[alac] Board activities in September

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

These are the subjects that the Board has debated in September.

*       ALAC
Some attention has been given to issues regarding ALAC, and specifically the
complaint received by the Ombudsman on failure of the ALS accreditation
voting procedure. It has been stated that, although not all problems have
been solved, since the complaint in fall 2005 progress has been made, in
particular enhancing the voting procedure through a request to the Board to
change the Bylaws. The Bylaws have been changed in Vancouver, and a vote has
been held immediately thereafter for all pending applications. The Board has
also been informed of the status of the RALO formation process, and the
difficulties that ALAC has, being a body of volounteer, in operating
satisfactorily with limited support by ICANN staff. 
        
*       DNS Marketplace
The discussion, that started already in the previous month mainly in
relation to the renewal of the contract with .biz, .info and .org, continued
in September. The subjects discussed were not only the lifting of the price
cap, but the possibility for the registries to apply differential pricing,
and generally speaking what were the pros and cons of ICANN intervening
directly in what can be perceived as the role of a regulator. There is rough
consensus on the principles of letting the market forces operate freely, and
of limiting ICANN's intervention to a minimum, but substantial differences
were expressed in the debate on which was this minimum. In summary, another
confirmation that the devil is in the details.
*       Future meetings
The Board has continued the discussion on the preparation of the October
retreat, and the modality and contents of ICANN participation at the IGF in
Athens. Moreover, logistic details and a general layout of the calendar for
Sao Paulo has been discussed. The proposal of improving the meeting
structure to allow more efficiency and better communication with the ICANN
community has also been discussed. Finally, the Board has adopted the
recommendation of the Meeting Committee for the March 2007 and June 2007
meetings, that will take place respectively in Lisboa (Portugal) and San
Juan (Puerto Rico). 

*       Renewal of the MoU
The Board has been engaged in deep discussions about ways to manage the
expiration of the MoU with USG at the end of September. While an extension
of the MoU was one possibility, the Board has estimated that the time was
ripe for a change of the relationship with the USG, and that different
solutions should be explored. During the whole month of September intense
negotiation has taken place between ICANN and USG, and a solution has been
outlined based on a Joint Project Agreement between the two parties,
completed by a declaration of principles consisting on the outline of the
current responsibilities of ICANN and the way forward. This discussion has
been quantitatively and qualitatively the most important activity of the
Board, with analysis in detail of wording related to points like the
relationship of ICANN with the ASO, RIRs and NRO, as well as the statu-quo
and possible future evolution of the policy related to the WhoIs. On the
latter in particular, the Board acknowledges to be bound as today to enforce
the current practice, but it is in the nature of the bottom-up process to
indicate possible modifications to the policy.
        
*       Wildcard
After the discussion in previous weeks about the use of a wildcard by
Cameroon (.cm), the new case in September was the request by .travel to
implement a similar mechanism. It should be reminded that the main
difference between the two cases is that, while .cm is a ccTLD that does not
have any agreement with ICANN, .travel operates in the framework of a
contract, and therefore has to agree with ICANN the possibility to offer
this kind of service. The discussion included also the debate on whether
there is a difference in the use of a wildcard by a sponsored TLD, given
also the precedent of .museum, or whether a general ban of this use should
be enforced, at least where enforceable, i.e. the gTLDs. 

Please refer to the preliminary reports of the two teleconferences in
September, published at
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-07sep06.htm and
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-25sep06.htm, for further details.
 
Please let me know if you have questions.
 
Best regards,
Roberto Gaetano
ALAC
ICANN Board Liaison