[registrars] Report on ICANN Board meeting held 30 April 2008

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

Below is the report on the Board meeting held last week.

Key items were:

(1) Changes to .pro agreement - approved.

(2) ICANN meetings - discussion about reducing from 3 main meetings to
two main meetings a year
- useful to get feedback from the GNSO on whether this would be good or
bad.
- staff are working on  a discussion paper for community feedback

(3) Paris meeting budget - approved - US$1.8 million
- as you can see the ICANN meetings are expensive undertakings

(4) Cairo meeting - location approved.  Budget approved at - US$2
million
- it costs more that Paris partly because it is more expensive to get
to.

- note that ALAC have requested travel support for a face-to-face summit
of the At Large community.  This request is being considered as part of
the general budget process.  One option would be to hold the summit at
Cairo - and other options could be to hold at a different, cheaper
location.   If this is approved, the budget would be in addition to that
approved above. 

(5) GNSO - staff reported the recent Council resolutions for absentee
voting and domain tasting.  These will be considered at the next
meeting.

(6) New gTLDs - staff provided a brief update on work on dispute
resolution, and how to respond to disputes after a new gTLD is added to
the root and has registrants at the second and lower levels.


As usual - any feedback from registrar constituency members is welcome -
either via this list - which I read, or to either me or Rita Rodin
directly.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
ICANN Board member, elected via the GNSO







From: http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-30apr08.htm 

Preliminary Report of the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of
Directors
========================================================================
=

[Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board] 

30 April 2008

A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via
teleconference 30 April 2008. Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush called the
meeting to order at 06.00 UTC / 11.00 PM Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), 29
April 2008. 

In addition to Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush the following Directors
participated in all or part of the meeting: Harald Alvestrand, Raimundo
Beca, Vice Chairman Roberto Gaetano, Demi Getschko, Steven Goldstein,
Dennis Jennings, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Bruce
Tonkin, President and CEO Paul Twomey. The following Board Liaisons
participated in all or part of the meeting: Steve Crocker, SSAC Liaison;
Janis Karklins, GAC Liaison; Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison; Reinhard
Scholl, TLG Liaison; and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison. The following
Board Members and Liaisons were not present on the call: Susan Crawford,
Njeri Rionge, Rita Rodin, Wendy Seltzer, and David Wodelet.

Also, the following ICANN Staff participated in all or part of the
meeting: John Jeffrey, General Counsel and Secretary; Doug Brent, Chief
Operating Officer; Kurt Pritz, Senior Vice President, Business
Operations; Denise Michel, Vice President, Policy; Donna Austin,
Manager, Governmental Relations; Paul Levins, Executive Officer and Vice
President, Corporate Affairs; Barbara Roseman, General Operations
Manager, IANA; Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor, Policy Support;
Diane Schroeder, General Manager, Conferences; and, Kim Davies, Manager,
Root Zone Services.


Approval of Minutes from Special Meeting of the ICANN Board for 27 March
2008 
========================================================================
=====

Steve Goldstein moved and Dennis Jennings seconded the motion to accept
the minutes of the 28 March 2008 meeting, which were posted as the
Preliminary Report of that meeting.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, and the motion was
approved by a vote of 11 to 0, with no abstentions. 


Authorization of Creation of DS Key registry for Top Level Domain DNSSEC
keys
========================================================================
=====

Barbara Roseman advised that the proposal is the result of a request
from the community to have easy access to DS (Delegation Signer) keys as
part of the DNS authorization mode before having a DNSSEC signed root
zone which would include keys in an authenticated way. DS keys are the
public record keys used to authenticate data from the DNS zone. IANA has
been asked to create and maintain a separate registry of these DS keys
available through an authentication mechanism such as ssl webpage and to
present this to the public as an interim step between now and when root
zone is signed. 

She explained that the proposal to adopt this by the ICANN Board was
raised, as there is no current IETF or IAB policy development process
underway and that this was the most expeditious way to carry this
proposal forward. 

The Chair asked about the resource implications of doing this and if it
is possible to put cost on it. Barbara Roseman advised that it is
anticipated that it fits within the registry support work done by ICANN
and it's difficult to identify the additional time to be spent on this,
but that it would be fairly limited in terms of direct additional costs.
Doug Brent added that this would be a relatively small registry,
budgeting for DNSSEC is included in the 2008-2009 fiscal year but does
not see large resource implications on the issue before the Board.
Barbara Roseman stated that it will take about one day of development
time, the process to add records will be the same as adding records to
the root zone, which is does not add cost to the overall process. This
will involve maintaining a registry of, currently, a dozen keys, and the
only maintenance is when rolling keys to new number. Even at a greater
volume, cost would not become a significant issue for some time. 

Steve Goldstein raised a question about the proposed text of the
resolutions whereas clause, inquiring whether an adjustment to
demonstrate community support was necessary. Barbara Roseman cautioned
against this since the IETF and the IAB, although consulted at the
leadership level, have not taken a formal policy position on this.
Thomas Narten agreed with Barbara noting that the wording is tricky,
because even though the IETF leadership was consulted, the IETF would
need to go through a formal process to agree to this proposal and as
this hasn't taken place stating in a resolution that the IETF supports
the proposal would be a concern. 

After additional inputs from Bruce Tonkin and Steve Goldstein, Goldstein
withdrew his suggestion of an additional whereas clause. 

Barbara Roseman asked that the Board should keep in mind the informal
nature of this issue, noting that it is quite difficult for some
organizations to find consensus on the best way to proceed without more
extensive policy processes. 

Steve Goldstein moved and Demi Getschko seconded the following
resolution: 

Whereas, in the interests of aiding DNSSEC deployment, the ICANN board
believes DNSSEC trust anchors for Top Level Domains should be made
available conveniently to the DNS community, 
It is hereby resolved (__.) that the Board instructs IANA staff, as an
interim measure, to create and maintain a Registry of DNSSEC trust
anchors for Top-Level Domains until such time as the root zone is DNSSEC
signed. 
A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, and the motion was
approved by a vote of 11 to 0, with no abstentions. 


.KN (St. Kitts and Nevis Islands) Redelegation
==============================================

Kim Davies advised that the University of Puerto Rico has previously
operated the domain and they wanted to divest themselves of the role in
managing the domain. The redelegation request was received from relevant
government representatives to move it to the Ministry of Finance,
Sustainable Development, Information and Technology of Saint Kitts and
Nevis. The operations are to be conducted by the ccTLD operator for .TW
(TWNIC). All criteria for a redelegation has been met, the current
operator is in agreement regarding the hand-over of the databases. As
there is nothing contentious or contested, and it has followed all
appropriate processes, it is ICANN's assessment that the redelegation
should be approved.

Steve Goldstein asked if TWNIC was trying to get into business of doing
these things? Kim Davies advised that he is not aware of TWNIC being
involved in other ccTLD operations. Steve Goldstein considered that it
seems odd that this will go to TWNIC rather than LACNIC. The Chair
reflected that LACNIC is not involved with domain names. 

After additional discussion, Steve Goldstein moved and Harald Alvestrand
seconded the following resolution: 

Whereas, the .KN top-level domain is the designated country-code for
Saint Kitts and Nevis.

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .KN to the
Ministry of Finance, Sustainable Development, Information and Technology
of Saint Kitts and Nevis.

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the
proposed redelegation would be in the best interest of the local and
global Internet communities.

It is hereby resolved (___), that the proposed redelegation of the .KN
domain to the Ministry of Finance, Sustainable Development, Information
and Technology of Saint Kitts and Nevis is approved.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, and the motion was
approved by a vote of 11 to 0, with no abstentions. 



Finance Committee Report on Foreign Exchange Issues 
====================================================

Raimundo Beca advised that the Finance Committee and ICANN's Management
have been involved in discussions surrounding foreign exchange rate
issues. The issues that are being discussed are the following: 

ICANN has been spending more and more in foreign currencies (FX) as
staff/consultants are increasingly located around the world and as the
meetings have grown in cost. FX spending in FY08 is estimated at 15% of
total expenses. 

ICANN approved the authority to set up a facility with UBOC last fall to
enter into short-term FX contracts, which has been utilized. 

BFC directed CFO to hire a consultant to evaluate ICANN's current
practices as against best practices, to consider minimizing FX risk by
hedging more, and to consider the impacts of reporting in foreign
currency. The consultant has been hired and is currently expected to
complete the first phase of the work within the next few weeks. 

The Chair advised that the Board Finance Committee has directed staff to
investigate all aspects of foreign currency (including holding accounts
in other currencies, hedging, and reporting) with the help of outside
consultants. 



.PRO Proposed Contract Amendments
=================================

Kurt Pritz advised that this is a request for a change to the .PRO
registry agreement from the registry operator. The restricted TLD was
intended to serve a limited number of certified professionals: medical,
law, accounting, and engineering professions, and noted the issues that
have been faced by the registry, that did not purport to meet with the
purpose of the original proposal. The TLD has had limited success to
date, with registrations in the low thousands. In an attempt to
invigorate the business .PRO has proposed three changes to registry
agreements: the number of professions allowed to be increased by nine
(in addition to the existing four) plus additional professions licensed
by governmental boards; increase the ability to make registrations at
the second level; and add a Terms of Use to the registry agreement. 

Pritz noted that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to improve the
business model: it adds the potential of more registrants. The Terms of
Use clause is intended to improve the integrity of registrations:
requires registrars to follow the terms by amendment to the RAA that
require professional registration be used only for the purpose intended;
and requiring registrants to follow the purpose by affirmatively
stating, each year, that the registration is being used appropriately. 

Pritz noted that .PRO has struggled as a registry and is seeking to
reinvigorate the registry and that staff supports the efforts to make it
successful while maintaining appropriate restrictions. 

Harald Alvestrand asked if there is anything in this that would make the
improper registrations goes away, make the operation that was getting
around the restriction stop. Kurt Pritz advised that the Terms of Use
clause is intended to address this. Staff has met with .PRO on many
occasions and insisted that the behavior that enabled registrants to
work around the restrictions should cease. Registrants will be required
to state annually that they are using the registration for the
professional purpose as intended. The registrar is required to play a
role in ensuring the intended use. 

The Chair inquired about the proposed procedures and Kurt Pritz advised
that the registrant is still required to be licensed, and must annually
confirm their profession. 

Steve Goldstein reflected that under the new gTLD policy that is under
consideration, that ICANN may get more of these types of questions and
advised against ICANN policing these restrictions. Goldstein advised
that we must make sure to avoid these loopholes when this is
implemented. The Chair noted that there is quite a lot of work going
into the implementation program and that these issues are being actively
discussed. 

Bruce Tonkin asked what we are going to do with respect of existing
restricted or sponsored TLDs when new gTLDs are introduced with
different agreements, and whether we intend to change their existing
contract terms or restrictions going forward? The Chair noted that it
will be difficult to monitor the old ones in the same way that we do
now, when a couple of hundred new ones will be coming online. 

Rajasekhar Ramaraj moved and Steve Goldstein seconded the following
resolution: 

Whereas, RegistryPro reached out to ICANN in May 2007, about its
proposed plan to develop the .PRO TLD by broadening registration
restrictions, implementing verification procedures designed to preserve
the spirit of the intent of the registry, and to reduce the size of its
Advisory Board. 

Whereas, RegistryPro consulted with its Advisory Board, the registrar
community and ICANN about proposed changes to the Registry Agreement. 

Whereas, ICANN and RegistryPro worked in partnership during the period
May 2007 through March 2008, regarding the proposed changes to
Appendices L and F of the Registry Agreement. 

Whereas, on 14 March 2008, ICANN posted for public comment (see,
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14mar08.htm)
RegistryPro's proposal contract amendments to their Registry Agreement
and an overwhelming majority of the comments expressed support for the
proposed contract amendments. 

It is hereby resolved (__.2008) that the proposed changes to the .PRO
Registry Agreement are approved, and the President and General Counsel
are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the
amendments. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, and the motion was
approved by a vote of 10 to 0, with no abstentions. In addition to the
board members that were not available for the call, Roberto Gaetano was
not available to participate in the meeting, during this particular
vote. 



ICANN Meetings Discussion
=========================

Paul Levins introduced this topic on the agenda by reminding the Board
that at the New Delhi meeting the Board had asked staff to deliver on
three outcomes in the meetings area: first, to make an early public
notification of the Paris meeting and get the meeting schedule out
earlier than usual; second, decide upon the location of the ICANN
meeting from November 2-7, 2009 to be held in Africa; and third, prepare
a paper on meeting management and logistics that would promote a
discussion about reform. 

Paul advised that this paper and the meetings related item to follow
delivered on these requests. This paper regarding the meetings describes
moving from three to two ICANN meetings a year and to a hub arrangement.
Paul clarified that the hub locations are to be determined in each of
the five regions. The Chair asked if the proposals in the paper would go
out for public comment. Paul Levins confirmed that it would be published
for public comment. 

Bruce Tonkin asked if the main motivation for moving from three to two
meetings per year was to reduce costs. Paul Levins said that in part
this was the case, but it was mainly about reform to the meetings
process and the investment of time and anecdotal information received
from the community that up to 20 days per year is a big investment in
community time in meeting time, especially for a volunteer community
many of whom had to rely upon their place of employment to support them.


Bruce Tonkin was concerned that the savings in time and money achieved
by going from three to two meetings per year may be diminished if other
meetings had to be planned to compensate for the loss of the third
meeting. For example it would not be desirable to have, say, ten smaller
meetings replace a single larger meeting. Paul Levins noted that concern
and said the paper did not countenance more regional meetings but the
same number as presently held. 

Janis Karklins advised that for the GAC, the diminishing number of
face-to-face meetings would result in a slow down in the work. The GAC
is already finds the workload difficult to accommodate in three meetings
and would need to discuss how to deal with the situation. It may need
another face-to-face meeting in addition to the two regular meetings. 

The Chair advised that any group that needs to meet can do so, but asked
Janis to expand upon the problems in doing that for the GAC. Janis
advised that GAC rely on ICANN support services during meetings, and
they have no physical resources and will need ICANN's support. This may
have expenditure implications. Janis Karklins said he was not formally
asking for more than three meetings, but simply noting that meeting only
twice a year will not allow the GAC to keep up with expectations. The
Chair noted that the GAC would want staffing support for a third
meeting. Bruce Tonkin considered that not only the GAC, but also the
GNSO and ALAC amongst others may want additional meetings. 

Paul Twomey suggested that the paper should also include an
effectiveness quotient of the value in having inter-sessionals to drive
through work. Bruce Tonkin noted that the budget might not change. The
Chair agreed that there should be a paragraph concerning inter-sessional
meetings included in the paper. 

Steve Goldstein noted that the former Board Meetings Committee had
discussed the idea of hubs and that the feature of a hub is that it
would be used often. He considered that if there were five in rotation,
there would not be any advantage from using a facility once every five
years, and suggested using one hub. Paul Levins provided clarification
on the hubs, noting that while there are some cost efficiencies, there
are higher savings in returning to one location, it is also about the
convenience and access of not having to go through two or three stops to
get to a location. 

Harald Alvestrand shared Steve's concerns about the hubs saying he would
want clarification of how this would work before it was presented to the
community for input and additionally suggested that it is important
having meetings in all five regions. The Chair asked Paul Levins to add
that concept as an option. 

The Chair considered that the paper is designed to get people to think
about meeting regularity generally and that there should be full
consultation. 

Janis Karklins considered if the one of the concerns is budgetary
constraint it would be useful to have a comparison of three meetings
versus two per year as well as expected requests for others, some
general idea of budget should also be provided to the Board. The Chair
agreed that financial information would be useful, including comparative
costs. Paul Levins noted that the object of this was about meeting
reform and discussion around meetings and less budgetary concern. Bruce
Tonkin noted that the cost of meetings has been growing and from a Board
governance sense we need to be aware of this. 

The Chair asked Paul Levins to circulate the paper back to board for
further consideration before distribution to the community. The Chair
considered that it would be good to have this out and discussed at the
Paris meeting. 



Paris ICANN Meeting Budget 
==========================

Paul Levins advised that the Board asked that the Paris ICANN Meeting
Budget be reviewed with the Finance Committee, which has been done, and
that following this consultation, the budget has been brought back
before the Board for approval of a budget $1.81 million US Dollars for
meeting. The Chair asked if there was any detail from the Finance
Committee discussions that needed to be brought to the attention of the
Board. Doug Brent advised that there was nothing notable in the Finance
Committee discussion that was not answered, and that the Finance
Committee recommended that the Board could approve the Budget. The Chair
noted this is was a useful exercise and sets a good precedent. 

The following motion was moved by Raimundo Beca and seconded by
Rajasekhar Ramaraj 

Whereas, the Paris ICANN meeting was approved by the Board to be the
venue for the June ICANN meeting, 
It is hereby resolved (2008.___) that the Board approves the budget for
the Paris meeting of $1,812,777 (US). 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, and the motion was
approved by a vote of 11 to 0, with no abstentions. 


Cairo ICANN Meeting Proposal Acceptance
========================================

Paul Levins advised that this is a proposal for the Board to agree to
Cairo as the host city for the meeting in Africa and the 2008 Annual
Meeting, and a request to approve the budget, which was also reviewed by
the Board Finance Committee. Levins noted that the proposed budget is
$2.03m. 

Raimundo Beca explained that he abstained from agreeing to the budget in
the Board Finance Committee not because he disagreed with the budget but
because he wanted to send a strong sign to the community that he does
not believe that there should be an At-Large summit in Cairo. 

The Chair clarified that the ALAC world summit was not part of this
Cairo Meetings Budget. Raimundo Beca said he understood that but
believed that if it were included, it would have made it extremely high
and wished to make a record on that issue. Doug Brent advised that the
board would be considering budget for a proposed At-Large Summit and
travel for different communities for the 2008-09 ICANN Budget. 

Steve Goldstein noted that airlines are likely to increase costs over
time so as much as possible steps should be taken to get airline
reservations done early. 

The following motion was moved by Rajasekhar Ramaraj , and seconded by
Dennis Jennings: 

Whereas, the Cairo ICANN meeting is approved by the Board to be the
venue for the October ICANN meeting, 

It is hereby resolved (2008.___) that the Board approves the budget for
the Cairo ICANN Meeting of $2,030,000 (US) and that Cairo Meeting be
designated as the 2008 Annual Meeting. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, and the motion was
approved by a vote of 11 to 0, with no abstentions. 


GNSO Related Issues 
====================

Denise Michel advised that ICANN Management will provide a more full
briefing to the Board on this item in the near future, but wanted to
alert the Board to two current issues recently approved by the GNSO
Council on absentee voting at the GNSO and domain name tasting. 

Liz Gasster advised that proxy voting had been considered to ensure
absent counselors could participate. Gasster also briefed the board on
the GNSO's recommended action on domain name tasting, indicating that
the council had approved it by a super-majority vote. She indicated that
that the recommendations for policy staff support would include a
monitoring and reporting requirement, so staff would report for at least
2 years on the effectiveness of policy. 

Denise Michel advised that staff would deliver briefings prior to the
Board within the two-week window of the next board meeting, so that the
board could consider taking action at the earliest opportunity. 

The Chair asked if the voting would have any impact on the restructure
of the GNSO or whether these issues survive those changes. Denise Michel
advised that these changes would not impact the ongoing GNSO
improvements work. 



Update on BGC independent review activities 
===========================================

Roberto Gaetano advised that the GNSO Review WG has already closed and
the implementation is going on. Susan Crawford is working with the GNSO
to work on implementation. 

For the NomCom Review Working Group, Alejandro Pisanty has restarted the
group's work on this. We are losing one and probably two members of the
working group and will need to have new people joining otherwise the
group is too small. 

With regard to ALAC Review Working Group, Tricia Drakes has chaired the
WGs first teleconference and they are planning to meet in person in
Paris. Roberto Gaetano requested the General Counsel's advice on how the
WG could appoint a Vice Chair for the WG. The Vice Chairman of the
Working Group will help the WG Chair. The idea is that Tricia Drakes
should be appointing the person of her choice without procedure unless
we have feedback from General Counsel that the appointment of the Vice
Chair should be a formal procedure if it needs a resolution by the Board
or voting by the Board Governance Committee. 

John Jeffrey advised that there is no bylaw regarding the structure of
the working group and accordingly it can be done how board and/or BGC
want to structure the work. 

Jean-Jacques Subrenat advised that at the meeting of the working group
he suggested that the name be changed to the At Large working group
rather than ALAC working group. Roberto Gaetano advised that there may
be a formal issue to be considered, but that what is mandated to be
reviewed is the structure of organization. What is being reviewed is
ALAC as a committee not as a structure. 

Roberto Gaetano indicated that there are three other working groups yet
to commence work, and that he had circulated the initial lists to Board
Governance Committee to populate the working groups. He indicated that
the next Board Governance Committee is scheduled to be on 16 May and the
work at that committee meeting includes having those lists approved with
Chairs identified. 

The Chair was interested in the GNSO review and improvements and
inquired as to whether Susan Crawford was working with the GNSO on
implementation of the recommendations. Roberto Gaetano advised that
Susan was not chairing but participating, and that she is acting as
liaison to the GNSO in order to facilitate the possible implementation.
Gaetano continued that the comment period had just ended and that one
proposal to have different structure for GNSO Council, or alternatively
to go with new proposal of the three stakeholder groups to lump
registries and registrars in one group. The proposal came from Philip
Sheppard and it is signed by the cross constituencies, NCUC and ALAC.
Roberto Gaetano indicated that he would leave it to ALAC Liaison Wendy
Seltzer to comment to the Board, but that in his understanding there is
a significant discussion about whether ALAC endorses the proposal.
Gaetano indicated that there would be additional discussion with the
goal of making a decision at the Paris ICANN meeting. 

The Chair asked why the Board could not be briefed so as to make a
decision in May. Roberto Gaetano agreed that this would be optimal but
that at the latest it will be considered in Paris, depending on whether
there is consensus on the proposal or not. 

The Chair asked Denise Michele for a board information briefing in May.
Denise Michel advised that the she is preparing a paper right now of a
summary of all comments including the joint proposal and will be sent to
the Board for review and consideration. In addition to the submission
for an alternative proposal, came with a request to allow for an
additional comment period so groups could comment on the alternative
proposal submitted. 

Denise Michel advised that Philip Shepard has asked if there would be an
additional comment period allowed so various interests could allow for
submission by the Board to end of comment period last week. 

The Chair asked if that would take us beyond the May Board meeting, and
asked Roberto about the need for any additional consultation. 

Roberto Gaetano indicated that he is in favour of having the first
extensions to the end of April to allow a formal proposal to be put
forward but is against any further extension because the more we
discuss, the more we will always have somebody saying it will be better.
The guidelines of this proposal which is familiarly called 'the
triangle' was already known three to four months ago, for sure it was
discussed in New Delhi. People knew what the proposal was going to be
and it was outlined in comment period last year. 

The Chair asked if Gaetano was opposing extension of time or if any
other Board member were arguing against. The Chair indicated that he
believed that it was clear that the sense of the board was that
additional extensions were not necessary and that we should proceed. The
Chair advised Denise Michel that the Board will want to make a decision
at the next opportunity and asked Paul Twomey if there were any problems
in considering this issue inter-session ally to allow additional time to
consider the issues. It was agreed that the paper could be out in the
next few weeks. 


ALAC Review Working Group Charter 
=================================

Jean-Jacques Subrenat pointed out that in the draft of the WG charter,
there seemed to be a case for the WG to be entitled the At Large Working
Group rather than the ALAC Working Group. 

The Chair noted the difference between the two, and asked about the
specific Bylaws obligation. 

John Jeffrey advised that the ICANN Bylaws require a periodic review of
ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory committees under Article
IV, Section 4 and quoted the section. Accordingly, Jeffrey indicated
that it should be review of ALAC, not the entire at-large structure
except as it is related to the review of the committee. 

Denise Michel confirmed that the terms of reference or parameters,
approved by Board, provides the direction for independent reviewers, for
the ALAC review the terms of reference state " Recognizing that the ALAC
and the global At-Large infrastructure that includes "Regional At-Large
Organizations" ("RALOs") and groups certified as "At-Large Structures"
("ALSs") are interconnected, the Review will address all of these
elements of At-Large involvement in ICANN."   

The Chair considered that it should be clear in the charter and the
group should make that clear. 

Jean-Jacques Subrenat reiterated that, when looking at the wording of
the draft Charter for the WG, there seemed to be a case to change the
name of the working group to At Large Review Working instead of ALAC
Review Working Group. The Chair indicated his support for this proposal,
at first. 

Paul Twomey noted that the charter read by Denise indicated that the
purpose is to review ALAC the committee, not to review the overall
at-large process and structure. Twomey noted the difference between the
two and raised concerns that the name changes may suggest that the
latter is the purpose. 

Denise Michel noted that with the NomCom review there was an independent
review, but to consider effectiveness the appointments of the NomCom had
to be considered and acted on various organizations and board, there is
an interconnectedness purview to explore similarly with the ALAC review.


Following the explanations given by Management, Jean-Jacques Subrenat
withdrew his proposal. The Chair reconsidered his support as well,
indicating that this is not a review of at large but of ALAC, it is not
necessary to change the name or go back to the detail of the charter. 

Roberto Gaetano moved that the Board adopt the charter as presented and
Steve Goldstein seconded this. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, and the motion was
approved by a vote of 11 to 0, with no abstentions. 


Status of New gTLD Implementation Planning following Riga Workshop 
==================================================================

The Chair thanked everyone for the very productive session in Riga and
for the briefing by ICANN Management about the progress in the
discussions on the implementation of the GNSO's new gTLD policy. 

Kurt Pritz advised that staff took a number of actions out of the Riga
workshop that will require follow-up and more formal reporting to the
Board. A number of key areas were highlighted for action 

After discussion about the various dispute resolution processes for new
gTLDs, staff action was to conduct additional investigation and
specifically to focus on the standards and basis for standing in the
four areas of objection. Management shared input from the GNSO
informational discussion (held just prior to Board Workshop) and various
discussions that are being held with possible DRP providers. Management
will provide additional information to the Board in next couple of weeks
prior to the Board review. 

Other actions include additional work on the implications of post
delegation actions, e.g. having UDRP post delegation where could be
objection to string and impact on registrants; providing a fuller report
on implications of registry and registrar separation issues; providing
additional information on applications processes; providing additional
information on the purpose and use of algorithms for string confusion;
and, more details on the development of financial and revenue models. 

In Riga the Board did not review the mechanisms from which the
recommendations and final delegation of TLDs will be approved by the
Board. The discussion of the auction model to resolve strings in
contention was favorably received by the Board. There was also
discussion regarding the timing for the release of the RFP and when we
will begin taking applications. 

Kurt Pritz provided a verbal briefing on the meetings between himself,
John Jeffrey and Amy Stathos with a number of potential dispute
resolution providers following Riga. The Chair asked when could we bring
the DRP discussions to the speediest and safest conclusion. The Chair
requested we have as much done as possible, by Paris. 

John Jeffrey advised that a significant part of what we have learned
from the DRP providers is that in many cases we would not be able to fit
our issues into their rules, but must craft ICANN rules and take those
rules to the DRP providers to provide advice and for completion of
process planning. Jeffrey indicated that this is the best way to get the
right inputs from the DRP providers and the community. 

Paul Twomey asked when the Board wants to present this to the community
before we put it to the Board for a vote. Twomey suggested that the
community needs to explore the implementation process and we're better
served to have that commence at the beginning of the Paris ICANN
Meeting. The Chair agreed that the Board could release the information
for public comment, but would not be in a position to vote on substance
of that in Paris. 

The Chair asked if there were any other questions about the new gTLD
process. 

The Chair thanked Janis for hosting the meeting and making the Riga
Board Workshop, such an enjoyable experience. 


Other Business 
==============

The Chair advised that the President's Strategy Committee (PSC) also met
in Riga and a number of documents are emerging from that and will be
circulated. 

In addition, the Chair reported that the Compensation Committee reported
its process to the Board and provided preliminary feedback to the CEO. 

The Chair requested information on the proposed At-Large Summit. Denise
Michel advised that the At Large community is completing a proposal on
an At Large summit and is surveying constituents. This will be shared
with the Board when completed. The initiative will be considered as part
of next fiscal year budget. 

he Chair adjourned the Meeting which closed at 8.01 UTC / 1.01 AM PDT.