Dev Teelucksingh: Evan, is it possible for you to Chair and walk?
Evan Leibovitch: Hey, multitasking is always possible. The good thing about it is that we don’t have a whole lot more to do if I can recall. I mean we’ve essentially approved the wording of Samantha’s suggested Board motions and I’m not actually even sure how much more we have to do. I think, Seth, one of the things we were going to do is review if there was any input from any of the other Working Teams on issues that would impact Board resolutions. Was that right?
Seth Greene: Yes, actually we’ve done that. We have done that I think a couple of meetings ago, maybe one meeting ago. But yes, we might want to discuss that more. The bottom line was that from Work Team… Oh, maybe I shouldn’t start. Should I start, Evan?
Evan Leibovitch: Unless there’s any objection we might as well.
Seth Greene: Okay, well I can just answer that first very quickly. Dev on Work Team D is sure there’ll be no need for work through changes, bylaw changes, certainly not on the ICANN level. Work Team B thinks there might be but more likely than not it would just be on the RALO level, not on the ICANN level. Let’s see, C similarly is not 100% sure but basically believes there will not be any bylaw changes needed.
And based on that what Samantha was recommending is that we just bundle together the two major changes from this Work Team and proceed with them because of the amount of time that it takes to get these passed. So if we start now we can target Amman has actually having them and having the Board decide on them.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. Now I obviously don’t have the agenda in front of me but if I remember, the agenda was essentially to just take one more check to make sure everyone was okay and then collect any other comments.
Seth Greene: Yes, yeah, we could certainly start with that, absolutely.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. Well, has there been any follow-on input to the last set of bylaw changes including that one redline change was the addition which actually I’m very welcome to see there. Anybody?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well nothing from me. I think the timeline is fine and the redline is fine. If I could just take a sec to Seth’s reporting, though, on the other Work Teams, I hear him being very generous about saying they’re not sure whether there would be any changes, and indicating that it is unlikely to be a bylaw-based change. I’m on each of those Work Teams and I think I would be able to say it would end up being a bylaw change over my cold rotting corpse. So you see where we’re going here.
Evan Leibovitch: Alright, very good. Tell us what you really think. Okay. So we’re happy with this wording. It doesn’t appear that we’re going to get any additions to this wording, so how much more do we have to do except minimal prep for the meeting that we’re going to have in San Francisco?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Get it out to ALAC and At-Large in enough amount of time.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because we need to have in the timeline, remember, the ALAC needs to formally vote on it and then okay.
Evan Leibovitch: Well if I remember, Seth, oh sorry. If I remember correctly from the agenda for the San Francisco meetings, this is not on the table for the Sunday meeting but it’s on the table for the Wednesday policy meetings. Do I have that right?
Seth Greene: Actually all of the proposals are in a sense on the table for both meetings, Evan, is the way it looks like it’s evolved. I think in the Sunday meeting the proposals of each Work Team including the Work Team A amendments are going to be presented to the ALAC and the whole community actually, and discussed, feedback received.
And we don’t actually have the plans nailed down; depending on what the Work Team members and the ALAC would like to do they could then either be formally presented in a sense in the wrap-up meeting or they could be presented in the interim before the wrap-up meeting and just a short report given during the wrap-up meeting. It’s really up to the ALAC and the Work Teams, mainly the ALAC of course.
Evan Leibovitch: Well, here’s my suggestion. If we appear to have things nailed down even at this point then we’re in the position of being able to actually propose a motion to be made at the start of business at the San Francisco meeting, meaning the Sunday ALAC meeting, as a formal motion to pass the WT A recommendations.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I can, Evan, that’s all very nice but it doesn’t actually do anything except perhaps mean that we’re making it as an endorsed statement. The times that are on the timeline proposed by Samantha are actually all about things outside of the ALAC, and there’s the time-critical bit. So it’s all very nice to have the ALAC’s okay, and really, having the ALAC okay should happen around the same time or at the time that we pass it on to the SIC.
Evan Leibovitch: Right, I thought we needed (crosstalk)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: …end of February, not 14th of March.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, so now do we- Sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And the sooner in February we can get it to the SIC the better because the staff has to put out a draft paper before the end of February to get it to the SIC for getting it outside all that timelining. So I’d be pushing it for informal if not formal agreement to the ALAC as soon as possible, so that well in advance of the 21st of February it’s going to the SIC with an ALAC “We think these words are good” thing.
Dev Teelucksingh: Oh, that’s fine. So there’s no need for a sort of formal adoption at the physical meeting of ALAC in San Francisco.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, then, what about this kind of timeline then – one of us or Seth puts this forward to the ALAC at the end of this call? Based on the way things have been done, if there’s no opposition or there’s no negative feedback from the ALAC list then that gets presented by the Chair of ALAC to the SIC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In this case I would suggest that we give the ALAC a full seven days to review and that fits in just with the 21 - being completed by the 21st of February. So if it goes out on the 11th then yeah, that’s assuming because a staff has to dot the I’s and cross the T’s, and ALAC has to think about doing it for half a minute; and you give the ALAC then, when it goes out to the list that it’s given to pick a time on the 17th or 18th UTC of February.
Then that does mean that during that time the staff-generated paper for the SIC can be having the beginning of drafting, and then between the 18th and the 21st but perhaps even on the 18th, if that paper was ready then when Olivier sends the “Dear SIC, here are the following words of wisdom that the ALAC has agreed is their concept along with ICANN Legal working with the Work Team…” type letter; and that way the SIC gets the actual words and the associated paper pretty much at the same time, which will be happening on or about the 21st of February.
That buys an extra seven days to the SIC to wake up like the sleeping dragon on top of its treasure trove that it actually is and do things by the 28th.
Evan Leibovitch: Is there any reason that’s not a viable timeline? Seth, anyone?
Dev Teelucksingh: No, not from me.
Seth Greene: No.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. It seems like we have consensus to do that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Evan, would it be appropriate for, seeing as how you two co-chairs are here, for you to agree who’s going to send this redline and a clean version ‘formally’ to… I really think you should give a heads up to at least Olivier first, and then are you going to be sending it through to the ALAC list or are we asking Olivier to do it?
Evan Leibovitch: It could be us, it could be Olivier, it could be Seth. I have no preference.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, I don’t care who but I think Olivier needs a little heads up first and certainly staff do, because at least some of the staff will be now needing to get into A and into B to get that draft paper for the SIC pre-prepared.
Evan Leibovitch: Seth, could I possibly impose on you to do that interface?
Seth Greene: Yes, absolutely. Yeah, that’s fine. Cheryl, may I just ask one question? When you say “staff,” I’m assuming that it would just be Heidi and myself probably writing this paper, or do we involve Legal?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Possibly, but remember for other SIC papers you have had input from Legal. Of course I don’t know about any of those papers, Seth, so how could I possibly be answering that question?
Evan Leibovitch: By the way, I’m about to go into an elevator so I may drop off the call for a minute or two but I’ll come right back in.
Seth Greene: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Seth, the answer is yes, you would be doing the lion’s share but it may be that the SIC asks for other input as well as has happened in the past.
Seth Greene: Thank you, okay. So what Evan was just asking me was that I would certainly give Olivier and staff the heads up, and then did we get to the next part of actually sending it off to the ALAC list?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well again, probably Olivier-
Seth Greene: Olivier would do that of course, right.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think it’s Olivier’s call, but in the heads up I’d ask that: “Hi Olivier and ExCom, have the ExCom know about this but here is the clean and redline version of the words, here is the proposed timeline we’re working with; here are the next steps from the Work Team, which is this clean version needs to be sent to the ALAC working list. Who do you want to send this with the following proposed note that says ‘Dear ALAC, here is the product of Work Team A. It’s had rich and complete input by ICANN Legal. We all believe it’s ready to go. If that’s the case can ALAC have a first draft review of this? Get any feedback to us by (insert time and date UTC) on the 17th or 18th of February.”
And he’ll come back to you saying “That’s great and I’ll send it out,” or he’ll ask you to.
Seth Greene: Okay, thank you, Cheryl. Great.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I mean it’s not impossible that the SIC may have a response. It’s a new lineup in the SIC world here.
Seth Greene: Right, right. It didn’t even occur to me that that might happen quickly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You know what it’s like when you get new kids in camp – some of them want to exert themselves. Which is why if we can get it a lot closer to the 21st of February than to the 28th that allows playtime and dynamics to be sorted out.
Evan Leibovitch: I don’t believe this. Hi there. I’m in the elevator and a fire alarm sounds in the building.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well there you are – you’ve arrived, now leave. Go to your official assembly area.
Evan Leibovitch: In the minus 15 weather outside, yes, thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah look – if it’s just a practice it won’t take long.
Yrjö Länsipuro: Ah, it’s colder than in Finland. It’s only minus 10 here in Helsinki.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, boys, I don’t know how you do it.
Yrjö Länsipuro: Centigrade, centigrade.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I would definitely rather be hot than cold, I can tell you. Anyway, alright. So what’s next on the agenda, people?
Evan Leibovitch: Is there anything else?
Seth Greene: There actually is, Evan. The main item was a review of the simplified outline just to make sure that there’s nothing that the Work Team has forgotten. And one thing that’s not been discussed, as we mentioned, is the term of the Chair; actually the terms of a number of offices but the term of the Chair of the ALAC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Evan, in the past you’ve raised a personal opinion that you think changing the term of office of the Chair of the ALAC from one year as it’s currently in our rules of procedure to two years was a bad thing. Are you still of that view?
Evan Leibovitch: Yes, actually – I still prefer that to be on one year terms, if only because I really don’t want to concentrate too much authority in the Chair or in the Executive Committee, but to try and spread things around. While the Chair is increasingly it seems involved in a number of things such as the AC/SO Chair meeting that’s happening before San Francisco and all, I still would like to enable that to be something that is reapproved on an annual basis given the fact that we have new people in the ALAC every year.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I’m of the exact opposite opinion and I don’t suppose you’ll be surprised with that. I think it’s exception rather than rule when new people coming into an ALAC are also the appropriate people to be a Chair at the same time as they come in. I think a 12-month or at least three meetings’ worth of performance review of fresh blood in an organization like the ALAC is exactly the type of time you need to decide whether you’d like some of this fresh blood to be your new Chair; and that a two-year cycle allows you to do that quite successfully.
The other advantage on the two-year is that the majority of the work that the Chair needs to do is outward-facing; it has not got to do with control and output of things that happen in the ALAC, quite the opposite. The ALAC’s structure, and I think because of the leadership it’s had, is found more in a diffuse model. You have a situation where you’ve got a GNSO Chair at the moment who has far more power; and because of the Council’s structure that it has and the way it splits with a very polarized set of views, the GNSO Council finds itself having to give perhaps far too much decision-making control to an individual, and that’s a very dangerous thing indeed.
And yet one- or two-year terms don’t make any difference there because they tend to get reelected unless they make absolute fools of themselves or leave, and that’s why things are term-limited in some of the SO’s.
The other point I would make is with the nature of the outward-facing, in other words, having relationships where other leaders – either merely as the AC and SO Chairs but also the other leadership positions within ICANN – feel that they can just pick up the phone or meet you over coffee and have the unofficial conversations that diplomacy and politics do in fact demand means you’ve got to have relationships. And it takes a little longer than being classified by the title of Chair of an organization to build a relationship.
So the people are either chosen because of their pre-existing relationships or they need to be given time to get the trust and development of them, and that’s my rationale for being in the exact opposite camp.
Yrjö Länsipuro: Yrjö coming in here. I would tend to agree with Cheryl here because I think that continuity is needed, and building those relationships and contacts you mentioned, I think it takes more time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can we look, Seth, at the rationale we’ve made for the increased time to two years by the Review Committee? Have you got that text?
Seth Greene: I don’t have that with me but I might be able to pull it up very quickly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s hard to hear you, Seth.
Seth Greene: Oh sorry. Sorry, I was just saying that I could try to pull it up very quickly, yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If we need to remember the simplified text, the simplified spreadsheet just has the recommendation; it doesn’t have the words, the rationale, the reasoning that they gave behind it.
Evan Leibovitch: Sorry, I’m hearing a lot of humming. I’m sorry if I’m the cause of it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m hearing humming, too. Often that’s me but if it’s not… It seems to have settled slightly.
Evan Leibovitch: I’ll tell you what – now that I’m on campus I’m going to hang up and see if I can find a landline real soon. That’ll make things a little easier. Okay?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s not a problem unless you three think it is.
Evan Leibovitch: Oh, okay. Anyway, I understand. I’ve read through the rationale, everyone’s heard mine. This may be something where my point of view tends to be the minority one and I’m comfortable with that, but I still feel the way I do.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, I understand, and I might point out, Evan, that you’re the only person I’ve heard comment on that particular recommendation, which is why I asked you the question “Do you still have that view?”
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, so it might be a very small minority, probably not even enough to impede something called consensus, but I still… Anyway-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So what do you want to do with that recommendation? I mean our simplified timeline doesn’t really- We’ve paid no attention to it at all. We’ve looked at R1, R10 and R11.
Evan Leibovitch: Well, as far as I’m concerned I’m not the only person in this Work Group. If the consensus of this Work Team is to proceed with the two-year term I’m not going to impede anything. I’ve got my views but I don’t want to stand in the way of getting something done.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I guess the other point is, Evan, which goes to what we would need to do in terms of making our recommendation back to the ALAC is that as a change of the rules of procedure would be required here, there is an opportunity for the rules of procedure to be reviewed and they are in desperate need of review. A number of us have recognized for several years that there are some holes you could drive a truck through in them, and there is some residual stuff that can be removed; and there is some stuff that probably needs to be addressed.
And to that end, recommending that the ALAC convene a sub-team or Work Team for the purpose of a complete review of its current rules of procedure, looking specifically at the required changes from the improvements process – because there’s a couple of things that need changing, not the least of which will be referencing to bylaws, which is mainly not a reference to our bylaws but the bylaws. And the rules of procedure still talk about a liaison to the Board, so there’s a whole bunch of stuff that needs to be changed.
So what we can do is make a recommendation to ALAC that it convene a subcommittee to do a full review and report back to the ALAC on the required changes out of the improvements program and any other alterations to be completed by the ALAC at the ICANN annual meeting at the end of the year.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, I agree with that but I would make one suggestion, and that is rather than create a new Work Group I’m quite sure that there is an existent but dormant standing Work Group that exists to deal with internal procedures. And essentially I’m going to-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, there’s not.
Evan Leibovitch: I thought there was one out of that that came out of the summit.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The internal procedures, the only internal procedures work group was the pre-summit one that is now an archived or older Work Team that’s been closed down, which was the one that designed the rules of procedure in the first place. So it’s not a standing one; it’s a closed one.
Evan Leibovitch: Oh, okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So the rules of procedure are not limited to mechanistics; it’s also definitions. So any changes since version 9.5, so that’s inclusive of 10 and the 10+ series, so the rules of procedure have been done by an individual or a need proposed to the ALAC and the ALAC approving them. And that happened with the election changes that were made pre-At-Large selection.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, I stand corrected.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And there are people who want to be on such a work team. It was, for example, a role that Alan thought he might have and have time to do while he was on the Executive Committee, but other work overtook him at all hours and days as you well understand, and that work never got done. But it’s been on a number of to-do lists to get done, and with the new ALAC members it’s probably a good idea to ask who wants to put their hand up and go through this process.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. I certainly don’t have a problem with recommending, that gets it up. So what you’re saying is the issue of the two-year term as well as a wholesale reevaluation of the rules of procedure needs to be undertaken.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Evan Leibovitch: My only question, Cheryl, is whether or not this group is actually capable of doing that in time for having a set of recommendations in time for the annual general meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, I believe it is particularly because even if at the annual general meeting only the changes that are far more concrete and require deletions because of Recommendation 2 going ahead, changes to bylaw references because of the work (inaudible) will go through and come back from the Board by Amman, and term offices and a sanity check. That in itself is significant change.
It may end up that in the AGM at the end of the year we are also making a set of “and this work team needs to continue and look at some of these more nebulous areas,” in which we’ve seen that outcomes haven’t been agreed to yet. And that’s okay, but I think you’ll be able to vote on at least four if not five different sections of change.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. And if I remember, one other thing at least from the RALO that might even be considered for that is a recall process, which is probably controversial but it’s something that seemed to be important to a lot of people in the RALO.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We have a recall process that exists for everything… In the ALAC rules of procedure recall processes exist for all things excepting a NomCom appointee.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. Never mind, okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What is interesting of course, Evan, is that at this stage we do have at least half a dozen changes, but certainly four or five which would be ours to be done by the end of the year. You might want to suggest to the ALAC that the members of regional interests might want to be represented on that. I don’t know, but that’s something I guess for the ALAC to decide.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Anything else on the agenda?
Evan Leibovitch: Well, is there anyone besides Cheryl and me that has something to add to this? It’s been pretty quiet from the rest of you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Hi, it’s Olivier. I’ve had my hand up for a while; I’m not sure who’s running the room at the moment.
Evan Leibovitch: I can guarantee you it’s not me.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Considering he’s on a mobile phone standing in an assembly area while a fire alarm is on, it won’t be Evan.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: You never know with today’s technology. I’ve received text messages at the top of the Teotihuacan pyramids, so you know, I’m sure a conference call can run there.
I was just going to comment on the Chair role and selection. I’ve got a copy of the Westlake report which is where I think this subject originated, and it mentioned in there that the Chair is elected by the then-current members of the ALAC each year for a one-year term. The WCL Review Team considered that this could lead to a lack of continuity in the leadership of the ALAC. So it’s there that it starts recommending the two-year term for the Chair, which coincides with what Cheryl had said to us earlier. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, Olivier, I think it’s important to note for the record that whilst several things Westlake put forward were not supported and endorsed by the Board Review Team, this was something that was kept in the Board Review Team’s reviews throughout the whole process. And if Seth can find a little later the rationale from their report I think it is worthy of note that it was something pointed out by the external reviewer that was supported throughout as well.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: That’s all, thank you.
Seth Greene: Evan, if I may briefly, I did find the passages in the Work Team report. All I can see is, and it repeats this a number of times, is that it states it agrees with this aspect of the Westlake report especially given the fact that there is a recall process.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, alright. Like I say, I don’t have access to anything online right now so I defer to anybody that does.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, and again I think it’s important to say “because of the recall process.” I think we do need to remind ALAC that there is a recall process with the exception of Nominating Committee Appointees.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, got it. By the way, the firemen have just swarmed off and driven away, so I assume that it’s a false alarm.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh dear, so someone tripped an alarm. Oops. Is that it from the simplified outline, Seth? I thought it was.
Seth Greene: Bear with me one second please.
Evan Leibovitch: So we have two action items coming out of here. Action Item 1 is in due haste going to ALAC with the intention of sending the bylaw changes to the SIC after an appropriate approval process within ALAC; and the other one is starting a working group within ALAC to review the rules of procedure in line with the recommendations.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In line with the recommendations and any other edits that might be noted on their review, yeah.
Evan Leibovitch: Yes.
Seth Greene: Can you repeat what you just said please?
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. We have two action items. The first one that was discussed in the first part of this call has to do with doing an ALAC review process for the bylaws after which they will be forwarded to the SIC; and the other one is the creation of a working group to address a review of the ALAC rules of procedure in line with the recommendations of the ALAC review and subsequent comments and so on.
Seth Greene: Yes, yes, understood.
Evan Leibovitch: And people are filing into the building and the elevators are not going to be usable because of the line for a few minutes.
Yrjö Länsipuro: This is Yrjö. Let me just ask, so this second one, the working group, that’s a working group to be formed by the ALAC, right? And that’s nothing to do with Work Team A, huh?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: At this stage that is something that we can’t request how they decide it, but ALAC rules of procedure needs to be changed by ALAC. If ALAC is smart they may ask for input from at least those active regional people in Work Team A because of the good work that Work Team A has done, but I can’t tell you whether ALAC’s going to be smart or not yet.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, but I mean the idea is that we’re recommending that ALAC create this group as a result of what we’re doing; so in other words things within the Board’s purview we’re asking the Board to take care of, things that are in ALAC’s purview we’re asking ALAC to deal with.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Correct.
Evan Leibovitch: Seth, does that answer your question?
Seth Greene: Yes, I’m with you. Yes, absolutely.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. Is there anything else on our plate?
Seth Greene: I’m just going through the simplified outline quickly. Yes, there is one task. I hope everyone can hear me, and I’m not familiar with some of the things that are referred to here: “Review proposed IIC post-JPA accounting mechanisms to assure congruence with recommendation.”
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, the IIC was improving institutional confidence with a program running in 2007, ’08, and part of 2009 by ICANN; and the Affirmation of Commitments overtook all of that.
Seth Greene: Ah, so all of that was taken over by and completed or not by the Affirmation of Commitments?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Correct. And each one or two issues that were predicted to cross over, for example the home for voice and concerns of the individual internet user, is the language that our documentation refers to. And we’re left now with the challenges of the Affirmation of Commitments referring to consumers as well as internet end users. But I don’t believe that that raises issues for our task other than the awareness of work now to be done.
Evan Leibovitch: But that specific point as far as this Work Team is concerned would you say, Cheryl, is moot?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I believe so.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. So Seth, is that it or do we have the ability now to stand on the aircraft carrier and say “Mission accomplished”?
Seth Greene: How about “ALAC engagement in ICANN structural improvements program?” I’m assuming that’s done but…
Evan Leibovitch: Well, ALAC is involved wherever we’re at including anything to do with- I mean see, given what has just been proposed to be accepted into the ICANN bylaws, we have the mandate and indeed the responsibility to participate in anything like that to do with ICANN. So that’s even a level of specificity we don’t need.
Seth Greene: Yes, right. Yes, it looks to me as though the group has covered everything. Oh, “ALAC reviewed edit to be…” Yes, yes, it looks like everything’s been done to me. Perhaps I could ask each of you if you just have two minutes, and especially when you’re at a desk, Evan, if you could just look at the simplified outline and confirm that for yourselves and me, that would be terrific.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I just say on that one with the ALAC involvement with the structural improvements program, the structural improvements program is what the SIC does, okay? The Structural Improvements Committee of the Board of ICANN is the base that is in charge of all of that. From our own perspective I think that we can in the reporting give quite a good history and evidence of strong interaction and involvement with our own process.
But we should also note that ALAC has been increasingly involved in comments on proposed changes resulting out of the Structural Improvements Committee’s actions and reports and activities, including things like changes to Board timings, to Board structures, all those public comments that we interact with. So I think I’m fairly confident that we can give ALAC a tick there because it is in fact more involved than it was pre-review.
But we also have the advantage of having a main active person in the embodiment of Jean-Jacques Subrenat now, who was a very active person involved in the Structural Improvements Committee and the Board. And I’d be asking him particularly with his role in the ALAC Review Working Group as well to be a fairly important part of our final summation and reporting; our closing documents that ALAC will be presenting on its improvement process I think should involve him wherever is appropriate. And we might want to just recommend that as a link to the SIC stuff.
Evan Leibovitch: Thanks, Cheryl.
Yrjö Länsipuro: Yes.
Seth Greene: I believe that’s everything on the simplified outline then. Let me just, I just wanted to go back and look at the agenda for everybody. The only thing left I see is planning and writing of the Work Team B proposals for the ALAC and synopsis that the ALAC can use in its own final reporting, which actually, Cheryl, you just happened to mention magically.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: See it in the transcript, write it up.
Seth Greene: I’m looking around for the video camera again. So I think that’s probably everything, Evan. Evan?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Have we lost Evan?
Seth Greene: Yrjö ?
Yrjö Länsipuro: Yes?
Seth Greene: Oh sorry, I was just making sure we lost Evan, we still have you and Olivier hopefully?
Yrjö Länsipuro: Okay, but I think that at this stage I mean the only thing that remains to do is to ask if there’s any other business, and if not to close the meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, we took more time than I thought we would, Yrjö, but there was that fire alarm.
Yrjö Länsipuro: Yeah, alright. Okay.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I wanted to ask a question. May I ask-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We can hardly hear you, Olivier.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: May I ask a question?
Yrjö Länsipuro: Yes.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. Just a question following up on what Cheryl has just mentioned regarding involving Jean-Jacques Subrenat. Would this be following up directly with Jean-Jacques?
Yrjö Länsipuro: Yes, I guess so.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, and I would suppose so but I do think it should be copied to you, Olivier, because it really is a… Jean-Jacque would not want to overstep his mark, and I think he needs to know that it is a mark that you’re happy for him to step up to.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: This is why I was asking the question, so thank you, Cheryl.
Yrjö Länsipuro: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let me brutalize the rationale for you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I just want to make sure if we all know how it stands. Jean-Jacques has responded to a message which Seth very kindly helped me draft; in fact I think he drafted 99% of it and I just threw in a couple words. But anyway, to get more people involved from the ALAC and from the regions into the work teams, and Jean-Jacque has been one of the first ones to respond to that, to volunteer for at least two groups.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And Olivier, Jean-Jacques would be in my view absolutely perfect to lead the review of the rules of procedure.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Alright, well that’s noted.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, I mean as long as we don’t overburden him I think that would be an ideal choice.
Seth Greene: I thought we had other plans for him.
Evan Leibovitch: We have more than one plan for him.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was going to say, and your point there, Evan, is…?
Evan Leibovitch: This may be another “be careful what you ask for” situation.
Seth Greene: If I may just ask for a confirmation that Jean-Jacques, what I would be simply asking him is if he would by getting involved in our final reporting, making suggestions, reviewing drafts, and that’s for the sections regarding all of the work teams that the ALAC will be reporting on; and secondly we’ll also be citing him as our good involvement in history regarding structural improvements.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. And to that end, it’s asking him to close that loop or to make sure we have effectively closed the loop between what the ALAC Improvements Work Group had envisaged and what we have done.
Seth Greene: Thank you, yes. Yes, I see, specifically that role of overseer.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s not a matter of drafting new text but rather a strong editor’s pen to be used, and if a note comes back to the Work Team that says “Hmm, (inaudible) a little bit more about this here,” then we do so.
Seth Greene: Great, thanks Cheryl. That’s terrific. Okay, so when the time comes, well actually I could contact Jean-Jacques now even though we’re not drafting yet literally.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh yeah.
Seth Greene: Okay. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And if it went along the lines of “Having spoken to Olivier, I have been asked to…” that might be a good thing.
Seth Greene: Those are the lines it would go along. Okay, thank you, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I put down the puppeteering gear, yes?
Seth Greene: Yes, yes, my arms are getting tired. But it’s always my pleasure, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, I like it when you like having your strings pulled.
Seth Greene: Right.
Evan Leibovitch: And it looks so realistic, too.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh trust me, I make it look realistic.
Seth Greene: I was just told by the way that I actually will be, at least for a couple of days, being brought out to San Francisco. So I’m very much looking forward to having my strings pulled in person, face-to-face.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ooh, I’m quite sure that I’ve threatened you with the brown boot lace on at least two occasions so I’ll have to remember to pack one.
Seth Greene: Okay.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. Have we covered off everything we need to do here, Seth?
Seth Greene: Yes, I believe so.
Evan Leibovitch: Because if not we still need to cover it, and if so we may not need another meeting before San Francisco.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I agree.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. So like I said, we find an aircraft carrier to go on, put up the banner “Mission Accomplished,” everyone’s happy.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good. Thank you, Chairs. Can I just say I have found – and I don’t know whether Olivier might want to weigh in on this as well – but I mean having stuck my nose in each and every one of the Work Teams, and Olivier now having done the same since he’s taken on his lofty role in the leadership of the ALAC, this particular Work Team has had an efficiency in its leadership which I find refreshing, delightful, and a joy to work with. So thank you both.
Yrjö Länsipuro: Thank you.
Evan Leibovitch: And Yrjö, this has been our first time working together and it has indeed been a pleasure.
Yrjö Länsipuro: It’s been a pleasure from my side also, absolutely. Okay.
Evan Leibovitch: So on that very positive note I guess we bid you adieu, a whopping two minutes early into the end of the meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay!
Yrjö Länsipuro: Well managed.
Evan Leibovitch: But hey, after yesterday’s Executive Committee meeting, two minutes early is like a lifetime.
Yrjö Länsipuro: Okay.
Evan Leibovitch: Alright, everybody. We’ll see you in San Francisco if we can and otherwise we’ll be in touch. There’s still a good bit to do by email, but thanks very much, all, and we will see you.
[End of Transcript]
