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

["ICANN At-Large" <michel@xxxxxxxxx>]

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

There is a huge amount of work being done in these roles for very
little external result.  It's particularly frustrating to be
participating in task forces without even the ability to vote.

>WIPO 2           Sebastian Ricciardi and Wendy Seltzer

The WIPO2 assistance group concluded its work with much acrimony and
lack of consensus.  The GAC representatives strongly endorsed the
WIPO2 recommendations, everyone else opposed (ALAC, intellectual
property and business constituencies, non-com, registries and
registrars, etc.).

>New gTLDs              Wendy Seltzer

nothing happening here, we can't even get updates about the process.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of ICANN
At-Large
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 4:17 PM
To: ALAC
Subject: [alac] ALAC Kuala Lumpur Meeting Notes - Re-sending for posting


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:
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               ?
?RALO liaisons?      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
·         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.
·         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?
·         ALAC - At-Large User Meeting:
Welcome, At-Large Orientation
Vittorio slides (see Board report at
http://www.icann.org/presentations/bertola-forum-kl-22jul04.pdf)
Report on ALAC Activities
Tommy reported on AP
Other region reports ? Lat. Amer, Africa, Europe
Report/discussion of At-Large-related activities in all regions
At-Large in Asia/Australia/Pacific, Introduction of/discussion with
Asia/Aust./Pac. At-Large Structures, Internet users
Discussion
Forming an Asia/Aust./Pac. Regional At-Large Organization (RALO)
Outreach
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;
NIEPA ? Ku Wei Wu ? 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 ? 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
ISOC Taiwan Chapter ? 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; they?ll 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
Japan Users Network ? difficult to draw attn to ICANN issues; will address
tech issues and provide social networking;
ISOC Malaysia Chapter ? started in 2002 and registered last month; hope to
give voice to net users across functions ? commercial, academic, non-comm
users etc.
Hong ? KRNIC and others will have Oct meeting;; (KR NIC rep)  Net gov
meeting involving AP NICs;
Discussion ? question appropriate participation of NIC?s and cc?s so don?t
raise questions about At-Large and challenge legitimacy; need more time to
talk about RALO;
Norbert Klein ? Cambodia ? culture of silence; provincial community
information centers support cambodian language; spread thin;
Hong ? would like concrete plans to coordinate ALSs and form RALOs.
Ku Wei Wu ? need AP ALSs to get together to make plan for RALO
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 ? relevant to
users ?cause 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 ? sponsor
membership-based non-profit set up to serve pan asian community; 3
categories of members ? 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) ? 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)