We have put that document out in a radically different public comment period to allow for as much community discussion and collaboration as possible.

The comment period uses Jive software which allows for simple interaction and discussion between community members. It is an experiment we are running from now until 24 September. You can view everyone’s responses, clearly broken down into different areas, and if you register post your own thoughts and responses. As well as vote in polls, write blog posts, and so on.

The AC/SO summary drew out six main issues as well as seven suggested solutions to fix those issues. The top two issues were frustration and exhaustion at the huge volume of work, and the lack of visibility of the impact of volunteer input on decision-making.

The top three suggested solutions were: prioritization of the workload; better scoping of issues at the start of policy processes; and improving accessibility to issues by providing summaries.

Now we need you as the community to flesh out these broad points into specific ideas and suggestions.

The discussion space will be shut down after 30 days as the experiment closes and a report will then be written covering what happened as well as the feasibility of using Jive or similar software for future community discussions.

So if you want to make your voice heard not only about how ICANN can improve but the ways in which those improvement discussions are held, then please login on today and start interacting.

You can log-on to the collaborative space at: https://jive.dev.icann.org/community/acso.

What was it?

ICANN’s 35th international public meeting is the first of three held annually to conduct policy development and outreach. It was hosted by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), AusRegistry International, operator of Australia’s dot-au register, and auDA (.au Domain Administration), the policy authority and industry self-regulatory body for the dot-au domain space.

The meeting was opened by New South Wales’ premier Nathan Rees, and Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy.

Premier Rees spoke about the impact and importance of the digital revolution, the important role that ICANN plays with the Internet, and the possibilities that new generic top-level domains will open up.

Senator Conroy spoke about the Australian government’s plan to build a high-speed broadband network connecting everyone in the country, using fiber to reach 90 percent of homes and businesses, and wireless and satellite technology to reach the remaining 10 percent.

There were 1,054 attendees to the conference from 106 different countries. The largest group came from the United States (286), followed by local hosts Australia (224). The participants engaged in a wide range of discussions about the Internet’s domain name system and related issues.

Further information about the meeting, including presentations and transcripts, is available at http://syd.icann.org.

ICANN’s next international public meeting will take place in Seoul, South Korea, beginning on 25 October 2009.

What happened and what are the next steps?

Many meetings, workshops, public forums and informal discussions were held over seven days by the different stakeholders of the ICANN model:

• Business interests
• Civil society – – including the At-Large Summit of individual Internet user representatives
• Governments and government agencies
• Internet service providers
• Registrants
• Registrars
• Registries
• The technical community

Several key issues and themes evolved over the course of the meeting. They are summarized below.

New gTLDs

WHAT HAPPENED: The four “overarching issues” that need to be addressed before the introduction of new top-level domains were the focal point of the meeting. Those four issues are: trademark protection; malicious conduct; security and stability; and demand and economic analysis – more details on each below.

There was also a more general update session on the new gTLD program on the Monday morning that outlined the most recent documents and changes made to them following the second public comment period of the Applicant Guidebook.

Trademark Protection

The issue of how to protect trademarks in the event of a massive expansion in the domain name space was the most visible of the four overarching issues.

The authors of a report (IRT report) that proposed a number of solutions to the issue outlined their findings in numerous sessions and received feedback from the community. A main session on Wednesday afternoon also addressed the issue.

Three suggestions were the centre of most of the debate: the creation of a globally protected marks list, where a trademark registered across the world was given special rights to block domain registrations with that trademark in; an IP clearinghouse, where trademark holders are able to submit their information once in a common format and it be used across all gTLDs; and a uniform rapid suspension (URS) process that would enable a domain to be suspended if its registrant did not respond to a trademark holder’s request within a specific time period.

Malicious Conduct

A session on Wednesday afternoon addressed the concern that a large expansion of the domain name space will present new opportunities for abuse of the DNS, such as phishing, malware, the distribution of illegal content, and so on.

The broad concern is that with a large number of new companies entering the domain name market – both registries and registrars – that there will not be sufficient awareness of the problems of dealing with the criminal element online. As a result, there is an effort underway to find the best solution to pre-empt future problems without introducing unnecessary controls.

Security and Stability

A session on Wednesday focused on the Security, Stability and Resiliency Plan for ICANN as an organization, which was recently put out for public comment.

Demand and Economic Analysis

Two economic analysis reports were published a few weeks prior to the Sydney meeting and a special session held on the Monday to cover, in particular, the issue of registry-registrar separation.

ICANN introduced the registrar market shortly after its inception in order to produce greater competition in the domain name system. The approach was effective, reducing the cost of domain names to the user and greatly increasing consumer choice. With the expansion of the domain name space, however, the community has been reviewing whether the existing system where registrars and registries are kept strictly apart remains the optimal approach.

NEXT STEPS: Feedback from the meeting, as well as comments sent to recent comment periods covering both revised excerpts of the Applicant Guidebook and papers related to the overarching issues, will be used to produce a third version of the guidebook for the Seoul meeting in October.

The first applications for new generic top-level domains are expected to be received in the first quarter of 2010.

MORE INFORMATION:

The new gTLD program webpage contains the latest information as well as extensive background information on the whole process:
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm

Trademark Protection and Malicious Conduct session:
http://syd.icann.org/node/3788

Security, stability and resiliency session:
http://syd.icann.org/node/4234

Economic analysis session:
http://syd.icann.org/node/4237/

Economic analysis reports:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06jun09-en.htm

New gTLD update session:
http://syd.icann.org/node/3902

 

IDN Fast Track

WHAT HAPPENED: A session on the Monday afternoon gave the latest information and updates on the IDN Fast Track process.

The session focused on the ongoing implementation efforts of the Fast Track and covered details such as the application process, the relationship between the IDN ccTLD managers and ICANN, financial contributions, and IDN Tables and variant management.

In terms of documentation, the latest version of the Implementation Plan was published prior to the meeting, as well as three papers that identified open issues where further input from the community is needed.  A public comment process was opened prior to the meeting and closed on 15 July.

An introductory session to IDNs was also given on the Sunday before the meeting.

NEXT STEPS: Feedback from the meeting, as well as comments sent to the public comment period on the Implementation Plan and papers will be used to produce a revised version of the Implementation Plan.

Remaining tasks include: production of an online application form; IDNA implementation; finalizing the evaluation process; formation of a stability panel; and finalizing a linguistic process.

The aim is to finalize the Implementation Plan in time for the Seoul meeting in October.

MORE INFORMATION:

The Fast Track webpage contains the latest information on the process as well as extensive background information:
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/

You can also view the broader IDN program webpage at:  http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/

Monday Fast Track session:
http://syd.icann.org/node/4076

Fast Track implementation plan public comment period:
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200907.html#fast-track

IDN introductory session:
http://syd.icann.org/node/3747

Operating Plan and Budget for FY2010

WHAT HAPPENED: The Operating Plan and Budget was outlined during a Monday session, concluding six months of work and repeated community consultation. The budget was approved by the Board during its public meeting on the Friday.

In broad terms, the budget expects revenue of $63.6 million, with operating expenses of $54.4 million (a 4.9 percent growth over 2009 and in line with a promise not to grow more than five percent). There will be a contribution to the reserve of $4.9 million.

Full details of where ICANN will spend the money and where it comes from were outlined during the session and are also available on line.

NEXT STEPS: Now the Operating Plan and Budget is approved, ICANN will shortly begin its Strategic Plan process until January. The Strategic Plan will then be used to create the Operating Plan and Budget for FY2011.

There will be several periods of public comment during the process for community input and review, all of which will be announced on the front page of the ICANN website.

MORE INFORMATION:

The Financial webpage contains full information about ICANN’s budget as well as links to other resources:
http://www.icann.org/en/general/financial.html
 
Monday session on the Operating Plan and Budget:
http://syd.icann.org/node/3809

Improving Institutional Confidence (IIC)

WHAT HAPPENED: A report that provided detailed proposals following the year-long improving institutional confidence (IIC) consultation was published prior to the Sydney meeting for review.

The report was the focus of a session on Wednesday. Two proposals in particular were the focus of attention, both requiring bylaw changes. One would allow the community to request review of a Board decision through a majority vote, and the second would establish an independent review body for Board decision.

Other changes, including looking for ways to improve participation across Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, a staff code of conduct, and the production of executive summaries of documents, were highlighted in a number of Board resolutions on the Friday.

NEXT STEPS: The proposed bylaw amendments have been put out for public comment until 25 September. The other changes will be developed by either staff, the CEO, or a new Board-GAC working group and put out to the community for review.

MORE INFORMATION:

Information about the documents, the public comment periods, the regional meetings and the Implementation Plan can be found on dedicated IIC webpages at: http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/

Wednesday IIC session:
http://syd.icann.org/node/3871

Public comment period on bylaw changes:
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200909.html#iic-bylaws

DNSSEC Interim Solution

WHAT HAPPENED: A few weeks before the start of the Sydney meeting, ICANN outlined an interim solution for digitally signing the root zone. The solution sees ICANN working with the US government and VeriSign to help secure the domain name system through the use of the DNSSEC protocol.

A session was held on Wednesday that went through that solution as well as through broader issues with respect to the rollout and use of DNSSEC.

NEXT STEPS: ICANN will work with the US Department of Commerce and VeriSign on the interim solution with the goal of a signed root zone as soon as feasible in 2009.

MORE INFORMATION:

Announcement of interim solution:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03jun09-en.htm

DNSSEC session:
http://syd.icann.org/node/3791

Joint AC/SO meeting

WHAT HAPPENED: Representatives of ICANN’s Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations, as well as ICANN Chief Operating Officer Doug Brent met to discuss issues of joint interest.

A single-page summary of the event was produced the next day and discussed within the different groups during the week.

Broadly, the meeting concluded that there was significant frustration and exhaustion due to the volume of work. A lack of visibility of the impact that volunteer input has on decision making, particularly for Board decisions, was also highlighted.

Other issues raised included: that the purpose, roles and responsibilities of volunteers, staff and Board are not clear; levels of trust are low; the Board operates at too operational a level; and the current processes are not scalable, particularly as the organization continues to grow and internationalize.

Possible solutions to these issues were also discussed and included: prioritization of the workload; better scoping of issues at the start of policy processes; improved accessibility to issues by providing summaries; and improved contact between groups.

NEXT STEPS: The meeting summary will be posted for community review and discussion and use to inform further discussions at all levels of the organization in an effort to find and implement solutions to the issues raised.

MORE INFORMATION:

The ACSO session:
http://syd.icann.org/node/3808

New Board members and CEO

Two new Board members took their seats at Sydney, and a new CEO for the organization was named.

Ray Plzak and Mike Silber joined the Board, replacing Demi Getschko and Dave Wodelet. Rod Beckstrom was named as the new CEO and replaced Paul Twomey, who will stay on in the role of Senior President until the end of 2009.

The Board webpage provides more information: http://www.icann.org/en/general/board.html

Board Resolutions

The full set of Board Resolutions at the public meeting on Friday can be found online at http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm.

A transcript of the meeting can be found at: http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/transcript-board-meeting-26jun09-en.txt

A short summary of resolutions is given below.

Board minutes highlights

• 2010 budget and operating plan approved
• A ban on the use of redirection of DNS records for all gTLD registries i.e. registries won’t be allowed to display anything but an error message if someone types in a domain name that hasn’t been registered
• A new working group of the Board and GAC to review the GAC’s role within ICANN
• The publication of two proposed bylaw amendments to improve accountability: one to allow the community to vote for a review of a Board decision; and a second to established an independent review body.
• A series of initiatives from the Improving Institutional Confidence consultation: look for ways to improve participation across Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees; a staff code of conduct; the production of executive summaries of documents.
• Introduction of a new CEO
• Staff to work on GNSO stakeholder charters and present them for decision by the Board at its July meeting; the new GNSO Council to be seated in Seoul
• Staff to produce a new version of the Applicant Guidebook, incorporating feedback from the meeting where appropriate, in time for the Seoul meeting in October
• Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) and staff to work on new GNSO constituency applications and provide recommendations as soon as practicable; SIC recommendations for the review process – including an expansion of the timeframe for review cycles from three to five years – to be published for public comment
• Dot-pro registry given permission to allocate single and two-characters domains
• Seoul official chosen for next meeting
• Working group created to look at the issue of specifications for the internationalization of registration data i.e. allowing for Whois records to be produced in more languages and scripts 
• Charter approved for working group to review ICANN’s geographic regions
• Changes in Board Committee membership
• Working group for ccNSO review approved
• Changes to SSAC membership approved
• Acknowledged receipt of At Large Summit Final Declaration as well as the final report of the ALAC review
• Thanks to: Paul Twomey for his work as CEO; the local hosts, scribes, interpreters and other people that help the meeting run effectively; the IRT team for their report on trademark protection; the sponsors and community.

Other Matters

You can view edited videos of the conference’s main events as well as full videos of events in the main ballroom and the ccNSO at: http://syd.icann.org/video

Pictures of the conference can be found at: http://www.icann.org/photos/

You can also see them and download them directly from Flickr by following this link. Click on the photo you want, click “All Sizes” and you are able to download it in a range of sizes.

There are also alot of other photos from Sydney. Go here to see all of them, split up by event. And please do add comments – particularly giving people’s names, as that will make the photos easier to find in future.

And of course there is the broader ICANN Flickr group that has lots of good photos stretching back in time. Enjoy.

Please note that these photos are published under a Creative Commons licence, more exactly an Attribution Non-Commercial licence. That means if you publish the photo anywhere you need to give credit to “ICANN”, and if you are a commercial organization you need to seek our permission first before publishing.

Incidentally, my personal favourite is probably where it looks as if Amadeu Abril i Abril has just thrown a huge right punch, missed, and his colleague is continuing on in conversation as if nothing happend.

We are using Adobe’s Connect software which will allow people to see everything going on in a particular session in one screen: live video, live audio, a live transcript, presentation slides updated as they are in the room and a chatroom.

This should provide everyone with the best remote participation so far – and we can archive the entire session to be viewed later. See http://mex.icann.org/ccnso-sessions for examples of the ccNSO sessions from Mexico City.

In order to get some idea of who is using this new service, you will need to fill in a quick two-minute registration form and then you are free to login and view all the main sessions.

If you choose on the registration form that you are interested in learning more about ICANN’s remote participation efforts, we will get back to you, ask for feedback and supply updates on future events and plans. Thank you and all the best with ICANN 35.

Those links again:

Event Login: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/e25733704/event/login.html
Registration Form: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/e25733704/event/registration.html

Those topics are:

Status reports

• Document deadlines
• Language
• Calendar of meetings

For discussion

• Public comment process
• Public Forum
• Electronic tools for participation

You can download the backgrounder document here, or read the whole thing below. Everyone is encouraged to read it and come along to the meeting to discussion how ICANN can improve its public participation.

Public meeting backgrounder

Wednesday 24 June 2009

This backgrounder document has been prepared in order to promote more efficient and effective dialogue in the limited time available for the public meeting of the Public Participation Board Committee.

The Committee is working on a range of ways to improve public participation, with the expectation that most of them will be in place in time for ICANN’s meeting in Seoul in October 2009.

The Committee also recognizes that this document will not be released within the document deadline it has sought to outline for the organization to enable effective community review before meetings.

However, in order to promote discussion and dialogue with the community on these issues and to encourage participation in the development of these changes, initial thoughts and ideas have been drawn up and are published below.

The Committee will be available on Wednesday 24 June 2009 at 9 a.m., for about 90 minutes, to discuss any aspect of these ideas and proposals, and those individual Board members on the Committee would also like to encourage community members to share their views and opinions with them directly if there is not sufficient time during that meeting or they are unable to attend.

Topics

The Committee has six main issues it is working on at the moment.

Three of them will be covered here in the form of status updates, and they are:

• Document deadlines
• Language
• Calendar of meetings

And the other three will be specific topics of discussion at the public meeting:

• Public comment process
• Public Forum
• Electronic tools for participation

Each is coverered individually below, in this order.

Document Deadlines – Status Update

The issue of document deadlines, i.e. introducing a cut-off date for the production of documents prior to ICANN international public meetings, was raised at the Committee’s previous meeting in Mexico City.

The idea having met with unanimous approval, the Committee moved forward, proposing a specific resolution to the whole Board at its May meeting.

As a result, the Board approved the introduction of two deadlines for Sydney, and charged the Public Participation Committee with developing a fuller policy in time for the Seoul meeting in October 2009.

The relevant resolutions can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-21may09.htm , point 8).

Below is a quick summary of the feedback received on this point from the Mexico City meeting. Underneath that is an expanded explanation of document deadlines taken from Committee documents used in arriving at the Board-approved deadlines.

Feedback from Mexico City:

1. Support for idea of document deadlines (Note: This is now instituted)
2. But need to communicate that very clearly to SOs and ACs (Note: we hope to achieve that in Sydney)
3. May be useful to produce zip file of all documents for a meeting (Note: something that will be considered for the Seoul meeting as part of the development of an operational policy)
4. Need agenda and presentations earlier (Note: Again, something that will be considered as part of the operational policy)

Excerpt from Committee working documents:

The need for document deadlines

It has long been a complaint of the community that documents are published too late prior to an international public meeting for there to be full consideration of their contents before the meeting starts.

The Committee recognizes the improvements that ICANN staff has made in this respect and also notes that many documents require the input and review of a significant number of people, both staff and community members, which can make early publication of documents difficult.

Nonetheless, due to the strength of feeling expressed by the community on this issue and the fact that it is clear best practice to provide documents sufficiently far ahead of a meeting for their contents to be properly and fully digested, the Committee is making a series of firm recommendations on document deadlines.

It is our belief that these deadlines will make possible greater and more effective participation within ICANN processes.

Community feedback

At the Committee’s public meeting in Mexico City, there was widespread support for the production of document deadlines prior to international public meetings.

Among those who specifically supported the idea were: Chuck Gomes of VeriSign; Ayesha Hassan of the International Chamber of Commerce; Marilyn Cade, a member of ICANN’s President’s Strategy Committee; Zahid Jamil, a GNSO Councillor; and ICANN’s President and CEO, Paul Twomey.

ICANN CEO Paul Twomey publicly stated his comfort with the Board Committee for Public Participation recommending to the Board deadlines for the future production of documents for international public meetings.

The issue of document deadlines was also raised by the Governmental Advisory Committee both during its meetings in Mexico City and formally in its communiqué.

The communiqué states: “In order to facilitate better GAC input to ICANN policy making, the GAC proposes that all documents to be considered at ICANN meetings, be posted not less than 15 working days before the meeting. In the event that this is not possible, the GAC may need to defer discussion until the subsequent meeting.”

In light of this community feedback, the Committee is recommending to the Board in this memorandum the introduction of two document deadlines for international public meetings. A 15-working-day deadline should stand for documents intended for GAC review and for final approval by any of the Advisory Committee or Supporting Organization councils, and a 10-working-day deadline for all other documents intending to be provided to the community.

The Committee checked on the definition and intent of “working days” with General Counsel and was informed that the wording referred to week days i.e. Monday to Friday, and that public holidays were not exempt i.e. they are counted as one of the working days.

Sydney and beyond

The system outlined above provides the following deadlines for the Sydney meeting:

• All documents: Monday 8 June 2009, 07:00 UTC
• GAC and final approval documents: Monday 1 June 2009, 07:00 UTC

As this process started only recently, it is expected that a significant number of documents will not meet the deadline set for Sydney. Requesting explanations for late documents, however, should serve to inform the community and staff about the Board’s intentions, and inform the Board about the processes behind the production of documents.

If adopted prior to Sydney, the deadlines should have a significant impact by the time of the Seoul meeting in October, and if successfully implemented and adopted, represent a norm for the meeting in Africa in March 2010.

The need to communicate with ACs and SOs

The Committee was advised by a number of Board members, staff members and members of the community that document deadlines will need to be clearly communicated to the Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations.

Most of the work produced by ICANN staff for meetings is community-driven and in many cases progression on documents is reliant on review by one or several advisory committees or supporting organizations. As such, it will be crucial that deadlines be clearly communicated, and their implications fully understood, by the ACs and SOs before becoming effective across the organization.

It will be necessary in many cases for community members and staff to set a series of deadlines over a number of months in order to reach the main meeting document deadline.

Adequate time and consideration will therefore need to be given to ensure that the document deadlines are seen as a valuable assistance rather than being perceived as an unreasonable expectation or an attempt to rush community deliberations.

Exceptions, where warranted.

The Committee acknowledges that there will be occasional exceptions to these deadlines, particularly for the first few meetings after they are adopted. In some cases it is not possible to prepare documents in time, either because of the last-minute nature of the subject or because of unforeseen or unavoidable delays.

However, it is the Committee’s position that these should be exceptions that become increasingly rare over time. Furthermore, in order to understand the various factors that may contribute to late document publication, the Committee will be asking for a full explanation from the relevant staff member for each and every document that is produced late, starting at the Sydney meeting in June 2009.

Exception explanations should be provided to the Committee a minimum of five working days before the first Committee meeting that follows the relevant international public meeting (the Committee’s first meeting after Sydney is held on Tuesday 21 July, so all explanations should be provided to the Committee before Tuesday 14 July).

Going forward

The Committee recognizes that in the production of an operational policy, a wide range of issues need to be reviewed, because of the impact that document deadlines are liable to have.

As such, a small and incomplete list of questions are produced below for discussion:

• What does the deadline apply to? Every document? What about agendas and presentations?
• Is a single 15-working-day deadline the right approach and figure?
• What implications does a deadline have (less time for work between meeting, for example)?
• How do we deal with exceptions?

Language – Status Update

The issue of language, with respect to both the use of terminology and the provision of materials in languages other than English – is something that the Committee continues to review and work on.

With respect to the translation and interpretation provided by ICANN as an organization: the amount, timeliness and quality of both has increased significantly over the past two years and continues to improve. The organization now has a full-time Translations Manager, we are moving toward a multilingual website, and have introduced a new system for community-requested translations.

Additionally, we will soon have new translation software at the back-end and this may soon enable ICANN to give the community a way to directly input translations into our system. ICANN also provided the online Question Box – where any community member is able to ask the Board a specific question – in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish and Russian – for the Sydney meeting.

Nevertheless, the issue of translation remains a barrier to participation for a global audience and the Committee will continue to address how, organizationally, ICANN can improve.

Feedback from Mexico

• Attendees need to be able to speak and express themselves in different languages. (Note: Interpretation continues to be provided in all the main sessions and many of the smaller sessions when it is requested. We do note however that the use of headsets remains limited, raising questions about the level of demand for interpretation, and the costs involved.)

• Overuse of acronyms and lingo (Note: Since ICANN’s work typically concerns very specific issues with the domain name system, it is inevitable that a certain degree of lingo will be used. However to the extent that the use of such languages impedes effectives participation, the Committee will continue to examine ways to encourage communication in plain English.

• Translation expensive: so may only need translation of executive summaries. (Note: The Committee will shortly be addressing how best to provide executive summaries of all ICANN documents and the use of plain English as far as possible will be a key component of that process.)

Going forward:

• A new announcements process being developed will enable routine translation of announcements and public comment periods
• A multilingual front page – so people can find information in their language – is under development
• Increased translation. The Translations Manager has been very effective in reducing translation costs so that more translation is possible within the same budget. The translation budget will increase for FY2010; future increases will likely depend on evidence of community demand.
• ICANN is pioneering the use of interactive video transcripts in multiple languages so recordings of ICANN’s work (almost all of which is carried out in English) will be accessible to speakers of other languages.

Possible issues for discussion:

• A very high percentage of the ICANN community remains English-speaking: is this simply the reality of the work ICANN undertakes, or is use of language self-selecting participants?
• Does ICANN’s approach favor those from particular cultures? For example, the use of open microphones and email lists for raising and discussing issues.
• How does ICANN strike the balance between plain language and the fact that much of its work is quite technical in nature?

Calendar of Meetings – Status Update

In deciding on precise meeting dates for the future, ICANN gives careful consideration to international and religious holidays, as well as avoiding overlap with other large conferences, while allowing for adequate time between ICANN Meetings.

The dates for 2010 meetings have already been fixed and the Committee is reviewing the dates for 2011, 2012 and 2013. Staff prepared a calendar of other events occuring through those years in order to help guide and explain the dates put forward.

The Committee is publishing that document so the community has an opportunity to highlight any events or dates that may have been overlooked.

The recommended dates for the 2011-13 are given below:

2011

13-18 March
19-24 June
09-14 October

2012

11-16 March
24-29 June
14-19 October

2013

07-12 April
14-19 July
17-22 November

Possible issues for discussion:

• Have any important dates or holidays been missed that would require review of the above dates?

Public comment process – For discussion

The public comment process – where the community is invited to review and comment on all substantive work that ICANN produces – is a crucial element of the way the organization works and helps ensure both transparency and accountability in its processes.

Despite ongoing improvements to the public comments system – including the provision of a public comment page and summary/analyses of all comments to individual periods – overall it still remains far from optimal.

Staff are currently reviewing three new software solutions that would greatly improve the comment process, and the Committee will soon examine ways to provide executive summaries for most documents, but there remain issues with the public comment process that needs to be addressed by the whole community in order to make the process more effective.

The issues:

• Public comment overload.

ICANN as a whole is producing more comment periods than ever before, leading some to complain of overload and an inability to keep track.

The problem is particularly acute close to ICANN international public meetings. Last month (May 2009), no less than 12 comment periods were opened; in June, so far, there have been a further six. At any given time, an average of eight comment periods open for review.

Does the community believe this is the most effective way for ICANN to do its business while retaining openness and accountability? Are there alternative solutions?

Should there be prescribed spacing out of comment periods? Should comment periods be longer to give more time to respond? Are there some issues or documents that do not need to go through the formal comment system?

• Approach taken.

Currently, all public comment periods are announced on the front page of the ICANN site, and all open and recently closed comment periods are placed on a dedicated public comment page, linked to several times on the front page of ICANN’s main website.

Nevertheless, ICANN continues to receive, on average, under 20 comments per comment period. And if you discount the very large comment periods (Applicant Guidebook versions), there are, on average, just over seven comments per comment period.

Is this a sufficient response to publicly posted documents? Are people being made sufficiently aware of the comment process? Should there be required outreach to identified affected stakeholders?

Is it possible to effectively participate in a comment period? For example, do large documents posted with an email address for comments hinder effective participation? If so, what changes could be made? Would advance notice of comment periods have an impact? Would online polling of particular questions be effective or misleading?

• Feedback.

Every person sending in a comment receives receipt of that comment along with an explanation of ways in which to participate within ICANN’s processes. But, typically, there are no more targeted updates after that point.

Should respondents be kept up-to-date with progress of the particular area? How does ICANN show the impact of public comments on progress of an issue? Should there be required discussion of comment summaries when the topic is discussed next by the relevant group?

• Rules and procedures.

Those within the community know and expect that all revised versions of documents will be put out for public comment for, typically, 30 days. There are also a set of consultation principles that ICANN abides by (http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/frameworks-principles/community.htm#d ).

However, those are very few stated rules and procedures attached to comment periods. Should there be? For example, who may start a comment period, how it is formatted, which topics require public comment and which do not, how are late comments dealt with, and so on.

The Committee wants to review this crucial process to make sure it is meeting both the organization’s and the community’s needs.

Public Forum – For discussion

The public forum session typically held on Thursday at ICANN’s international public meetings is a crucial point of participation for the community. Anyone may put a question directly to the Board in the long open microphone session.

For Mexico City and for Sydney, there has also been the option to ask a question through an online Question Box – allowing for those that are not physically at the meeting or who prefer not to publicly address the whole room to have their say.

However, the Committee feels that the public forum is not fulfilling its desired purpose which is to act as a place where there can be open and active dialogue between the community and the Board.

The Committee will be recommending a number of changes in the format of the public forum in an experiment and in an effort to improve the session.

Those changes reflect closely what the Committee was told by the community itself at the Committee’s public meeting in Mexico City, namely:

• That the public forum is dominated each time by the same few individuals
• That the current format is not effective at encouraging discussion on particular topic but rather encourages a series of unrelated statements to be read out

The Committee has also recognized that:

• There is not enough two-way interaction between Board and community
• The opportunity for effective remote participation is not being used well
• The Board should be seen to be paying more attention to the room

Suggestions for change to public forum:

• Have the start of forum led by questions sent in remotely (and also, where possible, to give remote participants priority over those in the room)
• Have two microphones and two queues – one for new topics, one for comment on topic currently being discussed.
• Give precedence to those who have not asked a question in a public forum before
• Request that Board members engage more with the room and spend less time looking at their laptop screens

Other feedback from Mexico City:

• Use of colored cards may be useful (Note: The Committee remains uncertain whether this would be a useful system to introduce.)
• Announce issues to be discussed on website earlier (Note: The Committee wonder how effective this would actually be to pulling people into the forum.)

Excerpt from Committee working documents:

This memo represents the deliberations of the Committee with respect to the Public Forum held at the most recent ICANN meeting in Mexico City, as well as the previous international public meetings in Cairo and Paris.

1. Purpose

What is the public forum appropriate for and what is it not appropriate for?

Many hours are given over to the public forum/open microphone at each ICANN meeting and while its purpose is clear – to give the community a clear voice to raise questions or concerns – it is not clear that that purpose is being effectively realized with the current arrangements.

Too often, the public forum is not used as a forum to ask questions but rather as a way for individuals to make statements on the record. This greatly reduces the interactive nature of the forum and also consumes considerable time.

Also, the statements or views expressed are frequently the summation of views already expressed in a number of different fora during the previous days of the meeting.

There needs to be a trade-off between the one-way provision of (often repetitious) information to the Board and a more interactive two-way dialogue between Board and community. It may be worth exploring different avenues for the provision of official statements.

One suggestion is a second standing microphone which is used only for follow-up questions and statements on the particular topic currently being discussed.

2. Participants

It is notable that among approximately 1,200 attendees that the public forum/open microphone is dominated by a very small number of the same individuals at each meeting. The Committee would like to see broader and wider participation of the community during the public forum.

One suggestion put forward during the Board’s own session in Mexico City, and supported by some Committee members, is to reserve the start of the public forum for those that have not asked a question before in the public forum.

3. Remote Participation

The forum is an ideal venue for effective remote participation. However it needs to be recognized that effective remote participation can only be achieved if remote participants are given priority over those physically present.

The Committee wonders whether to recommend that the first hour of the public forum (or appropriate time period) is given over entirely to remote participants. It may be possible to take a number of questions provided by remote participants as the start point for further discussion within the room.

4. Board interaction

It is a consistent complaint that the Board does not interact sufficiently with the community during the public forum. In particular the sight of Board members on stage peering at open laptops rather than looking at the audience has been identified as a source of some consternation.

From the Board’s perspective there are two main issues in this respect. Firstly, much of the information is one-way – with Board members expected to listen to several hours of position statements. Secondly, during the public forum much of the flow of information – which is particularly high due to the session’s nature – is done electronically.

Despite that situation however, the Committee feels that all Board members on stage should demonstrate their attention to the debate during these public discussions. Glancing at the scribe feed on the screens in front of them is understandable, even advisable, but only modest attention should be paid to chat and email while the public forum is going on.

Electronic tools for participation – For discussion

Since ICANN is an Internet organization, it has always sought ways to use the Internet’s unique ability to communicate, to achieve effective participation.

Typically, such participation is carried out in two ways: firstly, through the provision and sharing of information on ICANN’s main website; and secondly, through remote participation tools while a physical meeting is going on.

The Committee is taking a particular interest in the use of electronic tools for remote participation, since it believes effective remote participation is essential to ICANN’s future and also represents significant future cost savings. As such, it recommended to the Board at its meeting in May that the organization take a more formal approach to determining what systems may be best suited to public participation in the context of ICANN.

The Committee’s Charter states that it should identify and encourage the development of effective tools, strategies, and methods for Public Participation activities, and it also agrees with the Chairman’s publicly stated view that ICANN should become a world leader in remote participation.

With this in mind, the Committee is working with staff to assess the suitability for use and best practices for remote participation tools, technologies and approaches in an effort to enable the community to enable greater participation (while also accounting for remote participation capabilities in developing countries).

Possible issues for discussion:

• What tools that ICANN currently uses are most effective, and which are least effective?
• Are there limits to what can be achieved through remote participation? If so, what are they?
• What type of tools does ICANN not currently use that might be useful?
• How can we foster participation from people in countries and regions with limited technical tools (access, connectivity, bandwidth, cost…)?
• What improvements could be made to existing systems?
• Will remote participation become more or less important over time?

Website usability study

ICANN’s website is the main entry point for the community to follow the work of the organization, but it remains far from optimal.

The Committee notes, and will follow with particular interest, a usability study that staff are carrying out with respect to the ICANN.org website where the community is being encouraged to provide its views on the website and where it can be adjusted or improved.

The Committee encourages all community members to fill in the online survey form opened prior to the Sydney meeting to gather information, and would like to discuss input into that process, the issues that people have with the current website.

Possible issues for discussion:

• What do people expect from the ICANN.org website?
• How easy is the navigation on the site?
• What features would be useful on the website?

————–

Améliorations institutionnelles

Les rôles et les responsabilités des comités consultatifs (AC), des organisations de soutien (SO), du personnel chargé des politiques et du Conseil d’administration dans le cadre des processus de l’ICANN : la situation actuelle et les évolutions possibles

———-

Ce thème sera examiné dans le contexte actuel de l’ICANN en tant qu’organisation et notamment : les pratiques actuelles et leur contribution à la transparence et à la responsabilisation ; les revues indépendantes continues des AC et SO et les réorganisations à venir ; la consultation sur l’amélioration de la confiance institutionnelle (IIC) qui a suivi la revue semestrielle de l’accord de projet conjoint (JPA) entre l’ICANN et le gouvernement des Etats-Unis ; et la revue actuelle du JPA qui est en cours.

Les présidents de chacun des AC et des SO souhaiteraient noter que la discussion sur les systèmes actuellement en place n’implique PAS de critique implicite que ce soit de la communauté ou du personnel. Le but de la discussion est d’identifier les domaines susceptibles d’être améliorés.

Plutôt, la conférence de Sydney offre une occasion unique de jeter un coup d’œil sur certains des aspects pratiques de l’effort continu de l’ICANN visant à améliorer la confiance institutionnelle.

Les thèmes actuels de la communauté que la conversation devrait effleurer comprennent :

• Les revues indépendantes continues des différentes parties du modèle de l’ICANN
• La consultation et les recommandations relatives à l’amélioration de la confiance institutionnelle
• La fin de l’accord de projet conjoint avec le gouvernement des Etats-Unis en septembre

Les questions spécifiques qui seront examinées comprennent :

1. Les rôles et les responsabilités des AC, des SO et du personnel chargé des politiques :
a. Quels devraient être ces rôles ?
b. Quelle est le bon équilibre entre l’activité bénévole et l’activité du personnel chargé des politiques ?
c. L’équilibre actuel est-il correct ou devrait-il être modifié ?
d. L’équilibre actuel conduit-il à un épuisement des bénévoles ?
e. Un changement d’équilibre diminuerait-il le degré de réalisation ascendante privée de politiques ?

2. Le personnel chargé des politiques en tant qu’intermédiaire du Conseil d’administration :
a. Toutes les communications entre les SO devraient-elles être modérées par le personnel chargé des politiques?
b. Devrait-il y avoir une communication directe entre les Conseils et le Conseil d’administration ?

3. Communication du Conseil d’administration avec les comités consultatifs :
a. Tous les AC devraient-ils avoir les mêmes droits en termes de recommandations et de réponse à leurs problèmes de la part du Conseil d’administration ?

4. Transparence des communications :
a. Les communications du personnel au Conseil d’administration devraient-elles être confidentielles ?
b. Les communications concernant les activités des AC ou des SO devraient-elles être confidentielles?
c. Quelles autres communications ont besoin d’être gardées confidentielles ?
d. Quel serait l’effet si la plupart des communications entre le personnel et le Conseil d’administration étaient rendues accessibles à l’examen de la part de la communauté ?

————–

Mejoras Institucionales

Los roles y responsabilidades de los Comités Asesores (ACs), Organizaciones Auxiliares (SOs), Personal de Políticas y Junta Directiva, en los procesos de la Corporación para la Asignación de Números y Nombres en Internet (ICANN): situación actual y evoluciones posibles.

———-

Este tema será explorado dentro del contexto actual donde la Corporación para la Asignación de Números y Nombres en Internet (ICANN) es una organización, en particular: las prácticas actuales y su contribución a la transparencia y rendición de cuentas; continuas revisiones independientes de los Comités Asesores (ACs) y Organizaciones Auxiliares (SOs) y posterior reorganización; consulta sobre la Mejora de la Confianza Institucional (IIC) que siguió a la revisión intermedia del Acuerdo de Proyecto Conjunto (JPA) de la Corporación para la Asignación de Números y Nombres en Internet (ICANN) con el gobierno de los EE.UU.; y la revisión actual del Acuerdo de Proyecto Conjunto (JPA) que se está llevando a cabo.

Los Presidentes de cada uno de los Comités Asesores (ACs) y Organizaciones Auxiliares (SOs) desean señalar que el discutir sobre los sistemas que actualmente están en lugar NO implica ninguna crítica implícita, ni de la comunidad ni del personal. El objetivo del debate es identificar áreas de mejora.

A este respecto, la reunión de Sídney ofrece una oportunidad única para echar un vistazo a algunos de los aspectos prácticos de los continuos esfuerzos internos de la Corporación para la Asignación de Números y Nombres en Internet (ICANN) para mejorar la confianza en la institución.

Los tema actuales de la comunidad que se esperan abordar, incluyen:
• Las continuas revisiones independientes de las diferentes partes del modelo de la Corporación para la Asignación de Números y Nombres en Internet (ICANN).
• La consulta y recomendaciones sobre la mejora de la confianza institucional.
• La finalización del Acuerdo de Proyecto Conjunto (JPA) con el gobierno de los EE.UU., en el mes de septiembre.

Las preguntas específicas que serán exploradas, incluyen:

1. Roles y responsabilidades de los Comités Asesores (ACs), Organizaciones Auxiliares (SOs) y personal de Políticas:

a. ¿Cuáles deberían ser estos roles?
b. ¿Cuál es el equilibrio adecuado entre las actividades voluntarias y la actividad del personal de políticas?
c. El equilibrio actual, ¿es el correcto o debe ser alterado?
d. El equilibrio actual, ¿conlleva al agotamiento de voluntarios?
e. La alteración del equilibrio, ¿disminuiría el grado de elaboración privada de políticas de abajo hacia arriba?

2. El personal de Políticas como intermediario de la Junta Directiva:

a. ¿Deberían todas las comunicaciones entre las Organizaciones Auxiliares (SOs) ser moderadas por el personal de Políticas?
b. ¿Debe existir una comunicación directa entre los Consejos y la Junta Directiva?

3. Comunicación de la Junta Directiva con los Comités Asesores:

a. ¿Deberían todos los Comités Asesores (ACs) tener los mismos derechos en términos de recomendaciones y respuesta de la Junta Directiva a sus problemáticas?

4. Transparencia de las comunicaciones:

a. ¿Deberían las comunicaciones del personal a la Junta Directiva ser confidenciales?
b. ¿Deberían las comunicaciones relacionadas con las actividades de los Comités Asesores (ACs) y Organizaciones Auxiliares (SOs) ser confidenciales?
c. ¿Qué otras comunicaciones necesitan seguir siendo confidenciales?
d. ¿Cuál sería el efecto de liberar la mayoría de las comunicaciones entre el personal y la Junta Directiva para revisión de la comunidad?

Many interesting discussions and important decisions will involve people with many different backgrounds, areas of expertise, opinions and expectations. Probably one of the few things they will all have in common is a mobile phone in their pocket.

Building on the very positive experience from Mexico City, ICANN and dotMobi have once again joined forces to bring the meeting closer to all its attendees.

The icann.mobi site aims to provide all of you with immediate, up-to-date information on the events and topics of the ICANN meeting.

We have designed the site with the needs of mobile users in mind, ensuring that pages are small and fast-loading and that the site is pleasant to view and navigate on all types of mobile devices..We know that time at the meeting is precious and that data traffic fees can be expensive, and for these reasons we want you to be able to find the information you need when you need it as quickly and intuitively as possible.

Accessing icann.mobi from your phone or wifi-enabled PDA will, for instance, give you immediate access to the meeting´s schedule: you can choose to view the full schedule or just take a quick look at the sessions that are going on at any given moment.

Our “mates” at AusRegistry have also helped us put together a lot of interesting information on how to get around Sydney and where one can go to have dinner or a drink and relax after a long day spent talking about domain names (which will most likely continue to be the topic of discussion into the evening!).

All the phone numbers in the “Useful Information” and “Free Time” sections are click-to-call links, so it is easy to call a cab if you happen to wake up on Bondi beach on Thursday morning.

We are also very happy to announce that the popular “Interact!” page, showing a live stream of twitter posts with the hashcode #icann has now been joined by an equally exciting “Live Images” page grabbing pictures from Flickr as soon as they are posted and tagged with the “icann” or “icannsydney” tags.

We hope you will enjoy the icann.mobi site and that it will help you make the most out of the ICANN Sydney Meeting.

We would also love to hear about your experience of using icann.mobi on your phone and your suggestions on how to keep improving it: as a matter of fact, anybody attending the meeting that fills in the feedback form on the icann.mobi site will be in with a chance to win one of 5 beautiful dotMobi Flip MinoHD cameras. Winners will be announced at the Gala After Party on Wednesday 24th June.

Francesco Cetraro and the dotMobi team

The guide features information about the venue, the main topics of the conference, information about how to participate, the lowdown on social events, pictures of the Board and chairs, emergency details, and lots more.

The meeting guide is printed and included into attendees bags at registration. Click on the image to the left to download the guide as a pdf, or visit http://syd.icann.org/meeting-guide.

Well, they are probably aware now.

For many of us at ICANN it can come as a shock – where the new gTLD process has been a part of everyday life for more than two years – to suddenly be reminded that despite all the discussions, the meetings, the public comment periods, the sessions across the world, and the seemingly endless documents, the whole process of opening up the domain name space has until recently gone largely unnoticed by the wider world.

From my perspective, a number of reporters “buried the lead” when they reported on this new study commissioned by British registrar Gandi. What they buried or didn’t report at all is that of 100 UK businesses surveyed, 81 percent say the gTLD expansion will be innovative, and 75 percent say it will be advantageous.

This is especially significant since nearly all the coverage up to now has focused on the struggle to find solutions to the remaining overarching issues such as trademark protection.

Gandi also commissioned Futurelab to survey 1,000 consumers (on top of the 100 businesses) about new gTLDs. Not surprisingly, the survey revealed that businesses are concerned the costs of a new gTLD, while many consumers are simply concerned that the Internet might become more cluttered and not be as navigable as it is today.

So the survey provides a spot check on where attitudes are today, but it also underscores a critical fact: that gTLD expansion is literally a work in progress and the application process won’t be opened up until the concerns are addressed.

We still have at least one more round of public comments on the next draft of the Applicant Guidebook. The most concerning aspect about this from the staff perspective, however, is that people will either not hear about the process in time or – worse – hear about it but do not become aware that they can have an impact and express their views – that ICANN is building a broad consensus view about how to move forward with the greatest ever expansion of the domain space.

The Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) is a case in point. When we heard the concerns expressed about trademark, the concerned community was asked to come up with solutions to be fed back into the ICANN process. Now the IRT final report is published and out for public comments and our Sydney meeting later this month will give everyone else in the community the chance to say what they think about those solutions.

Undoubtedly, the Gandi study will fuel more discussion surrounding gTLD expansion at Sydney. Great, we welcome it. The most dangerous voice is the one not heard.

We have already set aside several months of awareness building after the Applicant Guidebook is finished and published; the earlier people become aware of the process, not only does it mean we have to reach fewer people but also more people learn about the fact that they can get involved in ICANN’s processes.

If you can’t attend the Sydney meeting we urge you to take part remotely.