Minutes of the SC-cc Tuesday, August 18th
participants:
Amadeu Abril i Abril (FCR)
Rosa Delgado (EuroInternet)
Roberto Gaetano (ETSI)
Izumi Aizu (APIA)
Karsten Schiefner (DENIC)
Leni Mayo (ISOC-AU)
Dan Steinberg (DNRC)
Jim Dixon (EuroISPA)
Mark McFadden (CIX)
Eric Lee (CIX)
Tamar Frankel (BU)
Jay Fenello (ORSC)
Siegfried Langenbach (EuroInternet)
Werner Staub (ISOC-Geneva)
Tony Harris (CABASE)
Edmundo Valenti (CABASE)
Ron Kawchuk (CAIP)
Mikki Barry (DNRC)
Mike Roberts (EDUCAUSE)
Anne-Kathrin Orth
apologies:
Michael Schneider (EuroISPA)
Daniel Kaplan (ISOC-France)

Most intensely discussed topic was the issue of Tamar's proposal of a wrap-up process. The repeated question of whether to have a wrap-up meeting at all or what purpose it would serve was answered during discussion, especially since it is the only way satisfactory closure appeared achievable to most.

It was clarified that the proposed is a two-step procedure: the first meeting would be a material closure that draws up the "constitution" of the new entity. The second, which could be organised by the IFWP-SC, would be a ratification meeting.

To the details of procedure: it was generally preferred to have some sort of draft articles or at least compilation of consensus reached so far circled first to allow any further concerns to be expressed and to have as much of the work done beforehand as possible and allow for any major difficulties to be ironed out. If Harvard is asked, they would put such a document in place. Then someone considered neutral (i.e. Harvard, though there was no consensus on whether the SC was in any position to delegate this job) would have to put together a list of the "key players" or "major stakeholders" in the Internet, meaning they would have to represent a large group.

These would then sit down for a long weekend and try to find COMPROMISE, taking into account the consensus of the previous regional meetings and editing the existing draft, legalising this compromise into a final draft constitution. There would probably also be a bulletin board to keep the community up to date on what was being achieved and to allow input via email.

Finally, a ratification meeting would agree or not agree to the proposal. There were concerns expressed that the possibility for adaption during ratification should be given. However, most agreed that this would end with people restating their positions as on the first day; also, it will be stressed that modification channels are in place to be used as of October 1st, meaning that all recommendations of change should be made to the interim Board later. The official wording will have to be very diplomatic though so that relatively few objections arise.

Harvard would provide the venue for the ratification meeting, the dates would probably stay as decided in Singapore (Sep. 11th-13th for the compromise meeting, 14th and possibly 15th for the ratification).

The timeframe proposed for this will be for Tamar to give a written description of the procedure she proposes. Then, the ground for minimal compromise would be prepared, including trying to get all untouched issues sorted out as best as possible before the meeting(s) and setting up a detailed "business plan" for the lawyers drafting the constitution.

There was a general concern expressed that if another draft is set up, others may as well begin drafting their own suggestions and that this would lead to numerous proposals being made to the US-government. As well, if IANA and NSI were not included (though it was repeatedly said that both Jon Postel and NSI had expressed their wish and willingness to co-operate), the IFWP would be competing with IANA and NSI instead of working together.

The wording of the SC's position on this might be along the lines of: "The IFWP Steering Committee welcomes and appreciates the voluntary effort proposed by the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society and Prof. Tamar Frankel to act as facilitators for negotiation by key players for this (inside and outside of IFWP) process to produce the final document to set up the new entity.

While the IFWP continues to constrain its role to provide a common, open, inclusive and transparent platform for the whole IFWP process, we will jointly organize the final (or 'ratification') IFWP meeting with the Harvard Berkman Center. The format will be similar to the ones of the conferences in Geneva with ISOC, or in Singapore with local AP organizers.

This does not mean that the IFWP will endorse the 'outcome' (whatever it would be). IFWP will simply provide the platform for open discussion, and it is up to the participants of this closure meeting to say YES or NO to the final draft, based upon negotiation by key players."

Afterwards, the last details of the Buenos Aires meeting beginning tomorrow were discussed. There has not been any refining of the agenda because of private matters, but the Programme Committee meeting today will be adjusting any last details. So far, there is a fairly good representation ensured, covering about 90% of the Latin American Internet.

Chair of the conference will be Edmundo Valenti, some local moderators have been found, but in emergencies, SC members may be asked to help out in non-controversial positions. Scribes will also be organised. The deadline for any applications to speak or report is Wednesday evening. Tony will probably be presenting a report combined of Laina's and Michael's summaries of the other meetings. Possibly, the representative from Cambodia, Norbert Klein, will be attending for AP as he speaks Spanish fluently. Tamar will be asked to participate in a video conference and the video message of Ira Magaziner shown as well.