Cheryl: Just to recap, Mohamed. If you can ensure that you're aware this is a reconvening of the meeting. Due to moving forward, some "Any Other Business." and additional motions that were important issues – but which were also generated significant doubt as well as useful outcomes at our last meeting… We did not actually get to our "Issures For Decisions."
The feeling of the meeting on the 28th of July was that we reconvene at a time to be doodled – which is now. And we are now moving through our pre-existing agenda, with some additional explanatory notes and information that staff or individuals who have been in charge of these issues, have been able to put into the wiki page.
So it's not that there's new business. It's that the business that we were to discuss may have had some additional explanations. Which should make our job faster and easier.
Nick: Actually, Cheryl – I can't think of…
Cheryl: There is a piece of new business, is there? Which?
Nick: I can technically say that there is.
Under, "Resolutions for Administrative Processes."
Cheryl: Oh, sorry. I see.
Nick: We've somewhat cheekily added a third resolution. That doesn't mean you have to consider it. But it naturally accompanies the other two.
Cheryl: Right. I'll read this to the record.
"In order to further improve and standardize its bottom-up policy advice developments…" Resolved… Ooh – is that English? laughter
Nick: Yes. There would be an ALAC in there, actually.
Cheryl: Thank you. I would've hoped… laughter
Alan: It started off with the ALAC comment, which you left out.
Cheryl: laughter
Nick: Oh, yes. That's right. Sorry. It's kind of a long off sentence, really.
Cheryl: Sorry about that.
Nick: Vanda is going to be along shortly. She's just coming to the house.
Cheryl: Okay. Excellent.
Alan: "Resolves upon the following process," however, I don't think is English.
Nick: That's all right if you don't like that.
Alan: "The ALAC resolves upon the following process to ensure…" "Resolves upon the process," doesn't sound right. But…
Cheryl: No, it doesn't.
Alan: But maybe it is.
Cheryl: …"that ratified ALAC statements are transmitted to public comment processes – provides the board, as required, and announced to the At-Large community." Then we have a set of mechanisms that we need to read through, to ensure that not only does that happen, but that in fact, it's recorded appropriately. And that in the future, future ALACs can follow this as a Standard Operational Procedure.
This builds on Wendy's suggestion, I believe, to… Was it the meeting before last? Wendy? It doesn't matter. I know Wendy's on the call.
That's so very nice to be putting so much into the public consultation process, now. But we are not therefore having it noted specifically by the board. So our pendulum has swung from putting things in as just advice to the board as that card we could play. And in fact, it was the card we were playing so that we got our advice in – even when our public-comment period is closed.
Back to now getting a huge amount into the public comment process. But in fact, we have to cover all our bases. If while we're waiting for Vanda, each of us could have a look at the specifics of the process that staff has been kind enough to put forward for our consideration.
I'm also happy for us to consider this at our next meeting – should people need to have more time to look at it. While we're waiting for Vanda, I'll now read the process into the record.
"When an ALAC statement has been ratified, the staff will send the statement to the following recipients.
1 – the member of staff responsible for the public consultation – if the statement is in relation to a public consultation.
2 – the official address for submitting comments to same, wherever relevant.
3 – the Secretary of the ICANN board of directors.
4 – the Vice President of Policy at ICANN.
5 – the At-Large staff address.
6 – the ALAC "Announce List."
I think that's a very good formalization of what happens in an ad hoc manner, now.
Wendy: Please? Is it intentional to disregard liaisons into any process in which the comment is being presented?
Cheryl: Wouldn't the liaison for a work group be involved in the process of that? But in the case of the board liaison – which would be a position after next year anyway, that should be an additional one – along with the secretary. If we could add the board liaison, as well as the secretary of the ICANN board of directors.
Nick: Yes. And sorry, Wendy. No – I didn't mean to leave you out. As you know…
Wendy: No, I wasn't speaking for myself.
Cheryl: But we won't be having that.
Alan: She's speaking for me, also.
Wendy: inaudible intermediary of transmission. Often, with the liaison, it should be requested to send the message to the working group to whichever – to the board. To wherever it is directed. If there is that kind of process.
Cheryl: Wendy – whilst that applies to both the gNSO liaisons and your own position as bylaw-mandated liaison… What's interesting, of course, is in the way the work groups operate. And how Alan works as a gNSO liaison.
He's usually the creator of the inaudible documents. laughter
Wendy: All the sillier for him to send it through staff to get it into the process.
Alan: Well, I was going to suggest – although I really don't want to… We shouldn't be wordsmithing on this call.
But I was going to suggest that Lead Sentence Number 1 – the high-level Number 1… The staff and/or an appropriate representative of the ALAC.
Nick: There's actually a really good reason why it makes sense to always have it be one central place. We've had repeat instances where people have thought that things were sent in to one or another, and they weren't.
Or we had to go find them. By having multiple people search through their e-mails. To find out when they sent what to whom.
Alan: But Nick – do you really want to be awakened at 5.00 in the morning when I'm barely getting a comment in on time?
Cheryl: Yes.
Cheryl: Yes. I'm happy to have the staff work 24 hours a day. They're inaudible
Alan: You may be happy. laughter
Nick: Alan, when it's 5 in the morning for you, for one of us, it's not.
Alan: Well, I know. But the timing of such is that it may not be convenient to relay it to a third party and hope they do it in time.
Wendy: That's what peoples' Veritas mailing lists are for.
Alan: This is a dandy thing for us to put comments online and discuss at the next meeting, I think.
Cheryl: Yes.
Do we have Vanda, now?
Jonathan: Cheryl, this is Jonathan. I spoke with Vanda about three minutes ago. She said she'd be back in her office in five minutes, and she'd be dialing in then. I'll try her again. Maybe give her an extra minute or two.
Cheryl: Okay. But almost half our time is gone, and I'm not quorate.
However, yes – I think we need to perhaps wordsmith a little on that first part. I think this is a good starting point, certainly.
We should also now read through to the second part of the issue. Alan – I'm quite confident that with the addition of a word here or another line in 1 to 6, we'll solve the other problem. But I must also say if the staff are transmitting to the public consultation, they should be able to get it in. Even if it's five minutes past the closing time.
So if we've transmitted to staff on closing time, there will be a way around it. But we certainly need to make sure we catch all the options.
Going back to the second part of the resolution. The staff will announce all ratified statements on the news, and correspondent section of the At-Large website, as appropriate. The text of these communications is to include the following information.
Type 1 – a brief overview of the adoption process of the statement, with a reference to the author of the original statement – and the date when it was published for comments. From…
2 – the talk about English – the At-Large community.
It will further be noted when the ALAC vote took place, what the result was – said vote was. What of said vote was. And where the results can be verified and reviewed.
2.2 – links to the original version of the statements, as well as all revisions and the final ALAC Statement. Also, to facilitate for the comparison of different versions of the statement, a URL highlighting the changes between the different versions will be linked to the communication.
2.3 – a notification that the document also serves as an official ALAC advisory to the ICANN board of directors, where that is the case. Where the response is to an open public consultation, the notification will make clear that a copy is being provided to the board as a courtesy, on the basis that the ALAC is an advisory committee to the board.
Obviously, like anything that goes to the board as an advisory to the board, would also include – in the next 12 months – the board liaison in that distribution list for those things.
Okay. What's been happening on Skype?
We're File 3. We'll take q-a as inaudible.
Alan: While you're looking through that… Nick, is the ALAC Announce List definitively a superset of the ALAC list?
Nick: It's all ALSs and all ALAC members.
Alan: Okay. So it's not their option, like the other announce lists?
Nick: Right.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: Yes. It's a push-out.
Nick: We're also – starting with the announcements that are being made of recent comments – using the At-Large Facebook page, and pushing out an update to all the people that have set themselves as fans of the Facebook page. We'll see if that works well for people.
Cheryl: We should also use the Twitter mechanisms, as well. We did set up an ALAC Twibe or an At-Large Twibe. That's another mechanism where at least the URL to the announcements can be pushed out.
We can of course also set those up in the various languages. Perhaps we can get some feedback from Latin America and Africa, as to how useful that mechanism or particular tool would be. Whether or not there are significant Twitter-style users.
I do know ICANN has English and Spanish Tweet going out. But I'm wondering how many people are subscribing to them.
Perhaps Nick, you could also ask Kieren, if he should be able to know how many follows there are for each of those.
Wendy: Cheryl, I can ask LACRALO on the first part of that issue.
Cheryl: Yes. Thank you.
Just for a moment, I'm away from my computer. So if something's happening, I won't know about it. So Sébastien, could you keep an eye on that, please?
I'm assuming that we've all had plenty of time to read the background materials for the matters we have on our agenda this morning. We will need to go through these at reasonable pace.
Has Ron Sherwood joined us?
Alan: I haven't heard him.
Cheryl: No. I just noticed his name was mentioned in Skype. That's all right.
I'm sure I'm reflecting everyone else's frustration that's managed to get on the call, that we are now one half way through our planned time.
Alan: You're far more polite than some of us would've been.
Cheryl: Just in terms of background information, on the dates – the discussion for the process for the board liaison – ALAC officers – other liaisons and NonCom appointments and elections… Those key dates have been modified from the original. That was having us finish earlier – to come inline with the release of the nominating committee appointments.
Adam raised as a previous NonCom member that he felt at this stage, the NonCom appointments would be known.
Cheryl: Hi, Vanda! Thank you!
Vanda: Sorry. I was in the street. The traffic is awful, here.
Cheryl: No problem. At least now we're quorate and we can start. Thanks so much. It's just that we've had so many other apologies. Normally it wouldn't be so time-critical.
Okay. For the formal part, but continuing on from where I was with the dates.
Adam suggested that – in fact – we wouldn't need to wait until after the announcement at the end of August by the NonCom. I undertook to have a chair-to-chair conversation with the chair of the Nominating Committee. It is her advice that the way the Nominating Committee operated and the mechanisms and timing of the due-diligence when Adam was part of it might be relevant for back then. But right now, she strongly endorses and supports the timeline we have.
These dates have been put forward so that we can ensure that we run to our last possible timing, to get the announcements through to John Jeffries by an appropriate date. But that we can start our processes once the Nominating Committee has made its appointments public.
So I did as I said I would – check with the chair of the NonCom. And she has certainly said, "No. These times would be most appropriate."
She also indicated that if you all agree specifically to the timeline for the NonCom appointments… The Nominating Committee appointments from each of the regions need to be put to the NonCom. Technically, by the end of August.
If you agree with the nominations opening in each RALO on the 5th of August, and running through for us to have our final notification done on the 15th of September, I will write to the Nominating Committee and ask for that 15-day extension.
She has indicated to me that that will not be a problem, but it is the last possible date. And that – in fact – we are not the only community to need to do so.
Alan: I have a problem with that schedule, as described in the agenda, though.
Cheryl: Okay. Can you point that out to us, please?
Alan: Yes. The deadline for people accepting nominations was in a RALO of September 1st. The RALO recommendation is September 1st.
That doesn't really allow for multiple nominations and the RALO having to make a decision.
Cheryl: But in fact, multiple nominations don't happen at the RALO. Multiple nominations do come through to the ALAC.
Alan: A RALO may choose to filter them.
Cheryl: If the RALO chooses to filter them, fine. But in fact, that would mean that we don't have alternates to look at. And we may appoint somebody they have not filtered up to / filled it up with.
Alan: We may. All I'm pointing out is, the first dates should be those dates or earlier. In case the RALO wants the prerogative of filtering out a nomination.
Cheryl: But the exception… Yes. Okay.
Of filtering out. All right.
Alan: Well, selecting among the nominations. Whatever words one wants to use.
Cheryl: Well, it would depend on if the RALOs also accept self-nominations or whether they'd have to come from people within. That's up to the RALOs.
Alan: Yes.
Cheryl: So what are you proposing then, Alan?
Alan: I am proposing that the 25th of August and the 1st of September dates… That the RALO be allowed to set them earlier.
Cheryl: Okay.
Alan: Or for that matter, all three of the first dates. It's a bit late to reset the 5th, at this point.
Cheryl: Okay. So the 5th could be a challenge. Yes.
Alan: Well, yes.
Cheryl: laughter
Okay. Do I have any opinion from Europe? Sébastien?
As a RALO appointment to the ALAC, Sébastien?
Sébastien: Sorry. I was mute.
Yes. I think it's a good idea to at least leave some room for the RALO to sort out the candidates. They need to give us all the lists that they can say, "We prefer this one and this one," to this other.
Then my suggestion will be to split between the 25th of August and the 1st of September. To pick a date in the middle, somewhere. To say that the RALO must come back with…
Nick: "On or before."
Cheryl: Okay.
Alan: I'll point out that in the past, the selection of whom to present… One or more to present… has been a choice of the ALAC members for the region. Not the RALO, as such. I don't know what the formal words say. I do know that has been the practice, though.
Cheryl: Sorry, Alan. Just to make sure I'm clear on that…
This set of nominations is simply a list of names put forward by the regions for the ALAC to vote on and consider appointing.
Alan: I understand that 100%.
Cheryl: And, what were you saying? In previous the practice has been…?
Alan: In previous years, the practice – at least the practice in some areas, but I think universally – has been that the three ALAC members for the region make the decision of who was presented to the ALAC.
Cheryl: That was certainly not the practice in Asia-Pacific, and – to my knowledge – not the practice in Latin America.
Alan: If you remember, there was a major firefight in North America because of that. But that was the practice.
Cheryl: Well, but yes – that's North America. And various regions may operate differently.
I don't believe that was the practice in Latin America, because there was much less - list traffic. Not only on the three names they put forward, but on the order of the names that they were going to be put forward in.
Indeed – and I'll ask Carlos to speak to this in a moment – indeed, on the instructions to Carlos and José as to how they should vote.
Carlos – can you ratify that that is the process Latin America went through last time?
Carlos Through Interpreter: Yes. The process of Latin America was that generally the general assembly decided in unanimity of whom it is that we should vote for. And we, as the region representatives, actually voted in accordance to what the general assembly had presented.
Cheryl: Correct.
Carlos Through Interpreter: Correct.
Cheryl: That was from a inaudible names. Yes.
Mohamed: This is for AFRALO.
Cheryl: Thank you, Mohamed. I was about to say to you that there was much less - list traffic in your deliberations, as well.
Mohamed: No, that's not the case for AFRALO. Usually we send the note for the mailing list. People nominate themselves, or people nominate them.
We try to have consent of intent of whom to represent, rather than sending multiple names. If we still have multiple nominations, we forward it to the ALAC. But we do our best to have consent within AFRALO of someone elected.
Cheryl: Yes.
If I may just follow on from that, Mohamed, just so the other regional reps are in full understanding…
In the case of AFRALO, you actually had a withdrawal during the last process.
Mohamed: Yes.
Cheryl: So certainly with Asia-Pacific, we discuss it at our regional meeting. And for the purposes of this year's exercise, the Asia-Pacific region is the only one that does not have to make a fresh appointment. Because Hong Xue is our current appointee, and she is able to put herself forward – and for us to endorse her as a second-term.
At the moment, there is no other nomination in competition with her. Indeed, the specific request from Tricia, as chair of the NonCom, would be that if someone with the experience and the capability of Hong can be reappointed from Asia-Pacific, it would allow a great deal of mentoring and ease-of-work for the four new people coming in to her committee the following year.
Alan: Is she the new chair, also?
Cheryl: I have no confirmation that that's the case. She was speaking in her current experience.
She always gives us – as do the previous chairs of NonCom – feedback on how appropriate continuing candidates would be for continuation. But none of the candidates from America, from North America, from Europe, from Latin America and the Caribbean – or from Africa can continue. Because each of them have done their second year.
Alan: Is there a prohibition of term limit on that?
Nick: Yes.
Cheryl: Yes. You can only do two years.
Alan: Okay. I didn't remember that.
Cheryl: Yes. Which is why we have to get this out.
Sébastien: In taking into consideration the discussion we just had, may I make the following proposal to change one part of the sentence? It's on the fourth line.
To read, "Nomination to be sent to ALAC by RALO, with a inaudible recommendation."
Alan: Why do we need the gap between September 1st and the 7th?
Nick: So that… Well, you don't. You could do what you like. In the past, there's often been a period of discussion. Because often, RALOs do not provide one name. This allows you to do that. But you don't have to.
Cheryl: I think we can probably shrink that part of the timeline, too.
Mohamed: If I may ask – if RALO is interested in conducting a vote internally to select a candidate, can staff help and set up a board for that? Is that possible?
Nick: Sure.
Cheryl: Certainly, Mohamed. But you also need to realize that if the region puts forward one name, the ALAC may not – in fact – choose that name. But can appoint a third.
We are by courtesy requesting that the individuals come up from the RALO's recommendations. Because that is a better bottom-up process.
Alan: Cheryl, that goes back to what I was saying. Certainly two years ago in North America, there was a significant discussion on the list. Traffic on the list does not imply unanimity. Then the selection was by the three ALAC members for the region. Which, in fact, was different from the names discussed.
That, I thought, was aligned with our actual procedures.
Nick: No.
Alan: And Cheryl, you just implied that. Saying that if the region only comes up with one, then the ALAC may choose to appoint someone else. Where is that other name going to come from?
Cheryl: The ALAC.
Alan: But presumably, the ALAC members for that region, is the first level.
Cheryl: We would need to explain to our communities, I believe, why we wouldn't take that into account if we didn't. I can't imagine me being reappointed if I didn't do that for Asia-Pacific, for example.
So what are we doing with these dates? Are we splitting between the 5th and the 1st of September and moving the 25th back? And are we shrinking between the 1st and the 7th? And are we adding that additional word from Sébastien?
Alan: I think in addition to all of that, we need to make really clear when the announcement goes out of whose prerogative it is. If it is a not a RALO decision to formally say, "This is our best choice," and that person goes to the NonCom, we need to make it really clear. We have had that misunderstanding before. We do not want to live through it again.
Cheryl: No, indeed. In fact, also on the request of the NonCom, we need to make clear to the regions that the expectations of the Nominating Committee and of the ALAC is that all appointments will do a certain amount of work at particular times.
We've got the requirements and the type of workload we're going to be asking them. So there are no surprises. Also, to ensure that they continue to operate in the best interests of the ALAC. For the NonCom.
There was an issue or two where that wasn't clear. Tricia was indicating it would be very nice if they didn't have to retrain people in what it actually means to be a Nominating Committee Member.
So we'll also make sure that goes out in the information, as well. So the regions can come up with the best possible names. Okay?
So are we shifting dates? And are we adding a word? Sébastien – could you propose your wording again, please – so we are all clear on it?
Line 4.
Sébastien: Yes. I suggest not to change the date. Because it could be organized around those dates. Just to be clear, I will change a little bit my first proposal.
To say that RALO… I don't know if it's English, but… Has to send all the accepted nominations to ALAC, with eventual recommendations.
I don't know if that's right in English. It's to say that RALO must send to ALAC all the nominations. Who they received and who was accepted. And they may make recommendations to say that, "We prefer," or, "We order this."
If there are five people that think the best one is this one…
Cheryl: Okay.
Sébastien: …if they want to do so, they can. But it's not mandatory.
Cheryl: I understand.
Alan: So in other words, if Jeff Williams is nominated, we must pass that on, too, at ALAC in North America?
Sébastien: Yes. But you may also say he's at the bottom of your list.
Alan: I understand that. I'm asking the question.
Sébastien: Yes.
Cheryl: Well, that would be the outcome of what Sébastien is proposing. Yes.
Mohamed: Sébastien – just a question… How could RALO word that in terms of if there were a best candidate?
Cheryl: Mohamed, you would need to help us. Mohamed – because it's an ALAC decision…
For example, that's where it comes back to Alan raising the influence that the regional representatives have.
It's all very nice in the Latin American situation for the general assembly to instruct their two appointments to the ALAC – whom to vote for. But that is only 2 votes out of 15. If the 13 of the rest of us go, "No. I don't like the way that person's name is spelled," then they won't get voted for. So the specific desires of Latin America's general assembly will not be met.
A part of the job of the deliberations on all the candidates – once we get them – that should go on amongst the ALAC members, is to make a proper assessment. To have a full and frank discussion on the qualities of the candidates. So all 15 of us can vote for the best people from each region.
Nick: I would also note that there are criteria that the NonCom provides.
Cheryl: And as I was saying, Nick – they will go out with the call. So everyone knows what they are.
Mohamed: Yes. I'm under the impression. inaudible if it's to have it so that people know what they need to expect from the job.
Cheryl: Yes.
Mohamed: But I think – if that's the case – that other people could provide feedback or recommendations on the nominations from the RALOs. The RALO/ALAC representative currently in ALAC – so they could provide their comments and their feedback on the nomination itself.
They could explain things to other ALAC members, just in the case of why something with those nominations.
If we said that RALOs provide the recommendation, we need to have a mechanism to enable the RALOs to say, "This is our first guy. This is our second. This is the third on our list."
That mechanism – the only one I can see – is either a consensus, which is very hard to achieve in voting. It wouldn't make sense.
When it goes to ALAC, ALAC can choose someone else. Therefore, it's confusing.
Alan: But the ALAC is not likely to choose someone else against the recommendation of the three, or the majority of the three ALAC representatives from that region.
Cheryl: It would be highly unlikely.
Alan: Highly unlikely.
Cheryl: However…
Alan: The situation that happened in North America is that 2 out of the 3 ALAC members disagreed with the RALO population. And the ALAC ultimately agreed with the 2 out of 3 ALAC members. Both names were provided.
Cheryl: Yes.
Mohamed: If that's the case, I guess we're fine.
Alan: But if you need a physical mechanism, voting mechanisms are there. If you want to use them.
Cheryl: Yes. But in fact, you might be limiting your field by using voting mechanisms at the regional level. But yes, they're there to use. However the region wants to do it.
Alan: I'll say what I've said before.
The ALAC members that are selected by the RALO are selected because you trust these people. They should have a fair amount of input into that process. But you can't withdraw the trust at every decision point, I don't believe.
Cheryl: And when Nick mentioned the criteria, Mohamed, it's not so much what the job description is, but rather there are criteria, as far as citizenship versus domicile. There are criteria that the NonCom have established. That will also be in the call.
Alan: Yes.
There are also criteria that are in neither, and some people feel strongly about. I don't know how we capture those or if we want to capture them.
Some of us believe that NonCom – people sitting on the NonCom – should have a good feel for ICANN. How ICANN works.
Cheryl: Absolutely.
Alan: As opposed to someone who's an earnest, intelligent person, but is a newbie in the process and isn't familiar with it.
That's not stated anywhere. And in fact, that has been a major issue of contention.
That's probably a very good reason why – as an ALAC, we should have that 4 to 7 days between us receiving a list of names and us taking it to vote. So that we can have specific – and, if need be – confidential discussions about all of those issues.
Alan: In that context, I agree.
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: Okay?
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: So – Sébastien's proposal of additional wording in Line 4… I would like to second that. Is there anyone that disagrees with that or wishes to speak against it as a way forward?
I don't see any hands up in either the Adobe Room… Let me have a look on Skype. No. Okay. In that case…
Sébastien: inaudible
Cheryl: Sorry – who was that? Go ahead.
Sébastien: It's Sébastien. Just to tell you that Beau is on the Adobe Chat Room. That's why I was trying to write something about our discussion. Because he says that he is joining just to be connected for the moment.
Beau: It's okay.
Sébastien: He's trying to.
Beau: It's okay, Sébastien. I'm on the phone, too.
Cheryl: Ah – excellent. Thank you, Beau. I'm glad to have you here.
Beau: Thanks.
Cheryl: Because in fact, in a few minutes, we will be losing Hawa. And with you here, we'll stay quorate. laughter
Nick: We will also be losing Carlos.
Cheryl: Ah. I didn't realize that.
Spanish Channel: José is on the line, as well.
Cheryl: Ah, good! Well, there we are. We have replacements coming in as people are soon about to leave. That's excellent. Thank you. I'll list José.
So with your additions – the changes – to the wording in Line 4… Are we then happy to run with those existing dates? That appears to be the proposal on the table. Is there anyone who's wishing to speak against that?
If not… I need a bigger screen to handle all of the multiple windows. If not…
Alan: I…
Cheryl: Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: Yes. I still think that at least the second dates – the dates 2 and 3 – should allow the RALO to set them earlier if they choose.
Cheryl: Okay. No later than.
Alan: No later than.
Nick: On or before. We will put this sort of thing in.
Alan: Yes.
Cheryl: Okay. "On or before." Okay. So with a "No later than," or an "Or before." And with the proposed changing of what it says on Number 4 – Line 4. Sorry. Not Number 4.
So that we are welcoming and encouraging recommendations from the regions. But that all accepted nominations must be forwarded. I'm now putting those amendments to the vote. It would be very nice if we could have anyone who wishes to abstain from this to make themselves known, now.
Alan: Just a format. If the parenthetical after the title, "Nomination NonCom Position," stays, it needs to be closed.
Cheryl: Thank you.
Spanish Channel: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that again, please? This is the interpreter.
Cheryl: I'll make that clear. In the wiki, it says, "NonCom Positions," as a bold case – a headline. Then there is a parentheses and a sentence. That sentence after the words, "Seoul Meeting," needs to have a closure of another parentheses. It's an edit point – not a point that alters the vote I was calling for – at all.
Alan: Sorry.
Cheryl: Not as sorry as I am, Alan!
Therefore, I am now calling for anyone that wishes to abstain from this resolution.
Alan: This is a resolution on all three positions? All three?
Nick: Four.
Alan: Four?
Cheryl: Four.
Alan: Okay.
Vanda: Four.
Cheryl: I'm checking Adobe. I see no one. I'm checking Skype. I see no one and I hear nothing. Therefore, I'm now calling for anyone…
Spanish Channel: inaudible
Cheryl: Sorry – who is there?
Spanish Channel: Sorry – something from the Latin American channel. Let me go ahead and call him. Could you post this on the Adobe Page? Because we can't see it very well, at this point.
Cheryl: What are we posting on the Adobe Page? Sorry?
Alan: There's no actual content.
Spanish Channel: The proposal. Is there a way to post the proposal? Just to see if I can abstain or vote?
Nick: It's all on the agenda page.
Cheryl: Yes. It's on the wiki agenda.
I think the point is, the interpreters would have benefited if they had also had been able to read it and follow what our changes are. So when I was referring to Line 4 under NonCom with Sébastien's proposal that we're now voting on – with a couple of friendly amendments – that would've been easier, I believe.
Sébastien: It's why – as a request of Carlos – to be clear of what our proposed changes were. I put it on the Adobe Connect Room. But I will not reproduce the wiki page in whole, of course.
Cheryl: No.
So is Carlos clear now, that it is… Sébastien put it on the Adobe Room. And the rest of the resolution is on the wiki page. So the changes are on the Adobe Room.
Nick: If you refresh the page, it's also reflected on the…
Alan: Yes.
Cheryl: The wiki page is also updated. Thank you, Nick.
Tonya – could you check with Carlos? Is he ready to make his vote or not?
Spanish Channel: "And thank you for that," says Carlos.
Cheryl: Yes. Excellent. I now call for anyone who wishes to vote against this resolution. If you'll make yourselves known – either on the phone, in Skype or in the Adobe Chat…
I'm checking Adobe. I see no one. I'm checking Skype and I see no one. And I hear no one. In which case, that resolution is passed. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I feel a little like I've given birth to quadruplets.
Okay. Moving now to Section B, under our Issues for Decision. Let me check.
We are about to lose Hawa and Carlos. Correct? Carlos? You need to leave now?
Spanish Channel: Effectively. Yes. That is correct.
Cheryl: Okay. Thank you for joining us, Carlos. José is replacing Carlos in the quorum. Hawa – you need to leave now?
Spanish Channel: Okay. Hawa can stay another 10 minutes, and that's about it.
Cheryl: Okay. That would be wonderful. Thank her so much on my behalf. And of course we have Beau here, which means we are still quorate. We'll note Carlos is not to be listed in the rest of the voting for tonight.
Spanish Channel: And Carlos does apologize for being late, but he was stuck in downturn Caracas. There was a big protest with gas and everything, so it was kind of difficult to get him.
Cheryl: We're lucky to have him at all. So thank him very much on our behalf.
Moving on to "B." To confirm the process and timeline of adoption of the draft "ALAC and Liaison Position," description. Alan, I'm going to ask if you would care to speak to this. But I'm also going to ask if Sébastien would care to begin this process, as I have something that I now need to do. I will be listening to you, but I will be away from the computer.
So, Sébastien, if you could handle, "B." And I'm assuming Alan – as a person that's commented extensively on this – will want to speak to the matter. Sébastien – over to you.
Sébastien: Okay. No problem. Thank you.
Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: All right. The draft description was posted, I believe, on the 29th of January – about a week ago. There have been a number of comments.
Sébastien: 29th of…
Alan: July.
Sébastien: July. Yes.
Alan: There have been comments so far by just three ALAC members. Myself, Adam and Patrick. It would be nice if there were additional comments before we try to rework. I will – in the next day or two – take the comments and move them into the actual body. Not changing the body, but just making it easier to read the comments.
But it would be nice if we had comments from other ALAC members, in addition to anyone else. In particular, there is one issue, which different positions have been put forward on. Specifically, should NonCom-selected ALAC members be obliged to participate I all RALO activities? Or is it highly recommended but not obligatory?
Different people have raised different positions. It would be nice if we had more input on that one. So that we can make sure that the wording of the document goes with the majority view of the committee.
That said, I'm not sure we really need a full 30 days, which is an additional 23 days or something from now. But I have no real problem if we do the full 30.
I have no other real comments, unless someone has a particular question.
Sébastien: Just to be sure that I understand you… You said that there are 23 days remaining. That means that from your thinking, the publication on the wiki last month was the first day for the 30-day period of comments.
Alan: I'm presuming that's where the 30 days would start from. Yes. I didn't write that sentence, but that's what I assumed staff meant in suggesting it.
Nick: Probably.
Sébastien: This was released to the At-Large list, and not just to any ALAC list?
Alan: It was released to the ALAC list. Should any RALO people choose to forward it, that was recommended.
Vanda: Yes.
Alan: I as an ALAC member don't have access to all of the RALO lists. I can't post to most of them. So the regional people have… I'm assuming that they have been posted. I haven't checked all five RALO lists to see if that's the case. And I don't know whether any translation has been done of it, yet.
Nick: What I had in mind, by the way, when I made that proposal, was that we would get them translated. And we would announce that there was a 30-day comment window on the text, when you all were satisfied with it. Not that the comment period started before it was announced.
Alan: So you're saying the 30-day period will start sometime in the future when we have translations?
Nick: Yes.
Alan: Does that mean that…
Sébastien: I mean we were finalized as a draft from the ALAC perspective – and when we would get the translation. Yes.
Alan: And how do we do translations of the comments?
Nick: We take care of that.
Alan: "We," being…?
Nick: We order them, if necessary.
Alan: So that's going to be an ongoing position? An ongoing activity?
We've never done this before. I'm trying to understand what's been proposed.
Nick: No – we have translated texts for comments before. We don't tend to get that many comments. And many of them, we get in English. But not always. Often, they are discussed on regional lists in their original-language versions. And then comments are made in English.
Alan: Well delaying the position description for another perhaps 40 days or something like that is going to make it really difficult to have the policy on how we enforce it in place for a vote on it at Seoul.
Because we really can't come anywhere close to finalizing a draft of that policy until we have the position description, I would think.
Nick: It's obviously completely up to all of you. I was just saying what I had in mind – what we were traditionally doing with other consultations. Which is that they start when they are announced as beginning. On a community-wide basis.
Sébastien: Maybe what we can do is to have the comment period open as soon as you made – Alan – what you suggested – reorganizing the documents. And we send it as soon as possible after that to all of the At-Large list.
At the same time, staff makes due-diligence to have the translation done as soon as possible. That means that we will get maybe just 20 days in French and in Spanish.
But I understand also that if we delay too much, we will get into trouble, to have that done before the election of the liaison. That's a pity. It's better to have the liaison position explained before the ALAC people.
Any comments?
Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: Yes. I guess I'm just a little frustrated that this is one of the… It's taken so long to get to this position that I really don't want it to go to sleep for another month and a half. But I will follow – obviously – whatever the group decides is what we'll do.
Sébastien: That's why I'm trying to shorten it. Not to have 1.5 months. But to have some time to allow… Even if it was already on the table of a lot of us for a long time, we need to finalize that on our side, and send it to all At-Large. To allow them to comment.
Alan: Nick – how long will the translations take?
Nick: I would think about a week. It's not that long of a document.
Alan: Do you prefer if I or someone integrates the comments into the body and then do it? Or do it as it stands now?
Nick: Well, I would say…
Alan: The same content, either way.
Nick: I would say it's better to have a final text, anyway.
Alan: Well, this isn't final. I'm not changing the text. I'm just putting a comment for 3.4 following 3.4.
Nick: Whatever it is that you think would…
Sébastien: But Alan – in the comments, there is no proposal to change the body of the document.
Alan: I was suggesting that we not change the body of the actual content until we have more comments.
Vanda: More comments. Yes.
Alan: Only three people commenting right now… One of whom wrote it…
Sébastien: Then…
Alan: But I didn't write it. I just read it early. laughter
Sébastien: You don't need to make more work. I suggest that after this conference, we send it to the At-Large list, and we – at the same time – the staff says that those documents will be translated and sent to the At-Large as soon as possible, as they are ready.
Comments in both languages are welcome. Let's say from tomorrow and 30 days, and that's it.
You will have to make some work at the end of the comment period. Don't make any work, now.
Alan: Okay. That's fine with me. I am not looking for more work. I just thought that would make it a little bit easier to read, if the comments follow the actual points in the document.
Experience on wikis in other working groups have shown that if we allow people to actually change the document, it becomes impossible to track what's happening.
Cheryl: Yes, indeed. I agree with that, Alan.
Vanda: Yes.
Sébastien: I agree, too.
Maybe too, I was just thinking… If needed, maybe staff or Alan – you could just add something like… referring to a point – if it's not already in the comments. If it is already, then leave it like that.
I give you back the chair, Madame Chair.
Cheryl: No, no. I'm not ready for it, yet. Please – continue.
Alan: All right. It's all the same to me. I can get the changes. I can get the current comments integrated into the body within a day or so. If the group thinks that will make it more intelligible to the people that have to read it afterwards, I will do that. And I'll do it on a fast path. If not, it can be translated.
Vanda: I believe it's better to leave it like it is.
Sébastien: Yes.
Vanda: First put in the comments. Then let inaudible people to do some comments. That's the only thing that we need.
Alan: Okay. So you're saying to leave it. Don't try to integrate it.
Vanda: Yes.
Alan: Just translate and go from there.
Vanda: Yes.
Sébastien: Yes.
Alan: Okay. Fine.
Sébastien: Okay. So that's the decision. If everybody agrees, there is no other voice about this decision that we leave the text like that… We send it to the members – to the At-Large list.
And at the same time, translation to French and Spanish are done. And as soon as they are ready, they are also sent to the At-Large list. And the comments are welcome in three languages.
Cheryl: Excellent.
Alan: Well, we'll have three wiki pages? Is that the way we normally do this?
Nick: Yes.
Alan: Okay.
Nick, I will redo the cover letter that I sent with it. Just because we've now changed one of the ground rules. And I'll send that to you in the next 24 hours.
Nick: So we can then have that translated, also.
Alan: Yes. No, I'm saying that I'll send it to you quickly. It does need to be tweaked, at this point.
Nick: Okay.
Alan: Okay.
Sébastien: Okay. Thank you, Alan. And thank you all.
Cheryl: And thank you, Sébastien. You allowed me to save… We're poppy-sitting at the moment, and two of them have become somewhat rather tangled with various things out in the yard. So I needed to go save small beasts. I do apologize for any background noise that may have come across from that.
Moving to the resolutions – this is C. "Resolutions for Administrative Processes for Ensuring Community Awareness and Engagement with Public Comment Periods."
The first resolution on the announcement of public consultations to working group – if we can deal with these separately, I think it would be the best.
Let's look first at the first one. Who wishes to speak to this?
Does anyone wish to speak to this?
Alan: Some of us may not have actually read it, yet.
Cheryl: In which case, we'll ensure that we all have done our homework – by doing it now.
The first resolution. The ALAC – in order to further improve and promote bottom-up policy…
Sorry – does someone wish to say something? Go ahead.
Vanda: No, just using the "promote," word. But you went on and continued. Just continue. No problem.
Cheryl: Okay.
It's probably a lack of coffee. I'm decaffeinated at this hour of the morning, and incapable of reading.
"The ALAC. In order to further improve and promote bottom-up policy advice development by the At-Large community, resolves upon the following process. To ensure that working groups are acquainted with consultations, opened – that relate to their area of competence."
1 – When a public consultation is announced, the staff shall send notification of same to the working group that has a remit that would reasonably include work on the subject of the consultation.
Sorry – I've just had a Trojan come in, and I've now got to delete it. Thank you.
The ALAC, ALAC-announced and secretariat e-mail lists will be copied on the communication – as will the chairs of the working group. The text of that announcement is to include the following information…
An invitation for the working group to draft a statement on the subject for consideration by the At-Large community. Any officer of the ALAC may, by replying to all recipients, note the importance of doing so. Or otherwise, as they may think sensible.
If the working group or members thereof believe that a telephonic briefing is essential to the drafting of a comment, the staff will around one. Wherever possible, at a time and date with reasonable advance, to the maximum extent possible.
That the draft – whenever time allows – should be available for comment by the broader At-Large community for at least a week. And that the working group would then be asked to incorporate those comments received, to the extent practical – in advance of a vote by the ALAC.
Final dot point.
It will remind the working group that the ALAC requires five days to vote on a statement, once other processes are finished. So that's the text will remind the working group that the ALAC requires five days to vote on the statement, once the other process is finished.
Having read that to the record, is there anyone who wishes to speak to it or discuss it?
Alan: I do.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: First, a question. The secretariat e-mail list consists of whom?
Nick: The regional officers.
Alan: Are those the same people that are also on the ALAC list?
Nick: They are.
Alan: They are?
Nick: Yes.
Cheryl: Well, they're in the ALAC list, but the ALAC isn't in theirs. Is that the case? Or what's the difference?
Alan: No, no. The motion lists three lists. ALAC, ALAC-announced. We've already determined earlier in this call that the ALAC is a subset of the ALAC-announced. And the secretariat is a subset of ALAC.
Therefore, we're getting people up to three different copies of the same e-mail, and none of those lists have…
As I understand it, neither the ALAC nor the secretariat list has anyone who is not on ALAC-announced.
Cheryl: Nick – can you respond?
Nick: It's really more of a convenience for people who file things differently – depending on what list they come through on.
Alan: Okay. Just remember that as soon as anybody replies to these, if people do a reply-all – as I think it's specified that people have to – a lot of those replies will bounce. And some of them will get held because of multiple recipients.
So logistically, it gets messy.
Cheryl: Response from anyone?
Alan: I can leave with it.
Sébastien: It's Sébastien. I think it's a good question, but I don't think we need to solve that today. I think we need to discuss that. I prefer to have just one mail in my mailbox from any list. Just one on one topic.
But let's put that for another time on a separate subject.
Alan: On a more substantive issue, I may be the one – as gNSO liaison – but I must admit, I am not on every working group that has something to do with some gNSO-related subject.
Cheryl: Yes.
Alan: I don't think I really want that to change. Therefore, it may be appropriate to – if nothing else – not only alert the appropriate working group, but the liaison. Whom I presume is also on that list, anyway.
Nick: Yes.
Cheryl: Yes.
Alan: Is it presumed that there is always a working group for any comment period that may be open by ICANN? The wording here implies that.
Nick: I'm sure it's possible for someone to come up with a consultation on something that wouldn't fall within the remit of a working group.
In the last several months, we've had no problem identifying more than one working group concerned with the consultations that have come out.
Alan: Okay.
Sébastien: Maybe to answer that part of the question is where you need to add the sentence saying that, "If no working group, it would be entered by ALAC."
Cheryl: Yes.
Sébastien: 'til they decide something else.
Cheryl: Yes. Thank you for that, Sébastien.
One of the things I was going to bring up after discussions had gone around the circle was that we need to ensure that this is never read to preclude the fact that the ALAC will – from time to time create ad hoc working groups.
And that these single-purpose or even subsets of working groups will only live for the length of time that the work on whatever comment and development of comment or policy is in existence.
I think it's important that we see this as an enabler – to ensure that our standing working groups – the ones that were borne out of the summit process… that our standing working groups are acquainted-appointed with consultations that relate to the area, in a timely manner. And that all other people involved in it are aware of what they're doing. Rather than it waiting for an ALAC meeting, and for us to have the conversation.
Sébastien: Yes.
Cheryl: So if we can have – perhaps – notwithstanding the ability of the ALAC to create ad hoc working groups, or subgroups of working groups from time to time as may be required to best meet consultation and policy-development processes… and then go on to the resolution… That certainly meets my needs and my concerns on this, anyway.
Alan: Can someone explain the parenthetical on the first bullet? I'm trying to parse it, and I'm having problems.
Cheryl: Let me read to the record what that is. Within parenthesis, we have the following.
Any officer of the ALAC may – by replying to all recipients – note the importance of doing so, or otherwise, as they may think sensible. Close brackets.
That is, any officer of the ALAC may – not just the lead with the working group – but any person from the ALAC may… by replying to "all recipients," indicate to the working group that has been invited to draft the statement that they think this is of extreme importance or none at all.
Alan: So doing so is not saying that their own reply is important, but saying that answering the comment is important.
Cheryl: That is how I read it. Is that everyone else's interpretation? If it's not clear, then we need to reword it, so it is.
Vanda: It's not really clear.
Cheryl: Sorry – we have a question from Skype. "Who is an officer of the ALAC?"
Alan: There are only four officers.
Cheryl: Exactly.
Alan: Cheryl – when you said it, you implied any ALAC member, as opposed to any officer of ALAC.
Cheryl: Yes. Well – officers – there are four. The current standard says the chair, two vice-chairs, and something called a rapporteur. They are the officers of the ALAC.
Alan: In that case, we better make sure that the officers of the ALAC – and I actually think all ALAC members – should be on every working group mailing list.
Perhaps not receiving mail, but being able to send.
Cheryl: That would be necessary. Yes.
Alan: But do we mean "officer," or do we mean ALAC member?
Vanda: I believe it's the officers.
Alan: If I weren't rapporteur, but as the gNSO liaison, it could be quite appropriate for me to say, "Hey, guys. It's really important you answer this."
Cheryl: Yes. I agree.
Would it be seen as a friendly amendment that the word, "officer," be removed from the parenthetical? And for it to read, "Any of the ALAC may…?"
Alan: ALAC or liaisons. Or ALAC liaisons.
Vanda: Yes. Because the liaisons inaudible
Cheryl: That's a good point. Yes. Not all liaisons are…
Yes.
I'm happy to move that as a friendly amendment, to remove the word, "officer," from the parenthetical, and to add the words, "or liaisons."
Vanda: Yes. So it's, "Any ALAC member or its liaisons may be replying." Blah-blah.
Alan: I think there are some commas needed. You paused in various places, but the commas aren't there. You ahead an implied comma after, "may."
Wendy: Is this parenthetical even necessary? Because do we need permission? Does anyone that's on the ALAC list require permission to reply, This is important?
Alan: They may need a reminder.
Vanda: That's the point.
Cheryl: Wendy, that would be a list activity. Not a general list activity.
Remember, the majority of these processes will be going on in the work group lists. One of the reasons our processes call for an ALAC lead to be in each work group is to ensure that we have an inverted commas liaison between the work group processes and the ALAC.
Wendy: I'm sorry – but since we're talking about a "may," which is not proscriptive nor restrictive – is this telling us anything new?
Cheryl: Well, of course, we have had the issue where I – as chair of the ALAC – have written to a work group list – saying, "This is extremely important, and would it be possible for you to consider this?to be told to the" and, "Why the hell should we listen to you? This is a workgroup activity."
So I guess it covers that sort of thing. But as ALAC workgroups, the ALAC should be clearly able to encourage or give their opinions into it – even if they're not a list member.
I realize that the expletive may not have translated well. I also realize that it's on the permanent record, and I don't apologize for it. It was a quote.
Alan: Cheryl – I would tend to agree with Wendy, and say…
Cheryl: Just remove it?
Alan: The solution to the problem you're raising needs to be in our work group rules. Not necessarily in a resolution of how we disseminate public comment.
Cheryl: Fine. It's just the only reason I've…
Alan: There are other times when you may want to intercede, or other people may want to intercede for valid reasons.
Cheryl: Yes.
So we now have the option on the table of the removal of the parenthetical.
Alan: And adding something on our to-do list.
Cheryl: Okay. Alan – if you want to put that forward.
Alan: So moved.
Cheryl: Did I hear a yes? Is there a vote there from Vanda? Vanda? Are you in support of that?
Vanda: Yes. It is really hard to understand all this.
Cheryl: Sure. Okay.
Well, with the deletion of the parenthetical…
Nick: I've you'd refresh, it's gone.
Cheryl: And for the notes – if you'll refresh, it's gone. Thank you. And for the note of our to-do list, the work group lists need to pick up on this point. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this part of the resolution?
Remember, we're going to be handling each of them separately.
Alan: I call the question.
Cheryl: Say again, Alan?
Alan: Just that I call the question.
Cheryl: Thank you.
Alan: A practice we don't normally use. But nevertheless…
Cheryl: Thank you.
Sébastien: I was just wondering why there is 1 dot at the beginning of the second paragraph. There is no dot…
Cheryl: There's no "2."
Vanda: Yes.
Sébastien: Just cosmetic. Sorry.
Cheryl: I do love people who bring in the cosmetics at the "about to call the vote," point. laughter
Are we removing the "1?" It makes no difference.
Alan: I think we can do that after the vote.
Cheryl: It makes no difference to the vote. So let's take it to the vote.
Does anyone wish to have their name recorded as an abstention to this part of the resolution? I see no one in Adobe. I see no one in Skype. I hear no one on the phone.
Therefore, I now call for anyone who wishes to vote against this part of the resolution. I see no one in Adobe. I see no one on Skype and I hear no one on the phone.
In which case, that is moved. Noting that Carlos has left, and can we check – has Hawa left as well?
Moving then to the next part – which is "Resolution on Procedure for At-Large Community Consultations on Draft Statements." This is ALAC Resolution 07091. Interestingly, we're dealing with this after 09/2. laughter
Nick: It came from last month.
Cheryl: It's all right. I just thought it was kind of cute.
Okay. Again, it seems I should read this to the record.
Cosmetically here, I'll hasten to add all the numbers need to exist before people wonder about it. It's only a foible, I understand it, of the wiki. That normal convention of having 1.1, then 1.2 and then 1.2.1 can't go up on a wiki.
So in hard-copy – that is, on a PDF – that also needs to be created once these things become resolutions – there will be a difference in the numbering. Only inasmuch as normal convention, where under, "1," you'd have 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, et cetera.
Hopefully we've dealt with the cosmetics before we take it to the vote.
The ALAC.
In order to promote engagement by the Internet and end-user community in policy-advice development, resolves upon the following procedure.
When a draft statement of the ALAC is to be opened for comment by the At-Large community…
1 – when a draft statement has been produced, the staff are to…
A – copy the draft to the read-only wiki/ALAC stock.
B – insert a chasseur at the top, indicating…
1 – the draft nature of the text.
2 – the deadline for comments as communicated to the staff.
3 – that comments may be left by the public at-large - At-Large through the use of the comment button at the top of the page.
4 – that the relevant work group – including the URL of same – will take comments into account in producing a final text for the ALAC to vote upon.
C – Staff will also send a notification of the opening of the At-Large comment period to the ALAC announced list, and the ALAC public list. Including the relevant information. In particular, the deadlines for comments to be left – and the URL of the statement text.
Next bullet point – Point 2…
When the comment period has ended, the staff shall send a reminder to the relevant working group list, and public ALAC list. Reminding the recipients of the deadline for producing a draft statement for the ALAC to vote upon.
And a call for any discussion about that.
Wendy: I suggest a friendly amendment – that the text itself be included in the e-mail.
Cheryl: Thank you, Wendy. That's something you've raised previously. Does anyone have a problem with that? I think that's perfectly reasonable.
Alan: Either in the text of the e-mail or as an attachment – as appropriate.
Nick: Which point is this?
Cheryl: Wendy's point has previously been not for attachments, but in the body of the e-mail. Is that not correct, Wendy?
Nick: Yes. I'm just wondering where you want that noted.
Wendy: It was Number 3.
Nick: Which "3?"
Wendy: 1.3.
Cheryl: 1.3 – Send a notification.
Wendy: Where it says, "Including a URL."
Alan: Okay. I understand that it is often desirable to have it in plain text. There are times when it is impractical to try to convert a document into plain text and still have it readable.
I think adding an attachment at least means you have it, as opposed to a URL – which means you don't have it if you have no connectivity at the moment you're looking at it.
Wendy: Yes. I'm happy to say, "Text where feasible," or attachment where formatting is important.
Cheryl: Okay. That's a friendly amendment. I assume that if we refresh soon, we will see that popped into the right spot.
Nick: Sorry. I think we may have lost that quorum.
Cheryl: Who else has dropped out? I have Alan, Garreth, Sébastien, Beau, Mohamed, Vanda and José. Correct? Oh – myself.
Vanda: Yes.
Sébastien: Beau left.
Nick: There is someone online, but their number is not recognizable.
Wendy: Adigo is currently telling me it's Sébastien, Ron, Wendy, Garreth, Wendy – 2 Wendies – Mohamed, Vanda – 1 Wendy…
Nick: Voting members, is that?
Wendy: Yes.
Cheryl: Yes. If you can sort the voting members. I've now got 15 picksticks in Mohamed's name, and I don't think he's here 15 times.
Wendy: Alan.
Cheryl: Yes.
Sébastien: On the chatroom board site, he needs to leave. Then you were 8 with Beau, and now Beau is not any more here. That's why we are just 7.
Cheryl: I was 9 with Beau, because we had José.
Sébastien: No. We have Alan, Cheryl, Mohamed, Garreth, Sébastien, Vanda, José. Because…
Cheryl: Yes. Well, besides who's left. Yes. We have…
Sébastien: Beau left. Carlos left.
Cheryl: Yes. If Beau left, then we've dropped.
Well, in that case, we will put that friendly amendment into the text, and…
Alan: Start a vote today.
Cheryl: Start a vote today.
Nick: I'm not quite sure what the friendly amendment is. I'm sorry. I was looking at the count time. We could do it later, if you want.
Cheryl: Well, no. Wendy – under 1.3… right? Not 1.2.3, but 1.3… After the part where it says, "And the URL of the statement text…"
Alan: Oh – the "and." The "left, and," should be "left, comma."
Cheryl: Yes. Sorry. Comma. Sorry. Go on, Alan. Yes.
Alan: The "and" should be replaced by a comma, the URL of the statement text, and the actual content of the statement.
Cheryl: Plain text where possible.
Alan: Do we need to specify there, "if possible?" Or just say, "The statement must be included in the e-mail."
Nick: However it's best to include it.
If it's 6 pages long…
Cheryl: Wendy's words were, "As an attachment where formatting is important."
Wendy: I'm happy to leave that to the discrimination inaudible crossing
Alan: Four years from now, people will have forgotten. But life is like that.
Cheryl: Indeed.
Alan: And we won't be around to care.
Cheryl: Indeed, indeed.
Alan: Either way. In detail or not.
Cheryl: Okay.
That brings us to the third one – which we actually discussed informally, before we were quorate with Vanda at the beginning of the meeting. So I'm happy for all of those to go to the vote today. inaudible.
Alan: The third one, we said we would allow some time for comments.
Cheryl: Yes.
Alan: We didn't actually try to wordsmith it in the meeting.
Cheryl: Yes. Well, we'll run those comments for…
Alan: A few days.
Cheryl: Okay.
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: Staff clear on what's happening there?
Nick: Yes.
Cheryl: Okay.
I would like to also then take to an online vote – a resolution to amend the minutes of the 28th of April 2009. I think that is explanatory enough.
I think that's in a position where it can just go out to an online vote. Does anyone disagree with that, though?
Alan: I think you've appropriately answered, as I strongly support that.
Cheryl: Yes. Well, it's very important.
Cheryl: It's very important, however, that when minutes are being altered – once they've been accepted and put to the public record… When a minute is being altered, that it goes through a proper and full process.
I think it is self-explanatory, and I'm happy for that to go. And people can of course comment if they so desire. Do you want to leave that vote until the C – part 3 – resolution of transmittal and announcement of adopted ALAC statements and advisories – goes to the vote?
So we put the first one – the one we've wordsmithed – to public consult. So ALAC Res 0709/2 and /1 go to the vote today, because we've wordsmithed them.
0809/2 and 0809/3 stay open for some comments, with an announcement going out that we will be going to the vote in 5 days' time?
Alan: Sure.
Cheryl: Okay.
Vanda: Yes. Okay.
Cheryl: Then I will ask for the issues for discussion that as we put forth… That the issues for discussion are discussed intersessionally. And if we can put out to the ALAC list that comments on the resolution on creating At-Large Review Workgroup implementation are called for over the next – shall we say – 7 days… Will that do us?
Vanda: inaudible.
Nick: Whatever you like.
Alan: Yes.
Nick: It was sent in a few days ago.
Cheryl: Yes. But I mean, just…
Alan: We have a little bit more than that to still make the agenda for the next meeting, don't we?
Cheryl: Yes. Well, if we don't have the comments in, the agenda for the next meeting needs to be done mid-month.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: On or about the 15th or 16th. At the mid-month ALAC ExCom meeting. That's where we start setting the agenda for the next meeting.
And it's nice if we can get it out 10 to 14 days in advance of the meeting.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: So whatever numbers work to make people put in their comments. So that that can go up for decision at the next meeting. And clearly, we will need to spend a fair amount of time looking at our fall meeting planning. Particularly at what we want to do with our At-Large fall schedule.
The schedule as it is at the moment is pretty much a copy of the templates that we ran in Sydney. It is a draft. It's up in English, French and Spanish. If we could encourage the community to start proposing agenda items into that now, that would be enormously helpful.
So for each of the At-Large advisory committee people who are also reps from the regions, now is the time to start getting the regions and the ALSs to look at topics, and specific things that they'd like to bring forward to the agendas.
It's important that we get the agendas working well in advance of the fall meeting.
So we can perhaps minimize some of the multitasking that we've had to do in the past.
Thank you all very much for your attendance at today's extra meetings. I need to make a final call for Any Other Business.
Sébastien: Yes. It's Sébastien.
Cheryl: Yes, Sébastien.
Sébastien: We are today – EURALO conference call. I will not make a report on that. But one question was asked by Bill Drake, and supported by Adam – about the situation of what's happened with the public comment.
It's about… where did I find the wording, here?
If there is an ALAC statement on the charted public comments. I was a little bit puzzled with what was on the discussion at the last meeting of the ALAC. I thought that it was talking about that, but it seems that it's something else.
Alan: Are you talking about stakeholder group charter or constituency charter?
Nick: Stakeholder group charter.
Sébastien: I guess it's stakeholder.
Alan: They've been approved by the board. It's moot at this point.
Cheryl: Yes. The board approved them at the last meeting.
Vanda: Yes.
Sébastien: Okay.
I think it could be good if maybe a conversation with Bill and/or with Adam from staff. It could help. Because I wasn't able to answer what they were asking.
Cheryl: Sure.
Sébastien: Even if it's a vote by the board. It seems that Bill would want it to have what we say and why we say it – and so on and so forth.
Cheryl: Yes. Well, of course, we need to recognize that one of the reasons we need to have on each ALAC member… In fact, anyone holding a position – whether they're an appointment or a liaison or an ALAC member… I'd love to see it go down to the regional leaders, as well…
Why we should have on our wiki or whatever about us… Who we are and what we're members of – and what our connections are to other parts of ICANN.
I do understand why members of the ALAC that are also members of the NCUC would be concerned that we appeared to be at difference and stayed at difference with their particular proposal. I understand and respect that.
But the question on what our official statements have been and are in the past has been discussed at great lengths at the last meeting. In fact, such lengths that it's the reason we're having our exceptional meeting here today.
Just to bring you up-to-date, Sébastien… One of the reasons that we need to amend the minutes of the 28th of April is that staff went back to ensure that what was our corporate knowledge and understanding of those who were at that meeting – as to what was our official statement about various charters – was, in fact, being properly recorded. And we found that it was not properly recorded.
And that would be where people such as Bill and Adam – who would go back and read minutes – would see a variance between what was recorded and what actually happened. That's why the minutes of the 28th of April 2009 need to be amended.
So that in itself will help clarify some of their issues. If EURALO wishes to bring up this matter in the next meeting, they're more that welcome to do so.
But as Alan also said, the board has approved the stakeholder group charters.
Wendy: Yes. The board has approved the stakeholder group charters. It has invited the members of the stakeholder groups to continue discussing those charters.
Cheryl: And they'll be reviewed in – what – 12 months, Wendy? Is it 12 months they'll be reviewed?
Wendy: They will be reviewed at periods in the future. There was also a discussion on the possibility of friendly amendments to, during the current discussion.
Cheryl: I didn't see that in the results of the board resolution. Sorry. I did see the 12 months. And then I think on a 3-year cycle after that.
So does that help, from EURALO's point of view, Sébastien?
Sébastien: Yes. Okay. It's not EURALO's point of view, but yes, I will send to what is the text I received. I still think that they have all this knowledge you told about, because it was on the plans for today's meeting. And they've asked and are still asking the question. There may be something else and I don't know what it is.
Cheryl: It's perfectly reasonable for people to keep asking questions. But if it's something you may like the ALAC to discuss, then it needs to come up for our next agenda.
Sébastien – as you know – that's something that's done by the Executive Committee as the whole. So perhaps they would be advising you by then to try to bring it in as an agenda item for discussion. If not, they can always bring it up under, Any Other Business.
Sébastien: No problem.
Cheryl: Okay?
Sébastien: Yes.
Cheryl: Is there any other Any Other Business? In which case, thank you all. Sorry? No? Good? Thank you.
Vanda: I just would make a comment about the huge movement that this regional IDF-IGF is bringing. Getting people from all the ISOC groups around, and making everything work together.
Here in Latin America, we're in a very interesting movement on that. I believe it's interesting to point out, because I'm in support of regional IDF-IGF meetings. This really works to be working very well.
Cheryl: It certainly is exciting, Vanda.
Nick – just before we close off… Have we gotten any further on organizing perhaps meetings to discuss how the At-Large community – the regions – and of course, the ALAC itself could be participating and be – in some ways – better utilized in any of the regional and local IGFs that are going on?
Nick: In fact, I had an e-mail exchange with Rod's PA today on this.
Cheryl: Yes. Oh, great.
Nick: But we are getting close to the point where we'll have 2- or 3-times, which we can then put out for a doodle. But sometime between the 11th and the 15th – thereabouts.
Cheryl: Fantastic. It's important that the regional meetings make notes. Perhaps Heidi, you could ensure that if we're going to get Rod along to a meeting discussing this particular topic, it's also an ideal time for regional and ALS people to join in that call. To get not only to discuss the very important matter of how and when and who, as it relates to Internet governance – foreign activities locally – while we still think globally. But also an opportunity to interchange and interact with the new CEO – which I think will be an important exercise for him to realize what a huge asset of talent in individuals exist out here at the edges.
Heidi: Okay. I will make that announcement at the AFRALO call tomorrow. And then the EURALO call this next Monday.
Cheryl: Fantastic. If possible, obviously, we might even have some dates by then.
Heidi: Yes.
Cheryl: Or at least the doodles will be. So the doodle probably needs to go out almost to the announced list, I would think – being an important issue.
All right. Well, thank you all very much, ladies and gentlemen. I do apologize. I hate having to do adjournments and reconvenings. I hate even more having them take an exceptional length of time. But there is an enormous amount of work that needs to be done.
What we are doing is building a very important foundation for the next iteration. I did use the term, ALAC 3.0.
Alan needed me to define it while we were having our early conversations. It's simply the next iteration of the ALAC in our post-reviewed environment.
Thank you all. See you online. Don't forget – you've got discussions and votes. And I for one am going to go and make my comments on some of these things, right now. Bye for now.
Vs: Farewells
