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" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: August 7, 2008 10:02:06 PM PDT > To: "Council GNSO" <[log in to unmask]> > 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: [log in to unmask]