Summary Minutes 16 April 2012

Summary Notes and Action Items
Monday 16 April 2012
Participants: Allan Skuce, Alan Greenberg, Beau Brendler, Darlene Thomspon, Gordon Chillcot, Olivier Crepin Leblond, Garth Bruen, Eduardo Diaz, Evan Leibovitch, Seth Reiss, Joly McFie
Apologies: Cintra Sooknanan
Staff: Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Silvia Vivanco, Heidi Ullrich
BB: To be clear, there will be no NARALO Meeting in Prague
BB: Please make yourself aware of the open Public Comments.
AG gave a bief update of the various issues.
BB: ICANN Board Conflicts of Interest Review - we made a Satetement and the At-Large took it seriously. I am proud of this region and all of its work.
OCL: I ask NARALO to look at the policy development page and I encourage it to participate in any Statement it find relevant. I think it is important, for transparency, for us to lead by example. We need to determine if tehre are any conflicts and, if so, to not let it pass
BB: Whois Policy Review Team Draft Report - updates to be given
SR We are struggling with the final changes as they relate to the Whois, but there is not much to update on at this point. IThe most important aspect at this point is Recommendat 17
AG: The validity of the information is provided by the registar but it is stored by the registry. We need clarification on this issue.
EL: We have spoken previosuly on the issue that At-Lagre is in favor on Thick Whois. Now we have the opportunity to put this into the .com contract and we should ensure we utilize this opportunity.
BB: Draft Statement on Consumer Trust - can anyone give us an update?
EL: There is a large issue regarding Consumer Trust and Choice - they need to look outside of their own walls and get more opinions.
OCL: The issue was the term "consumer." The Board to users to be consumers of domain names, there was users who do not "consume" domain names. The other issue is that consumer can have a very different connotation in other langauges and this should be looked at.
BB: IDN Issues - Second Annual IDNccTLDFast Track Process Review - Comment period closes 30 April
BB: Are there any issus regarding .post Agreement Amendment - Comment period closes 9 May
AG: Like all of the other gTLD agreements, you cannot register at the second level that ocrrespond to existing TLDs which is essentaially all of the TLDs and gTLDS.
DT: Those wishing to participate in the RoP WG should contact staff
BB: Progress is good on the survery. ICANN Staff are translating the survey and we should begin shortly afterwards. As a result of this translation, we are now focusing on distributining it far and wide. We hope to make a presentation in Prague.
DT: [Armenia] thinks that it belongs in EURALO, not APRALO. Shouldn't a country be allowed to join a region that it thinks it belongs to? This impacts as regarding LACRALO. Many in the Carribbean may wish to break off of LACRALO and join NARALO. I wanted to make the group aware of this fact. We may need to think about this topic as NARALO would have to consent to adding these groups.
BB: While I hesitate to have an opinion due to being Chair, I think this addition would benefit NARALO due to the growth.
EL: There were political issues in CR, specifically the idea of some ALSes requesting affiliation with NARALO. To be clear, we are not in a position to initiate anything. But there may be requests in teh future and we need to determine how we will deal with them in the future should they happen. Morover, since the development of the RALO process, we are the only RALO to encourage the individual rather than just the ALS. We have heard from a number of regions regarding individual membership, but after approximately 5 years we are the only region that has a mechanism for accomidating individual members.
AG: Members must live in a region to participate within a RALO
DT: I agree.
AG: If we follow how IP Addresses are assigned, we would end up with the curious situation where Jamaica could become part of NARALO but not Trinidad and Tobago. This option does not satisify everyone's needs.
OCL: Regarding the Geographic Regions Review, there was a Statement by the ALAC that was sent to the PC in December 2011. Our Statement mentions a third avenue: not to look at the RAR model for a model of Geo Regions as the RAR model was not set up for a particular reason - it was just just up! The Geo Regions themselves still follow the UN regions. The ALAC suggests that those ocuntries or territories that are in a boundry between on and another region, might wish to choose which region to belong to. How this will be determined is something for discussion, but this model may help us find a solution. Another thing to consider is that the Improvements - we should not rewrite bylaws simply to rewrite them in a few months.
HU: LACRALO does have a "next steps" section on their agenda for next weeks call, I think this progress should be noted.
OCL: I spoke about the GA, but I did not mention the amazing set of events that took place - the Showcase which include the minister of telecommunications, the capacity building sessions which produced a lot of positive feedback, and other amazing events. Also, I hope that the NARALO Region will be able to have its GA and be able to have all of the events that it wants to do from finance.
BB: Any Other Business - would anyone like to make a comment.
EL: For preperation for Tornoto, are there any plans? Will we have a Showcase?
DT: I prefer to not have a showcase.
BB: I believe there are similar sentiments regarding Darlene's comment.

AI: There should be a consensus vote regarding the holding of a Showcase.
AI: The Toronto meeting is on all future NARALO Meeting agenda.

BB: Ganesh will not be attending Prague.
EL: Ganesh has informed ALAC that he will be unable to attend the Prague meeting. As a result, we have an available open travel allotment from North America. Previously such re-allocations have been decided by the Chair of NARALO after consultation with other regional leadership.I wish to suggest to Beau that this slot be allocated outside the region, to Dev Anand Teelucksingh. As he is not standing for re-election as Secretariat, under LACRALO rules he is not as of this moment funded for Prague. Based on the immense amount of work that Dev has been doing in support of numerous At-Large activities and especially the ALAC new-gTLD onjection process, I recommend Dev as the yet-unfunded person who could best assist At-Large in its activities.
EL: I fully support funding Dev as he is the main author of so much.
OCL: Elections will take place shortly, before Prague. Once the Chair and Secretariat - which Dev is not running for - will attend Prague.
BB: Let's take some time to determine how we as a group feel about this and we will talk about it soon.