Notes from ICANN Board Meeting Discussion 31 July 2008
Robin Gross
robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG
Fri Aug 8 19:09:13 CEST 2008
Interesting update below on ICANN Board discussions of a number of
key issues: GNSO restructuring, new gTLDs, exchange of letters with
UN on "enhanced cooperation", and more....
Robin
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Date: August 7, 2008 10:02:06 PM PDT
> To: "Council GNSO" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] Preliminary minutes of ICANN Board meeting 31
> July 2008
>
>
> From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-31jul08.htm
>
> Preliminary Report of the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of
> Directors
>
> 31 July 2008 / 1 August 2008
>
> [Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board]
>
> A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via
> teleconference 31 July 2008 @ 1900 UTC. Chairman Peter Dengate
> Thrush promptly called the meeting to order.
>
> In addition to Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush the following
> Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Raimundo
> Beca, Susan Crawford, Vice Chairman Roberto Gaetano, Demi Getschko,
> Steven Goldstein, Dennis Jennings, Njeri Rionge, Rita Rodin, Jean-
> Jacques Subrenat, Bruce Tonkin, President and CEO Paul Twomey,
> David Wodelet. 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; Wendy Seltzer, ALAC Liaison; and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC
> Liaison. The following Board Member was not present on the call:
> Harald Alvestrand and Rajasekhar Ramaraj.
>
> Also, the following ICANN Management and 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; Kevin Wilson, Chief Financial
> Operator; Denise Michel, Vice President, Policy; Paul Levins, Vice
> President, Corporate Affairs; Theresa Swinehart, Senior Vice
> President, Global Partnerships; Barbara Roseman, General Operations
> Manager, IANA; Craig Schwartz, Chief Registry Liaison; Olof
> Nordling, Director Services Relations; Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy
> Director; Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor, Policy Support;
> Donna Austin, Manager, Governmental Relations; Patrick Jones,
> Registry Liaison Manager; and, Kim Davies, Manager, Root Zone
> Services.
>
> GNSO Improvements Council Restructuring -- GNSO Working Group Response
>
> The Chair recalled the Board's resolution from the ICANN Meeting in
> Paris, which gave a very short timeframe for a small group to
> convene and see if they could come up with a consensus proposal on
> GNSO Council restructuring. The Chair noted the excellent Working
> Group proposal and support work provided by Staff outlining the
> outcomes of the Working Group and thanked the Working Group, and
> ICANN policy support Staff, for their work.
>
> Denise Michel acknowledged the hard work of the Working Group. She
> noted that there is a need to get a better understanding of what
> the implications for the Working Group's proposal are for GNSO
> policy development, and how the proposal will work with other
> elements of GNSO Improvements approved by the Board. She elaborated
> that transition is a big part of GNSO improvements and we need to
> think through what would be needed to transition this kind of
> proposal.
>
> Susan Crawford noted her appreciation of the proposal and the
> clarity on what is being provided and congratulated the Working
> Group and Staff on the work done. She raised a number of issues
> with regard to the designated roles of the NomCom appointees to the
> GNSO and noted that she shared Harald Alvestrand's concern about
> the default Chair issue. Susan noted that she hoped that the GNSO
> would elect a Chair without going to the default of a NomCom
> appointee to avoid conflict. With regard to the broader discussion
> of avoidance of conflicts, Susan noted that the conflicts policy
> can make the work of the board quite difficult where conflicts are
> present, and she does not agree with the viewpoint, that the same
> treatment regarding conflicts should extend to the GNSO Council.
>
> The Chair asked Staff if there was a discussion about conflicts and
> whether it would it be difficult to impose a standard of conflict?
> Rob Hoggarth advised that there was no discussion of conflicts by
> the Working Group. He clarified that the deliberations of the
> Working Group were not based on conflicts of interest, but rather
> were intended to make sure that both GNSO-selected Board seats were
> not occupied at the same time by members of the same stakeholder
> group. Denise Michel advised that Policy Staff is working with the
> General Counsel's office on this element of the proposal and it
> isn't clear that this is an appropriate restriction to apply.
>
> Susan Crawford noted that there seems to be a point of contention
> that if there is no agreement on selection of a Chair, and hoped
> that this would not somehow come to be a Board decision.
>
> Susan Crawford asked what the Working Group and GNSO expected the
> Board to do? Rob Hoggarth responded that in the absence of
> consensus the Working Group expected that the Board would make the
> decision.
>
> Rita Rodin asked if this became contentious at a later time in
> deliberations and whether there was a sense that this issue be
> resolved. Rob Hoggarth advised that the group worked hard on this
> issue, but that the concept of the two house voting structure was
> introduced rather late in the discussions and the Working Group had
> only about a week and half to work on that issue.
>
> Roberto Gaetano wondered if the real problem was fear from the
> business community that the NomCom appointee is not entirely
> independent. This is the issue that should be focused on and could
> be something that is connected with the NomCom review. The
> composition of the NomCom has a heavy ALAC presence and once the
> ALAC has a constituency within the GNSO this would provide the
> possibility that at that point they could build in a system that
> swings the pendulum on one side. Roberto noted a need to link this
> with the NomCom review.
>
> The Chair asked about the role of independence and NomCom
> appointees. Bruce Tonkin reflected on the different perspectives of
> NomCom appointees. For example, Avri sees her role as policy
> participant and she has a perspective that she can represent some
> interests that are not currently represented on the GNSO Council
> Other NomCom appointees over time have taken more of a governance
> approach, such as Maureen Cubberly, who undertook work as a neutral
> chair of a working group and saw her role as governance and
> provided a facilitation role. Part of the tension is what the
> community or the Board believes the role of the NomCom appointee
> should be. He asked whether they are intended to be a policy
> participant or provide a governance role?
>
> Steve Goldstein believes that all three NomCom appointees should be
> voting and asked how or where the third one would vote. He noted
> that given that the first two would be assigned to one house or the
> other, he recommended that the third might choose where he/she
> wanted to vote. Steve wanted to ensure that there was not any
> reason for disenfranchising any of the NomCom appointees.
>
> The Chair asked what the role of the individual registrants would
> be within the "non-commercial house".
>
> Susan Crawford saw this point as releasing some of the pressure on
> the NomCom issue. Wendy Seltzer indicated that the ALAC felt
> strongly that the GNSO should be inclusive of "individual Internet
> users," which is a broader class than "registrants."
>
> The Chair noted there could be up to nine in the Council in the one
> "house." He inquired whether the Board could reserve some and
> subdivide those within that? Denise Michel advised that the Board
> could do that, noting that the intention of the Stakeholder Group
> approach recommended by the BGC is to have a stakeholder model that
> would be more fluid and allow for new groups to join. The GNSO
> Working Group proposal does not prohibit participation by
> individual users or At-Large types.
>
> The Chair asked if the Board could specify what groups it wanted to
> see inside the stakeholder groups. Denise Michel noted that the
> Board previously considered requirements for constituting
> stakeholder groups before Council seats were assigned.
>
> Bruce Tonkin noted that the Board could request the formation of a
> constituency under the current bylaws. Susan Crawford cautioned
> against the Board micro-managing constituency groups.
>
> Rob Hoggarth advised that there was a difference of opinion in the
> Working Group on the formation of the voting houses, with some
> members thinking independent stakeholder groups should have the
> freedom to decide on the composition of their respective houses.
> The consensus view was to provide a range to the Board and let the
> Board determine representation numbers. Rob noted that working
> group members conducted their efforts mindful of the overall GNSO
> improvements process in which one of the goals was to create
> flexibility to bring in new groups.
>
> The Chair considered that previously the Board could have done more
> to break structural deadlocks by creating new constituencies and it
> may now be the time to help them to do this. The Board could look
> at the composition of what the "stakeholder houses" are -- the
> total number now doesn't make a difference -- and the Board could
> say we want nine, and the following groups need to bee represented.
> The GNSO may find it useful to have direction on who should and
> should not be included. Susan Crawford considered that the role of
> the Board is to set the number of people, and is not sure that the
> Board should direct what the constituencies should be.
>
> Wendy Seltzer advised that the ALAC has some interest in the Board
> retaining the role and ability to add new constituencies and not
> delegate to stakeholder groups and existing constituencies, as
> individuals are not in a constituency group. There is strong
> interest from ALAC and at large that there be room for and
> inclusion of at large in the GNSO process.
>
> Roberto Gaetano indicated that he would prefer that the Board not
> mandate the creation of a group but sends some strong signals that
> the Board feels some groups are missing and should be represented.
>
> Rita Rodin noted the statement of the ALAC representative on the
> working group that "...the ALAC does not see itself involved in the
> gTLD PDP in any way other than its current Liaison and Board
> Advisory role..." She noted that one of the things that struck her
> about the report was the way that experienced ICANN people were
> able to come together and agree on a solution and she was pleased
> and heartened by that. The comments made by Milton Mueller and
> others do require serious discussion. Considering that the ALAC is
> growing and more robust, she questioned why the Board would need to
> mandate that independence be part of a stakeholder group. She noted
> that she is not comfortable with the board imposing the creation of
> new constituencies at this time.
>
> The Chair did not consider that the Board is proposing this at this
> time but rather checking that the reserve power exists. In relation
> to what needs to be done to move this forward to making a decision
> at the August Board meeting, he asked Staff to investigate
> implementation issues as identified in the bullet points on page
> two, none of which seem to be really large problems.
>
> Paul Twomey sought clarification on whether this work is to be done
> in consultation with the Working Group. The Chair questioned if the
> Working Group could continue for another month. Rob Hoggarth
> indicated that it would be challenging in terms of schedules and
> the devotion of time and effort that would be required.
>
> Rita Rodin asked if this could now be added to the myriad of
> implementation issues. Denise Michel advised that Staff would seek
> input from constituencies and the Council and let them know what
> the next steps are. Bruce Tonkin considered that the key thing is
> for Staff to keep the GNSO informed of progress.
>
> Paul Twomey noted that from a Staff perspective, it is important
> that the constituencies understand that we are moving forward with
> considering the Working Group report on the understanding that it
> has fairly broad community support.
>
> Denise Michel advised that the report had been posted on the public
> GNSO Council list and that Staff will seek input from the Council,
> constituencies, GAC and ALAC, and report to the Board on reactions.
>
> Rita Rodin suggested the need for the Board to send a strong
> message of support for the work done.
>
> The Chair advised that he would send an email to say thank you for
> the work done. He noted that the Board wants Staff to perform an
> analysis of the potential consequences and implementation issues
> presented by the proposals in the report, and report back to the
> Board by 21 August so this can be decided on at the August Board
> Meeting. He also noted that the next item on the Board's agenda is
> the status of implementation of the Board-approved "GNSO
> Improvements", and that all implementation seems to have come to a
> halt because the GNSO participants want the GNSO Council issue
> resolved first.
>
> Susan Crawford agreed that the Board should send a strong message
> of support for the restructuring effort and to work on the
> implementation on this and lock it in as soon as possible.
>
> The Chair move for the following resolution to be adopted by the
> Board of Directors, and Steven Goldstein seconded the motion.
>
> Resolved (___), the Board accepts the report of the Working Group
> on GNSO Council Restructuring, on areas of consensus that it
> achieved during its month-long deliberations; and thanks all those
> involved for the considerable effort that has gone into producing
> it. The Board also instructs Staff to perform an analysis of the
> potential consequences and implementation issues presented by the
> proposals in the report, and to report one week before the August
> Board meeting with the recommended steps that can be adopted during
> the August Board Meeting.
>
> A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, and the motion
> was approved by a vote of 13 to 0, with no abstentions.
>
> The Chair indicated that he would send a personal email on the
> Board's behalf to all the members of the group.
>
> ASN Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers (Board Action) -
> Olof Nordling - Paper 69-2008
>
> Olof Nordling advised that An Autonomous System (AS) is a network
> operated with a single, clearly defined routing policy. When
> exchanging exterior routing information a unique number identifies
> each AS. This means ASNs are needed by networks connecting to
> multiple independently operated networks. These networks are
> normally run by ISPs and large enterprises. When a network connects
> to just one other network it can only route traffic via one
> external link and so cannot define its own routing policy.
>
> Olof noted that the RIRs have been assigning 4-byte numbers in
> addition to 2- byte numbers since 2007 and will default to
> assigning 4-byte numbers in 2009. In 2010 they will cease to
> distinguish between the two number spaces. This global policy
> formalizes the process and sets a date for transition when all two
> byte numbers will be considered to be of four-byte length.
>
> Olof indicated that Staff recommends the ratification of the
> proposals, since the need for longer AS Numbers has long been
> recognized and longer numbers have already been introduced in
> practice. The Proposal adds a timeline for the handling which has
> the support of all stakeholders, and that there appear to be no
> diverging positions on any of its provisions within the Regional
> Internet Registries, and that the proposals are fully in line with
> the practices within IANA. The consideration of the policy by the
> Board is timely, in that it is in the middle of the sixty-day
> period the MOU identifies for Board ratification of proposals-this
> window expires on 12 August.
>
> Raimundo Beca suggested a small change to the proposed resolution
> before the Board that accurately reflects the date the ASO
> forwarded the policy from IANA to the RIRs.
>
> The following motion was moved by Raimundo Beca and seconded by
> Dave Wodelet.
>
> Whereas, on 12 June 2008, the ASO Address Council forwarded a
> Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of Autonomous System
> Numbers from IANA to the RIRs to be ratified by the ICANN Board.
>
> Whereas, in accordance with the Board's Review Procedures for
> Global Internet Number Resource Policies Forwarded for ratification
> by the ASO Address Council: http://www.icann.org/en/general/review-
> procedures-pgp.html, the Board Secretary: a) send a request to the
> ASO AC for advice on this proposed global policy to be delivered at
> least 30 days before expiry of the window for Board response; b)
> made a final call for comments to all ICANN Supporting
> Organizations and Advisory Committees, to be delivered within 21
> days; and c) posted a final call for public comments to be
> delivered within 21 days.
>
> Whereas, on July 2008 the ASO AC submitted its advice in full
> support of the policy forwarded to the Board.
>
> Whereas, the Board didn't receive any comments opposed to the
> ratification of this global addressing policy nor from ICANN
> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, nor from the
> community.
>
> Whereas, the proposed global policy defines a non-discriminatory
> policy with objective allocation criteria, fully in line with
> current IANA practices regarding allocation of ASNs, and prepares
> for a smooth transition from 2- byte to 4-byte ASNs.
>
> Whereas, there is a need to make timely and coordinated information
> about ASN allocations available to the community.
>
> It is hereby resolved (__.2008) that the Board hereby ratifies the
> Global Addressing Policy Proposal on Autonomous System Numbers as a
> Global Policy and instructs ICANN staff to implement its provisions.
>
> It is hereby resolved (__.2008) that the Board requests the ICANN
> staff to develop and implement, in cooperation with the NRO and the
> RIRs, timely announcement arrangements concerning the allocation of
> Autonomous System Numbers.
>
> A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, and the motion
> was approved by a vote of 13 to 0, with no abstentions.
>
> Update on New gTLDs
>
> Kurt Pritz provided an informational update to the Board on the New
> gTLD Implementation Plan and progress made since the ICANN meeting
> in Paris where the Board adopted the GNSO policy recommendations.
> The Board was advised that ICANN staff has undertaken
> implementation efforts toward steps on the critical path for
> concluding agreements with third parties, specifically agreements
> with providers of dispute resolution procedures and evaluation
> criteria. Kurt advised that drafting of RFP for the new gTLD
> process in modular format was underway, along with work on the base
> agreement and applicant terms and conditions that are to be made
> available with the draft release of information for potential new
> gTLD applicants.
>
> Specifically, ICANN has received a beta version of the string
> confusion algorithm from SWORD that can provide scoring among
> strings in three scripts (Latin, Cyrillic and Greek). They will
> provide a proposal to incorporate additional scripts (Arabic,
> Devanagari, and Chinese-Japanese-Korean language scripts). ICANN
> has also received a proposed auction model from a third party
> auction firm, for resolving contention among competing identical or
> similar strings.
>
> ICANN is retaining a law firm, to assist with validating the RFP
> and evaluation criteria work done to date. Kurt noted that the
> World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has delivered a set
> of proposed procedures for resolving objections that assert that
> proposed strings infringe the rights of third parties.
>
> Questions were raised and discussed about WIPO in the role. Kurt
> stated that WIPO was selected as first choice to, for now, continue
> negotiations with for the infringement of rights dispute resolution
> process. ICANN had received several other proposals in response to
> a Request for Information and selected WIPO after evaluation of
> those responses.
>
> Steve Goldstein asked for clarification on whether the set of
> dispute resolution providers for the new gTLD process was the same
> as the set for the UDRP process. Kurt Pritz said for the first
> round of the new gTLD process ICANN envisions using one dispute
> resolution provider in order to promote consistency across
> decisions. There was an option of expanding the pool of providers
> for subsequent rounds. Steve Goldstein asked about one of the other
> applicants for the dispute resolution process and Kurt Pritz
> responded to his question.
>
> Kurt Pritz stated that the next steps were to set up a forum for
> further discussion with the Board to address issues left unsettled
> during previous discussions such as some of the dispute resolution
> standards and the new gTLD budget. Staff will arrange a forum to
> continue discussions from Paris. There is work to be done on the
> new gTLD budget as well.
>
> Susan Crawford asked about timing for these discussions and if it
> would be more productive to hold a face-to-face session. The Chair
> agreed that it would be a good topic for the retreat and asked Kurt
> Pritz if these areas could be ready for discussion during the Board
> retreat in September. Kurt Pritz said that information would be
> ready for September, and if additional discussion was required,
> staff could set up a conference call.
>
> Steve Goldstein asked if discussion of Reserved Names, especially
> country names and country-like names, could be added to these
> areas. Kurt Pritz said yes.
>
> Janis Karklins recalled the conversation between the Government
> Advisory Committee (GAC) and the Board in Paris on reserved names
> and the implementation. He advised that he had been in contact with
> Paul Twomey regarding the GAC concerns in the implementation phase
> and that he looks forward to reaching an understanding on the issue
> of country and territory names. Paul Twomey confirmed that he had
> spoken to Janis and he will be writing to him to confirm this and
> looks forward to working this Janis and the GAC on this issue.
>
> Bruce Tonkin recalled that one other thing raised by GAC in Paris,
> was concern about what competition is being created in the market
> and whether ICANN continues to support separation of registry and
> registrar roles. He asked if additional information regarding this
> issue would be available by the Board retreat in September. Paul
> Twomey advised yes.
>
> The Chair asked Staff to keep up the work, noting that significant
> press has been received on this issue and he knew that ICANN is up
> to meeting the expectations.
>
> Registry Agreements Update - .AERO and .POST
>
> The Chair introduced this agenda item and invited Kurt Pritz to
> speak on the status of these registry agreements. Kurt Pritz noted
> that ICANN is continuing to negotiate with SITA for the renewal of
> the .AERO sTLD agreement and with the Universal Postal Union
> for .POST, which is a new agreement.
>
> Kurt stated that negotiations with the UPU have been ongoing and
> the key issue for them has been the requirement to comply consensus
> policy given their unique structure as an IGO. The UPU's position
> has been that it is not empowered by its member states to agree in
> advance to comply with consensus policies that might violate UPU
> acts or regulations. The UPU has stated that because its structure
> is comprised of member countries, their ability to require member
> countries to enforce consensus policy is limited. ICANN and the UPU
> have explored a number of ways to structure the agreement and
> negotiations are continuing in a constructive manner. Many other
> difficult issues had been settled during the negotiation.
>
> Kurt added that discussions with SITA, sponsor of the .AERO sTLD,
> have largely centered on the same issue as the UPU, the requirement
> to comply with consensus policy. The discussion at this point has
> not moved forward, though SITA has made a recommendation on next
> steps. Kurt informed the Board that the agreement has been extended
> and will expire in December. He also noted that staff would make a
> recommendation before the extended agreement expires.
>
> The Chair asked if there was anything the Board could do to help.
> The Chair also noted the sense of the Board that all registries
> must continue to be bound to consensus policy. Kurt noted that the
> sense of the Board that gTLD registries must comply with consensus
> policies as a cornerstone to ICANN's mission has been helpful in
> negotiations.
>
> The Chair raised the topic of registry/registrar cross ownership -
> that this was also being contended in the SITA negotiation. Since
> this was to be resolved as part of the new gTLD process, should not
> this part of the negotiation be paused or delayed ("tolled"),
> pending resolution of the larger issue? Kurt answered in the
> affirmative.
>
> The Chair closed with a comment that instructions from the Board on
> consensus policy compliance has been clear, and that staff should
> come back to the Board if it needs more help or if there is
> progress to report.
>
> Informational Update on Single-Letter Second-Level Registry Service
> Requests
>
> The Chair asked Kurt Pritz to give an update on the status of
> single-letter second-level registry service requests. Kurt Pritz
> indicated that the Board had been provided with information
> supplementing the Board paper provided for the 29 May 2008 Board
> Meeting. Since the May Board meeting, registry requests from
> DotCoop and dotMobi have been processed through the process for
> considering new registry services and that proposed contract
> changes had been posted for public comment. These requests might
> come up for Board consideration at the next meeting in August.
>
> Kurt Pritz stated that VeriSign had submitted a request to allocate
> single-character names in .COM and .NET. Bruce Tonkin asked if the
> VeriSign request was public. Kurt Pritz said that it was not yet
> public, because ICANN had asked VeriSign for additional information
> to clarify whether the proposal impacted areas in the .COM and .NET
> agreements related to the registry agreement. It is typical that
> additional information is requested as part of a registry services
> request analysis.
>
> The Board was advised that additional information would be provided
> to the Board in the August Board meeting.
>
> ICANN response to UN Letter on "Enhanced Cooperation on Public
> Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet"
>
> Theresa Swinehart advised that there were two outcomes from the
> WSIS process: one was the formation of IGF and the second was
> dialogue on enhanced cooperation. It was agreed that the UN would
> send out letters to relevant organizations to find out what they
> were doing on public policy issues relating to the Internet and
> would be requested to provide annual performance reports on the
> steps they have taken towards enhanced cooperation. Theresa
> reported that accordingly, ICANN received from the UN
> Undersecretary General Sha Zukang a letter in relation to the WSIS
> Tunis agenda, requesting the UN SG to begin a process, involving
> all relevant organizations, towards enhanced cooperation on public
> policy issues pertaining to the Internet. The letter requested
> organizations to provide performance reports and other information
> pertaining to their work in enhanced cooperation. In receipt of
> this letter were also ISOC, the NRO, W3C, Council of Europe, OECD,
> ITU and UNESCO (the latter are within the UN system). The proposed
> response by ICANN is intended to identify where we are as an
> organization and that we are proactively taking steps in this area
> and view enhanced cooperation as important.
>
> The proposed response to this is that responding provides an
> important opportunity for ICANN to share what it is doing in
> relation to cooperation with all stakeholders including
> governments. Consultations with other organizations in receipt of
> the letter have concluded that responding is positive and important
> opportunity to share more widely the important work respective
> organizations are undertaking.
>
> Janis Karklins agreed that this is the right approach to respond to
> the request, and that UN Undersecretary General Sha Zukang will
> compile paper to be sent to ECOSOC (UN Economic and Social
> Council). Support initiative and work.
>
> The Chair noted that a number of suggestions had been made by Board
> members and suggested a quick turnaround of a revised version would
> be welcomed, so this can be finalized.
>
> Recommendation of BGC's Recommendation for academic appointment to
> Nominating Committee
>
> Roberto Gaetano advised that one of the tasks of the BGC is to
> identify and appoint a representative from the research and
> academia sector to the Nominating Committee. After considering a
> shortlist of candidates, Professor Jan Gruntorád was selected by
> the BGC. Professor Jan Gruntorád understands the implications of
> the work and the time and resource allocation required. The BGC
> supported his candidacy unanimously.
>
> Roberto moved the following motion to appoint and Dennis Jennings
> seconded this.
>
> Resolved (___), the Board appoints Professor Jan Gruntorád as the
> research and academia candidate to the 2009 Nominating Committee.
>
> A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, and the motion
> was approved by a vote of 13 to 0, with no abstentions.
>
> BFC's Recommendation regarding the Mexico City Budget Approval
>
> The Chair advised that the Board Finance Committee met and went
> through the process to satisfy itself that the budget for the
> Mexico City meeting was appropriate and recommended to the Board
> that the budget be adopted. This was not subsequently referred to
> the Board to accept the BFC recommendation so the motion is now
> moved to accept the resolution approving the budget for the Mexico
> meeting.
>
> The motion was moved by the Chair and seconded by Roberto Gaetano.
>
> Whereas, on 26 June 2008 the ICANN Board approved Mexico City as
> the location for ICANN's March 2009 34th global meeting;
>
> Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has approved a budget not to
> exceed $1,596,654 for ICANN's March 2009 34th global meeting in
> Mexico City and has recommended that the Board approve that budget.
>
> Resolved (2008.___) that the Board adopts the Board Finance
> Committee's recommendation to approve a budget not to exceed
> $1,596,654 for ICANN's 34th global meeting in March 2009 to be held
> in Mexico City.
>
> A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, and the motion
> was approved by a vote of 13 to 0, with no abstentions.
>
> Other Business
>
> Regarding the President's Strategy Committee (PSC), the Chair
> recalled that Jean-Jacques Subrenat had sent an e-mail to the Board
> and PSC lists, requesting that the following item be added to
> today's Board Meeting: "Transition: the way ahead". Jean-Jacques
> observed that this matter is still being dealt with by the PSC, but
> it has not yet been possible to schedule a face-to-face meeting of
> the PSC. In the meantime, Board members have read the papers
> drafted by PSC, and might have valuable comments and advice, which
> could be passed on to the PSC. As a member of both, Jean-Jacques
> wished to attract the attention of Board members to the following:
>
> the public presentation of the Transition papers in Paris was a
> success, but was only a launching phase;
> the public consultation period closes later this week, with a very
> disappointing result so far; and,
> if we are convinced that ICANN was right in the first place in
> taking the initiative of reflecting on Transition, of formulating
> its own position, and of providing the opportunity of an open
> debate, then ICANN must change tactics to get beyond this
> disappointing result.
> Jean-Jacques advised that since the public consultation on ICANN's
> website has not produced any noticeable outcome, we should use
> other means. Jean-Jacques suggested a discussion by the Board, at
> least briefly on the following:
>
> ask Management to set up a calendar of meetings (e.g. IETF, IGF,
> and et. Al) which can be used by ICANN to call for more public
> involvement in this consultation;
> consider whether we should extend the consultation period, or set
> up a new one, formulated differently;
> arrange for a few interviews in mainstream media worldwide (the
> stakes in Transition, ICANN's constant dedication to transparency,
> public consultation is an opportunity not to be missed, etc.); and,
> request that the Board acknowledge the work done by PSC, and call
> for suggestions on the way ahead, i.e. on ensuring more effective
> consultation.
> Jean-Jacques advised that transition is one of the most crucial
> items in the Board's line of duty for the coming months, and this
> required a fresh look.
>
> Peter Dengate Thrush recognized that setting a date for a face-to-
> face meeting of the PSC had not yet been possible, said he shared
> many of the points made by Jean-Jacques, and welcomed suggestions
> for more significant public involvement in the consultation process.
>
> Paul Twomey advised that he would circulate to the Board a list of
> public events, which could be an opportunity for ICANN to increase
> general awareness in the stakes of the public consultation on
> Transition beyond JPA. He also indicated that the suggested media
> outreach could be useful. Jean-Jacques welcomed Paul's indication
> that he would rapidly circulate some suggestions on the way ahead.
>
> Discussion regarding Board's Compensation Committee
>
> All Management and Staff left the call for the remainder, of the
> Meeting except for portions that were attended by Paul Twomey and
> John Jeffrey.
>
> The Chair provided an update on recent activity by the Board's
> Compensation Committee. Board members offered additional insights
> and opinions regarding the preliminary conclusions of the
> Compensation Committee whose members agreed, in turn, to consider
> this additional information in making their final recommendations.
> No formal actions were taken during the meeting. It was agreed by
> the Board, consistent with the Bylaws, that minutes would not be
> communicated regarding the general discussion.
>
> Executive Session of the Board
>
> The Board then entered Executive Session without any Management and
> Staff present. It was agreed by the Board, consistent with the
> Bylaws, that minutes would not be communicated regarding the
> general discussion.
>
> The Meeting was adjourned at 21.20 UTC.
>
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080808/b5c5de86/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list