Begin forwarded message: > From: "Bruce Tonkin" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: May 6, 2008 5:30:36 PM PDT > To: "Council GNSO" <[log in to unmask]> > 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: [log in to unmask]