Participants: Izumi Aizu, Vittorio Bertola, Pierre Dandjinou, Roberto Gaetano, Xue Hong, Jacqueline Morris, Annette Muehlberg, Jean Armour Polly, Sebastián Ricciardi, Siavash Shahshahani, Wendy Seltzer, Bruce Beckwith
Absent: Clement Dzidonu, Bret Fausett, John Levine, Alice Wanjira-Munyua
Absent with reported conflict: Erick Iriarte Ahon
Liaison reports follow.
Whois Task Force Liaison (Wendy Seltzer)
The WHOIS task force continues to discuss the operational point of contact proposal <http://www.writely.com/Doc.aspx?id=dgsxrsww_2gjfj37>.
President’s Strategy Committee Liaison (PSC) (Pierre Dandjinou)
The PSC will be having a meeting in Paris on 21 August. An agenda has not yet been provided to participants.
ICANN Board Liaison (Roberto Gaetano)
Since Marrakesh, the Board had discussions and took actions on the topics listed below (see also minutes of the 2006-07-18 teleconference at http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-18jul06.htm).
• Addressing
The Board has received the proposal for IPv6 allocation policy by the Address Council. This policy, that must be approved not later than 2006-09-10, covers the allocation from IANA to RIRs. However, some discussion went also over the expectation for sub-allocation from RIRs downstream. This item is on the agenda of the next teleconference.
• ccTLDS
The redelegation request for Morocco (.ma) and Grenada (.gd) was discussed and approved. There has been discussion on the change of policy announced by Colombia (.co). Some members of the Board are concerned about the development of this situation. It is recognized that at this point in time there is no action to take, as there is no redelegation request. However, some Board members feel that there should be a discussion about the different operation models of the ccTLDs, while others believe that the good place for this discussion is the ccNSO.
Another element of concern is the decision of Cameroon (.cm) to use a wildcard, pretty much in similar way as the PathFinder was operated for .com. Security and Stability considerations suggest to discourage this behaviour, but it is also recognized that ICANN has no title to enforce a rule. Also for this case some believe that the ccNSO should be the place to develop guidelines.
The development of the situation in Ukraine has been followed with interest, due to the ripercussions on the .ua redelegation request pending for futher analysis.
• gTLDs
The Board has discussed the draft Registry Agreement for .biz, .info and .org, and has agreed to publish it for a public comment period of no later than 30 days. The Board has also discussed the draft Registry Agreement for .asia, and has agreed to publish it for a public comment period of no later than 30 days.
• IDN
The discussion on IDN is continuing. The Board acknowledges that there is a need for fast implementation, but also that the model has to be carefully evaluated, because we cannot afford to get it wrong.
• Legal
The Board has been informed that SnapNames has withdrawn its lawsuit against ICANN.
• Strategy
A report on the President's Strategy Committee consultations has been provided to the Board by ICANN Staff, and has been discussed by the Board. The Committee is continuing its work.
Feedback has been provided also about the NTIA DNS transition hearing. ALAC's document has been forwarded to the Board.
• WhoIs
The Board is still receiving input by different bodies on the WhoIs formulation by the GNSO. No action is needed on this subject, for the time being.
GNSO Liaison (Bret Fausett)
In preparation for this week's conference call, here is an overview of the activities now underway in the GNSO.
1. New gTLDs. A public comment period is now underway on an initial report from the GNSO's New gTLD Task Force. The Task Force is working on a timeline that will present final recommendations to the Board by the end of the year.
http://icann.org/announcements/announcement1-28jul06.htm
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/newgtlds-issues-report-01-28jul06.htm
This report and the feedback on it will be the primary focus of discussions at a GNSO Council meeting in Amsterdam the last week of this month. I will be attending on behalf of the ALAC. The public comment period ends on Friday, 18 August 2006. We will want to have our feedback prepared by the time of the Amsterdam meeting.
2. Contractual Conditions for Existing gTLDs. The GNSO also has published a preliminary report on what contractual conditions should be imposed on gTLD registries. The initial report is here:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pcc-pdp-03aug06.pdf
The task force is currently looking at retaining expert consultants to assist with issues such as the economics of competition at the registry level, including pricing and "presumptive renewal." Some members of the task force have expressed strong concerns that ICANN is moving forward with contract renewals and negotiations on new terms for .ORG, .BIZ and .INFO will the task force review is underway.
Again, this will be an issue for discussion in Amsterdam. We will want to have our comments prepared by the Amsterdam meeting.
3. IDNs at the TLD Level. ICANN Staff has prepared an issues report on IDNs at the top level of the DNS. You can review the report here:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-17jul06.htm
The question for review now is whether ICANN and the GNSO are asking the right questions. The ALAC should review this and determine whether the list of issues is complete and the suggestions for procedural paths forward cogent. This is not the time to comment on the substance of the questions posed.
4. Whois and National Privacy Laws. As you may have noted from my recent post to the list, the ICANN Staff is planning the implementation of a GNSO and Board resolution to handle "potential conflicts between Whois requirements and national privacy laws."
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02779.html
The ALAC, along with the SOs, will have the opportunity to review and comment upon the draft recommendations.
5. GNSO Review. As you know, ICANN retained the London School of Economics ("LSE") to review the structure, procedures and effectiveness of the GNSO.
Many of you may have been interviewed about this in Wellington. The Draft LSE Review will be published on or about 21 August 2006.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02780.html
We will have the opportunity to review and comment upon the LSE Draft.
IDN Committee Liaison (Hong Xue)
Since Marrakech meeting, IDN PAC had two conference calls and discussed primarily the following two issues:
1) review of IDN discussions during the IETF meeting in Montreal (July 9-14, 2006)
ICANN staffs prepared a briefing paper on the results of the meetings with RSSAC and root operators during the Montreal IETF meeting.
2) review of draft suggested NS laboratory test design
Based on the feedback received in Morocco and the RSSAC feedback in Montreal, a gif file that will show the updated version of the various steps in the new project plan is circulated.
Though PAC is limited to technical discussions by its mission, a couple of the policy issues have been raised, e.g. selection of IDN strings for the test, selection criteria of IDN registries, the future of DNAME.
From the prospective of ALAC, I strongly suggest that we complete the IDN statement that Siavash and I have been working on and then send it out to both GNSO and PAC. ALAC should not be silent on this critically important issue that would significantly influence the interests of the users.
The call then continued with a review of current issues affecting Internet users and the ALAC.
NTIA Meeting Update
A meeting was held on 26 July in Washington DC regarding the ICANN MoU renewal. The meeting was not heavily attended – less than 100 people were in the audience. The two recurring themes were “transparency/accountability” and “public participation,” made mainly by panelists, not the audience members.
ALAC Budget
The overall ICANN budget for the 2006/2007 fiscal year will kept at the same level as the 2005/2006 fiscal year budget since the .COM agreement has not yet been finalized. The ALAC budget for this fiscal year is US$691,000. There is an open question if the US$150,000 cost for an external review is included in this total or if this expense is to be accounted for in a different budget category (non-ALAC). Denise Michel is researching the answer to this question. The ALAC budget for fiscal year 2005/2006 was US$402,000, with US$122,250 spent through 1 January 2006, with a total estimated expense through June of US$279,750. All indications are that the current budget allocation for the ALAC is significantly higher than the amount for last year (even if the external review expense is included in the overall budget).
The question was raised regarding how to allocate budget funding for specific projects. It was reiterated that just as it is currently done with travel, any expected budget allocation would need to be described, including relevant details about the project, forecasting of total expenses, etc., and this should be provided as a justification for the project. ICANN staff would then provide this information to ICANN management for review and as appropriate, approval.
Domain Monetization.
ALAC consultant staff will provide a briefing on this topic by 18 August. This will give the ALAC members background information on the topic. The ALAC members will then discuss the topic to determine if requesting an Issues Report is a reasonable next step.
ALS Status
The status of Due Diligence reports for applicants prior to June 2006 is not known. An investigation of the status of these applications is underway, as there is no central repository for ALS related documents, and the process is fully manual. All due diligence reports for existing open ALS applications will be forwarded to the ALAC membership, even if the due diligence report had been previously distributed.
Self Review
The chair requested that every member of the ALAC that has not yet participated, please participate in the coming week.
Operational Plan
The ALAC would like to have a list of all current ICANN initiatives. There is no comprehensive list that is available, as each group or constituency tracks issues on their own. This is an effort that would be helpful to many groups within ICANN. The discussion included the potential of using basecamphq.com as a tool to help track this information. When information is identified, it is usually added to the calendar at the http://www.icannalac.org web site.
Sao Paulo Meeting
The structure for the ICANN meetings will be changed based on community input and suggestions. The ALAC will put together a subcommittee comprised of Bertola, Iriarte, Morris, Muehlberg, and Ricciardi to help plan for ALAC and RALO activities in Sao Paulo.
Travel Reimbursements
A number of expense report reimbursements have yet to be made. ALAC members are concerned about the delays that appear to be normal, and that when queries are made of Accounts Payable, replies are not returned.
MoU Drafting
ICANN legal staff has offered to provide feedback to ALAC and/or RALO representatives, via ICANN ALAC staff, on drafts of RALO MoUs. This could be helpful in lessening the time that the ICANN Board will need to review final versions of the MoUs.
Next conference call is scheduled for 04 September.
Remaining conference call schedule for 2006:
04 September
05 October
06 November
All calls begin at 13:30 UTC.
