*1) Roll Call*
D Thompson will not attend this meeting due to other work commitments. (See list of participants on Wiki agenda page)
*2) Review of the Summary Minutes 16 March 2009*
The SM were adopted.
*3) Review of the Action Items 16 March 2009*
a) Proposed text for recall procedure in NARALO
The proposal was made at the summit regarding a recall procedure and Garreth and D Thompson have made a draft.
The draft proposed needs to be clarified about the impact of the abstaining votes: are they viewed as ‘no’ votes or taken out of the total? Also, some details are needed for determining when to start such procedure (criteria performance etc), the draft is too vague and it could give way to arbitrary and personal measures.
S Reiss will discuss it off line with G Shearman and D Thompson and they will draft together a new proposal for presentation at the next NARALO teleconference.
b) NARALO/ALAC comments on New GNSO Stakeholder Petition and Charter – Deadline: 15 April – Updated NCUC NCSG proposal of 16 March 2009
ALAC made a comment which is due to be ratified at the alac meeting next week as it presented all possible alternatives, saying essentially that some people feel strongly that there are some problems with the NCUC stakeholder group Charter. In summary, the ALAC is not of a single mind. Some people feel very strongly that the inadequacies of the proposed charter are sufficient reason to not accept it. Others feel that although there are some problems, it has sufficient merit to receive approval with the belief that any problems will be addressed as time goes on. A Greenberg reminds that the process is meant to end by the Board approval and it will not be reopened later on. He summed up the NCUC’s proposal flaws:
• It is subject to takeover because of the possibility of having individual members the fact that there are no fees for membership. Therefore, anybody can have a number of different email addresses and get the corresponding amount of votes and a council seat.
• It lacks incentives for new groups to join in as there is no immediate linkage between constituencies and council seats
B Brendler thinks that NARALO should publicly declare that not all the civil society agrees that the NCUC Charter is the best way to represent the consumer’s voice at the GNSO.
E Leibovitch insists that the ICANN core doctrine of "fairness" between contracted and non-contracted parties is WRONG. He objects to the whole concept of the contracted parties having a significant say in GNSO policy.
If the Board does not take a decision at its next meeting, ALAC will change its statement outside of the formal comment period but before the Board’s final decision. A Greenberg will keep NARALO posted on the ICANN Board’s moves.
A Greenberg comments that the decision on whether to start a PDP or not on the post-expired expiration domain name recovery was deferred again because of lack of time and will be taken up at the beginning of next meeting of the GNSO in about two weeks
*4) Open Public Comment Periods: (All open public comments)*
Selected open public comment periods:
a) New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook, V2
The new ALAC statement was approved by ALAC on 19 April 2009 after online votes.
b) ALAC Review WG Draft Final Review
A Greenberg will work some comments relevant for the methodology for selecting the board members and will distribute them through the list before the next Alac meeting
A Greenberg, V Scartezini and S Bachollet have agreed to write, in their names, a strong statement for the Review Committee with a proposal for them to incorporate in their review that ALAC members as opposed to ALS members must be fluent and conversant in English. The rationale behind the proposal being that ALAC is working within the environment of ICANN and ALAC members must be able to participate in other ICANN activities, including task forces, ICANN working groups and discussions. People who cannot operate in English are at a significant disadvantage for representing the region. This should also be applied to the ALAC NonCom appointees. The current simultaneous translation facilities block the progression of the discussions during multilingual teleconferences and cannot assist the participants efficiently.
c) Proposed Framework for FY10 Budget
ALAC still has to discuss with the budget people.
d) RAA approved amendments
A Greenberg clarified that there are two different actions coming out of the GNSO motion:
• to start very quickly the process of reviewing what should be in the RAA
• to create a statement documenting what the registrants rights are now and making it clear so that people can find the information they need ( a sort of enumeration of what their rights are)
E Leibovitch referred to the At-Large Summit WGs and invited those interested on that issue to join WG4 on accountancy and transparency as they talked about the RAA.
A Greenberg remarked that there could be a PDP or process going on to develop new RAA terms and asked whether it was NARALO’s intention to have something separate going on in parallel. He said it was not clear what methodology would come out of the commitments that the GNSO had made to start a process by 31 July to refine the RAA. Apart from the PDP, there were probably some negotiation involved in some of the aspects. In theory, the ICANN Board has adopted the most recent proposal at its meeting on 16 April but the discussion will be extended by emails.
e) Regional Advice for Papergate
H Ullrich and D Thompson have tried to get information out of them with zero success.
Judging by the Due Diligence, There is no proof of Papergate's existence, whether it has members or not, what its actual mandate is or anything at all.
The NARALO recommendation at the next ALAC meeting should be to reject the application. D Thompson and E Leibovitch will try to contact Papergate and inform them that they should withdraw their application and resubmit it with the proof/demonstration of ongoing activities and the membership missing information
AI: E Leibovitch to work with D Thompson on getting in touch with Papergate and inform them that they should withdraw their application to resubmit a more detailed one, otherwise it will be rejected at the next ALAC meeting.
*5) Recent activities of ALAC (Alan, Beau, and Gareth)*
ALAC had been involved with the aftermath of the LACRALO Chair at the Mexico General Assembly. At-Large staff had made an error in entering the votes into the spreadsheet, a vote from Guinea had not been counted in the announced result at the GA. Apparently,Sergio Salinas has erroneously been proclaimed as the permanent Chair at the Mexico meeting. The situation is still confusing as to who the permanent LACRALO Chair is.
