[At-Large] Preliminary Report for the 23 January 2008 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors

[Thomas Narten]

Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> writes:

> It _sounds_ good, but it's far too indirect for my understanding.

Take it as a snapshot of the board's current thinking. It is vague (in
some sense) because it is not a decree that changes any of the rules
in practice _today_. But it does send a signal about the direction
things perhaps should move in.

> The relevant quote regarding tasting is the Board resolution to:
> "encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains
> added, including domains added during the AGP".

> Does this mean the elimination of the waiver? In theory or in
>  practice?

At one level, it means nothing, because it makes no changes to current
practice. The resolution by itself does not eliminate the waiver.

What it is saying is that ICANN (as a community) should move to
"include fees for all dojmains added, including domains added during
the AGP"

Whether that actually happens (in reality) we won't know until the
budget development process plays out (i.e., over the next few
months).  That is an open/public process, where everyone will have a
chance to weigh in.

But I think you can read the resolution as saying the board would be
inclined to support a change.  I say "inclined" only because at the
end of the day, the board will look at the specific proposal it is
asked to approve, and weigh the overall pros/cons of that proposal.

> I'm truly doing my best to understand ICANN culture. Still, Board
> directives to encourage things to happen, rather than actually _do_
> things, appear to the unschooled as an invitation for exceptions,
> delays, or outright refusal to implement. To the untrained eye, this
> resolution is good news only if accompanied by an optimistic
> interpretation.

The way to view it is that the board is not (by itself) making the
decision here. But they have signaled a direction that they think the
community should move in and one they would be inclined to support.

> Or... is this simply a welcome first step down a long and landmine-laden
> road?

Sounds about right! :-)

Thomas