Den Anand Teelucksingh: Let’s at least start the agenda and then when Cheryl comes in she can perhaps look at her agenda item. Because it’s now 17 minutes past the hour and I know Charles, I’m glad that you’re here, and I know that it is a very odd hour for you to be up so thank you for attending the call.
Just to confirm the persons on the roll call – we have myself, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Dave Kissoondoyal, Charles Mok, Seth Greene, and Heidi from ICANN staff. And with apologies from Hong Xue, who said she can’t make the call due to the time zone difference.
Okay, so that’s the roll call. Second agenda item – review of the action items from 26 November 2010. Well I believe this is only one action item, Seth you want to respond to this?
Seth Greene: Yeah, sure. I spoke to Margie and Marika, this is way back in November, I spoke to them about any additional reports that they felt that we could use as evidence for the completion of incorporating ALAC advice and input into the GNSO PDP and they didn’t think there was, but they were very optimistic, certainly, about the progress that’s been made.
And they were quite adamant that the draft GNSO PDP at the time certainly incorporated ALAC advice and feedback importantly, much more so then in the past and much more explicitly. At the time it was just a draft, I have to admit I don’t know what’s become of the proposed PDP for them. Heidi, do you happen to know where that stands perhaps?
Heidi Ullrich: No, I’m afraid not.
Seth Greene: Okay, sure. But they said that they would be happy to meet with this Work Team if it would help development of ALACs input, ALAC and At-Larges input, into the process. And they said to please go ahead and, of course, cite the proposed GNSO PDP that they’re working on. And we did, that ended up, that was a document cited on the slides in Cartagena, or now for use in the next ALAC meeting.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. Well I have to admit I haven’t really viewed that document in full myself so I guess I have to review that document to see what it matches- Oh my, I don’t have the simplified charter, the outline, one of the items in the simplified outline. Okay, thanks Seth.
Item number three – possible rescheduling of the Work Team D call time. Well, let’s put that towards the end of the meeting so that presumably even more persons on the call and we’ll get an idea of how to, on whether the Work Team D call time can be rescheduled.
Item number four – proposed APRALOs policy advice process. Charles, I believe this came out of an APRALO meeting. Would you care to explain what this proposed policy advice is about? Thanks again for joining the call.
Charles Mok: Well, I’ll just go through it very briefly. I believe that there is a (inaudible 0:04:02) document with a few points, bullet points that has been circulated. And you might have a copy of that. Basically I think what we are going through at APRALO is a policy discussion and so on supposed to be something that is something that should be a major part of what a RALOs job is supposed to be, but a lot of times it seems like because of the large amount of complications that are going on and we are all so busy as usual. (inaudible 0:04:49) Asia sometimes seems to be an issue.
So what we are trying to do is just setting up a system to make things a little bit more organized then before because it hasn’t had everything that we want whenever we tried to respond to a consultation and so on. And many times actually we have not been able to (inaudible 0:05:18) the discussion. So basically what we are trying to do is to try to first of all, discuss within the RALO in emails and things to decide whether or not some of the consultations are urgent or not as urgent.
And for the issues that are urgent or not so urgent, we also set up a certain process and time for first of all identifying the key issues within that particular consultation topic and also a certain period of time for drafting statements and comments and circulating these comments to the members of the ALS. So that’s basically what we are trying to do.
And again, some of these issues might come up as urgent, so we try to set up a shorter timeframe for the discussion and circulation of the comments within 14 days. For some of the other issues that may be more general and we have a little bit more time, we try to set out a longer period of time for the discussion and…
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, alright Charles, thanks. I just have a question before you continue. Now when you talk about analyzing the implications of a policy and the assignment of a priority on a process for policy comments after evaluating its urgency and impact, I’m just trying to figure out how often would the RALO meet, or is it, I envisioned it, I guess I’m just trying to figure out how is that process going to work? Is it like on a weekly basis? Is it during the monthly call?
Charles Mok: I think a lot of it is going to have to happen through the emails. And I think that we are going to have weekly calls on this issue. We’re going to be, I mean of course, if necessary we can organize special calls, but I think what we’re trying to do is stick to the monthly call (inaudible 0:07:42).
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Actually, there is a lot of static on your line there, Charles. I’m not sure if anybody else heard that clearly.
Charles Mok: Okay.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Could you just repeat that last statement there?
Charles Mok: I’m just saying that it’s unlikely that we can have calls more than on a monthly basis so a lot of it has to go through email.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: So now I understand a little bit better of the email. So you think for like urgent issues, you envision a 14 day timeframe to identify the key issues, which takes five days, to draft a comment or statement in three days and then the circulation to all the ALSs for any further comments or non-objections for a period of three days – is that correct?
Charles Mok: Yes.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: And for the 30 days, that’s a general issue that’s for 30 days, which is the typical, well I guess any typical ICANN policy comment. You have 10 days to identify the key issues, five days to draft the comment or statement, and then to circulate for non-objection in five days.
Charles Mok: Yes. And actually without being actually specific in what we set out here, in fact the RALO also has decide whether or not we respond to a particular consultation because we might consider some of them not being relevant to us and so on. So, this particular schedule is already pretty demanding on us already because of the large number of (inaudible 0:09:51) that goes around.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Oh indeed. Well we have come up with several flow charts as well. I don’t know if you had a chance to have a look at it. Actually I just thought I saw Seth’s hand go up, Seth you have a question?
Seth Greene: Yes. Heidi was just suggesting that I read Cheryl’s note that she typed into the chat room. She’s on mute unfortunately because of the line. Cheryl just said “we could do a simple poll, a yes no simple poll. Maybe even a Doodle, not a teleconference based on regular monthly, regular is the monthly.” I’m not sure what she meant by the end of that, but she continues to say “I’m muted as it seems to be my line, yes that brought the static, yes. Sorry the line…” She’s just talking about her line, yes it’s just about her line.
Oh, she said “regular monthly calls” is what she was saying. Do a simple poll, yes no poll, maybe even a Doodle. Not teleconference based, but regular monthly calls perhaps would be considered. Poll in between, yes, as required. There she goes. I got it Cheryl, thanks, sorry about my fumbling your message.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: I’m glad, and Cheryl, thanks for joining the call. Okay, well Charles I don’t know if you had a chance to look at some of the flow charts because in some ways potentially tackling these issues, because that’s not just facing your RALO but all of us in At-Large, I could be wrong but it does seem to imply the same way how ALAC is treating the policy issues that come up for comment. It seems the APRALO is also useful and is very possible, I don’t know what the word, synergy, between that…
Charles Mok: I haven’t looked at the flow chart that you mentioned. How do I get access to that?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Sure. I posted a link to the, well it was part of the presentation, so all the documents are in one PFD there. So if you go to that document it should have the summary for all of these things.
Charles Mok: Okay, I’m taking a look at that there.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: And maybe what could happen now is that right now it was looking from the ALAC and At-Large policy advice development flow chart, and maybe then perhaps it could be some additional detail regarding RALOs and how do RALOs handle it internally rather than right now there’s just a box to say “RALOs give input here” at this point.
Charles Mok: I’m not sure why I’m not, I don’t seem to be able to open up that PDF file, but anyway.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: It certainly seems, well, does anybody else have that problem? I know it’s a fairly large file Charles. It is a big document so just give it a few seconds to…
Charles Mok: Otherwise I’ll try to have it mailed to me later on or whatever, but anyway I’m trying to open it.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. It does take a while to open. I see Cheryl, okay. Cheryl has, I see Seth has his hand raised. Go ahead, Seth.
Seth Greene: I was just going to suggest, Dev, that on the Work Team D main workspace page there is also separated into separate documents, which might be easier for Charles to open, are each of the parts of the flow chart.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Ah, on the web links? okay.
Seth Greene: On the Work Team D workspace and you can get to that in the web link pod on the lower left.
Charles Mok: The web link pod, yeah.
Seth Greene: The most important part probably being the new ALAC/At-Large PAD flow chart version four.
Heidi Ullrich: So, Charles, what you do is you highlight that particular item line in the web link pod, lower left, and then you go on to browse at the bottom of that pod and that should bring you to, it should open a new tab and with that flow chart.
Charles Mok: I opened up the web link, but which one if the version four you mentioned link, is that, oh yeah it’s open. Got it.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, there you go. Actually it’s strange you know, this web links thing is it that when you invoke it from the Adobe Connect everybody connected to this Adobe Connect, Seth, it opens up because it finally opened up in my browser as well.
Seth Greene: It just opened up in my browser as well also, I don’t, perhaps because I clicked on it and I’m a host, I wonder if…
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Yeah I think Cheryl has said she did it. Thanks Cheryl. Didn’t know you had that ability. And also just to read Cheryl’s comment for the record – “yes, I think the presentation, this we presented to all the ALSs, I believe that there is going to be, during the next ALAC call, a presentation from all the Work Teams since that presentation did not take place in Cartagena.” I don’t know if Heidi or if Seth can confirm that; or Olivier who’s silent. But I’ll be happy to join the APRALO call and go to the flow chart, not a problem.
Okay, so does anybody have any comments on the APRALO policy advice process? Dave, any thoughts, questions? okay. Very well I’m seeing that Cheryl is very active in the chart there.
Charles Mok: I’m out of the room for the moment because my computer decides it wants to reboot.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Oh dear. Well you’re still virtually present in the Adobe Connect room there Charles. Okay, so there will be an action item for myself to join the APRALO call. Not a problem. Well one of the other items was to discuss a cross-regional working group to identify issues on which RALOs should submit public comments. Well, Cheryl, I know that you’re not able to talk about it, but is there an email or some text that you had in mind that you could look at or is there something that we could put forth after the meeting?
Seth Greene: Dev, perhaps we could unmute Cheryl now and there would be less static and she could give a short presentation if she’d like.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, let’s do that. Let’s give it a try.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Am I unmuted yet?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Yes you are Cheryl. I can hear you loud and clear.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And without static, even better. The idea is to have a formalized arrangement that would be a standing committee whereby at least one representative from each RALO, notice I’m not saying who, just that one representative from each RALO would be in a group to work in a cross-regional sense managing some of these PDP processes; and looking at what does and does not make the cut.
This would be extraordinarily useful when we come to our monthly ALAC meetings as well because right now, what I believe is happening is that it’s a bit of a guess from the representatives who are at the ALAC meetings respective of to what their region may or may not be interested in or may or may not be do, be able to do. Certainly in the cases the APRALO calls, we have by accident, not by design, serendipitous situation where our monthly meeting happens to be within a few hours of the ALAC meeting staffing.
So, we do have a synchronicity there, but that’s not something that the other RALOs have. So the proposal is that there be a formal cross-regional working group, this would be an ALAC and At-Large advisory committee working group. It fits under the mandate of the At-large advisory committee to facilitate the work of the RALOs and the ALSs in their input into policy development and ICANN processes. But that we have it as a requirement that a active individual from each RALO, at least one, could be more, is appointed and it would have particular terms of references and requirements to go with it.
To some extent it would act as a pre-sorter for the decisions of what ALAC does and does not put in as part of its PAD, but it would also allow regions to decided as early on as possible, well this is not of interest to everyone, but it is of interest to us so we, let’s assume it might be, for example, APRALO, will need to put in a statement ourselves because we, let’s assume it’s something like single character brush script domain names are the only ones who have an interest in it. That sort of thing is the objective. I haven’t taken my ten minutes, but I think I’ve done justice to the concept.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, thank you Cheryl. I think it ties in well. Remember we had that concept, some of the concepts before the policy is published, where if we have the policy publish schedule arranged what happens is that ALAC will then review all the public policy published schedules. And the idea was that it wouldn’t be just ALAC, it would be like a permanent committee.
I think that is what ultimately is needed and it will help rather than each RALO kind of doing it in silos, well not intentionally, but just because of the nature of the work requires that that’s what happens. So I think yeah, I think that could…and what could happen is then that could be actual, do you think that maybe it could be a conference call even to…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think it needs its own workspace, it needs its own RSS feeds, it probably needs a number of sub-names which may be ad hoggle or may be ad hoc or maybe permanent. For example, in our recent APRALO call, I’m hoping Charles will be back in the room soon and if he isn’t on the room then he’s at least on the audio, but one of the things some of our ALSs were saying is that not all things are of equal interest or even of any interest to all ALSs.
And that we may find that there are some ALSs who want to declare themselves within the region as holding the pin on or having the primary interest in particular topics. This is going to be facilitated assuming that the suggestions to the ICANN Board from the Accountability and Transparency Review Team on forecasting and early publication of dates and probabilities for 12 to 18 months of what will be dealt with.
Obviously this will be a lot easier if that comes to pass as well. But it may mean that of course, if it has something to do with security and stability, we have pre-identified ALSs in each region who have expertise to bring in on to drafting team.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: I think having it as a permanent, with its own workspace and everything will be – question from Heidi, would this be then a new working group? And I believe that answer would be yes. And her second question is – how would the Secretariat be involved? I imagine all of this, the Secretariat will be involved. I think it would have to.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, the second question I would disagree with you.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Really? Why?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr And only in terms of are you defining the Secretariat as having the role or the Secretariat, and by Secretariat we should be reading leadership of RALOs making sure that it is populated. Not necessarily populating it themselves. This is an opportunity for individual ALS members, let alone representatives from ALSs to get directly involved.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Alright, I agree with that then. So I guess what will be the best way forward for this? Do you want to try to come up with a document to…?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let’s try a pilot with for example, what we heard from APRALO. They’re actively involved in resuscitating, reviewing, and renewing the work planning and actions on these matters. Let’s do a pilot and ask the other RALOs to put in one or two people from not necessarily their regional leadership, but from within their region.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. So possibly like two persons?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don’t think we need to limit. I think we need at least a minimum. A minimum of one person and an alternate, but let’s get them together and let them discuss how it is that they’d like to be doing this. And like any standing working group of the ALAC, it will have an ALAC facilitator or an ALAC appointed, I’ve forgotten the word, not the leader, but someone whose job it is to…
Heidi Ullrich: Liaison Cheryl? A Liaison?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you for that word! Anybody’d think I’d been on call for the last seven hours, sorry. But yes, the ALAC liaison for this could very well be Carlton, for example, and that right would fit in perfectly with the role he has working with you on the PAD anyway. I think we need to suck it and see- But I wouldn’t want it to be just another task of the Secretariat. I think we need to spread the work further out to the edges.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. Olivier, I see your hand. Go ahead.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Dev. I thought I was going to stay quiet but unfortunately I can’t stay quiet for more than 20 minutes with my mouth. I fully support this idea and this proposal that Cheryl has mentioned here. I think it’s extremely important to continue to have inreach and well as outreach and this certainly would be getting the ALSs involved and not primarily the people who already are involved and active in RALOs, but getting actual new people from the ALSs involved for a thing such as policy scheduling is something which I think is extremely important and would certainly benefit inreach and keep the ALSs interested and involved. Thank you.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Thank you Olivier. And I see Charles also, Charles is back in the chat room there. And Dave is also agreeing with Cheryl’s proposal.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry, Dev, my line is getting noisy again. Can you ask them to mute me? I’m sorry.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. Heidi or Seth, can you then mute Cheryl so that the static doesn’t…? And sorry, I see Heidi has also asked several questions. Would this be a monthly call? I would say yes. And does the liaison report to the ALAC at their monthly meeting? And yes, that is also the case. And I see Olivier has planted a check, which I assume agrees with that statement. Very well. Excellent.
Alright, well 12 minutes before the end of the hour. Let’s quickly look at the other agenda items – plans to continue work outlining the consolidated consumer document. We have kind of not moved much further ahead on this. If anybody has seen the Work Team outline, I mean I’ve added a few links to certain things, but I notice also that potentially this consumer outreach document is, I won’t say conflicting, but is in what’s the word, synergy, maybe that’s the word with Work Team B, which is coming up with its work on recommendation four, I believe.
So I’m not sure, even if we want to try to create new documents, should we try to create new documents?
For example, if anybody checked the Work Team D outline of the consolidated consumer document, I think what has to happen is like for example, what is ICANN? We need to just basically go back to all the previous, well I would say at the Fellowship meetings and typically the beginners meeting at each of the beginners introduction to ICANN; the introduction for first time persons attending a meeting and so forth.
I think at every meeting there’s a meeting like that. And I’m sure that the recordings and the presentations are available and maybe content from that can be used to create a presentation of what is ICANN that could be useful for consumers.
Heidi Ullrich: Dev, I’m trying to raise my hand.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Sure, go ahead.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, I just wanted to let everyone know that following up on a discussion that Scott Pinson had with Olivier and Evan in Cartagena, staff are moving ahead with some progress on getting more documentation targeted for At-Large. Now this documentation would be coming from the communications department and one of those suggestions would be doing an interactive educational online tool for the topics that you’re mentioning, Dev. Sort of like an ICANN 101 or something along the lines of okay, these are the top 10 end user concerns or complaints, how do you deal with them. So we’ll be working as long, when ALAC approves that we will then continue to work on that and the goal is to have one be a podcast, and the goal is to have the first one available by the San Francisco meeting.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. Do you know when the meetings will take place with Scott and Olivier and Evan? Well I know myself was a volunteer to help work on it.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, the first plan is to have a meeting early this next week internally and then we’ll have a meeting perhaps towards the end of next week or the first part of the week after that.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, excellent. Okay, thanks Heidi. Let’s see, regarding the outline story board for the consolidated consumer outreach document, anyone has any suggestions on what else that could be done with this? I mean understanding domain names, what is ICANN – or do you think that the material that will come out of the meeting with Scott would be possible to fill the gaps here, so to speak?
Heidi Ullrich: Dev, if I may?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Sure of course.
Heidi Ullrich: I think that the consolidated document is something that perhaps Beau and myself and others can take a look at and I see them as sort of complementary, but separate. Because the interactive online tool would be something that is more for end users, while this consolidated consumer document is something that we’re going to be sending out to potential consumer groups, etc. I mean if others agree or disagree let m, let us know.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: No, I agree with that. If anybody has any comments of course they can say it.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, I see a couple of green ticks.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Yes. Okay, excellent. From Cheryl and Olivier. Alright, well then, let’s try to work on one the consumer outreach document and I’ll find, between now and the next meeting, because I’m just trying to figure out, there’s a deadline for when all of these improvements have to be at least at some form of completion, am I correct? does that have to be done by San Francisco? Heidi or Seth can probably answer that question.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, Seth I think you’re fully able to answer that.
Seth Greene: Sure. Not San Francisco per se Dev, but by the end of March hopefully the bulk, if not all of it, will be done. That’s the target.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. So then, let’s try to, for the next Work Team D meeting, to have some more clearer outline for that consolidated document. And then perhaps even start filling in some of the gaps. This is probably the weakest part in our presentation. Heidi, go ahead.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, thank you. Some of you may have participated in the consumer meeting that took place in Cartagena and one of the action items, well two of the action items, one would be that the consumer comments that At-Large created I believe now some time back in early 2009, that that should be brought back to life.
And the second action item was that there would be a mailing list created for interested parties working on consumer issues. And I think once we get those going, this will be something, this document would be something that we could send out once, perhaps this group has taken a look at it that we could then send it out for additional comments. So Jen, any additional comments from you would be most welcome.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Yes thanks Heidi. I had forgotten, it had slipped my mind about that mailing list and so forth being created. Thanks for that, for reminding me. Okay, if there’s no other questions or comments regarding agenda item six, regarding the consolidated consumer documents – and just to read a comment from Cheryl – Yes, and we also need to address the work that we have to do on consumer metrics all through the Cartagena Board resolution. Thank you. Thanks Cheryl.
I assume that is a plus one there Cheryl, I’m certain that’s what it meant. Yeah. Let’s see, any other business? Well now that more persons are on the call we can now look at the agenda item three, which is the possible rescheduling of the Work Team D call time. Currently two persons have now joined the Work Team, and Charles and Hong, and I’m grateful to them for joining the Work Team, but this time is not suitable for persons from APRALO to join the call.
So, and I will put the question out to the group, would persons be interested in looking at rescheduling the Work Team D call times? So I’ll open it up, because I was thinking possibly try another time that is possibly suitable for, well for people from Asia-Pacific, Los Angeles, can better be able to join the call. So how much far later in the day do we need to shift for more involvement?
Well, some of the proposed times, I was looking at 01:00 UTC as a possible example. So 01:00 hours UTC, that would make it, let’s see 12 noon in Sydney, 9:00 a.m. in Beijing, and like say 5:00 p.m. in Los Angeles. And obviously what we can do is obviously make up a Doodle and just make sure that everybody agrees with this or not.
But Cheryl, should we then ask for a Doodle to go out for suggesting this and possibly one or two other further times? Okay, can do it on a Doodle poll, Dave Kissoondoyal says that. Okay, so even a time, like say 01:00 hours, 02:00 hours maybe, that could work because for me, I don’t mind working going into the night as such. I’m even more comfortable going say 04:00 hours or 05:00 hours would be fine by me as well.
Male: Well actually, for me I would rather have it at a little bit of odd hours rather than during the business hours. That’s daylight. I might run into conflicts actually more easily. So if you say like 8:00 in the morning my time, that’s actually better. As you go later into the day, then that might turn out to be a big conflict. Anyway, that’s just me.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. Look to 22:00 hours UTC, that could also work as options as well then. okay, well then let’s, I guess the action item from this would be to set up a Doodle and either keeping the existing time as is, or adding several options of times. I think several times here have been posted in Adobe chat there, so 22:00 UTC, 23:00, 00:00 hours, 01:00 hours, sorry thank you. Okay, so let’s make that an action item. Olivier, okay I see you raised your hand. Go ahead.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thanks Dev. Who would be setting up this Doodle? Is it for Heidi to do so or would that be Seth?
Seth Greene: I’m happy to do it Olivier, I’ll talk to Gisella about it and let her know all the various times that you’d like included in it.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, well the reason why I’m asking of course is as you will recall during the Work Team C, of which I am a co-Chair and which happened yesterday, we had similar questions and we also had similar suggestions as well. So it’s just for Seth, who I guess will be doing this to probably use the experience from one group with another please.
Seth Greene: Will do. Yes.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: And yeah, and as Cheryl pointed out in the chat, Gisella will have to check there’s no clashes and so forth with other stuff happening, At-Large calls, etc. Ah, Cheryl is unmuted here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Really do think I’m in Groundhog Day. I just keep waking up and going to a different call and having the same thing happen again and again and again.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Actually Cheryl you said something about the time for all the summit calls - you mean the At-Large summit?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, we went through hell and high water and we did have one or two times and they were quite successful times, which managed to get good cross-regional representation. So if G just looks back to the minutes of those and makes sure they’re added in the options.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: That’ll be great. Okay, well definitely that should be included to, those times for the summit calls, if we go back to the history. So I set that’s another action item to look at that, to look at the summit call times, and also include that in the Doodle for the possible rescheduling of Work Team D.
Seth Greene: Got it.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Great. Okay, let’s see, now we’ve reached the top of the hour. Well, based on the Doodle we will have the confirmation for the next meeting. Well, at the same two weeks, Thursday the 20th of January. Actually Heidi, you’ve raised your hand. Go ahead.
Heidi Ullrich: Well sorry I was preparing for any other business. Are we there yet?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Well this is one of the business items so. So yes, we’re there. So go ahead Heidi since you have the mic.
Heidi Ullrich: Well, for Seth, sorry if I’m taking over one of your tasks, but just to confirm or to ask the team to confirm that they do want to hold a meeting in San Francisco. And tentatively we are looking at having this team meet on Wednesday; the plan is to have A and B meet on Tuesday, C and D meet on Wednesday, and then has a follow up during the wrap-up session.
Now I’m glad that Olivier is on the call, I mean this is, Seth and I just discussed this, but that worked well during Cartagena and we thought that that would work well for San Francisco as well.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I’ll leave it in your capable hands Heidi.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, Wednesday sounds good Heidi, so yes.
Heidi Ullrich: So we can go ahead and tentatively plan that. Monday, there’s an internal kick off call for San Francisco, at that point or perhaps a week or so later, I should know better what the conflicts might be so then we can plan the exact time for this meeting.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: That sounds good Heidi. And Olivier agrees with you. Okay, any other business items? Olivier you have your microphone, but I assume that means, did you have something to say or?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Someone has given me the mic and I can’t get rid of it. I can’t! Take it back!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Blast whoever gave him the mic, that’s the answer.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, going once, going twice, any other business? Okay then, just to clarify, after the Doodle we’ll have the meeting at possibly a new time on Thursday 20th January 2011. Okay, and with that, I will then close the meeting.
[End of Transcript]
