SUMMARY for At Large- 1. Rita read the resolution which refers outreach, Draft FY12 and support for applicants for applicants from developing countries. It includes at 4. Details on JAS including that the system receive seed funding of $2M and be in place before the opening of the application window. Resolution is seconded +13 Cherine gives a statement that while it is a multi-stakeholder model we must “seek better consensus and reaching closure” and supports the resolution. Erika states that the multi-stakeholder model is working well and it is embedded that we will not exactly reach consensus. This is the strength as it brings out the optimum solution possible not as a story that ends but as a mechanism for improvement. She is confident that the Resolution has been drafted at its optimum and supports. She states her conviction that the seed fund will help organisations from developing countries. She states that one can negotiate forever and that compromise is needed on this level. Steve notes the nostalgia and the historic moment in ICANN that we are presently upon. He states their commitment to be supportive in the future by refinement but it is a mistake to wait to try to get everything exactly right. He suggests that you strap yourself in there will be turbulence but it will be an exciting ride. Katim states that the multi-stakeholder process has to serve as a new paradigm for development partnership and international coorporation, and congratulates the achievement of this. He notes that we must provide applicant support under Resolution 20 that there be an inclusive process. The issue is not whether we should do it or not, this is agreed. He continues that this is best practice in the international community which ICANN is becoming apart of. Notes the work done in the community and states we should not patronise it because it s what is best for the developing world and what is best of ICANN. It has to be best for all of us. Sebastien states that is would have been better for all stakeholders to be included not just GAC Board consultations. He states the proposed timeline is too long but he hopes it can help the ICANN community to build a safe community to help needy applicants. He hopes that we can develop a programme without having the timeline slip and suggests we state when the second round will be to reduce the stress of the first round. In the case of New gTLD he states that he hopes the stress will be brief and we can take GAC and other stakeholder input. The only way to do this is to place it in reality is to support its launch. Kuo gives his support notes future challenges including Ipv6. Gonzalo expresses his gratitude to the community because of the work and demonstration of the multi-stakeholder model. He notes that nothing is perfect in public policy and he thinks the Board has reached a level of seriousness and maturity to approve the programme. He notes we need to continue working but he is happy to see how the dialogue was carried out. Rita states that she does not agree with everything in the AG, but believes in the multi-stakeholder process, compromise an innovation. She approves of the creative chaos and fostering of ground rules that allow security and stability but allows freedom. She notes that they are not necessarily making everyone happy but is excited to find out the next steps. She recognises the hard work still ahead. - 1 George stated he will vote against the resolution because of the GAC, peoples of the developing world and the limitations to build out of IDNs. Points out that it should not be a zero sum game and there must be strong and shared agreement among the community (which does not exist as yet). Believes that we can do better for needy applicants and current proposals are not sufficient. Observes that there should be planning and development for the developing world; and that the developing world was not asked what they need. He states the proposal is based on giving funds ignores the opportunity costs of directing funds elsewhere, that ICANN choose winners; that ICANN should not define who is needy. He suggests that we determine the reasonable goals to support in partnership with others. -2 ABSTAIN Bruce Mike states this is based on the process that resulted in the resolution and based on the interaction of the Board and GAC the process is close to finality but not quite there. He could not conclude that the facts were being developed with the bottom up process. He does not think that applying funds to a few needy applicants will cover the requirements or serves the community. He notes that the GAC should be more responsive to the fast paced nature of these issues. He says that the program close is driven by artificial and ego. Raymond notes the peculiarities and details of a negative and abstention and that any other abstention other than by Bruce is a NO vote. 2. Peter states the focus is on obtaining advice from GAC and expresses his gratitude to them. He states the resolution that the Board and GAC have not reached a mutually acceptable solution on some areas. Bertrand seconds. Bruce abstains, all others approve. 3. Bruce notes the work done by the GNSO and GAC, and their commitment to consider all the recommendations. He acknowledges and thanks the support of staff. He puts the resolution of the work done by the GAC. George seconds. Sebastien states the difficulty for non-English speakers to participate and thanks the work of non-English speaking members of the community. Heather notes the multistakeholder model and thanks the Board for their consideration. Bertrand acknowledges the strengthening of the structure by the discussion of the GAC with the Board and other members of the community. He hopes there will be continued participation to ensure that everyone is aware of it and also to ensure that necessary adaptations can be made. Rita is hopeful that the Board, GAC and rest of the community can engage in the future. Unanimously approved Rod summarises the work done to this point, thanks and congratulates everyone. Next steps are the communications programme, but will also rely on the community. Recognises the contributions of Kurt Pritz, John Jeffrey and all ICANN staff. Peter closes the meeting- Perfect is the enemy of the good.