Beau Brendler: Oh, by the way staff I'm just jumping in here to show you. Does someone want to go ahead and record a roll call? Yes, Natalie if you can go ahead and give the roll call please?
Natalie Peregrine: Of course. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, this the NARAOL call on the 12th of December 2011. On the call today we have Seth Reiss, Garth Bruen, Evan Leibovitch, Glenn McKnight, Eduardo Diaz, Joey McFie, Gordon Chillott, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Alan Skuce, Avri Dora, Evan Leibovitch, Beau Brendler, Garth Sherman, and Alan Greenburg. We have an apology from Darlene Thompson; from staff you have Heidi Ulrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, and myself Natalie Peregrine. I like to remind you all to please state your name before speaking for transcription purposes, thank you.
Beau Brendler: Okay, well since there needs to be some current interest in the Senate Hearing issues let's take agenda item six and have it be agenda item one. So, I just sent around a note and Evan responded to it. It talks about the response that The NPOC is doing and from I read from that, does everybody know what the NPOC is by the way?
Unknown: No, nope.
Beau Brendler: NPOC is an acronym that stands for the Nonprofit Operations Committee. It is part of the MTSG. Everybody knows what the MTSG is right? It use to be the MTUT, but not now it's like the NomCom commercial house in the GNSO. So, it looks like whether it's going to speak for the whole MTSG or not that the NPOC is dropping its own statement for the hearing. So, I just put that out there. I'm not necessarily sure that it's appropriate for us to ask to join in.
I was not on the handshake call the other day between the two groups, but I was just wondering if it might save us some time and effort to take a look at what it is that their doing and say that we endorse certain parts of it or not. If we don't endorse it I wouldn't recommend saying that, but anyway Evan do you want to speak to that because you said something about the actual hearing and what they're drafting.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, this is Evan Leibovitch for the record and I'm saying this in part also because of my role as an ALAC liaison to the MTSG. Essentially what happened was last week there was a meeting, a sub-committee, at the U.S. Senate that was debating the issue of new TTOPs. There were four speakers that were there. I'm not going to go through all of this because of the website for this meeting and list of attendees and in fact a video of the meeting was broadcast to the chat room. And I believe the mailing lists.
I won't repeat that, except to say that there were a number of speakers, including one from the NPOC, Angela Williams who is legal counsel for the YMCA, essentially spoke on behalf on nonprofit organizations, in saying that there were problems with the new TTOP program, that it still needed more thinking out. There was not sufficient protection for organizations and that there needed to be a little bit more thought, a little bit more time given to figure out the execution.
Ester Dyson, who was one of the original, I believe one ICANNs first board members, has also been on ALAC and also testified before the senate sub-committee. Essentially was trying to give the point of view of users in saying you know that there's going to be a lot of confusion created and not a lot of associated value.
Again, without going through the transcripts, I'm grossly over simplifying things and I don't mean to, but essentially you had people telling the Senate committee that there were big problems with the gTLD program as it has been envisioned and the speakers were basically calling for either a slow down, moratorium, pause, rethinking, whatever, but essentially suggesting not to proceed on the existing schedule. It's my understanding that there is a committee meeting of the House of Representatives going on this week, on Wednesday I believe, to consider similar issues.
And yesterday in editorial in the Washington Post, an interesting timing, reflected on the senate committee and basically put forth an editorial opinion to go slow. I'll just read the last paragraph of the Washington Post editorial in saying, "ICANN should not improve new names until enforcement and protection issues are resolved. Even then it should approve at most a few to allow the marketplace to absorb and weigh the changes. ICANN would be wise to move slowly, its legitimacy and internet efficacy are at stake."
I can't speak for the rest of you, I think I personally hold heartedly agree with that paragraph. Anyway, so essentially those are the actions that have happened. You've got the editorial in the Washington Post. You've got the Senate Committee meeting last week, the House Committee meeting is this week, and so essentially you have a number of government bodies in the U.S. that are making noises about advocating at least a go slower approach if not putting the breaks on the whole thing.
Beau Brendler: Thank you Evan. I see Joey's hand up, but I just want to focus our thoughts on this a little bit and then I want to bring it back to the public interest. And by saying that I mean it seems like the hearing in which Ester Dyson and the other person from the NPOC were, you know, sort of in the uncomfortable role of speaking for the general public and the door was sort of left open as to when are we going to hear from the user community on this issue. Well, we're the ones who are supposed to represent the user community, so it seems that some sort of action or statement is called for. I'm just not entirely sure what it is that we can get consensus on to say. Joey go ahead.
Joey McFie: Well, as you probably know I posted another speech which Larry Strickland made on the same day where he said that despite all objections that the NTIA was quite happy with what's going on. As Rockefeller said, there should be you know scrutiny and vigilance on accountability and transparency and everything to make sure it work, but basically the U.S. government is quite behind it.
I'll tell you also that this with Ester and the Washington Post thing has been posted to the [inaudible 07:40] today to, you know a wide list, and I had responded to that, pointing out, that Ester says and she added a note to it saying the public you know having been paying attention to it, and I suggested back with acknowledgement to Ester herself having being paying attention to it since she regards the At-Large as being in the state as what it was when she left and she hasn't been involved at all since.
Her statement totally disregards the role of the ALAC and GAC and the NTSG who all vigorously represent to the public in some form. I take the point that he just made, you know representing the users is specifically where we come from.
Beau Brendler: Yeah, so what I'm tempted to do and I certainly would invite some discussion on this, but I would like to use some sort of a consensus tool like Big Post and just in essence take a measure of the At-Large any [inaudible 08:50] and see who's in favor of actually making a statement. Because some of these things that we've been talking about making statements about is becoming a little bit difficult for me to as Chair to figure out exactly whether everyone agrees that a statement actually should be made, so we'll come back to those, Big Post a bit and I see Alan's hand up. We'll go to Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you. I guess my only commit is note of caution that as Joey pointed out some of the comments made may not reflect either reality or what people have said before. I mean I look at the comments that are currently being made by the advertising industry and by trademark owners and if they had got everything he wanted in the IRT including globally protected marks lists and everything verbatim they would still be equally as unhappy because it would not had given them the kind of protection they say they're worried about right now. You know similarly the non-for-profit sector certainly have the opportunity to comment, maybe not as the former GNSO constituency.
Also a lot of it is best characterized by Larry Strickling you know people to get what they want and this is another kick at the can, so anything that we do I think has to be taken into account, the perspective that to some extent as valid as our complaints and other complaints are what we're hearing in the actual testimony is a bit of rhetoric. So, just be careful what we do because we are going to be charged by whatever we do and we want to make sure that squeaky clean. Thank you
Beau Brendler: Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you Alan, I think that's a fair point. That's just I guess we need to do something because not doing anything in this case, considering that it's happening here in our neighborhood as it were, there would be demonstrations and that's something not good. I said Joey did you have a second comment or is that left over from previously?
Joey McFie: One thing that did point out in my response was that the global protected trademark was you and what public outcry which shot that down, so it can't really be said that the public didn't pay any attention to what was going on.
Alan Greenberg: No, but my comment was even if they had gotten that most of the kind of registrations they're worried about right now would still have existed because that would have only covered a very small number of corporations and they're now talking about you know we have to worry about the small guy.
Joey McFie: And then the further think I'll tell you, you know, in North America uniquely we have a individual memberships and At-Large, so you know it's the one place in the world where the public can actually be as involved as they like to be.
Beau Brendler: Yes and the application for memberships are not exactly rolling in [inaudible 11:57].
Joey McFie: And this is an opportunity to perhaps [inaudible 12:00].
Alan Greenberg: Oh I agree with you. This is an opportunity. But we may be getting a bit off topic.
Beau Brendler: Video is an opportunity. Evan has posted a link to the Senate hearing page, Joey has posted a link to the Strickland speech and we have Garth Bruen who raised his hand, Garth.
Garth Bruen: Hi, this is Garth and I understand what Alan's saying, there is a lot of rhetoric, there's a lot of hot air. I think that there is some legitimacy to some of the points that some of the people that testified brought up. I mean even Ester some of her core points are valid. I mean she's saying that there is a lack of public input, there is a lack of transparency. It was the same thing for Ms. Williams from the YMCA.
There's a lack of due diligence and my main concern has not been about what people might do with the new gTLDs and speculating about what kind of criminality's or abuse might arise. I'm much more concerned about the previous and the current state of affairs. Number one that it's the same cast of characters that's going to be playing in the sandbox, so they're going to be the bullies in the sandbox. It's the current set of registrars and Kurt's comments completely blew me away.
We've got this open live streaming Senate hearing where we're discussing consensus in public consultation and input and years of work, but it really boils down to a private meeting with the registrars are going to happen later where the actual policy will get implemented. The policy we all thought had already been agreed upon. I mean this is just business as usual and I think if there's something that we can focus on and get accomplished it's something along those lines, to focus on that.
Beau Brendler: Good point there, Alan your hand is up go-ahead.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I'm just a little bit confused about something Garth said. My recollection is the reference to immediately registrars was regarding the RAA amendments, specifically the law enforcement ones, and that is not policy I believe, although one can argue whether it is, but it certainly nothing that has been agreed upon. So, I'm not quite sure what you meant by that.
Garth Bruen: Well, what I mean is that the law enforcement amendments are really things that affect consumer trust and the way that abuse is handled on the internet and it's really about disclosure. One of the things that law enforcement is asking for is we want a valid contact for each registrar and we want to know how to – --
Alan Greenberg: Right, I don't think anyone's argument about that.
Garth Bruen: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: I didn't think that it was anything that had been agreed upon and is not really gTLD directly related.
Garth Bruen: I mean from my understanding of it you know the GAC and some of the other groups that had been involved they were under the impression that two years ago the registrars had agreed to these amendments and that they were backtracking on it. And by Kurt's own statement he said well this is the third meeting where I'm going to try and handle this again.
Alan Greenberg: You know Garth that's an error. The recommendations have been tabled for two years, but there was never any agreement on them. There was agreement that we go ahead and try to understand them and see what we can do, but there was never any agreement on the specifics of what to implement.
Garth Bruen: Okay I'm going to have to look it up.
Alan Greenberg: It should've been but there isn't.
Garth Bruen: Yeah, I know.
Beau Brendler: Okay well I'm going to move toward closure on this at least to the point of taking an action item, so Evan has his hand up.
Evan Leibovitch: Only to say I wanted to get past sort of the details of what we were talking about here and try to get to the nut of what it is we need to say to Congress or if any. I think on a general level there's a couple of issues, number one, I think that the lawmakers need to know and I think the public needs to know that ALAC an At-Large exists and Kurt's talk to the Senate out of all the stakeholder groups they were explicitly listed ALAC was left out.
Now at one hand I could be happy about that and that Kurt accurately did not include us in the consensus but at the same time as far as the Senators heard there's nothing that exist right now to advance the public interest, that what exist is no relic that Ester talked about. One of the things I'm hoping to do is perhaps have some kind of effort to at least make sure that the world knows better that ICANN has within its own structure a body that exists to try and advance the public interest.
And in fact at the end of the Senate hearings one of the things that was mentioned was, okay we heard from advertisers, we've heard from the nonprofits, we need to now hear from the public interest. Well, you know, here I am virtually jumping and waving my hand in the back of the room virtually in saying, okay here we are, and I think we have two tasks. Number one is making sure that they know we exist and number two if they do know we exist and they come talking to us what do we tell them.
Beau Brendler: Thank you Evan, Garth is going to be the less common on this before I take some action. Garth.
Garth Bruen: Oh, I'm putting my hand down. Sorry.
Beau Brendler: Oh, you're putting your hand down, okay. So staff do we have the ability to take a phone vote, I mean we just do that verbally. I'm just going to take that as a yes. All right, so I think we established that the NARALO does need to make a statement because we need to do that for reasons that Evan and others have articulated. But, I want to give you an opportunity for a vote on that. Does anybody oppose the idea of just making a statement real quick, any objections to making a statement on any grounds?
Heidi Ulrich: Perhaps if anybody does have an objection to that they can put an X on their name.
Beau Brendler: In the Adobe Connect?
Heidi Ulrich: Yes.
Beau Brendler: Yeah, okay I don't see any X's but I do see a hand up from Joey though, go ahead Joey. Actually Avri has put up an X. Joey are you wanting to --
Joey McFie: Sorry, I'm under muting myself. I started looking at X's and so on and I kind of forgot what I was going to say. You know Evan says, well it stands for and At-Large as agreed in opposition you know due to some resolution in Mexico and so maybe we should revisit that. And generally speaking so there's two things, one is a statement and the other one is should we go back and review that resolution and perhaps make a new resolution.
Oh yeah, from Mexico, that's a fair point, the one that says that the new gTLD program was on the unacceptable. I mean that may be slightly beyond the scope of what this is about since we need to do it rather quickly. The next hand I sell up was with Avri's followed by Evan.
Avri Doria: This is Avri, I just wanted to explain my X. I think a statement for the sake of making a statement is not a great idea. I think a statement saying, hey we're here, and Ester Dyson used her voice is not highly useful though it's exceedingly true and I think to go beyond that it gets into a position of staging what At-Large's views are now. And so far at least some of your Mexico statements they have been responded to, some haven't. Things have moved on. I don't get the impression that that reflects the current view of At-Large, though it's impossible to know.
So, I think beyond that I would think the siding on a statement, decided on what you were going to say in such a statement and it seems improbable to me that wants to be put together in two days that has consensus of [inaudible 20:35] let alone consensus of the At-Large.
Beau Brendler: Thank you Avri. I don't think anybody suggested we make a statement just for the sake of making one, but more making a statement for the sake of, you know, letting the public know that we are at minimum a venue for participation. But I saw Eduardo's hand. Go ahead Eduardo.
Eduardo Diaz: Hello, what I am proposing is that if we have a statement out now we should put the statement out there for people to comment and then decide if we want to send it or not because there might be different points of view of what this statement will say.
Beau Brendler: Okay, Evan.
Eduardo Diaz: That's what I propose.
Beau Brendler: Thanks Eduardo, Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: No, I'm lowering my hand, thanks.
Beau Brendler: Alright with that coming from Eduardo I think we can sort of killed two birds with one stone, so I think there is a petition consensus that we are going to make a statement. And I think there is sufficient reason to make something, you know to actually say something, and then let people give feedback on it in a fairly rapid time. So, I will volunteer to write something brief and send it to the list and people can make objections or word lists or whatever that they want to do and we'll try to get to that point by the middle of this week.
Okay, so I want to move onto the item on the agenda so we can get through a couple of other ones fairly quickly and then come back to this if necessary at the end of the meeting. So, let's go to the video project wrap-up. I think we had a pretty comprehensive report from Glenn on the last call and I think when we left it Joey was going to be working on the final short edit. Joey can you tell us where you are with your --
Joey McFie: Where I am is I've successfully procrastinated at times. You know I felt that the intro is nice. It's got a very nice rhythm to it and I wanted to continue a theme that had that rhythm. I felt that commencing, so I met with kind of like a little bit out, they weren't the RILO people, so it didn't represent RILO as well. I want to go through his material and find a few more things and REPOC.
And now with the recent events you know as I said it gets a promotional opportunity and I would think that putting in something of experts speaking at the congressional hearing saying the public isn't paying attention to what's going on, that might be a good thing to like kick it off with. So I basically put it off a little bit and I haven't had time. I will have time over the next month to do it, so basically that's it. I'm putting it off for now.
Beau Brendler: Okay so can you give us a ballpark as to when we can expect to --
Joey McFie: By the next meeting, I'm saying I'll work on it over Christmas.
Beau Brendler: Oh, the next meeting, okay. Great all right then let's go to the survey project which is item two on the agenda. Where we are on that is that if people want to go and look at the survey wiki page which I'm going to ask Glenn my colleague on this particular project posted a chat room if he doesn't mind. It would really be a big help if anyone who's interested in this idea of serving the public as to what they think ICANN should be doing and whether it's doing what it ought to be doing. Thank you Clinton was very quick, the URL list there.
We're really struggling with the wording of some of the questions and struggling is probably too strong a word but really trying to strike a balance between asking questions that (A) wont to bore people to death, (B) of some the appropriate but not too much knowledge of ICANN in such as you see when you look at questions. So, it would be really great if anybody would like to would just please take a look at those questions and give us some feedback.
Please try to do it within the next seven days or so otherwise given the timing we would probably just have to go straight to the big poll instruments with what we have. So does anybody have any questions on it we like you to take a look at that URL that Glenn has posted in the Adobe chat and give some feedback on the test or example questions that we want to you for the survey?
This is not by the way the smallest survey that Alan Skuce is going to be working on of the ALS system, so this is the larger survey that we want to get out to as many people in the public as possible. So does anybody have any questions on it? Okay, so we're now to agenda Item 3, discussion of document for CCNSO on .pr. I sent that out actually a little bit earlier today. If anybody has any comments on that or corrections, I'd definitely would like Eduardo to look at it.
I definitely would like cars to look at it because I summarized of New John's work in it, albeit very briefly. Heidi either has or is in the process taking up this wiki space so you can look at it there. Basically what we've done out of suggestion from the car meeting and I've discussed in the last meeting we created a document that could be sent on to or would be sent on to the appropriate forum group within the CCNSO stating what we think about the PR situation, albeit with much more refined or mild language shall we say in quite a bit more truncated from our original draft statement.
So, you'll see some familiar language and then you'll see something of a summary of new John's report from 2009, so Garth is definitely invited to jump in and take a look at that. And if we can get whatever feedback people want to get one that within the next seven days that would be great because then I can glue it onto Cheryl Langdon-Orr who was also CC on the email. Eduardo I see your hand up, go ahead.
Eduardo Diaz: Yes, I look at the draw plants and it looks okay to me. What I was going to suggest is what Alan suggested last time, is to give Cheryl a chance to comment on the drafts just so we can be more effective.
Beau Brendler: Okay, well she's CC down at this time so I would assume that not long after she opens her mail she will have a look at that and let us know exactly what she thinks. So, yeah I do plan on doing that this time. So, if I don't hear back from her I will paint her to let her know it's in her box. Anything else, oh okay, thank you Olivier. It's the FOI that's right I keep confusing it with the Freedom of Information Act. Framework of Interpretation and its a CCN, it’s a working group that we are making and communicate to.
Okay, number four, discussion of possible, Anna is following, I'm going to leave that for a big poll tool and just taking measure of the communities to whether they want to do it. It's been raised on this call the number of times primarily by me and nobody has broken out in excitement for the possibility of doing it. Item number five, I raise this in the last meeting and I'm raising it again here and may also be a good item to test out on the big poll tool for consensus or seems to work for consensus. Alan you raised your hand, did you want to jump in?
Alan Greenberg: I just want to jump in on the wording of what you have in number five and not the real content. You're talking about Ron Hall's presence on the NomCom. Well the registries have one voting position on the NomCom according to the bylaws. Are we objecting his presence or objecting to him being named as the Chair?
Beau Brendler: What it's about Alan is actually is raising a concern about having someone who is so clearly a member of a registrar and a strong register as well in that position. The NomCom being one of the most important and perhaps powerful.
Alan Greenberg: Just to be clear, when you say that position which position?
Beau Brendler: Well he's been named to I believe chair and waiting right?
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, then I'm saying the title should say that not saying his presence on the NomCom. Okay, with that something of a minor wording issue in the agenda so I thank you for pointing that out. That's the only point I was making, thank you.
Beau Brendler: Thank you. Yeah, Garth.
Garth Sherman: Yeah, this is Garth Sherman again.
Beau Brendler: I know what he did.
Garth Sherman: In reference to item number five the size of Name Scout in there, their number of accreditations is actually up to one hundred. I just recalculated the other day and when I was taking it back when he came to the meeting there wasn't a lot of disclosure as to who he really was and what he represented and that is what really kind of threw me.
Beau Brendler: Okay, thank you Garth. Olivier go ahead.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Beau, Olivier for the transcript. At I look at this end of course to be absolutely sure Ron Hall listed chair that this year and he's not confirmed as being next year's chair but he's likely to be the forerunner to be next year’s NomCom chair. There are two things. The first thing I think one has to remember the Chair of the NomCom and the Chair Elect does not have a vote. It's not a voting position. They're the only ones that don't. They conduct the debates, but they don't actually have a vote and well of course some may say they could influence the vote.
I think it is really undermining our own people are on the NomCom, who were able to think themselves on their own two feet. And certainly I would imagine that if the chair of the NomCom is not running the NomCom in a satisfactory manner as to try to influence the vote one way or another then of course that would be something that would immediately be noticed by our people in NomCom. I have to remind you that we have five of our members on the NomCom, so they could be vigilant about this.
Perhaps if I could suggest since Ron Hall is the chair elect this year that we could perhaps collect any knowledge or informal discussion with some of our people who are on the NomCom this year and find out how he's performing. With that said I have discussed the matter with other people and for what I know are from what I've been told when Hall is a person of exceptional integrity and there is no doubt that he would do a good job on the NomCom and that he would actually dissociate himself from his position as a registrar I believe, to actually do a job that would make him neutral and where he would just use his intelligence and his knowledge of ICANN to try to help things along.
And that I have from someone who has worked with Ron in the past on issues which might have had some conflict of interest associated with it, but where he has shown absolute integrity in the way that he has done things. So that's it, I know him from having met him a couple of times. I have no reason to suspect that there is any danger of him leaning in one direction or another, but that's just my personal point of view and I usually like to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than being particularly suspicious. Thank you.
Beau Brendler: Thanks Olivier. Yeah, for my position since I'm still the one who's been pushing this on the agenda, I also know Rob. I think he's a nice guy, I mean it's certainly nothing personal. He was at some point sort of a liaison between the registrar community and the at large. We did not necessarily find quite so genuine and accommodating at that point. In fact he proved to be rather aggressive in trying to get his points across an absolutely you know made no bones about how ICANN is merely a function of the organizations that bring in money. So, all that aside, with all due respect to your assessment, I do think that as a public interest organization it is incumbent, in fact it's in our very DNA that we should raise any appearance conflict of interest when it occurs.
When you take into consideration that the four governance committees which would have to approve his role is made up his self of 50% registrars. I think that ICANN has a serious perception problem from outside of one gets leadership. It seems that the perception that the deck is stacked in the register favor may to an objective outsider who simply looks at who the most powerful committees are made up of, you know there's some evidence to that assessment being correct. I saw Alan then I saw Garth.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you, three very brief comments. First with regard to if the chair is influencing things then people wonder NomCom should speak up. Never having been on a NomCom I can't speak of from personal experience, but my understanding of the process is chairs always have a very significant impact on the outcomes. You know yes they don't have a vote, but really do they not have any strong influence on the outcome. So, I don't think we can pretend that there isn't a strong connection.
With regards to Ron's personal situation, yeah he's a damn aggressive registrar and he's also known to be relatively fair and can take off the register had an appropriate as Olivier said and that is commonly said about him. To what extent is true when not in this case people have to judge for themselves. The third however is Beau's comment that basically the optics of this stink and that I think that's something that ICANN needs to worry about regardless of how straight forward and diligent a job he might do. It's always going to look bad regardless of how will he works in private. Thank you.
Beau Brendler: Okay, thank you Alan. Garth.
Garth Bruen: Yeah, this is Garth Bruen. You know I don't intend to discount anybody else's personal views, my personal experience with Rob Hall is overwhelmingly negative. I was giving a presentation in Mexico City with Rudi Vivek, Hall and a bunch of other registrars disrupted the meeting and he refused to identify himself until I pressed him for the record and I thought it was extremely inappropriate and his company passes almost half a million dollars in extra unnecessary fees to ICANN every year and if that doesn't buy influence I don't know what does.
Beau Brendler: Thank you Garth, I appreciate that. I see Alan's hand up again.
Alan Greenberg: No, sorry. That was a mistake.
Beau Brendler: I have a note here from Olivier about the BGC. I will return that question which is a fair one off-line, after I'm done. Does anybody else have anything on this particular issue? I'm going to judge from the general feeling of the crowd that perhaps the best thing to do would be to put together something great, a brief, that actually says something and then we can look at what it says and determine whether it's the right thing to say or if we should see it at all, but it might be easier to work with something is actually on paper. So, I will take as an action item on draft of a very short statement of that sort and send it around to the list hopefully this week.
Matt Ashtiani: Beau?
Beau Brendler: Yes.
Matt Ashtiani: Hi, this is Matt Ashtiani for the record. Can you please restate that [AIEG] like it recorded?
Beau Brendler: I will write a brief statement we brief draft statement for [inaudible 38:28] to review on the issue of the optics or makeup of the NomCom leadership in the board governance committee leadership by the end of the week. Okay, anything else here from anyone in the crowd? I don't see any hands up which means we've gone through the agenda as I laid it out earlier. So, do we need to come back to any of the items that are on here? Did we exhausted discussion on the Senate hearings, do we need to bring that back to the floor?
Okay, well then we're in the unusual situation of just kind of having some general opening time at the in here. I'm getting a Skype message let me just check that. Okay, so does anybody have any issues that they want to raise or bring up or any general questions of things they want to talk about? Joey has his hand up, go ahead Joey.
Joey McFie: Well, I miss my old favorite, the brochure, that and I'm very thankful to receive a hundred brochures for a little while back and hoping they arrive two days after our INET in Philadelphia which would have been and ideal place to distribute them. Well, they were sent to FedEx overnight, so I didn't understand why it was the urgency to move it nightly, just a hundred.
When Olivier visited, you may member Olivier, we printed one out and looked at it and what I noticed the writing looked too small. When I got the printed ones from ICAN which are laser print it the right team looked fine in they really looked good. So, my basic point here is that I still will like more of the printed ones and the PDF although I have a laser printer at six hundred BTI it doesn't quite come out the same and if we're going to run with PDF we basically have to redesign with the type, cut some words out and make the type a bit nicer because it just doesn't print out well on a regular printer.
Not to say, you know, making a double sided thing isn't so and I believe that with the amount of money that's going on in various places that we should, for structures like us that regularly attend and have local meetings we should have more brochures. Thank you.
Beau Brendler: You know I can't really speak intelligently to brochure issues. I wonder if there's anybody on staff who can enlighten us on that.
Heidi Ulrich: Hi Beau, did you want me to try to enlighten you regarding the number of hardcopies or the actual text?
Beau Brendler: I just want to be enlightened in general.
Heidi Ulrich: I wish I could help you.
Beau Brendler: Oh, thank you.
Heidi Ulrich: Sorry, to be serious for just a moment, what I could do is take that information regarding the font of the .PDF to our communications department and ask them if they have any suggestions.
Beau Brendler: Okay.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: And that suggestion would be either remove some copy, you know, but what I'm pointing out is that the words printed but it doesn't really work if you print it on your home printer.
Staff: Okay, let me go ahead and take that to the communications department and I'll get back to you.
Beau Brendler: Okay, sounds good. All right, anybody else have anything to add before we wrap this meeting up ten minutes early which I think may be a record at least in my Chairmanship. I don't recall having attended any other meetings that have ended early. We'll go, going once, going twice? Well, let's just take a moment here about a little item that's coming up in chat. Gordon Chillott says the move by TDT raised public eyebrows. I think this is in reference to the move by TLD. Oh, Peter then get's rushed. Right, right.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: He went to work for Minding Machines.
Beau Brendler: He went to work for --
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Like a revolving door thing.
Beau Brendler: The old revolving door, yep, yep, I agree. Okay, yeah. I think it did, I agree. They get to do a few charms of ICANN even despite the attempts to sort of spend it otherwise. So, Evan has raised his hand. Evan?
Evan Leibovitch: Well, just in going to the specific details, I mean the circumstances around that could not possibly have been worse. After being the Chairman of the board, presiding over the vote in Singapore to go ahead with gTLDs, he immediately went to work for a company that profits by advising companies that are setting up TOPs.
Beau Brendler: Yeah.
Evan Leibovitch: The optics could not possibly have been worse.
Beau Brendler: Yeah and I mean I think it was kind of a black-eye, but anyway anybody have any additional issues to raise on this or anything else? Okay, well thank you very much. Thank you for attending the call. We will talk to you all again at the end of the holidays. Merry Christmas, Happy Diwali, Happy New Year, Happy Hanukah.
Evan Leibovitch: And we'll see a few of you in ten minutes over at the gTLD working group call, right?
Beau Brendler: Oh yeah, you get a chance to get up and stretch your end and sit right back down again. All right, happy holidays.
Unknown: Thank you, you too.
Unknown: Goodbye.
Heidi Ulrich: For those wanting to join the new gTLD call that's going to be on 3535 rather than 1638.
Beau Brendler: Okay, so you have to hang up and call back again.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, yes.
Beau Brendler: Okay, adios.
Staff: Okay, thank you very much.
-End of Recorded Material-
