Participants: Izumi Aizu, Vittorio Bertola, Pierre Dandjinou, Roberto
Gaetano, Xue Hong, Jacqueline Morris, Annette Muehlberg, Jean Armour
Polly, Sebastián Ricciardi, Siavash Shahshahani, Wendy Seltzer, Bruce
Beckwith
Absent: Clement Dzidonu, Bret Fausett, John Levine, Alice Wanjira-Munyua
Absent with reported conflict: Erick Iriarte Ahon
Liaison reports follow.
Whois Task Force Liaison (Wendy Seltzer)
The WHOIS task force continues to discuss the operational point of contact proposal <http://www.writely.com/Doc.aspx?id=dgsxrsww_2gjfj37>.
President’s Strategy Committee Liaison (PSC) (Pierre Dandjinou)
The PSC will be having a meeting in Paris on 21 August. An agenda has not yet been provided to participants.
ICANN Board Liaison (Roberto Gaetano)
Since Marrakesh, the Board had discussions and took actions on the
topics listed below (see also minutes of the 2006-07-18 teleconference
at http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-18jul06.htm).
• Addressing
The Board has received the proposal for IPv6
allocation policy by the Address Council. This policy, that must be
approved not later than 2006-09-10, covers the allocation from IANA to
RIRs. However, some discussion went also over the expectation for
sub-allocation from RIRs downstream. This item is on the agenda of the
next teleconference.
• ccTLDS
The redelegation request for Morocco (.ma) and Grenada
(.gd) was discussed and approved. There has been discussion on the
change of policy announced by Colombia (.co). Some members of the Board
are concerned about the development of this situation. It is recognized
that at this point in time there is no action to take, as there is no
redelegation request. However, some Board members feel that there
should be a discussion about the different operation models of the
ccTLDs, while others believe that the good place for this discussion is
the ccNSO.
Another element of concern is the decision of Cameroon (.cm) to use
a wildcard, pretty much in similar way as the PathFinder was operated
for .com. Security and Stability considerations suggest to discourage
this behaviour, but it is also recognized that ICANN has no title to
enforce a rule. Also for this case some believe that the ccNSO should
be the place to develop guidelines.
The development of the situation in Ukraine has been followed with
interest, due to the ripercussions on the .ua redelegation request
pending for futher analysis.
• gTLDs
The Board has discussed the draft Registry Agreement
for .biz, .info and .org, and has agreed to publish it for a public
comment period of no later than 30 days. The Board has also discussed
the draft Registry Agreement for .asia, and has agreed to publish it
for a public comment period of no later than 30 days.
• IDN
The discussion on IDN is continuing. The Board
acknowledges that there is a need for fast implementation, but also
that the model has to be carefully evaluated, because we cannot afford
to get it wrong.
• Legal
The Board has been informed that SnapNames has withdrawn its lawsuit against ICANN.
• Strategy
A report on the President's Strategy Committee
consultations has been provided to the Board by ICANN Staff, and has
been discussed by the Board. The Committee is continuing its work.
Feedback has been provided also about the NTIA DNS transition hearing. ALAC's document has been forwarded to the Board.
• WhoIs
The Board is still receiving input by different bodies
on the WhoIs formulation by the GNSO. No action is needed on this
subject, for the time being.
GNSO Liaison (Bret Fausett)
In preparation for this week's conference call, here is an overview of the activities now underway in the GNSO.
1. New gTLDs. A public comment period is now underway on an initial
report from the GNSO's New gTLD Task Force. The Task Force is working
on a timeline that will present final recommendations to the Board by
the end of the year.
http://icann.org/announcements/announcement1-28jul06.htm
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/newgtlds-issues-report-01-28jul06.htm
This report and the feedback on it will be the primary focus of
discussions at a GNSO Council meeting in Amsterdam the last week of
this month. I will be attending on behalf of the ALAC. The public
comment period ends on Friday, 18 August 2006. We will want to have our
feedback prepared by the time of the Amsterdam meeting.
2. Contractual Conditions for Existing gTLDs. The GNSO also has published a
preliminary report on what contractual conditions should be imposed on gTLD
registries. The initial report is here:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pcc-pdp-03aug06.pdf
The task force is currently looking at retaining expert consultants to
assist with issues such as the economics of competition at the registry
level, including pricing and "presumptive renewal." Some members of the task
force have expressed strong concerns that ICANN is moving forward with
contract renewals and negotiations on new terms for .ORG, .BIZ and .INFO
will the task force review is underway.
Again, this will be an issue for discussion in Amsterdam. We will want to
have our comments prepared by the Amsterdam meeting.
3. IDNs at the TLD Level. ICANN Staff has prepared an issues report on IDNs
at the top level of the DNS. You can review the report here:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-17jul06.htm
The question for review now is whether ICANN and the GNSO are asking the
right questions. The ALAC should review this and determine whether the list
of issues is complete and the suggestions for procedural paths forward
cogent. This is not the time to comment on the substance of the questions
posed.
4. Whois and National Privacy Laws. As you may have noted from my recent
post to the list, the ICANN Staff is planning the implementation of a GNSO
and Board resolution to handle "potential conflicts between Whois
requirements and national privacy laws."
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02779.html
The ALAC, along with the SOs, will have the opportunity to review and
comment upon the draft recommendations.
5. GNSO Review. As you know, ICANN retained the London School of
Economics ("LSE") to review the structure, procedures and effectiveness
of the GNSO.
Many of you may have been interviewed about this in Wellington. The Draft
LSE Review will be published on or about 21 August 2006.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02780.html
We will have the opportunity to review and comment upon the LSE Draft.
IDN Committee Liaison (Hong Xue)
Since Marrakech meeting, IDN PAC had two conference calls and discussed primarily the following two issues:
1) review of IDN discussions during the IETF meeting in Montreal (July 9-14,
2006)
ICANN staffs prepared a briefing paper on the results of the
meetings with RSSAC and root operators during the Montreal IETF meeting.
2) review of draft suggested NS laboratory test design
Based
on the feedback received in Morocco and the RSSAC feedback in Montreal,
a gif file that will show the updated version of the various steps in
the new project plan is circulated.
Though PAC is limited to technical discussions by its mission, a
couple of the policy issues have been raised, e.g. selection of IDN
strings for the test, selection criteria of IDN registries, the future
of DNAME.
From the prospective of ALAC, I strongly suggest that we
complete the IDN statement that Siavash and I have been working on and
then send it out to both GNSO and PAC. ALAC should not be silent on
this critically important issue that would significantly influence the
interests of the users.
The call then continued with a review of current issues affecting Internet users and the ALAC.
NTIA Meeting Update
A meeting was held on 26 July in Washington DC regarding the ICANN
MoU renewal. The meeting was not heavily attended – less than 100
people were in the audience. The two recurring themes were
“transparency/accountability” and “public participation,” made mainly
by panelists, not the audience members.
ALAC Budget
The overall ICANN budget for the 2006/2007 fiscal year will kept at
the same level as the 2005/2006 fiscal year budget since the .COM
agreement has not yet been finalized. The ALAC budget for this fiscal
year is US$691,000. There is an open question if the US$150,000 cost
for an external review is included in this total or if this expense is
to be accounted for in a different budget category (non-ALAC). Denise
Michel is researching the answer to this question. The ALAC budget for
fiscal year 2005/2006 was US$402,000, with US$122,250 spent through 1
January 2006, with a total estimated expense through June of
US$279,750. All indications are that the current budget allocation for
the ALAC is significantly higher than the amount for last year (even if
the external review expense is included in the overall budget).
The question was raised regarding how to allocate budget funding for
specific projects. It was reiterated that just as it is currently done
with travel, any expected budget allocation would need to be described,
including relevant details about the project, forecasting of total
expenses, etc., and this should be provided as a justification for the
project. ICANN staff would then provide this information to ICANN
management for review and as appropriate, approval.
Domain Monetization.
ALAC consultant staff will provide a briefing on this topic by 18
August. This will give the ALAC members background information on the
topic. The ALAC members will then discuss the topic to determine if
requesting an Issues Report is a reasonable next step.
ALS Status
The status of Due Diligence reports for applicants prior to June
2006 is not known. An investigation of the status of these applications
is underway, as there is no central repository for ALS related
documents, and the process is fully manual. All due diligence reports
for existing open ALS applications will be forwarded to the ALAC
membership, even if the due diligence report had been previously
distributed.
Self Review
The chair requested that every member of the ALAC that has not yet participated, please participate in the coming week.
Operational Plan
The ALAC would like to have a list of all current ICANN initiatives.
There is no comprehensive list that is available, as each group or
constituency tracks issues on their own. This is an effort that would
be helpful to many groups within ICANN. The discussion included the
potential of using basecamphq.com as a tool to help track this
information. When information is identified, it is usually added to the
calendar at the http://www.icannalac.org web site.
Sao Paulo Meeting
The structure for the ICANN meetings will be changed based on
community input and suggestions. The ALAC will put together a
subcommittee comprised of Bertola, Iriarte, Morris, Muehlberg, and
Ricciardi to help plan for ALAC and RALO activities in Sao Paulo.
Travel Reimbursements
A number of expense report reimbursements have yet to be made. ALAC
members are concerned about the delays that appear to be normal, and
that when queries are made of Accounts Payable, replies are not
returned.
MoU Drafting
ICANN legal staff has offered to provide feedback to ALAC and/or
RALO representatives, via ICANN ALAC staff, on drafts of RALO MoUs.
This could be helpful in lessening the time that the ICANN Board will
need to review final versions of the MoUs.
Next conference call is scheduled for 04 September.
Remaining conference call schedule for 2006:
04 September
05 October
06 November
All calls begin at 13:30 UTC.