1

Cross Community Working Groups

(CWGs)

Presenter: Marika Konings

Senior Director, GNSO Policy Development

AT-LARGE CAPACITY BUILDING WEBINAR SERIES

2015

2

Acknowledgements

PHOTO CREDITS:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/icann/11214631345 (p5) https://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/leader/konings-marika (p8) https://www.flickr.com/photos/icann/16724275069/in/album-72157651514524292/ (dsc_7193, p7) https://www.flickr.com/photos/icann/16288081504/in/album-72157651514524292/ (dsc7352-p16) https://www.flickr.com/photos/icann/16723035360/in/album-72157651514524292/ (dsc_7344, p17) https://www.flickr.com/photos/icann/16288081504/in/album-72157651514524292/ (dsc_7176, p27) https://www.flickr.com/photos/icann/16722789218/in/album-72157651514524292/ (dsc_7361, p31) M Hilyard, Singapore (p34, 35)

At-Large Capacity Building Webinar: Cross Community Working Groups - Marika Konings

Produced by Maureen Hilyard & Glenn McKnight,

ALAC 2015

3

Cross Community Working Groups (CWGs)

Presenter: Marika Konings

Senior Director – GNSO Policy Development

AT-LARGE CAPACITY BUILDING WEBINAR SERIES 2015

November 2015

4

At-Large eBook Series This eBook is one of a series based on the transcripts, chats and presentations of webinar programmes produced by the At-Large and APRALO-APAC Hub Capacity Building Working Groups. The webinars are primarily aimed at enhancing knowledge within the At-Large community about the activities of ICANN and the role of ALAC and its regional organisations. It is hoped that a greater familiarity with the workings of ICANN will encourage At-Large Structures (ALSes) to be more involved and participative in ALAC working groups and public consultation activities.

TOPICS PLANNED FOR THIS EBOOK ARE: * At Large Working Groups - Heidi Ullrich & Marika Konings * Engaging ALSes and Volunteers within Working Groups - Cheryl Langdon-Orr & Eduardo Diaz * Basic DNS and The DNS Ecosystem - Steve Sheng * IANA Functions - Patrick Falstrom * Security and Stability - Patrick Falstrom * Internet Governance - Noelle Francesca de Guzman, Maureen Hilyard, Kelvin Wong and Satish Babu * The new gTLD programme - Steve Chan & Yoshitaka Murakami * Internationalised Domain Names - Sarmad Hussain & Edmon Chung

* Understanding and distinguishing among Cyber Activities - Steve Conte

5

Marika Konings… joined ICANN in July 2008. She serves as the Senior Director, Policy Development Support and Team Leader for the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). Prior to joining ICANN she was Director of European Affairs for the Cyber SecurityIndustry Alliance. Previously, Marika spent seven years as senior consultant for a Brussels-based public affairs consultancy, where she represented health care and technology clients. Marika is a Dutch national and has a degree from the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands, in Culture and Sciences and a Master's Degree in European Political and Administrative Studies from the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium.

6

Table of Contents 1 Introduction

Box 1 - How does the GNSO operate?

2 Rules for CWGs

3 The purpose of CWGs

Box 2 - What is a Supporting Organisation or an

Advisory Committee?

4 Current Principles

5 The Charter

6 The role of the Chartering Organisation

Box 3 – What is Consensus?

7 CWG Participants

8 Public Consultation

9 CWG Endorsement

10 The Purpose of the Charter

11 The Charter Drafting Team

12 Adoption of the Charter

13 Examples of Recent CWGs

14 Conclusion

15 Question Time – At-Large Working Groups

16 Pop Quiz Questions and Answers

17 At-Large Leadership

18 Glossary

19 Contact Us

8

9

10

10

12

13

14

15

15

16

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

28

30

31

34

7

CCWG Accountability Meeting, Istanbul, March 2015

8

1. INTRODUCTION

Hi everyone, my name is Marika Konings. I’m a senior policy director and team leader for the GNSO, and I’ve been asked to present to you the topic of cross community working groups (CWGs). There are probably a lot of similarities to some of the aspects that Heidi has described in her session relating to At-Large Working Groups. For example, working methods and participation, but there are some significant differences and those are the ones I would like to focus on. As Heidi mentioned, it is in ALAC and similarly in GNSO policy that many working groups have cross community participation, but that doesn’t necessarily make them CWGs, or at least what is considered within the ICANN context as a CWG. And I think it’s important to highlight as well, that this is a developing concept. I think CWGs have actually been used for quite some time, and some

of the ones that I found actually date back to, for example, the work

on the internationalized domain names, the fast track work. This

involved work between the GAC and the ccNSO, which I think has

been referred to as the CWGs that we know today.

And many of you may be involved in, for example, the work of the

CCWG on Accountability and the CWG on IANA stewardship

transition. So that when we think of what people understand to be a

CWG, we must also think about what is the purpose of the CWG and

also what are the principles under which these groups operate?

Marika

Konings

GNSO

9

Box 1 - HOW DOES THE GNSO OPERATE?

The 23 members of the Council govern policy development in the

GNSO.

18 of these members are appointed by various Stakeholder Groups.

Council members come from two houses – Contracted Parties

(made up of Registries and Registrars) and Non-Contracted Parties

(made up of Commercial and Non-Commercial Stakeholder

Groups).

The NomCom appoints a Council member to each house, and

another who is a non-voting advisor to the Council as a whole.

The council also includes non-voting Liaisons and Observers from

other groups within ICANN. The ALAC Liaison to the GNSO is

Olivier Crepin Leblond.

10

2. RULES FOR CWGs

It is worth probably highlighting that for CWGs there are no formal rules as such, but there is actually a CWG looking at formalizing, and maybe even to a certain extent, standardizing what a CWG should look like, and what some of the basic principles of such a group should be.

3. THE PURPOSE OF CWGS

Looking at this first slide

I think a lot of the experience that you see on this slide has, for example, been gained from the recent initiatives related to the IANA transition exercise, where a lot of efforts have been put in around forming these groups, and looking at what rules and principles would apply to them.

11

So we’ll first look at its PURPOSE - what is the currently understood purpose of cross community working groups?

1. It is important that it deals with a topic that cuts across different Supporting Organisations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) (refer to p12).

2. It should be a topic that appeals to many, so that it’s not solely within the remit or responsibility of one SO or AC.

3. It should be a topic that is not in the specific scope of supporting organisation policy development. These groups may discuss that topic, but the only way to develop policy, as we know with a capital P, is through a PDP – a policy development process.

4. It is important that there is actually a desire for multiple groups to work on the topic. A CWG requires a lot of investment and resources both from the staff perspective but also very importantly, from a community perspective. So there needs to be a clear desire to invest this time and resources to work on the topic.

5. And my fifth point that I put on this slide with a question mark, it is something that has arisen due to our recent experiences. There is a sense that the time and resources invested in the CWG may only make sense if those recommendations are intended for Board action.

The group can also have another purpose, for example, to generate discussions, generate ideas, facilitate conversations, maybe just as another vehicle more suited for that kind of conversation. Like I said, there is no formal definition or formal restriction. But, I think that something that we’ve seen developing over time with

CWGs is that they bring together different organizations within ICANN, to develop recommendations that they would want to put forward to the ICANN Board for their consideration.

12

Box 2 - WHAT IS A SUPPORTING ORGANISATION OR AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE? SUPPORTING ORGANISATION (SO). The SOs are the three specialised advisory bodies that advise the ICANN Board of Directors on issues relating to domain names and IP addresses:

GNSO - Generic Name Supporting Organisation – responsible for developing policy for the domain name system (DNS)

ccNSO - Country Code Name Supporting Organisation – responsible for developing and recommending global policies relating to ccTLDs

ASO - Address Supporting Organisation - responsible for reviewing and developing recommendations on IP address policy

ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AC). An AC is a formal advisory body made up of representatives from the Internet Community to advise ICANN on a particular issue or policy area. Several are mandated by the ICANN Bylaws and others may be created as needed. Advisory Committees have no legal authority to act for ICANN, but report their findings and make recommendations to the ICANN Board.

ALAC - At-Large Advisory Committee – has a mandate to “consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN insofar as they relate to the interests of individual internet users” (Bylaw XI.4.a)

GAC - Government Advisory Committee – provides advice to ICANN on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be interaction between ICANN’s activities or policies and national laws or international agreements

SSAC - Security and Stability Advisory Committee – advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the internet’s naming and addressing allocation systems.

13

4. CURRENT PRINCIPLES Now we are looking at some of the current principles. And again, this is really based on a recent experience with current CWGs and their expectations as well as on work that is ongoing. For example, a CWG may be based on developing a framework and guiding principles for CWGs that hopefully will be agreed to and adopted by the all the ICANN supporting and advisory organizations. It’s of course, very important that there is a common understanding

of how these groups are expected and anticipated to work. So first of

all, very importantly, there is an identical charter that is adopted by all

SOs and ACs. And on our next slide, I will talk to you a little bit more

about what a typical charter contains.

14

5. THE CHARTER This is really the guiding document for the CWG. What is the specific scope of the group? How can you participate? So it’s really important that, of course, this document is the same for each SO or AC that signs off on the charter. And it means that everyone agrees on the purpose and the way things are being done. What we’ve currently seen as well, as a development that has crystalized during the work that has been done in relation to the IANA transition, is that chartering organisations are responsible for appointing a fixed number of members. So chartering organisations appoint members who have a very specific role in the CWG.

15

6. THE ROLE OF THE CHARTERING ORGANISATION MEMBERS Their role is really to make sure that the chartering organisation, and chartering organisations are those organisations that have adopted the charter and it can be any SO or AC – but it is their job to make sure that each chartering organisation is kept up to date with the activities of the CWGs. If there is any kind of formal position by a specific chartering organisation, these members can take the position of their chartering organisation to the CWG, and speak on behalf of their chartering organisation. This particular right is expressed in the charter, but again, it’s something that I think is there as a matter of principle but in general it’s not being used in practice. During the recent two CWG charters, the concept of consensus calls prevails. It is the members themselves who convey the position of the chartering organisations. Both CWGs that are currently operating, are all aiming to operate by consensus for all their working groups.

Box 3 – WHAT IS CONSENSUS?

CONSENSUS is a form of decision-making employed by various

SOs or ACs within ICANN. The method to establish whether one has

reached consensus differs per organisation, for example, the

following method is used in the GNSO:

Full consensus – when no one in the group speaks against the

recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred

to as Unanimous Consensus.

Consensus – a position where only a small minority disagrees, but

most agree.

16

7. CWG PARTICIPANTS In the charter, it states that members are expected to convey the position of a chartering organisation on a certain proposal. Of course the logic behind this is that at the end of the day, the chartering organisation will need to approve the recommendations before these are submitted to the Board, so a consensus decision gives a sense of where our chartering organisation is with regards to an issue, or what their concerns may be. A chartering organisation appointed member has the role to share that viewpoint with the CWG. As noted in point three, all CWGs that we have currently operating, are open to anyone interested to participate on an equal footing. Only chartering organisation appointed members are allowed to vote but in the daily operation of CWGs, participants and members have the same abilities, rights and responsibilities to participate. And it’s also worth mentioning, especially for those of you that may not have the ability or availability to participate in a cross community working group, that there is also the opportunity to participate as an observer. Observers are signed on to the mailing list, so they receive the messages, but they’re not expected to participate at the meetings, and nor are they able to post to the mailing list. It’s just a mechanism for people to follow conversation without having to go to the mailing list archive, but it enables them to actively follow up on some issues.

8. PUBLIC CONSULTATION Another point that is shared by many of the CWGs, is that there have to be meaningful opportunities for public comments. It started in an early [phase] stage, where there was specific outreach required to be sure people were aware of the effort to sign off as members, participants, or observers. Throughout the process, opportunities are identified, where public comment entries are provided and active engagement is pursued.

17

And I think you’ve all seen the public comment periods that have been opened, meetings that take place at ICANN meetings where public input is involved, and communication is disseminated through the different chartering organisations to their respective membership.

9. CWG ENDORSEMENT Another characteristic of a Charter is that endorsement or approvals, each through the respective mechanisms of each of the chartering organisations, is required before the CWG’s final report or recommendations is submitted to the ICANN Board. The current charters foresee what happens if one of the chartering organisations does not approve the final recommendations. There are specific processes in place that allow for further consultation and possible changes that may result before adoption by everyone. But if at the end of the day, there is one or more chartering

organisations that do not accept the end report, the final report is not

submitted as a cross community working product to the ICANN

Board. There may be opportunities or possibilities for chartering

organisations to adopt them as their own work product, but it will not

be considered a CWG product. And that is what we’ve seen. This is

not any kind of formal requirement at this stage, more an expectation.

18

A CWG must come to a consensus decision and their recommendations adopted by all of the chartering organisations, before these can then be forwarded to the ICANN Board for their consideration. Actually, in the case of the CWG on Accountability, the Board formally adopted a process by which they have committed to consider those recommendations. So it will be interesting to see whether that may be the common standard for future CWGs, particularly as, at this stage, CWGs do not have any kind of formal standing, neither under the ICANN bylaws nor those of any of the SOs or ACs, that I am aware of. Each working group has its own rules and procedures, but nothing like that is currently in existence for CWGs. Hence the importance of the work that is being undertaken to be documented and hopefully formalized as well, resulting in a broad framework for how CWGs are expected to operate. This is to make sure that there is a joint understanding and expectations are managed when it comes to forming as well as managing and running these groups.

19

10. THE PURPOSE OF THE CHARTER As I mentioned before, in the current format the rules for each CWG are documented in the charter. We need to ensure that there is a common understanding of the scope as well as the working methods. So some of the elements that a charter will contain is, what is the purpose and the problem statement? What is the working group trying to solve? What are the goals and the objectives? Are there any limitations to their scope? Are there certain things that are not supposed to be considered? And the charter typically outlines what the expected deliverables are. Are there any specific timeframes that are involved? And what is the expected reporting from the CWG? And all of that is expected to be translated by the CWG in an effective work plan. So the chartering organisations have an ability to review that work plan, and confirm whether or not that aligns with what they have set out in the charter. The charter also typically outlines the rules for membership, the staffing as well as organization. And what are the expected rules of engagement? And very important as well, what are the rules for decision making? As each SO and AC has its own rules for decision making in their own working groups, there are sometimes different approaches or understandings of, for example, what does the term consensus mean? So it’s really important that in the charter, it’s clearly outlined what the rules for decision making are, and what definitions are used in the context of the CWG. Also, it typically outlines its provision for how to deal with the modification of a charter, so that at any point in time, changes can be made to the charter when needed. What is the process for doing that?

20

And then of course, the Charter outlines the process for the adoption of the output and how to address problems and issue escalation? And what other resolution mechanisms are in place should there be any issues encountered either for the workings of this CWG, or in the case that one of the chartering organisations does not adopt the recommendations? Or in the case that the Board does not adopt the recommendation? And again, if you look through the recent charters, you may see also a lot of similarities as well, between the ALAC procedures and the GNSO procedures. A lot of different elements are blocked together in these charters, so that it is a document that clearly outlines the work that needs to be undertaken.

11. THE CHARTER DRAFTING TEAM Typically the charter is developed by a drafting team, and recent practice has been that each of the SOs and ACs have indicated interest in how to become a chartering organisation, so that they designate a small number of representatives to be part of the drafting team.

21

So about two or three people, come together to prepare a first draft of such a charter. And the desire has been to keep those groups relatively small so that the focus is on the charter and not on doing the actual work. And that has sometimes actually been one of the challenges, where groups tend to run ahead and to deal with the issues, while the real work in the drafting team is developing the charter, and defining the scope and working methods. So once the drafting team is happy with what they have produced, and again normally there are already consultations as part of that process with the different chartering organisations, the charter is then passed back to the different supporting organisations’ and advisory committees’ chartering committees for adoption. And this happens through the respective processes of each of those groups, dealing with the adoption of things like this.

12. ADOPTION OF THE CHARTER The practice to date has been that charters have been adopted by all of the groups without any concerns, but one of the things that probably needs to be factored into the work that’s being done on developing a framework is, what happens if one of the chartering organisations does not adopt the charter? Or they want to suggest specific changes? Does it mean that everyone needs to go back to the drawing table

and then adopt it again, which of course, can create multiple cycles

of review and adoption. But again, it’s probably one of the issues that

needs to be factored in, as all CWGs have done this work.

Following the adoption of the charter by the different charting organisations, a call for volunteers goes out to join the CWG. And again, depending on the membership base, or how membership is defined, it may involve appointment by the chartering organisations of a specific number of appointed members to the CWG, in addition to an open call for volunteers to participate or observe the CWG proceedings.

22

13. EXAMPLES OF RECENT CCWGS.

The CWGs you see on the slide (below) are the ones that are currently in operation.

There are the two transition related ones - the CWG on stewardship transition and the CCWG on accountability. As well, there is the CWG for country and territory names as TLDs, which has been formed between the CCNSO and the GNSO to look at that specific topic as it is an area that effects both ccTLDs as well as gTLDs. There is also the CWG on CWGs which will cover all the important aspects of cross community working groups that have been discussed in the earlier section of my presentation.

23

14. CONCLUSION That brings me to the end of my slides. I would reiterate that there are a lot of similarities on the actual working level to the working groups that Heidi was talking about in At-Large. CWGs tend to meet at least on a weekly basis, although with the recent transition-related efforts, that intensity can increase quite significantly. They use mailing lists, they use Adobe Connect and they use the Wiki space. I think from that perspective, you will find a lot of elements that the different groups have in common. However, as I’ve tried to explain in my presentation, there are also some significant differences. It is important to highlight that these differences are based on current practice, and work is actively being done to translate these into principles and a framework that hopefully will be agreeable to the whole community. In that way, everyone can work from those same principles and requirements in a future state of CWGs.

24

15. QUESTION TIME – At-Large Working Groups TIJANI BEN JAMAA: So Marika, I will not ask a question, but I will make an intervention. The cross community working groups now are formalised, more or less. So we have, more or less, something more harmonious so that the cross community working groups will all work in the same way. What is now more clear and more defined, is the decision making inside the cross community working groups. Before, it was not so formalised, so everyone participating in the cross community working group could participate in decision making. Now it is more precise that only the members who are appointed by

the chartering organizations can participate in the voting part of the

decision making process.

Q HEIDI ULLRICH: My question is to the working group chairs, and past chairs that we have on the call - I’m just wondering what you have found to be some of the strengths that encourage better discussion, good discussion, and more vibrant discussions on the working groups? How can we encourage that to happen on all of the working groups? So there are more regular calls or more active inputs that feed into the ALAC policy making process.

A TIJANI BEN JAMAA: Thank you Heidi. And being one of the chairs of those working groups, I would like to ask all these people who are attending this webinar, to join the capacity building working group. It is very easy, and it would be very helpful because in this working group we are defining the topics to be addressed. We are discussing the tools to be used for the capacity building. So it is very interesting, and I invite you to join our working group. Just send an email to the staff, saying that you want to join the capacity building working group.

25

And the decision making process is made very, how to say, very democratic, since the consensus is privileged. Cross community working groups have to take decisions by consensus, but in some cases where there is no way to have a full consensus, a call for consensus will be made by the chair, and will be done by the chartering organisation members only. So I think this is a good evolution in cross community working groups, and I hope it will be the norm. It is not included in the rules, but I think it should be the rule for the future. .

A

DEV ANAND TEELUCKSINGH: To try to answer Heidi’s question, I think it’s good for working groups to have some work objectives, or some planning to give everyone some idea of what they want to accomplish. Because that then sets up a series of goals that they can accomplish, and once you have a to-do list, or a work plan, then you can schedule a call and ask, how are we going to achieve these work items? And then tackle those work items most expeditiously as possible. It’s a challenge because there are lots of things to do. And the second thing is to really try to engage as

many persons in working groups as possible. One of

the ways I have tried to do it as chair of working

groups, is to try to have co-chairs to share the work

load, and to try to balance and encourage a little bit

closer collaboration with the co-chairs in between

meetings or conference calls. So those are probably

two key ideas for working groups

DEV ANAND TEELUCKSINGH: My question to Marika actually is regarding GNSO working groups. Do the GNSO working groups have interpretation because the At-Large community is diverse and even from the Latin American and Caribbean community, Spanish is a common language.

Q

26

CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:

We often find in working groups that there is a waxing and waning of attendance and input, and that’s often tracking as to whether or not there is an important bit of work being done. Whether we have, for example, gone into a final drafting mode on something, or whether we’ve come out of a public comment period and we are doing public comment reviews.

A MARIKA KONINGS: GNSO working groups currently operate in English only. I know that as part of the GNSO review, there are some recommendations to look at how that can be more inclusive, and what options are there for interpretation and translation, but currently working groups operate only in English. Key documents for example, the summary report was put out for public comment in the five UN languages, but the language for working groups’ deliberation is English.

A

CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: First of all, to take Heidi’s question, I certainly support what Dev has answered. I’ve been around for a little while, and have attended one or two working groups. The ones that are most successful, in my very personal view, are the ones that are flexible enough to recognize that we are working with volunteers, and volunteers do in fact have real lives beyond ICANN. And that the systems are setup as such that there are multiple opportunities of equitable input of opinions and feedback. And I’ll go into some detail in just a moment on that. The other thing, of course, is to support what Dev has said in terms of work plans, to have clear objectives.

27

Now going back to the first point, it has been good practice, if not a standard operational procedure, to seeing that there is a sensible method of allowing for at least second, if not, third readings on things for those community members who may miss a meeting, especially if they are running at a very high frequency of meetings, as sometimes happens. Some of these working groups at some point in their cycling, may run upwards of two if not more times a week in calls. It’s very easy for subject matter to move past you with that sort of frequency, but many working groups have a practice of no decisions being made at any one meeting. That these need to go through a multiple, often first and second, but an occasionally up to third readings of things. We also tend to find better efficiency where the guidelines like those

being put together through the GNSO are good guidelines for the

operations of working groups, recognizing that they are particularly

obviously policy focused. But there are some excellent pieces of

guidance in those guidelines, and I think working practices or

operational practices that are predictable, familiar, and have some

sense of authoritative guide, if not reference, are important. And that

allows us to do things like not go back and restart material that has

been substantially discussed and decided upon earlier on in a

process.

But of course, it will allow, by review and revisit, should new information or new inputs, or indeed just agreement of a group, come to the table. It’s very easy to hijack the forward progress of a working group, if people constantly drag everybody back to an earlier point in the project planning, and that’s where Dev’s point on objectives and projects are flexible. A project plan is very important. I’m also a great advocate of the use of, if not co-chairs, of sub teams, and of having penholders, and breaking up work groups into small operational pieces, which do the hard work and which share the workload, and drafting, and then come back to the committee of a whole for group discussion and ratification. And I think that’s a practice that is to be recommended.

28

It is desirable, absolutely, as Tijani said, for us to work on consensus, and it’s my experience that consensus is far more easily brought about when more people are involved in the development of the material you are looking at to get consensus on. And finally, because I could go on for some time, as some of you know, on these and other topics, I think we need to recognize that the role of the chair, in particular, needs to be very specifically focused and neutral. If you get a chair of a working group who starts to act as primary penholder, or is not so much a facilitator and someone who is gathering and reporting and facilitating, but who is a strong opinion builder, that is probably the quickest way of getting people with a diversity of views annoyed with you and your working group, and cause them to stop contributing. It is also the fastest way, in my view, to get quite valid criticisms of biased and non-consensus outcomes.

15. POP QUIZ QUESTIONS: 1. How many At-Large wide active working groups are there? Zero to five, six to 10, 11 to 20, or over 20? 2. What are the working methods for At-Large working groups? Face to face, teleconferences, Wiki workspaces, mailing lists, all of the above, or none of the above? 3. What is not an example of recent CCWGs? CCWGs on CCWGs, CWG on country and territory names as TLDs, CCWG on new gTLDs, CWG stewardship, CCWG accountability

29

ANSWERS: 1. (Heidi) 19 2. (Heidi) All of the above 3. (Marika) More people thought that there was not a cross community working group on cross community working groups, but actually there is. There is specifically a cross community working group that is looking at a set of common principles under a framework for cross community working groups. The effort that is not a cross community working group is on new gTLDs. There are efforts ongoing in the GNSO, but as gTLDs are specifically within the remit of the GNSO to develop policy on, this is likely to happen on a policy development process.

CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs, Istanbul, March 2015

30

16. AT-LARGE LEADERSHIP 16.1 AT-LARGE ADVISORY COUNCIL (ALAC) AFRALO Tijani Ben Jemaa (Tunisia)

Seun Ojedeji (Nigeria) Wafa Dahmani Zaafouri (NomCom, Tunisia)

APRALO Maureen Hilyard (Cook Island

Holly Raiche (Australia) Kaili Kan (China, NomCom)

EURALO Sebastian Bachollet (France)

Sandra Hoferichter (Germany) Jimmy Schultz (Germany, NomCom)

NARALO Alan Greenberg (CHAIR, Canada)

Garth Bruen (Canada) Tim Denton (USA, NomCom)

LACRALO Vanda Scartezini (Brazil)

Harold Arcos (Venezuela) Leon Sanchez-Ambia (Mexico, NomCom)

16.2 REGIONAL AT-LARGE ORGANISATION AFRALO CHAIR - Aziz Hilali

Vice Chair - Mohamed El Bashir APRALO CHAIR - Siranush Vardanyan

Vice Chair - Ali Al Meshal Vice Chair - Satish Babu

EURALO CHAIR - Olivier Crepin-Leblond Vice Chair - Wolf Ludwig

NARALO CHAIR - Glenn McKnight Vice Chair - Judith Hellerstein

LACRALO CHAIR - Alberto Soto Vice Chair - Humberto Carassco

31

17. GLOSSARY

17.1 ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is

responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of the ICANN, as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting infrastructure to involve and represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. Underpinning the ALAC will be a network of self-organizing, self-supporting At-Large Structures throughout the world involving individual Internet users at the local or issue level. The At-Large Structures (either existing organizations or newly formed for this purpose) will self-organize into five Regional At-Large Organizations (one in each ICANN region – Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North America).

The Regional At-Large Organizations will manage outreach and public involvement and will be the main forum and coordination point in each region for public input to ICANN.

17.2 The Domain Name System (DNS) helps users to find their way around the Internet. Every computer on the Internet has a unique address – just like a telephone number – which is a rather complicated string of numbers. It is called its "IP address" (IP stands for "Internet Protocol"). IP Addresses are hard to remember. The DNS makes using the Internet easier by allowing a familiar string of letters (the "domain name") to be used instead of the arcane IP address. So instead of typing 207.151.159.3, you can type www.internic.net. It is a "mnemonic" device that makes addresses easier to remember.

32

17.3 The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) is an advisory committee comprising appointed representatives of national governments, multi-national governmental organizations and treaty organizations, and distinct economies. Its function is to advise the ICANN Board on matters of concern to governments. The GAC will operate as a forum for the discussion of government interests and concerns, including consumer interests. As an advisory committee, the GAC has no legal authority to act for ICANN, but will report its findings and recommendations to the ICANN Board. For further information about the GAC see the GAC website. 17.4 The GNSO - the Generic Name Supporting Organisation is the successor to the responsibilities of the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO; see below) that relate to the generic top-level domains. The GNSO is the body of six constituencies, as follows: the Commercial and Business constituency, the gTLD Registry constituency, the ISP constituency, the non-commercial constituency, the registrar's constituency, and the IP constituency.

17.5 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. Originally, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and other entities performed these services under U.S. Government contract. ICANN now performs the IANA function. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. The DNS translates the domain name you type into the corresponding IP address, and connects you to your desired website. The DNS also enables email to function properly, so the email you send will reach the intended recipient. 10.7 PDP — Policy Development Process is a set of formal steps, as defined in the ICANN bylaws, to guide the initiation, internal and external review, timing and approval of policies needed to coordinate the global Internet's system of unique identifiers.

33

17.6 The Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) is the President's standing committee on the security and stability of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems. Their charter includes a focus on risk analysis and auditing. SSAC consists of approximately 20 technical experts from industry and academia as well as operators of Internet root servers, registrars, and TLD registries.

17.7 A Stakeholder has been defined as any individual or group affected by the actions of the organization. Stakeholders at ICANN include Country Code top level domain name registries; generic top-level domain registries and registrars; regional internet registries who manage the regional distribution of Internet number resources including IP address and Autonomous System Numbers; the thirteen root name server operators; commercial interests - including those representing large and small businesses, intellectual property interests and providers of internet and other communications services; noncommercial interests – including noncommercial users and not-for-profit organizations; governmental interests – including national governments, multi-national governmental organizations and treaty organizations, and distinct economies; technical experts from industry and academia; and representatives of Internet users worldwide.

34

18. Contact Us 18.1 GROUP LEADERS' CONTACT LIST INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAMES Satish Babu APRALO sbabu@ieee.org Edmon Chung APRALO

AT-LARGE REVIEW, REGISTRATION REVIEW Holly Raiche APRALO h.raiche@internode.on.net Carlton Samuels LACRALO carlton.samuels@gmail.com

ATLAS II Olivier Crepin Leblond EURALO ocl@gih.com

CAPACITY BUILDING Tijani Ben Jemaa AFRALO tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn

ICANN ACADEMY Sandra Hoferichter EURALO info@hoferichter.eu

FINANCE AND BUDGET, IANA TRANSITION, ALS CRITERIA Alan Greenberg NARALO alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca

TECHNICAL TASKFORCE, OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT, CROPP Dev Anand Teelucksingh LACRALO admin@ttcsweb.org Daniel Nanghaka AFRALO daniel.nanghaka@isoc.ug Maureen Hilyard APRALO maureen.hilyard@gmail.com Olivier Crepin Leblond EURALO ocl@gih.com Glenn McKnight NARALO Mcknight.glenn@gmail.com Judith Hellerstein NARALO judith@jhellerstein.com

METRICS, ACCESSIBILITY Cheryl Langdon-Orr APRALO langdonorr@gmail.com

NEW GTLDS No chair

NEW MEETING STRATEGY Beran Gillen AFRALO berandondeh@yahoo.com

35

18.2 GENERAL CONTACT LIST Email staff@At-Large.ICANN.org The schedule for ALAC and Regional At-Large Meetings can be found at http://At-Large.ICANN.org/ALAC The At-Large Working Group Portal can be found at https://community.ICANN.org/display/At-Large/At-Large+Working+Groups

Opening Ceremony, ICANN46, Beijing, April 2013

36

APRALO,2015

DNS WOMEN