Documents:

MOU%20Between%20ICANN%20and%20APAC%20ALSes%20DRAFT%201%20-%20EN.doc - Draft prepared by Staff as directed by regional representatives at Sao Paulo ICANNN discussion.
MOU%20Between%20ICANN%20and%20APAC%20ALSes%20DRAFT%201%20-%20EN%20I%20Aizu%2019DEC2006.doc - Edits proposed by I Aizu on 19 Dec 2006 to staff draft.
Operating%20Principles%20No%205-C%20june26.doc - Current RALO Operating Principles in draft form.

Audio Recording:

APAC%20Telcon%2019%20Dec%202006.mp3

TIME: 20:00 Tokyo Time.

Agenda (Draft):

1. Confirmation of the Agenda

2. Overall Roadmap/Situation

3. Discussion on MoU draft

4. Discussion on Operating Principles (time permits)

5. Next steps

6. Any Other Business.

Meeting Notes:

Present:

David, Hong, Siavash, Li, Izumi, Kuo-Wei, Jonathan, Rajnesh

Staff: Nick

It was decided to start with the MoU as the first item of discussion.

Nick mentioned that the LAC region’s operating principles would be forthcoming once the translation into English had been certified by the LAC region.

Siavash discussed two options: regional reps signing with ICANN on behalf of all ALSes, or ALSes individually signing with ICANN.

Nick said that the ICANN legal perspective expressed was that the MoU needed to be between ICANN and individual ALSes on the other, minimum of three.

Siavash stated that he wanted to understand the link between the Op Ex and MoU. Nick mentioned in connection with LAC that having them disconnected allowed the region to choose.

Siavash also asked if legally incorporating might be a way to go, Nick noted that nothing prevented this from happening in any case after the MoU was signed.

Who would pay in the case of the MoU being terminated – the ALSes or who? Nick said it would be up to the region to decide, since the second party is a group of ALSes as a RALO, the RALO would decide.

Izumi – could we check with legal on this point? Nick: sure.

Siavash: what liability does Clause 5 create?

(break in minutes to deal with technical issues of patching Hong into the call via Skype)

On 5.4.1 Add a consensus provision first, then a vote.

(further break due to technical issues)

Change numbering of 5.4.2 to 5.5 to make clear that this is not connected to 5.4.

Elaborate on the phrase ‘their cooperation’ to make clearer who is cooperating – the Parties.

Hong commented on 3.1 – change ‘may be’ to ‘shall be’ is a good idea. This is generally agreed.

Izumi suggested that 5.6 should be deleted, as did Hong. General agreement on this point.

Name the RALO something other than At-Large. This to be discussed further.