Transcript ALAC 27 April 2010 EN

Cheryl: Let me first ask for any other business or to the agenda.
Patrick: I would like a minute to discuss a SAC report.
Cheryl: I’m delighted to grant you that time if not a little more. We’ll do that when we get to our report section we’ll add that. Any other items of business? Hearing none I would like to mention that time permitting I would like to brief the community representatives of the regions from the ALAC to distribute information back to their regions, some information on the accountability and transparency review team when we get to a point in the agenda when we have time to do that. I’ll insert that when appropriate if you will indulge me.
That meeting was only held a few hours ago and I didn’t have any information I could put on the agenda until the most recent meeting was completed.
Okay moving to the next item which is the review of the action items from our last meeting which was the 23rd of March 2010. Hopefully yes the action items, we had the community call (1:58 – phone interference)…for the global outreach program and someone will make the magic of the technology talking to us disappear.
Heidi is going to when Sheva and Sylvia have updated their presentations ensure we have a single call on the At Large Global Outreach Program. It was to be in April and that hasn’t happened yet and will be carried over to the May agenda. I gather the work group Wikis still being updated and I will ask staff to respond to that in a moment as they also responds to the other administrative matters such as changing the CCUC name in the white paper or in reference you can’t actually change the name of the white paper cause the white paper is the white paper, in the review of the white paper would be altered.
The matter on the Latin American meetings and the ALAC internal confirmation on Brussels travel. And after Heidi responds to those matters of action items we’ll then move to note that the ALS poll or survey is on today’s agenda and we will discuss the current state of not only the regional outreach and global outreach questions but also the previously approved questions in Nairobi that Rudy and Ron had put together. And that will be going out, Mateo correct me if I’m wrong sometime in the next 10 to 14 days?
Mateo: Within the next 7 to 10 days.
Cheryl: Even better thank you. Heidi would you like to go over the staff action items?
Heidi: Yes starting with Barbara Clay, I do have an appointment for a meeting with Barbara Clay this Thursday evening, so if I can get a response from either Sylvia or Sheva about their status of their little outreach program I could invite her to schedule a call with her.
One the next point of the working group Wiki, Seth and I are continuing to update them. I think as they are reinvigorated we will continue to update them. The 3rd one on the BECE that is a work in program. Obviously and I did get back to Vanda on that but now that is moot point. Yes, I’ll have done the confirmed everyone’s travel to Brussels. And we’re just waiting for the final AP Rawlo representative.
Cheryl: Yes cause there is a current election going on at the moment. Okay good and thank you very much. Any questions from any of the ALAC members on any of those?
Adam: The question is the travel documents were sent out a couple of days ago and I wonder if everybody received it? Because it also has a deadline of return for April 23rd and that was for me 2 days before I received it.
Alan: I don’t believe I’ve seen mine or I missed it.
Patrick: I got mine already.
Adam: Was it like a day or two ago or a week or more?
Patrick: It was if I remember correctly I received it yesterday and I replied immediately. But indeed the deadline was on the 23rd of April.
Cheryl: The deadline for us to reply is within 3 days of receipt.
Adam: If that could be noted that would be pretty cool.
Sylvia: I just wanted to let you know that with Sheva we are setting the document I presented in Nairobi and we are ready for that meeting that we have spoken about with Barbara.
Cheryl: Heidi it looks like we’re ready to look at some diary opportunities for a single purpose call.
Sebastian: What is also very interesting in receiving travel is that VCD will be operating with limited staff from 24th of December 09 to generate 2 terms and everything is mixed up with the dates in this document.
Cheryl: It’s just the type of care, consideration and attention to detail that we’ve gotten used to. I think it’s fairly standard operational procedure. Now look taking my tongue out of my cheek we will formally ask Heidi to respond post haste to travel constituency copy to the BCEC travel to say not being in possession of time machines, we won’t be able to meet the stated return by date but the support of travel have not all as yet received their email messages and indeed whilst most of us will be getting our responses back as soon as humanly possible we would like perhaps an errata and we can list it noted and addressed.
Alan: I did receive mine it was buried somewhere.
Cheryl: Okay so it’s maybe we have all received it. If anyone is aware from today’s conversation that they haven’t received it please let Heidi know so she can make sure that follows through.
Alan: The completion date of the 7th of May is not reasonable based on when we actually got these so that should be adjusted, not only the reply by date.
Cheryl: It’s the usual issues we have.
Heidi: My understanding is that all messages went out on Sunday evening and I will note the issues with the dates. It may have been in the interpretation, the translation took some time so perhaps at that point the dates were not updated. I will write this email.
Alan: Are you saying this document went out in multiple languages or points to things in multiple languages?
Heidi: Yeah it should be it was translated into French and Spanish as well. This is the travel procedures, correct?
Alan: We’re talking about the email right now.
Sebastian: Not saying it’s in French or Spanish the travel summary is only in English this time.
Heidi: Okay I’ll follow up where the travel procedures are. It’s that document you generally get with all the information. I thought that had gone out. I’ll follow up.
Adam: That document has gone out and it’s the usually travel summary for Brussels and has the specific information about all kinds of things. But in the past the document has begun in English and then gone on to Spanish and then to French. Either they sent the French and Spanish documents out separately or they haven’t done them. And from what Sebastian just said it sounds like they haven’t done them.
Sebastian: I got mine in English only.
Heidi: Okay I’ll follow up on that. I know I was following up with Constituency travel the last week, when is it going out? They kept saying that they were waiting for the translation.
Alan: Then they may have omitted including what they were waiting for.
Heidi: Okay I’ll follow up with that.
Cheryl: And the waiting is fine but we’ve now all received it with unreasonable response times.
Heidi: Yeah I’ll let you know.
Adam: I have a question that Alan may know the answer to; it looks to me as though some of the conditions might have changed the upgrading process and being more specific about non-refundable economy. I haven’t checked but you tend to be quite an expert on these, so if you have a moment.
Alan: Not realizing it came until 3 minutes ago I haven’t read it yet.
Adam: No I realize that just thinking you may have a better memory of it than I do.
Alan: I will do my best to identify all my suggestions that they ignored.
Cheryl: We certainly rely on you to raise our awareness on all that. Thank you Alan.
Sylvia: I already received it in Spanish and sent the reply as well.
Cheryl: Thank you it’s good to know. I think we also need to note for the record that both Marta and Viseck have joined the call and on mute. We need to adjust our record to show who amongst the ALAC is currently present.
Moving then… are there any other matters we need to discuss on the action items? Okay let’s now move to the next item on our agenda because we do have a packed agenda today, surprise, surprise.
Current ALS applications as far as Wiki Switzerland and Nurses Across Borders and the discussion on the various (12:36 – inaudible) on the various regional (inaudible). Am I correct in assuming both of these are not ready to go for a vote?
Mateo: We received official regional advice on Wiki Switzerland and that advice is to endorse the application but we haven’t at this point received an official statement from Rowlo. I see there is still discussion on the list. Some members believe the application to be looked into further so we cannot confirm regional advice on this application at this point.
Cheryl: That’s not my reading of the F. Rowlo missive so I’m going to ask someone from the F Rowlo region to, we have Marta on the call, we have Mohammed on the call, we have Toushani on the call I want them to give us the regional advice. Are we getting regions advice from Nurses Across the Border. Mohammed raised some issues but when I was reading the list I thought the issues were dealt with.
Alan: Mohammed is in the chat and saying that most F Rowlo members are supporting the application.
Cheryl: That’s certainly my reading of it but I would like to hear from hear from the lead chief of F Rowlo.
Mohammed: Yeah. We have some (14:35 – inaudible) on the list and most of the members are supporting the application even though we’re missing some information. But I can say that our Secretariat will be sending the regional advice soon. Maybe one more comment about (15:07 – inaudible overtalking).
Cheryl: I’m being asked to formally raise the fact that we had very particular guidelines in terms of time and turnaround on the various parts of an ALS application. And Yabi’s suggestion is not going to work in those guidelines.
Mohammed: Yeah I would agree with that and we will be discussing that. I can see that suggestion has been received a month ago. We will look at that.
Cheryl: Okay so in the absence of concern about Nurses Across Borders, can I ask that we are sent a simple agree or disagree to endorse piece of advice from the regions in the shortest possible time so we can start a vote of the ALAC on both Nurses Across Borders and Wikimedia within the next 24 hours? I don’t particularly care who takes that to F Rowlo but that is what we need from F Rowlo.
Alan: May I suggest if we have regional approval or advice for Wikimedia that we take a vote right now on that one? Is there any reason not to?
Cheryl: Because we have not traditionally done the votes at the meetings because the votes for something as important as a new ALS are normally totally transparent and we see who has voted in what way.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: We tend to have those recorded slightly differently. I’m happy to entertain it but it’s been tradition so far for us to do the votes within the cultural.
Alan: My mistake then and I withdraw it.
Cheryl: Okay so let’s have the formal information that from F Rowlo post haste on their advice on Nurses Across Borders and let’s put both of those to the vote in the next 24 hours for a 5 day vote.
Okay moving to reports and most of the reports have been tabled, including a link to the recent activities of the finance and budget subcommittee; please follow those links to get that information. But this is the time where Patrick needs his 60 seconds but we won’t even hold him to that time. Go ahead Patrick.
Patrick: Just to draw your attention on the fact as SSAC discussed a report proposed by the staff about what they call Internet TLD names it’s in the framework of the new GTLD program. The goal being to ask SSAC for advice if some of these TLD’s might pose a risk to the security or stability of the DNS system.
The short answer from the SSAC is no. there was a question because already now in the DAG there are a few TLD’s that are being reserved. Most of them seem to be a list of acronyms related to the ICANN and the ITF environment. For example, you may have seen that .GNSO or .ALAC or .SSAC are reserved TLD’s. The question that was raised by the SSAC was does that make any sense at all? From a technical point of view it makes no sense. There is no need to reserve these TLD’s and that may make some sense if you think about that in the intellectual property framework that ICANN wants to reserve some of its acronyms.
But the opinion of SSAC is there shouldn’t be prohibited right away from the start in the DAG but if ICANN would at a later stage wish to object to such TLD’s there are processes foreseen in the DAG to object to TLD strings based on the intellectual property rights.
So this is why the SSAC will most probably ask ICANN to remove .SSAC from the list of prohibited TLD strings and I would suggest that ALAC could do the same because there is no technical reason why such a TLD should be prohibited.
Cheryl: Thank you for that.
Alan: I have a point to raise. Having participated in the process I don’t believe there was ever any claim there were technical issues. This was always a policy issue for the same reason .web I believe is not allowed and a few other ones. These were a policy issue and had nothing to do with technical reasons and I don’t believe intellectual property issues are applicable because in general we and the other organizations don’t necessarily have trademarks registered on these.
I mean SSAC can do what it wants but I don’t believe that there was ever an issue and that anyone claimed there were technical reasons for it, just putting that on the table.
Cheryl: Patrick do you want to reply to that before we move to Adam?
Patrick: Indeed you are correct Alan; there was no claim that it was a technical issue. But rather than there was no rationale to explain or not sufficient explanation why these TLD’s should be banned.
Alan: There was a work group subcommittee or a task force that looked at reserve names and I suspect there is abundant documentation and reports associated with that but personally I haven’t looked at it.
Adam: Let’s move on I’m okay with this.
Cheryl: Okay. Am I hearing someone else wanting to raise an issue on this? I thought I heard another voice but it’s now silent.
So Patrick you’re proposing that ALAC consider advice of the ALAC in the matter of a reserved name to do with (23:20 – inaudible) is that the case?
Patrick: Yes that’s my proposal. I don’t think we should do that right now but maybe keep it in mind at a later stage if this question comes up again on the table.
Cheryl: Okay and it’s certainly something I think most of us would want to get, well to take the temperature of those we represent. I’m not sure the representatives at this meeting now have brokered this topic. I know Rowlo has not discussed this topic. So thank you for raising that and perhaps we need to have that as a piece of outreach discussion in the next month’s cycle of regional meetings to come back to the ALAC at the next meeting measuring the regional opinion on that proposal from Patrick.
Okay are there any other questions or responses to…go ahead Alan.
Alan: Yeah I guess I object to that. We have enough real work to do and if this issue hasn’t been raised with us by the Board then I have no stomach for adding something to our list where ICANN on the global level has decided to protect its various names. I just don’t think this is important enough.
Now if ICANN was deciding not to protect it then it would be a valid discussion to see if we wanted to protect it. But going the other way I don’t see why we would spend any time on it.
Cheryl: Patrick is proposing that ALAC fall in line with SSAC and say that the name ALAC should not be reserved.
Alan: And I’m suggesting that….
Cheryl: I’m saying I have not heard any discussion within my region and therefore I’m not willing to bring it to the table until I do.
Alan: And I was suggesting it should be raised by the regions or by the Board and we don’t need to initiate that discussion but that’s just my opinion.
Cheryl: Okay is that the view of everyone else? Carlos do you believe LaCralo should discuss this or we should act on it or not act on it?
Dave: I’m listening in and I don’t think it’s really worth spending time on. It seems to be a relatively non-issue in terms of the amount of things we have to do.
Sylvia: Yeah it’s something we also need to discuss. I do agree with Alan’s opinion but it would be something that we would definitely need to discuss amongst LaCralo first.
Cheryl: I’ve heard from Alan, from Narolo and the I think the safest thing is to take it back to the regions and say is this on your radar of concerns, yes or no? Do you wish the ALAC to make a statement and if so in what way. If we get the feedback we tag up the proposal and discuss it at a future meeting.
Okay so that’s an action item probably for Mateo to work out with the regional leaders. Moving now to then new business, we have some arguments for decision. So just to draw your attention to the policy advice development schedule and note that there are of course as there is always new consultations opening but the ones we have proposed that we do put ALAC statements forward on, the recommendation on reconsideration requests and the draft of the Travel Community Support Guideline noting the very early amount of time or very short amount of time we have for the Travel Support Guidelines which ends on the 7th of May.
Is it the view of the ALAC that we do indeed respond to both of those matters? Hearing no comments either way…
Adam: I wanted to make, I think we should respond on the travel guidelines. I would like us to also specifically mention that the Board is missing, it’s a discussion of how the community is funded and yet the Board which is part of the community and equally a volunteer group is not mentioned. I think all the Board’s expenditure should be included in that document.
Alan: I support that.
Cheryl: Yeah I think that’s certainly good. Anyone arguing against this working on those? I see ticks from Garrett okay so it looks like they added…the update of the current draft statements and I believe it’s we need to vote, is that the case? Correct me if I’m wrong staff but we have the initial report, we have the ALAC statement on the agenda link there, we have the matter of options for further consideration, the ICMF application, we have the ALAC draft statement and we collated what regional information has come in so far.
I would draw the ALAC’s attention to the recent addition of an AP Rowlo statement on the Wiki page there and we have the IDN’s, multiple IDN’s issues that we now have statements prepared for, a synchronization of IDNs.
Alan: Unless I’m looking at the wrong thing, I have a number of things where it shows a number of items are not on the pad and .xxx is one of them. I thought we decided they were on the pad. Is my memory going?
Cheryl: I’m going to defend the current pad and if the pad isn’t up to date then we need to deal with that probably by the next environment. I am interested in finding out from the ALAC do they wish to add to the pad recommendations on reconsideration requests and drafts as well? I believe that is the case and also and asking the ALAC of whether or not we’re ready to go to vote on those drafts we have listed?
Sylvia: I would like to say during the last DeCralo conference our President established that we prepare a statement related to the xxx issue and you will be receiving that in the next few days. That is all.
Cheryl: Sylvia it doesn’t need to be in the next few days. It needs to be in the next day, singular, because we need to get to the staff started on that as soon as possible. The Wiki page is there if that can be either passed onto staff to be put onto the Wiki but we really need to move on to vote very, very soon on that.
Sylvia: This was a discussion that we did have at the last teleconference so it’s most likely you will have already received it but Dave our Secretary would have a bit more information. But I do think you probably would have received it or it’s on the way of being received.
Cheryl: Terrific and that’s very important. What I would like the ALAC to decide on is that we are not going to put these to vote if there are more (inaudible – 33:37) coming in from the region and you indicated that DeCralo is one coming in the very near future. Then we decide when we start the vote and that vote probably can’t start until another 48 hours or so. But certainly between now and 48 hours hence if we’re going to vote on all this and I’m proposing we do.
Patrick: We are voting on the ALAC statement regional statements are not we ALAC cannot vote or approve or disapprove regional statements.
Cheryl: That’s correct. What we said was we would append the regional statements and indeed individual statements that appeared on the Wiki as for exactly what they are, either individual or Rowlo statements.
Patrick: So what I mean is if we only discuss the ALAC statement right now we could as well vote on it if we agree without waiting for the regional ones.
Cheryl: Okay as long as there is no indication from the regional leaders that are in the ALAC. If they want to modify any of the ALAC statements, so if you want to open the floor now for discussion on any of these drafts which most of them have been out for a while I’m happy to do so.
Alan: On the ICM I’m not sure I understand what this 24/48 hour deadline is for? The deadline on the comment is May 10th. Am I missing something?
Cheryl: No you’re not missing anything except it would be delightful to have things not on the micro second of deadlines when we have so many other things happening in that following week.
Alan: Just trying to understand.
Cheryl: We have a whole lot finishing in the following week so if we can do a block of votes when we have statements already up and out or are you proposing we…
Alan: I was asking a question.
Cheryl: Okay I’m proposing the block or if you want to do them separately fine but do you want them to go to vote yes or no. when you want them to go to vote is the next question.
Alan: I know I have one minor editorial suggestion to make on the ICM statement. I can’t comment on the others. Regarding the travel one, was the decision that we want a comment a request for me to draft something for the ALAC?
Cheryl: As long as it also draws reference to what we’ve already put forward on the budget framework with the individual requirements and desires of the regional planning which included travel support is referenced. Yeah that would be good.
Alan: Okay.
Adam: I might be able to help Alan as usual because this is something I care about.
Cheryl: Fantastic that sounds like we have a team working on that. Alan and Adam have those as an action item. Back to the question at hand, we have current draft statements, do you want to run all of those draft statements for another 48 hours worth of editing before they go to vote, yes or no?
Patrick: Okay I thought we were going to discuss the .xxx statement. I had a comment on that.
Cheryl: That’s one of several but if you want to do the .xxx edit here now please put that forward, go ahead.
Alan: Can you list what the other ones are please?
Cheryl: Yes they’re all in the agenda. We have current ones, who is requirements initial report, deadline 7th of May and ALAC statement is already prepared. Report on possible process options the first consideration of the ICM application for the .xxx sponsored TLD, ALAC draft statement with regional annotations is on the Wiki, link is on the agenda. It is something that we can certainly continue to edit for the next couple of days before it goes to vote.
IVN variance, IVN 3 character, Chair is drafting paper for policy introduction on IDN’s CCTLD’s and the proposed implementation plan to synchronize IDN CCTLD’s are all prepared. They are ready for vote.
The following ones which are under public consideration, the ones we have already added include recommendation on reconsideration requests and the community travel guidelines. We have not made a decision on communication and coordination work training or the new GNSO Council work prioritization process recommendation. There is the list.
Alan: Is the WHOIS one different than the one that was already in the process of being voted on?
Cheryl: Yes it is.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: We accepting comments on it until the 17th of May. Again, I know it’s rare for us to do things ahead of the deadline and perhaps that’s why it’s causing such a confusion. But it isn’t impossible to vote before the last micro second when the public comment period ends. These are prepared statements and most of them are at a form where they could go to vote soon and we certainly do need to get more information on the ICM one and that can run for another at least 48 hours.
Patrick: I made one comment on the Wiki which was supported by Carlton. And Sebastian suggested an alternative wording, which would be second sentence would be according to Sebastian’s suggestion we also noted considerable time taken on thoroughness of the independent review on this matter and as such the ALAC supports that the process be carried out in an expedient, equitable and defensible manners taking into account the decision of the independent review panel.
Cheryl: Yes so the addition is the other words, “taking into account the decision of the independent review panel.”
Patrick: Yes.
Cheryl: Okay and that’s noted on the Wiki page and certainly you’re suggesting that we do add that in?
Patrick: Yes indeed.
Cheryl: Okay. Is there anyone in the ALAC who has issue with adding those words to that sentence, “taking into account the decision of the independent review panel”? I don’t see that that would be altering the current discussions or opinions that I have seen from the various regional discussions. So I’m happy to put that forward. Is there anyone who objects to that addition?
Sylvia: I agree.
Cheryl: Fantastic okay it sounds like that’s one piece of editing on the fly. So we can add that into the ALAC statement.
Alan: There is a phrase there now saying, “and not with any matters of content that this FTLD may be host for” I would suggest deleting that and adding the sentence, “The ALAC did not discuss the merits of whether the xxx GTLD should be approved or not.”
Cheryl: Well the ALAC did discuss it when it was actually gone through the first time. This is the post review; we don’t want to agree with what the independent review said so we’re going to put out a whole lot of other options phase of the roundabout. If you go back to the original there was a number of discussion we had on whether or not content has anything to do with ICANN agreeing with it or not.
Alan: Then I would say, “At this stage” I simply think that aside…
Cheryl: Are you saying that we are or not concerned with masses of content?
Alan: At the last meeting we decided, I believe, that the community is not necessarily has uniform beliefs, we have not done this from the bottom up and we should explicitly comment only on process and not on content.
Cheryl: Okay that’s exactly right.
Alan: Okay I was just suggesting slightly different wording for what I believe.
Cheryl: Can you say it again?
Alan; Okay and I’ll modify it based on what you said. “At this point…okay that wording is not right. The wording I had was, “The ALAC did not discuss the merits of whether the xxx GTLD should be approved or not at this time.”
Cheryl: Can I ask the ALAC is there any benefit in telling people what we didn’t do or simply telling them what we did do? In other words, changing the proposed draft statement to read as follows, “On the issue of the ICM application for the .xxx TLD consideration…sorry it should be on the issue of for further consideration options of the ICM application for the .xxx STLD. The At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is concerned with the transparency and accountability of the process being undertaken. We also note the considerable time taken in and thoroughness of the independent review of this matter. As such the ALAC support that the process be carried out in an independent equitable and defensible manner.”
We then add the following words, “taking into account the decision of the independent review panel “and then go back to define the sentence which states, “we would like to see this issue settled quickly and with the necessary transparency.”
Adam: So when you just read that out you did not include the sentence, “and not with any matters of content that this…
Cheryl: That is because that is what Alan is proposing. He now has that on the table. My questions was to delete that is one option, to modify it is another, what does the ALAC want to do?
Alan: I can certainly live with the leaving it, I just didn’t like the reference to the content as opposed to the other philosophical issues associate with whether it should be approved or not.
Adam: I would be happy with deleting it.
Patrick: So do I.
Cheryl: And, in fact, the Excom requested that those words be put in square brackets and that the ALAC specifically discuss on the Wiki or tonight whether they should be left in or taken out. So what went on the Wiki wasn’t what Excom requested. Those words were supposed to be square bracketed as optional.
Alan: My point was the reference to the content but without the other philosophical parts of do they have community support and things like that. I’m happy to delete it all together.
Cheryl: Okay so as I read it into the record last we will now change our draft ALAC statement to reflect that last set of words I read into the record that will stay up for another 48 hours for further tweaking. We will then vote on the draft ALAC statement. Is that the will of the meeting?
Patrick: I agree with your proposal.
Cheryl: Excellent, fantastic. Okay so we will go to vote in the next 48 hours or so on at least the report of possible process options for the consideration of the ICM application. While we are on that Wiki page you should note that we have got a sentiment being in support from Afralo on the current ALAC statement. I would like to ensure that the Afralo reps on the ALAC check with the regional leadership that they are still happy to support the edited version. And the AP Rowlo has today put forward an agreed; we have voted and endorsed the following statement which was drafted by Hung Sway today. I would like to read that to the record for ALAC’s information.
AP Rowlo’s statement which they are happy to have appended as we agree will be able to happen as it follows, “AP Rowlo agrees to the statement made by the ALAC. The .xxx is primarily an issue of procedural justice. ICANN has to follow truthfully the procedures set up by itself. We support ICANN to be a transparent, neutral and effective coordinator of the internet domain name system rather than interfering with the issues that are not really in its mandate.
However, we do not have an interest in supporting any specific TLD which we believe is out of the mission of the At Large community.” That’s what AP Rowlo will be appending. We have got the Afralo one coming and we have the existing Norolo one also on the Wiki. Norolo notes that during the April 28th conference call Norolo decided to support the ALAC statement and not to commit a separate regional statement. I would just like to make sure that Norolo is happy to confirm that with the modified statement that will be out for the next 48 hours.
Any further discussion on that matter? Carlos go ahead.
Carlos: Yes in response to this it is something we discussed in the last teleconference of the region. And even though we did not reach a final statement let’s say my position was that in 2007 when this was an issue that came up, at the time there was a campaign where we advocated for free speech, which is the same thing that in North America has fought for, so we will ratify what North America is stating and the same thing that you are stating at this moment as well.
Cheryl: Okay. So that’s what we will expect to be coming from LaCralo is that the case?
Carlos: That’s correct.
Cheryl: Okay I look forward to getting that on the Wiki. Thank you very much Carlos. So that vote will be starting in the next 48 hours. Can we get now your views on…
Toushani: I asked to speak 2 or 3 times. I spoke in the chat room and it seems I don’t seem to have any right to speak and nobody has ever given me the right to speak. But in any case, the declaration prepared by Cheryl that confirmed the .xxx has been discussed by Afralo and everybody was in accord with what Cheryl suggested without…okay without entering into the whole thing of content Mohamed who is there can give you his point of view because he wrote it on our list.
But we have the same position as far as the statement, as far as the content is concerned. So Afralo there is unanimous acceptance that the statement made by Cheryl was absolutely excellent as it was and so I feel that it was acceptable as it and we’re perfectly in agreement with it and basically that’s what I wanted to say.
Cheryl: Okay thank you Toushani and I trust from what you said that the edits we currently made on the existing statement also mean your region will equally be comfortable with that. That’s something I think each of the regions need to check in the next 48 hours.
Anyone else in the room want to make a comment?
Alan: Yes.
Cheryl: Alan go ahead and I would like to read into the record what he has put in the chat as well.
Alan: I had suggested and I think Norolo agreed but I need to check with Evan that the wording of the North American statement be changed slightly.
Evan: I’m here Alan so I remember what you asked.
Alan: Okay it says in the 2nd paragraph, “The Norolo members present at the call considered it to be a free speech” and I suggested that it be changed to “most”.
Evan: And my counter offer was to say the “consensus of the meeting was that this was a free speech issue.”
Alan: I think that was already said in the first paragraph.
Evan: Well…
Alan: But I have no problem with that. That’s fine.
Evan: We essentially had one objection and everybody else on the call felt this way.
Alan: But I’m not sure we formally took a poll, which is why I was saying that but I have no problem with it and keep it in Evan.
Cheryl: I’m delighted that he regions are doing this work, I’m just not delighted it taking up my ALAC meeting time.
Alan: I was just trying to point out the wording…
Cheryl: I’ve felt all along that the regional views will be appended just like any individual views will be appended to the ALAC statement.
Evan: Cheryl the point was that we made the statement with the hope that ALAC would actually endorse this position. So that’s why….
Cheryl: The words “freedom of speech” will not be endorsed with any AP Rowlo support. We discussed that today at our meeting and we have put in an AP Rowlo statement which I read into the record which basically said it is an issue for procedural justice and matters of ICANN being transparent neutral and to be the effective coordinator of the internet name system rather than interfering with the issues that are not really in its mandate now. You can read that to say don’t interfere with freedom of speech but there is a vast difference between putting those words in something AP Rowlo will support and the intent behind those words.
And the other regions views on that are? I note Africa’s concern also about the terminology specific to the term freedom of speech.
Adam: Patrick is on the call so he can speak for himself but I can say Patrick made a very similar point and I haven’t yet said that I agree with him but I do agree with him.
Patrick: Yes and in the meantime only because (57:15 – name) added a comment on the Wiki going in the same direction. I think that from the European side at least we all agree that we won’t put any statements stating that this is a free speech issue.
Evan: Okay if I can just respond to that. The term “free speech” was used frequently in the Norolo call but as I’ve just hinted to in the Adobe chat room, the main thing about this was that ICANN is over reaching and this is an issue of judging a TLD based on the content within it rather than on the merits of the operator and the technical issues. ICANN keeps saying they don’t want to regulate content.
The judgment of xxx has been purely based on the content of the TLD of the 2nd level domains underneath. So if you take it in that context, even if you erase the words “free speech” this is an issue also of mission creep and this is getting ICANN into a field that the way it’s tackled at xxx is essentially judging a TLD based on the anticipated content of the 2nd level domains underneath and this is a pure example of ICANN regulating content.
So even if you don’t agree with the use of the words free and speech together in a phrase this is clearly an issue of ICANN over stepping its bounds. So that was another context….
Cheryl: Thank you Evan but I believe you will find the individually crafted regional responses where this will reflect that in a way they are comfortable with and it’s worthy of note that the reference to content in the draft statement I was trying to get back to you on Skype to give you the new text but it will currently read on the issue of possible process options for further consideration of the ICM application for the .xxx STLD, the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is concerned with the transparency and the accountability of the process that is being undertaken. Full stop.
In other words, the words and not with any matters of content that this STLD may be hosted for has been deleted. That has been deleted put forward by Alan and accepted by the majority of the ALAC. So it will then go on to read we also note the consideration of considerable time taken in and thoroughness of the independent review of this matter and as such the ALAC supports that the process be carried out in an expedient and equitable and defensible manner, taking into account the decision of the independent review panel.
Then the final sentence reads we would like to see this issue settled quickly with the necessary transparency.
Mohammed: Thank you. I think you raised a point that was of some concern in most of the Rowlo documents with the freedom of speech. We do agree that the concern was about transparency and clarity of the process. (1:01 – inaudible can’t hear) There were concerns about the use of freedom of speech referring to the content.
Cheryl: Thank you Mohammed. Alan before I go to you it seems to me we’ve discussed the Norolo statement and use of the terminology of freedom of speech enough. I’m happy to give you back the microphone if you want to read for the record anything you put into the chat room.
Mohammed: No that’s fine thank you.
Cheryl: I just wanted to make sure I didn’t overstep my mark.
Alan: I don’t think I put my hand up this time. But I do have a comment based on what is going on in the chat. As I read things, the issue of should this domain be approved based on the merits of the case as opposed to we made procedural problems or errors is not being discussed right now. It certainly has been raised in spades by the people who have commented on the public comment forum both pro and con approval. At this point I thought the comment was what path should be followed in the road map that was produced and things associated with that.
I believe our statement saying do it in a transparent way, we’re not trying to make the Board’s decision, the Board has to do it and we were trying to not muddy the waters, not go into the original argument again which clearly some people have gone into. I requested the removal because I believe the word “content” did not fully address all the merits that are being discussed going back to whether it has the support of its community for a sponsored TLD and all those things. I thought content was only one aspect of it and I didn’t want to focus on that.
Cheryl: Okay well the current version and it will be edited, Mateo will you own that editing? Will you be able to capture what we said and change the draft ALAC statement on the Wiki please?
Mateo: I will do that.
Heidi: I’m actually doing that now; I’m trying to do that now.
Cheryl: Okay as long as someone does it and we don’t have 2 people doing it and losing work. That’s fine and that’s going to be up for 48 hours so the discussion can happen online and comments onto the Wiki space. We are expecting the LaCralo statement to come in as well and any wordsmithing that any of the regions want to do or any changes they want to make on their formal statements can go on in that time. The ALAC will then vote 48 hours hence on the draft ALAC statement and the draft ALAC statement will when it becomes a formal ALAC statement will go in with any of the regional or individual comments on the Wiki page appended to them for reference.
Are we all happy with that? Yes, it is complex, it certainly is not easy and it wasn’t easy the first time round but there are real issues that some of us are always going to find ourselves fairly culturally diverse about. This is certainly one of those hot topics.
Alan: You said it wasn’t easy the first time around and it’s not easy this time around. I think the tone of the ALAC statement is please let there not be a 3rd time around.
Cheryl: Oh certainly! Let’s move on to item 7, sorry no we haven’t finished item 6. I keep living in hope don’t I? We have decided that we will be putting the STLD statement to vote and when may I ask the ALAC when we are voting on the WHOIS service requirement report the cluster of IDN statements that are in draft including the synchronization statement and the recommendation, well let’s deal with those first. We do need to look at the fact that we have the FY 11 community channels for guidelines ending by the 7th of May. That is going to be one of those that we will be needing to work on a draft when Alan puts it forward for our consideration and probably agree to text going through on the 7th of May as being under current vote. I can’t see us getting a vote done in that current time.
Interpreter: I’m sorry what issue are you talking about now?
Cheryl: I’m talking about the vote timing for all the votes that are listed other than the xxx one on the agenda under item for decision in section 6. I was drawing specific reference to the fact that the draft FY 11 community travel support guidelines, the public comment needs on the 7th of May, so that is going to be one we will be putting in our comments at the same time as we take it to vote because we will not be able to have it voted for before the 7th of May.
What are we going to do folks on the others?
Alan: Cheryl I think on that one we know the travel guidelines are not going to change by Brussels, so being in vote on that one is not particularly onerous.
Cheryl: So when do we take the vote, the following week or what? Do we do it with the xxx one? That’s not going to work for travel.
Alan: When is the next deadline? Is the next deadline the 10th?
Cheryl: The first deadline is the 7th of May and the latest the 10th.
Alan: Then I think we time the vote to be complete the day before the 10th. If you do a 5 day vote that means we start all of them on the 4th.
Cheryl: Okay, anyone disagree with that? Make yourself heard now. Well that’s the way we should do it thank you very much. That was an awfully long time to do 10 minutes work. We’ve already agreed to put the recommendation on reconsideration requests into the policy advised development schedule.
What is the view of the ALAC on the 2 items the new GNSO Council work prioritization process recommendation ending the 16th of May and the communications and coordination work team CCT final consolidation recommendation, also ending the 16th of May. Here I would call for Alan to advise us. Go ahead Alan.
Alan: On the work prioritization, if you read the documents it really is only suggesting the process or rather a complex process by which the work be prioritized. There is no discussion as yet as to what one does once one has the priorities and if that will end up in work being deferred, work being cancelled or whatever.
So I don’t think we need to comment on the process by which the work is prioritized other than to say we would like to make sure that the At Large input is considered. A very short statement. I may be wrong and I need to check the wording but I believe the current wording is ambiguous as to whether we are included or not. I will take it upon as a task for myself to verify that and if it’s not crystal clear that At Large has an input, I won’t say a vote, then I would suggest we make a very short statement to the effect we should.
Cheryl: Okay and draw reference in that statement to our own At Large improvements recommendations specifically recommendation #13 which outlines why all the AP’s and SO’s need to take what we think into consideration.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: Your view on advisement communications and coordination work team, the CCT final consideration?
Alan: I have not really focused on that one an awful lot. You’ve been following the actual working group on that have you not?
Cheryl: I’ve been following the work team underneath that. It’s the way the work groups are going to use the GNSO’s ability to solicit meaningful feedback, how they work and coordinate with other structures. A lot of the new GNSO website work is set into all this and I would suggest that if we were going to make a small statement on one, we could make a small statement on both of them at the same time because they both basically say we need to be considered.
Alan: I will take a look at that and see if I can word something very quickly in the same timeframe.
Cheryl: Okay terrific. They finish at the same time but they are complimentary and I would do a little more than refer to our recommendation 13 and what we call for and just remind them that we’re here.
Okay onto item 7 then the joint ALAC/GNSO work group looking at developing a sustainable approach to providing support to Africans requiring assistance in applying for new GTLD’s. The (1:12:56 – inaudible) has been charted by the GNSO and there has been a call for members of that work group whilst we encourage in At Large and the regions and the ALS’s to become involved independently in that open work group it would be quite useful to have also formal and official representation in that work group from the ALAC.
So I would like to ask now that we move to discussion on do we give a particular name or set of names the honor of being the ALAC representative on this group? Toushani I saw you raise your hand, I gave you the microphone and it has not shown up. But you have the microphone.
Toushani: What I would like to say is that is not solely GNSO the work group. It’s GNSO with all the constituencies and all the partners and all the participants of ICANN. Therefore I am already a member, I’m already registered and I think that ALAC has to have an official representative but I believe everybody who is interested in this, these STLD’s and particularly to help those who need assistance or want a new TLD then all those people need to be registered.
This work group is not the only one. there is another work group that is (1:14:47 – French) that involves only the characterization of requests or applications and this work group has already been working, they’ve already prepared a draft and the discussions have now stopped but I think that should continue because it’s complimentary with this other work group. That is all I wanted to say.
Cheryl: Thank you Toushani. We have Alan, then Carlos and then Sebastian. Go ahead.
Alan: The work group has been formed as noted, the first meeting is on Thursday at 1100 UTC I believe. I have not seen a list of the members although it may be somewhere in some email so I don’t know exactly who is on the group. I believe Cheryl you’re right and we do formally need a liaison to act as the go between, between the At Large and this committee. It doesn’t mean other ALAC members can’t be participating but I believe there must be a formal liaison.
The group has not been chartered yet however, the GNSO approved its part of it but I don’t remember if we formally approved it or not. But if not we need to and I lost track of that.
Cheryl: It (1:16:25 – inaudible) as a joint group and GNSO is acting as a chartering organization.
Alan: Okay but my belief is the charter has not been written and that’s going to be the first task of the group.
Cheryl: Okay and thanks for that Alan.
Carlos: Yes I would like to participate in this group. If ALAC thinks I can be useful I’m at your disposal.
Cheryl: Okay thank you Carlos. I really would like to see a great number of ALAC members and At Large community representatives as part of this group. It’s something we’ve been very actively involved in throughout the whole new GTLD process, just about every damn version we’ve made comments on. So the more the merrier but we do need to have an officially sanctioned liaison as well. Thank you Carlos for your offer.
Sebastian: It was to add to what Alan said; there is currently 19 participants in this working group. It seems it will be Chaired for the first meeting by (1:17:54 – name) and it’s open to everybody. You need to send an email to (name) and send an SOI and you will be listed in this group.
My feeling is there are those 2 groups plus the one on the vertical integration and I think it will be very interesting to have the GTLD working group maybe coordinators through 3 groups from the ALAC perspective if it can be done by this working group it will be great. Thank you.
Cheryl: Thank you.
Evan: It was mentioned that there was also the group about categorization. As a matter of fact, this working group stems out immediately directly from that and they are quite closely linked to each other. There was an ad hoc meeting called at the last minute in Nairobi on categorization issues and the purpose of this work group if not formally stated at least informally is to address the questions of people who are saying why do we even need categorization further than what exists?
One of the answers that came up was that some simply cannot afford the standard fees. This working group coming up is an immediate reaction to that in an attempt to address that. So whether it has a formal charter in terms of Board direction, I think informally this was meant to specifically address some of the issues that arose out of the categorization working group that started in Nairobi.
Cheryl: Resolution 20 is quite clear and it’s all been borne out of that and yes it is an enormous amount of crossover and I trust we also have a number of the people who will be on each of those work groups in a position to share with the regions and indeed with the ALAC what is going on. But we still need to appoint an official liaison as well.
Alan: I’ll point out there is certainly overlap in terms of there may be a need to categorize which GTLD’s are eligible for whatever support we can come up with. But they are not linked as such. This group has been created by an explicit request of the Board of the GNSO and At Large and other groups. We shouldn’t confuse it with a private group that is not part of the formal ICANN structure and not link them too much. I think that will confuse the issue more than it needs to be confused.
Just to clarify something, I believe the GNSO resolution said the group until a Chair is picked will be co-chaired by Rafiki and whoever the ALAC liaison is.
Cheryl: That’s right.
Alan: So we probably should name somebody as the formal liaison to this group regardless of…
Cheryl: That’s why it’s on the agenda tonight.
Alan: And that person does need to be an ALAC member.
Cheryl: Absolutely. That is not limiting in any way anyone else being involved. I would like the more the merrier on this. This is very, very important.
Alan: I will point out that this is going to be a work group that is going to need some innovation and good people working on it. The task the Board gave us to create a sustainable way and sustainable is a key way of helping disadvantaged GTLD’s, perspective GTLD’s is probably a near impossible task but we need to come up with some ideas or at least guidance for GTLD’s how they can look for support or where they can look for support or what the rationale is for the support.
Cheryl: Okay. Carlos has put himself forward as a possible candidate, is there any other member of the ALAC who would like to put themselves forward as a possible candidate to act as liaison?
Evan: Even though I’m not on ALAC I am Chair of the GTLD working group so if that counts for anything.
Cheryl: I’m assuming your role is going to be pivotal that that work group is involved.
Toushani: I am too.
Cheryl: I understand there are lots of people who will be in this work group and in others and I would like to see the new GTLD work group will be very active in making sure that they share and support so we get some background work done in between meeting work done within our new GTLD work groups so that it has a coordinated set of voices wherever possible into this very important activity.
But I still need to have an ALAC liaison who at least in the interim will be acting as co-chair of this group. Right now I have I believe Carlos and Carlos can you confirm you have offered to take this job?
Carlos: Yes that is correct.
Cheryl: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to put themselves forward for this?
Alan: I’m not putting myself forward but there is some incorrect information on the chat. I think Carlos was asking for the mailing list for this work group and it was answered with the mailing list for Bertrand’s group.
Cheryl: Okay. Carlos can I ask you with language you are going to have to work in English, so no question on that it’s going to be English and you’re going to have to work very closely with the new GTLD work group and the other members of At Large in the day to day actions of this work group. I want to make sure you’re willing and able to undertake a considerably demanding role in this. You’re also going to have to feed that back to the ALAC acting as our formal liaison.
Are you happy to take that role?
Carlos: Yes Cheryl I am very willing to do this.
Cheryl: Okay well it’s probably going to be the busiest job you’ve ever had. I look forward to this being a very, very important job. The actions of so many and the ideas of so many people, including obviously our At Large people, we’ve got Toushani, Evan, Sebastian, we have a whole pile of people in there. You’re going to have to act in a coordinator and feedback role as a liaison.
I’m particularly keen to encourage the new GTLD work group to perhaps set up some formal space to have a share in support conversations so that a little bit like when you worked in some of your design teams for other work groups in the past. We only had 1 or 2 people as our representatives and I would like to encourage you to use a similar model this time so you work together intersessionally to ensure the time taken on these meetings isn’t working out in what each of you want and you tend to come in more a unified voice.
Okay in that case I would like put forward to the ALAC that Carlos’s offer to act as liaison to this work group is formalized. Is there anyone who wants to speak to this or can we put that as a motion?
Evan: Didn’t Toushani put his name forward?
Cheryl: He’s not a member of the ALAC.
Toushani: No I didn’t put my name because I’m not ALAC.
Cheryl: And it’s going to be part of the whole coordination with all these voices that Carlos is going to have to address a lot of his time and energy towards. Okay in which case, I can see a green tick from Patrick, anyone in the Adobe room who wishes to agree with this appointment please put a green tick up there or make yourself known with a voice.
That’s excellent and can I ask staff to inform Glen that Carlos (last name) has been appointed as our ALAC liaison to this work group and ensure he gets his SOI across and is brought up to speed to be in a position to co-chair this meeting within the next, I believe, 12 to 24 hours.
Alan: Yeah I don’t believe I’ve seen it but can someone either resend or send if it’s the first time the instructions on how to join this list and how to join the mailing list. How to join the group and the mailing list to I would think the entire ALAC list and the At Large list.
Heidi: Alan I’ll do that. I thought that there was a deadline for joining this group but I’ll confirm that with Glen.
Cheryl: It was yesterday Heidi but I’ll forward the email.
Alan: That was for creating the group but I don’t see any reason to restrict membership.
Evan: They even haven’t had a meeting yet, so it’s not as if they can say you’ve missed too much.
Alan: I’m willing to argue there is no reason to object or reject new members at the meeting on Thursday if necessary.
Cheryl: I’m confused with this new GTLD work group list is that Toushani put up. I’m not getting through to that link for some reason. I don’t believe that that’s the link to join the group though, is it?
Toushani: It is the link for the list which Carlos needs to register with where he has to be on the list that’s what the link is for that I sent.
Alan: That’s the name of the…that’s the email address to send to the list. That is the address to send things to the list and it may or may not work of other people to ask to be on the list. Typically such emails are bounced and refused. There is usually a different address to subscribe or a web address.
Sebastian: I sent some information directly to Carlos about the list and it was published on the At Large list to but it can be resent of course, but I sent some information to Carlos.
Alan: Okay good and thank you very much Sebastian.
Cheryl: We do need to have it resent, I think, post haste to everyone else as well because it’s something that more people may wish to jump in on but work groups are not closed.
Carlos: This is a request to Sebastian and Alan if you can send me as much information as possible I will appreciate that.
Alan: Since the group has not been formed whoever made the decision that it is closed and will not accept new members, I believe is acting out of the range of their ability.
Cheryl: And I’ll be talking to, we’ll deal with this Chair to Chair if we have to and it won’t be closed.
Alan: The GNSO motion had a deadline for when the group was formed and not regarding closure of membership. I think there is an administrative decision that was taken which is maybe inappropriate.
Cheryl: Okay because the aim of future GNSO work groups is for them to be open not closed. So some of us are working very hard to make sure that happens. Okay we’ve got that done.
The ALS survey actually now has a couple of major discussion items and major decision items and we do not have time in our meeting schedule to cover them, which bothers me greatly. We spent a huge amount of time on discussion of matters which weren’t worth a decision. I might encourage you all in the future meetings, particularly when we are as packed in an agenda as we are tonight that during the meeting is not the time for the homework to be done. During the meeting, unless we want to have longer meetings which I’m perfectly fine to do, during the meeting is not the time to say I’m doing this or I would like to do that.
It’s you come to the meeting with your original views and prepare to make decisions. Obviously, some of the discussions we’ve had tonight have been essential and I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t have taken the time to do that. But we have, for example, spent a fair amount of time in administration issues for how to join this work group that we just finished. All we needed to do was appoint a liaison, not discuss the other allied work group activities sanctioned or otherwise, not to discuss categorizations, not to do all that.
We recognize that they are integral parts but that wasn’t the business of the meeting. With that said, we’ve done it now and I’m glad we’ve done it now. However, we still have the following matters on our agenda, the ALS survey, planning for the Brussels meeting, and the very important matter of the joint ALAC/NCUC statement on transparency of staff documents that was worked on in Nairobi.
All these things are listed for decision tonight. How do you wish to proceed? Do you wish to extend by 10 or 15 minutes and if so do we stop then or move onto items for discussion as well, in which case 10 or 15 minutes will not do it. Do we reconvene? What is the view of the ALAC?
Patrick: I’m afraid I won’t be able to stay more than 5 additional minutes.
Cheryl: Okay in which case we should at least do the joint ALAC/NCUC statement because we’ve undertaken to external bodies that we will deal with that tonight. Those proposing reconvening I think that is a fair and reasonable thing if we can deal with the joint ALAC/NCUC statement in the following 5 minutes and then reconvene. Is that the view of the rest of the meeting? Does anyone object to reconvening after we deal with item 10 of our agenda for decision?
Adam: It really depends on when we reconvene but let’s get on with this joint statement, I think that is the priority.
Cheryl: It’s certainly a priority and I think it’s the one we can deal with in 5 minutes. As most of you who were in Nairobi are aware a good deal of work went into preparing a joint statement between the ALAC and NCUC. The link to that statement is on the agenda. Adam as someone who is sort of working in both, I noticed you were a facilitator with the questions raised by Robin and Avery on whether or not we’re ready to sign off on this. Do you want to speak to this?
Adam: Only that I would support voting for it and well holding a vote on it as soon as we can like in the next 2 seconds.
Cheryl: Okay. Are we happy to assume there is no need for continued wordsmithing on this draft and we can put it to vote? Anyone object to that?
Alan: I’ll ask a question of is asking that exceptions be justified in writing with explicit reasons being given a reasonable statement, I think it is not. I think in any case staff is reasonably expected to give opinions to the Board and that doesn’t mean that the rest of the document should not be made public. But I think there should be the ability of blanket confidentiality types of things existing.
I think what we’re asking for is unreasonable in that one area. But that doesn’t mean we can’t ask for it.
Cheryl: Can you highlight the particular part of the text?
Alan: Yes in the first paragraph it says, “Except in instances where it is overwritten in writing by the principle personal privacy or explicit requirement for confidentiality” and is more specifically in the last paragraph, “except for those specific instances where an explicit legitimate reason is given in writing for the requirement of confidentiality.”
I think…
Cheryl: I just saw that last part as marrying up with the first. It was somewhat repetitious but I just thought that was closing that loop.
Alan: I would suggest that there are certain classes of things such as staff recommendations to the Board, which are a communication between staff and the Board and not a public issue.
Adam: I disagree because staff does not make policy. So if it was making a recommendation we have every right to see it particularly if it’s on an issue that the community has discussed and held public comments on and all the rest of the usual procedures. That’s exactly what we’re trying to address here is staff apparently having opinions on issues and we would really rather they didn’t.
And the specific instance was when somebody felt they misrepresented either, you know because we all make mistakes or whatever but there was a misrepresentation by staff and then this is extremely dangerous because it undermines the whole principle of ICANN which is public comment, bottom up, etc. So I see absolutely no problem with this. It gives enough room for the Board to make things confidential if and when it wants to and it just has to say we’ve made something confidential, a bit like going into an executive session of the Board, which it does at the end of every meeting it holds. So that’s perfectly fine.
Alan: I guess I don’t class the specific instance you’re talking about as a staff recommendation. I class that as just misinformation and that’s a different issue all together. Okay I had my say.
Cheryl: I think the point that was being raised is how can you tell if it’s misinformation if you don’t have access to the information?
Alan: Point taken.
Adam: That’s the whole point that we just don’t know. You have to oversee, we have had suspicions in the past and the ALAC has made comments about this general issue in the past but this came up from a specific environment if you will.
Alan: I agree with the overall sentiment of this I just think we have a slight amount of overkill in the specificity of saying how this should be done. I can live with it thought.
Cheryl: Recognizing this is a statement and it will be reacted to is there any downside in this statement which may be asking a great deal as Alan points out but I don’t think it is outside of the bounds of what our expectations under good transparency and accountability should expect.
Alan: No I said I could live with it.
Cheryl: Is there any reason why we can’t put this to the vote with that text? If there are reasons why that text needs to be changed then obviously we cannot put it to a vote.
Alan: I can live with it.
Cheryl: Is everyone else happy for us to put this text that is not particularly long text, I would like to put it to a vote now because we are quorum and then we can get back to the NCUC to say that we are happy to have it sent off as a joint document and we can have our At Large staff do the usual covering of it as we do with all our statements.
Is that the will of the meeting? I see no one objecting. Does anyone object in either the English or Spanish channel? In which case, I will ask anyone who wishes to have their name recorded against this vote to make themselves known either in the chat room or by audio. Sebastian you’re raising your hand. I’m unsure whether that is a record of voting against this, if so please make that clear.
Sebastian: No, no it is not at all. I am in favor of the statement and to have the vote. But I wanted to just underline it could also be interesting to when we have voted to see how it could fit with the discussion about the change of the bylaw request on the recommendation on the request .1. Thank you.
Cheryl: That’s work we’ve yet to begin so yes it will be useful. Okay does anyone wish to have their name recorded as voting against this as a joint statement of the ALAC and NCUC? Does anyone wish to have their name recorded as an abstention? In which case we take that as a vote of the ALAC in support of this joint text and I’m now going to make that an action item for staff to do the necessary preamble and vote information and get that back to me so I can pass that on to Robin and Avery and we can take it to the next level as we would for any joint statements it will need to go to the next Board meeting as well as go on our individual documentary records.
Thank you all very much and that brings us then to the final matter and I do apologize for the lateness of the hour but I don’t think it does anyone any good to try and shorten the necessary amount of time we need to spend on the rest of the agenda to how and when we will reconvene.
Is it your will to reconvene in this next week or in the following week to complete the matters on the agenda?
Alan: When you say this week do you mean the remainder of this week or next week?
Cheryl: I mean the remainder of this week or next week. What is the will of the meeting?
Alan: If we can find it, it’s generally getting people to participate on only 2 or 3 day’s notice is problematic. So although I would like to see it continue…
Cheryl: It’s not like we all don’t know about it Alan.
Alan: No, no I’m just saying I would prefer to do it sooner rather than later but getting a quorum may be a problem.
Cheryl: Let’s put a doodle out for the part 2 of this meeting and run it from available dates through this week and no later than ending next week. I don’t believe we can leave any of these things longer than the end of next week. Adam will be on holiday next week but that might be okay unless we have an issue with quorum.
Adam: I might be able to call in next week it’s just that I don’t know where I will be on holiday, how’s that and so times zone could be a problem.
Cheryl: Time zone will be a problem for many of us I know. And Heidi is reminding me that I’m in fact 24/7 for 3 days of next week or actually 18 out of 24 for 3 days next week committed with the accountability and transparency review team meetings in India and then other meetings in San Francisco. Heidi if it fits in my diary I’ll just manage to do it but not everyone does that.
Okay let’s put the doodle out and see what we can do. It looks to me like preferences will probably go for the following week so of course if you can do consider the ICANN and maybe it is a little sacrifice but it’s not a sacrifice we ask you to make too often but we did have a huge workload on and we do need to complete the business of today’s meeting.
Okay thank you one and all. The next Excom meeting will convene, we’ll have a 5 minute break and then convene our Excom meeting and we look forward to the doodle and completion of our agenda items. I apologize to anybody who was waiting for their agenda items to come up in today’s call but it was simply not meant to be.