ALAC_EN_2009-12-22 _ 274416
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The first matter after-- beginning our meeting, which we've jumped to-- We've already done roll call and apologies-- is a call for any other business or amendments to tonight's agenda.
Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, it's Alan.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Are you on Skype? It says you're gone.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, according to me, I am. So, at the risk of probably needing to restart my computer and not wishing to do that right now-- Yes, here I am. I've just got a message saying okay from Sebastien. The packets are traveling very slowly between Australia and the rest of the world.
Alan Greenberg: I just want to make sure I can tell you what's going on in Adobe, and I don't have a chat going with you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, as you can hear with the drops (ph), which I'll also try and silence--
Alan Greenberg: Not on the Ex-Com.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. Okay. But is there anyone who wishes to raise any additional item or make any amendment to tonight's agenda?
Carlton Samuels: Cheryl, this is Carlton.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please go ahead, Carlton.
Carlton Samuels: Evan had sent a note to say that he wanted to raise the issue of the morality and public order. He said, if we could arrange for a meeting between GAC and ALAC to see if we could come to some kind of consensus of if we have an alternate to the existing quota. And I thought it was useful to put it on the agenda here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's already an action item on me from another meeting. You want that listed as a separate discussion item, or do you want to change that action item?
Carlton Samuels: As a discussion item, please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Would that be a substantive discussion, seeing as that the public call has already-- the public call on the matter has already asked me to (ph) contact the chairman of GAC and see if we can further such a meeting?
Alan Greenberg: I thought that was the only reason to raise it. If it's already on your agenda, it's probably okay.
Carlton Samuels: Yeah.
Alan Greenberg: Evan is on this call, I thought.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, we'll pop that in under any other business.
Carlton Samuels: Yes, please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was just unsure whether it was a new item or whether it's just a-- It's not an action item from a previous ALAC meeting; it's an action item from another meeting. So I was unsure where we should slot it in. We'll put it in any other business, though, if that's what the meeting (ph) wishes. Thank you.
And, then, any other calls, seeing as I'm still not in the Adobe room?
In the absence of anyone else, I do have another matter of any other business which I would like to have listed on tonight's meeting. It's for information only. And it's the details on the current internet governance forum call for comments and input. I will, if I ever get into the Adobe room, add it there. It's for information, not for discussion, under any other business.
Let's just then move now to action items from our last meeting and my almost chain-driven (ph) computer-- I think I must have no-- virtually-- Thanks, Matthias, but right now I'm not going to do anything with browser or anything else, being it's taken me upwards of 15 seconds to change between tabs. If I'm going to continue to chair this meeting, I assume you'd like a smooth flow. Fiddling with my browser or anything else is not going to be on my current agenda.
Action items for 24th of November. We have the note to be sent by Carlton to the At-Large list regarding the public consultation on expressions of interest in new TLDs. I've been encouraging individual input. Carlton?
Carlton Samuels: No, I didn't send that note, Cheryl. I didn't it to-- I sent it to the At-Large list. But the idea was to send it to the general working list so that everybody could get it. I had made a statement already on the LAC (ph) discuss list. I did not send it to the world list.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So how do you want to manage this now? Is this a continuing item, or is this, in your opinion, closed?
Carlton Samuels: It's closed, I think.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. James was the next matter for the ALAC statement on the public paper for policy of introduction in specialized ccTLDs. That was done, and the vote was completed. And I assume that that was transmitted through in the normal manner. Can I ask staff to confirm that, because James is not with us this evening.
Heidi Ullrich: This is Heidi. Yes, that has been transferred.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. Staff updating with the PAD, adding new items, including the internationalized ccTLDs. I believe that's been done. Is that correct?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes. That's been (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And then the following matter of removal of items from the PAD and members of the ALAC being encouraged to make personal statements noting high level of interest in the overall issue. I, for one, have not made any individual statement. Anyone else who hasn't and has the time to, I suppose, there's no such thing as it being too late. But, I think, time has closed that, if nothing else.
The addition by Heidi and myself to add the root-scaling study to RALO agendas-- I'm unaware that that was added to the APRALO agenda that we held earlier today. Can Matthias or Heidi tell me if it was added to any other of the RALO agendas?
Heidi Ullrich: This is Heidi. It was added to the AFRALO and, I believe, the EURALO calls.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. But it didn't manage to promulgate through all of them, but never mind.
Alan, the straw man STI-- not only is the straw man STI proposal being sent around, a huge amount of work on the STI has been done and continues to be done since the last ALAC meeting and the minority report. This is the second item under this matter-- has also been voted on. Alan, I note you've got a mention of this later in the agenda. Do you wish to speak to that then or now? Alan, perhaps you're on mute.
Alan Greenberg: Can you hear me?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can now. Thank you, Alan. Go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. I don't know why-- I can speak to it later. I don't think it's anything urgent on it. There is some action that has to be taken but not by the ALAC immediately.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you. So we can probably close off those items from our list, and anything ensuing from your reports and information will be a new action item.
The working group on future structure of ICANN to discuss the draft ALAC statement on board and NomComm reviews and ALAC endorsement after the meeting-- that's a matter on Alan and Adam. We'll receive an invitation to that meeting as well. I'm not sure that I understand the second part of--
Sebastien Bachollet: It's because they are not member of the working group maybe, and then, formally-- They were formally invited. It was done, and everything was set up. And ALAC votes on these two statements, and they are transmitted to the board, I guess. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, Sebastien. Having Alan and Adam being invited to the meeting-- I'm a little confused.
Alan Greenberg: I am too.
Sebastien Bachollet: It was--
Unidentified Participant: Hi. It's-- Oh, sorry. Carry on, Sebastien.
Sebastien Bachollet: It was because, at that time, we were setting up a meeting a few hours later or just one day after, and they didn't get the invitation then. They asked for-- to receive another invitation, and we do so. And they were able to participate in this call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, so it's done.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you for that. I think we just need to make sure we have very clear action items so that even those of us who may not be directly involved in the ongoing activity can understand exactly what's going on.
Alan Greenberg: And those who were involved.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, Alan, so noted.
Adam Peak: If it's no problem, just change meeting to teleconference, and that would correct the historical record, because it happened and is all completed anyway. And, good evening, everybody and apologies for being late. Adam.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks, Adam. And you're on the "here" list. Welcome, indeed.
The next one is CLO to send a note to NARALO that the ALAC is in great (ph) synchronicity with the NARALO statement on the NomComm review, blah, blah, blah. And that will be submitted to the board by Vanda on behalf of the ALAC as input for the next board meeting.
In fact, perfect timing, Adam; NomComm came under your control as well. That item is closed. And, to the best of my knowledge, Vanda has transmitted that information. But, Adam, did you wish to raise anything on the NomComm?
Adam Peak: No. I think it was just completed as normal and didn't-- Did we vote on it? My last month has been hectic, and I don't remember what we voted on. But it seemed to be completed as it should have been, I hope.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. In fact, all we need is any form of feedback from Vanda, if she's able to share with us if indeed they did get to that part of the board agenda where it was appropriate for her to pass on that information. I'm expecting Vanda will be able to join us this evening. So, perhaps, if someone could let me know if she appears in the Adobe room, that (inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: She asked for a call-up because she was on a mobile-- couldn't call in.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, if she's on a mobile, she won't be in the Adobe room. Perhaps Matthias or someone can double-check that Adobe have gone through-- sorry-- Adigo have gone through their complete list. They certainly were some seven or eight minutes behind schedule for me. So, if that was happening--
Alan Greenberg: She only added that this morning, I thought. So it may not be there at all.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, we need to double-check that that's been done. Thank you for that, Alan.
Single-purpose teleconference to do with new gTLDs and the draft application guideline. That was completed and accept (ph)-- it is from that meeting that the matter of any other business raised on behalf of Evan and NARALO by Carlton earlier on, and that is the morality and public order. Looking towards a way forward to explore within the GAC has got on today's formal ALAC agenda. Staff will add Carlton, who-is working group list and sending the list of the workgroup members. I assume that happened because he was certainly on the call. But, Carlton, can you confirm that?
Carlton Samuels: Yes, I can confirm.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. Staff to check transcriptions of Seoul meeting to verify matters about the future structure and transparency accountability workgroup. The intentions were, by our memories, that those workgroups were to be merged. Were the transcriptions waved (ph) through, or has this item yet to be completed? Matthias or Heidi?
Matthias Langenegger: Yes. I read the transcript of that meeting, and it is indeed correct that it was said that the two working groups should be merged.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And has that--?
Spanish Interpreter: Excuse me. This is Diana, the Spanish interpreter. Sylvia and Carlos are asking that-- What list should they have received? You said that there was a working list that they should have received, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Not unless their name is Carlton, no.
Carlton Samuels: No, that's not what it was. I had asked for a list of who-is-- the workgroup members from staff, and they sent it to me. That is what--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's Carlton saying that, just so Sylvia and Carlos know. That matter was relating to Carlton. He requested a list of the who-is working group members, and he received that. Okay?
Spanish Interpreter: Yes. Perfect. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. The single-issue call to discuss the improvement implementation plan, complete with its doodle-- That has been done but not, as yet, finalized. We have a pending date for another meeting to follow up on that as well. So we'll close that as an action item but leave the topic in our to-do list.
Dave, who is in apologies this evening, was contacting Fatimata, Tijani, and Didier to interact with African regional representation and ALS members to look at the Nairobi travel list and also to-- I think that's incomplete in what it's recording. It was not just the Nairobi list but to start activity on a regional workgroup to see what regional activities may be able to be organized for the Nairobi meeting. That has been done by Dave, and there is an ongoing and active workgroup that is actually meeting for its second time later today. And we thank all of the contributors from Africa on that activity.
A single-purpose call on At-Large director. That was done, and we have items on tonight's agenda relating to that and future plans.
And the final one was the single-purpose call on the domain registration using privacy and proxy services. That doodle was done, and that meeting was held.
Is there anyone who needs to speak to any of those matters that, I admit, I have gone over with great haste? But there was quite a long list of them.
Does Sylvia or Carlos wish to raise anything from the Spanish channel then? (Technical difficulties) disconnect whoever that is? It's clearly (inaudible).
Spanish Interpreter: Sylvia and Carlos have nothing to say.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much, Diane. Is there anyone in the French channel? Someone (inaudible).
French Interpreter: This is Morticia (ph), and I don't believe there's anybody on the French. Hawa was not able to make it, I don't think. I haven't heard any live voice. But, of course, it's being recorded.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you so much, Morticia. Appreciate that.
French Interpreter: Thank you, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (Technical difficulties) recorded now is a rather (inaudible).
Heidi Ullrich: Cheryl, this is Heidi. Someone is on hold, and Adigo is checking (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I understand what it is. I just want it fixed, Heidi.
Carlton Samuels: Done.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. Thank you very much. I don't know if that was as loud in everyone else's world as it was in my headset.
Alan Greenberg: Probably louder, because I couldn't hear what you were saying.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: To say it was distracting is an understatement. Okay. I think I've actually succeeded, after continuously trying from the beginning of the call to soon join you in the Adobe room, so that is very good.
But we're now moving to the next item on our agenda, which, if I can scroll back up-- (unintelligible). Where are you? There we go-- is the current ALSs. And, here, we have both ISOC Pakistan and the Pakistan ICT policy monitor, having currently been voted upon. And, when we checked at the APRALO meeting time today, Matthias, you were able to tell us that vote was quorate and 100% in the affirmative. I assume it's certainly still quorate because people haven't retracted their votes. Can you confirm that it is still 100% affirmative? And, if so, I believe we have the pleasurable task of announcing formally that both of those At-Large structures are now members of the Asia-Pacific Regional At-Large Organization. Matthias, over to you.
Matthias Langenegger: Yes. I can confirm that both applications have ten votes and all of them confirmative.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, that is excellent news. We now need to make whatever magic happens with welcoming letters, et cetera, et cetera, (unintelligible). And I am certainly very, very pleased to see what's been a fairly ongoing continual growth not just in one region but across several regions throughout this calendar year. It's something, of course, as we move towards Nairobi, that we look forward to seeing perhaps a couple more coming in from the African region as well. But both of these were, I believe, direct results from both Sydney and Seoul meetings. So it says something very positive about At-Large structure development in regions and face-to-face meetings being held in those regions.
As we now move into--
Sebastien Bachollet: May I add one point? It's Sebastien. It's also interesting to see that link between At-Large and the fellowship program. It's quite useful because some of those candidates ALS came from this program too. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Sebastien. And, quite specifically, yes; that's something that is very, very important and something that I believe the African regional workgroup working towards doing something in Nairobi has taken as a very good example as to why they should try and make sure not only as many as possible local people who applied from their region to be involved in fellowship have a successful interaction but, also, that they give the opportunity for At-Large structural representatives to come and perhaps join in in a similar way to what fellowship does at their ICANN meetings so that they may be able to get more At-Large structures that way as well.
Okay. Seeing as I'm now in the Adobe room, I'll have a quick check and see that we have nobody raising any matters. Okay.
This moves us to the next item of monthly reports. Heidi has quietly pinged me to remind me that she's rather excited about the fact that we have formal reports lodged into this section of the agenda by at least three of our regional At-Large organizations. So I think it's worth a few seconds of our time to note our particular thanks to, in alphabetical order, APRALO, EURALO, and LACRALO for getting a very affirmative and positive use of this agenda item in our meeting.
And Carlos is asking, Heidi-- I'll just raise that to the record, so it's not lost as an action item. Carlos is asking for his credentials for the ALS vote for both of the ALSs in Pakistan to be resent. Matthias, can you-? Thank you very much, Matthias. And just be aware of when the date for and time of closing of that vote is, Carlos. I think you'll have to be very, very quick with lodging your vote when you receive that-
Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, just as a note, there's a URL which has been sent around, and I could send it again if someone needs it, which will take you to any open votes in big pulse (ph) that apply to you. So you don't need the credentials each time. You do have to log on, but it's really convenient because you can just go and see-- Have I missed any votes?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That would be very, very convenient, and perhaps we could have that distributed to the working list. And, Carlos, I know-- Diane, if you could ensure Carlos is aware that that link to the big pulse-- open vote list-- will be sent to the ALAC working list so that those of us who have credentials and can log on, not per vote but to the site, can use that at any time. That will be particularly of use to him.
Carlton Samuels: Cheryl, correction. It was actually sent as a part of the previous notification.
Alan Greenberg: It's been sent a number of times.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That, of course, doesn't help if he doesn't get the credentials. I think Alan was raising-- If I may, Carlton, I think Alan was raising the point-- Correct me if I'm wrong, Alan-- that, if that was sent as a separate link, not as part of the credentials which Carlos is having trouble receiving--
Carlton Samuels: It was sent as a separate link. That's true. It was sent as a separate link.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That would be very handy.
Alan Greenberg: It's on the chat room right now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. There we are, Carlos. If you can also make a copy of that to your longer-term file, that could help as well. And it's certainly something that would help many of us if we've moved from machine to machine.
Alan Greenberg: I just have an icon on my desktop, and I try to click it every few days and hopefully remember.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What an excellent example of how to manage these things, Alan. Perhaps we should all follow your lead.
Alan Greenberg: It clearly doesn't always work, given the number of votes I miss. But one does have to remember to click it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, we can only make what use of the tools we have that we do. There is no compulsion as yet. We're not forced in some way to make use of these collaboration tools and techniques of keeping up with things. So far, so good. And we do welcome those ALSs.
Any other matters to raise on any of the reports? I notice that we have a couple of reports listed who do have people here tonight. I don't think there's anything from any of those liaisons that has not been placed on the agenda. But, if I'm wrong in that assumption, please, let me know now, either on the phone bridge or by raising your hand in the Adobe room. And, of course, we do need to note that we have, in fact, received various reports from our board liaison, our IDN liaison, and our SSAC liaison.
Evan has mentioned to me that it was NARALO's intention to send a formal report. And, if there's no objections from the ALAC and time is indeed permitting, – Evan, if you'd like to give a brief, verbal report, we would all appreciate that and look forward to having it linked as the other reports are in the near future to tonight's agenda. Go ahead, Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. Thank you. I'll keep this extremely brief. The bulk of the last NAROLO meeting dealt with the ICANN strategic plan. We were given a briefing on it by staff, and there appears to be significant interest within the region in having a look and trying to be part of an At-Large response to the high-level priorities of ICANN. At the meeting that was taken-- that was at Seoul, Rod presented a fairly elaborate change to the way the strategic plan is being mapped out. And that was, in turn, presented by ICANN staff to the region. I encourage every other region to get a similar briefing like this. And we hope to have some action items moving forward in terms of bringing back ideas to ALAC.
Beyond that, some of our main interest has been issues of outreach. We are going to be working with the excellent brochure that EURALO produced, localizing it to our own needs and then using that in our own efforts.
Those are the main things to bring back from NAROLO. And thanks for the opportunity, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Evan.
Spanish Interpreter: I'm sorry. This is Diana, the interpreter. Evan, could you please repeat the last part of what you said?
Evan Leibovitch: Simply that we were also-- We were also discussing outreach to bring in new ALSs as another priority-- that we are going to be working with the outreach brochure that was created by the European region-- working with that excellent document that we intend to localize and use for our own purposes. We also have some other initiatives about outreach that we're going to be working on in the near future.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Are we okay, then, Diana?
Spanish Interpreter: Yes, we are. Thank you so much.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No problem. And thank you, Evan, particularly for raising the call to the other regions to take up the mantle and become directly involved in the ICANN strategic planning. But, also, matters that you raised there and I know have been raised in some of the regional reports also go towards the micro strategic planning that the ALAC itself needs to do for the next 12 to 18 months, whereby the outreach and regional activities can hopefully be better budgeted and better planned for in line with our At-Large improvement program.
Go ahead, Sebastien.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. It seems that there were a big trouble in the creation of new pages and that all my work was erased. But I do a report this morning on the transparency, and accountability, and future of ICANN. And I did a change in the current page for the today meeting, and neither of those are still there. Then something happened wrongly. But I do, and it's not available. Sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry, Sebastien, I understand the frustrations of losing a wiki page that's been developed. Are you saying that data cannot be retrieved?
Sebastien Bachollet: I don't know. From what I see now is that Matthias changed the pages and created new pages this morning. And I guess we were in conflict in doing something maybe at the same time-- or not at the same time. But when I look for that page of today, I do specify that a report was existing for December. And when I go to the page for the working group, it's not appearing anywhere. Then it's maybe lost.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, because I think it is (unintelligible). If it was a new page developed, then there shouldn't have been (ph) a conflict. So, perhaps, can I ask Matthias and you to check into that a little bit offline and see whether or not that can be salvaged, because that would be most annoying and very frustrating.
I note Sylvia is needing to leave us, and we wish her all the very best of the season as well. And we will read to the record the matters that she's raised in the Adobe chat room on behalf of LACRALO when we get to that part of the agenda. Thank you very much, Sylvia. And we will see you in our next calendar year.
We are still quorate, however, because we have Carlos in the Spanish channel. We have Adam. We have Vivec (ph) returned to us again. He dropped off for little while. Carlton, Sebastien, Bo, Alan, Garreth, and myself. Have I missed anyone? Has anyone else joined the call since the beginning that we haven't got listed in our attendance?
Vivec: Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, go ahead, Vivec.
Vivec: I got a little disconnected, so I'm just trying to track which item we are in now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We're about to enter into our items for discussion, which will be-- The first one is a matter arising from recent working group calls and activities.
Vivec: Okay. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No problem. The first of these matters is the domain names registered using a privacy-- sorry-- a private/proxy service, which was a call on the 14th of December. And Patrick was to have a few minutes at tonight's meeting to discuss issues and review meeting outcome. Patrick is listed as an apology for tonight. Is there anyone else from that particular workgroup who is going to carry that activity?
Evan Leibovitch: Cheryl, this is Evan. I was not at that working group, but I also wanted to bring attention to another one that was recently held, specifically related to this, in effect, but about the proposal in the DAG (ph) for a new high-security zone certification that ICANN is planning to do. There's a working group that was assembled to deal with that. And I was the only person from either At-Large or NCUC in on the call that was dominated by a lot of contracted parties, and it was a little disheartening.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Evan, first of all, this is a subset of the existing GNSO workgroup?
Evan Leibovitch: Not to my knowledge. It was directly assembled by Craig Schwartz.
Carlton Samuels: No, it wasn't.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So it's not as subset; it's a new one. And what you're saying is that the call for involvement has not encouraged anyone from the end user community other than yourself to become involved. Is that the case?
Evan Leibovitch: I don't even know who else received the notice that this group existed. So I was (inaudible)--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was about to come to that point because I was unaware of the existence of the group. And it makes it very difficult to get more people involved if more people don't know about it. Is it one that is in fact open, or was it by invitation only, Evan?
Evan Leibovitch: I have absolutely no idea of that. And, as a matter of fact, what I'm doing is going through my e-mail and looking for the invitation. As soon as I find it, you'll get it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, because I think it is a hugely important matter and one that, unless we can be shown is a closed activity, and, if it is, we'll be shown good cause to be asking why, then that, in fact, I can see considerable interest from a number of people, including members of Latin America and Caribbean. Thank you, Dev (ph). I think it's very important that the secretariats and regional leaders are in a position to know about these types of opportunities for input. And thanks for raising that, Evan. We will rectify that, and we will also ask staff to double check with Craig directly to see whether or not there was a reason for a by-invitation-only and, in the absence of a good reason, if the ongoing activities of this group can be better encouraged and contributed to by wider input. We'll make sure that we do our best to have that happen.
Nothing else on the workgroup meeting on privacy and proxy services? No one else here that was at that meeting that wishes to raise anything, in which case, we may leave that as a matter for report and discussion at our January meeting.
And we can move to the who-is working group, which had a robust and a very vibrant call. And, again, to echo what Evan just said, there was need for more representation. Bo, you have the floor. But at least we do know this was a workgroup that was well advertised, and there's no impediment to people knowing about it. Go ahead, Bo. Thank you.
Bo: Yeah. I spoke to the group. I'm not actually on it. But I know that Patrick is leading that. Right? But he's off the call today.
So what I spoke about briefly was just trying to get a sense from the At-Large-- some real opinions about who-is, especially since I think there is a tendency for it to be a geographically divided issue. In other words, it's probably a quite a bit more compelling issue in the United States than it is in many other countries. So I think there was some agreement on the call that it would be appropriate to try to find a way to survey the At-Large at this point and survey the regional structures to try to get more concrete information about the who-is issue rather than just submit a statement saying that there's a diverse range of opinions on who-is, which probably is very true. But if there's anything more substantial that we can contribute to the dialogue at this point, I think it would be-- my sense is that it will be received well or at least be of some interest.
I think that's basically the most interesting part of the call or most interesting part of the last meeting that I attended, though there's-- Cheryl mentioned some really good discussion on the list about various uses of who-is beyond its use for tracking down criminals. And some excellent comments were made by Carl Auerbach (ph) and others. And it may be interesting, actually, to get Carl, if possible, to maybe present his views to the At-Large or have like a face-off debate with, say, maybe-- I mean I would do it, but maybe somebody else, like Derek Smythe or Gart Bruin (ph) or maybe some of the other people who kind of come at who-is from a law-enforcement perspective. So that's it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks very much for that, Bo. I think both what Evan has mentioned-- and I think we would have been hearing from Patrick and, certainly, what you've raised there is a need to ensure we have wider participation in our existing workgroups. And, particularly, the matter of who-is is one that has certainly had a number of people hot under the collar. But I think since, very much, the debate that you started and very successfully ran during our summit-- I think we've had a different set of directions that people have explored. And the possibility of having another (unintelligible) face-off could be quite exciting. The question is when we might be able to organize that for the best audience outcomes as well.
Unidentified Participant: (Inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm sorry. Is that someone trying to get my attention?
Unidentified Participant: (Unintelligible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hello?
Unidentified Participant: Hello?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Was that Dave? Did I hear his voice?
Unidentified Participant: Hello.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Who is that?
Alan Greenberg: Who just said hello?
Vivec: Hello. Vivec here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, Vivec?
Alan Greenberg: Vivec is back.
Vivec: (Inaudible) some disruption. I'm trying to check into that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. You're still connected. Thank you very much.
Matthias Langenegger: Cheryl, this is Matthias. I believe it was James.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You believe what was changed?
Matthias Langenegger: I'm sorry. I believe the person who just joined the call was James Seng.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah. James has joined us. Excellent. That means James has landed. Well done, James. We'll move him from an apology to a present then. He was quite literally in a plane when we started this meeting. So thanks for catching that, Matthias. I couldn't quite hear.
James Seng: (Inaudible). I'm still on the plane.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You're still on the plane! You haven't de-planed yet. I do trust you've landed, though, James.
James Seng: Yes, I did.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We just don't want you being carted off by the authorities. That's all.
James Seng: All right.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry. I just have images of so many of our At-Large people and ALAC members having made these calls in most peculiar circumstances (inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: We could make them from planes if ICANN would pay the $8 a minute.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. Very good point. I'm not sure that our budget should need to stretch to that type of heroics or cost. But thanks for that, Alan. Okay.
Any other matters that we need to talk of separately and recent workshops? I see nobody in the Adobe room wishing to raise a matter, although there's been a fair amount of chat continued on in that. And I think we've probably got some action items that will be coming out of that chatter.
Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, are we going to have a brief update on what happened on the meeting on the implementation plan, for those who didn't make it? Or, if I was the only one, I apologize, and no need to.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I don't think you are the only one who didn't make it, Alan. We haven't put it as a particular item for tonight's meeting.
Alan Greenberg: If you think it's worthy of two minutes, you could add it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I do. I suppose I think it's worthy of two minutes. Is this you wish to add something into it, or you wish to have a report from it?
Alan Greenberg: I made some-- I couldn't be on the meeting, and I made some comments. And I'm just wondering what kind of progress was made. Is there any--? Has the Google spreadsheet been updated? Tell us what happened.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Sebastien read into the record all of your comments. Everything was discussed. And we're at the point where that's exactly where we're up to, the Google spreadsheet with the current awareness that, of course, using it only as a Google spreadsheet, we're unable to ensure that people in some countries in Asia-Pacific can access that. So we need to not only use the updating-- currently being updated Google spreadsheet tool but also ensure that as we use that tool it is copied out to an Excel file alternative and that is regularly updated. Dev, in fact, got the Guernsey (ph) to do that.
And, in fact, we've got a next-step meeting for-- Correct me if I'm wrong, Heidi. What date in January? Was it the first week or the second week in January for the follow up?
Heidi Ullrich: Actually, I think it's going to be later because we have the travel support and strategic planning in the first two weeks. So I'll get back to you in one moment on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So there's a January meeting planned. But, yes, we went through the list. We used the tool. And we took it to the next steps after the gory discussions that went on.
Alan Greenberg: I look forward to seeing the update.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. But it was very important that the various regions, not all of whom were represented at the call, had the opportunity to look at that, I think, very sensible tool, where we have a different tab. So it doesn't matter if it's a Google one or an Excel one-- a different tab for each particular item in the report and recommendation. And we look at exactly how they're implemented and who is responsible for that.
One of the most important things, which does fit with the current matter for discussion, was that the group felt that utilizing our existing ALAC workgroups, where relevant, was the way to go forward. So the allocation of workgroup to each of these review implementation tasks was going to be, in the main, sent to existing workgroups. But that in itself means that those workgroups need to be repopulated and revitalized, the listing for those workgroups; particularly, when we noted earlier as a part of our action items that two of the main workgroups from the summit have now merged together. Some of the members had not been active since the summit, and we do need to make sure that we've got wide regional and ALS representation in them, especially when they're now going to be involved in something as important as the review implementation outcomes.
There was also a couple of items, Alan, just to be clear and for the record, that we felt we would need new ad hoc workgroups formed for, but that ad hoc workgroup would really be one that was made up as the committee of the whole of the ALAC and inclusive of regional leaders and representation because they were sort of the big-picture issues that we probably needed to form ourselves into a separate bundle to deal with some of those. That's what you'll see when the tool is updated.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you very much. That was very helpful. And I'll echo what I did say in my comments that the new form of the Google spreadsheet with multiple tabs is really nice. It's almost doable in one screen for each one. Thank you, whoever did that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed. Indeed. Okay. Now, if I've jumped over the PAD, I do apologize. It appears that I did jump over the PAD. I probably just didn't want to look at it, particularly with all of those items not on target. Carlton, you're in control of the PAD. You've got a couple of matters that we need to decide - are we adding in or not?
Carlton Samuels: Well, Cheryl, one of the things that we've been working on is to reconfigure the Google Doc tool to be (ph) more informative, to me at least. It's not quite complete yet because I'm trying to work from the LACRALO Google Doc, where they are picking up-- Dev has written an algorithm that takes the information directly on the public consultation page ICANN (ph). And he's listed them. I'm taking that list that he has and placing it in a Google Doc. Then I'm using the public consultation page as a drop-dead date and working backwards from that, where I'm asking for-- where we get to check to see how we're working through the issues. So it's a kind of due-date-minus (ph) scenario.
I am proposing that we will spend half the time-- We're trying to do this to address a couple of issues. One, there was an issue that came up (inaudible) that ALAC was not sufficiently-- how would you say-- diligent in seeking public consultation on ALAC action itself. So what I'm doing is creating a timeline that will allow half of the time from any public consultation to be dedicated to hearing from the community. And then we are going to have an ALAC position that is going to be TD minus 5 (ph)-- that is five days before it is done. And TD minus 1-- I am going to propose that the ExCom take a position on what the ALAC statement should be in the event that we are not informed.
So it's not quite finished yet. I was still trying to work out the details because I'm trying to make it as automated as possible. Quite frankly, it's the only way I think I can do this, because it really does take a lot of time. And time is very precious at the village (ph).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. I'll recognize Alan. Go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah. A couple of things. I think one of the real problems in terms of updating the spreadsheet is to be deciding who does what. I think there are some things that are optimally done by staff and some things by the person-- the committee members in charge of it. And I think that's going to require a little bit of fiddling to get it right. That's number one.
Number two, the concept of allowing specific time for At-Large to react is fine, but we need to put mechanisms in place so that actually happens-- not just shows up on the calendar.
Carlton Samuels: I quite agree, Alan. I forgot to mention that one of the things-- one part of the automation-- We will do two things. We're going to start it out and make a way to message the list. So we start sending e-mails to everybody, directly to the At-Large list and then to the At-Large chair and the secretariats. That is part of the plan.
Alan Greenberg: I understand that. I didn't know the details, but I understand the concept. The real problem is actually having things happen-- not waiting for this meeting to review it, not waiting for the ExCom meeting-- for the ExCom to review it. When messages go out, I don't think we can rely on the ones to the At-Large list to generate sufficient discussion. Occasionally, people wake up and have a burst of traffic for a day or two. But it usually dies off quickly, and it doesn't result in any documents or anything like that. I think the At-Large leadership in each region, which includes the ALAC members and the RALO leadership-- When messages go out saying there is something that we need to either decide if we're going to comment on or something that we will comment on, they have to start leading it and prodding and getting answers back. Otherwise, we're not going to get anywhere on fixing this problem.
Carlton Samuels: I quite agree. This is Carlton. I quite agree, Alan. That is exactly what it is. And that's one of the reasons why we are going to target the leadership with the messaging. And, sometimes, because they're on Skype and various other communication tools, we will try to drop those in as well. We're going to do as much as we can to automate the messaging and ratchet up the amount of messages we send to the leadership.
Alan Greenberg: Make sure it doesn't become spam.
Carlton Samuels: I was-- Thank you, sir. By the way, Alan and I had a discussion-- about an hour discussion on this a couple weeks ago. Was it a week ago, Alan, or a couple of weeks ago?
Alan Greenberg: Sometime. I've lost track.
Carlton Samuels: Yeah. So the broad outlines of what we are proposing here I discussed with Alan. And we're just at the point of beginning to bring it to implementation. We feel that we have to start somewhere. And where we start is to make sure that we have a robust timeline with a countdown feature, ensure that we have the messaging to the leadership as best as we can, and then follow up through other communication channels.
Alan Greenberg: I guess the point I was making is, in parallel with this, we need to remind the "leadership" that there are obligations responsible with their senior positions.
Carlton Samuels: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Any other speakers to what is just, really, a discussion of future planning for how we can better engage in the policy development process of ICANN public comment periods and, in fact, in no way a review of what we're doing with the ones we have requests to decide on now? So we'll treat these as two subsets of the same item.
Anyone else wishing to speak? Alan, you've still got the microphone.
Alan Greenberg: Oh, I'm sorry. I will take it down as soon as I figure out how.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm not quite sure why the microphone (unintelligible). I didn't give it to you in the first place.
Alan Greenberg: Oh, okay. I don't know how to take it away. Someone who owns the screen can take it away I think.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I don't have that power. For reasons known only to the Adobe room, I'm not given that power for tonight's meeting. So there we go.
Sebastien Bachollet: It's because, this time, you give me this power, and I am using it. When you say, "Alan, you can speak," I give him the microphone.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much, Sebastien, as well as you also take that away from people as well as give it to them. That's fine by me.
I'm sitting here with my arms crossed and a frown on my face. The reason I'm sitting here with my arms crossed-- If you could see my body language, it would be very, very obvious that Cheryl has a "we are not amused" look on her face. Everything that Alan and Carlton have brought to tonight's conversation is essential. It's important, and it's in fact something that we need to dedicate a serious amount of time to, I would like to think, at our face-to-face meeting in Nairobi, where the regional leadership can come and share with us some very precise mechanisms as to how we're going to better engage with our community.
I am concerned, however, on two fronts. One is I hear all-very-good plans for ways of sending out more messages, and I don't think we're actually short of sending out messages. I think we're short, as Alan indicated, at getting responses to the messages. We have greater success when we organize single-purpose briefings or calls, and that's something that we need to, I believe, continue to do and encourage. Whether that's done at the local and regional level, as well, is something worth discussing. But how that's done and when it's done and at what time in the project planning it's done needs to be agreed to by everybody.
But what I'm not seeing is-- I guess the new plans and how it all will happen in a perfect world are important. But what are we doing with the tool we have now? And what are we doing with the issues that are coming up to us now? I ask specifically - one- and two-character.cat (ph) domains. Somebody still has to decide whether we do or don't care enough about that issue to put a comment in and then do all the clever things about it. And the mechanism you've outlined is one that is analogous to what we've done as a community as a whole as a-- in some meetings as an ALAC, spending far too much time at each of our ALAC meetings doing it and, as an executive, again, spending far too much time at each of our meetings doing it, which is what we're all trying to avoid. We have the SIT (ph) report issue listed, and we've got gTLD programs - looking at the expression of interest, or preregistration model. How are we going to decide right now which, if any, of those are going to be interesting for us to get something done at? And then look at what we've got. We've got a maximum of 27 days, plus a couple of, most of the world, having a holiday day, to deal with each of those. So we've got to deal with that and then put in whatever we do on the ones that have not-- that have already fallen behind schedule.
Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: I can speak on the STI one. The ALAC has approved the STI report that went out from the group and our own minority statement. The ALAC has not yet--
Spanish Interpreter: Excuse me. Alan, I'm sorry. Could you repeat what report has been approved? This is Diana, the interpreter.
Alan Greenberg: The GNSO STI, selected trans-- trademark issues report.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's special trademark issues report, S for sunny, T for Ted, I for India, STI. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: So we have approved the report. We have approved the ALAC-- the At-Large minority statements. We have not yet taken any formal action, if any needs to be taken, on the minority reports of the other groups. I believe-- My recommendation is that the name issues working group review those, and, within-- I guess by very early in the new year we need to set a date. But, given that it's Christmas coming up, I'm not sure what it should be. The name issues working group needs to suggest that either we accept-- just passively accept those statements-- or do we need to make a comment, either strongly against any of those statements or in support of any of those statements? And that should be made in sufficient time so that there can be some discussion on the list and then a vote, if necessary. We can work back and come up with a date. But I would think that-- The deadline, I think, is the 26th of January for that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: 26th. Correct.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah. So I would think that we need to come up with a recommendation out of that group no later than the end of the first week in January-- somewhere around the 7th of January. I think that's a reasonable target. There's not all that much involved in reading those. And I think the group is, over the next-- What is it? – two and a half weeks over the Christmas holiday, needs to decide whether there is any action that ALAC needs to take or not and make a recommendation for (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks, Alan. We have strong support from Alan and, I would think, strong support from anyone who's been involved in this STI issue. And it's had wide involvement from a number of parts of the community and, certainly, via Hong (ph) and Asia-Pacific is very happy to have this pathway and to have our public comments inclusive of comment on the minority reports of other groups.
I'm calling for any other speakers in support or otherwise of this getting a particular (inaudible)?
Carlton Samuels: This is Carlton.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, Carlton? Go ahead.
Carlton Samuels: I think, quite frankly, at this stage, we really have to-- It is becoming burdensome to have so many consultations in time. It really is becoming burdensome. And I really do think that we should begin to look at finding ways to make this workable for more people because, for example, James has given us the idea and report. And if you look at the timeline that is cast to do anything on it-- I will make it clear that my interest in that issue is going to be a me-too kind of vote. It becomes really, really important for us to begin to limit-- For example, I don't think it will give us much to comment on minority reports of other groups.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Are you talking about the IDN now or the STI?
Carlton Samuels: I am moving from the IDN to the STI. The idea to the STI was that we comment on minority reports of other groups. I don't find that as something that we should spend a lot of time doing. It's sufficient that we've had (unintelligible) to report. We've had long discussions - (unintelligible) discussions on what our views are. And I think it is perfectly reasonable for us to put forward our views and leave it at that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, back to you.
Alan Greenberg: In this case, I can't support that. I strongly support the concept that we need to ration our time and pick and choose our battles. We already picked this one. We have to finish the job. And it may well be that the people on the STI group-- on the name issues working group read it the same. I don't see anything compelling that we need to either strongly support or strongly object to. I won't be surprised if that's (inaudible)-- if that's the result. But I think we need to finish the job because we did have to vote on it prior to the other minority reports being available. So I think there's a little bit of work that has to be finished on this one.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, we have two people with almost opposing views, complementary in some ways. But one is saying look at minority reports, and one is saying not. There's many more people on this call, and I'd like to hear from some of them. So people can start putting up their hands now, or I shall start bringing out names.
Alan Greenberg: It would be particularly useful if the people on the name issues group who have to do the work would comment.
Carlton Samuels: I was about to note that. Thanks, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Carlton is one of them.
Carlton Samuels: Yes, I am. That's the reason (inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: Is Evan still on this call?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Evan, please, if you would like to make any points on this particular part of our conversation?
Evan Leibovitch: Darn. I've been trying to stay out of it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No. I would very much like to hear other voices at the moment on this. Please go ahead, Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: Well, I'm aware that the business constituency is probably going to be doing, shall we say, the most aggressive of the minority reports. And it's my understanding from what I've heard that the nature of their minority report is that the STI doesn't go far enough. I believe there are some areas where we sort of share their concern but other areas where I really want to make sure that they don't have us going back into-- back into the old IRT--
Alan Greenberg: Evan? They toned down their minority report from the last version that you saw - significantly.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. Well then, if that's the case, and maybe it isn't so bad. Frankly, I'm inclined at this point to leave it in the hands of Olivier and Alan to determine whether or not the minority reports of other constituencies pose enough of a threat to require a response.
Alan Greenberg: And, if what you are wishing is a first pass it by Olivier and I, we're-- I can't speak on behalf of Olivier. But I suspect we would be happy to do that.
Adam Peak: Hi. It's Adam. I'm not a member of the names group. And sorry I can't put my hand up. I haven't got internet access in the Adobe room. Sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, that's because we're-- You're definitely in the Adobe room. That's very clear (ph).
Adam Peak: Well, yeah, but the computer's in a different room physically. So I'd have to-- Anyway, it's complicated.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (Inaudible).
Adam Peak: Wi-Fi is broken; Ethernet cable is not long enough to reach the room at the phone. Anyway, yes.
Following on from what Evan just said, I feel pretty much the same. If Alan and Olivier and anyone else who's expert in that naming group think there's something that is outrageous enough that we have to comment, then, please, let them identify it, and we'll try and follow up.
My only concern would be that, if we start making comments on some parts of these minority reports and not on others, there is a sort of habit of people thinking that silence is sort of quiet acceptance. And we don't want that to be the case. There may be things that we don't agree with but not strongly enough that we feel we have to make comments on everything, if you see what I mean.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry, not actually, Adam. I'd like you to make that a little bit clearer to me, recognizing where we are in terms of STI as we already have our own minority report. The question is are we going to respond to any particular aspects in anyone else's minority report and put that in as part of our final public comments.
Adam Peak: If our experts think so, then yes. If they determine that there's something in those minority reports that is so opposite of what the ALAC has already thinking or just generally outlandish or something that they know we've already quite strongly objected to, then, yeah; pick it up and put in a response. What I meant-- So, yes, let's do it, if that's okay with Alan and those-- and those people that have to do the work.
And the-- The other point was really that, if we start picking and choosing what we're replying to, then I wouldn't necessarily want to have this position where, you know, silence is taken as agreement, which seems to be a sort of thing we have with online generally. But that's probably a minor thing that you get rid of with language.
So, anyway, let's go back to the important--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think it was the second thing that threw me to some degree of confusion because think the whole process of working with a policy advice development schedule and with making sure that we push and engage with the edges, and I will hasten to add, in far more ways than merely an At-Large discussion list, which I still liken to a public sewer and you only notice the turds or the gold-- that we're trying very hard to make sure that it is not a matter of silence can be assumed to be agreement with things.
Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: I'll just reiterate what should have been obvious to those who read the report. This whole thing is a compromise. The only thing that I would think we comment on right now is some new issue that was brought up and is strong enough to warrant either a strong support or a strong objection. Again, anything we can live with is not worth commenting on strongly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So, getting back to what we should be doing in this particular agenda item, which is deciding what we do or don't do with the new open consultations, I'm hearing more people in the affirmative for making sure that the STI matter, the special trademark issues report matter, is added to our policy advice development schedule with the particular annotations and deadline dates that Alan has outlined than I am hearing against it. Is that the case? Have I read the room correctly? Calling for anyone to object to that. Otherwise, Carlton, I must say, that means that this goes on the existing tool.
Yes, Vivec, go ahead.
Vivec: Yeah. I belong to the minority. I'm going to support what Carlton said.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. You're going to support which part of what Carlton said?
Vivec: In total, what Carlton was putting-- that I feel that that's the balance of (unintelligible) life in what Carlton was putting about (ph).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm sorry, Vivec. I don't understand what you're trying to say to me inasmuch as - Are you referring to all of what Carlton said or just the special trademark issues report, because, at the moment, we're discussing just the STI.
Vivec: I understand. But I said that, in total, what Carlton said.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So you are of the view that we do nothing more on the STI.
Vivec: Yes. It's about, in sum (ph), as he said, that I do go with that after listening to or analyzing myself on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, I have two speakers in the affirmative and two speakers in the negative, which means I'm going to push this to a vote. And, can I say, this seems like an amazing exercise for something which should be far more simple, if we were all better engaged and we were operating in more advanced mode. So we will recognize that we are running with a faulted system and just do the best that we can with it.
Can I have a call of names, in other words, a roll call by ALAC members on the call? And, Diane, I will ask you to give me Carlos' opinion separately in one moment. Those who wish to have the special trademark report public comment call added to our policy advice development schedule and to be dealt with in the way Alan has outlined, please either tick your box in your Adobe room so you agree or have your name ready there. So, I am now calling for people who wish to have the STI issues report dealt with in our public comment responses. I will start with the Spanish channel. Carlos, you've written in your law (ph) system you neither accept nor deny; nothing say, except the rule ask a response in the case as an affirmative response. Can I ask, however, for you to respond? Do you wish to add the special trademark issues report to our policy advice development schedule or not? Yes or no?
Carlos Aguirre: Yes. My answer is yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you.
Carlos Aguirre: I think that the report-- the minor report is very good to have.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Carlos. I see Garreth is indicating his affirmative support for that. So I won't call him out. We have Vivec's vote and Carlton's vote noted in the negative. Sebastien, yes or no?
Alan Greenberg: He's put his hand up on the yes when you asked.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I do apologize. I had my screen small enough that I couldn't see the top ones. Okay. So I have Sebastien, Alan, Carlos. I'm down then to-- Adam, I assume you've not changed your mind. You're in the affirmative.
Adam Peak: I'm a yes. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Bo? Bo, yes or no? And I'm aware you have to leave in a few minutes.
Bo: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Bo is an affirmative. Carlos is affirmative. Carlton is a negative. Garreth is an affirmative. Sylvia has left. I am an affirmative.
James Seng: Sorry. This is James. I'm affirmative.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You are affirmative. Thank you, James. Vivec and Carlton, democracy is what democracy is. You are outvoted.
Spanish Interpreter: I'm sorry. Excuse me for interrupting, Cheryl. I didn't hear what James said. There was noise.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Affirmative.
Spanish Interpreter: Affirmative. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you. So we will be adding that to the policy advice schedule. Carlton, I assume that's something you're now doing. You've taken that role over from staff.
Carlton Samuels: No, Cheryl. I'm not taking over the role from staff at all. What I'm doing is I'm adding-- I'm going to add some more columns that will make it easier for me to track. That's what I want to do. And one of the things I want to do is also to use the LACRALO dashboard, which automates the collection of the data from the public schedule and ensure that those things are on it. That's what I was talking about.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure. But that's a further-- an earlier part of the process in us deciding whether we're interested in it or not.
Carlton Samuels: Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right now, we've got to decide what we're interested in. And it would appear that the majority of us are in fact interested enough to get the special trademark issues report on our affirmative agenda and to continue work up until a possible vote but, certainly, comments going in on the 26th of January.
May I ask that the following items are dealt with after we take a small break? They're the one- and two-character and new gTLD EOI issues, as well as the rest of the agenda? Bo has asked for leave. Yes, Alan, they are. I can assure you.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm just not quite sure how I should respond. Bo needs to leave on the half hour, and he's asked for a few moments to speak to us about the very important matters of registrant rights. Go ahead. Thank you, Bo. I do apologize for the lateness in the half hour.
Bo: That's no problem. I'll make this very brief. The RAA working group, group A, as many of you may know, has been told to create a registrant bill of rights or charter or-- it goes by many names. But I think we all know what the purpose of it is. Some had raised objection to this process because it felt like we were simply doing stenography from the existing RAA into a document for the registrars. And, while that is in some circumstances true, we are now proceeding on a path to create what's called an aspirational document, which would basically be incorporated into what we pass on to the group that's creating the possible future amendments to the RAA. So we have an opportunity-- maybe our last opportunity for a while-- for any of us in the At-Large to make it very strongly known to the community what we want in new future amendments to the RAA. We can't necessarily change what's in-- In fact, we can't change what's in there now because there's language in the RAA that was agreed to that requires that we get the regular part of the document done right away. And so we're going to do that. But, as we are proceeding in doing that document, we're also creating this aspirational list.
So I would request that you, please, ask your local and regional people for any input that you may have on what consumers would want to see and what regular folks like us would want to see in a new RAA. You can find the information on the RAA working group on the wiki. I will ask staff now if you could post-- if Heidi or someone could post the URL of the wiki page in the Adobe Connect room. You can go there, and you can add whatever aspirational items you would like to see in the new RAA. You can send that URL around to other people. But it's really, really important that we get some input from everyone, as many people as possible, on the new RAA. This is probably one of the most important documents that exists in the ICANN world that directly connects the contracted parties to consumers. So for us to not have anything to say on it would be not good. So, please, once again, I'm asking Heidi to put the URL of the wiki in the Adobe Connect room. Please go in, take a look at the wiki, and add any sort of thoughts you have for improvements to the RAA for consumers. Thanks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Bo. And it is a hugely important matter and one that we need to make sure that the regional leadership gets out to the ALSs and the ALS leadership gets out to their rank and file. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah. I'll just note that part of the future RAA is being discussed in parallel in the post-expiration domain name recovery. And the intention is that there not be overlap between these two groups. So that aspect-- that is, what happens after expiration, registrants have ability to reclaim the domain name if they forgot by a day or a week and to do it at a reasonable price is going on in parallel. We do need your help on the PEDNR group. We're about to start drafting a document. If there is no user input on this one, the registrars will put in it what they want.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Alan Greenberg: So this is going in parallel. They are not overlapping. But, hopefully, there are no gaps. And, related to the post-expiration issues, the PEDNR group is the one to participate in, in parallel with Bo's group.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely. And, again, I think you'll see why there is probably no surprise that, at our one-day workshop in Nairobi, it's my intention to have the lion's share of our day looking at our processes and our systems and our mechanisms and have the regional leads sitting around the table with us to see how we can better encourage input from the rank and file members of their At-Large structures into these processes.
Go ahead, Sebastien.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes. I think we need to-- We have a lot of work on our plate. And, if we don't share amongst us and, more broader, amongst the ALS member, we will not be able to do the work. And it's sometimes harder to have more people working than to do by ourselves, but, really, we need to find them. And, if I can take an image, we need to find at least one in each region an Olivier-like type of person to help us in the work-- in some substantive work. And if we can at least-- at the least, have what we need to do and to share this work-- not to put that on the shoulder of just one or two people, it would be great. And I agree with you, Cheryl, that it's something important we need to discuss during our face-to-face meeting in Nairobi. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Sebastien. Alan, did you have your hand up?
Alan Greenberg: No. I'm sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. No problem.
Alan Greenberg: I was used to Sebastien lowering it for me.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we have spent-- I think the word extraordinary doesn't do it justice-- amount of time on one-third of one minor item for decision. Perhaps it's the heat of summer or the cold of winter, as we're at our either longest-day or shortest-day solstice, depending on which part of the hemispheres you're in and whether you're further away from the sun or closer to the sun, affecting us. But I find the need to look at the amount of time in our call, and what we have to do in it is something I'd like to address in the next moment or two. But I'm hopeful that we might be able to, at least, finish Part A on the review of the PAD item on our agenda before we do that.
I believe we put special trademark issues report with its public comment deadline to the 26th of January to a finalization point. And we know what's going to happen with it.
Can I ask: Does the ALAC believe that we need to be interested in one- and two-character.CAT domains? And, if anyone does, can they make it obvious to us all now that you do believe we should do something on that? And, in fact, I would suspect, if you do, you're probably going to end up with the leadership of it. So perhaps that should be a bit of a warning (inaudible).
Adam Peak: Having just taken that warning into account, I'll shut up. No. I do have-- It's actually a question. It's more a question. It might be a question for staff. And I don't particularly understand this issue. I just read about it in the last couple of days. So apologies for that. But I'm interested to know if there's any expectation that this might set a precedent, particularly for other gTLDs, although CAT has sponsored it-- you know, because there is an ongoing discussion about releasing the one- and two-letter names under dot.com and .net and what would happen under that, which would be an enormous enterprise for the whole of ICANN. So I'd be quite interested in a staff-ish policy opinion on precedent for this. Otherwise, it being a sponsored-- So, having said that, that would be useful I think.
The second is that, as it's a sponsored domain, I think they should be allowed to do whatever they're allowed to do within their agreement. And that's something I don't understand. But I don't know what their agreement allows them to do. But, you know, if the sponsoring organization makes this request, then let it go ahead, in which case I'd say we don't need to comment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Adam. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: I think at least one of the issues here is-- Number one, it's not within their agreement. That's why it's being discussed.
Number two, and here is where the precedent becomes more interesting, although it may or may not be true for .cat, it will be true for other domains-- that there may be large amounts of money involved in selling or auctioning off these names. And the question is: Who gets the revenue?
Adam Peak: Absolutely. And if we should talk about the creation of a foundation that would, you know, charitably use the billions of dollars from A.com and B.com and all that (inaudible)--
Alan Greenberg: – which may not be applicable for .cat. But the question is: Are we setting a precedent?
Adam Peak: Yeah. And I think that's something that we should get a comment on (ph). Otherwise, I don't-- Personally, I don't particularly care what happens to a sponsored domain in an issue like this. I think it's up to them and their community to make a request. And, if the request comes from the community, then I'd like to see ICANN basically honor it. But I don't really think that it's something that ALAC should necessarily (inaudible)--
Alan Greenberg: – but maybe taking a cut. I don't know whether we should be involved or not, but I think finances are at least part of the issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, does that mean that we want to make some sort of high-level statement or not? Go ahead, Sebastien.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. Just to know, don't we-- don't ICANN have already released those one- and two-character in some other domain names? I heard something like for .Bs (ph). It's already under selling. And, if it's already done, we need to-- we don't need to comment on .cat. But, if we want to comment in the general point of view of the business model for those domain names, it's something we need to handle outside of this .cat situation. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
James Seng: This is James.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go ahead, James, because it will have some precedent and leverage advantages to things that-- definitely in your world of IDN liaison. Go ahead.
James Seng: I'd like to support Sebastien's point of view, which is, in the sense that these one or two characters is not the new phenomenon within the ICANN community. It has been done for several TLDs. The ccTLD has been doing it for years. And there's no (unintelligible) instance to restrict one-character strings (ph) in any labels of the domain name.
I do note the point--
Spanish Interpreter: James? James, I'm sorry. This is Diane. I'm, you know, the interpreter, the Spanish interpreter. Could you please repeat the last part of what you were saying?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Repeat it, James, and perhaps slow down just a little bit because we have both French and Spanish translations going on-- interpretations going on. Sorry.
James Seng: My apologies. So, let me try to repeat slowly. I do support Sebastien's point of view. Single-character has been used-- has been implemented in many other TLD, commercial, and ccTLDs. The ccTLD have, in fact, been doing this for many years. So it's not a new phenomenon within ICANN that we see today. And the fact that .cat wants to do single- and double-character is a silo problem that they have (unintelligible) on their own.
If we do want to talk about the problems with one or two characters, there's no (unintelligible) problem. There may be some financial consideration, which Adam brought up, but I think that is a totally separate issue compared to what .cat probably (ph) comments about.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you, James. What I'm hearing is that there are in fact a couple of things that would be worthy of us putting in a hardly detailed but high-level comment and having that ready by the 17th of January. So I would like to propose the following. And I'd also like to note that we can't make a decision from now on that involves vote of the ALAC because we are no longer quorate. So this is now just a closing discussion on the matter. We currently have online, by my count, only seven members. They are James, Adam, Vivec, Sebastien, Alan, Garreth, and myself. So that's-- means that we can't take any formal decisions from now on. I just think it's important to note that.
I'm wondering if it's possible for us to use the discussion that's happened right now on this matter and have a very small set of points made and put into the public comments and, if that's the case, whether or not you would be happy for those of us in the ExCom to extract from tonight's records the main points that were made and put them in as a public comment as an outcome from this meeting, not as a formal statement. So, at the meeting of the ALAC on December 22, the following matters were discussed under this topic, and the following points were raised: one, two, and three.
Do you wish us to go that way forward, or do you wish us to do nothing? Alan?
Alan Greenberg: I would support what you're suggesting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I have a tick from Sebastien. Garreth, what do you reckon? He might be muted. All right. Well, I'm going to propose that we do that.
Alan Greenberg: Garreth has a tick.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Garreth's got a tick? Excellent.
Adam Peak: Yes. Adam says yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. Excellent. Excellent. I think that's the best way forward with this because we do need to be aware of precedent, et cetera, et cetera. And we do need to be aware that sometimes just a small comment is better than none.
Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: No, no. A mistake.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I'll decline you then. I don't normally decline you, but I will if you'd like me to.
Alan Greenberg: I think I lowered it before you had a chance.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okey-dokey. Well, whoever's quicker or is quickest on the draw.
In the absence of Patrick and the absence of a quorum and knowing that we have a number of members, James I think you're-- Are you involved with the expression of interest pre-registrations model group?
James Seng: Yes, I am.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. Well--
Spanish Interpreter: I'm sorry, Cheryl. Who was that expressed their interest? I didn't hear.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No one expressed their interest. James is a member of the expression of interest, EOI, pre-registration model working group.
I'm going to ask you, James, for your advice with the work that is going on. I would have thought this was something that we should have our new gTLD workgroup look at. Evan, are you still on the call?
Evan Leibovitch: Yes, I am.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: As a card-carrying member and leader of that group, I'd also be interested in your opinion on this. So, firstly, to James, do you think there is enough energy and inclination within our rank and file to put some comment together? And then, secondly, Evan, would your workgroup be willing to pick that up and run with it? Go ahead, James; then Evan.
James Seng: Hi. I've been involved in the express of interest working group from-- at the Seoul meeting. There is definitely a lot of interest on the ground level, especially for the new potential gTLD operators. I am-- I do not hear too much comment, unfortunately, from the At-Large community. So I am not sure whether this is something that may be of interest for At-Large. But there is definitely a very strong interest from the potential gTLD operators.
My sense about this group is that I also sense very great enthusiasm from ICANN, especially from the board. If you look at the schedule, the timeline that UI has been given is pretty amazing. The default (ph) started on the last day in Seoul. Within two weeks, the public comments (unintelligible). And it closes in another two weeks. It's submitted to the board in December. The board asks-- approve it on the 8th of December. And by-- In ten days' time, ICANN staff came out with a summary, as well as a proposal moving forward for UI. That is really amazing.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It is.
James Seng: And if you look at the board-- respond on the 7th of December--
Spanish Interpreter: Excuse me. Excuse me. Could you repeat--? Excuse me, Cheryl, could he repeat the last and go a little slower and make sure the acronyms are clear. Thank you.
James Seng: Sorry. So, if you look at the 7th December meeting at the board level, they specifically asked ICANN staff to prepare a final comment after the public consultation in February conference call-- not the March Nairobi, which means that I can sense a lot of energy in trying to get UI moving forward in the progress. So, even though I do not see a lot of discussion of UI in the mailings, except for that short period of time, I do sense that this is a very important issue that we need to pick up.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much, James. And, Evan, obviously, this is something that your workgroup has been involved in, because I do know from the calls I've attended that the matters of the expression of interest workgroup and this pre-registration process has, in fact, been discussed, at least in that forum. Go ahead, Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: It has been discussed. However, the working group that I've been chairing has to do with the gTLD application format. And it's unclear whether or not this is actually part and parcel of that or is actually something different from the application process.
Essentially, the feeling that I got from the participants is one of indifference in the sense that the expressions of interest is essentially meant to basically get new applicants to be able to go back to their stakeholders or investors or whatever and say - Hey, look, there's some progress being made, even though the DAG4 (ph) itself may not be even out for Nairobi. So, I mean, it's a bit of an escape valve, but it really doesn't do much for our policy regarding the smart creation of new gTLDs. It has to do with the timing. Obviously, we'd like to see new gTLDs, but that's an issue of the DAG. The expressions of interest-- maybe this is more of a personal belief than the entire working group, but, essentially, to say that, as far as At-Large is concerned, we're not the ones registering the TLDs. We don't have quite that level of frustration. We don't have quite that level of problem with the stakeholders. And it seems like our thrust is mainly in just making sure that the DAG and the process itself is intelligent. I've found less enthusiasm within the group for really caring that much about the EOI issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I see-- Who got up there first, Sebastien or Alan?
Sebastien Bachollet: Alan.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan and then Sebastien.
Alan Greenberg: Sebastien, I see has a tick. In any case, I think the issue from our point of view is that the concept of an expression of interest may allow different classes of gTLDs to go on a different pace based on what is found out during the expression of interest. And that's the impact on us-- that it may allow some to go first and, therefore, perhaps gTLD-- or, rather, IDN ones to go through the process earlier-- or ccTLDs (ph) or whatever. And, without the expression of interest, I think there's no chance that that's likely to happen.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sebastien, and then back to Evan.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. You take my idea out of my mind. Thank you, Alan. I just want to add one point. I will not say you took my words because I will not say the same way because-- Okay.
The other idea I wanted to raise is that it will allow us as an At-Large to be aware of what is happening and maybe to have some work done before the opening of RSP to say something. For example, if there is a lot of discussion from some candidates about morality or about-- then we will have some time to do something.
And the third point is that I feel that this way will allow to have new gTLD prior if we don't do it, and it's better for that point of view to do it. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: Again, this is more of a data point than it is part of the process for making the TLDs. Obviously, if we can have expressions of interest and we can see what's up there, maybe we can use that as a data point to help back up some of the things we've been saying about the need for more categorization, about the need for a certain kind of fast-tracking. I mean, if the EOI process will help that, that's great. And it's just, like I say, I think we had a hard time finding the enthusiasm for that within the group that was actually working on the policy for creating it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: All right. In the absence of anyone else waving their hands or me or wanting to speak on this matter--
Adam Peak: One sec. Hello. Sorry. I can't wave. So I'm waiting--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. We need to fix your Wi-Fi. I think this is desperate. Go ahead, Adam.
Adam Peak: I'm just going to hit the box and try again. But I do-- I was a bit concerned reading the proposal as it came out. Some of the ALAC comments about cost and so on were not taken into consideration at all because we have a deposit requirement of $55,000. And I think one of our statements on new gTLDs was that the overall cost was, anyway, too expensive.
And there are other ways of getting expressions of interest that would be-- You know, you don't just need money as a guarantee, although I can't think of one at the moment because it's too late at night. But I'll try and do that. Government's do it all the time with spectrum and stuff like that. So, you know, I'm uncomfortable with the $55,000. So I think we do have to make some comments that would be consistent with previous comments we've made.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. I think, Adam, that they're hugely important aspects-- that we do in fact have some stuff that we've made more generally in the world of the DAG and the new gTLDs that deserve to be refreshed, dusted off, and reminded to the powers that be when they're looking at the expression of interest or pre-registration process. I think that we have in fact got members of the ALAC who've been working in the expression of interest workgroup and that there is a nexus-- a crossover between some of the conversations that have been had in our new gTLD conversations.
Therefore, welcome to the Adobe room, James, when, of course, we're just about to close. But that's all right. It's good that you finally got here. We've had you in more than spirit since you've landed. That's the main thing.
So I'm hearing that we do in fact need to add this very important matter, as James, I think, quite well pointed out to us into our policy advice development schedule. We see that it is a January 27th deadline. And I will ask that-- Perhaps we ask for Patrick's input and that, James, if at all possible, if you could pen your points. Evan, if you could pen yours, and, Adam, if you can pen yours-- same goes to Alan and Sebastien-- basically little more than a review of what's been said here. And we can have that to the working list and then see whether the rest of the ALAC agree that this is a matter that is worthy of our time and attention. We actually can't decide because we're not quorate. But, rather than get them to listen to the whole of the tape or wait for the transcript, if you could put your particular points from today's discussion to the working list, and we can get their agreement with our wise suggestions-- notice my positive spin on that-- that would be very, very good.
Ladies and gentlemen, and I'm only saying ladies because Heidi is one and, as staff, she's still here. In fact, I should just say, Gentlemen of the ALAC-- That in itself is an interesting concept. We are not going--
Alan Greenberg: Are we sure how many of those we have?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, I think that's where I was heading, Alan. We are not going to deal with the current PAD items not on target, other than to note that each of them are in fact able--
Spanish Interpreter: I'm sorry. Sorry. This is Diana, the interpreter. I'm sorry. Which item are you not going to deal with?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The current PAD, policy advice development, schedule items which are not on target. So, under the agenda, this is Item One for decision, Part B. We won't be dealing with these tonight in substantive discussion. Each one of them have had activities or meetings, and each one of them will in fact be subject to the development of an ALAC statement of some form. But we will need to leave that on our January activities list. So I'm going to probably leave those to be picked up at next month's agenda.
I'm also going to now have to leave the hugely important development process for the At-Large community to select a voting board member who (ph), online discussion, it has been a matter of discussion at a number of the regional At-Large organization meetings. But we do in fact need to put a white paper together. And it was our intention to discuss what type of topics based on our call we needed to make sure we picked up on.
Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: I think Evan was first, although I'm not sure if it's left over from before. My only comment was on this-- We seem to be going backwards faster than we're going forwards. When we started this discussion, we came to some relative clean decisions and, I think, unanimous decisions on what to do. Over the last number of weeks, we seem to have changed the tone of those and reversed some of them. And, if we continue on this path, we're not going to have a voting member. And, if we don't do it within a reasonable time, I'm not sure the board will grant us the flexibility of ever doing it. They've said it must be done, under any condition, by the next annual meeting and, preferably, by Brussels. And I'm just starting to wonder if we'll ever be able to come to closure on this, since we seem to be able to go backwards faster than forwards.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Points well made. And I'm happy to put on the public record that I was absolutely horrified with what I gleaned from the EURALO discussions, where they're going to be opening debate to go through January. That means that we won't have an agreed EURALO to sometime in February. And I believe that's quite close to being a showstopper.
Alan Greenberg: I was not even referring to that. I was simply referring to the-- We pretty well came to closure, I thought, on the concept of a nominating committee under another name to try to make sure that the small number of candidates really have the credentials we need. And then we started opening up saying - But there's going to be ten candidates. And those two just don't go along with each other. So--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And, in fact, I'm most concerned that we get a white paper out so that we can have these points properly discussed and decided upon during the January period, regardless of what naval (ph) gazing and activities are going on at the edges. I think we need a focus for that to work with.
Go ahead--
Alan Greenberg: We're really not sending a good message, I guess, is what I'm saying.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think it's a showstopper. Go ahead, Sebastien.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. I am a little bit worried also with what's happened at the EURALO meeting, but that's what I say-- democracy, and it's not always the best things to do but we have to deal with. There are people who came on board in the discussion late, and they don't take time to read what's happened prior to that. And they say - Hey, why you decide that? What do you--?
We really need to have a paper. And my feeling is that, if a small group can do this white paper and then each one will be able to say yes or no on what it will be written on this paper-- and not saying, yes, but our goal is to have everybody working and we don't know working on what and so on and so forth. I support, personally, to have one white paper as soon as possible. And then, I think, within each RALO, it will be easier to have the discussion and to have a vote if we need votes. And that would be great. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, I think that is our way forward. And I think that's also-- Garreth, if you are still on the call, seasonal greetings to you and your family. I hope the weather is kind to you at this time of year.
We have to put the white paper together. Evan, you're still on the call, aren't you?
Evan Leibovitch: Yes, desperately not trying to disconnect every time I go off mute.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I think we need to not only get Adam his local area connection fixed, but we need to get big-button phone for Evan as well, so he doesn't keep disconnecting himself. That would be very useful.
Alan Greenberg: Or we need to remember which button is which.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, it's a matter of how close the buttons are in proximity on his phone, I think.
The white paper is going to need strong and robust discussion and support. And, as NARALO so well started us in the draft process, I'm going to, unashamedly, look towards NARALO to be one of the first regions to respond to such a white paper. Could we be so bold, however, Evan, as to ask for informal contribution to the white paper in its draft form from NARALO, as well, seeing as the working model that we've developed on was one that came from wide support in your rank and file? It would seem silly to not pass it, at least, past you and yours before we publish that. And it would be our intention to publish that in the coming-- the last week in December. Is that possible or not?
Evan Leibovitch: It's certainly possible. But I just want to call your attention to the fact that you may have noticed through some of the ALAC-wide mailing lists that there has been a specific point-- shall we say fissure between, I'd say, the widely held consensus view and that of a couple of individuals who have been loud, persistent, but are a very clear minority within our group. They also happen to be people, though, that have a very, very deep history and would love us to go back to direct elections and have this wonderful, romantic view of it. And I can't seem to shake them from the fact that's not going to happen, and it's not going to happen in this process.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, we just have to go through the process, recognize that noisy wheels are exactly that-- they're noisy.
And the other thing, I think, is a point that saddens me, and that is this consistent incorrect presentation by at least one member of our At-Large community who is also part of the At-Large review process, and that's Karl (ph), stating that it was the intention for it to be such a model. We have had very clear and consistent direction from the ALAC and At-Large review team that that was not the case. And to continue this as a proposal to the At-Large community, I think, is doing us all a great disservice and, indeed, going a long way to slowing down our processes and having us, at least, five or six weeks behind where we should have been.
So we simply have to power on. And, at that point, I'm going to propose that it's the job of the ExCom at this stage to put that white paper together. And we will be having that published before the end of the calendar year.
There are a number of other very important--
Alan Greenberg: Evan volunteered also, however.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Thank you very much, Evan. There are a number of very important issues that were still on our agenda for tonight, none of them that can't be dealt with, to some extent, online. But they must be attended to in our January meeting.
I have a final piece of any other business, which was for information only, about a call from the IGF for-- Certainly, James, you have the floor-- which I'm now putting into the chat space as an action item. If that information could be promulgated via our regional reps out to the rank and file and the ALSs, that would be greatly appreciated.
The floor is yours, James, go ahead.
James Seng: I just have a question seems to be (ph) on other business. Do we have a chance to discuss about the final report on (unintelligible) requirements and (unintelligible) management--?
French Interpreter: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? There was some static. I need to hear clearly. Tricia here. Thank you for the French.
James Seng: Do we have a chance to talk about the ALAC's (unintelligible) on final report on three-character requirements and (unintelligible) management (unintelligible)?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: James, I can answer that. We can discuss it. But, because we're no longer quorate, we can't decide on anything.
Spanish Interpreter: I'm sorry. Could someone repeat the report that we're going to be discussing? This is Diana Munoz, the interpreter for--
French Interpreter: Also, this is Morticia. Cheryl, could you repeat what he said-- the type of report? We didn't get it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Tricia, I just did. Three-character names and variance. It's an IDN report on three-character name and variance.
So, James, the answer is, yes, we can discuss it, but we're no longer quorate to do anything about it. How do you want to proceed?
James Seng: Actually, I just need advice. What should I do with the next step on this document? Do I hold onto it, wait for discussion, and do a single-purpose call on this?
Alan Greenberg: James, it's Alan. Do you feel it is ready for a vote, or do you feel it needs significant input from us?
James Seng: I believe I need some input--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
James Seng: – before I can go (unintelligible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: – to go for a vote. Okay. Sebastien, and then I'll take a stab at that too. Go ahead, Sebastien.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. Just to say that I suggest, James, that we have a single-purpose call, like we do for your previous report. And whatever people are showing up on this meeting-- on this conference call, we will do the work. And you will have a final document to present it to the ALAC. I guess it's the easiest way to go for you. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: James, just echoing what Sebastien has said and Alan was asking, what timeline would you envisage on that, because I think what you're hearing is that, if you need more input, then the best way for us to get that for you is to do the purpose call-- the single-purpose call. And then, of course, the attached wiki that belongs to that also allows community input. So what timing would you want on that?
James Seng: If that's the case, I suppose I would try to get a single-purpose call sometime next week.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, have very good luck on that one. You won't be looking (ph) at the first week in January?
Sebastien Bachollet: No, because it's-- The date-- It's the 8th of January. It's a problem with the date. We have to--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I understand that, but we have always had the option of putting in a statement that is under vote.
James Seng: Okay. If that's the case, maybe the first week of January may be better. I was just going--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I believe you will get more input in running a call in the first week of January. And then I'm perfectly comfortable as an outcome of that call to have a document put in which is provisionally under ratification.
James Seng: Okay. Thank you very much.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So that's an action item. James, staff will contact you, and we'll set up doodles that suit your life and schedule. And, if I can encourage that-- the choice of time for those-- for the doodle on this particular topic is made Asia-Pacific time zone friendly.
James Seng: Noted.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, because it's-- CJK group is going to be most interested in it. So it seems silly to run a call that's at 4:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. where the people who have the vested interest in it are living.
Can I just say it's been a somewhat heroic length of time spent on some seemingly non-complicated agenda items, something I'm hoping we won't repeat again until perhaps the silly season this time next year. I would like to thank Diane and Tricia for the rather long effort they've put in tonight to ensure that our French and Spanish speakers have a suitably interpreted and recorded record of the meeting. Thank you both, and thank you to all the other staff in Adigo who've worked with us throughout this calendar year. And I'd like to wish all of you all the very best, and do pass it on to the rest of the Adigo team, for the seasonal greetings that are appropriate to you and your culture and your religion.
To the rest of you who've hung on here to the bitter end for today's call, each and every one of you are gentlemen. Instead of classifying Heidi and I as that, we will simply say we grace your presence with ours. And I would like to wish you and all of your families all the very best of the season as well.
We need to look forward to a very full agenda for January because of the length of time it's taken for today's call. I do regret that. But there seemed to be little we could do about it.
Thank you, one and all. Seasonal greetings to you all. And, in the case of most of you, we'll be talking next calendar year. But, in the case of some of us, those of us who've taken action items and work from this meeting, will be talking between now and the end of the calendar year. Good morning, good evening, good day, good night, and good wishes to you all.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you, all.
James Seng: Yes. Thank you. Bye-bye.
People: Thank you. Bye-bye.
