Meeting Summary of Tele-Conference

Apr. 16, 2012

NARALO Teleconference

Present:  Darlene Thompson, Alan Greenberg, Beau Brendler, Allan Skuce, Eduardo Diaz, Garth Bruen, Gordon Chilcott, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Evan Leibovitch, Seth Reiss

Staff:  Heidi Ulrich, Matt Ashtiani, Gisela Gruber, Sylvia Vivanco

Apologies:  Cintra Sooknanan

A G E N D A

1. New gTLD program/participant update

The application system went down and they are attempting to repair it.  They are still aiming for the same reveal date but this may change.

2. Current calls for WG membership/public comment

Policy Advice Development Calendar

See:  ICANN Public Comment page

a. Recently approved ALAC Statements:

i. ALAC Statement on the Reservation of Olympic and Red Cross Names in the nTLD Application Procedure

Alan:  So far nothing has changed and things are moving ahead as per the Applicant Guidebook.

ii.Icann Board conflicts of Interest Review - Revised Conflict of Interest Policy and Related Governance Documents

Beau would like to congratulate our region on this.  ALAC took our statement very seriously.  It caused a lot of discussion and has had far-reaching impact.  Olivier:  The ALAC has come up with an initial statement and sent it to the comments, leaving room open for a second statement, should we choose.  We have until April 24 for this and an expanded statement is being worked on.

iii. WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report 

Seth:  The final draft should be ready by the end of the month.  All comments are being incorporated into the document.  Thin WHOIS is simply the name of the registrant, so very little information – the registrar holds the information and it may be difficult to obtain.  Thick WHOIS includes much more information like address, phone number, etc.  They are suggesting an interface so that if you type in the domain name, it will send you to the thick WHOIS.

Evan:  At-Large is generally in favour of a thick WHOIS and would like that added to the .com contract.

b. Statements currently being reviewed by the ALAC

i. .com Registry Agreement Renewal

ii.  Draft ALAC Statement on the Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) - Draft Report - ALAC vote closes on 13 April

iii. Draft ALAC Statement on the Verisign Request to Implement Redemption Grace Period (RPG) for .name - (see agenda item 7) - ALAC to discuss and vote during 17 April ALAC meeting

iv. Draft ALAC Statement on the Fake Renewal Notices Report- ALAC vote closes 17 April

v. At-Large Draft Advice Letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition- ALAC vote closes 24 April

Olivier:  The WG was tasked with a specific task with the word “consumer” being used.  The Board took internet users as “consumers”.  This word is also confusing in other languages where “consumer” takes on a different meaning.  The Board needs to be aware of the way they address the issue, as that of “internet users” rather than “consumers”.

vi. Draft ALAC Statement on the IDN Variant Issues Project – Proposed Project Plan for Next Steps- ALAC vote closes 27 April

c. Current open policy forums:

Does the ALAC wish to develop statements for the following Public Comments:

i. Second Annual IDNccTLDFast Track Process Review- Comment period closes 30 April

ii. .post Agreement Amendment - Comment period closes 9 May

Alan:  The .post agreement has a provision saying you cannot register at the second level a name that exists at another level.  They would like to have a .ca.post (among others) so would like to have that removed.  Right now they would need approval from the appropriate government.  Right now, it would quite useful for the end user so we have no comment against this.

Darlene:  We have a current call for WG members for the Rules of Procedure and Metrics working groups.  Anybody interested should contact staff. 

3. Recap of current projects and issues

            - Survey (Glenn/Beau)

We hope to present the results of the survey at the Prague meeting

            - NA statement on conflict of interest (Beau)

Beau will continue to pursue this.

            - resultant success/resonance of message

4. Discussion of geographic regions

Evan:  There were definite political issues coming up and there are definitely countries that wish to join up with NARALO.  Of course, we cannot initiate anything.  We will have to wait for them to request.  NARALO is still the only region that actively encourages individuals.  Do we allow individuals to join.

Alan:  Our Rules of Procedure do not allow individual members to join unless they live in the region.  Also, if we follow the rules of the RIRs, we could end up with Jamaica because they get their addresses from North America but not Trinidad and Tobago because they get their addresses from South America.

Olivier:  There was a statement from the ALAC that was sent in only a few months ago that mentions a third avenue that suggests that those countries that are on a boundary between two regions, they should be able to choose which one they would like to join.  This may be more palatable to some.  We made use of the Ombudsman for the LACRALO meeting and there has been some progress made.  LACRALO is now going through a set of elections.

Heidi:  The LACRALO has on their next steps and are making progress on the working groups that were set up in Costa Rica.

Olivier:  In Costa Rica, LACRALO had a great bunch of capacity building meetings and a great showcase which really helped to pull the region together.  We still haven’t heard from ICANN Finance as to whether a NARALO GA will be funded for Toronto but a GA makes a huge difference in the working to the region.

5. Other business
Evan:  Do we do a showcase for Toronto?  If so, we need to start now.  Beau will put this up as an action item and send out an e-mail to get the consensus of the group.

Evan:  Ganesh will not be able to make it to Prague.  There has been a proposal for Dev to come instead.  He has done a lot of really hard work and would be an excellent person to have there, even though he is not from our region.

Eduardo:  So right now LACRALO has no secretariat?  Evan:  Correct.  Dev is not funded to go.

Alan:  He is not planning to run so there will be a new Secretariat elected before Prague.

Olivier:  There are new people that are running for the Secretariat position so one of those two people will attend for LACRALO.

Alan:  He will be invaluable in the meeting in Prague.

Beau:  We should give the region a chance to comment so as to achieve consensus.  If anybody has any comments, please send them directly to Beau and Darlene so that we don’t hurt anybody’s feelings!

• 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.