Meeting Number: AL.ALAC/CC.0811/1
Date: 25 November 2008
Time: 1330-1500 UTC
(For the time in various timezones click here)
Interpretation Available: Yes (EN, FR, ES - Simultaneous)
How can I participate in this meeting?
Comment est-ce qu'on peut participer à la téléconférence?
¿Cómo se puede participar en la teleconferencia?
Who is on the dial-out list for this call?
Participants ALAC: C Langdon-Orr, A Greenberg, S Bachollet, V Scartezini, A Peake, V Vivekandan, P Vande Walle , TH Nguyen, B Brendler, M El Bashir, F Seye Sylla, C Aguirre, J Ovidio Salgueiro
Apologies: H Diakite, W Ludwig
Absent: R Guerra
Liaisons: S Muthusamy, W Seltzer, R Vansnick, A Piazza
Guests: C Samuels, D Younger
Staff: N Ashton-Hart, M Langenegger
Summary Minutes: 25 November 2008 Summary Minutes
Action Items: 25 November 2008 Action Items
Transcription (EN): 25 November 2008 Transcription
Recording (Stream Server): EN FR ES (not uploaded yet)
Documents (EN):
A G E N D A
30 Minutes before the start of the official meeting, members of the At-Large community are invited to a discussion on the following issues:
Standing Agenda Items
- Adoption of the Agenda – 1 min
- Roll Call Apologies from Members (if any) - 1 min
- Adoption of the last Summary Minutes
- Review of the current action items - 8 mins
- Review of current status of ALS applications (Google Docs account needed to access) - 5 mins
- Liaison reports
- * IDN Report
- * Board Liaison Report
- * ccNSO Report - (please place a link to your report page here)
- * NCUC - (please place a link to your report page here)
- * SSAC - (please place a link to your report page here)
- * GNSO Liaison report 25/11/2008
- * dotMOBI Liaison Report
Any RALO Reports may be inserted as links below:-
- APRALO
- Issues to be raised at the ICANN Board Meeting
- Ratification and Status of ALAC Statements (see Decision Items below)
Items for Decision at This Meeting
- Appointment of 2nd representative to the Geographic Regions Review WG
- Formalization of the Executive Committee
- RAA - The way forward
Items for Discussion Only
- Post-expiration Domain Recover - ALAC Request for Issues Report
- ALAC Review (The deadline for comments is 12 December. A vote on the ALAC Statement on the ALAC Review will be held at the December ALAC meeting)
- Finalize the discussion on participation requirements for ALAC members (the finalised document sould be ready for adoption at the December ALAC meeting). See Reference Material below.
- User input in the new GNSO structure
- New gTLD Applicant Guidebook
- (If Ex-Com is formalized as proposed) Election of 5th Ex-Com member.
- Start of Rule of Procedure review/rewrite
Any Other Business
Reference Materials for Review
Items for Discussion: Rule 21
- Working Group on Accountability Document
- C Aguirre's proposal EN ES
- See also comments made below
1. With regard to the IDN report, I would appreciate seeing a discussion on the topic of "cost-recovery" as an ICANN "principle". Cost-recovery is currently being used to justify the ridiculously high proposed new gTLD fees, and one would want to know if it is ICANN's intent to apply this cost-recovery principle to IDN ccTLDs as well to recover the costs of IDN technical and policy development over the span of the last ten years. Personally, I am of the view that ICANN has had in place a cost-recovery clause in the IANA contract for ten years, but has never chosen to invoke that clause, and this deviation from the norm to begin charging excessive fees is unwarranted and a matter of great concern: "(section 3) After the effective date of this purchase order, ICANN may establish and collect fees from third parties (i.e. other than the United States Government) for the functions performed under this purchase order, provided the fee levels are approved by the Contracting Officer before going into effect, which approval shall not be withheld unreasonably provided the fee levels are fair and equitable and provided the aggregate fees charged during the term of this purchase order do not exceed the cost of providing the functions."
contributed by Guest User on Nov 21 10:26am
2. I proposed an agenda item to the Committee earlier this week: please see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q4/004938.html
A second topic is listed here: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q4/004939.html
contributed by Guest User on Nov 21 10:30am
at the point number 3 of the items for discussion only, I want to add proposal made by me during the last Cairo meeting. The follow is another way to see the true with the addition of my experience in this matters. (the final version, is waiting for help of staff. meanwhile, I put on your consideration a translation by google translator, thank`s)
Proposal to amend Rule 21 .-
Fundamentals of the proposed amendment.: This amendment allows the sanction to a member of ALAC approach that has the majority of Committee members so they consider meeting in special session (which operates regularly or call for a membership if need to be sitting in a lesser time). It also gives the member questioned the undeniable right of defense in a short period but effective. Finally leaves the replacement of it in the hands of the body that appointed him and at the request of the majority of the members of ALAC who had decided that its activity continued to be both qualitatively reprehensible after a period of three months after being considered by the same reprehensible most of his peers.
This proposal disregards the odious need to establish minimum requirements for participation in writing (these criteria will be set by the full membership meeting ALAC meeting in Ad Hoc) and gives the guarantee to the Member questioned, that will be judged by his peers and that a decision to impose penalties or require consensus of the majority of votes in relation to committee members. In addition gives a second warranty, which is the possibility that the body that appointed him (RALO - NomCom) can ratify it in its function.
It also morally obliged to all members of ALAC to play a quantitatively and qualitatively efficient within reasonable limits (of the majority of members ALAC) to avoid the ridicule that means public trial and subsequent approval of communication with the reproach body that appointed him.
Proposed language for the rule of art. 21
1 - ALAC must meet in special session at least every six months (or every two meetings) or, at the request of at least one third of its members (5 members) if necessary in a shorter period is stipulated in the first term, for analyze quantitative and qualitative participation of its members in its various functions.
2 - ALAC once met in special session, first determine the appropriateness or otherwise of the particularized analysis of the actions of all its members, or may decide that it is only pertinent analysis of the performance of one or more members, for which must be counted with a simple majority vote of members present.
3 - ALAC asked for a detailed report of their performance in the period that are brought to and the member / s on which was specially requested. The report must be submitted in the same session and then fourth interim decision after analyzing their performance.
4 - ALAC, after the fourth intermediate, listen to / the member / s questioned / s release the report / s and the reasons or grounds for their action or inaction.
5 - ALAC after hearing the report, consider summarily (in the same session) the same, and should assess whether the performance / members challenged deserves some comment, advice or reproach. Any decision will seek consensus, if not achieved the same, any decision to reproach must have at least the vote of a simple majority of members present.
6 - ALAC must meet in extraordinary session ad hoc, for the three months (or at the next meeting) to have taken a decision to blame for analyzing the evolution or involution of the involvement of that / those Member / s. After the debate, and if it becomes apparent that the participation of / members complained of continued during the same period of three months after that decision, then with the simple majority of its members and if not bound by consensus to ask the body that appointed him ( RALO - NomCom), replacing the same time assertive. The member of ALAC reproached in its operating and where it has been asked to replace him continue in office until his replacement is appointed or until the completion of its mandate if the body that appointed him ratify it.
7 - This amendment to clause 21, governed in the future after its approval by ALAC and after being notified reliably to each of the RALO `s of the current members of ALAC and the Board of ICANN.
Carlos D. Aguirre -
contributed by Guest User on Nov 24 2:20pm
In a note to the ALAC list Alan Greenberg has indicated that he prefers adopting the currently proposed amendments to the RAA rather than starting a new revision process. A review of the record of public comments does not support this position. Nowhere do you find any member of the broader Internet community stating that they can live with these amendments as currently written. To the contrary, most were vehemently opposed to a number of clauses therein. Let me ask you, "What's the point of the ICANN public comment process if all submitted comments are ignored?" Why give the registrars everything that they want while getting nothing in return? Such would be a poor negotiating strategy and not in the best interest of the user community.
contributed by Guest User on Nov 24 3:42pm
Where are the rest of the liaison reports?
contributed by Guest User on Nov 25 4:12am
Where are the reports from the new ad-hoc WGs? Where is the subset analysis of the new gTLDs that was promised? or the report of the ad-hoc group dealing with the PSC? or the reports from the standing WGs?
contributed by Guest User on Nov 25 4:42am