APRALO

The following questions were prepared by Hong Xue on behalf of APRALO.

1. You must have read ATRT Proposed Recommendations, which are now available for public comments. What are your comments on following two recommendations: – Improve visibility among stakeholders of the work the Board undertakes in steering ICANN’s activities; – Develop complementary mechanisms for consultation with SOs and ACs on policy issues that will be addressed at Board level. If you agree with these recommendations, what would be your work plan to implement them? __I support these recommendations. Not yet a work plan but some ideas:__%%% __* On time delivery to the ICANN community of both the documents send, given and explained to the Board prior or during a Board meeting and the ones’ explaining the decision,__%%% __* Some consultations are already made at the level of the Chairs of the SOs and ACs and some time including the leaders of SOs and ACs. Maybe more formal liaisons from each and to each SOs and ACs and a coordination group formed by the liaisons and when needed by the Chairs could be a good venue to address this issue.__%%% __* An overview of the ACs and SOs reviews to avoid the silos moving one from the other. __%%% 2.At-Large Community had expressed strong interest in supporting the Independent Object (IO) mechanism defined in DAG v.1-4, i.e. « acts solely in the best interests of the public who use the global Internet », particularly at Mexico At-Large Summit. What is your view on IO and at-large’s involvement as the public-interest goalkeeper?%%% __It seems that Independent is very often associated with “outside” of ICANN, no stakeholder participants, no staff… We have at least one example to demonstrate that Independence could be achieved with current or ex-participants of the ICANN work: the NomCom. The Review Teams will also I am sure show us that.__%%% __It is time to discuss the need to have more “internal” committees and less external.__%%% %%% 3. ICANN’s fast-track IDN ccTLDs program needs the pressing need of IDN communities but also introduces a couple of ad hoc solutions, such as character variants allocation and management. Do you believe new gTLD program should maintain these policies when evaluating IDN gTLDs for consistence or review or overrule them?%%% __The policy developed for the « .china » IDN ccTLD is a responsible way of handling the technical necessity of providing two variants of the same TLD to the respective IDN TLD community. It should also be available for gTLDs.__%%% __ »synchronized IDN ccTLDs » ==> « synchronized IDN gTLDs » – only if necessary.__%%% 4. Enhancement of involvement and participation of at-large community is essential for ICANN’s next decade. Do you have a holistic plan to outreach user community?%%% Would you support another at-large summit or make summit a regular channel for users’ direct participation in ICANN activities?%%% __I push the idea from the ICANN meeting in Lisbon (Portugal) and it finally happen that an ALS summit was conduct during the ICANN meeting in Mexico.__ __My plan is not anymore my plan but it is the one of At-Large/ALAC express during the last year discussion about the Strategic planning of ICANN:__%%% [Strategic Plan|http://forum.icann.org/lists/stratplan-2010/pdfNNwy32lraJ.pdf|en]%%%  »“ALAC wishes to add one strategic project for the strategic objectives ++All stakeholders have a voice at the table++: “__ALSes in every country__”. »  »This will support the implementation of the community recommendations discussed and defined during the first ICANN At Large Summit in Mexico in March 2009 to improve ICANN’s transparency and accountability. »%%%  »In this context it was stated that a further empowerment of ICANN’s At Large structure is necessary. More incentives and enabling mechanisms for ALSes and user communities are essential to strengthen multistakeholder participation and the voice of Internet users in the ICANN’s decision making process. In this framework, RALOs (which were set-up by an MOU between ALSs and ICANN in the 5 regions) need more institutional support and funding to allow them to organize regular General Assemblies and outreach activities (such as, in Europe, the ICANN Studienkreis meeting, EuroDIG etc.). With this assistance from ICANN, RALOs will be given the opportunity to reach, during the next 3 years, an ambitious goal to double the number of countries where, at least, one ALS will join the RALOs (see some more details next page). »%%%  »During the next strategic plan (e.g. 2013 – 2016) the goal of At Large, with the strong support of ICANN, will be to organize a second ICANN At Large Summit. » %%%  »Timeline: » * 2010 – 2013 o One RALO General Assembly in each region,%%% o To recruit new ALSes to cover 80% of the countries in each region. * 2016 o A second ICANN At Large Summit,%%% o New ALSes to join. %%% »This project should be undertaken in conjunction with GAC and ccNSO (and possibly with stakeholder groups of the non-contracted House of the GNSO). ALAC hopes that a synergy could be found along similar objectives.” »%%% 5. ICANN Board recently approved the policy regarding vertical integration in gTLD domains. Do you believe the new policy would enhance competition and benefit Internet users, including but not limited to registrants? Under the new policy, how would ICANN strengthen oversight over registries that acquire the opportunity to directly provide registration services?%%% __From my SOI:__%%% __• I fully support the last ALAC statement on new gTLDs and I would like to emphasize one sentence I am particularly committed to: « From the At-Large perspective, the core issues remain maximizing the benefits and minimizing the confusion from the introduction of new gTLDs to the average Internet user… ».__ %%% __• New gTLDs must not be just considered as a « market ». They must not be just a way to invest money. New gTLDs must be for new users and new usages. Their goal must therefore be to serve new communities. The policy development for new gTLDs was largely controlled by incumbents. Together with the current, yet to be completed implementation phase, it has taken already more than 6 years. Rather than treating the new TLDs as an entitlement for any investor, priority must be given to projects in the public interest that contribute to the improvement and the development of the Internet.__%%% __In addition:__ __The compliance policies and implementation of those policies are key for the Internet users.__%%% __At-Large will have to be very involved in that both at the registry and registrar level (and/or function).__ %%% 6. Under the present policy, at-large director elected will replace ALAC Liaison on the Board. Do you think, despite the addition of at-large director, ALAC Liaison should be retained, through which at-large community’s views could be streamlined to the Board?%%% __Yes__

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *