The SM of 13 January were unanimously adopted and those of 3 March too after adding P Vande Walle in the list of participants.
Regarding the only Action Items from 3 March still to work on, staff will complete the missing information on the SM of 3 March after checking again the end section of the recording.
The Chair asked to remove from the next agenda the items already achieved
Review of current status of ALS applications
Staff received three new ALS applications and they are currently being examined before putting the announcement onto the discussion list. The Chair asked for staff to give her the links directly in the future. She asked about the state of progress of the new system replacing the google.doc records. N Ashton-Hart said he had talked about D Conrad and that the work would be managed as an IT project for the IT services and systems. Staff was asked to keep the information regularly updated on the google.doc in the meantime.
IRT - ALAC Representatives and WG support
Only V Scartezini and B Brendler had applied within the deadline to be part of that IRT. B Brendler’s candidacy has been rejected and ALAC need to ask V Scartezini for update on hers. W Seltzer recommends ALAC wait for the public comment period on the resulting IRT draft statement.
A Greenberg urged the whole community to give their inputs to the IRT group before the start of the public comment period, final draft being for 24 May.
Information about ALAC Ad Hoc WG on IRT can be found at:
https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_irt_process_working_gro
Internet Registrant Rights Charter WG
A Greenberg would like to identify a small number of people who will be involved and have B Brendler among them and then a larger WG who can work with those people or perhaps one or two other representatives. Information on the WG actual size may be released during the next GNSO meeting on 26 March.
The Chair asked whether there was a workspace already established for the purpose and mentioned that ALAC had already some background material about codes of practice and whether the GNSO should be advised about a possible joint activity group project.
The GNSO liaison and the open Wiki are also useful tools for connections with the NCUC and it was referenced to the GNSO liaison and the open RAA wiki workspace. offer plenty of background material. The WG participation can offer an advantage to those planning to attend at the Sydney GNSO meeting on that topic.
Chair’s proposed a resolution ‘that the meeting record reflect ALAC’s intention to activate, advertise, populate and start prepatory to work within the RAA WG space that was previously set up in March 2008 for the topic of registrant rights and that ALAC be ready to work with the GNSO and that specifically includes the important NCUC constituency of the GNSO on this matter of whatever desire that this joint group community is the result.’
The motion was accepted unanimously
ALAC Resolution on Working Group Statements
(Propose resolution on the WG statement which is hyperlinked to the agenda)
A Greenberg’s alternate proposal for preamble ‘4’ was discussed. The resolution was unanimously approved after some amendments directly made onto the wiki page. E Leibovitch thinks the resolution lacks deadlines for deliverables and other practical details. It is noted that the aim of the resolution is not to take importance off of the Summit statements handed to the ICANN Board.
Endorsement of the ALAC comment on the travel issue
The statement was unanimously adopted.
Open Public Comments
The following topics have retained ALAC’s interest for further actions:
• Proposed Charter of Geographic Regions Review Working Group - Deadline: 24 March 2009 – closed on 25 March
APRALO is already establishing a WG on it. LACRALO should also study it
• New GNSO Stakeholder Group Petition and Charters - Deadline: 15 April 2009
A Greenberg and A Peake will work together on a formal statement based on ALAC’s previous comments.
A Peake will try to summarize the statements made in Mexico City and see how they corrolate to the previous ones.
• Fast Track Proposed Solutions - Deadline: 6 April 2009
A Greenberg will keep ALAC Posted and put his comments onto the list.
• GNSO Approved RAA Amendments - Deadline: 6 April 2009
ALAC’s support will be expressed through the liaison’s conduit.
• New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 2 - Deadline: 13 April 2009
A draft statement should be sent to the At-Large community informing them about the work being currently done on that and reminding them on the timeline for inputs, especially with regards to the version 2.
• ALAC Review WG Draft Final Report - Deadline: 17 April 2009
call for comments to come in and be incorporated into the alac statement on alac review – we don’t have a specific working group for that topic.
• Board Review - Working Group Interim Report - Deadline: 17 April 2009
The ALAC regional representatives will have to stimulate the RALO’s for comments
• New gTLDs - Preliminary Reports on Competition and Pricing - Deadline: 17 April 2009
E Leibovitch proposed setting up a joint conference call to reconcile the views of WG3 and ALAC WG on new gTLDs on a number of issues. The Chair reminded that the final ALAC statement could include a diversity of opinions.
• Proposed Framework for ICANN's FY10 Operating Plan and Budget - Deadline: 20 April 2009
ALAC will plan briefing calls before the elaboration of a draft comment and provide briefing on the operational plan to the RALO’s if they wish so.
• Report on Improving Institutional Confidence Plan - Deadline: 11 May 2009
ALAC still have time to think about possible actions.
AOB
ALAC’s sollicited intervention into LACRALO internal affairs
The regional representatives of the LACRALO are going to conduct a single topic conference call with the ALAC Ex Com, the returning officer and associated staff to discuss further the mechanisms by which proxies were or were not counted and results were not appropriately recorded to the LACRALO during the GA. . This is simply an advisory but it is setting up a set of principles and practices for the record. The ALAC does not interfere as such in the matter of the regional organizations unless they are invited to or it is a matter that is doing harm to alac and the At-Large community. In the present case, all the parties concerned have asked in this case for ALAC intervention. The chair of the alac has been requested to look at this specific issue. What is at issue is the interpretation of the rules established by the RALO.
The ALAC ExCom will follow up on the ALAC call and determine all the practicalities of the assignments decided here.
CLO apologized for the oversight concerning the setting-up of an Adobe room and said they would have one set up in the future
