ccâs
organizing ALSs?
á ALAC - At-Large User Meeting:
1. Welcome, At-Large Orientation
1. Vittorio slides (see Board report at
<http://www.icann.org/presentations/bertola-forum-kl-22jul04.pdf>http://www.icann.org/presentations/bertola-forum-kl-22jul04.pdf)
2. Report on ALAC Activities
1. Tommy reported on AP
2. Other region reports ö Lat. Amer, Africa, Europe
3. Report/discussion of At-Large-related activities in all regions
4. At-Large in Asia/Australia/Pacific, Introduction
of/discussion with Asia/Aust./Pac. At-Large Structures, Internet
users
5. Discussion
1. Forming an Asia/Aust./Pac. Regional At-Large Organization (RALO)
2. Outreach
3. At Large@China has 1,800 members; non-profit/voluntary nature
a challenge; supported by govt.; much potential for being user voice
and conduit for personal views (rather than govts); takes time;
website is operational; working towards hosting RALO planning
meeting and have talked to CNIC about supporting it;
4. NIEPA ö Ku Wei Wu ö private sector funding; IT, lawyers,
business people participating as individuals; some difficulty is
telling them the incentive for participating, since ICANN mission
far away from daily life; 70 people; planning on 2 more meetings
this year and will invite others outside of Taiwan to introduce
different point of view and coordinate with other ALS groups;
financial issues ö individuals have limited means so need help in
travel and participation; RALO should come out of ALS groups and
APNG can help but not lead (APNG can apply to be ALS); need better
articulation of why people should care
5. ISOC Taiwan Chapter ö important that AP participants be more
active; need to be proactive and have voice in defining needs and
being involved in Internet Gov and other matters; theyâll focus on
healthy relationship with ICANN along with TWNIC; id issues linked
to users; act more agressively and work with other ALSs in AP to
create synergies; id similar issues/interests and work together;
happy to help financially and otherwise
6. Japan Users Network ö difficult to draw attn to ICANN issues;
will address tech issues and provide social networking;
7. ISOC Malaysia Chapter ö started in 2002 and registered last
month; hope to give voice to net users across functions ö
commercial, academic, non-comm users etc.
8. Hong ö KRNIC and others will have Oct meeting;; (KR NIC rep)
Net gov meeting involving AP NICs;
9. Discussion ö question appropriate participation of NICâs and
ccâs so donât raise questions about At-Large and challenge
legitimacy; need more time to talk about RALO;
10. Norbert Klein ö Cambodia ö culture of silence; provincial
community information centers support cambodian language; spread
thin;
11. Hong ö would like concrete plans to coordinate ALSs and form RALOs.
12. Ku Wei Wu ö need AP ALSs to get together to make plan for RALO
13. KR NIC Oct meeting and 2 local meeting this fall in Taipei
and meeting in China late 2004 or early 2005 and Japan meeting in
Feb. Other Business -- .post application,information -- all postal
operators involved in .post operation; net users main beneficiaries;
.mobi application ö relevant to users Îcause AP region high
penetration of mobile phones facilitate data services for mobile
phones and looking for support from ALAC; will lower cost of data
use on mobile phones .asia sTLD application ö sponsor
membership-based non-profit set up to serve pan asian community; 3
categories of members ö sponsor members are ccTLDs in region,
co-sponsor are reigonal based it groups; profits will be re-invested
into community and support socilal/technological community in
region, including support for RALO and ALASs. .mobi -- discussed
offering ALAC policy input to all applicants.
Action items discussed on 22 July by ALAC members in KL
Denise will confirm creation of ASO and send an email requesting an
exchange of liaisons if/when they are constituted.
Vittorio and Hong will work on a *draft* IDN statement urging ICANN
undertake more efforts to facilitate IDN
implementation/coordination; draft will be sent to ALAC for further
discussion.
Denise will send ALAC a draft outline and timeline for an ALAC
annual report for further discussion on the issues/elements that
should be included and how the report should be drafted.
Denise will follow-up on proposed changes to the ALS certification
process (voting) with proposed bylaw changes.
Agreed to discuss further the future operational needs/resources
for the global At-Large framework, including supporting RALO
coordination
=============================
Attachment
ISSUE: Revising the At-Large Structure (ALS) certification process
(voting) ö ALAC members have suggested that the ALS certification
process be ãstreamlinedä 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 ICANNâs 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) ö 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 ICANNâs
Board, is:
Minimum criteria for an At-Large Structure:
á 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.
á 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.
á Be self-supporting (not rely on ICANN for funding).
á 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).
á 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)