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:
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
• 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
• 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
• Report on Improving Institutional Confidence Plan - Deadline: 11 May 2009
ALAC still have time to think about possible actions.
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