> Mohamed has ensured that he would be able to participate in the ALAC teleconference at the newly established timing. F Seye Sylla will ask M El Bashir why he hasn’t fulfilled his commitment this time.
>
> · GNSO ALAC community WG on NCSG
>
> The WG submitted a report to the Board on 20 February. The alac had planned to run an alac vote in order to ratify it Due to the intense activity for the summit, it was overseen.
> The GNSO, in their 26 March meeting, objected to running a vote for ratification of it because of its vagueness and other considerations. A summary of their objections will be drafted by Denise Michelle
> Alac will run a vote on the ratification as of 30 March for the next 7 days to adopt it as a statement of its committee*.* A Greenberg will add an explanatory note to it, explaining the delay of the voting process.
>
> · Current public comments addressed by ALAC
>
> The statement on travel support drafted by A Greenberg has been endorsed by ALAC
>
> · FY10 draft proposal
>
> Nick commented that the travel money is no longer in departmental budget, but is all being centralized and administered centrally and At-Large will just be submitting a list of travelers in the future. At this stage, it is still undefined what level of flexibility it will leave to ALAC
> The issue of flexibility regarding the choice of the people being funded as well as other points should be included in ALAC’s comment on FY10 budget. AG suggested a further comment on travel support should be part of ALAC comment in response to the FY10 proposal.
> S Bachollet remarked that regional sub-groups meetings must also receive some ICANN funding, apart from the three annual ICANN meetings and the annual regional General Assembly meetings. These sub-groups meetings are necessary in order to enhance effective global participation.
> AI: Sebastien will draft a small paragraph on the need for regional sub-group meetings funding.
> Cheryl evoked the possibility raised at the thematic session of having some local ccTLD funding support for local ALS activities or/and regional support for regional events. Edmond and the group from the thematic session have been asked to speak to the ccNSO leadership to have the money contributed from the ccTLDs earmarked for the support of those communities.
> Alan Greenberg suggested that the whole issue of outreach whether it is to grow ALSes and/or funding to ALSes or RALOs, which should not be assimilated to just ‘travel support’, might entail some travel funding. Indeed, APRALO wishes to have at the regional and local level some kind of process which crosses over with IGF activities.
> Alac ExCom envisioned packaging statements that were previously agreed as a comment on the FY10 budget proposal.
> There needs to be a call at least between ALAC and Doug or Kevin. A Greenberg pointed out that what the draft review is saying and what ALAC is saying on that matter don’t seem consistent with what the accounting people are saying. ALAC can’t judge what they should be objecting or agreeing too. The public comment period ends on 31 April. The ExCom will establish with the rest of ALAC members during the briefing who will draft their views
>
> · New GNSO stakeholder group Charter:
>
> A Greenberg volunteered to synthesize the statements he had heard verbally on that issue at Mexico.
>
> · Fast track proposed solution
>
> ALAC will further develop the work done during the summit.Siva and Edmund were in favor of IDN ccTLDs. Siva sent a review of the meeting and A Greenberg will work in collaboration with Siva and write a brief comment just to outline that ALAC still stands by its previous statements on that issue which will include the links related to these. Stress will be laid on the fact that ALAC supports fast track IDN ccTLDs but the comment does not refer to geographic TLDs. The 201-letter issue needs still to be discussed.
> Sebastien pointed out that At-Large should actively participate in the debates related to IDN ccTLDs as the community expects some money support from the ccTLDs.
> Alan volunteered to write the statement as he is the ALAC liason for the GNSO.
>
> · New gTLD draft application guidebook 2
>
> Cheryl will be involved and Fatimata will assist Sebastian to avoid any criticism about his involvement in supporting some of the new gTLDs. The final draft should be put to the vote through ALAC discussion list on 6 April to allow for a seven days period before 13 April.
>
> · ALAC review
>
> The Alac ExCom will share their views through individual emails and as recorded in the ExCom Chat and then put the collective work to the working list by 3 May.
>
> · Improving institutional confidence Plan
>
> Sebastien, having chaired WG2, will take care of that issue in the future. Attention should be given to the appendix of institutionalization in the PSC document. Many members with legal expertise (Andres Piazza, Aislan Vargas and others) have commented that it contained considerable mistakes.
>
> · Follow-up on 13 April ALAC meeting
> Establish a time slot for T Drake to talk with the ALAC ExCom about the criteria needed in the search for ALAC NonCom appointee. Cheryl would like to see whether Tricia could talk with the ALAC ExCom 15 minutes after the ALAC meeting for 15 to 30 minutes.
