Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, seeing as we're quorate, let's start, shall we? Any other business needing to be added to an already way over-packed agenda? Evan wanted to raise a matter of the RAA Workgroup A activities. Does ALAC have anything else to put on their agenda for today? If not, then we will move to action items. And, again, it's a fairly extensive list of action items, most of which, by my reading, have been done or on the agenda for tonight.
Is there anyone who wants to raise anything from the action items from the 22nd of December that has not been picked up on? Matthias, are you aware of anything that we still have outstanding from the action items?
Matthias Langenegger: No, I think it's fine.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. The only point, then, worth noting on the action items was the matter of a comment to the substantive agenda of IGF, to be sent by 15th of January. We had a quite extensive discussion about that in a subsequent executive meeting, and it was decided that we would not be putting forward a set of comments because it had not gone through a formal process, but that we would be looking at the mechanisms by which comments come from the ALAC and in what level of formality they are as it matters in Nairobi. And we would be encouraging the regions to also be far more proactive and active in a normal community comment period, not only for ICANN public comments, but also for other matters in the ecosystem. But we also saw that many individuals who were members of ALAC and At-Large have in fact been contributing through other lists to this substantive agenda. Okay.
Adam Peake: It's Adam. If I can just quickly say something about that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please, Adam, go ahead.
Adam Peake: The date for comments for the IGF is closed. However, the comment periods, they have start and finish dates. However, comments are accepted any time. The closing date usually means that, for example, there is a synthesis paper being written that will be submitted to the meeting in February. So, while ALAC comments might not get in time for that paper, they would be accepted as part of the record and people would refer to them, and so on. So, if we are late it does matter, but it is not disastrous in that sense.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Adam, just (inaudible) I wasn't very clear, it had nothing to do with meeting deadlines. It had a lot to do with who, how and when various forms of statements go from what part of the At-Large community to what parts both within ICANN world and the wide ecosystem.
Adam Peake: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And we were heartened by the fact that so many people who are also what we would consider ours, in inverted commas, were already active in that particular process on other lists. So, some of us felt that was a good thing, some of us felt that was a sad thing that we weren't putting something in. But, yeah, it wasn't a matter of timing. Perhaps that would also encourage anyone in the regions or as individuals to go ahead and put some comments in.
Okay, moving on to our next items. Did I hear someone come on and join while we were covering off that agenda item? It may have been Vanda joining us, I think. Perhaps it is –
Unidentified Participant: Sorry, Cheryl, who just joined, please?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think it might have been Vanda, but I was just about to ask.
Vanda Scartezini: Yes, it's Vanda.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, okay. Hello, Vanda.
Vanda Scartezini: Hello. How are you doing?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good. Good. The meeting down to the item 4 on our standing agenda items, delighted to see two new ALS applications. These have been received in the last couple of weeks and neither of them, I believe, are through the first phase of the application status. Although I will ask Matthias to tell me if the Liberia one is one that is coming off a hold. How far has it gone through? Where are we in its tracking?
Matthias Langenegger: We have contacted the ISOC – the responsible person for the ISOC chapters, and she has already responded. And we have also received the due diligence from the regional liaison. So, we are now waiting for regional advice.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. And that means that that one probably is going to fast track, which is absolutely excellent. Thank you very much for that.
Unidentified Participant: May I ask what the status is of ISOC Cameroon?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Matthias, did you catch that?
Matthias Langenegger: The question about ISOC Cameroon?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Correct.
Matthias Langenegger: ISOC Cameroon told us that they wanted to put their application on hold because they had some changes within their structure. And that was about four or five months ago, and we haven't heard back since.
Alan Greenberg: Sounds like it was closer to six months ago based on the dates there. Maybe someone needs to ask them.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Although if it is on hold, the dates technically freeze. But, if you would – Matthias, if you can just make an outreach. Alan, sorry, I assume you're asking staff to do that, not the region –
Alan Greenberg: Yes. Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. As we now move to item 5 of our standing agenda and the reports, is Beau on the call yet?
Alan Greenberg: I haven't heard him.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Matthias, is Beau on and just muted or what? Can you look at –
Interpreter: I'm so sorry. Sylvia is now on the call in Spanish.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. Hello, Sylvia.
Matthias Langenegger: Cheryl, I don't see Beau on the list.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, fine. Well, what I was going to do and the reason I was asking if Beau was on the call was, as we are now moving down into the various reports and, of course, we've got an opportunity perhaps with the ALAC's permission to move Evan's piece of additional any other business for a very brief review now. Because we do have both the GNSO, ALAC joint working groups, RAA Group A, which is the one I think Evan is referring to, and RAA Group B, (inaudible) these Group B activities that he is referring to, having only just scanned some of the e-mail traffic that has gone on since Friday of last week my time.
Has anybody got any objections to me opening the floor to Evan now for this discussion? Nobody is waving great red crosses to me? Everybody is saying no, that's fine. Okay, Evan, if you'd like to take a brief couple of minutes – and I do mean brief – a couple of minutes to raise your concerns.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. The main reason why I am here, the GNSO has started a process to amend the RAA. This has included a subgroup which is called RAA subgroup A, dealing with registrant rights. When getting into that group, I then found that the most – the main point of that group has been to try and actually just enumerate what existing rights and responsibilities existed in the current RAA. When I tried to bring up the issue of are we going to do a charter? What registrant rights should be, you know, the kind of thing like a charter, a bill of rights, that kind of thing, that was sort of demeaningly referred to as an aspirational documentation, sort of pushed off as a secondary issue. And then at the last teleconference that happened this past week, I was informed by the co-chair that it is now totally out of scope.
So, this group from the GNSO now wants to concentrate totally on what they call registrant rights, meaning simply vetting the existing RAA and gleaning from it what existing rights and responsibilities are. That is not what I had in mind when I got involved in the group. My interest is actually having a charter that ICANN would agree to that basically details what registrant rights and responsibilities are, and that these should be adhered to in the determination of future policy, future RAA amendments, and in fact anything ICANN does.
I have since come to the belief that perhaps the GSNO is not the right place to do a registrant rights document. Number one, it is at least 50% populated by the contracted parties that stand much to lose from insertions of registrant rights. And I also believe that an assertion of rights is a universal thing that ultimately should apply to ccNSOs as well.
So, I am basically here asking for a little bit of guidance of what to do next and whether or not it might be appropriate for ALAC to take an initiative here, go to other groups, go to civil society, go within other constituencies of ICANN and, basically, if GSNO is unwilling to deal with this, this is something that I think ALAC – At-Large should be doing itself.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks, Evan, and I saw Alan, although I wasn't quick enough to give the approve sign to him. Alan, if you can do an immediate response on that, specifically, I suspect wearing your GSNO liaison hat, then I'll open it up for discussion. But I also want to take a place in that discussion, seeing as I'm involved in both the RAA Group A, and the RAA Group B, workgroups, and there seems to be, at least on my view, a little confusion in existence between what each of those is chartered to do. And also I think we probably need to remind everyone that we have our own At-Large RAA workgroup, which can do all sorts of aspirational work. Alan, go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, several points. First of all, the question of what RAA group one was supposed to do – Group A was supposed to do, has been confusing from before it started.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I agree.
Alan Greenberg: One of the reasons it was put together was to meet a condition in the current RAA, which says if ICANN ever puts together a list of current rights and responsibilities, registrars are obliged to point to it. That is purely a statement of what the current rules are.
In creasing the process to do that, the term "charter" was used, which immediately gave some people a completely different meaning, as indicated by Evan.
In the discussions that led to forming the various groups, it was sort of said that the RAA Group A could come up with a list of aspirational things, that is, things that we believe, they believe, some people believe should be done. But those would be tossed over the wall to Group B to decide how to handle them, either through a PDP or for negotiations. Because various parts of the RAA get changed in different ways. So, he is highlighting essentially what his – what has been a problem all along.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Alan Greenberg: In terms of contracted parties, I'd be careful not to lump all contracted parties the same, in this same group. I know, for instance, on the PEDNR Group, which is heavily represented by registrars, to the extent that we have registries on the community, they are essentially on the registrants, understanding that they can't upset their clients all that much. But in terms of where the intent is, they are not necessarily quite in the same camp. So, I think one needs to be careful about lumping all contracted parties in the same group.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed. Anyone else want to make any discussion points on this now? Alan put his hand down. Anybody – Carlos or Sylvia from the Spanish channel, are you understanding that it is confusing with the RAA Group A and Group B? I think it is important to understand, also, Evan, that it is not just a GSNO workgroup; it has been chartered by the GSNO in response to the board resolution, but it is in fact an ALAC and GSNO workgroup. Yes, Alan, back to you.
Alan Greenberg: I'll just reiterate one thing I said, and again, similar to PEDNR. Typically, a chair makes a ruling based on the general feeling of the group. I certainly in PEDNR have had a significant problem getting At-Large and getting other registrant representatives to be active in the group. I suspect the same may be true on the RAA one. And to a large extent that is our fault that we have to remedy. If we are out-shouted all the time, decisions are going to continue to be made against what we want.
Evan Leibovitch: And that was the heart of one of the e-mails that I sent out –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Evan Leibovitch: – currently dealing with the fact that for something as fundamental of what a registrant writes, we have an extremely poor showing.
Alan Greenberg: Well, I think that's true in a number of cases including the one I'm running.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed, and it would be an absolute delight to see far more At-Large. Notice my specific use of the term "At-Large" members involved in these workgroups. And one of the reasons we are going to be taking a lion's share of our Sunday face-to-face meeting in Nairobi, to look at how policies are developed, how we are to more effectively and more, I think, actively integrate At-Large as well as regional ALS and ALAC interaction with all of these workgroups. And, again, to be more of them, not less of them, is a hugely important topic. But it goes a little bit beyond that. There is also a number of pieces of process that we need to establish.
What seems to be happening, Evan, is that we have matters of assumption and of use of language. We also have systems which are changing and are in fairly significant state of flux at the moment with what is a workgroup and how a workgroup within ICANN operates. And those are slightly different beasts, whether you're talking about, as you said, the ccNSO, the GSNO, or ourselves. And some of us are working very hard to try and get some understanding and uniformity across it.
Evan, from the aspirational document's point of view, I was at that meeting and in fact RAA subgroup A is chartered very much to ensure that there is a plain language, understandable set of rights and responsibilities, I think is probably the safest way to say them. In the current, that is the new RAA, that can be pointed to for all current registrants and potential registrants to see and to understand.
To that end, work on an aspirational document, whilst it can be active in saying these things need to be done, as Alan said, really get punted over the fence to the other workgroup.
Now, it is kind of sad that it split, and I know you were in the original RAA group and there was significant – the ALAC one, I mean, the GSNO one, that preempted all of this – significant discussion on whether these things should be split or not, but they are.
Beau needs to weigh in on this. Heidi has raised, I think, some quotes which I best read to the record for the transcript purposes here. Heidi has typed on Beau's behalf the following:
Beau stated in response to your initial e-mail, nowhere was it brought up during that discussion that the 'aspirational document' was now out of scope. Further, the aspirational document was in the stated scope of Group A in more than one update. Beau has stated that he has sent to the GSNO.
So, in Beau's view – and he is a co-chair of Group A – no one has the authority to simply rule it out and B, as a co-chair of the group, I didn't agree to any such thing. I haven't spoken to McHaley since the day of the meeting, but I would assume that there is some miscommunication here.
Evan, you have pointed out, then, in response to that there have been many days since the meeting and neither Beau nor McHaley has clarified.
Because I am in both workgroups, I think it is interesting to note that a number of very active members including those who have been involved in the At-Large efforts on RAA changes, and who have brought up a number of important aspirational points, although they are points that they would like to have as changes to the RAA rather than simply a statement of rights. So, something that has legal teeth and indeed that is audited and followed through on by compliance within ICANN.
And when we put our first call out for members of the At-Large community to join either RAA Group A or RAA Group B, Denny Younger was one who said very clearly there is no way he would be involved in RAA Group A, because of the more catcher and report nature of its chartered activities, and that he would be interested in contributing to RAA Group B, where future changes to increase consumer and registrant protection could be discussed. And he felt he could make a greater difference there.
Now, I am only putting that into the record now to say that RAA Group B's activities are at point where during February we will have a draft document out so the community input and community consultation can be thought – wrapped around the Nairobi meeting.
I am preempting this a little bit because our next call for that workgroup is a little later in your today. So, anyone who would perhaps like to get their teeth into this, Evan, and I'm hoping you're going to be one of them, might be encouraged to join and start being active in RAA Group B, where more of the aspirational stuff is clearly in mandate. That's not to say that it is not in mandate in Group A, but Group A's primary work is at the moment to put a rights and responsibilities in plain language and understandable language document out under the, as Alan put it, the definitions of what the group has to do when the board made its resolutions.
Evan Leibovitch: Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm not defending one way or other, I'm just saying that it has been confusing. But, in fact, Group B has been working with, for example, law enforcement, to look at what their wishes are as well. Go ahead, Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. All you've done, Cheryl, is absolutely convince me that what we need to do belongs in neither A nor B. What B's group is going to be doing is it's going to be looking at specific regulations, specific additions into a contract. That is not what a charter rights does. A charter rights is the high level document that guides future development. Group B is the wrong place to do a high level document. They are looking at details.
We also now know that Group A is not the right place to do that, because that is basically a writing journalism effort to extract plain language out of an existing legal document. So, what you've done is you've –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I hear what you're saying, Evan, but do you also recognize that for some 18 months before either A or B started, ALAC had a workgroup that is a perfect place for an aspirational document to get building.
Evan Leibovitch: You didn't let me finish. You didn't let me finish. Not only is the issue that the current GNSO subcommittees are not appropriate, also the fact that we know that there are other Internet governance bodies that are out there that have spent great amounts of effort on rights declarations and documents. They would not be welcome at the GNSO table.
So, what I'm suggesting is perhaps this is something, and I'm at this meeting asking for some kind of initiative for ALAC to say, okay, Group A isn't the right place, Group B isn't the right place. Let's reinvigorate our existing mechanisms, have ALAC take the lead, involve civil society, involve anyone from GNSO or other constituencies that wants to get involved, but this is something that At-Large should be leading and constituting the way it wants to.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Evan. I'm moving the microphone to Alan and, again, just to make sure it's clearly on the record in the French and Spanish, it is certainly my hypothesis and the current ALAC view that our existing At-Large registrant rights and responsibilities workgroup, our RAA workgroup, is an ideal place for what Evan is calling for to happen. And, in fact, it's the only – probably one of the reasons that the RAA workgroup hasn't been shut down, because it should be happening there. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: I'll plank out that Evan may or may not be right that RAA Group B is not the right place to do this. However, when the original – when the RAA amendments were put through last year, there was great fear in the community that this was going to be the last time the RAA was going to be changed for another decade. And to make sure that didn't happen, part of the approval of that put together what is now RAA Group A and B, and specifically Group B to start looking at how one comes up with – how one modifies the RAA and what are the things to modify?
The process that comes out of RAA Group B is likely to take another two years or so. It will involve probably a PDP, one or more, and probably a lot of negotiations on the items that are not eligible for PDP process.
It is likely to be the last kick of the can in close to a decade, I would think, or at least five or six years. So, whether this is the right process or not, if there are important things to get written into the RAA and associated documents, it has to make this cut or it's likely not going to happen for a while. That time reality, I think, has to be factored in.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. And, in fact, it's very important and I think very, very refreshing to see the attitudinal changes and to have (inaudible) this meeting, where the (inaudible) Alan was outlining certainly is something that RAA Group B is very aware of. And there is certainly in RAA Group B's view, a great deal of necessity to ensure that what happens as a result of its recommendations and, as Alan said, it's likely to be a PDP process – is something that, of course, compliance and assurance to our At-Large community can come from ICANN, that the rules, existing and any new ones, will be followed up in terms of compliance. And that is a recognizably huge step forward to what many of us have been complaining about for many years.
So, I don't want to doomsay on this, I do see that it's a little bit like splitting hairs and there have been some extraordinarily poor choices of language not the least of which is the use of the term "charter" where it probably shouldn't have been used.
But if we can get – and one of the outcomes from our meeting at Nairobi is certainly something I'm desirous of – if we can get our existing workgroup resuscitated, reactivated and repopulated with anybody who believes they can contribute to an aspirational document, I think that will be highly complementary to the activities of these workgroups, both A and B, but quite probably more for both than one.
Alan Greenberg: And note that the expiration related issues are not going to be handled at this point by RAA Group B, because they are being handled by a separate PDP. So, if one cares anything about those issues, those have to be done in that forum.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. In fact, one of the advantages of Evan raising this now and is hopefully getting civil society and interested parties very directly involved in our own workgroup is that we can capture and make sure things don't fall through the net, which, of course, things like the expiration-related things being managed in one form of process and the multi-factorial effect of having too many individual silos working on similar or allied issues. There is a real risk of people going, "Oh, it's the other group is going to do that." And then some group, and I'm suggesting where an ideal place for that to happen, says hang on, this has been missed totally. No one has picked up on this and it is a right and a responsibility that affects registrants, and that would be a tragedy. Go ahead, Evan, and then we'll need to wrap up on this item.
Evan Leibovitch: I mean, this is actually coming to a very useful discussion to me in the sense that Carlton has said that the At-Large RAA working group has already started talking about things that ought to be there. So, we already have people, and it strikes me the people from that working group ought to be on the GNSO working group B, to make sure that our recommendations show up in the amendment.
But what you're telling me, and this seems to be very positive, is now the RAA working group now has two tasks: One to come up with specific recommendations to go into the current round of RAA revisions. As Alan says, we're not going to have another kick at this for a while. At the same time, there should also be work as far as, in my opinion, on an aspirational document that would affect not just the RAA, but would be presented to ICANN as something that it would institutionally endorse, that would guide its future policies and would not be restricted simply to gTLD operation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. And certainly our At-Large workgroup is the (inaudible) place for that. Of course, what we do need to ensure is that the quite extensive parallel activities on Internet user rights are also – well, the finger needs to be on the pulse of those activities because there is a huge number of people involved and have been for very many years in an Internet users' charter, and we're just sort of a small subsection of that. But I would like to think that there would be an ability to work hand-in-glove with what is going on there as well.
All right. Evan, thank you very much for raising that, and thank you to the ALAC for allowing – I'll say us, because seeing as some of us are working in both – well, really, in all of those RAA workgroups, whether they're the At-Large one or the ALAC one, or the joint GNSO ALAC one. I think if we can get more people to join all those activities and to contribute, it's going to be very, very important. And probably more important now than it was in a world where we weren't going to be faced with more choice and more gTLDs, be they scripted (inaudible) or otherwise.
Okay. Just checking the room and I don't think anyone is wanting to say anything more on that. Is there any comment from Carlos or Sylvia from the Spanish channel?
Interpreter: No comment. Very clear.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much and obviously part of the workgroup that Carlos is chairing will need to be involved in the sort of macro issues, if not the specifics of the outcomes of these sorts of aspirational documents.
All right, then, moving now to our new business section for tonight. Carlton, we've got your usual 10 minutes of allocation of time for looking at the At-Large policy, PAD, Policy Advice Development schedule, but I note that we really only have the one new item that we need to discuss. I would strongly encourage you to go through these as quickly as humanly possible, she says down on a metaphorical bended knee. Over to you.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you, Cheryl. There are two things, the special trademark issues report, close of comment today. The new G&C program draft expression of interest is closed tomorrow. The –
Interpreter: I'm sorry, we missed that. Could you repeat that?
Carlton Samuels: The special trademark issues report closes today, closed for comment today. The new gTLD program draft expressions of interest, pre-registration model, that closes tomorrow. The discussion on defamation reviews, we are behind because we were expecting to any last vote by my calculation on Friday of last week. I don't think it's up for the vote yet, we just had a strategic plan vote open – I mean, closed, I think.
This one, the discussion draft, it closes for comments on the 10th of February, so there is still a little time. But I think we should put up a vote for that. There are comments that have been put out on the affirmation reviews. It's been out on the Wiki, and I think we need to schedule a vote for that.
A new issue has joined the list, and that is the new consumer constituency petition and charter. I am proposing that we send a message to the At-Large today affirming that the petition is open. I am suggesting that we have a draft advisory produced by the 5th of February and posted by the 8th of February for comments, and finalized by the 15th of February. And we schedule a vote on that on the 18th of February. And it closes for comments on the 13th of February.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thanks for that, Carlton, and I doubt that anyone is going to disagree with the fact that we should be making some form of comment, that is for certain. And, again, it would be one of those matters that we would be putting in a statement. On time, are you recommending that we put a statement in on time, let's say, that it is currently under vote, or that we ask for an extension from the 13th to the 18th? And then from Carlton back to Alan. Carlton, if you just clarify what you are referring to with the charter for –
Carlton Samuels: I am suggesting it closes for comments on the 13th, and am suggesting that we put in a vote.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Carlton Samuels: Before the 13th.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, sorry. Okay. I just wasn't sure, I thought I heard 18th somewhere in there. Probably me being over tired. Alan, go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: Two items on the STI. It was discussed relatively extensively in the Name Issues Group and the ending consensus was we did not need to put in a statement at this point. There were mixed feelings in some of the things. The positions varied from we must not – we must put in a comment on some things. Other people specifically disagreed with those comments, so on the issue where there was a feeling we should comment, there was no unanimity within the Name Issues Group and therefore not within the ALAC on what that comment should be. And (inaudible) in general on most of the issues where we do not need to put a comment in. Therefore, we did not either write one or make a recommendation to do so. So, that one closing without comment was not a problem.
On the affirmation of commitment draft, I believe, unless I'm getting things confused, I believe our announcement said here is a draft, we accept comments until this meeting. We have a final discussion at this meeting, and start a vote immediately afterwards. I believe that was the intent, and then vote will close in time to submit the vote results in time for the formal deadline.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In fact, we note there that we – the formal deadline closes now on the 10th of February, where it had previously been advertised for the 31st of January. The 10th of February, however, and I want to make very certain that Carlos and Sylvia take this news back to LACRALO. The reason for the extension for the public comment period from the 31st of January to the 10th of February is because of the language translation in six UN languages coming out only recently.
Matthias, can you confirm to me that those language groups are out? They were meant to come out, if not yesterday, over the weekend? Have they come out yet or not?
Matthias Langenegger: I should get them – on Monday I was told I would get them in one or two days. I see that they are not posed on the public comment page, so I assume that we will get them later today or tomorrow.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Because we have a well advanced set of statements, as Alan said, we are virtually ready to go to vote at today's – at the close of today's meeting, I just would like to encourage any of the regions who feel that their region would like to have additional specific discussion and comments in. So, Dave, you need to take this back to AFRALO as well. Once the French and Spanish and all the other divisions are out, perhaps we might find that Asia Pacific might want to do something as well.
I'd strongly encourage the regions to take advantage of public comment closure now on the 10th of February. But I'll ask now, is there anyone from the ALAC who believes we should in fact delay our vote from our plan, and that the ALAC statement be held off until the 10th of February?
I see no reason to delay it, but I'm happy to have anyone tell me I'm wrong. It is a very rare occasion, ladies and gentlemen. I'm offering – okay, Sebastien, are you going to – you're going to tell me I'm wrong, go ahead.
Sebastien Bachollet: I will not try at this time. I want to support your proposal. As I think we make the work and it could be interesting to observe the region taken care of and additional ideas, I would like to move on.
I just want to take the opportunity to say that strategic planning comments are on vote and I try to reach everyone who didn't vote. Everybody vote except Carlos, and if you can in the Spanish channel ask Carlos if he can vote, I will be happy that for a long time we didn't have all the ALAC member voting for one motion, and this one could be the first one since time.
And to add that each region and specifically AFRALO, who made some additional comments on that subject, are really encouraged to make their own comments publicly available on the comment period – on the comment of the ICANN. It could be, also, very useful. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much, Sebastien.
Interpreter: And a comment from Carlos in regards to that after, please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, go ahead, from Carlos. Wait, Alan.
Interpreter: Yes, thank you. The problem that I have sometimes is that I do not get the notice for vote. I don't get the notice that we're supposed to vote. I don't know what's happening with that system. When we're supposed to vote, then I can't vote. If I don't see the mail from one of the ALAC members that is talking about the subject, I don't even find out – I don't even know that there is a vote.
So, I would request of Matthias or Gisella that if they could please could keep me informed in another way so that I am aware that there is a vote going on. Because many times I miss these votes because I don't get the e-mail notices.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you, Carlos. I know that's been an issue from before. I'll ask ALAC staff to not only investigate why things are so frequently going wrong with you, but also to work with you to find an alternative mechanism.
And in response to Sebastien's plea for Carlos to make his vote known on this matter, if he contacts now any of the staff, Matthias and all the staff who is able to put in a – the equivalent to a paper ballot. In other words, you can literally just say or Skype at them and say this is how I want to vote.
Okay, I see Alan, then I see Sebastien, then I see Carlton. But, Matthias, did you want to respond specifically to Carlton? If so, I'll pop you in ahead of the queue.
Matthias Langenegger: Okay, Matthias in response to Carlos, then I have Alan, Sebastien and Carlton.
Matthias Langenegger: Okay. I just wanted to say that we will contact the voting application provider to see if we can do something about Carlos's problem. At the same time, I also want to mention that every time we start a vote, there is an e-mail sent out to the announce list, and there is also a link posted to that e-mail, and everybody can go on that page and log in with their password and e-mail address. So, if you are unable to vote, you can always send us an e-mail and we can put in the paper ballot vote, as was just mentioned before.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you, Matthias. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, two comments. Number one, I support the statement that a vote goes ahead for the ALAC on the affirmation, which was the original reason I put my hand up. It's been posted for a while. There have been no comments, including any comments saying we need to delay, and I would not want to see any delay on that despite the extension of the formal comment period.
Regarding Carlos, as has been pointed out before, he gets his e-mail on Hot Mail, and Hot Mail has been known to do a very extensive filtering on mail, and perhaps adding an alternate address for him would address the problem.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Alan. Sebastien, then Carlton.
Sebastien Bachollet: It was just to say on this vote I try to track who are voting and what's happened, and I know that some other get some trouble, but they will say by themselves. Carlos, I try really to reach you through Skype and through Adobe chat room today to ask you about that, but now it is sorted out, that's great. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Carlton?
Carlton Samuels: Two issues, Cheryl. One, I support Alan's statement about voting for the AOC. I think it's time to vote. Secondly, with the business of the voting, I also was having a problem. I lost all of my subscriptions, it seemed, and luckily, happily, Sebastien was the one who contacted me about voting, because I had not seen even the announcement. They all went, for some reason. I have contacted Matthias and he pointed out to me that there may have been some filtering problems on my (inaudible). It is not the case, they tell me. We are not filtering anything. I sent text e-mail and it seems to have gone through. I don't know what the issue is. I have also just simply resubscribed using my Gmail address, and I am getting stuff through now.
The other thing is, Carlos, if you want to know, Sebastien pointed out to me that the credentials don't change. So, if you take your last vote in credentials and sign onto the site, you will find the list to vote and you can vote that way. That's how I did it.
Alan Greenberg: There is a general address which you go into it and then log on, you will see all ALAC votes, regardless.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Yes, indeed. There are a number of mechanisms that we can make sure all of us are availing ourselves of, including, Carlos, Gareth has offered alternate e-mail addresses. He is more than happy to assist you and to make sure that you've got something that is not a Hot Mail that perhaps can solve some of the problems. And we also have a Gmail address that based on Carlton's experience sounds like a safe way to go. I certainly subscribe with more than one address so I don't risk – to all these things, so I don't risk missing things.
Thank you very much. And Mohammed is asking, Alan, if you could share the all polls link, if you could pop that into the Adobe room. Sounds to me like it's an issue, a logistics issue, but a very important one, not just Carlos, but a number of the ALAC members have found themselves challenged –
Alan Greenberg: It's been sent around many times before, but it will be in the thing in one moment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And like many things, bears repeating. Okay. Right. Moving now to items for discussion. And, of course, here we've got a number of time allocations that I would like to remind you all of. If we can compress the time allocations, great. But I would like to make sure that as we're coming up close to the hour into our meeting, that we try and give an equitable amount of time for each of our important discussion activities. But recognizing we will need to have, because of shifting our agenda around and adding an additional item, we will need to compress them wherever possible, unless someone wishes to call for one or more of them to be taken off today's agenda. Anyone want to propose that?
Alan Greenberg: My item as the first one for discussion will be very short.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Music to my ears, sir. Okay. Enjoy the discussion, ALAC position description for At-Large volunteer performance management, and Alan is not going to take his 10 minutes. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Due to a number of unfortunate incidents such as needing to come up with a statement on Nairobi and responding, or trying to understand the problem with lost messages on our Wiki, I did not have time to do the work, so it is not posted and there is nothing to discuss.
I will serve notice that within a couple of days there will be a suggested update for the position description and a revised version of the performance guidelines that we talked about, our performance process that we talked about in Seoul. And I would like to have a discussion on the list and a vote later in February. That's it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Sounds very, very good. Moving to our next item, then, the affirmation of commitments. They call for periodic review of the four ICANN objectives has gone out to the world. One, ensuring accountability, transparency in the interest of the global Internet ecosystem to the – sorry, Internet users. Two, preserving security, stability and resilience of the GNS. Three, promoting competition, consumer trust, consumer choice, which of course is timely for some of the discussions we have had tonight. And, four, who is policy.
In parallel with this process, ICANN is currently inviting interested individuals to express interest in serving as a volunteer review team member, representing a support organization or advisory committee. This is a permanent call for applications, however. Candidate chose for the first review, which is accountability and transparency, will be accepted until the 17th of February 2010, at midnight UTC, and there is a link to that full call detail.
I'm going to shush up now, because I have some very strong views and I don't wish to overtake things right now, and I'm going to call for discussion and comments.
I am of the view that there is a little bit of work needed to be done on all this, but we must have as an At-Large Advisory Committee, the ALAC and advisory committee must have a clear understanding of who thinks they are representing us, and such a representative would need a clear mandate to do so on this or any other review team. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, first question. Did we do item 2 under For Decision, or did we skip over it? We talked about the PAT and then we went into another discussion, and I don't think we went back to those two items.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Statement on affirmation review.
Alan Greenberg: And expression of interest.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, the expression of interest to vote.
Alan Greenberg: There was 10 minutes allocated and unless I dozed off, I don't think we had those, so I'm just pointing that out.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry, that's fine, Alan. I thought the vote had gone out for the expression of interest.
Carlton Samuels: No, actually the vote hasn't gone out. I thought that we would vote at this meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We are voting at this meeting, okay. That is simply me having driven nearly 500 km and had less than 90 minutes rest since I got home. My apologies. So, could I suggest, Alan, if you run that vote now, we've got a very correct meeting. Just make sure that you invite Patrick to speak to the matter to begin with, and that anyone in French and Spanish in fact have the opportunity to speak and to clarify before the vote. And I'm clearly going to have to go and make myself a coffee. Go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. So, we're putting on hold the item on the applications for review and going back –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I've skipped an item for decision, which I did, then that needs to be rectified immediately.
Alan Greenberg: All right. Then I'll take over interim as chair and ask –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: While I get much needed caffeine, obviously.
Alan Greenberg: Understand, and ask Patrick to introduce the subject.
Patrick Vande Walle: Thank you, Alan. I hope you all read the draft statement, which is currently on the Wiki. I think that at least among those who commented, there is a general agreement that if this proposal, that the intent of the proposal is good.
Now, about the terms of the proposal, there are some things to be discussed as usual, I would say, and this is quite consistent with what the ICANN staff has done up to now with draft of (inaudible) guide. It seems to be a one-size-fits-all model.
Whatever model of TLD you might have, the staff proposal has to have a _55,000 fee for just about everyone, whether you are running the next dotcom or you run a small TLD for, let's say an Indian tribe, for example. And so part of – in our proposal, there were several suggestions for other models, but I think the bottom line is that once the same fee for everyone would not work for everyone. And that we would have right from the start, right from the stage of the expression of (inaudible), a de facto selection of applications based on a TLD model that is the most prevalent. Basically, the TLD model which sells large numbers of domain names to just about everyone.
There were two proposals. One was actually mine, which was to say that ICANN could have a reduced fee for nonprofit and small community applications, and we suggested $25,000, which I think is an amount which is large enough to prevent frivolous applications. But at the same time not exclusive for small TLD applications.
There was another proposal which was made by Adam, that some applicants could be exempt from any fee under the expression of interest goal, and they would identify themselves based on their business plan on the target registrant audience and the expectant number of domain names to expect, and registrant fee.
I have included both models or statements, although I would like to find out that the model that Adam suggested was discussed in the working group which initially drafted this expression of proposal, and it was pointed out that there are many ways to play with the system. For example, a very commercial TLD could set up a parallel not-for-profit and apply for a TLD under a not-for-profit umbrella, and actually make all the business through a full profit commercial company.
So, this risk does exist, but I think that from all point of view, from the ALAC, we should point out that, as Redoria mentioned, that making the process expensive is not in the public interest. And we should not assume that potential applicants are already fully funded. Because at this stage many possible TLD applicants are still looking for funding, if only for the fact that those who could give them these sort of funds don't think they are serious, simply because the process seems totally blocked, from an outsider's point of view, although we know that there is a lot of work going ahead.
But from the view of the general public, it seems that this new TLD process is taking forever and that nothing changes.
So, this is why I think this expression of interest call is important, because it will allow potential applicants to show to their community, for example, that they are serious, and that it is time to wake up, and a time to work and go ahead.
So, this is more or less everything I could say about this. I hope you have read the text and I'm taking questions, if there are any.
Alan Greenberg: Anyone have other comments or questions? Spanish or French? Sebastien?
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes, thank you. It's not really a comment, but I was in contact with some GAC members and I know they will put a statement today to the board on that issue, and they will ask for not taking any decision in the February meeting to allow a community discussion during the Nairobi meeting. I just wanted to ask us if we feel the same.
I have the impression that there are two very – two groups who wants – one wants and the other didn't, and they are difficult to put together. That may be a good discussion organized around the ASO and other committee, joint meeting could be a good idea for this topic. And then no decision for the February meeting could be a good, also, idea. Not to say we don't send our comments, it's good one, I think, but maybe we can say that, too. Thank you.
Interpreter: And comment from Spanish, please.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, first we have Gareth in Spanish.
Gareth Shearman: Yes, thank you. I strongly agree with Adam's point. We don't want to set the cost barrier here so high that it prevents legitimate groups from being a part of the process. Even the $25,000, I think, is way too high. We need to find some process where people can at least get an (inaudible) to start the process because of the fact that they won't be funded. Thank you.
Alan Greenberg: Gareth, do you feel strong enough that the statement has to be modified, or are you just reiterating the point?
Gareth Shearman: I think I'm just reiterating the point.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, thank you. Spanish and then Vanda.
Interpreter: Yes. And my comment is simply to reiterate what my colleagues have just stated. You know, $25,000 is a very high number, especially in some regions of the planet, like Latin America, like Africa, like certain places in Asia, where that amount, which may seem very low in other places, you know, in these circumstances, especially in our countries, it's a very high number. So, to think about that number for O&Gs, for organizations, for foundations, especially nonprofit, that are working for the good of the community and for the good of the users, it would seem an enormous number that some regions in the world could never even come up with.
So, I think that it's important that Carlton really gets with the situation. If you do want everybody's participation and everybody's commitment, I definitely think this is something that needs to be evaluated and modified. Thank you so much.
Alan Greenberg: Vanda?
Vanda Scartezini: Yes, just – I don't think that we will take a decision on the February meeting in the board. I believe this will be open for discussion in the Nairobi meeting with the all interested parties. Because there is a lot of points that not quite defined.
Alan Greenberg: So, Vanda, if I understand correctly, you're saying that we don't – that we probably do not need to put an explicit statement in, especially since the GAC has. The decision is likely to be delayed anyway.
Vanda Scartezini: Yeah, well, I don't mix the two issues. I'm just – because we need to be present and to make our opinion all the time over the table. What I am saying is, whatever is our opinion right now, I don't believe we are going to discuss, debate anything and define anything in February. Because there is a lot of points still in debate. So, it is something to deal face-to-face with the ESOs and the ACs in Nairobi. And I believe it will be one of the biggest points.
Alan Greenberg: All right. I have a quick comment. I agree 100% with what Carlos and Adam have said about the $25,000 being too much. But I will point out that that notwithstanding, anyone who is going to ultimately submit a bid, there is still a total price of $185,000, which is going to be due, that hasn't changed with the conception of expression of interest.
So, indeed, $25,000 is a lot, but one has to wonder that if one can't raise $25,000 now, will you be able to raise the $185,000? I don't agree with the $185,000, but it doesn't look like that is going to change at this point.
Patrick Vander Walle: I agree with you, Alan. That is actually why I suggested $25,000, because after that, the applicant would still have to raise $185,000. So, just like you say, if the applicant cannot raise $185,000 from the beginning, it will never be able to raise $158K.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. We have two questions at this point. One, do we need to modify the document to explicitly say do not make a decision in February? Or is the group happy to leave it as-is with the belief that with the GAC statement and with what Vanda said, we don't really like to – we don't need to change the statement? And partly I'm asking, also, Patrick, do you consider that a friendly amendment if we were to, say, add a sentence in to do that?
Patrick Vande Walle: Oh, yes, I would certainly agree, yes.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Cheryl, and then Sebastien.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I actually was going to propose that as a friendly amendment. So, thank you for that, Patrick.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Sebastien?
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes. I want just to suggest that maybe it could be an introduction text before this document already done, but if it's an amendment, it's okay. Great, thank you.
Alan Greenberg: Any other comments? Then in that case, I will call for a vote on the document to be slightly amended to include the request that the board not make any decision at its February meeting, but allow open discussions in Nairobi. And with that amendment to be – change to made, I'd like to call for a vote. Cheryl, you are back now. Do you want to do a roll call vote or simply ask for any dissension?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You've got the floor, my dear, do it whatever way you feel comfortable, as long as we get –
Alan Greenberg: Do we know who we still have on the call?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm aware of no drop-offs, so we should have at least 11 ALAC members on the call, you're correct.
Alan Greenberg: I only get 10, but I'll believe you. In the participant there are only 10. Are we missing somebody? We have Mohammed, Gareth, Patrick, Carlos, Carlton, Cheryl, Dev, Sebastien, Adam and Sylvia. We had Mohammed – no, Mohammed is there.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I count 11. Seb, Dev, Adam, Carlton, Sylvia, Carlos, Alan, Patrick, Gareth, Mohammed and myself. It doesn't matter, we're coright.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Ah, I wasn't on the list. Okay, thank you, whoever the mysterious typer is. All right, is there anyone who votes against this motion? That is, to approve the statement on expression of interest modified to include a request that the board not proceed at – not take any action –
Patrick Vande Walle: I just pasted – sorry, Alan – I just pasted an additional sentence in the Adobe chat room that I would add to the conclusion of the document.
Alan Greenberg: And I'll read it however the At-Large believes that the board takes no – recommends that the board makes no decision at its February meeting – meeting is missing – and has further discussion with the community on this issue at the Nairobi meeting. All right. We have many agreements, we have no dissension. The vote passes unanimously.
Patrick Vande Walle: Thank you.
Alan Greenberg: I'll turn the table back to Cheryl, or do you want me to do the affirmation one, also?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Do the affirmation. You're on a roll.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. All right. The other one is the statement on the affirmation reviews. A document has been on the Web for a while. Our comments to summarize quickly are on, first of all, on the review team size and composition. The proposal says that teams must be small and must work by consensus. They have what I considered an astounding statement, and we used that word in the draft. The statement says, "It is important to remember that many team tools in decision-making, problem-solving and communicating were created to take advantage of small group dynamics. Consensus, for example, just does not work as a decision-making method in a team of 20 members."
When you consider this statement in light of the current wisdom in ICANN passed down by the board, that all decisions be made by workgroups of unlimited size and be made using consensus, I found these two things somewhat at odds. So, we are suggesting that the workgroup size be enlarged from the seven or eight that they are suggesting.
The statement raises the issue of who is going to chair these working groups and is the chair representing one of the constituencies, or is it an impartial chair? We also raised the issue that each committee has either the chair of the board or the CEO on it, and this is a person who is in a position to strongly sway the outcome of the committee. And we feel it is exceedingly inappropriate for a person who is essentially one of the two people who is running ICANN either at the board level or at the operational level, to be on the committee deciding whether they're doing a good job or not.
So, those issues have been raised. The issue of team selection has been raised, and the crux of this focuses on the timeline. A call for application, the item that Cheryl started to talk about, was made, which says, "You must --" and I quote – "through your supporting organization or advisory committee, but you send it a specific ICANN address. So, in other words, although it says through the organization, it doesn't go through the organization, it goes directly to a central address.
The applications must be submitted by February 17. And, remember, they are going to a central address, not us. The applications do not say – ask the person to say who they want to represent. And the intent is that by the 20th of February, three days later, the CEO and the chairman of the board – I'm sorry, the chairman of the GAC and the chairman of the board will decide who the people are on the committee. It is unclear how the names get to the supporting organization or advisory committee, how we make a decision in a day, when we haven't seen any of these applications before, and how we get community buy-in to make that decision in a day or two days, or even a week. So, the whole process has not been well thought out, and we think that needs to be pointed out.
There is an issue of transparency and accountability of the transparency group. How are they really going to do the work within the timelines when there is no methodology outlined, when many of the terms, like public interest, have not even been defined. And there is a strong question whether the outcomes of this group will be valid or not.
And, lastly, wearing the At-Large hat, we have to mention the fact that the group that the proposal is completely silent on the issue of language. It doesn't say it works in English, it doesn't say it doesn't work in English. It doesn't say English or any other language is a requirement for the people on the committee. And it doesn't give any statement of direction saying in the long term we're an international organization. We should be working in multiple languages. It's just silent on the issue as if it doesn't matter. And that, I don't think, is acceptable.
So, we have received no comments on this document to date. If we have any hands up at this point, Adam has agreed with something, but I didn't see when the tick mark went up, so I don't know what he agreed on. Would you like to tell us what you agreed on?
Adam Peake: Oh, it's the last vote, sorry. I forgot to take my hand down.
Alan Greenberg: Oh, okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, no, leave it up, Adam. (Inaudible)
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, you could agree with us. Does anyone have any comment or discussion? At this meeting the intent is to initiate an online vote so it is formally documented and started tomorrow. We have a couple of checks. Does anyone want to speak? Spanish channel? We have Sebastien.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes. It's not about the document itself, but I was wondering if we can't launch ourselves a request for candidates for those groups, even if it's by another way, by ICANN in general. It could be a good way to have some proposals and then to discuss that before the deadline of the 18th --or 17th of February. And (inaudible) the document, I agree.
Alan Greenberg: I think that item is later on our agenda, the one that Cheryl started talking about but then didn't – we went back to this one.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, yeah. And, really, if we're starting the online votes, we've already established we're starting the online vote. Can we now just morph straight into that next agenda item? I must say, Alan, if you just hold the chair for a moment so I am unfettered in my absolute bias, so I can get my views on the record without being hampered by being chair.
I think for a whole lot of the reasons that is outlined in the politest possible ways in our statement, this could have all been done a lot better, but there you go, it hasn't happened that way. We now need to make the very best of it as we can.
I remain most concerned with the way this has been – the call has gone out without any interaction with the ACs or SOs, specifically, on how they would be choosing, allocating, indicating, or just having a laissez faire manner, whatever works for them, how they would see their part of the ICANN community represented on these review teams.
To that end, what I would like the discussion now to focus on is how we can fit the most accountable, the most accountable to our At-Large community representation in these very important review teams. And I'd really look forward to hearing what the ALAC as a whole thinks how we should go ahead with that. Because I believe whoever sits on these review teams has a huge amount of work in front of them, but they must be utterly and absolutely aware of the community's views on all of this. And the community must feel its voice is being heard. Alan, you've got your hand up and a microphone, and everything.
Alan Greenberg: I've taken the trouble to look up what the word "represent" means, and it says, "A person who acts on behalf of or speaks on behalf of a group." The word "represent" is in the affirmation. This is not something that was dreamt up in the draft documents.
So, I believe there is a requirement that the chair of the board and the chair of the GAC select people who "represent" us and that implies using the terminology in that document that we endorse them.
So, I would suggest that we request applications from within our community to come to us, according to the same format as is asked for, that we evaluate them by some process we decide in the next three minutes. And we pass those on. And that the only position, only applications they have which are endorsed are the ones that come through us. And that will meet the time deadline, and I don't know how we're going to do it in that time frame, because we're talking about two and a half weeks from now.
But, nevertheless, I think that is the only path that makes any sense whatsoever. And I think we need to take – to use the expression – take the bull by the horns and tell our community that if they want to be endorsed by us, they must follow our rules.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Alan Greenberg: And go from there.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's a big green tick for me. Does anyone else want to speak on that? Adam is agreeing.
Alan Greenberg: And if someone could take away my microphone, I would appreciate it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I can do that. I can de-microphone you. There you are, you're done.
Alan Greenberg: And I'll support myself.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Carlos? Carlos and then Sebastien.
Interpreter: Yes. I definitely don't agree that the representative should come through ALAC. I think that the idea is to have a certain degree of impartiality. Otherwise, the election is going to become similar to what happened in NomCom, where the election just takes place considering the resume in the background. So, if we start participating, then I think it is going to take too long for these elections.
And, second of all, we don't have a full knowledge of all the candidates that could potentially come up. I think that our participation would simply negatively change the system.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Carlos. I've now got my chair hat back on, so I will remain mute on that. I see Alan. And, Vanda, do you wish to speak to that?
Alan Greenberg: I think Vanda is having her own conversation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Vanda?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just mute Vanda, please, Matthias. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. My reply to Carlos is there may well be other candidates there, and the problem is, if we don't have an opportunity to endorse these people prior to the 17th, I believe we are going to be giving our decision-making ability to the chair of the board and the chair of GAC to decide who is the right person to represent At-Large. And as much faith as I have in these people, I do not think it is their job to make those decisions for us and tell us who is representing us, and who we endorse without asking us first.
Now, if someone can come up with a way that other candidates be fed to us and we have an opportunity with enough community or enough delegated people to make that decision, fine. But until the deadline of the 17th and the 20th changes, those are the ones we are stuck with and I think we need to come up with a process by which we have a chance of having someone who can speak on our behalf with knowledge. Because they are controlling the future of ICANN. They are saying what is working and what is not working, and this may be our only opportunity to get input into the transparency review for the next two years. And I don't think we can give that responsibility away to the chair of the board or the chair of the GAC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Alan. Adam, and then Carlton.
Adam Peake: Yeah, this was the part that confused me when I was reading the various bits and pieces. I mean, the AOC is a bit confused in itself, or at least it's somewhat circular in the sense that it does say that, first of all, and I think this answers Carlos's point a little bit. The review will be performed by volunteer community members, that's one essential part, and will include the following or their designate nominees. And representatives of relevant ICANN advisory committees are included as the designated nominees, which means ALAC. I assume we're a relevant organization. And then the circular part comes at the end, where it says that the composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the chair of the GAC and the chair of the board.
So, it sounds to me that it is pretty straightforward. I mean, it's not that confusing, really. I mean, we're part of the volunteer community and we are meant to designate nominees. They are our representatives, as Alan said, having a definition of what representative is. And so long as we can be assured that the ALAC is an advisory committee and relevant, then I think it's up to us to submit a name and then – well, Yanis and Peter can agree it or not.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Moving to Carlton and then back to Alan, and then Evan, who I thought had bailed on us, but he's been lurking. Go ahead, Carlton.
Carlton Samuels: Hello?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go ahead, Carlton.
Carlton Samuels: Yes. I want to settle what it – what us means to me At-Large, but I think as the ASO, ALAC is the representative of At-Large, and I think what we need to do is to endorse our representative from At-Large. That is the ALAC's job.
I also support Alan, that we need to act now. We have a compelling deadline. The first review team for one of the most important aspects of it is set to go to back in a very short time, and I think we have to act so that we do not lose the ability to put forward the membership instead of seeding that control to the board and the GAC. That is important. That is an important factor that Alan is talking about.
I don't think we have the time to do the long-term stuff. I think we need to get a plan in right now to get somebody on that specific review, which is already (inaudible). And that's what I think Alan is speaking about and that is what I support.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan and then Evan.
Alan Greenberg: Yes. The document does say that we would prefer in an ideal world simply identify the person that we want to sit on the committee. However, the AOC is, to use the terms in the proposal, crystal clear that the selection of people are made by the two chairs. And there is a requirement to balance gender and regional and various other things.
So, in light of that, the proposal – the comment that is going to be voted on says we are willing to accept that we will provide a small number of people who we endorse. And the word "endorse" is used in the proposal. And they will have the ability to pick from among those endorsed candidates, but it has to be a small number and they have to be people that the At-Large as the operational body within ICANN believes that are going to fairly represent and act on behalf of At-Large in this committee, in this review team.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And, Alan, I think you meant the ALAC as the operational body –
Alan Greenberg: ALAC, sorry, yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Evan, go ahead.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. I want to – I've been hearing an awful lot of parallels between what we're talking about right now and the very in-depth conversation that has been going on about how to select an At-Large director. Perhaps this is an opportunity to suggest, as Carlton has said, in the very short term we need to do something very quick. And that means expediency and that means that ALAC has to be directly involved.
I would like to consider over the longer haul a process that perhaps goes directly to the ALSs, that this does not necessarily have to be something that has ALAC as the gatekeeper, but in fact perhaps maybe here's the opportunity that we take to engage the ALSs more directly.
So, perhaps we've been going through all of this to select a director and we've come up with a very elaborate process. Maybe we should consider and maybe put forward that in the longer term we want to put forward these candidates that will come forward directly from the ALSs. Some of the comments that have been coming in regarding the director selection process is ALAC may be playing too much of a role as a gatekeeper. Maybe this isn't something that has to happen every time a representative of At-Large needs to be picked.
So, I'll just leave it open like this and just say we don't have to have a clone of the same selection process every time we need to put forward people to represent the At-Large community. It doesn't always have to be picked by ALAC. It can be something, I think, that can have a little bit of creativity in the selection process. Having said that, I agree with Carlton, in the short term we need to do something fast, but I think it needs to be made clear that we can be exploring new ways to do this, since this is a very, very long term and very important part of ICANN.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So noted, Evan. And I must say I certainly think that some of our most active community members in the ALSs, and the ALSs work within ICANN and we do have ALSs that work quite extensively in public comment and directly in the wider world of ICANN. We also see some of those people are very active within regions and, indeed, have served long and hard hours for the ALAC in a variety of ways. So, I'm not sure that control by the ALSs is mutually exclusive with a fair and reasonable amount of accountability to the bodies that are structural within ICANN. But then perhaps that is just my madness in utopia speaking. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I think we have no choice but that the people who end up going into the group be endorsed by the ALAC. The ALAC is the operational body within ICANN that has the power to make recommendations. Now, that being said, as everyone has said in the last five minutes, the ALAC is largely made up of people who are selected by the ALSs.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's right.
Alan Greenberg: To act on their behalf. So, it's not as if these are two completely separate things. I also point out that the call for applicants is an ongoing one. That is, names not used now may be used later. But I also suggest that one looks at the subjects.
The next review to be embarked on is security and stability. For this one I think it's really, really important that whoever beyond this group be intimately familiar and understand how ICANN works so they can evaluate it. And these are the internal organization, the power structures, and all of these things that make the organization not transparent. For the security/stability one, I think it's essential that it's people who understand the technology and understand those issues, which may well be very different people than the ones who are going to be able to comment well on transparency of the organization.
So, these are different reviews and I think they're going to have to be selected in different ways, and we need to be cognizant of it. But let's not pretend that the ALSs are completely separate from the ALAC. The ALAC, 10 of the ALAC members are selected directly by the ALSs. There is not – there shouldn't be some huge gap. If people are selecting people to act on their behalf and don't trust them at all, I think we have some very structural issues and problem issues within At-Large that we need to resolve. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Any other comments on this before I ask for some very specific responses to Alan's proposal of calling to our At-Large upper and lower case A and L community are asking them if they are planning to put in an expression of interest or application for this to put it through to us at a time and date short of the 17th of February, so that any of those people who are seeking to be endorsed. I am not suggesting that it is the only way people can apply – but those who are claiming to be endorsed as representatives of At-Large, capital A, capital L, and the ALAC, have our endorsement in a formal way. And that a small number of them, in equals, possibly two, possibly three, possibly five, let's see what shakes out, are then forwarded through on time as our endorsed representatives.
Alan Greenberg: We also need to decide who is going to endorse them. We only have 2.5 weeks to do this, at most, assuming the applications show up quickly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, let's first take it in small bite-sized pieces. Do we agree that we put out a call to our community on this matter asking them to indicate to us, and will we give them a particular address then, if they are seeking ALAC endorsement? Nobody disagrees? I'm seeing no (inaudible). Sorry, go ahead, Sebastien.
Sebastien Bachollet: Just one question. Don't you think that we can open the possibility for nomination, or you just want to have the people who want to be candidates, who are seeking for support by At-Large?
Alan Greenberg: If you want to nominate someone, convince them to submit a paper.
Sebastien Bachollet: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: Same as the ICANN nomination process.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fair point. Go ahead, Adam.
Adam Peake: As there is a regional and also agenda requirement in there, it would probably be a good idea to definitely ask the RALOs for input on this. Whether it's request for nomination, self nominations, or whatever, I don't think it matters, given that we've got such a short period of time just getting something out there quickly would be a good idea. And also being very specific about what the functions are, what committee it is, that there is no travel involved, and it means you are going to have to join teleconferences and a commitment to that. Because if they can't join those teleconferences during the Nairobi meeting, we really don't want them on that committee.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: This is not for the good of one's CV work.
Adam Peake: Yes, exactly. And it's not something you can suddenly say, sorry, I can't make it. It's one that they're going to have to –
Alan Greenberg: And at this point they're not even allowing alternates. So, if this person doesn't meet their job, At-Large is disenfranchised.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Okay. Can I ask, then, Adam, are you saying that we get a call out as soon as possible? Do you have any particular logistics and dates? Yes, go ahead, Adam.
Adam Peake: To send it. I mean, I think it sounds like something that needs to be done immediately, and I can't think of a timeline at hand at the moment, because I don't have the document sitting on my desk right now. But it is just within the shortest possible time with all the relevant information that has to be there, but with a very strong note that anybody who wishes to be considered really does have to make sure that they're available. And we don't actually know the time of the meeting, do we, so there is going to be people who might be in unworkable time zones in some ways.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, I would suggest that it won't be meeting, it will be a significant commitment to frequent meetings, plural.
Adam Peake: I was thinking of the first one, which is going to be – the one that is referred to in Nairobi, which is in the document, I think, saying that if you can't travel, then you will have to join by teleconference.
Alan Greenberg: But there is an ongoing requirement that we need to make crystal clear.
Adam Peake: Oh, yes, but the first one is essential, isn't it?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely. Well, all of them are essential, Adam, I'd like to suggest, and I can pretty well guarantee that there will be pain in terms of time zones, hopefully, equitably shared, but I very much doubt that.
Alan Greenberg: I think you can guarantee that it won't be shared equally.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, exactly. Okay. Now, in terms of getting it out there, Adam, the public call has gone out. I don't think we – I am less concerned about raising awareness of the issue than I am to ensure that our community is aware that should they be seeking to be endorsed by us, here is a way to do it.
Adam Peake: Okay. No disagreement.
Alan Greenberg: We have the RALO list, we have the At-Large list. If they don't read any of those, then I don't think they really can represent us.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, that would be a perfect type of candidate to put into this sort of business, wouldn't it, yes. Someone who is so closely in contact with the community that they don't even read the lists, that would be wonderful. Be careful what we wish for, we may just get it. Right. How are we going to get this done?
Carlton Samuels: No, no, no. I don't agree at all.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go on, Carlton, you've got the microphone.
Carlton Samuels: It has to be somebody who is following what's going on. I mean, it has to be. Come on, Cheryl.
Alan Greenberg: Carlton, that was sarcasm.
Carlton Samuels: I hope so.
Alan Greenberg: I don't even see how it could be someone who doesn't regularly attend ICANN meetings. How do they know about the intrigue and the politics and the lack of transparency if they're not actively watching this?
Carlton Samuels: That is the point. That is the point of all of this. This is the point. You can't have somebody in the review who is not conversant with all of the intrigue going on, who is not attending the ICANN meetings regularly, who is (inaudible) with the lists.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. You've now identified one of the criteria you believe is going to be in the selection process.
Carlton Samuels: Yes.
Alan Greenberg: That's a good point.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Can I then say that looking at the time and looking at what we should still have on our agenda, which clearly was unachievable, that perhaps the RAA will benefit, that we need to agree that this is how we're going to go forward. I would like to propose that seeing as we should be having an executive committee meeting in this time slot now, that the executive committee pens something that goes out to all our lists and makes clear to the At-Large community what we've discussed here tonight? And that we now establish that we have a whole of ALAC and regional meetings process – sorry, regional leaders process. In other words, depending, we might get two names, we might get 22 names. Depending on what happens in the next seven, I guess seven days would do, for people to decide.
Alan Greenberg: Seven days from when the call goes out.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: From when the call goes out, we will either have some form of Wiki and/or call that will allow the views of the, what I consider to be regional leadership, which is everyone actively involved in RALO meetings, as well as their appointed leaders and the ALAC to sift and sort a list of endorsements.
I would also be strongly encouraging us to not cull any suitable candidate who is well known to us. If it means putting 22 names through for the chairman of the board and the chair of the GAC to choose from, well, so be it this time around.
Alan Greenberg: As long as the group feels comfortable that any of the people we are putting forward can represent us as well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And I think that's a full and frank discussion we need to have on people who have put their hand up and said, "I am willing to do this job and I am willing to serve."
Alan Greenberg: And I would suggest that the group that have that discussion, which I assume you'll schedule a teleconference for, the ALAC members and the regional leadership excluding those who have put their name forward.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Of course.
Carlton Samuels: Cheryl, am I therefore understanding that we will not have a criteria for endorsement at this stage?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think we need to see what we shake out of the tree.
Carlton Samuels: Okay. So, we are just going to shake the tree, see what shows up, and then we put forward the list.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Alan Greenberg: I think in parallel we need to start developing a list of attributes, not necessarily prioritizing them or giving points to it, but identifying the things we need to be considering.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you, Alan, because I was going to suggest that we have to have that discussion simultaneously.
Alan Greenberg: Yes.
Carlton Samuels: For the first one to go through, I am happy with the fact – I understand why we have to do this. Shake the tree, see what shows up, because we have this deadline. But I would also wish to endorse that we begin the discussion about what the criteria is for ALAC endorsement. We're not selecting anybody. It says endorse.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's right.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, but we can endorse one or we can endorse more than one. That will be our decision.
Carlton Samuels: That is a decision for the ALAC, because it says so directly. But I would like for us to put on the record that we need to have a discussion about the criteria ALAC would use to endorse candidates.
Alan Greenberg: And we need two meetings, at least.
Carlton Samuels: Whatever it takes, but it is very important for us to agree on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm very aware of the time. We have crept beyond our advertised closing time. And surprisingly with today's agenda I would like now your guidance on how you wish to pursue the additional agenda items. I would note that we have a community call scheduled for a discussion and further heading towards finalization of the development of process of the At-Large community to select a voting board member, and that we will be, as a result, putting out a need for call for membership of the various committees that have been proposed in the white paper.
It was our intention to have the At-Large board selection design team – please note, these are the group of people who will be looking at the process, not at the applicants or the applications themselves, expressions of interest. This is rather more, a little like a design, an audit committee – should be concerned on our call, on our community call.
Are you happy for us to leave the full and frank discussion on that to the community call, or do any of you wish to – and I have fallen out of the Acrobat room, so if someone can tell me where – there I am. I've got two rooms open, that's clever. If someone is desperate to raise something now, because they are unavailable for the community call and they are also unable to make their views or those of the people they are representing clear on the Wiki, I'll open the floor very briefly now.
Anyone in Spanish or French wishes to raise a matter on this, or can we just leave it to the community call on the matter?
Interpreter: French, nobody is here, so I am simply interpreting the whole call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Tricia, and I appreciate it. And I've actually had feedback from Harvey, from some of the other ICANN staff, where it's been very heartening to see how many times some of the language, .mp3s have been accessed. So, please do not feel that you are just crying into the wilderness. You are doing something very useful.
Interpreter: Just confirming from Spanish, when is the community call?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The community call is in the next 12 hours, I think. Matthias (inaudible) –
Alan Greenberg: It is tomorrow, starting an hour earlier than this meeting started.
Interpreter: Oh, tomorrow.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Evan, go ahead.
Evan Leibovitch: The only thing that I would not want to bring into the community call are these somewhat personal accusations and somewhat nasty comments that are included in one particular comment. And I didn't know if they deserved much time here. But I'm certainly not very fond of the personal attacks that were implied in it. These are the comments from Milton Mueller.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right. Well, Mr. Mueller giving any of my responses or time is something that I find – I only bother with because of the RALO I have. It certainly wouldn't be something I would choose to do, Evan. I appreciate that. I do think we should take the moral high ground on this.
Alan, it's possibly an opportune time for you to very briefly share with the community the draft which having read it probably an hour and a half ago now, for you to respond to Milton on the other half, I think, would be a good idea. If you could take the floor on that briefly, please?
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Milt Mueller posted a very negative blog last Friday, a very negative statement on the At-Large director selection process. Among other things advocating we open the call for directors to anyone in the world and everyone in the world vote. He is allowed to have his opinion and that's quite fine. He ended it with a statement saying, "Be aware that comments that are made that the ALAC or staff disagree with are being erased."
Carlton Samuels: Good Lord. I didn't see – I follow Milton – let me go look at my –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Trust us, Carlton, it's there.
Alan Greenberg: No, it's not there now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, okay.
Alan Greenberg: I raised the issue with him.
Carlton Samuels: I follow his blog.
Alan Greenberg: Well, you didn't read it at the right time, Carlton.
Carlton Samuels: Obviously. I didn't see it.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, but other people did see it. I spent a lot of time over the last four or five days trying to figure out what had happened. The sequence of what happened was on January 8, ICANN staff attempted to move the Wiki to a new piece of hardware. It failed. The data was copied but it didn't work.
On Tuesday they decided they had now addressed the problem and they copied, they thought, the data that had changed since the previous Friday. The copy said it worked, it did not.
On Wednesday morning they realized that and recopied the data from the previous night. In between that period someone made a comment. So, a few hours later that comment disappeared. This is now Wednesday midday. The problem was realized, it was pointed out by the person that her comment had disappeared.
On Friday morning, a few hours later, it was recovered and was put back there, not using the best processes. In my mind it should have been put back with a notice saying it disappeared by mistake due to a technical problem; it is now being put back, and a staff member signing it. It was made to look like the person just made the comment on Friday.
Nevertheless, somewhere along the way the message got to Milton that a comment was erased. It wasn't erased, it disappeared. A week after the problem was fixed and the person who made the comment knew it was a technical problem and knew it was fixed, Milton put that blog out ending with the statement saying be careful if you make any negative comments, people are going to erase them, the ALAC and staff are going to erase them.
As I said, it took me a good amount of time from Friday through most of yesterday to piece together the story that indeed was a botched technical problem with a hardware problem, or hardware move, and several software problems and several bad decisions along the way. But nevertheless, it was inadvertent and not deliberate. And the person who made the original request understands that.
My intention at this point is to send out a note personally to Milton telling him exactly what happened in gruesome detail, and to send out a similar but slightly less detailed note to At-Large, because we don't know who read that document, pointing out that the accusation that we are erasing things from this very critical procedure is not true, and that under no conditions are we trying to edit or censor what people are saying despite, as Evan said, how inappropriate some of these comments may in fact be, because they are laying charges against people.
Evan Leibovitch: But also –
Alan Greenberg: Unless anyone has any objection, I do plan to send that out. I am sure he will rebut it in various ways, but I feel that we must send a message to our community.
Carlton Samuels: I would personally want to associate my name. I just read the blog and I didn't see (inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: Milton, to his credit, once I raised the issue that I believe that was a false accusation, he did allow – that he didn't think he was really saying we did it maliciously, but the wording was such that is, and he did remove that line from his blog. Of course, one cannot look at the blog and realize he did it, because blogs are not transparent.
Carlton Samuels: That's what I mean, Alan. So, it would have been nice for him to at least acknowledge that he had probably misspoke and document he was rude to comment here.
Alan Greenberg: Someone might also add a comment to his blog pointing this out. I think that we need to decide whether we do that or not.
Carlton Samuels: If I seen it, I would have. But I would want to associate my name specifically with your response to Milton in detail.
Alan Greenberg: Then, as soon as it goes out to At-Large, endorse it.
Carlton Samuels: I will do that. I will do that. But, you see, you are going to send two slightly different ones. You're going to send a very detailed one to Milton.
Alan Greenberg: I'm sending a private one to Milton just in light of the private discussion we had. I'm not going to copy someone else on a private discussion we had.
Carlton Samuels: Okay, fine.
Alan Greenberg: That's not appropriate.
Carlton Samuels: I gotcha.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I just suggest, then, I'm about to recognize Evan. And, also, Alan, it might be worthwhile for what goes out – what you tend to put out to the At-Large community should perhaps be specifically as a result of our discussions on this very important and concerning matter at the ALAC meeting of – insert date – the ALAC has asked me to make clear to the community that --. Go ahead, Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: I would like to make a request of Heidi, Matthias and Gisella, whoever is closest to this, to get the person from ICANN technical to post a technical response to this. When I talked to Alan about this last night, I'm of the opinion that this is a technical issue. ICANN technical should be clearly saying what's involved. It should not be up to the volunteers to have to explain what was a technical glitch. And I really don't like being in this position. I mean, (inaudible) a comment to make, but this was a staff error and I really think that staff needs to come clean and detail that it's a technical issue and not a political one.
Alan Greenberg: Having seen the explanation from technical staff, I don't support that. But I understand what you're saying, but –
Evan Leibovitch: What do you mean, don't support it? Don't think they ought to do it?
Alan Greenberg: I wouldn't want that description going out on the list.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: I wouldn't mind if ICANN staff would tell me that they are agreeing with the wording I have, however.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, perhaps we can ask you do that, double-check. Go ahead, Sebastien.
Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you. Yeah, Alan didn't say that I was involved in that, as I received the first inquiries of why is – how she could be able to put back her comments to the list. And I think, Alan, you do a great job and I think really it's not our work to do that. And I would like to support Evan in that, saying that it must have been done by staff and get back as soon as we get those questions. And you don't have to go through the IT department to spend all your time. It's just crazy. Thank you for doing that, Alan.
Heidi Ullrich: Alan, this is Heidi.
Alan Greenberg: Yes.
Heidi Ullrich: Again, I support what Sebastien and Evan are saying, and very much thank you for all of the time that you put in to investigate this and write this up in a very clear, nontechnical way. Perhaps if ALAC does wish the staff to send out the statement, it could be At-Large staff and using your text.
Alan Greenberg: Well, the last part of it you cannot send out. It's a value judgment. But you could certainly send out the part reporting what happened.
Heidi Ullrich: That's what I mean.
Alan Greenberg: Yes.
Heidi Ullrich: And I just want to perhaps raise the issue that due to your intervention, Milton did remove the offending – you know, nonfactual line.
Alan Greenberg: As Carlton pointed out, yes, he removed it, but he erased it, to use the term, so that no one ever knows that he did it, which is –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It just makes me smile, Alan, it just makes it smile. Things that don't make me smile, however, is being so seriously behind on an agenda and having the very important matters that we have in fact bumped from, I think now, let me count them, yes, maybe two, if not three meetings going to have to be passed over again.
So, I am now going to ask the ALAC to entrust to the executive committee and any of them who wishes to join us by making comments to the various Wiki pages for planning of the Nairobi meeting. To do so, we have ticking clocks on deadlines. We essentially have to get the Nairobi planning done. If we're not going to find time to do it in our monthly meetings, then so be it. Some of us will do it. Will the rest of you please take the time to make your comments directly to the Wiki or, of course, to the lists.
And you've got the links to the current planning for the Nairobi meeting. I'm going to now also ask that anyone who is aware that they've got any logistical travel, visa or other issue, now that we've had the Nairobi meeting confirmed, if they are aware of any issues or problems that we need to be aware of, you contact us as soon as possible. Because we have had – we do have a list of people and not everyone who could travel has even responded to the request on whether or not they want to travel. And that is something that worries me greatly. So, if you're in that pile, please – and it's not a large pile, luckily – get on to whatever it is you need to do to establish whether or not you are traveling to Nairobi.
Is anyone disagreeing with my way forward on that?
Alan Greenberg: No, Cheryl, I'll just add something. There are a large number of people for whom picketing is in process. If you do not feel that process is moving at a reasonable speed, also speak up.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, fine. I would also like advice from any of the regions as we had Europe who have had people saying that they won't be able to attend Nairobi, who are normally sponsored travelers. EURALO has placed those sponsored travelers, and if similar things happen in any of the other regions, I would like to ask the regional leads who are reporting the EURALOs within the ALAC to start working now on a short list of people who may be in a position to replace an ALAC member or regional lead who is not attending the Nairobi meeting, please. And, again, your main points of contact can be me at this stage, because we do try and avoid involving staff in those details. But please start thinking and getting confirmation that people are able to travel, if they are able to go as a replacement.
Who has raised their hand? Nobody? Fine. Thanks for putting up that link to the At-Large Nairobi meeting agenda, Heidi, and hopefully everyone is now going to be highly motivated to go and start making some comments. And the ExCom will be beating that into some semblance of order in the deadlines that we've provided for.
In terms of the promotion of ICANN through outreach activities, Sylvia is on the call tonight. Is Steve on the call as well? Matthias, can you tell me, is Steve on today's call?
Sebastien Bachollet: It's Sebastien. I don't think that Steve is on the call and I was commenting on this point of the agenda, and I think that they are just starting to work together to prepare something for the Sunday meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, I agree with you, Sebastien, and what I was going to ask Sylvia was if it's possible for her to come to our February meeting with a small update as an agenda item in our discussion section so that we can be aware what sorts of things we might be looking at in the 7th of March, Sunday, face-to-face meeting. I would find that most useful. But does anyone else have any other views on that? Sylvia, your comment on that? Anything?
Sylvia Leite: Of course, yes. Not a problem. For February I can prepare in advance what we are going to be presenting that Sunday.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you so much, Sylvia. I definitely appreciate it. And I also want to take the opportunity to recognize, of course, even before Sylvia had been appointed by LACRALO to be representative on the ALAC, Sylvia had been highly motivated and taken a great lead in outreach activities within LACRALO. And I believe was instrumental in the way that the LACRALO ALSs participated in the summit and in the pre-summit activities. So, I am looking forward, Sylvia, to seeing what you and Siva come up with.
And regarding our micro strategic planning for the ALAC, at the RALO meeting today, it was – we began looking at some of the operational plan activities and how they needed to be hand-in-glove, and that we needed to be proactive and ready to have our regional needs looked at and bought in wherever possible to the ICANN operational plan fitting within the strategic planning documents.
How might I ask do you wish us to move forward on an agenda item, which is essential and yet which keeps not having enough time committed to it? Do you wish to have a call, a special purpose call? Do you wish to carve out a particular lump of time in February for it and commit to it as an early agenda item? Or do you wish to handle it in some other way? Am I still on the call?
Alan Greenberg: You're still on the call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Deathly silence is what responded. How do you wish to go forward?
Alan Greenberg: I have no preference as long as it gets done.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Adam, how do you wish to go forward?
Adam Peake: Oh, I'm perfectly happy with whatever you decide, Boss.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I see. Can I ask, then, that we have a commitment to a significant amount of our February agenda committed to this? And that the regional meetings held by the RALOs prior to that focus on regional input and information from the ALSs that will contribute directly to our micro planning, but also in parallel focus on the operational plan which should be out by then. Now, forgive me, I haven't seen it; if it has become public. Heidi or Matthias, has it been announced, or do we have a time for that announcement yet?
Heidi Ullrich: Sorry, I was on mute. I will get back to you on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. But, because it is something that probably needs to run in parallel. Go ahead, Alan. And, Alan, can I just hand the chair to you while you've got – once you finish saying what you're saying, because I –
Alan Greenberg: I think I'd like you to hear it, but I think –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, no, I'm not leaving. I'm just moving away from my desk, so (inaudible) –
Alan Greenberg: Okay. I think we are finished the meeting, all I have to do is adjourn. But since you've already invited people to the next meeting, I was just going to say that allocating a significant part of the February meeting is fine, but if as we start working on the agenda, it looks like that won't happen, we need to schedule a separate meeting quickly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Works for me. Thank you.
Sebastien Bachollet: May I say something? I am the next on the –
Alan Greenberg: Yes, you are right, I'm sorry. I'm chair, yes, you may say something.
Sebastien Bachollet: If Alan don't want to give me the floor, I will take it –
Alan Greenberg: I have no control over the microphones. You have the floor.
Sebastien Bachollet: That's okay, that's okay. It was just to say that I wanted to suggest that we get a specific phone call for that issue, because I will not see it fitting with the next February meeting. Then I agree with you, Alan. Thank you.
Alan Greenberg: Adam?
Adam Peake: I think I'm jumping ahead. I got the impression – if we're on to any other business, come back to me. Or when we're on to any other business, please come back to me.
Alan Greenberg: I may have missed something. I think we're on – I think we have finished the agenda that we were going to cover today. If I'm misspeaking, someone should speak up and let us pretend we're on any other business. Adam?
Adam Peake: Sorry, I was just out of the room while I think we were talking about the Nairobi schedule, if we've already talked about that. And there were a couple of things I wanted to say. One is that I think it would be a good idea if we could have travel policy back on the agenda, if it's not going to be (inaudible) anyway. I'm quite interested in what's happened to the definition of flexibility, and I'm also finding that BCD travel is not as cheap as it should be, and I'd like to try and understand how we can address those kinds of issues.
Alan Greenberg: Are you suggesting a meeting with someone or a meeting among ourselves?
Adam Peake: Probably with someone, probably with Kevin to sort of – he's been – and to see what's happening with that. There was also a special call about travel that was meant to talk about some issues that – I forget the particular subject matter, but it sounded like it was almost performance related in some way, but I don't really know what it was. But it seems there is a bit more going on with travel and we should understand what it is.
Alan Greenberg: Are you asking for a teleconference or a discussion in Nairobi?
Adam Peake: No, in Nairobi.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, thank you.
Adam Peake: So, this is in Nairobi. And the next thing is, does anybody know which hotel ALAC will be in? I imagine not at the moment, but just to ask. And then sort of a follow-on question from that. We've been hearing that the conference center will close, or be open and closed at quite strict times.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's correct, Adam.
Adam Peake: So, it will be closing at – so 6:30 exactly, or something like that; is that right?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That is correct.
Adam Peake: Okay. So, don't plan any meetings after that, in other words, okay.
Alan Greenberg: My candid answer on the hotel is we will be told what hotel it is once it is too late to have the hotel arrange transport from the airport. That is my cynical version.
Heidi Ullrich: Adam – Alan, sorry. I'm trying to raise my – put the microphone on, but (inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Heidi Ullrich: Can I speak to Adam's questions?
Alan Greenberg: Sure.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay. The first point of having Kevin Wilson or Steve Antonoff speak about travel support, I know that Kevin Wilson has already confirmed that he is happy to talk about – to the At-Large, ALAC and regional reps at the wrap-up session on operational planning. I'm sure that he will also speak on travel support at that meeting, or any other meetings.
On the issue of the hotels, I asked meetings yesterday and they do not know yet where At-Large is staying.
Alan Greenberg: Why can't the decision simply be made?
Heidi Ullrich: I don't know.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We hear your frustration, Alan, and Heidi can only report what she knows.
Alan Greenberg: No, no. I'm not asking Heidi that question. I'm asking the world that question.
Heidi Ullrich: And then the third point, on the updated issue on the times, I have now heard and had confirmed that meetings will only be able to take place between 8:30 and 5:30. However, meetings – small meetings will be able to be held back in the hotels, and we are confirming that remote participation will be available at the hotels.
Alan Greenberg: And has anyone confirmed that we will not only have shuttles from the conference centers of the hotels but between the hotels all the way into the reasonable hours of the evening?
Heidi Ullrich: I will raise that question.
Alan Greenberg: If we're going to be in different hotels and now we're supposed to be having meetings there, this is somewhat (inaudible) –
Heidi Ullrich: Well, I know that they are very much trying to keep the groups together, the various (inaudible) –
Alan Greenberg: Some of us actually talk to people in other groups.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, some of us have to.
Heidi Ullrich: I will raise that issue.
Adam Peake: It's Adam again. Just a quick follow-up. Thanks, Heidi, for that information. I know it starts to get dark in Nairobi around 5:30, so it's not a bad idea to be clearing out around then. Is it correct that the main conference hotel is the Safari Park, or whatever it's called, something safari anyway?
Alan Greenberg: The one at the top of the list in the hotel list is the Intercontinental.
Adam Peake: Yes, but I don't think that is the main hotel. Heidi, any ideas?
Heidi Ullrich: No, sorry, I don’t.
Adam Peake: Okay, let's not go into that then.
Heidi Ullrich: And there will be a few community calls on security issues. Tomorrow perhaps they will know something more then.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I ask when the community calls on security issues are and why they're not in my diary? I'm wondering if they are going to be in any of the other community diaries?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes. (Inaudible)
Alan Greenberg: They're Thursday, Friday, not tomorrow.
Sebastien Bachollet: May I?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I see Sebastien and then I see Vanda. Adam, have you finished?
Adam Peake: Yep, I'm done. I'm done.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, you finished?
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, except I do have the times of the calls, if you want them. They were sent out on some list, I think on the AXO list, but I'm not sure.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Like I said, that's not going to be very helpful to our community.
Alan Greenberg: No.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sebastien and then Vanda.
Sebastien Bachollet: I wanted to talk about that. It was sent different list asking to be sent to other lists, and it could be sent out. And it's not just about security, it's about logistical and security arrangements. And I think it's the right place to put all the question we have about travel to buses from the airport to the hotel to the conference center, so on and so forth. And I really think that it could be very useful for all the participants of At-Large to be participating to one of those two calls. It is 28th of January at 6:00 UTC, and 29 of January at 20 UTC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much, Sebastien. Vanda, and then back to Adam. Vanda, you might be muted. You might need to star, 7.
Vanda Scartezini: Hello.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There you go, Vanda. We can hear you now. Thank you.
Vanda Scartezini: Okay. Well, during the call, the board call, we have a lot of questions and demands about frequent of (inaudible), about how to deal with this small meetings, blah, blah, blah. And certainly it's the point that the staff will answer in those calls. So, it was just demands from the board members, but not an answer. So, we need to attend this call on 29th, I guess, and make all the questions. So, I agree with Sebastien. Maybe we should have a list of questions and someone who will attend will make all the questions. It's the most (inaudible) that we can do to get direct feedback from each issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Thank you, Vanda..
Alan Greenberg: The announcement went out on the ALAC announce list yesterday.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, that explains why I haven't seen it. Adam, go ahead.
Adam Peake: I was going to say something that is a good segue to what Vanda just said, which is some question I would like considered is that if we are to be taking extra taxis or particularly for security reasons short distances that one normally might walk, then I don't particularly want to be paying for that out of my per diem.
And so I know that in the past ALAC particularly in Sao Palo, a meeting some time ago, people were – I wasn't a member at that time – but people were spending almost their whole of their per diems, or an awful lot of their allowances on taxis that they had to take simply because that's where they were located in the hotel.
Alan Greenberg: Los Angeles, too.
Adam Peake: And that's unfair, and so some consideration for additional expenses for taxis would be good. I mean, it's not going to be a large amount of money, but it is when it's coming out of your per diem pocket and you're a volunteer and a lovely person and all that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So noted, and I'm sure that will be very aggressively pursued. And I'm obviously having issues with my calendar, because Gisella is telling me things are in my calendar but I'm not seeing them, but there you go. I might be having a number of issues having not been at my desk. It will teach me to have a public holiday. So, Adam, any more from you?
Adam Peake: No. No, no, no.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Any other business?
Adam Peake: There is one thing I can say, if it's helpful. I've been to Nairobi a few times in the last year and I've always found it a really nice city. It's not enormously safe. You don't go walking around the streets at night, but don't be that scared. And having said that, I hope nobody gets mugged as a result of me putting some kind of bad chinks on things. But it's really quite a nice place and I've always enjoyed it very much. So, don't be too worried. The airport is pretty easy to get through and, yeah. So, don't worry too much.
Alan Greenberg: Adam, let's be candid, though. Their most recent belly button inspection and rethinking the decision was not street safety but the fact that there was a small uprising in the very area we are at and the police shot various people. But that's what prompted it, not the street crime issue.
Adam Peake: That's true, but it happened in a two-block area that isn't directly –
Alan Greenberg: No, I wasn't debating the merits, I'm just saying that's was what triggered it.
Adam Peake: Oh, yeah. What I'm trying to say is that it's not a wonderfully safe place, but we've been to Mexico, we've been to places where we do have to be careful about security. And the last time someone tried to blow up a plane it was a guy with underpants and he wasn't coming from Kenya. So, Amsterdam is the place to worry about. The world isn't very safe.
Unidentified Participant: That's the point. Thank you very much, Adam.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right. Seeing as we weren't trying to second guess the board's recent decision, which I think has been broadly supported by the ALAC regional leaders and At-Large community as a very good thing indeed, and of course we'll always need to be aware of personal safety regardless of where you are in the world, humans being what humans are, bad things can happen. The smart thing is to minimize the risks and certainly we look forward to the community calls with the dial-in details.
And I would strongly encourage all of the regional representatives in the ALAC and the regional leaders as well as the NomCom to attend those calls and to bring personal concerns and the concerns of their communities forward so that we can act as voices to reassure our traveling community, sponsored or otherwise by ICANN, so that we have the best possible meeting we can within Nairobi.
Ladies and gentlemen, if there is nothing else, and I don't believe there possibly can be, I would just like to mention to the ExCom that we now have some 33 minutes before my next workgroup call. So, I will now ask you all whether or not you want to have a postponement or whether you want to have a short prioritizing our work type list meeting, in which case I'll ask for a one- or two-minute break to go and get a much needed second cup of coffee. Because we've got 5:00 meetings and then Alan and I – 5:00 a.m. my time, and then Alan and I have another one in 90 minutes after that.
Alan Greenberg: I would suggest a very short ExCom meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so we're happy for a very short ExCom, that's great. And any of these ExComs, if anybody wants to dial back in and join us, we are more than happy to have you. If you would like to raise anything, then do let us know now. Thank you all. Thank you all very, very much. I apologize for my dropping the ball on the rather important votes, and thank Alan and the rest of the team for picking up my errors and making sure that we basically got through as much we possibly could do.
Alan – sorry, Evan, if you're still on the call, in 30 minutes RAA Group B meets, and that is still open, so if you want to join, fine. But I will also encourage the workgroup within ALAC to look at what's happening in the RAA Group A and B Wikis, and have some of (inaudible)
Thank you all. Good morning, good evening, good day, good night, and we'll see some of you in about two minutes' time. Bye for now.
