Fwd: [council] Report on ICANN Board meeting held 30 April 2008

[Robin Gross]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Date: May 6, 2008 5:30:36 PM PDT
> To: "Council GNSO" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] Report on ICANN Board meeting held 30 April 2008
>
>
> 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 Council members is welcome - either via
> this list - which I read, or to either me or Rita Rodin directly.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>




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/20080507/5afec69e/attachment.html>