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

[Jean Christophe VIGNES <jcvignes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wholefully agree with Marcus. If anything, we need to more face to face
meetings.

Jean-Christophe


Le 08/05/08 12:13, « Marcus Faure » <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I think it is a bad idea to reduce the number of meetings to
> two and actually I am astonished to hear about it. Outreach is one of
> the buzzwords that ICANN has been using *a lot* in the last years and
> now they want to cut down on the most important outreach mechanism?
> If ICANN wantws to save, there is a number of points where it may
> start: not flying first class, stopping silly translation programs
> etc.
> Many of us will remember that we used to have four meetings per
> year. I find that it is already less productive to deal with all the
> issues having three meetings, and let's face it, physical meetings can
> not be replaced by electronic communication.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> --
> Global Village GmbH  Tel +49 2855 9651 0     GF Marcus Faure
> Mehrumer Str. 16     Fax +49 2855 9651 110   Amtsgericht Duisburg HRB9987
> D46562 Voerde        eMail info@xxxxxxxxxxx  Ust-Id DE180295363

------------------------------------------
Jean-Christophe Vignes
EVP & General Counsel - Administrative Manager
DCL Group SA

Datacenter.lu / EuroDNS.com / voipGATE.com / ENUMdns.com

Tel  : +352 20 200 123 / +33 870 441 436
Mob: +352 691 600 424 / +33 6 70 95 84 33
Fax : +352 20 20 22 01
---------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and
delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its
contents to anyone.

Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to!
---------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------