Sandra Hoferichter: Welcome. Good morning, good evening to everybody who found the time just before Christmas for at least the last conference call of this Program Committee. Before I forget to follow the right procedure I’d like to go to Item #1: roll call. I’d say it’s quite short today.
Nathalie Peregrine: This is Nathalie. I can do the roll call, please.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes.
Nathalie Peregrine: Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. This is the Academy Program Committee on the 21st of December, 2011. On the line today we have Sandra Hoferichter, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Carlos Aguirre, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Wolf Ludwig and Avri Doria. From staff we have Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani and myself, Nathalie Peregrine.
I would like to remind you all to please state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. Thank you and over to you, Sandra.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you very much. The proposed agenda, I’d just like to make a short comment on this. The second item says “review of the agenda.” I decided that I will open any future conferences, I will lead with this item – review of the agenda – to give everybody the possibility to add certain things to the agenda. So everybody who has the feeling that there is one point missing, we should discuss this or that – you have the possibility now to put this on the agenda.
From experience I know that sometimes some questions are coming up at the end of a call, so therefore I like to give everybody the possibility on the last agenda item – any other business – to discuss what is unclear or what is missed during the call or whatever. So I encourage everybody to use these options and to tell me now, the floor is open, if I missed some important things on the agenda I proposed for tonight.
I see no hands raised…. Ah.
Wolf Ludwig: Just let me check. I’m not…
Sandra Hoferichter: I can read the agenda for you also. We will start with discussing the timelines and sub-tasks for the next three months until the Costa Rica meeting. The first thing we have to agree on because this is the most urgent thing, we have to modify the budget which is letter A. Then we have to pave the way for general issues. We have to agree on some issues like dates, place, language diversity of the ICANN Academy. And on C we can work on the modular program which should be drafted, and under D it’s we will talk about outreach to other constituencies within ICANN.
We should then under Item #4 make a proposal to schedule the working groups and conference call meetings until the Costa Rica meeting and we will then ask our staff support to double check if these dates will be available for calls and everything, and we will send out a Doodle to them; and the fifth is any other business. So please make use of this.
Wolf Ludwig: If I may?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes please, Wolf.
Wolf Ludwig: I’ve just posted in the chat a question of principle regarding composition of this Working Group. I don’t know exactly under which agenda item it fits in. We could do it under other business if you like.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. If possible then we can add this to the agenda. If not Wolf and me and everybody else might keep this in mind so then we come back to this issue under Item #5. I see a question Salanieta writes: “Will we engage a survey?” Salanieta, may I ask for you to specify your question?
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Basically in terms of, I think I have it submitted on the Wiki general feedback for the ICANN Academy. And I think one of the things that I suppose we discuss, I don’t know whether it should be listed here or something, is the people who think that there’s a distinction between the ICANN Academy and the capacity building in general. And I know that there’s a [Task Force] that’s tasked to look at, to test the ability; but I think the merit of a survey would be to address the distinction of this and to specify which area needs strengthening.
And I suppose in a broader sense it would be really good to (inaudible) but I cannot read the question now as it is beyond the purview of the agenda. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. So because we have a very- I’m not sure if I’m the only one but I have a very heavy noise in my ear headphones I’d just like to repeat what you just said and ask you to confirm. You encourage us to engage a survey in order to find out similarities or differences between a general capacity building program and the ICANN Academy Program we are discussing here. Is that right?
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Yes, and to address the potential distinction between the ICANN Academy and the ICANN Task Force, and (inaudible) from that to address the specific areas that need highlighting – whether items of curriculum in terms of what… Yes.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. And you’re thinking of the tool of an online survey, right?
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Yes, a quick one and it can be random. It doesn’t have to be like, just a very small [compass page].
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. I think I understood what you mean. I’d just like to make a general note which I did already on the first conference call for the entire Working Group where you unfortunately could not join us. We are discussing here on this very small and I think very short-term of a Working Group, we are discussing here only one part of an entire capacity building program within ICANN. There are some programs in place, there are some programs under development, and the ICANN Academy is only a summer-school-like part of an entire program.
So if we talk about ICANN Academy we only discuss about one part of the entire program which is offered by ICANN or should be offered in the future. And I think that our timeline would not allow us to compile or to connect those things to each other. I think those things have to be done in the next step when the first trial happens in Toronto hopefully and then we can go one step further and say “Okay, now we have this single item, we have this single item and we have this single item. Now let’s make the thing round.”
And I think this would be a great opportunity for ALAC to improve the whole capacity building structure within ICANN but for the very moment we are only working on one single part.
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: That makes a lot of sense, Sandra. Thank you. And I think it…
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you. I see a comment from Carlos: “I think we need to fix the (inaudible) first.” Yes, this is actually supporting to what I just said. Okay, so if there are no other items then I would start with Action Item #3 – discussion on timelines and sub-tasks. I apologize; I’m not able to speak English and read the chat so if I miss something which is in the chat then make use of raised hands or whatever.
Wolf Ludwig: We will let you know.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yeah, and please let me know. Okay. So discussion on timelines and sub-tasks. I would ask you, you might have opened it already, to go through the project description which clarifies very clear what is the task, what we were asked for and what we discovered during the previous discussion within ALAC on where we have to work because you know the very big and long proposal is existing since August. It was open for comment. Several questions were raised and also the closed operation with staff led us to work on some specific things.
These specific things are on the first hand a modification of the budget, because for internal and organizational reasons the budget has to be submitted until the 20th of January. I for myself would like to modify the budget at the end of the discussion because I think this would make more sense, but in this special case we have to do it the other way around. So we should first agree on how we will organize the modification and the discussion of the budget.
If you open the proposal you have “recommended budget” on the last page.
Wolf Ludwig: On the Wiki page there is no budget.
Sandra Hoferichter: No budget? Maybe I can ask staff to post in the link to this. I have it here on paper but I don’t have it on the website at the moment.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Sandra, before they put in the link I would like to tell you that the date of the 20th of January is the deadline for the submission of the additional work from the community. The 20th of January is the deadline for the Finance, for the community submission of the additional requests.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, I have this deadline here as well. It says modifications to be submitted until the 20th of January.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: So it will be late because it has to be before so that ALAC will add it to the Finance. The 20th is the close; the real deadline.
Sandra Hoferichter: Oh, I understand.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, so we will need it a little bit earlier. The second, I have another remark. You said that the Academy is a one-part work. I am sorry but I disagree with you because I think even if now we will work on this task, the Academy is the sum of all the [levels of] productivity and work in ICANN; otherwise, it is not an Academy. So I agree with you that we’ll address only the Board, the newcomer of the Board [learning process]. The Academy must address all the learning and capacity building of all the [work types] of ICANN.
Sandra Hoferichter: I understand what you mean and I also agree with your intention that it has to combine more under its umbrella. But then maybe we should think about renaming the project we are just working on here because this Working Group was set up to do only one single part within the entire capacity building program. I mean I think it’s more or less a time of how to word this thing. Some people might understand that under an ICANN Academy is something more which is greater, which has outreach to other stakeholder groups; not only elected officers and Board members.
I think this is right in principle but somehow the idea came up to call this, what we are doing here “ICANN Academy,” and maybe we should think about renaming it in order to avoid any confusion. Maybe we can agree on this if you should rename the project. I mean “ICANN Academy” can be the working title and when we submit the proposal we can name it something else.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes.
Sandra Hoferichter: I see Avri agrees. I mean let me make it clear… Before I make it clear Wolf has raised his hand. Wolf, please.
Wolf Ludwig: Well, I’m not sure whether I perfectly got Tijani’s point. As far as I understood it, this ICANN Academy approach is clearly focused on all ICANN communities, constituencies, all parts of ICANN from Board level to GAC, to Business exhort to At-Large civil society sector.
On the first hand, it is what we discussed with Filiz last August in [Mison] when we had the long discussion on it. We were saying to start with and for a pilot period it would be most probably wise to focus on a narrow target group of incoming ICANN officers – people who have to play a role on the GAC level, on the Board level, on the GNSO level, on the ALAC level immediately in the next couple of months.
So it was, at this stage it was not meant to be an ICANN Academy with capacity building programs like there are many other capacity building programs already existing addressed to support the broad bases of ALSes. So it’s not what we did in Dakar for AFRALO, inviting all the ALSes and giving everybody from the ALS level an opportunity to get familiar with ICANN. This is not a target group at this stage; this could be considered afterwards but the primary wish or the primary request from ICANN last August was to be more focused on the requirements of ICANN functioning and being focused on incoming officers.
And that was more or less the basis on which we wrote the existing proposal in August and submitted it to At-Large, and this should be clear and considered. So it’s no exclusive but it’s focused on a specific requirement for the start of the project. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Wolf. May I add something to underline what Wolf just said? In our Academy proposal, and the link is copied in the chat for both, under the Point #1 introduction, if you scroll down, a little bit further down it says “A, B, and C.” And actually A, B, and C, all these things include somehow a whole capacity building program for ICANN. And we were specifically asked only to work on B, and I repeated and enhanced a 20 hours lecture program for new appointed ICANN officers for the Board, Councils and Advisory Committees financed by ICANN.
I read in the chat that we should also include new staff members for training and I think this is a very good idea to keep. It was already mentioned in various discussions and I would strongly support this idea. So thank you, Heidi, for posting this again in the chat.
This is exactly what this Working Group is working for – nothing else. Everything else has to be done in another Working Group, in another Task Force or later on to combine all these different programs under one umbrella. And I’d like to also agree with Avri and maybe I would like to ask my question now so we can put this on the agenda, that we might decide to give this program, what we are doing here when the work is done a new name. We should not do this now but we should consider not to call it “ICANN Academy” but something else in order to not confuse people.
May I ask for your hands raised? Please use the Adobe chat function for this. Then if you all agree to consider the rename of the… I had agreement before; now there is no agreement anymore. Wolf is not in favor.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Sandra, may I ask if you don’t mind, I’d like to say that we can keep the “Academy” as the name, but the Academy now will only concentrate on one task. So it will be the Academy now. We are working on the Academy but we are only working on a single task, and we will include the other tasks afterwards.
Sandra Hoferichter: Right. So may I ask to indicate if you agree or disagree to consider to rename this program we are working on here; not to call it “ICANN Academy” but something else that can be considered later on? Can I ask you to show your agreement or disagreement?
I see two hands raised.
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Hello?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes?
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Yes, I know that-
Sandra Hoferichter: Who is speaking please?
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: This is Sala.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, go ahead, Sala.
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Thank you, Sandra. I know that this is specifically tasked to look at the ICANN Academy for the (interference). I think in terms of context, in terms of the budget allocations and whatnot and in terms of submissions for various (inaudible) within various RALOs in relation to ICANN Academy. When we say “ICANN Academy” it symbolizes training and that sort of thing, and given that it means training people from all over the world and that sort of thing, I think that we really need to perhaps rethink in terms of your 20-hour lecture, of what are the things available besides lectures within ICANN Academy?
Because if we limit it to the 20-hour lecture then it’s only a select few who get to benefit from the training as opposed to a lot more impact from a lot of the options that may be available and that sort of thing. And once we can say “Yes, we’re restricted to the ICANN Academy and the reason is because this is part of training, capacity building and information, and whether or not it’s going to be created in the other Task Forces I’m not too sure but it will definitely have an impact on the budget. And that is real (inaudible).
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Salanieta. Before I answer to this I’d like to ask other people to raise their hands – Avri, please? Avri, you might be muted.
Avri Doria: Sorry, I forgot this was the phone call where you had to use a *7 instead of a *6 to unmute. I am not doing well today.
Okay, I don’t think it really matters what it’s called at the moment – I don’t care if we call it “Fred” and work on it. I think we need to figure out… I think in terms of what this is doing, it’s maybe a pilot in terms of what one does for the ever. I see what’s being said, the Diplo model versus the ISOC model that we’re dealing with officers here, but remembering that some of these officers come in from Bloomfield that know absolutely nothing about ICANN, who know sometimes precious little about internet governance – the only thing is they happen to be respected in some field or another and aren’t just kids off the street.
Calling it “Academy” is fine; calling it a “Pilot Academy” is fine. As I said, calling it “Fred” is fine. I think what we need to do is figure out what it is we need to give. I think we’ll find that it’s very much the same as what would be given in a larger capacity building, and indeed I think what we’re doing is building their capacity – trying to give them the capacity to be functional their first year as opposed to coming in and basically feeling lost for their first year.
And with staff, and I really do think that what we need to do is take it back and say “New staff that’s going to be working with Working Groups need to get this, too,” because what happens is when new staff comes in “La, la, la – I’m a staff member, I’m going to help you do your work,” and they haven’t the faintest idea of the context they’re working in. And it takes them a year of confusing the Working Group before some of them end up being really, really, really good.
So I think that they have as great a need of it as do newly selected officers, but I think the curriculum is narrower because it’s more focused to a particular purpose but it’s really a pilot into what people were thinking of as the general capacity building that all and sundry can use. So let’s call it “Academy,” let’s call it “Pre-Academy”; let’s call it “Advanced Leadership Training,” let’s call it “Fred” – I don’t think it matters. Thanks.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Avri, and now I would ask Olivier Crépin-Leblond, he raised his hand, too, to take the floor. Olivier, please.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Sandra. It’s Olivier for the transcript. Can you hear me?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, very well.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, just wanted to check whether I had been muted or not muted, but okay. I just echo what Avri has been saying there; I totally agree with her apart from the term “ICANN Academy” where it has been pitched so far to staff as ICANN Academy. It has to remain named ICANN Academy because it has gained traction within ICANN as ICANN Academy, so that’s why the name has to remain ICANN Academy. But everything else that Avri said is absolutely correct and has my green light on.
We have to look at an enhanced 20-hour lecture program for new appointed ICANN officers for the Board, Council and Advisory Committees – that is it. Everything else – the capacity building of our communities and so on – is something that is a different program that is actually being dealt with and addressed from the At-Large Improvements Process which is an entirely separate process from this one.
We have willingly separated the processes so as for the ICANN Academy to proceed forward at a fast pace because there’s real, real demand today for this sort of thing. The capacity building, we know there is a demand – it’s already started. We’ve seen what’s happened in Africa and the AFRALO capacity building; that is a more local thing and that will probably be done through the Regional At-Large Organizations. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Olivier. In order to keep the agenda I don’t like to extend what you just said but I’d like to strongly support what Avri and Olivier just said. And I think we should stop this discussion here about the task of this Working Group. We are working on a 20-hour lecture course and nothing else. Everything else should be discussed somewhere else; in another working group, on another improvements workspace, on another task force.
And I also agree with the point that I hadn’t taken into consideration so far, that now that the name is somehow famous into the ears of staff and of the ICANN community we should maybe not rename the baby even if it’s not perfect for the moment but it could be improved in the future.
Okay, so let’s go to modification of the budget now and I ask everybody to open this first proposal published in August and go to the very bottom of this proposal, where under Item #8 it says “Draft Budget.” This budget was drafted with the help of Wolfgang Kleinwächter who is very much advanced and experienced in organizing lecture courses 20 and more hours, and he put together some figures and these figures were considered by ICANN as being far too high for the first trial.
And I do understand the point that asking for $90,000 US is pretty much and we have to be clear on what we need the money for. However, we have to adjust this proposal a little bit and I believe that on the first stage and the first trial to get this Academy or this program running and to grow and to let it grow, we have to start very low with the very large amount of voluntary work which means that I think some points in this budget can be captured by ICANN community members, leaders.
I think of the lecturers which are in this budget with $10,000 US. I think for the first trial at least we can skip those $10,000 US and ask voluntary leaders to arrive three days prior to an ICANN meeting or two days after and give a lecture to new appointed leaders to tell them about the experience and everything. And I would ask if you all agree to this proposal? Could you please use the Adobe Connect tool – it’s only one. Wolf raised his hand; Wolf, please.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes, it’s Wolf Ludwig for the record. I just went through the original budget which was a very rough estimate on probably more a current working project already, and I see another factor in it. I agree with what Sandra said before. It’s a pilot phase or state – I think we could reduce this budget post of the $10,000 for the lecturers.
The second one, what comes into my eyes, what is the most considerable one is the prep and the org costs of two times $25,000, and this in a pilot stage – I don’t know. I think once we did one or two pilots we’ll know much better the strengths and the weaknesses and the [lacks], etc., and then we can recalculate the [options] and the basic requirements. But for the pilot phase, I would also like to suggest to reduce considerably on the prep and the org costs of $50,000. If this is reduced to half or to $20,000, together with the budget post mentioned by Sandra already it would reduce the total amount considerably.
On the other budget posts, etc., I’m not sure. I think these are basics. Probably, yes, especially the travel one which is based on the assumption that in case it would happen the first time in Toronto in line with ICANN 2012 Autumn meeting then these travel costs for incoming new officers would be anyhow covered by ICANN Constituency Travel. So my suggestion would be besides the suggestion of Sandra to reduce by half at least the prep and the org costs. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Wolf. I think I made a mistake that I started from the bottom because I should have mentioned before that lodging and venue costs will be somehow essential, also as technical equipment. They might be adjustable a little bit but they will remain somehow in this stage. Lecturers could be lead into voluntary work; and also the preparation and organizing costs could be reduced; and I absolutely agree with Wolf. If a lot of the work is done on a voluntary basis, or if we offer staff support where we say “Okay, these people are engaged by ICANN already and they can be of great help to organize a thing.” And also [Michel Angelo] is the last point for discussion.
So I would propose, because of the tight timeline that we work on the budget on the mailing list or on the Wiki space including the whole Working Group; but we should somehow lead the way in which direction it should go to. So this would be actually the first task to fulfill until not even the 20th of January but earlier, so we have to do it over the Christmas break and at the beginning of next year.
We should quickly agree on where we can reduce costs and how much. And I would propose to leave this discussion then to the mailing list where the entire Working Group is able to participate because we as a Program Committee as far as I understood are there to lead the group but not to propose the actual budget itself.
I see Avri has raised her hand. Avri, please?
Avri Doria: Yes, thanks, and this time hopefully I got myself unmuted.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, you have.
Avri Doria: Okay, a couple questions. First I totally agree with you – this group is supposed to be helping to organize the conversation I thought and not to be the ones actually making decisions. Two, I’m questioning whether there’s been pushback on this budget that makes people feel they already need to cut it. Three, I’m wondering exactly what is involved in the prep and org costs.
A couple things I think we have to pay attention to is expecting people to do things as volunteers is good but when you use volunteers, especially whether it’s lecturers or organizations, what you do get is best effort. Now, some people’s best effort is really, really good and you can’t tell the difference between what they do for money and what they do as a volunteer activity. But in other cases, best effort is somebody committing to doing something, they get a paying gig and all of a sudden they’re gone because they’ve got to get paid… And if this isn’t paying, sorry, but that’s the way the decision goes.
So I think people should really consider that when they decide whether you’re going to… And especially when you’re bringing in Board members you also want to be careful not to create a two-tier environment where the teachers and the lecturers somehow end up serving the mighty new Board members who have come in to be lectured to and educated. So I think you have to be very careful with how you structure this.
So I’m not sure yet that I support the “Gee, let’s chop it and let’s make everybody work for free, and let’s then all travel at the cheapest level possible, except of course for the Board who will be treated special.” And so I think we’ve got to be careful in the doing, thanks.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Avri. Would it serve your objections if the budget is detailed a little bit more so to say that we write down what is on the preparation and organization costs? From my point of view as I am organizing summer schools I know what preparation and organization costs mean, but I do absolutely understand that somebody from the outside looking at this has not really a clear idea what is behind there.
So I would agree that we structure this a little bit more – what is preparation and organization costs – and put numbers behind to see what can be done on a voluntary basis and what not, and what can be done by staff. Would this satisfy your concern, Avri?
Avri Doria: Certainly. As I said, it wasn’t quite what I was getting at but sure. I think certainly we need to understand what the costs are, and I think it’s probably good to understand what risks the program is willing to take at each place of having someone volunteer versus having somebody paid or stipended; and decide that every time you decide to use a volunteer for something like this, especially a program that you’re going away and doing a program – it’s not done in the middle of the normal ICANN process.
But you have to decide is the risk of having that person all of a sudden not be able to do it because as I said they got a paying job at the moment, worth it? And is the risk to the program a risk you want to take? And as I say, if the budget is not being objected to then I think cutting the budget when you’re sitting with the CFO and a sharpened pencil is one thing. Cutting before anybody’s even complained is quite another.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Avri, and from the close collaboration with ICANN staff we know that this budget would not pass the barriers within ICANN.
Avri Doria: I see. You’re saying they already complained.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, they did, exactly.
Avri Doria: Okay, that was a question I didn’t know the answer to. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. So my proposal would be in order to keep it a little bit open, because I agree with what Wolf said earlier on – it might work for a first or a second trial to show what an ICANN Academy could be but it would not work endlessly on a voluntary basis. So my proposal is to build matrix which puts the items in the first row and then we can decide if this item or if this task can be fulfilled either on a voluntary basis or if it necessarily has to be paid for, or if staff can support this.
And these matrix can be shifted later on so to say that things which were done on a voluntary basis for the first or for the second Academy have to be paid later on. Or another point could be that some circumstances could be different in Toronto than in Asia-Pacific than in Africa than in Latin America so that you always have a little bit of flexibility within the budget to say “Okay, this can be done on a voluntary basis,” or “The accommodations at this place is very cheap so we can save some money here and can invite a lecturer which we can pay.”
So this would be my proposal to cut the budget sharply and to start working on these figures. My proposal would be that I prepare such matrix as – I don’t know if it’s possible – an open document to work on the Wiki space. I would have to ask staff to help me with this; or we can also shift to a Google shared document where such matrix would be and where we can also detail the tasks a little bit more for the people to get an idea of what means “preparation and organization costs.”
Are there any comments to this? Otherwise I would ask to vote on this proposal. No one raised his hand so if everybody understood, may I ask for your hand raised if you agree to the proposed procedure?
Heidi Ullrich: Sandra, this is Heidi. Could you please repeat that proposal before people vote?
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. My proposal would be that I prepare matrix as an open document to work and to comment on and open it for the Working Group to comment on these matrix, and these matrix will on the one hand show more detailed tasks for each single item and on the other hand it will differentiate between voluntary work, paid work, and staff work.
Tijani has his hand raised. Tijani, please. Tijani, you have the floor.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you, Sandra. Can you hear me?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, we hear you.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay. Okay, so I agree with your proposal but please don’t use the open doc. Please use the Wiki page. It’s easier for everyone.
Sandra Hoferichter: I agree. If this is possible of course I agree. Olivier, you have raised your hand. Olivier, please?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Sandra. It’s Olivier. I have a question with regards to your use of the word “matrix.” Is it metrics as in metrics or as in matrix, which is an actual table? Are you looking at putting together a table with headings and subheadings so we can look at each task in turn; or are you looking at putting together a set of markers that we will be able to provide some kind of information from quantitative data.
Sandra Hoferichter: No, I’m looking into a table.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, a table. Because in the discussion notes at the moment “metrics” has been written, which has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. It says “Sandra proposed to build metrics,” so whoever’s taking the notes at the moment hasn’t got the foggiest clue of what you’re saying.
Sandra Hoferichter: Please apologize for my bad English. I am talking about a table which allows everybody to comment and to work on this.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: “To build a table…” Let’s be sure, let’s change the word “matrix” with “table.” And so “Sandra will prepare a table and open it to the Working Group to work on the table that will differentiate between paid work and voluntary work.” And I think at that point we’ve got something that we can work on. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, thank you Olivier. Tijani, you still have your hand raised. Would you like to add something?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: No, I cannot lower it – that’s all.
Sandra Hoferichter: Oh okay, okay. So may I ask you again to agree or disagree by using the Adobe Chat hand raise functions if I should prepare this table and ask staff to implement it into the Wiki space; and open it up to the entire Working Group to comment and to work on?
I see we have a majority for being in favor of this suggestion: Tijani, Olivier, Carlos and Avri are in favor of this suggestion. So I would ask ICANN staff to put this down as an action item. I will prepare the table and ask you to implement this in the Wiki space and open it for the entire Working Group. We will send out a call to work on this proposal. Okay.
So actually now we are more than out of time. The issues B and C cannot be discussed but therefore we have a very clear way for the most urgent thing – the budget. I would propose Action Item #4 – scheduling of Working Group and PC meetings through our Costa Rica meeting – I would propose we discuss this very quickly. We know already that we have a very tight schedule for these things, and I proposed in this project proposal which I hope everybody has on his computer or as a paper in front of him; I propose three conference calls until February. And I think we have to add more conference calls for the Working Group or maybe only for the Program Committee.
But I would propose and ask staff to schedule two conference calls per month – two in January and two in February – and check the dates if those calls will be available. Has anybody a suggestion and an addendum to make to this timeline?
Heidi Ullrich: Hi Sandra, this is Heidi.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, please.
Heidi Ullrich: Just for clarification, do you mean two calls in January and two calls in February for the PC Group or for the ad-hoc full group?
Sandra Hoferichter: For the whole group actually. Maybe we have to use another call for the PC Group.
Heidi Ullrich: Just one other call for the PC Group?
Sandra Hoferichter: I think this has to be decided on the way, by the procedure.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay. And then for those two calls in each month would you like a Doodle to be sent out?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, please.
Heidi Ullrich: For all of the times basically? You know, so we can hold the calls at the same day of the week and the same time?
Sandra Hoferichter: To be honest I don’t have the experience of what works better. I entirely depend on you; you have the great experience. If you propose to have it on one day a week to a certain time then let’s do it that way. If you think it’s better to ask everybody individually to indicate their availability on a Doodle Poll, fine with me also.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, I think the former of having everyone know that every other week there’s going to be a call on the same day, same time might be better.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay. I’ll let Gisella and Nathalie sort that out.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: But then we should maybe ask for a Doodle on which day and which time people prefer, because I recognized the geographical diversity and I don’t want to ask Sala to get up every time at 4:00 in the morning. So I would ask staff to put this down as an action item to prepare a Doodle on which day and which time would be preferred from the entire Working Group for two calls for January and two calls for February.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you. Olivier raised his hand. Olivier, please.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Sandra, it’s Olivier for the transcript. I’m really sorry; I might be throwing a [spatter] in your works but I’m just going to throw this and see if you might agree. First, I note from the chat that Sala has said that this time is perfect for her, so although it might be 4:00 in the morning I don’t know if Sala likes it at this time or not or it’s okay. So we’ll have to check that with her. So yeah, probably a Doodle is fine.
But what I was going to say, though, is in regards to having only two calls per month. I’m a little concerned because two calls a month goes very, very fast. You’ll find that calls fly by very quickly, and you just need one call where you have a few technical problems and that’s it – one of your two calls is gone. What I was going to suggest is that you schedule a call every week and if you do not require the call in the next week to take place you can always cancel it.
And so it’s easier to cancel a call than to schedule a call at short notice because if you cancel a call, people will be able to just take us off their agenda. If you have to schedule a call on short notice people will have trouble finding time because their schedule is already full. So that’s just my piece of advice from experience. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Olivier. This makes perfect sense to my ears and so I would like to change if there are no other objections. I would like to change my proposal and ask staff to schedule one conference call a week starting from the – hang on, because I’m on holiday – starting from the 2nd week of January and send out a specific date and a specific day. Olivier, you raised your hand again? Do you want to add something? No.
Are there other proposals, other objections which should be included? Carlos has raised his hand, Carlos, please. Carlos? Carlos, you might be muted.
Carlos Aguirre: Can you…
Sandra Hoferichter: Carlos, please try again. I think we heard you shortly. Carlos, we cannot hear you. Carlos? Please try-
Carlos Aguirre: Sorry, can you hear me?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, we can hear you now, yes.
Carlos Aguirre: Okay, thank you. Sorry. Generally it’s a difficult time for the South in Latin America because it’s a holiday time. I agree that we need one conference a week but for me it’s very difficult in January. I think I can attend no more than two in January. That’s my comment, sorry.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Carlos. Well, it will be a pity if you can only attend two but it will be very idealistic to count on everybody on every call. So I think if you follow then up via the mailing list it should be fine then.
I would still ask to start on the second week of January because the first week is definitely impossible for me and I think impossible for many of us. So start on the second week of January, from the 9th of January and then two calls in January, two calls in February…. No, I’m sorry. We agreed on one call every week and if we see this is not necessary we cancel the call in advance.
Okay. May I ask staff, because I know the conference call is scheduled for one hour – do we have time to discuss more or do we have to stop now?
Heidi Ullrich: You can continue if you’d like.
Sandra Hoferichter: We can continue, right?
Heidi Ullrich: If the group would like to.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, so whoever is not able to join this call anymore you might be able to leave. I would be very happy if you would have a little more time to join this call because at the beginning of the call I asked for any other business and one person took advantage of this and added something to the agenda, which was Wolf. And I’d like to give Wolf or I’d like to give Wolf just to explain what his intention is. Wolf, please.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes, Wolf Ludwig for the record. I just wanted to mention or to raise in this steering group: we have received some so far in-official demands from Latin America for being included in this ICANN Academy Working Group. It was a request sent from Olga Cavalli. I know Olga for a couple of years and I have worked with her on many opportunities, etc., but I have a very formal concern.
Olga presented her as a LACRALO member being part of a certified LACRALO ALS, which may be the case, but at the present stage she is on the GAC list so an official representative of Argentina. And so far I understood this was an At-Large, an ALAC Working Group which is not necessarily open to all sorts of other constituencies at this stage, and I see some conflict of roles in including Olga at this stage in this ALAC Working Group.
I would like to have Carlos comment on this, how he sees this point from his perception, from his experience being a member of LACRALO here; but for formal consideration at this stage I don’t think it would be necessary or even good to include a GAC member because it could create a case of precedent for any others showing up and saying “Well, I’m interested and let me join and participate.” Thanks.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Wolf. I’d like to give the floor to Carlos who had raised his hand just recently. Carlos, are you still able to speak?
Carlos Aguirre: Yes, yes of course. Related to what Wolf said, I have a… I don’t know, a weird sensation because Olga is a great member of LACRALO recognized like an academic for excellence. But now Olga represents the interest of the Argentinian government in GAC and the bylaws, ALAC bylaws do not allow the participation of governments in the ALAC environment – this is my impression. So I have contradictory feelings in this case. Those are my comments.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Carlos. May I give the floor to Avri who has raised her hand?
Avri Doria: Yes, thank you. This is Avri, and it’s related to this topic but it’s not specifically on Olga. It’s on the issue of who can participate in this Working Group.
I had gotten the impression when we were speaking to, I guess it was [Bill Drake] and I know he’s also in EURALO; so many of us are in multiple things. But related to that, this wasn’t a closed working group and it was open to participation by others. And so I really just want to catch that from a factual point of view before going on with deciding that being a member…
And in terms of Olga the issue sounds more like it’s a LACRALO issue – do they want to exclude her from LACRALO because of her GAC participation? That’s a separate issue from the one of whether this group is open and if it is open then whether she’s LACRALO or GAC would not be an issue. Thanks.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Avri. For clarification, we received the request of Olga and I answered her that this is an At-Large Working Group open to the entire At-Large. I’m sorry, I can’t speak because it is very noisy. Somebody must have a very noisy line. Okay, now it’s better.
It was very clear that this Working Group was open to the entire At-Large community, not only to the ALAC community; and I answered to Olga “If you are a member of any ALS in the Latin American Region then you are eligible to join this Working Group as well.”
Also I was aware that she is a GAC member but I’m not very familiar with the ICANN procedures in forming Working Groups and Task Forces and being a liaison or whatever. I thought I will be on the safe side to offer her to be a participant of this Working Group but I might have been wrong; and if there are other objections especially from the more experienced people in this call like Olivier, I would ask Olivier to comment on this, or Tijani who knows the ICANN procedures very well, or also staff. I would be open and ask Olga to step back from this – well, it’s not a position; it’s only a participation.
Wolf Ludwig: A demand.
Sandra Hoferichter: And a demand, exactly. Olivier, you raised your hand. Please, you have the floor.
Oliver Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Sandra. I’m just going to make it quick. I think that as far as participation in working groups is concerned, because we are open pretty much anyone can participate including the Pope if he wanted to. On the other hand, if it actually comes down to requiring a vote or something like this then at that point there might be a limit as to who is able to actually perform the vote; and in general I think one would look at At-Large Structures.
I’m not 100% sure on this. The other school of thought is that the Chair of the Working Group decides who comes in and who doesn’t. That’s the other school of thought. So I don’t really have an answer for you on this yet. Let’s think about it. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, thank you Olivier. Tijani, I know you have a great experience as well. Do you have any suggestion, any comment on this?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes. Normally as Olivier said we are very open. But since Olga has now a position in the GAC it could be a little bit difficult to accept her in a Working Group that is chartered by At-Large, by ALAC. And so it is as you said, as everyone said, I am divided into two feelings. The first one is to make use of her experience and academic experience, and the other side I feel that it’s not easy to accept someone into an ALAC Working Group who is already on the GAC.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Tijani. Do we have other results from the staff side on this issue? Heidi, maybe you know more?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes. Currently At-Large does not have requirements for members of Working Groups to submit statements of interest or conflicts of interest notices. I believe that the GNSO does, but the Rules of Procedure Working Group which will start its work early next year that will be one of its activities – to develop requirements for that. So at the moment there is no requirement to address or to acknowledge statements of interest or to submit statements of interest or conflicts of interest statements.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. So I hear from the people that just spoke to us that they are divided. On the one hand they really much appreciate Olga’s experience especially with the summer school concept and her experience within IACNN; on the other hand, I recognize that there are still some objections against having a GAC member equally included into an At-Large Working Group. Therefore I’d like to propose and I’d like to ask you to vote on this – I’d like to propose that we add Olga to this Working Group as an observer with non-voting rights.
I see Avri has raised her hand. Avri, please.
Avri Doria: That was accidental. I was trying to press the agree and just fumble fingered.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. So I repeat again, I would propose and I would ask Gisella and everybody else – not Gisella; Gisella is responsible for the mailing list. I would write Olga an email that we are very happy to have her in this Working Group but she will only have the position of an observer; and that when it comes to a vote she will be not eligible to vote. Do you agree to this?
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: I agree.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, Sala agrees, Olivier agrees, Carlos agrees, Avri, Tijani. So Wolf, are you still on the line?
Wolf Ludwig: Yes.
Sandra Hoferichter: I mean you are an observer anyway.
Wolf Ludwig: I’m an observer; I have nothing to say as well by the way. So she will have the same status as I have now as an observer. I could accept this but I would like for a mentioning in the record that for formal reasons I really don’t see the point. I was just imagining a situation like a colleague of mine who is very close to me; I work regularly with him – Thomas Schneider, representing the Swiss government at ICANN in the GAC would come up tomorrow and asking me “Wolf, this is an interesting project, etc. I would like to step in and to participate.”
And I would immediately tell Thomas, I’m rather close to this guy, “Listen, Thom, for formal reasons this is an ALAC Working Group. And even if normally ALAC is an open constituency, in your present role as a GAC member I see certain conflicts of interest in this.” And as you may now call me a stupid German formalist, but I see a certain conflict of interest in it; and as on observer, okay, I could live with this but I don’t think it’s a good solution.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: You are not stupid at all, Wolf. You are right. But as I told you, I am divided. I am like you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, thanks for your support, Tijani. (laughing) Okay, but it’s a decision by the majority. I indicated already I can live with the status of an observer, yes.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. Sala just mentioned in that chat that a GAC liaison officer is another solution. I am afraid we need the ALAC quorum for a GAC liaison and this would cause too much time to organize this. I’m not sure-
Wolf Ludwig: She does not have this function. If she would be an ALAC liaison, if such a position would exist I wouldn’t have objected because then there would be an official relation for this.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, I just see Sala is kidding. She’s kidding, Wolf, you can stop – Sala was only making jokes with us.
Wolf Ludwig: Oh, okay.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, so as an action item for ICANN staff to write down, I will send an email; put the Program Committee and have Olivier and Wolf copied in and also staff. I will send her an email telling her that the Program Committee has some objections because she is also a member of the GAC and we will be happy to have her as an observer in this Working Group with non-voting rights. And we hope that she will be very supportive when it comes to bringing this proposal to other constituencies like the GAC and everything.
Wolf has raised his hand.
Wolf Ludwig: Yeah, just once more to make it clear. I have nothing against Olga in personal. She has very excellent capacities as a lecturer and etc. and she’s a very nice person and I know her since a long time. So it’s nothing personal at all. It’s just this conflict of interest and it’s a very formal consideration; and it should be made clear that it’s only this formal consideration, that it’s only this formal aspect and nothing else.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Wolf. So I see this action item or this addendum to the agenda as resolved and ask anybody now if there are any other issues which should be discussed. I don’t think that we have the time today but you might bring this up now to put this on the next conference call agenda. I see no hands raised. I repeat my questions: are there any other business which should be quickly discussed now or in length on the next conference call? Then please tell us now.
I see this is not the case so therefore I would call this conference call as closed. I thank everybody for their active participation. I think we are a great group for a Program Committee and I’m very much looking forward to working with you in the future; and hope and ask for your support on the work on the mailing list and also for your support on the following conference call with the entire Working Group to defend those things which were agreed today and to support this project as much as possible in your capacity.
Thank you very much, and Merry Christmas to all of you and a successful start into 2012.
[End of Transcript]
