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

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

What happened to the points  I added re: committee representation?

--Wendy

At 4:17 PM -0700 8/5/04, ICANN At-Large wrote:
> 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)


--
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx || wendy@xxxxxxx
Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html