Meetings
ISOC Participation in ICANN
Date: Monday 11 Feb, 4-5.30pm local time (UTC 10.30-12.00)
Chair: Sebastien Bachollet
Venue: Taj Palace Hotel
Attendees
Hilali Aziz - ISOC Morocco
Stefano Trumpy - ISOC Italy
Brajesh C Jain - ISOC Delhi (in formation)
Tulika Pandey - ISOC Delhi (in formation)
Puneet Tiwari - ISOC Delhi (in formation)
Shyam Nair - ISOC Delhi (in formation)
Veni markovski - ISOC Bulgaria
Hawa Diakite - ISOC Mali
Didier Kasole - ISOC Democratic Republic of Congo
Les Allinson - PICISOC
George Sadowsky - ISOC New York
Sebastien Bachollet - ISOC France
Cheryl Langdon Orr - ISOC Australia
Desiree Milosovic - ISOC Board of Trustees
Stefan Van Gelder
Frederic Donck - ISOC`
Bill Graham - ISOC
Rajnesh Singh - ISOC
Anne Lord - ISOC
Agenda
Introduction
Sebastien welcomed everyone to the meeting. There was a round table of introductions.
1. Review of ICANN structure to identify ISOC participation in constituencies - who is participating where?
Didier commented that ISOC DRC is in the secretariat of RALO.
Stefano explained some history of why chapters are participating in ICANN. Initially there was no knowledge of ICANN and the community would have not understood the necessity of setting up a specific organization dedicated to ICANN activities. The At-large structure was created within ICANN to partially address this. ISOC Italy was the first organisation to join what later became the EURALO. Stefano was asked by the Govt to be involved and commented that at the same time, being the president of the chapter is well accepted. ISOC IT is active in RALO, in cc supporting org and in the GAC.
George Sadowsky explained the Nomcom process. ICANN board has 15 people. Nomcom consists of members who are appointed by consituencies and supporting organisations. He is chair of the nomcom. It has the mandate to seek out directors who would not ordinarily come from the various constituencies (may not have heard of ICANN) but would be good additions. Now taking nominations for 2 board seats in late 2008. Note that George Sadowski is now past chair of the NOMCOM, assisting the present chair.
Veni commented that people should be aware that being on the board constitutes 50% of your time. Veni introduced himself as an ICANN employee in his role as regional liaison for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. The objective of his role is to build relationships in his region on behalf of ICANN. He observed that there are good relationships with some of the chapters in the region. ICANN signs accountability frameworks with ccTLD's. On a Governmental level it is challenging, since ICANN has never been really important in this region, except to Russia. ICANN has started to be more active with NGO's so attitudes are changing.
Rajesh Aggrewal gave a brief introduction to ISOC Delhi. He mentioned that they are helping a blind school, and the team is working to do things that they are unable to do in their normal jobs and positions. They come together with diverse expertise and from a range of different stakeholder groups. Tulika Pandey mentioned that the some members are involved in the GAC and in the IDN discussions.
Stefano noted that finance is often a difficult issue for chapters. The members of the chapters are often participating with their individual capacity. Normally time spent in ICANN and travel expenses are with support from the individual's employer.
Brajesh commented that he had the opportunity to attend the APNIC meeting in Bali and in the Delhi meeting and learnt a great deal at both events.
Cheryl commented on ISOC AU's involvement on ALAC.
2. At-Large communities (supported by ALAC) proposal for a Summit
- discussion by all
Cheryl introduced this topic by explaining that there has been a suggestion to have an ALAC summit, in Paris. This is an opportunity for outreach, building relationships and synergies amongst the ALAC community.
The question was asked how would the summit be different from the other activities? Cheryl answered that while various communities gather at various regional meetings, the summit is to bring at least one person from every at-large structure together to work on common themes.
Desiree (ISOC BoT) asked if there was a budget approved for it by ICANN. Cheryl answered that this was not approved. The budget is transferrable to whatever location is chosen so if it does not happen in Paris, the expectation is that it will happen elsewhere.
Sebastien commented that the decision on where can also be postponed etc. Feels that ICANN can find money to have 100 people to attend one meeting. If it will not be done in Europe it will be done somewhere else.
Veni asked for clarification on Sebastiens statement that the budget was not discussed behind closed doors. He suggested that it would be important to take the microphone and ask at a public session on the budget. He estimated that this would cost in the region of $300K and that this was not insignificant.
3. Mid term review of JPA - Discussion and review by all
Bill Graham opened the discussion by passing on apologies for Lynn St Amour. He went on to explain some of the background associated with the JPA mid term review. The US Dept of Commerce (DoC) launched an enquiry into the mid term review of the JPA. Bill explained he started with ISOC in December to be in charge of Global Strategic Engagement. The idea being to bring ISOC into the forefront of international organisations.
He explained that ISOC has been working under tight deadlines to get a paper drafted. A summary note was sent to the AC, BoT and the Chapter delegates to outline the direction that the paper was taking. In response, the process of arriving at the position was highlighted by all communities. Bill explained that he misunderstood the need for engagement and said that there was a lesson to be learnt in engagement. He noted that there has not been a lot of discussion pertaining to the actual content of the paper.
On the content of the paper, there has been a lack of clarity in some of the responses to the JPA DOC questions. It has been unclear whether the process was to look at the possibility of ending the JPA after 18 month period or whether it was a review of 18 months. Some of confusion was created by ICANN itself, in its first posting to the list.
The Paul Twomey video (and text distributed by Veni) states that they are not asking for the JPA to end now. ISOC takes it for granted that this is a mid term review but not about ending it. Highlights issues that ICANN should deal with in next 18 months. for example to ensure all constituencies are listened to, to ask ICANN to begin work now on what it proposes to look like now, and finally changes to the IANA contract which does not recognise the role of the IETF. Comments received privately are not substantially different from what he has heard in private emails.
Stefano commented that the Italian chapter has has been activated when the NOI was announced on January 10th. In ISOC IT, they distributed it to their list (around 250 people). After 1 or 2 days ICANN intervened. The NOI was based on asking the community comments about the achievements of ICANN on ten "resposabilities" contained in the JPA. The ICANN BoT said very clearly that there is no longer a need for a JPA. Main problem is to address what form of overnmental "supervision" will happen at the end of the JPA. Stefano appreciated that ISOC did not "insist" on one position negotiated with the chapters.
Veni made reference to the private sector management being the focus of the transition (and that this was actually an older idea), however there are now new players in the community. As long as there is a MoU with US govt this will be used against the self-management model, which is under the scrutiny of the community. He recommended to avoid mentioning the private sector management references. This actually eliminates ISOC itself. As for the process, there is another opportunity to talk about that.
Desiree commented that the Board were also a bit suprised as to the process used by ISOC. She also appreciated the ISOC IT explanation of their processes used. There is a term - public/private partnership - that is being used to describe its model now. People who have read the ISOC position could misunderstand the ISOC statement as ISOC saying that they do not have confidence in ICANN to standalone.
Veni read out the statement from Paul Twomey which highlighted the distinction between private sector management and private sector management and control.
Sebastien felt that it was an important discussion - where and who should be included in the future of ICANN. How the different groups are organised and named generates a lot of discussion. ISOC is a good place to have this discussion and hopes that collectively we can find a good term for this. (Private/public partnership etc).
Bill summarised that he heard that there should not be dominating government oversight, that there was a need for terminology phrasing. He also noted that 18 months is very fast for things to progress. Felt that if a change happens within 18 months, it would be amazing. He noted that he was really appreciative of the comments made at this meeting and will take suggestions on board for future.
4. AOB
Is this type of meeting useful? Rajnesh commented as a former chapter head. How can we get all the chapters to contribute? How do we manage this? How do we get chapter input?
Veni responded by saying that he felt that the chapters have to ask ISOC what the fundamental role of the chapters for ISOC?
Stefano commented that he felt that the chapters are a strong strategic force of ISOC. Many are constituted legally providing then a real global flavour to ISOC. INETs were very useful meetings and were good for ISOC recognition and branding: in absence of this line of events, it is useful to organize meetings of the chapters present although the attendance may be very partial.
Stefan Van Gelder asked what can we bring to people inside the chapters? Would like to open up ICANN processes to people who dont know them very well. What can we do to pass the knowledge on?
George Sadowsky asked everyone to think about why we have an Internet Society? In 1990's it was important. There was an enormous level of excitement about ISOC. He felt that if you want to be a chapter, do it because there a good things to do and you need to be committed to that.
5. Meeting close
The meeting was adjourned and all the participants were thanked. Thanks also to the chair of the meeting, Sebastien Bachollet.
