Seth Green: The ALAC support group. And yes, as Heidi said, just having started last week, I request, I beg your indulgence as I get up to speed and hopefully that won't take me too long.
Heidi Ulrich: Thank you, Seth. And he is going to be announced officially on the list later today.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent.
Sebastien Bachollet: Welcome, Seth.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Welcome aboard, Seth.
Seth Green: Thank you, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And it's certainly something that as you know you're going to be working closely with each and every one of us. The disappointing thing about Seth joining us when he has, and I'm happy to have that on the record, is that there is no budget to bring him to Nairobi. So he's going to be working with us remotely, including in our sessions where we're working on the matter that he's been employed to work with us on. So that's a little sadness from my perspective and I'm sure that each and every one of us will do our best to get to know him remotely, but I certainly look forward to meeting him face to face as well.
Any questions or comments for Seth at this time?
Vanda Scartezini: Just send Sylvia's apologize, is still in the – out in the street. So she'll try to come back, but not in time probably.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, that was Sylvia has apologies?
Vanda Scartezini: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Vanda. Okay. Well then onto the substantive work we have.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Dev Anand Teelucksingh.
Operator: Joined.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry, who is that?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Dev.
Dev: Hi.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh hi, Dev. How are you?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Sorry about that.
French Interpreter: Excuse me. The French interpreter here. Who just arrived? Didn't get the name.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Dev.
Unidentified Participant: Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you very much. And if Matthias can track who joins us from now on so we can just continue. And it might be also appropriate if people who are dialing in – or sorry, if we have dial outs. I know we have a dial out to Hawa and a dial out to Tijani. If they can be brought into the call without being announced, it would help us continue in our agenda.
But we have a fairly packed meeting today. And I will beg your indulgence to ensure that we get through all of the work we need to get through, but that we take as much time as we have listed on the agenda for each item wherever possible.
The standing agenda items for tonight will be worked in fairly short order. And to that end, I would like to start first of all with a call for any other business or amendments to the agenda?
Okay. I see no one in the Adobe Connect room. Is there anyone on the phone bridge in French or Spanish who wishes to bring anything forward for the agenda tonight?
Carlton Samules: Can I ask someone to post that link to the Adobe Connect for me?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Have you got the Wiki for the meeting open, Carlton?
Carlton Samules: No.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, just one second. We'll put that through to the ExCom chat for you.
Carlton Samules: Yes, I would appreciate that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, done. All right. Without any alterations to the agenda, we've covered up our roll call as we started and achieved our quorum. And we've noted apologies from Sylvia and from Beau. If we look at the action items for the last meeting, we have started a check on ISOC Cameroon.
French Interpreter: Excuse me, Cheryl. Tijani wanted you to know that he is now here online.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you in French. Thank you so much. Welcome, Tijani. Our action items; we still have to check on the status of ISOC Cameroon. I'll ask staff to speak to that at that point in the agenda where we look at At-Large structures. Carlton to add PC on consumer constituency to the PAD. That was done I best gather. Staff to work with Carlos to solve the issue or find an alternate way for Carlos to vote. Matthias, can I ask has that been solved? Matthias, you might be on mute.
Matthias Langenegger: I was on mute. Yes, the – Carlos and Carlton were both able to vote in the last election.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. And did we get any feedback, which is the next action item, from Big Polls as to why we were having people with issues on the voting credentials?
Matthias Langenegger: Well he said that the problem with it that he knows actually we're not white listed on the mail servers, so we just exchanged the (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so it was user end stuff that we needed to fix and that's been done. Excellent. The online vote, re the statement on the AOC has been done and completed and the listed action item where it says Sylvia will prepare a short note on At-Large outreach activity for February ALAC meeting, unless I am totally crazy and I don't actually think I am, that I thought was a matter that we were to be dealing with in our Nairobi meeting with Sylvia and Siva preparing a short presentation. So is there anyone who can tell me that the action item –
Unidentified Participant: (Inaudible)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So in my opinion that action item is incorrectly recorded and that needs to be changed. Okay, so that's all of our action items done. And –
French Interpreter: Excuse me. Could you just repeat the last action item? Sorry Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's not a problem, Tricia. Sylvia – the action item, which was referring to Sylvia putting a short briefing note together for the February meeting, which is today that should have read for the Nairobi meeting. And it's Sylvia and Siva – S-I-V-A. And it is for the Nairobi meeting.
French Interpreter: Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No problem. Okay. If we now move to the review of current ALS applications, I'll now ask staff to tell us what the state of play is on Cameroon. And also on Connexion al Desarollo de El Salvador.
Matthias Langenegger: Okay. We did send out an email to ISOC Cameroon, but we haven't heard back from them yet. So I would suggest that we follow up with them later this week and if you don't hear back then we have to make a decision
And with regards to Connexion El Salvador we're still waiting for the regional advice from LACRALO. They have been discussing the application in the recent teleconference, but we're still waiting for a formal original signed statement.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Moving then up back to the Liberia Chapter of the Internet Society, that is – we've received regional advice on that, correct?
Matthias Langenegger: That is correct, yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And we should have started the vote already today. When will that vote be starting?
Matthias Langenegger: I have started setting it up and it should be sent out shortly after this call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so just to advise all the At-Large personnel that you'll be having your voting credentials heading your way soon, so Carlos and indeed Carlton has had problems in the past. Just double check your in boxes so you know to expect an invitation and voting credentials for the ALS application for the Liberia Chapter of the Internet Society.
Matthias, is that going to be a five- or a seven-day vote? I would have thought five would have been enough?
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, it's a five-day vote.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. Thanks, Heidi.
The reports we will take as tabled and as read. And we will also take any working group reports as tabled and as read, which means we can now move on at coming up to 18 minutes past the hour, which puts us back on track for our timing, to the new business.
I would like to, however take a moment or two to thank everybody because what is happening with these reports is they are getting populated and I'm particularly keen to thank the regional leadership and the members – the liaisons and the members of the working group who now, I think making this ongoing accountability of reporting on activities something well worthwhile. And I'd like to think of it as possibly one of the benchmarks that we would – should be very, very proud of.
On to new business. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? Yes, Sebastien, go ahead. Sorry.
Sebastien Bachollet: That's okay. It's at the cross of the report and the new business. It's a question of the publication of the three-year strategic plan accept from the board. And I saw the mail this morning about that thing that we will need to have a feedback from border staff on what they take on board of what was our comments. And I just check one point, if our proposed project was taking care and it is not. And that's to me very disappointing. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Sebastien, are you asking for this to be an action item out of this meeting for feedback at the next ALAC meeting? Or in the Nairobi meeting?
Sebastien Bachollet: It was a request from ALAC since long time that we need to know what's up and with our comments. And it's just one more time that we have a new document publication accepted by the board and nothing to tell us when. And if something will be told to us what they used on our comments – about our comments. Then I would like very much to have this – I guess Nairobi could be a good point to discuss these points –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In Nairobi?
Sebastien Bachollet: – once again. Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. I think when we – we should have access to all the right people it's highly appropriate. So Heidi, can we make sure that on the Executive Committee agenda we look at where we can schedule that into the Nairobi planning please?
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, you bet.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And they will set the action item on staff for that. Now which staff in ICANN of course you're going to have to help us to determine.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay. And I also want to point out that Kevin will be speaking to us at the wrap-up session on Thursday in Nairobi on this topic.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah, well that's good to hear. He might need to be given a little bit more time in the agenda if that's going to be a particular issue.
Okay. Moving then to our new business for decision section of the evening. The first matter is the criteria and process for endorsing ALAC candidates for the position of AoC volunteer review team member. Now we're putting about 30 to 40 minutes into this activity tonight, ladies and gentlemen. So if you'll just note that on my clock is 21 – oh sorry, 22 minutes past the hour, I'll be wanting to move to the decision making parts of this no later than 30 to 35 minutes from now.
What you have in front of you on your agenda tonight is a cover over of what the affirmation of commitment calls for in terms of periodic review and the number of review teams that is predicted and expected to come out of the process. In parallel with the process, ICANN has already begun, as many of you know, to invite interested individuals to express interest in serving as a volunteer team member. And the current date for the closure of such applications and letter of – what are they calling them? The –
Matthias Langenegger: – motivational –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Motivational letter --that's right, yes – is now being set and changed to just prior to midnight despite the fact that our minutes seem to still say 7th of March 2010 at midnight. It is actually one minute to midnight on the 7th of March that that will be closing. And outlines the chair of the GAC, the chairman of the board, and the assistant secretary of communications for the information that the Department of Communications will be already on the accountability and transparency review team or their designated nominee.
And our job is from the ALAC point of view to look at a draft proposal that's been put out for comment in the last week or so for the ALAC to have a reasonable fair and as transparent and accountable process as possible to endorse and to list how endorsements are made, why endorsements are made, and what decisions we need to make at not only tonight's meeting in terms of that process, but how we will act an interact after the closure at almost midnight on the 7th of March, because we have a very short time then after that to make our endorsements clear to the decision makers.
Remembering that regardless of who we put forward, or how many we put forward, there is one slot and that slot for the At-Large Advisory Committee will be selected by the chairman of the board and the chairman of the Government Advisory Committee. We have no control beyond our endorsement.
Alan, did you wish to take the floor at this point in time with the draft proposal?
Alan Greenberg: Well I actually raised my hand just on the comment on what you just said. At this point the proposal says there will be one ALAC representative on the review team. Many other constituencies or many other groups within ICANN have said the committee is too small and we need more representatives. We don't know what the outcome of that's going to be. There well may be more than one ALAC person.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But we have to work with what we have at the moment and at the moment –
Alan Greenberg: No, indeed. But it falls into a –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I just say – sorry. Just a matter of logistics. Seeing as I have no control in this Adobe meeting, I can't give people speaking rights or anything else. So if you're finding it unusual that I'm not giving you permission and giving you – ah, thank you. You've made the magic happen. In which case, I'm now approving, after Alan, Christopher to speak. Continue on, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Well, Christopher was actually on first, so let him speak and then I'll give my proposals.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay then. Go ahead, Christopher.
Christopher Wilkinson: Hi. Good afternoon, everybody, good evening. Cheryl, this is just to make quite clear I cam on the call because my name has been mentioned in this context, particularly in your and Alan's recent mail to the list. So that if any of you have any comments or questions, I'm on this call.
But if at any stage as chair you feel that it would be more appropriate if I dropped from the call, I only need a short signal from you just to back it back.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, everything we do is in the middle of a goldfish bowl, Christopher, so it won't be a problem. If you get terribly bored, feel free to drop off. But other than that, no. As –
Christopher Wilkinson: Well I just wanted to make that clear (inaudible) –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much.
Christopher Wilkinson: – want to discuss it (inaudible) session that's okay by me. It may not be okay by your rules, but (inaudible). I'll drop off if you ask me to.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so noted. Okay, Christopher, thank you. Back to you, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Hold on; just let me get back to the right screens. The document that is in the agenda identified what seemed to be important questions that needed to be answered before we could come up with a very specific set of rules and set of processes. If we can come to closure on these then I think it's going to be moderately easy to decide where we go from here and how we go from here.
The process has been made significantly easier since this was written because instead of the deadline for applications being yesterday, it is now March 7th, which is just the beginning of the meeting in Nairobi. So that gives us additional time to either solicit or accept applications to read them and to decide on exactly what the process is, whereas we – at the time this was written, we thought the process to select someone would start today and perhaps have to end as early as tomorrow. So we have significantly more breathing room.
Now there's no claim that the nine questions listed there are the definitive ones, but they seem to cover more of – most of the specific issues that we thought of when this was initially being discussed. Now I have a set of answers, which again I'm not claiming are the right answers, but just ones to start the discussion, and I don't know quite where to put them. I don't have rights to put things into the various note fields, but I can post them in the chat and maybe somebody who has more powers than me could post them in a more readable way that we could comment on them as we go along.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Look, I'm quite sure staff will be rushing to copy and paste your every piece of answer. That would be very good.
Alan Greenberg: I'm just hoping that in this chat the lines will not be mushed together. I think they will be though. So. Maybe if I do this in a Skype chat it will be easier for people to break out?
Unidentified Participant: I haven't got the Skype chat this time. Has somebody got it?
Heidi Ulrich: Alan, I've put the questions that you sent out into the note section with spaces.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, but these are answers.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay. Matthias, see if you can give Alan some more power.
Alan Greenberg: Well, or – I didn't want more power. I actually wanted someone else to do the work.
Sebastien Bachollet: That's a way to have more power, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Touché. I'm also putting the answers in the ExCom chat if anyone has better access there. Okay, I'll just read the answers until we can get them up on the screen. Or maybe read and discuss one-by-one.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Read and discuss one-by-one. I'd like to let everyone have an opportunity, so if at the close of what Alan has said in any one of these points, you can just raise your hand or if you're in one of the other language channels or not on the Adobe Connect room, let me know in the usual way and I shall recognize you.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, the first question was do we wish to endorse all applicants who want to represent us? Now the terms of the draft procedure for the AoC reviews are that applications must be submitted to ICANN, the people will represent, and that's the word used, represent the various ACs and SOs and they must be endorsed by the appropriate AC and SO. And the question is do we want to simply say anyone who applies will be endorsed? Or do we want to specifically endorse or not endorse each candidate?
This has to be looked at in the light of what this group will be doing and who else will be on it. And I guess the one indication for this group that makes it a little bit clearer than the others is one of the members of this group is the assistant secretary of communications and information for the US Department of Commerce. This is a very senior group and I think we need to be able to match it. The chair of the GAC will also be on it, or his delegate, and the chair of the ICANN board will also be on it, or his delegate.
We do not want to be in a position where people are – that we put on are discounted by these other people because they are not viewed as their equals. That may sound unfair, but I think we need to worry about it and we need to make sure that we put someone on it who is going to be able to discuss things with people who wield an unreasonably large amount of power. That's the politics of it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let's open that to discussion at that point. Thanks, Alan. And I've noted both James and Carlton in chat, so perhaps I'll take them in that order. James, if you'd like to read to the record and discuss further what you're putting in the chat. And then Carlton, I'll ask you to expand on your, "I agree with no." James, go ahead.
James Sing: Okay. Yes, so as a matter of principle I think we should be selective about who will represent, who will be representing ALAC on the AoC. And therefore, we should (inaudible) who we think could be best representing ALAC. A letter from the community of (inaudible) here from the people. But I would be hesitating to be – to endorse all because without understanding why we don't (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you and I see a number of green ticks appearing, which is a good indication that other people agree with you. Carlton, go ahead.
Carlton Samules: Thank you, Cheryl. I am agreeing with Alan. We should not endorse all applicants. We need to ensure for the – and the best reason for that is that it's going to be a high powered team and we need to ensure that they're representing for ALAC. And I say ALAC advisedly is someone who can go toe-to-toe with the kinds of folks we expect. So I don't think just because somebody shows up we should say yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you Carlton. I recognize Adam and then Alan. You might be muted, Adam. Start (inaudible).
Adam Peak: I am. I've just un-muted. And I would agree with the no, we do not endorse all applicants. And I think we should stick with the usual program of allowing the each RALO, if it wishes, to put forward the name of one person, which would give us between – well, it may be five, it might not be. Not all the RALOs may get through to putting someone forward. And that would be our way of endorsement that the RALO would forward the name and we would accept that.
And I think it's useful to put forward a slate of this kind because, as Alan noted, perhaps there will be more than one person, in which case we would have a choice for the selectors to pick. And also, the reason – who is it – it's the chair of the GAC and the chair of the board, they're going to have to find regional and other balance from these various names that are coming forward from across the full community, though I think it's a good idea for us to give them something that is at least in a very minimum regionally balanced. And we should also be, of course, thinking about gender balance, which is the best side within the criteria for the review team. And then the skill sets that are noted.
I wouldn't worry too much about (inaudible) very high level. I don't think we're going to get the secretary spending his time on it. My guess is it's going to be Fiona Alexander, or Mary Atlas. So yes, it is senior people, but I don't think it's going to be (inaudible) or one of these (inaudible). But that's just my opinion.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Adam. That said, we have already had a number of applications go through and come back to us for endorsement from people who, to quote one at least, "Would like to become involved in the world of ICANN" and thought doing this job might be nice. I think we need to take a fairly definite line on some of this. Alan, go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, Adam jumped ahead somewhat. The question we're looking at right now is simple do we do any triage, cutting people or do we not? Not the full gambit of what the qualifications are, which I think requires a significant more information than we have right now.
The only other thing I will say in support of doing triage – I suddenly have a very bad echo. Can we get someone to look at that? Gone now. Is that this person is in fact a representative of ALAC and we do not know what – it's very frustrating. We do not know what the rules are going to be that the committee operates under until the review team actually is formed, those rules will not be decided on.
The review team may be operating completely in private with no opportunity for interactions between the representative and the AC or SO that appoints – or that endorsed them. So we need to pick someone that in the worst case where there is no such contact at all, where the person is sworn to secrecy, that we trust them to do well by us. Now we don't know what the – whether those will be the rules or not, but we have to assume the worst case that they might be. And that's another reason that I think we need to pick and choose very carefully the issues that Adam mentioned I'll go back to later on and I'll – I will disagree with him to some extent. But that's later.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Is there any more discussion on the question one as raised in our now in questions for tonight's discussions and decisions?
Vanda Scartezini: Well, Vanda.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Vanda.
Vanda Scartezini: Yes, just endorse what Alan said. It's very important to have balanced people represent all areas in the community. So I do believe we need to have two or three, but we cannot endorse everybody because it's a very political position. We're going to have phases from people speaking over there. People from governed the side same, so we need people that are capable to defend our position, whatever it is, and state the views, debate in, and be able to defend and at the same time explain positions, keep in contact, do not go by themselves only – it's a classical position.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Vanda. Patrick, go ahead.
Patrick Vanderwal: Yes, thank you. Regarding regional diversity and the need to have people on the – that we can trust to do a good job, I wouldn't at this stage try to have at all costs a good regional balance and a good gender balance, but rather I think we should focus on having the right people, even if that means that we would not have at all times the regional diversity that we might expect. Thank you.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, I think we have general consensus that everyone agrees that yes, we should be doing selection.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed. That does sound like the results. Perhaps to move onto the next point then. Alan, go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: – and I would suggest –
French Interpreter: Excuse me, Cheryl, Trisha here. Is there somebody not on mute because there's a lot of static on your side? So just make sure that whoever's not speaking is muted. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, we can try, but I know there was a technical issue a little earlier with a lot of echo, so that might be what's coming through as well.
French Interpreter: Could be. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you, Trisha. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, the question is how many do we identify and I would suggest that we should look at a number like three. Specifically, we – at this point we are only guaranteeing one.
Operator: I am sorry. That's not a valid extension. Please try again.
Unidentified Participant: Never mind.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, that's (inaudible). Okay. Go ahead, Alan. You're suggesting three (inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: I'm sure trying to go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, it's a counterpoint to Adam there as well. So I'll go back to you, Adam, as well. But go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: I would suggest something like three. I think three is the absolute maximum we're likely to see on this group. Two is more likely, but we do want to give a little bit of flexibility. On the other hand, I would – well okay. I'm sorry. I'm getting ahead of it. So I would suggest three as a good number, but not iron clad, depending on the number of candidates we get. It may be obvious that we don't have three candidates that we truly believe in and I would suggest that the group that does the final selection be given the ability to be somewhat flexible, but that we don't want to give a lot more flexibility to the selectors, the two chairs, than we need to while – and making sure that we get someone on this group that we really believe will serve us well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you. Adam, as it goes to your point of suggesting regional input, or at least the opportunity for regional input, which would be obviously a maximum of five, did you want to respond before I go to Carlton?
Alan Greenberg: The criteria are a later point, by the way.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So are you saying Adam can't respond?
Alan Greenberg: No, no. I'll let anyone respond.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Adam?
Adam Peak: I was suggesting five or less, and I do think we should consider the – if we suggest the European and everybody else suggests the European, or who you suggest someone from the Asia Pacific and there's a preponderance of Asia Pacific, perhaps our person will not get on. So there is a reason for having diversity in that it may assure us a position. I do understand the arguments about the person has to be good. Of course they have to be good.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, and we will come back to those criteria later, as Alan pointed out. Carlton, floor is yours.
Carlton Samules: Thank you, Chair. I would say – I'm just endorsing what Adam said just a while ago. I would say five because then you would have the diversity element answered by some folks who would wish to make it. And then the next question that could be – we could proffer if we're going to a real huddle, I think we should set a priority. To me that's what has happened. And I'm saying this because it is very important to ensure that we have the right person. And that person that comes out of the person who are putting themselves forward, I think that the ALAC has a duty to determine who in the ALAC's perspective is the right person. Again I say it, the person is representing ALAC and we should step up to the plate and do what we have to do.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. I've recognized Carlos and I will give you the floor after that, Alan, because Carlos is a directly through the Spanish interpreter. Or you can, if you wish, ask me to just read to the record what you've put into the chat. But Carlos is bringing an alternate view here and I think it's important because everything we do is recorded and transcribed that what he's raising is brought into the record. Carlos, would you care to speak to your points?
Carlos Aguirre: (Interpreted) Si, okay Carlos. Yes, I'm going to the center with most of my colleagues. In reality, I think that any committee that to form to see what is the person we are going to endorse or support, we cannot know the possibility to see one person is better than another person. Who can say who is more capable to – than another to do these tasks? How can we decide what to do about it?
And I think that each one of the candidates, if we have very clear rules, they should be supported, they should be endorsed by ALAC. And afterwards the committee form in the board or the Adobe committee for this decides at the end if it works or not, but at the end in my opinion, I think that if we respected diversity, we should support all the candidates that apply for it. In my opinion, we won't have that many candidates. And for me, it is very clear. Who can really tell that one is better than the other one? That I am better than the next person? This is something really serious, that's why I wanted to make this comment. Thank you very much.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you, Carlos. And I think all I can say is so noted because I think as you recognized, at least in this meeting, that is a minority view and I think we'll have people respond back to that in just a moment. Alan, you're next in the queue?
Alan Greenberg: Yes, two things. In response to Carlos' comment I need to point out that it may be difficult to identify who the right ones are or the wrong ones are, but it will be done and I may not be a particularly humble person, and in this case I will say I think we're in a better position to do a first cut than the chair of the board and the chair of the GAC are, and they will be the ones who decide if we don't.
Patrick Vanderwal: That's my point precisely. We give those people the opportunity to do that and we ought not to cede that to them.
Alan Greenberg: Well, exactly. I believe we need to at the very least eliminate people who we believe will not serve us well and yes, that is making a decision and we may be well equipped or not well equipped to do it, but I think it's our responsibility to do it.
Patrick Vanderwal: Or we'll not make the cut in our opinion between the GAC chair and the chairman of the board.
Alan Greenberg: And the second issue regarding regional, we may or may not have applicants from all regions. We may have an applicant – only one applicant from a specific region who everyone agrees – almost everyone agrees – is not suitable to represent us and I do not think we want to be bound at this point to say one per region at the first cut.
I think this – the accountability and transparency review, and it's also the review if you look at the words on supporting the needs of end – Internet users around the world, is far to important to not try to do a responsible job by it and make sure our issues are addressed. All of us have expressed very high levels of dissatisfaction at time with ICANN's transparency and accountability, and I think this is our opportunity to do something about it. If we don't, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. I noted Tijani was attempting to raise his hand several times and I attempted to give him the microphone several times. So Tijani, please go ahead. You're next. You may be muted.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: (Interpreted) All right. Tijani speaking.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Trisha.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: (Interpreted) I wanted to speak about two things. The number of candidates and also who will choose them. As far as the number of candidates who will be representing the At-Large, why should it be three? Because it gives more flexibility perhaps with respect to the commissions. But I don't want to give them that possibility.
Secondly, who is going to decide that somebody's better than the other? I'm not sure I can make that question because is ALAC going to decide? And ALAC will not be choosing a person who will badly represent the At-Large community. Finished, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much, Trisha.
French Interpreter: Thank you, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Sebastien has the microphone now and I think, depending on what Sebastien says, we may need to come back to some of the points that Tijani has raised. Go ahead, Sebastien.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes, I would like to endorse what Alan said, and I have two fears here. We always say, hey guys, if we make a bad decision, a wrong decision, let's go ahead. Why would we make wrong decision? We are 15 people, we can make good decisions and not to worry, every time. If maybe we make a wrong decision, let's go ahead.
And the second point it's very important. We keep all the power we can get. In my personal point of view, I would love – be very happy to have just one name put to the chair of the GAC and to the chair of the board. Don't – just to say to the communities that we are the power to make the decision and we want to take the decision. I am not pushing this today because for good reason, Alan say we need to have three names in case of we have more than one people representing ALAC in this committee. And I just have to tell you that from my information GAC is pushing to have five of them on this committee, then in addition to the chair of the GAC, then I think we need – still need to struggle to have more than one, but if we have just one, let's put three names in order to show what our preference is. As soon as we have power, don't leave the board to other people, please. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you very much, Sebastien. So we have another counterpoint here that not only do we put in a slate of names, not – and that slate of names, that group of names of endorsed candidates will not be anyone who has applied, but it will be a vetting process by the At-Large Advisory Committee. A number of names yet to be determined. At the moment we have n equals three, or a thereabouts as a proposal goes forward. Sebastien is now suggesting that they are in some form of ranked order. His rationale, if I understand it correctly is that of course in an ideal world, it should be ALAC's job to put forward whoever they feel is best equipped to represent them in whatever role it is that we're off to have representative status in.
Coming back to Tijani's points though, I think it's very important to recognize that at the moment we are only sure of one position in a review team of eight members. I understand what Sebastien has said that the GAC is trying to do. I'm also very aware that many of us, including the At-Large Advisory Committees responses to the AoC public comment period was that these review teams, and particularly the first one, is too small and needs to be better balanced, and lots of other things. But we can't be assured that we will get a reaction to those comments that will mean ALAC will get more than one seat. I hope we do and we need to continue to push for that, but it may very well be that we only have one seat.
So Tijani, I think what's important to understand is that it's always been the chairman of the board and chair of the Government Advisory Committee or their nominees who will be making the selection. What they've asked us to do is go through some form of endorsement process so that they will only consider those candidates who are endorsed; in whatever method each advisory committee or support organization chooses to do that endorsement in. So we do have fairly definite guidelines that we have to work in. If we were able to build a better model, I'm sure we could do it. I'm absolutely positive we would have built a better model if we had been involved.
Just looking now at the traffic in the chat space, we do have some support for a ranked set but I also note Tijani would like to reply. So go ahead, Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: (Interpreted) Tijani speaking. I believe that maybe it wasn't completely understood. What I'm trying to say is that the selection would not be – will be ALAC and we – there should be – it's ALAC who chooses, we understand that. Because from what Cheryl has said, maybe you thought that I was contesting –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah, I did.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: – but that's not true. I'm accepting the choice that ALAC will make. And I'm in agreement with that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you for that clarification.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Can we move to the next question then, please Alan?
Alan Greenberg: I think so. I think we have already addressed that effectively. The next question was assuming we pick "N" numbers, and the "N" seems to be somewhere floating around three, it may be altered if we know prior to the selection how many candidates we have, we may choose to give just that many and not give them any flexibility whatsoever. Or we may give them a little bit more. I think we're going to have to be flexible on that and not tie anyone in.
The next question is do we prioritize? I would suggest strongly that we do prioritize the candidates we submit, but recognize that if we submit three prioritized, and they only select one of them or two of them, we will have ultimately no control over which they select. They are not going to be bound to select our first ones.
Unidentified Participant: That's true.
Alan Greenberg: But I would nevertheless suggest not only prioritization but strong prioritization. And if they want to defy us and select the other person –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: – we'll have to note that and work with it.
Alan Greenberg: – they need to do that very consciously.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Unidentified Participant: Yes, and we will go on the record against that.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. I'll point out we're an hour into the meeting and we've only addressed the easy three of the nine questions. So I think we need to go a little faster.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Which is why I'd like to move onto the next one please.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, are we happy with prioritize yes? Okay. Next one is criteria. We have talked about that a fair amount. The items that were listed in the questions were do they need prior knowledge of ICANN, of At-Large? Do they need to be involved in At-Large? We also asked – we've been talking about the issue of do we need – not only do we need, do we want to consider regional disparity, gender, and the various other types of issues?
I would suggest that knowledge of ICANN is essential. Having someone who is theoretically good at assessing people, we have a lot of experience of that in ICANN. We have all these external reviews that we do where we bring people in from the outside to assess things. In almost all cases, we take many of the conclusions that they draw and throw them away. The internal groups that look at the external reviews almost always make very, very substantive changes and almost always identify some very, very important areas that the external review group completely misunderstood. If we look at this size of the board issue in the last review, that's a good example.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Classic example.
Alan Greenberg: In this case, however the output of this review committee is not going to be subject to some internal committee to look at and decide which to pick and choose which to implement. Anything this review committee says the board is obliged to implement. So taking people from the outside, as elegant as that sounds, I think is a rather dangerous thing. I think we need people who are intimately involved with ICANN. They'll all have different opinions, but I don't think this can be a learning experience for them. So I think we need people who are involved in ICANN, I believe we need people who either are moderately or heavily involved in At-Large or can at least demonstrate to us why they can understand At-Large and relate to us even if they haven't been active, but the ability to relate to us to represent us I think is exceedingly important.
I would honestly put the various regional and other issues, diversity issues aside unless we finally come to marvelous candidates and have to pick among them. And then maybe the diversity issues kick in. But I would think that we want someone who is going to talk to this committee to represent our views and I think we have strong ones on accountability and transparency, and we need to make sure they're heard in this group.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Over to you, Adam.
Alan Greenberg: Adam, are you on mute?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Adam, star seven to unmute.
Adam Peak: I thought I did star seven, but I heard a mute off. But anyway, here's a second one. Hello again. The – talking about – Alan, I think you've presented this in a way that's not going to be quite – as we'll see. The external reviews that we've – you referenced of course we're outsiders. And they were entirely outsiders. We know that the review committee cannot be entirely outsiders because we're at least going to have the chairman of the board and the chairman of the GAC, or their representatives, on there. So we're going to have knowledge within this community of ICANN.
What we're not sure at the moment, if we're going to actually have knowledge in this committee of good governance mechanisms, of experience, of corporate good governance, of other types of governance. And also people who are simply not ICANN insiders. And I don't know if this is the right time to talk about this, but I sent a reply to your email to the ALAC list about when you sent your question. And I really think it's important that this committee has to be credible and the only way we're going to have the credible in the eyes of the outside world, and I'd include the US government in this, is if it is not a group of insiders.
If it's insiders, it's going to look like the typical review process that goes on in the bylaws and people are just not going to think it's the type of oversight that this is – this committee in particular is really about. The committee we're talking about is the external review that's been – sorry, the external oversight of ICANN that's been argued about since ICANN was created. And we really – if we present a committee of people who are just the usual ICANN insiders, it's going to be treated I think just as inappropriate by those that really matter. By that I'd say people at US government, people attending the ITU (inaudible), a lot of the people in the – a lot of people who aren't ICANN insiders basically. So I think we're going to have to have a balance. That's my – that would be my argument in this particular area.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Adam. Whether or not it's the ALAC's job with its one opportunity to put an AC endorsed candidate to represent it on such a group to take all of that into account is another debate altogether.
Adam Peak: Well I did suggest that we actually make reference to that and yes, we would probably make a selection that would be a person who is knowledgeable, but not to the extent that I think Alan is arguing. Is knowledgeable of ICANN and the ALAC and also has some of those other skills. But actually we get together with the other supporting organizations and advisory councils and try to find people with these external skills and knowledge.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But the system we are given has –
Adam Peak: We can still argue against it, and people are doing. We can still make suggestions to improve it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Actually Adam, I'm very aware that people are arguing against it because as you will have seen from (inaudible).
French Interpreter: Cheryl, could you just pick that – Cheryl. I'm sorry. Trisha here. Could you just pick that up? There was a – it wasn't too clear. Just that last – your last statement.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I said I'm very aware that people are arguing against it because the ALAC has done so and as you should be aware, Adam, we – the chairs of the CCNSO, the ALAC, and the GNSO all wrote to the chairman of the board, the CEO, and the chairman of (inaudible) outlining a whole lot of reasons why we thought this process was highly faulted and needed some serious review and we look forward to having an opportunity in Nairobi to discuss it with the community. We've just not heard back yet. But we've still got to continue on finding a way to work within the guidelines we've been given.
Alan, I recognize you next.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, just in response to Adam, I understand the perceptions of those outside ICANN that everyone within ICANN is going to be a rah-rah supporter of this group. All of you have sat in meetings, at least I think you all have, where we've heard someone up at the stage telling us how great ICANN is doing in transparency and accountability. And some of us sitting in the audience have not agreed. I think this review team is going to have more than a few people who may be ICANN insiders but are not ICANN supporters of the current methodology. And I –
Adam Peak: Not my point at all.
Alan Greenberg: No, I understood your point.
Adam Peak: No, you don't because the point is that it's what – it's how the optics of this process look. We're talking basically about optics of replacing US government unilateral control with another body. And this body is the closest embodiment we have of that as an external review of ICANN processes. And those who've been arguing for the last 12 or whatever it is years, and we've had the IGF created largely out of this discussion, are not going to be satisfied with a group of ICANN insiders. And it's not necessarily that they will –
French Interpreter: I'm sorry – excuse me. Who will not be satisfied?
Alan Greenberg: The world.
Adam Peak: Those who – those the greater – the people who've been, I would suggest people around the ICU, people who've discussed around the IGF. And I would think also the US government would not be satisfied with something that is so internalized. And it's not really the matter of the individuals concerned, it's the process and if you like the optics of it that it should be seen to be broader than a simple group of insiders.
Alan Greenberg: Adam, my one response is I understand how it's going to be perceived and I did prefix it, but the AoC, which was signed by the Department of Commerce, said that the representatives committee will be representing, and I use that word carefully, the various advisory committees and SOs. And if necessary, there need to be other people on the committee to balance (inaudible), but that is our job that we were asked to do.
Adam Peak: That is exactly – it's because they recognize that these SOs and ACs are the stakeholders externally, that they – in the ICANN process itself, that they wrote it that way. They actually expect to have people knowledgeable and interested in ICANN.
Alan Greenberg: I'm not sure we can look at why they did it, but this is – those are the words they used.
Adam Peak: That's exactly how I interpret it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And I – just as – thank you, Carlton, just calling now for anyone else who wants to speak on this particular matter.
Sebastien Bachollet: I would like – Sebastien.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go ahead, Sebastien.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes, I understand the point made by Adam, but we are just – ALAC and At-Large is one seat in this committee. We will not serve the world. We need to have our voice in this committee and it's not our task to be sure that IQ will be happy with this AoC. We can be happy or not happy. I am not – we didn't have a voice to this AoC. It was a decision made by two, three, four people somewhere in Washington. And that was not a good way to make transparency and to talk about transparency. But today, what we are to do is to find the best people to put our voice, the voice of the end user – Internet end user in this process. And that's not to be sure that this guy or this woman will be able to talk about how to organize Internet governance in the world, but to be sure that this committee will work on – about the question on transparency. And that's already a big task. And just focus on that will be great. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you, Sebastien. Anyone else to speak to this particular point? If not, if we can move to the next issue.
Alan Greenberg: Do we have – can we record what the consensus is?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We can try.
Alan Greenberg: I think the consensus, with the exception of Adam is the original argument I put forward as modified is essentially what we're going to go ahead with. Am I reading that incorrectly anyone?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Put up big red crosses if you disagree.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay? So to the next.
Alan Greenberg: I'm just trying to find it. Okay, given the timeframe, to what extent can the entire ALAC community, the ALSs, the RALOs, and even the ALAC meaningfully participate? Now this question was presupposed on the fact that we had to make a decision in the next day or two. I believe the extension of several weeks gives us a lot more flexibility than we did at the – in the past. And I am proposing that – and I seem to have gotten my numbers wrong on my answers here. I'm a little bit confused. Just give me a second.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You were talking about a ranked ordering in an STV vote by ALAC in consultation with the RALOs and ALSs by March 10th.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, okay. Somehow I got those numbers confused. If we have to come up with it, we don't know exactly when the deadline date is, but we believe it's going to be somewhere in the area of March 13th that we have to submit our endorsements. Essentially at the end of Nairobi or perhaps the middle of travel back from Nairobi.
I would then suggest that we have no choice really but to make our final decision by the 12th, the Friday, in Nairobi. Which means whoever we delegate – either we do this is a – completely mechanized method, that is we have some sort of STV voting of all ALAC members or ALAC members in RALOs, or something. And whatever numbers pop out of the equation, that's what we present.
I would suggest that taking the human element out of that is a bad decision. And that ultimately we want a group of people to make the decision on who we put forward, not an automated voting process. If the group agrees with that, then I think we need some direction from the RALOs and from the ALAC in general. And I was suggesting an STV vote. And that the top end candidates in that then be looked at by a small group of people that we put together, and I would suggest one per region to make the final decision.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Comments and reactions to that please? Anyone in the French channel? Hawa or Tijani?
French Interpreter: Yes, please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Trisha. Go ahead.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: (Interpreted) That would be only five people if it's by region. So could a group of five person would be sufficient. Maybe perhaps by region would be good so that we would have maybe a group – a slightly larger group in order to be able to make a better decision. What do you think? Is his question.
Alan Greenberg: I was suggesting five people. One per region is what I was suggesting. Is that acceptable?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We also have –
French Interpreter: Oh, Cheryl, excuse me. Hold on. Tijani, (spoken in French). (Interpreted) Okay, what Tijani is saying, I know that you have suggested five people. That is one person per region. But my response is maybe – I'm not bothered by that, but maybe I would prefer two people per region so that we have 10 people to have more – the larger the group the better the possibility of choices, just my feeling, if we had two per region. And your response to that?
Alan Greenberg: My response is this is going to have to be done probably late at night in Nairobi, or for some period of time in the last day or so. It's going to be hard enough to get five people together to do this To get 10 people together I'm sure is going to be virtually impossible either because people have left already or we'll end up with an unequal number of people per region and people will claim it's unfair for that reason. So that is why I was suggesting one per. Trying to get anymore together in that timeframe for what may be a very intense amount of work, I think is unrealistic. But that's my opinion.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I recognize Sebastien, but I would like to ask if the Spanish channel if anyone in Spanish channel – if Carlos wishes to make any comment at this point in time on this matter?
Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, just one very quick comment. What the GNSO is doing is they are having a – I think a group of one person per stakeholder group plus one or two others do it. And then holding a special GNSO meeting the following week to ratify the decision. That may be something we want to consider.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, indeed.
Carlos Aguirre: This is Armando Flores, Spanish interpreter. (Interpreted) Carlos says that he agrees with the option of one person per region. That would be fair.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Carlos. Okay, Sebastien? The floor is yours.
Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you. I just to say maybe we don't need to reinvent the wheel. We already have ALAC with 15 people and we have a group of five people leading the – trying to help the work of the ALAC. That the so-called ExCom then maybe could be one of those two groups taking care of this issue and having the work done. Because there will be – the ExCom will be the last people to leave Nairobi from the At-Large at this working – the last one working in Nairobi. Then the –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: I think that's certainly an option, but if a RALO really wants to select someone else, I think they need to have the ability.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I did have my hand up earlier and I took it down, but I'm going to take the opportunity now. I may think – I would like to think that if we have this finalization happening in the Nairobi meeting space, that it would be a possibility for us to involve the ALAC as a whole. That perhaps might be idealistic and unachievable as Alan outlined there were some issues where people may have left, et cetera. But I would like to consider that this is something that needs to be finalized by the ALAC as a whole. If for logistical reasons it cannot be the case during the Nairobi meeting to do that, then I would certainly be pushing to have it as an endorsement of outcome process, such as the GNSO is doing.
Anyone else wishing to speak to this matter?
Alan Greenberg: No, I mean – it's Alan. I could certainly support that, I’m just worried that the time will slip by and we will not have had time for a communal discussion with all parties. And that we need to make sure that we come up with answers.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well I think like we're sacrificing the totality of our usually very, very busy and very important pre face-to-face meeting for this discussion, we will just have to make it work in Nairobi as well. And this is another one of the reasons that I am infuriated with the appalling mechanism that this, and I'll quote it again, dog's breakfast of a process has been thrust upon us. It is the most farcical thing when we have an accountability and transparency review team being conducted and selected in a most unaccountable and non-transparent way. It's just ridiculous. However that's not the last time I'm going to say it, I'm sure.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. So I think what we're saying is we will defer until the beginning of the Nairobi meeting to finalize the exact way that we'll do the selection, but we will do it at the beginning.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But we will do something there. Yes.
Alan Greenberg: We will do it at the beginning of the Nairobi meeting to decide exactly what we do.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, that one is then decided then. The next one is to what extent do we require ALAC specific information? And in the draft document that was sent out, if I can find it somewhere in my screen.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There is a link on the Wiki page if you –
Alan Greenberg: Sorry. I thought it was in the agenda part and it's not. Can someone read out the two things that we said? Does anyone have access to it?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just one moment. The – it's taking me off the world of Google Docs now. No. I've pulled up the wrong link, sorry.
Alan Greenberg: I believe the questions were – we want a statement from each candidate why they believe that they are in a position to represent the ICANN At-Large community on this review team and why they believe they are in a position to represent the global Internet users on this review team. Or something pretty close to that. In other words, why should we endorse them, believing that they will represent us, the At-Large community, and will represent the interests of users around the world, which is a larger community than the capitalized At-Large community.
I believe very strongly we need to ask those questions. This is again one of those parts of the process that if we had been involved it would have been part of the core requirements, but it wasn't. The GNSO was asking similar sort of questions. Their process is once a candidate is identified that has applied, they explicitly ask those questions and get the answers. And I believe we need to do the same thing. That is a decision we must make today however.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well let's very briefly, and I'm sorry to press the time, but you do recognize that we have spent the whole of this call on this. And I already shortcut our normal reporting anyway. And we do have a number of other things that people need to do. I note that we've lost Carlton, we're about to lose Vivek and I need to check that we are still in quorum. Yes, we are. But we also have a couple of other agenda items, so if we can have a discussion and decision on that now please. I'll open the floor.
Alan Greenberg: Or is there any objection to what was proposed?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, it sounds to me by the relative silence – I'll just check with French and Spanish channels.
Alan Greenberg: We'll go back to it if they come up with any. It looks at this point that we have no disagreement.
Okay, the next question is to what extent at this late date do we issue a further call for applications? Again, this was in the context of an earlier deadline. The information that was already sent out to the ALAC list explicitly told RALOs that if they choose they should further send out a call within their RALOs. I'm assuming that any RALO that wanted to do it already has and this question has already been addressed. Is there any objection to that? If it hasn't been addressed, it certainly can be by any particular RALO. And of course ICANN has widely distributed the overall call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, because we've got people we've never heard of.
Alan Greenberg: That we've never heard of applying, right. Okay. Question number eight was do we wish our endorse but not accepted candidates to be held over for future reviews? The ICANN proposal is that any candidates that are endorsed, but not used in this review team will be included in the candidate pool for future review teams. Given that the two – that the future reviews are on Internet security and stability, consumer confidence in gTLDs, and – what is the fourth one? My mind is slipping.
Sebastien Bachollet: It's Whois.
Alan Greenberg: Whois issues. I think these are very different reviews. I think they are going to need very different skill sets and different knowledge bases. And I would like to explicitly say – and give that we're doing this in a very much of a rush, I would like to explicitly say that candidates are not to be held over by the board chairs for use in further reviews. We may choose to endorse the same people again for a further review, but I think we need to think of that in the calmness of time and not try to do it in a rushed way right now. And I would like to explicitly request that candidates that are endorsed but not used not be held over.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Does anyone object to that? I see a couple of green ticks. Tijani is agreeing and Patrick is agreeing. And I see others as well.
Alan Greenberg: My God, I have never seen as many green ticks in our life.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, well I have, but not in the ALAC meetings. I whole-heartedly endorse that. I think what we need for Whois or a security and stability representative in a review team is entirely different from what we need in this. So that's a big tick for me as well.
Alan Greenberg: All right. We have consensus on that one. The last one, which probably will be slightly more controversial. The committee membership for the GAC and the board are identified in the AoC as the chair of the respective body or their delegate. That courtesy was not given to the ACs and SOs. And I believe we need the ability to do that.
One of the problems is that as pointed out, although this person is called a representative, if one looks at the dictionary definition that is someone who is selected to speak on your behalf. And we know in this case is may be, or may not be, we don't know the details, may be someone who is going to speak on our behalf without the ability to consult us on a point-by-point issue. Anyone we select here is not answerable to us in any way. If we choose to say we want our representative, or one of our representatives to be the chair of the ALAC, or the – or someone appointed by the chair, that person is now answerable to the community.
That doesn't say we're talking about Cheryl. We're talking about the position of chair, which might be different than in a different point in time. And I think it's a courtesy, which should have been extended to this group just as it was to the board and the GAC. And I would suggest that we endorse the concept of one of the applicants, one of the participants in the review be the unnamed chair of the ALAC, or their representative.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Now I recognize Dave. In fact I recognized Dave about five times. Once I've given you the microphone, it means that you are in the queue. And where you are in hierarchy in closeness to the top of the queue is where you are in order. So go ahead, Dave.
Dave Kissoondoyal: Yes, sorry Cheryl. I was just clearing my speakers, but it just did that I'm asking for the mic. But in fact, I was just trying to clear my speakers.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, well I'll take the mic away from you. I'll give it to Adam and then Vanda.
Adam Peak: Hi. Adam. Yes, hello. Am I off the mute?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We're hearing you.
Adam Peak: Excellent, thank you. I think I was too quick last time when I got put back on mute before I could come in – whatever. No surprise, given my view that this should not be a committee of insiders, that one could not get more insider than a bunch of chairs, SOs, and ACs. And I think as a matter of principle that is why I would object to this. I think it would be the wrong message to have the chairs on. I really don't understand the argument that accountability, if we appoint somebody and say you are accountable to us they are accountable to us. If the rules are against it then communicating with us, it doesn't matter whether there's a chair or not. So I think those are just pretty much (inaudible) arguments, quite honestly.
As a practical matter, I have heard that the CCNSO is suggesting that perhaps they would – their chair would be willing to serve and there are even rumors that the GNSO chair having said that he may – wouldn't be willing to serve now, he's willing to serve. There's a practical matter here that if we have the – sorry, if we had the chair of the board, the chair of the CCNSO, and the chair of ALAC out there currently constituted as members we would have two Australians and a New Zealander, and that is not regionally diverse, although gender is helped marginally. But I don't mean that you're a margin woman. Good God. (Inaudible) I'm thinking now. I mean that you are one of –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (Inaudible) I would suggest you retract on that very fast.
Adam Peak: You are one out of – but you are only one of four.
Alan Greenberg: I would guess delegates would be used in a least some of those cases however.
Adam Peak: So yes, I think they could be, but I think it's the master principle that matters.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And I'm also not sure, Adam, whether we should be second-guessing what other ACs and SOs will do. (Inaudible)
Adam Peak: No, but I think we might – but if we make the general –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (Inaudible) adjusting ourselves. We need to do what's best for us.
Adam Peak: Yes, I think that's right, but I think as we – as a matter of what it is, it's a matter of principle that it's – it shouldn't, as far as I'm concerned, be a committee of insiders. And I don't really understand how the chair is any more accountable or less accountable than anybody else. They're a representative who will be governed by the rules of the committee, whether they're Chatham House or whether they're – whatever they may be. So it doesn't work for me.
And then there is this practical matter that if we suggest our chair, then perhaps that would become the precedent brothers and so on. But the main thing is is the principle. Which we have already – which people have already – yes.
French Interpreter: All right. Who's speaking now?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That was Adam.
Adam Peak: And I have finished.
French Interpreter: Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Vanda, I saw you raise your hand earlier on.
Vanda Scartezini: Hello?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, Vanda.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, you're here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We hear you now.
Vanda Scartezini: Okay. Well I believe that the issue here is mostly not the roles of the committee. The committee is whatever the committee will decide; the GAC will never follow because anyone in the GAC truly represents the order. So I do believe they will get a lot of people to sit around. As I remember when we put the board in GAC committee it was one member of the board in the whole GAC.
So once you are going to have that, it's not about the rules and that's about the knowledge of who will be representative. Representativeness (ph) is something that we vote and we believe that people will represent us in any kind of condition and any (inaudible).
So we have voted on our chair. Once we have that – we did that, in my point chair should be one of the persons sitting there. And the order probably people with different knowledge from different maybe cultural areas. But I do believe we need to push to have more than one seat over there, because it's not completely decided about that. And the ones we have the GAC with certainly a lot of people sitting there. We need to have also more than one people sitting there.
So in any case, I would like to have the share that's already voted by us in that hierarchical decision because it was voted by the RALOs to elect the representative of RALOs in the ALAC. And then in the ALAC, we select the chair. So the whole process was done. Why not use that? I believe we should do because people that already elected the chair is the same ones that we would elect others in the same hierarchic position.
So I do believe this is our most very important group because it's the first one. We don't know how many, that there will be allowed because the AoC has a list of issues to accomplish. So we need to have in the first movement that we are making, this circle be most of the people with a huge knowledge and (inaudible) voted by everybody. We don't know in this situation in Nairobi, who will be really there. I don't know. People can in the last minutes cannot be there. James just said that.
So in the end, the elected people we will represent less people than we should have representing us. That's my point. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Vanda.
French Interpreter: Cheryl, could you just summarize that a bit? It was very hard to hear her.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Certainly, Trisha. Basically Vanda was arguing that because we have a regional – ALSs choose in their regional structure who to send to the ALAC and that's an electoral process, and it's a due process, and it's a transparent process. And then that the – within the ALAC, the ALAC elects a chair that a seat, not the only seat that we should argue strongly for a more than one seat amount this review team table, but that one of those seats should be occupied by the chair of the AC.
Alan, the floor is yours.
Alan Greenberg: This whole question would be an awful lot easier if per chance we knew that there were going to be two people instead of one. We might – I would like to see coming out of this the affirmation that we could ask our current chair, on behalf of all chairs of the ALAC to submit an application to this process. We don't know if it'll be received or not, but I would suggest that we have the option of endorsing our chair in the discussions in Nairobi and that means the application must be submitted prior to the 7th. Is there agreement that we go that far? That doesn't say that candidate will be endorsed or that the selectors will take them.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Nope, that's right.
Alan Greenberg: But I would suggest we have the paperwork done so we have that option.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Is there any objections that? Because then I have something to say as the person currently occupying that place. Go ahead, Adam.
Adam Peak: Sorry, (inaudible) muting off. Yes, I wouldn't support that and I would object to it. I think it's the wrong path to go down. And as I said before. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's fine. I saw Sebastien. Sebastien, did you want to speak before I respond?
Sebastien Bachollet: No, I don't know why I am still – no, sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Might be some sort of latency thing. It's in response to Alan's question, and Adam I recognize what you're saying. And I was going to bring this up earlier when you were beginning to discuss this area. Sorry, Adam have you still got your hand up? Did you wish to speak again, Adam?
Adam Peak: I'm trying to take down something and it came up with something else.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, fine. Thank you. At the Asia Pacific At-Large Organizational meeting earlier today, or actually late yesterday now, it was in fact a resolution that the representative of the Asia Pacific Regional At-Large Organization who is currently occupying the chair position in the ALAC, i.e. me, has been asked and to put in an application and is endorsed by APRALO. So I will be putting in an application because that is what the region has asked me to do. The question is, Alan, whether or not that should go not so much we simply note the regional support, but that it goes in, which is certainly more in my comfort zone, in the name of the role I play and not as an individual. So what it's trying to do is secure –
French Interpreter: I'm sorry; Cheryl It should go in in the name of who?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Of the role I play. It has to be a personal and motivational letter from me obviously, but it is to have them consider that the chair, whoever that may be, of the ALAC or their delegate, has a place on this review team.
Alan Greenberg: In other words, if you put in such an application, and you resign tomorrow, the application applies to whoever takes your place.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely. I would be more comfortable, or quite comfortable with doing that.
Alan Greenberg: That is what I was suggesting originally.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, but that was before you or anyone else who wasn't on the APRALO call knew that I now have been instructed and have an endorsement from the region. Regardless of the ALAC outcomes tonight.
Alan Greenberg: Yes. I will point out that even if you submit such an application, the ALAC or group –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: – may not endorse and indeed it may not be selected. And I don't have a problem with that at all.
Alan Greenberg: May not even pass it on, yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely.
French Interpreter: You were both talking at once. Could you just repeat that?
Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, you can do it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, I was actually going to say Alan, you can do it.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. We were just pointing out that the process is going to be a – the ALAC or some subset of it makes a recommendation of who to endorse. And that will happen in Nairobi, even if the chair submits an application, we may not endorse it. We may all agree with Adam that this would be a bad sign, but putting in the application allows us to endorse it if we decide to because the deadline is beginning of the Nairobi meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Now we are 15 minutes past the closing time for our meeting. I am willing to ask – we ask through a quorate, which is a rare and wonderful thing at this time of day. I would like to wrap this up as we are towards the end of it. I see Adam has raised his hand, so when I give him the microphone I'll ask him to not dig over old skeletons so much, but to make any new points. And I'd like to wrap this up and look at one or two other items if indeed we have now – now hang on. I've people messaging me telling me that we're seven not eight. I thought if we had Carlos in Spanish and Hawa in French that we were eight.
Spanish Interpreter: This is Armando Flores, the Spanish interpreter. Carlos just left a few seconds ago.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If Carlos has left, then we are seven. Thank you. Okay well we're not quorate then.
Alan Greenberg: But we have finished this particular item. I don't know what other ones we have.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, just a few basic important things like the ABSC candidate endorsement, ALAC improvements, which Seth has been sitting through the whole of tonight's exercise to discuss with us. And the next step for the ABSCT. I'm happy to move the final At-Large meeting schedule for Nairobi through to the work of the Executive Committee because I think that's fair and reasonable to do so. But I would like to have addressed at least the ABSC candidates. But if we're no longer quorate, that's not going to be possible.
Alan Greenberg: Can we read out for the minutes who the candidates are?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, just one moment. I don't think we've actually completed. Adam, did you want a word on the –
Alan Greenberg: I don’t' see Adam's hand up.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, well he had it there before. Either that or something funny's happening.
Alan Greenberg: Matthias has his hand up though.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, I see Matthias. Go ahead.
Matthias Langenegger: Thanks, Cheryl. I was just wondering.
French Interpreter: Who's speaking please?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Matthias.
French Interpreter: Thank you.
Matthias Langenegger: I was wondering whether Sebastien is still on the call because I see a French number, but I wasn't sure it was him.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes, I am.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (Inaudible)
Matthias Langenegger: You're on the call. Because then we are still quorate. Then we'll still seven and if you want me to, I can repeat the names.
French Interpreter: We have Hawa on the call now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. We have Hawa. Can you do a roll call please? Thank you.
Matthias Langenegger: Sure. We have Hawa, we have Dave, we have Adam, we have Sebastien. We have Cheryl, Garreth, Alan – sorry, the page is not moving – and James. I count eight.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So we are quorate, because I would very much like to move to other items. Adam, did you – you did have your hand up before. Is that correct? I guess he'll yell at me if he did.
Adam Peak: I'm sorry. My hand was up but it was off the screen. There's a windowing problem with Adobe's thingie. And when my – when I have a tick off I didn't see that the hand was up. It shouldn't have been up. I put it in the chat.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Adam Peak: Apologies.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, I just wanted to give you as a dissenting voice; you need to be assured that your voice is properly heard.
Adam Peak: Well, I suppose the only – it's only to repeat what I said, and you said don't do that because we don't have time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, that's fine. If you're going to repeat, yes I'll cut you off. So rather than me be rude to you, I'll encourage you to keep your hand down. Thank you.
Adam Peak: Yes, there is – I think that it's – yes, I disagree with the part about when you stop being – forget it. Carry on with the meeting and let's get on with it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We will. Thank you, Adam.
Adam Peak: Enjoy.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I'm far from enjoying it, to be honest. Evan, go ahead.
Evan Leibovitch: Hello, everybody. I guess what I –
French Interpreter: Who is speaking please?
Alan Greenberg: Evan Leibovitch.
Evan Leibovitch: Yes, this is the first time I have spoken in this call.
French Interpreter: I'm sorry. I didn't get the name.
Evan Leibovitch: The spelling is in the Adobe chat room, or I guess it could be supplied later. My name is Evan.
French Interpreter: Evan. Oh thank you, Evan.
Alan Greenberg: The one with the microphone.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go ahead, Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. I guess I'm just here – I had a specific thing that I was going to talk about. I was actually going to advocate for a short delay and not actually approving the ABSC people here. It looks like the timing of the meeting may lead to that anyway. I will take my arguments as to why to do that into email as to not take up more time here. If there's other things to do in this meeting, that's great. But I would ask this group to defer some of the ABSC issues for reasons I'll explain in email.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Actually Evan, I think it'd be useful for you to give us some idea now because of the fact that we've got these French and Spanish interpretation going to the record. So if you can, just give a brief pro se.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. Essentially I want to make the point in earlier conversation with Matthias it was indicated to me that two of the people being put forward for the ABSC are actually ALAC members. I want to make the point that this is extremely bad optics and I would like to give some time to try and reconsider that so that the ABSC is totally populated with people who are not going to be voters for the position. I can give a very long explanation of why not, but that's essentially the short version of it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So you're referring to Adam from EURALO and Mohammed from AFRALO. Correct?
Evan Leibovitch: I didn't even know individual names. I just knew that they were ALAC members and who it is actually is less relevant than the optics of having ALAC people on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well I just want to make sure that it is based on fact. And looking at the facts, we have a list of the following names: Yaovi Atohoun, Mohamed El Bashir, Hong Xue, Raj Nishing (ph), Veronica Cretu, Adam Peak, Jacqueline Morris, James Corbin, Miles Braceway (ph). And you've got three actually from NAROLO. You can only have two. Danny Younger, and Jolley McFee (ph).
Evan Leibovitch: But we haven't confirmed with Danny, so I would put forth Jolley's name.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so the two that can only be identified as members of the ALAC are Mohammad El Bashir and Adam Peak.
Evan Leibovitch: And I was going to put forward to ask for a small delay in approving the entire slate while I had the chance to explain why it's extremely bad optics to have people who are in the voting for the board member to be part of this committee.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Something that each of the regions really ought to have thought of and there may be very good arguments that they've gone through that we're not aware of. So yes, let's take that onto email and I'll extend that, but not for very long because we have to get the process to the next step. So we have to put our call for SOIs out and I really would have preferred to have an established ABSC at least beginning to work through its practical processes and principles when that is done. Yes, the ADSDT, the design could do it, but I certainly would not want to see this go the other side of Nairobi. It would have to be dealt with early in our Nairobi meeting.
Evan Leibovitch: Well as a matter of fact, perhaps as a way to deal with this, I would ask perhaps that the entire slate presented except for those two people be approved in this meeting and perhaps take it back to the regions with the suggestion to reconsider. I can present my arguments and if having made the arguments, if they still want to put forward those people, then so be it. I simply would like to state the case why they may want to consider. But I won't lose sleep if they decide to send the same people back.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So you just want the opportunity for the arguments to be heard because as I say I may or may not be correct that it's quite possible that the regions have gone through this in some detail as well. I see a number of people. I see Adam, I see Alan, I see Sebastien. I also see time slipping away, so on the grounds that I am going to be suggesting a five-day discussion and then a decision when we first get together in Nairobi, I will ask the speakers to this matter to be short and realize that there will be online opportunity for full and frank debate.
Adam, then Alan, then Sebastien. Thank you, Evan. Adam, go ahead.
Adam Peak: Hi, it's a bit of a question for Evan really. I suppose the first thing is you know that a lot of the votes will be directed, so it doesn't particularly matter in that sense. But I do take your point and there's something I want to ask you and that is that you were very much involved in setting up the sort of procedures for this. In your discussions about how all of this should work, I believe the committee discussed the anomaly that it is the ICANN nominating committee that selects the board members, et cetera, which is really a selection committee. And was that a problem? Was that something that you particularly thought was a problem in your discussion? Because it sounds to be that what you're saying is that you do not want to duplicate the ICANN nominating committee role, which is actually a selection committee in the fact that I would be making the recommendations and then voting later, much the same as I would be if I was a nominating committee member, I would be selecting candidates and then voting on them. If that's clear. Is that what you're kind of saying? And then I might want to respond if that's okay.
Evan Leibovitch: Cheryl, how do you want to proceed? I know you want to keep it tight.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Very briefly, please.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, very quick answer is yes, Adam, the intention behind even having the ADSC is to have a separate chamber that would have the people picking the candidates different from the people voting on the candidates. That was deliberate and it especially is intended to deal with arguments that complain about our process because it's all a closed club with the same people making all the decisions. This was an intention – a deliberate intent to broaden the field to people who would be involved in the process and to minimize, and I would hope eliminate that kind of cross pollination that has been the source of some very legitimate complaint.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Adam, do you need a right to reply?
Adam Peak: Yes, in that case that's what I was thinking when you mentioned this, Evan, and in that case I would withdraw my name from being a candidate for that particular committee because I think you're probably right.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So noted. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Three comments. First of all, just on semantics, the name of the ICANN nominating committee is in fact accurate, based on one of the definitions of nominating. So it's not the one we normally think of, but it is an accurate one.
Number two, it's unfortunate that this rule wasn't suggested when we wrote the rules and is just being added at this very, very late date. And lastly, there's an implication in this that if we do not approve these people today, there will really be no opportunity for the ABSC people to contribute substantively to the statement of interest creation or the external reference one because that really does have to be done sooner rather than later. That's it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you. And I hark back to no more than five days discussion and then we have to make the decision. Sebastien, go ahead.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes, if we are on principle, I would like very much that each region send a man and a woman in the slate of participant in this committee. But to come back to the – Evan's position, I just want to explain why we, as EURALO put the name of Adam in this group, is that in the process it was required to have people knowing the process of the non-com. And we have no better candidate than Adam for that. And there's a lot less – last, sorry – last point I want to make is that we try also not to stay with people who are within any group. There in the case is an example. And Adam is coming from the non-coms. And we tried to be quite open and I am not sure that the fact that he will be participating with this election and then he will vote – it's an impediment. But that's the reasoning we were working on at the EURALO level. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you. And I'm sorely tempted to drop it to three days discussion and a decision by five. Go ahead, Tijani. You might be on mute. Star seven. Thank you, Trisha.
French Interpreter: Sorry. Did you want Tijani?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, thank you.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay, thank you. (Interpreted) Tijani is saying yes, I think we could very easily replace Mohamed. It's not difficult to do says Tijani. And I think that Evan's point is very well taken. I agree.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent.
French Interpreter: That's it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you. Evan, based on the fact that you don't seem to be getting rampant disagreement, but in fact Adam has now withdrawn, so EURALO will have to come up with another name, and Tijani believes Mohamed can be replaced and will be discussing it with AFRALO, I would like to think that we will have your online discussion and a full and frank debate on this matter in the At-Large working list where regional leaders and the ALAC can see what's going on and agree. And that we look forward to a resolution sometime in the next let's say 72 hours, where that list of candidates, that current list of candidates with Mr. Younger's name removed, be endorsed or altered and then I will call a – some form of mechanism for the (inaudible) to endorse it.
Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, just to – Evan, in your email can you clarify whether you're objecting to ALAC people on it or one of the 20 voters on it. Because the chairs are also voters.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's very (inaudible).
Evan Leibovitch: My point is –
Alan Greenberg: Not debatable. Just make sure it's clear in the email.
Evan Leibovitch: Right. And as I just said in Adobe, I'm not asking for a rule change. I'm just saying that this is something that should be reconsidered for the optics. If a region wants to reconsider and still send ALAC members, so be it, but I think it's bad optics.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, that's fine. And we're giving time to have the opportunity for focus, refocus, and review. Okay. We're going to skip over ABSdt next steps, although that committee has just had its meeting earlier –
French Interpreter: Sorry, which committee had its meeting? Sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: A for apple, B for berry, S for Sammy, lower case d and t. And what I would ask is that the link to that workspace is looked at by everyone here for the report and you will be aware when you look at that over the next few days that there is much activity going to be going on in terms of the process and practices for the ABSC and a number of other important activities that all of the ALAC needs to be aware of as well as the regional leads.
Moving the item 10 final At-Large meeting schedule through to the executive, I'd like to give a very few brief moments to Seth to tell us how he's going to make all the magic happen. And if I may, Sebastien, could you chair just for this next couple of minutes while I'm away from my screen? I won't be able to see if hands are up.
Sebastien Bachollet: Okay, no problem.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Over to you, Seth.
Seth Green: Yes. Thank you, Cheryl. I'm having a little trouble with my speakerphone here. I'm sorry, Cheryl specifically you wanted me to – or Sebastien, Cheryl wanted me specifically to address what?
Sebastien Bachollet: To address how you were willing to work on that and how you will exchange with the group. Just to tell us what is your –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ALAC improvements.
Seth Green: Yes.
Sebastien Bachollet: On the subject, what you will do. What is your intention to do?
Seth Green: Well, the – I think as Heidi and I have discussed it, the first thing we're going to do is actually get on the phone with Cheryl possibly later today, although if that's too painful for her, certainly tomorrow or whenever it's convenient, and divide the current tasks up into action items, obviously. Starting – it looks like starting with the by law section. Heidi, is that probably the best and kind of the most convenient place to start? I'm sorry, Heidi?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: She might be on mute. Star seven, Heidi.
Seth Green: Well that is – that's what we've been discussed, but I think importantly the next stage is that Heidi was going to get in touch with you, Cheryl, and we're looking for a next step call with you. Would that be convenient today? Or do you think you'd prefer it later in the week? Tomorrow perhaps?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Depends how late in my today you're referring to. Gisela might be in a position to let you know where my diary is.
Seth Green: Sure. Yes. No I understand.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Evan Leibovitch: Sorry, this is Evan. I just saw a message from Heidi that she's been dropped off the call.
Sebastien Bachollet: She was dropped off. And something maybe you can tell us about the – how you are willing to work with the ALAC members and with the share of the RALOs. Okay, Heidi is back now.
Heidi Ulrich: Sorry everyone. Bad timing on my phone's part. Sorry, Seth.
Seth Green: I was just saying, Heidi, that you and I had been discussing that the next obvious step is to get Cheryl on a call at some hopefully not too late time for her and divide our – the tasks up into action items.
Heidi Ulrich: Actually – yes, we're going to be discussing the ALAC improvements next steps with Cheryl today or tomorrow at her convenience. We will also be developing a project plan – or the next steps briefing notes for use at the ALAC meeting with interested parties of the SIC and the BGC on Tuesday in Nairobi. The next steps for Seth will be the development of a project plan, including a budget for the ALAC improvements. There'll be an initial discussion on that with Kevin Wilson during the executive committee meeting in Nairobi on Friday. And then that will be brought to the At-Large community for discussion.
As was discussed in the December ALAC improvements conference call, the working groups will be used to allocate the various tasks of the ALAC improvement recommendations. So Seth will be working with the working groups as well as of course the At-Large community to initially allocate those tasks and then actually start the implementation of those tasks.
Seth Green: That sounds like what we discussed. Sure.
Heidi Ulrich: But I also would like to note that Seth has asked all the right questions to me as well as to Cheryl. And I’m sure that he will be asking the chairs of the working groups, as well as the members of the ALAC and the entire At-Large community these excellent questions as well as we move forward.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I'm afraid we probably haven't done justice to our 10 minutes of ALAC improvements and introduction to you, Seth. I do apologize. But you've joined, shall we say, at interesting times.
Seth Green: Yes, to say the least.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So I'm sure we're all looking forward to getting to know you more and to working with you in the future. And you'll get used to working in three languages with two (inaudible).
French Interpreter: Cheryl, there's something from the French coming in here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please, thank you. Go ahead, Trisha.
Hawa Diakite: (Interpreted) I'd like to speak – I’m going to stay online. I'm going online. If you need me I'll be online, says Hawa.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah, I think yes. Okay. Off line. Okay.
French Interpreter: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Hawa, and we are wrapping up now. I do however have one piece of any other business that I do not wish to have substantive discussion of. It is simply a matter – well, it's hardly simple – it's a very important matter that APRALO has asked me to raise with the ALAC today. And I will be assuming and trusting that we will be looking at it in greater detail when we meet in Nairobi. Go ahead, Adam.
Adam Peak: Sorry. It's a question about ALAC outreach in Nairobi and is there going to be a meeting where we can invite people – local people to? Is there information that we could pass out the mailing lists quite soon because it's getting quite close. There are quite a lot of active mailing lists where people might be interested in it and I'd like to try and get some information to them about any meeting that they should attend. Something that's more of a PR upfront outreach type of meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The first thing that comes immediately to my mind, Adam, is of course the AFRALO showcase. And of course the AFRALO is running a regional outreach. So I'm quite sure that the leadership of AFRALO would be very keen to work with you in bolstering and developing more involvement and activity in what they're doing.
Adam Peak: I mean well in that case it's simply a matter of time, date, very rough outline of what it will be and just we just welcome you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Can I – is Tijani still on the call?
French Interpreter: I just asked him.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you.
French Interpreter: He's still there, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. What I will ask you to do, Tijani, is to make sure that Adam gets a copy of the planning and also that he has your name as a contact point when he is passing anything on to some of these other lists. So if I might just leave those logistical issues to you to work directly with Adam, but also Heidi will make sure, Adam, that the details for the AFRALO showcase are in a nice little link space. She's put it into the chat here today. But certainly the local region is very, very busy and it would be delightful to have you feed a bit more information into them.
Okay, the piece of any other business that I would like to raise just for information. We're not quorate, we cannot take a decision, but we do certainly want to have it on our to-do list and to discuss in a fairly serious way, I would think, at Nairobi. If not, you may wish to have the Executive Committee pen something and discuss it in our follow-up meeting after this one.
We note in Asia Pacific and the IDN ccTLD Fast Tracks that have recently been released. We however are quite concerned and would like to inquire as to why the dot cn application has not been approved. We'd like to know from whomever it is appropriate within ICANN to tell us what impediments or otherwise are there? What state in the application approval process is the dot cn application for IDN Fast Track? And is there anything that as a community we may need to do here? I'm talking Asia Pacific Regional At-Large Organization, but they are asking the ALAC to do to find out what is going on and what the time cost is.
So with that noted, I'll ask for any other business from anyone else. Yes, Sebastien, go ahead.
Sebastien Bachollet: Just to support the request from APRALO and it's why we try to insert a time during the Nairobi meeting to discuss about IDNs in more general point of view. But one specific would the Fast Track ccTLD and how it's working. And I guess we learned today that Bangladesh will get one. I am not sure how it's done and how it's working. And we need to know about the process for the one who will get one and the one who will not get. And I am sure that At-Large needs this information. And Nairobi could be a good place for that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, and I do think it's one of those that we will need to have a number of side meetings on in Nairobi. So if we're all forewarned and forearmed, if the regional leaders who are still on this call and those who will be reviewing the transcripts and MP3s later, please ensure that you come with the local ALS individual and regional view on these sorts of things well prepared.
Is there any other business from anyone else? If not, I would like to thank each and every one of you, particularly those of you who've managed to stay to the hopefully not-too-bitter end, for quite a heroic but I think very productive meeting this evening. I do mourn, and I do mean that. I feel like I'm suffering through a grief situation that all the very important work that we've – we normally do immediately before our face-to-face meeting has not been done in this meeting tonight. And I do however think that we had the greater need and we were able to meet it as best we can. And we will do a little bit more tidying up on a few things, and follow those plans as discussed, and get the best possible outcome.
The other thing was with the final At-Large meeting schedule for Nairobi, if you can please all make sure that anybody who is traveling to Nairobi as a sponsored traveler for the ALAC or as a regional lead has looked at the wider Nairobi meeting schedule and has started to decide what are the meetings they would particularly like to go to, and represent us, and feed back as we have been doing for the last few meetings. So that's something that we won't be spending much time on designing when we get together, but rather you'd come and say I'm signing up for this, this, and this. And then we'll just make sure that we've got all our bases covered.
Alan Greenberg: And provide your arrival and departure times to me.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Vanda, I do apologize. A question about liaison report. Vanda? Go ahead. Any questions for Vanda?
Vanda Scartezini: Hello?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We can hear you, Vanda.
Vanda Scartezini: Okay. No it's I'm just asking if someone in the call has any questions about.
Sebastien Bachollet: You do a very great job, Vanda. Keep up. It's great.
Vanda Scartezini: No, I'm not looking for that, but there is a lot of information that ALAC – the other members that is not all in contact all the time may have questions about. Just that.
Sebastien Bachollet: No, I have one question I really raised at the beginning of the call. It's what about the comments we made on the strategic planning, because it seems that our project is not touching into account in the strategy planning. And then it will not be taking into account in the budgeting phase. Then maybe you can give us some advice on that, not just now because it's late. But if you can help us on that, it'd be great.
Vanda Scartezini: Yes, okay. It's all clear.
Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you, Vanda.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. And what I might also try and do is encourage the regional leaders to take a particular piece of their agenda in follow-up meetings and look at the board liaison report because it is proving to be a very, very fruitful report. So yes, thank you very much for that, Vanda, and I'm quite sure she'd be willing to respond inter-sessionally with inquiries from the regions or of course ALSs.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need to call a halt. I do thank you all very much for your time. I will now give the Executive Committee a five-minute bio break and we will dial back in, having disconnected so the transcription and MP3s are more easily handled. Thanks to each and every one of you. Good morning, good evening, good day. Good night. Bye for now.
Heidi Ulrich: Thank you.
Sebastien Bachollet: Good night, Cheryl.
French Interpreter: Good night. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Trisha.
