Samantha Eisner: I wanted to share with you guys what my initial thoughts were and see if they might be of any assistance to the drafting efforts here, and then of course they’re updated to reflect the revised bylaws which just went into effect.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I did note some in the copy of the bylaws that I was last reading on the side that we still have the interim ALAC language inclusive of liaisons, etc. Is there going to be a mock-up done? I know this is out of the current conversation but when is that happening?
Samantha Eisner: Yeah, I think we do have some items that we have to go back through and just do a formal cleanup of the bylaws, just to make sure we have that done. If you can show me where you saw that I would appreciate it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well because each of the teams, there’s a couple of teams that have filled into the bylaws if- What I’ll get them to do is anytime they see something we’ll just flag it and then send you a little flag collection so you can-
Samantha Eisner: That would be great.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Great.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: So basically we have like two things here: one is this document we have on paper with changes, but then we also have in the workspace this sort of expanded version where we have been trying to work various suggestions from the final report of the ALAC Review Working Group into the bylaw language. And I would be very interested in finding out as permitted from Sam whether those things that are proposed are at all suitable for the bylaws.
Samantha Eisner: I’m just trying to locate the link of the Work Teams drafting on the Wiki, I’m sorry.
Seth Greene: Sam, I’m sorry, I’m having some trouble hearing but I think you asked about a link to something?
Samantha Eisner: I located it, thank you.
Seth Greene: Sure.
Samantha Eisner: So first of all, thank you for asking me to come. I have not had a chance to look at some of the more recent comments on the Wiki page. As I was explaining to Cheryl, the document, the hard copy document that Seth should have in a form that he’s able to send around to people as well, is a draft document of the bylaws and proposed amendments that I took an initial stab at starting back in April when we were working on the implementation work. And I went through the final reports and just put down some initial thoughts of how the bylaws may be amended to keep them consistent with the other portions of the bylaws.
The role of the General Counsel, we can surely assist you in facilitating the bylaws amendments, and one of the very important things that we look at is the issue of internal consistency; we want to make sure that there are no bylaws provisions that may cause issue internally within the ALAC section and also do not create large inconsistencies with other sections of the bylaws, particularly other sections relating to advisory committees. So we wanted to provide you with this document to give you some thoughts of how we initially thought the bylaws changes could happen, and of course this is not handing it to you to say this is what it has to be but thought that it may be of assistance to you in further drafting efforts.
In an earlier version I noted that there was the comment that the “relates to the interest of individual internet users” be dropped from the text – items like that would cause concern for the General Counsel’s office because it also really helps define the role of ALAC in the organization. So we would have some comments and concerns on items such as that, but it appears that the new draft that’s up retains the “individual internet user” language. Those would be things that we would really look at.
I have not been able to get to the point of determining if there are other items from the most recent draft that may cause concern or alarm. I apologize; just between travel and these past couple days have been extremely busy on my end. I haven’t had a chance to take a look at these items too in-depth yet.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I may, is my volume right? Cause I can start using my parade ground voice and Seth can hear me physically that way, I guess. So let us know if you can hear me or not, Seth.
Seth Greene: Yes, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: One of the points that I was concerned about, Sam, that you just picked up on that I was planning to bring forward to this meeting anyway this morning, was the absence in our drafting of paragraph 4G, which you all know I get a little bit excitable about. We’ve really got to make sure that there is a cross reference in whatever comes out in the end, because it’s only in paragraph 4G that clearly defines the role of the RALOs as the primary place for interchange on policy development. And if I’m going to do anything I’m going to cure this ridiculous belief that it is the ALAC that does policy development. It’s the edges that does policy development; we’re a conduit and a mechanism for assimilation of diverse regional and ALS views. So without 4G I get really towey (sp). So I don’t know how you feel about that, Sam – is there anything in 4G now that we need to look at as a result of doing a general twilight to the bylaws?
Samantha Eisner: I will look at that and give some consideration to that. Following on that comment, Cheryl, I’m looking on the Wiki link for the bylaw changes, and to the extent that the ALAC is a conduit for participation, there’s reference in Item C that discusses ALAC’s advice. And should that be considered in a different way? Should we have, should we be particular to wording around that?
Evan Leibovitch: Sorry, without going into the specific wording, one of the things that has sort of been a quandary from the beginning is why there’s different concepts of how different advisory committees are handled; that when the GAC provides advice it’s received in a certain way and there’s a bylaws-based requirement that be responded to in a certain way. There’s no such equivalency for ALAC and in fact there has occasionally been a perception that policy gets tossed over the wall and there’s no obligation to answer back.
Samantha Eisner: I think that there are a couple tracks that that can be responded to, both through bylaws changes as well as through the organizational changes that are taking place right now. Particularly through the efforts of the ATRT we are trying to get to a point where no one’s advice just gets thrown over the wall and there are responses provided, and advice is acknowledged.
I do note that in the final report, the Working Group did not recommend that the advice coming through the ALAC be responded to in the same manner or have that same consultation mechanism provided for it as provided for the GAC. In the final report there’s a recommendation for acknowledgement of ALAC advice. And I think that going through the ATRT processes and really trying to improve the accountability of the organization, that acknowledgement may be something more but the final report did not suggest that a consultation mechanism as is provided with the GAC be implemented.
I was not here earlier to figure out why there was a consultation mechanism put in for the GAC and not for the ALAC, but there aren’t any other AC’s that have that sort of consultation mechanism other than the GAC.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Well, I think the most happy outcome would be that there would be in the bylaws something along the lines, suggested actually by our draft comments to the ATRT, to say that there would be a general provision of how the advice from the Advisory Committees will be treated. And then that would be applicable to all, and in that case there would be no need for a specific, for basically for C&D as they are here.
Evan Leibovitch: Yeah, I think one of the things that we wanted to try and deal with was generalizing it. So rather than saying “This is how the GAC is treated,” you say “This is how Advisory Committees are created,” that ICANN creates something called and Advisory Committee which doesn’t tie ICANN’s hands to perhaps creating new ones in the future and just say “When you have Advisory Committees, this is how they’re going to be handled.” And so if it’s ALAC, GAC, SAC or whatever, that you assume that these bodies are being created with a certain amount of consultative process within themselves.
And so you say, you know, you can assume that by the time something comes out of them, as opposed to something that just gets put into public comment, there’s a certain weight to it, there’s a certain consultative- and consensus-based policy within that group itself. And so I think it’s safe to say we were hoping to generalize it. Rather than saying “Well, we want what the GAC has,” “There’s a concept called Advisory Committees and here’s how ICANN deals with them.”
Samantha Eisner: I think that these are all very worthwhile points. My concern is, is this something that we can actually facilitate through an effort to revise the ALAC-specific or the At-Large specific bylaws to meet the implementation plan.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It may or may not be depending on how the Board does or does not respond to the ATRT’s options of what they’re going to be hearing. I know that’s sort of a convoluted answer but what it really means is we need a placeholder to deal with it within our own bylaws’ subsections if the generalization doesn’t work. So I’d be doing some Option A, Option B, Option C stuff here.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Actually it would be possible to have these C & D in brackets; that is to say they are there just in case. There wouldn’t be anything general about the role and modalities of the Advisory Committees.
Evan Leibovitch: Or you even think of it as long-term, short-term. Short-term, you do the band aids that are necessary to do what we need, but you know, taking a long-term vision that you hope that things get streamlined and generalized as you go along and everything gets looked at from a higher level.
Samantha Eisner: I do think that this is an issue of timing. I think that we don’t know how quickly we’ll have responses from the Board or direction on the broader ATRT recommendations, but I can assure you that as those come through to the extent that we can facilitate bylaws changes or changes within the organization to meet those we will be doing that as quickly as we can.
Looking at the A, B, C, D here, and I’m not exactly sure how the A, B, C, D here fits into the full A, B, C through H or J or K that are in the bylaws; we would have to also consider as the bylaws are being amended at this point- When I look at C I see issues, I see comments relating to relevant SOs and requiring responses from the relevant SOs. The response there states, if I look at D it says “If the ALAC’s advice is not followed in the development of a policy a response should be sent to the ALAC with an explanation or an explanation should be provided in the policy document or in the minutes of its discussion.”
To my mind that refers to the paragraph above which references relevant SOs or the Board, so that is putting an affirmative obligation not only on the Board but on the SOs. And I would hesitate to put any sort of directive, particularly to the SOs but also to the Board, without having the community conversations, right? You wouldn’t want to put in a directive into your bylaws section, or into the section reflecting the ALAC obligations that imposes an affirmative obligation on the SOs that the SOs have not agreed to take on.
And so I think some of this, and when I provided some initial discussion with Heidi and Seth on this, said many of these recommendations actually reflect on the need to have some agreement between the SOs and the ALAC of how things will be treated, and once that agreement is reached then it’s probably an appropriate point if necessary to have those reflected in the bylaws, because putting something in the bylaws and mandating it doesn’t actually facilitate the work being done properly within the organization.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yeah, I understand very well that actually. This is not the place where obligations can be put to other SOs and so on and so forth. But again, that makes it even more important to have these provisions in a general way rather than just for ALAC.
Samantha Eisner: I think we’re all agreed on that point, yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I may, could I just ask Mattias and Heidi to bring up onto the shared screen the, I’m trying to think which recommendation- Seth, help me, darling – which recommendation is it specific? Is it 13 that’s specific to our interaction with the other SOs and ACs? Because we have a particular implementable from the ALAC improvements. Seth?
Seth Greene: Yes, and in the pod on the bottom middle column there’s the link for all of those tasks. Let me see… Apparently that pod keeps, at least on my end, I see it closing a lot and being reopened. Ah, I think here it is, yes. Ah, it’s done it again. I’ll get it up on my own computer and tell you, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: My point then, Sam, is we actually have a specific implementable recommendation that goes to exactly that conversation having to be had, so-
Samantha Eisner: Yes, I would just stage having that conversation prior to implementing bylaws changes reflecting the intended outcomes of those conversations.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, for the session on Thursday, I think that we now have to decide what exactly are we going to put on-screen at that meeting.
Evan Leibovitch: Sorry. Is it too late to introduce things that aren’t being considered here but might be in the spirit of it? And I’m thinking specifically F and wondering if there’s a possibility to actually allow for non-voting liaisons between the ACs now that we are getting into a realm where we are starting to see some cross community work. We have two examples with the Rec 6 and with the JAS group on assistance to TLD applications. We now have an ad-hoc basis for ACs and SOs working together, and personally I would love to see in the bylaws if there’s a concept of liaisons between the SOs and the ACs, why not have something that enables them between the ACs themselves; that allows and enables ALAC to have a liaison to the GAC, to the SAC, and vice versa in the bylaws just as well as there is with the SOs? Is this outlandish or…? So I’m suggesting a modification to F.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I may talk to that point, it is very important if we are going to move into models which are not only just more open participation in PDP processes as you’ve seen designed, Sam, in the draft GNSO work, which obviously we all had a strong hand in. I mean it’s fairly obvious that we’re already working as cross-community to develop these things. And so in things like the GNSO counsel, which of course is our bylaw mandate and one of our two bylaw-mandated liaisons anyway, we see the success of developing these more communication-based mechanisms as a direct result from having a trusted representative sitting on their council, gaining the credibility of the voices coming from our community. And I think what Evan’s saying is to have that not just with the two SOs, but as the importance of the ACs comes more and more into play would be very worthwhile.
Now, we do have a strong tie to some of the ACs and for example, whilst we do not have a bylaw-mandated liaison to the SAC, that liaison that we do have to the SAC throughout just the grace of God and a couple of chairs to be honest, is probably at a higher level of standard and acceptance than even putting someone to the ccNSO, because for SAC, they have to approve. We can’t just send someone – there’s quite a process. And so I’ve actually had a problem of trying to get one of our liaisons out of the SAC cause sort of once they’ve got them they’re part of their group. There’s something to be said for looking at building some of our foundation here.
Samantha Eisner: Cheryl and Evan, I agree wholeheartedly with the concept and the idea and the need for building liaisons and building structures of relationships between all the organizations within ICANN, all the entities within ICANN. The issue for me and including it within this round of bylaws changes, is if these are bylaws changes that are necessary to effect the implementation plan, that’s not an issue that was necessarily directly linked into the implementation plan. However, I don’t think that that would preclude having a bylaws statement that would say something about the ALAC would welcome liaison participation from other groups, but we could not use this bylaw amendment to say the ALAC will be able to assign liaisons to groups that have not agreed to accept them.
And so the SAC liaison ability I believe is coming out of the SAC internal operating procedures which are being formalized at this moment. And so each AC has the ability within their own operating procedures because it’s not something that has to be in the bylaws. So I think that it is a concept that is so important that maybe it does have a place in the bylaws to allow liaisons that are not specified. And so maybe we move to the point of specifying it in the bylaws but we, I don’t believe that it would be a wise move at this point to mandate in the bylaws that ALAC may send a liaison to other places that have not revamped their procedures to allow for that.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: So basically in terms of adding to F, would it be possible to say non-voting liaisons to each of the ccNSO Council and the GNSO council, as well as to the ACs subject to their approval or whatever? Yeah.
Evan Leibovitch: What’s the kind of wording that would get across what we want while at the same time recognizing what you just said, that you can’t just inflict a liaison on someone who hasn’t bought into it?
Samantha Eisner: I don’t feel comfortable providing wording on the spot without making sure that there’s additional work. I think that this is a bit too sensitive of a relationship issue between the ACs to mandate it. I think that while we could- One of the ways that this may be more effective, if this is something that the ALAC would like to take the lead in saying “This is how we want to model our procedures,” is maybe we come up with language that says the At-Large or the ALAC would welcome liaisons from any ICANN entity or something to that effect.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sam, you keep putting it ass-up, basically. We’re not, we are not welcoming, we don’t need to welcome everybody. In fact, I’m busy collecting as many people as we can from other parts of the organizations, individual or representational. It is the corollary of that. It is the liaisons out to- We’re already open door, and it’s 13-3 if Mattias can bring it up, that refers specifically to our- It’s not a bylaw - it’s an implementable from the ALAC review – specifically to how we need to formalize relationships and interactivity with the other ACs and the SOs. And I think it’s in that way that we might do some mutualism language.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I think that the mutual, the word “mutual” is as mutually agreed or something.
Evan Leibovitch: See for me this is unfortunate, that this is one of the ICANN meetings where there’s not a formal GAC/ALAC get together. It’s almost the kind of thing where I wish there was a small group struck - three f. rom one, three from the other - to iron out a relationship that could then be put forward as a mutually acceptable set of bylaw changes. I mean is that reasonable to ask for?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Again, actually this is, these liaisons between the various ACs and SOs, this is also something that could be perhaps mentioned on a more general level in the bylaws.
Samantha Eisner: It’s not something that I would be comfortable putting in at this point without knowing that the mutual conversations and mutual agreement had occurred or that there was really notice to those other organizations within ICANN that this was a step that was going to be taken.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So just for the record then, the final reports, swing it across. Thank you, Mattias, so I can actually read. Up, down, run about, okay. The specific recommendation is as follows: “ALAC should strive to provide policy advice on any issue that affects individual internet users, since providing policy advice is part of ALAC’s purpose. To this end, the following should be strengthened: the processes within ALAC for the developing and providing policy advice, the processes within the SOs for requesting input from the ALAC on policy issues and advice, and the processes within the SOs, ACs, and the Board for providing ALAC with the feedback about how its policy advice has been used.”
Now that’s the recommendation from the report, that is what we have to action, and I suppose what we’re struggling with here is in what part of the model, the bylaw or otherwise, do we meet this particular recommendation as an implementable?
Samantha Eisner: That’s exactly right and I think that we’re also- My struggle is the timing of it. I’m not saying that it’s something that’s inappropriate for the bylaws. I’m saying I don’t know if the necessary work has been done to propose bylaws changes that wouldn’t get a negative reaction from the community when put out for public comment because these items have not been discussed more thoroughly.
Can I ask for a clarification? I’m sorry. There was a reference to meeting on Thursday, and what language would be put up. What is that meeting?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: This, yeah- Why don’t you-
Heidi Ullrich: Sam, it’s our traditional wrap up meeting, and this time there’ll be a session where all of the co-chairs of the Work Teams will be giving an update where they are. So they’d like to have, this team would like to have these issues as far along as possible.
Samantha Eisner: In terms of bylaws language, I don’t think that we’re at a point, I don’t believe that we’re at a point to present final bylaw language to that group. I just want to make sure that that’s not where we’re going; that we’re all on the same page on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I may, it’s certainly nothing along the lines of final bylaw language at all, but each of these Work Teams have time-based KPIs that they need to meet. We are actually trying to be very professional about all of this, Sam, I hope you appreciate it, so each of the teams are very keen to show where they are to the community, to our community we admit but to the community. And on the basis of this, knowing how long it takes for then the bylaw change process to go on, we’re doing our preparatory work while we have the face-to-face gathering opportunity here. So it would be very much proposed, draft, potential. One thing perhaps would be if it is possible for us, how public is your early drafting? I mean can we make any references to this document or…?
Samantha Eisner: Yes, you may make reference to this document. To the extent that this document can be of any help to a drafting exercise, I’m happy to have it out there. I think that another part of what we can take from this document is- One of my points of confusion, for lack of a better word, is when I look at the Drafting Team work on the Wiki, the concepts are there but the concepts are not placed within the broader structure of the bylaws. And so here I attempted to pull down the full section relating to the At-Large Advisory Committee, and so I think to the extent that we can look at the language in the context of the broader section of the bylaws, that would be helpful as well.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. I want to actually repeat what Cheryl was saying, that the idea is not that we would draft the bylaws but we have written them in this form in order to make clear what issues, what items we think should be there. But it’s of course, in the final analysis it’s not our job. It’s not even our competence to draft this sort of legal language.
Anyway, and thinking now of the presentation on Thursday, what I would suggest is that we would try to use A and B. A has this, yeah. I mean from the Wiki. A has this important idea that the ALAC is the primary organizational home for individual internet users and also what I’ve felt that was stressed in the final report was that the ALAC has to get this, whatever they proposed has to come from the grassroots. So basically I’ve been using words --“captures,” “aggregates,” and “articulates” these views from below so that they would be representative. That word is also stressed a couple of times in the final report.
And then B is basically an enlargement of the present point A of the bylaws, that is to say defining the role of ALAC, again along the lines proposed in the final report. So what we have here is advice on policy, input into planning and operations, and also its role in accountability mechanisms and last but not least the sort of outreach thing. So that what I propose is that we could use these two, and then as far as C and D are concerned, I think that we could take them as placeholders for something that would be provisional as there are no general provisions concerning the modalities of the advisory functions of the Advisory Committees.
Samantha Eisner: In terms of Section B on the Wiki, if you look at the bylaws as they currently exist, the bylaws already specify at J-4 or under J that “The ALAC is responsible for working in conjunction with the RALOs for coordinating the following activities: includes keeping the community of individual internet users informed about the significant news from ICANN, distributing an updated agenda and news about ICANN, information about items in the ICANN policy development process, promoting outreach activities in the community of individual internet users, developing and maintaining an ongoing information and education programs regarding ICANN and its work, establishing an outreach strategy about ICANN issues in each RALO’s region.”
I have a suggested addition of “…participating in the ICANN policy development processes and providing input and advice that accurately reflects the views of individual internet users, making public…” And so it goes on. So here, I think that what’s already in the bylaws capture a lot of what the Working Groups said needed to be there, right? Some of this stuff is already in there, and also the way that it’s written currently reflects back on Cheryl’s initial point, which is that the ALAC is a conduit for the work done in the RALOs.
And so when I refer to really needing to look at the bylaws as a whole, I would hesitate to put up, to propose sections that actually are already addressed. So that’s really where my comment comes from, that we look at it as a whole. So maybe we need to go back, and I would encourage you to go back and look at this document which has all of the sections, and see “Okay…” Do some checkmarks: “Is this here? Is this not? What is not here?”
And one of the things that is not in the bylaws currently is the statement regarding ALAC’s role in ICANN’s present and future accountability mechanisms and functions. And this is something that we have some historical tension about. So if you look at the proposals that came out of the President’s Strategy Committee, one of those proposals would have directly allowed ALAC as well as the other SOs and ACs to directly participate, to have a role in one of those bylaws-specified accountability mechanisms. And those bylaws changes, partially in response to the public comment that was received that was not favorable of how things were proposed; and also the ongoing work of the ATRT which will hopefully lead to better accountability mechanisms. Those have not been implemented.
So there’s a question about do we just say the ALAC has an important role in ICANN’s present and future accountability mechanisms, or is that thought better created through the creation of accountability mechanisms that allow for the ALAC to have a role?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I may, two things, Sam. I’m going backwards from what you last spoke about first. If the current ATRT says - switching hats here, talking to an ATRT member now - that the work you’re describing came under 9.1, FAOC 9.1 I think G from memory, E or G, but certainly G is the issue there. The current ATRT simply could not deal with in the time there, those aspects of the public participation and the accountability ramifications of that. So we are looking at not in any way, shape, or form being able to deal with that until the next ATRT, that’s 2013. That worries me, putting back my ALAC hat on now, greatly. So maybe we do need to have built some braces here.
Coming back then to my first point, which is with a proposal: what I think I’m hearing, and certainly what I’m seeing and what I like about this- Bylaw language is bylaw language, and only people who are wired that way get to write that, so it’s over to you, girl, not our business at all.
Samantha Eisner: We are a strange breed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You are a strange breed as are some other people in this room. But what I’m hearing, what I think we’ve been doing is putting the preambles together for the sections. So if we can stop talking A, B, C’s on the Wiki and we can make them bullet points or stars or cherry-flavored sodas, don’t care, make sure we’ve just got them somehow; and think about them as preamble material, because the language this group has put into the preamble part is so important to get the community outside of ALAC and At-Large what the functional parts of ALAC and At-Large do. And they’re not going to read Section J and think about it, I mean Jay Scott will but you know what I mean. The average ones, really, they read the preamble and that’s where they’re drawing their knowledge base from.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Is it possible to have a preamble or type of things in the bylaws?
Samantha Eisner: I’m going to check with Dan. He’s even stranger than I am in that way, but I think that that, I think you’ve captured it, Cheryl. I think that there’s a sense of broader- And we may have the ability to create some sort of preamble that isn’t necessarily legally binding in the bylaws as a descriptor of the function, and then have the more specific items listed under. And one of the things I would do in this situation would be we would include in the preamble the importance of ALAC’s role in present and future accountability mechanisms so that people don’t forget as we draft them in the future that it needs to be there.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: There needs to, there’s one other thing that has real implications right now. So for instance, we had this Combined Working Group on the Rec 6 issues on the new gTLDs, and some of the pushback that’s happening at GNSO council is “Well, GNSO, we’re the only ones that do policy.” And so we have this Combined Working Group that heaven forbid these guys should be doing policy – “That’s our realm, these guys have no business doing policy.” It’s nice to see that here, to see that it’s acknowledged that the ACs have a role in making policy, because we’ve literally had that feedback.
Now in this particular case it’s a moot issue because the Rec 6 is implementation rather than policy. Nothing that that group is doing is inconsistent with what GNSO has already put forward. But that’s actually being used as a straw man to try and cause problems in the acceptance of this in saying “Well, if this is policy then it’s outside the bounds and shouldn’t be acceptable even by council.”
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Now the welcoming ceremony or opening ceremony starts in five minutes so I think that we have to start winding down. But I think that this meeting was enormously helpful in the sense that first of all, I mean, we saw this document because this is the first time of course we see it. And when I just, I haven’t been able to read it through properly but anyway now I understand it. We have been really doing something that could be perhaps, as Cheryl said, could be a preamble to this, and I acknowledge that many things we were thinking of are already here. So that I think with this we can thank you and go and continue our work during this meeting, and of course now let’s go to the opening ceremony. Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You know I have to have the last word, come on. It’s a greed characteristic, what can I say. I was just wondering, we won’t have time now but would it be possible to have a future conversation and look at some scheduling and timelines about when you think some things may be coming into order so this group can do their project management draw up?
Samantha Eisner: I’d be happy to have any further meetings as necessary.
Heidi Ullrich: Thank you, Sam. I’ve suggested that we do that when we’re all back in our homes, yeah, so maybe the next regularly scheduled Work Team A meeting we can do that.
Evan Leibovitch: So does that mean that we, for instance, we’ll get directly involved in doing these preambles?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We’ll have a chat then.
Samantha Eisner: I’ll take an action item to go back and start discussing the feasibility of including a preamble into the bylaws, and then drafting can go from there.
Heidi Ullrich: Thank you, Seth.
Seth Greene: You’re welcome, Heidi.
[End of Transcript]
