Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We'll move on with the (unintelligible) as mentioned after roll cal and apologies, which is review of the transcription and transcription dates are the 28th of July and the 4th of August, and then the action items. Now, we're not actually going to review the transcripts, you will be very pleased to know. The concept of reading through the whole meeting while we're at another meeting is, I think, rather exciting.
Nick Ashton Hart: That's one way to put it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Or downright scary. I think that's simply a matter of housekeeping that we actually have the transcription thing. We might change that to read from "review of" to some form of simple tracking when we look at any outstanding action items or action items from July 28th, which is the following matter on the agenda. Sorry, I'm busy giggling to myself. The concept of reading to the record the record of the last meeting just seems terribly, terribly ICANN-isk. In fact, I'm sure there's several meetings in ICANN where that practically happens.
From our last meeting, the headings were the current ALS applications. And we'll note later that that has all been dealt with. The meeting transcriptions, which I think you'll find are definitely now on – the summary of adopted motions are definitely now being attended to. Perhaps we need to look at the language so that we don't kick it to the future review of our transcription. Way forward on IRT, which we will talk to a little later. And as you know, we've had another call. That's actually – was it one, Nick, or two calls that occurred? I wasn't Chairing at those, but I'm sure we'll discuss those a little later as well.
A request from the group for Carlos to post the document that was drafted in LACRALO. And Adam was going to act on that. Might we ask, Carlos, was that document posted?
Carlos Aguirre: (Interpreted.) Not yet. We're still trying to get a consensus on it and we've not been able to post it for that reason, because we've not reached a consensus on the document as of yet.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you, Carlos. So, we will list it as pending and that will a carryover action item for our next meeting, or perhaps even sectionally, but we'll list it as an action item to check on at our next meeting.
The ALAC positions and job descriptions for liaisons has, as we should all know, gone through its processes and are now ready for us to – I believe we're voting already on that. Nice to – have we already got – that's not closed. That's open and still current, isn't it? Matthias, can you confirm?
Matthias Langenegger: Of the position description?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Matthias Langenegger: That's open for comment because of the lateness of the translations--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Ah, indeed. I'm sorry. It was my wishful thinking. Thank you. That's important to note to the record. Because we should have had that now opening for vote, but there was a delay on the translation into French and Spanish. And we're running our comment period in a slightly delayed session. That will be completed, however, before the 15th. Is that correct? Matthias, can you confirm for us that we will have those position descriptions-.
Matthias Langenegger: --Sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We'll have those position description votes completed before we actually go to vote on the liaison at all? I believe that's the case. The 15th is the date that comes to my mind.
Matthias Langenegger: I'm sorry--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thu Hue, I think that was you I heard with your family in the background. Welcome.
Thu Hue Nguyen: Yes. Hello.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hello, my dear. Thank you for joining us. We're just going through the action items from the last meeting. And Matthias, if you can just confirm to the Adobe room when we will be actually running that vote based on the dates where the translation documents were made available so we can have our job positions finalized before we do the voting on those people who should be matching those job descriptions.
The post-expiree domain name recovery working group. And this is something that Siva and myself and Alan have so far been attending. And will echo the words that we've said at each of the meetings so far. We would welcome broader participation and input from the At Large community. I would encourage the regional representatives from each of the regions, with the possible exception of Asia-Pacific because we think we're well covered in this work group from Asia-Pacific, to see if we can get some representatives. It doesn't have to be a regional lead. An ALS member or nominee would be fine. But we do desperately need more effective and more active and more global participation from At Large in this very important work group. And I'm sure Alan will echo me there.
The NomCom nominations. We did that letter and, in fact, we had our timetable agreed to by the Chair of the Nominating Committee for this year. And we're clearly having our next meeting.
Is there anybody who wishes to raise any matter or discuss anything on the action items arising from our last meeting?
Let me check the doodle. I'm sorry, let me check the Adobe. Nobody's sitting there with their hand up. Therefore, while I'm switching between screens, if we can continue that transcription into the Adobe room, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Let's move to ALS application tracking. And I think we have none that are other than on perfect track at the moment. And most importantly, we've closed the vote on three and we're able to notify. Have the notices gone out to our three new At Large structures, one for Asia-Pacific and two for North American RALO yet, Nick?
Nick Ashton Hart: Indeed, today.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. That brings our total of At Large structures at the moment to how many certified, 117, 118? What's --?
Nick Ashton Hart: I believe it's 117, but is that right, Matthias? He's probably on mute.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (Unintelligible) unmute.
Nick Ashton Hart: I'll look that up and I'll put it in the Adobe Connect room in a bit.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. Excellent.
We'll go through the pro forma matter of noting the reports that are being tabled or should be tabled under item six of the reports. But before we move on to that, is there anyone who wishes to raise any questions or any matters on the ALS applications?
No. Don't see anybody in the Adobe room, either. Excellent.
Alright. We have matters for decision and one very important matter for decision is indeed the At Large Seoul schedule and agenda. And there's some open issues that we do need to discuss. The second matter for decision at this meeting is the review of the policy advice development schedule. And we have one or two additional issues there; for example, the SSAC retreat and bylaw amendments related to restructuring the GNSO. And if time allows, we will be looking at the recommendation to the board related to the new RAA. And I note Alan has sent a recent email message and there is also updated information on the wiki for that. So, we have a little less time that we need to devote to that now, I believe, if you've all had ample time to read Alan's latest updated information there. So, do take the time, if you haven't already, to go and look at that additional information that's come out through pre-meeting.
The geographic regions report. The geographic regions will be running a webinar and we want to finalize on the choice of two options. And then, for discussion, we need to look and begin our very important work, which we're going through in to the Seoul meeting of our draft implementation plan outline for the At Large review. And we will call for any other business.
At the moment, the only piece of any other business we have listed is the ALAC NCUC liaison issue. And that's poorly worded. I have to report on those (unintelligible) or something to that matter and we do need to discuss the future of NCUC liaison which, of course under normal circumstances, we would be appointing all of our liaisons around the Seoul meeting time. But of course, NCUC has made it very clear over the last eight months, to quote the Chair of the NCUC, that they will dissolve as such when the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group begins. And the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, of course, should be starting in Seoul.
So, we do need to do a little housework and begin discussing what we will probably complete discussing in Seoul, and that is how we will relate as an At Large Advisory Committee to the new GNSO structure.
Are there any questions or points on those agenda items before we get into those substantial decisions and discussions? Yes, Alan, go ahead.
Nick Ashton Hart: Alan?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I believe you're muted, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Hello?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, we hear you. Go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: I've been on Skype and now I'm on telephone. It's a much worse connection. Can you hear me?
Nick Ashton Hart: Indeed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, we can. Go a head.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. What I was gonna say is we also need to discuss the ten myths in addition to the liaison positions.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Say again, please?
Alan Greenberg: We need to discuss the ten myths I sent in email a few hours ago.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ten myths--.
Alan Greenberg: --I'll just add that to AOB now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you very much. And in some ways, that does in fact come into finalization of the At Large Seoul schedule, which is where we should all be now.
Nick, would you like to, before we get into the meeting of the Seoul schedule, just bring us up to date with any deadlines and changes? I know there's a couple of very specific deadlines for the Seoul meeting in terms of any meeting – any requests for physical meetings, etc. There's some deadlines we all need to be aware of. Nick?
Nick Ashton Hart: Yes, indeed. The 2nd of September is the point at which we must internally put through requests for any meeting times. You know, as in X number of people need a room on X date at X time and here are the audio/visual requirements.
On the 9th of September the entire schedule will be posted, including agendas. The final deadline, after which no further changes to the – to anything related to the public schedule may be made, is the 30th of September.
However, if at all possible, we should like to try and have basic descriptions of what it is that the community wishes to achieve at least in the various meetings. And then, if later on there are completed agendas, at least people reviewing the public schedule would be able to see what the basic thrust of your session is on the 9th.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Certainly. And of course, at least we have some advantage in as much as the schedule we already have up on the wiki in our three languages is already a fairly – whilst they're incomplete, they still are a reasonable working document so that we can ensure that we make those deadlines. I suppose what's vastly important, however – correct me if I'm wrong – is that any additional meetings that tend to come out of perhaps activities at the various working groups or that the regional leads might want to bring forward are incorporated in the program in a timely manner.
So, let's move on to the specifics of the At Large Seoul schedule. And remember at the wiki you really should and could be making some changes at your leisure that, please, if you're going to make a comment, for example, please make a comment. If you've not logged in. If you're (unintelligible) associated with the comment. We have had any number of the wiki pages anonymous stuff, sustentative comments. It would be very nice to know who's making them so we can address them.
Let's look at the decisions that we need to make at this meeting. And Tuesday is a very long day, as we know. It often is in Sydney. And we've certainly heard the requests to make it less heavy going at the Seoul meeting. At the moment we have meetings from (unintelligible) to 10:30, from 2:00 to 3:30 and from 4:00 to 5:30. We usually have lunch from 12:30 to 1400. There's also a possibility that meetings with the Structural Improvement Committee and/or the CEO, Rod Beckstrom, because this has been requested. We're unsure when they will end up, but they could very well end up on the Tuesday. Is this something that the At Large Advisory Committee feels then is too onerous a schedule already? And of course, that does give us a luxury of 11:00 to 12:00.
You know, one thing I need to know is that it's being discussed today at the Asia-Pacific regional At Large organization at the APRALO meeting, that as Tuesday is their normal meeting day and the equivalent of 2:00 P.M. in Seoul time is their normal meeting time, that we may in fact have a normal meeting at a normal meeting time. But I note that during our APRALO meeting we didn't look very carefully and see those clashes. So, we might need to get Heidi to get back to the regional leadership and crosscheck what we might be doing with that. It would be a simple matter, I assume, of us moving to another day.
Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: You know, I'm not sure this is a Tuesday matter but, in looking through the agenda, we only seem to have an hour and a half for the ALAC actually talking to each other, regardless of whether we're talking about administrative issues or policy issues. Did I miss something along the way?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, if that's all that's listed, that's not good enough.
Alan Greenberg: I mean, other than Sunday, at the moment that's all that's listed. This is why we raised this question about the Tuesday schedule, because there is – you could extend the meeting from 9:00 to 10:30 if you wished, because you don't have anything until the user house meeting at 12:30. We just wanted to draw to everyone's attention that, you know, it's a long day at present and you just may want to--.
Nick Ashton Hart: If people are up for a 9:00 or a 9:30 meeting, they're not gonna go back to bed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, you're proposing that we check off the agenda time right through to the luncheon break. Is that correct?
Alan Greenberg: Well, I wasn't specifically saying on Tuesday, although I have no problem with that at all. But somewhere in the week we need some face to face time to resolve all these things that we say we're going to put off until we meet face to face.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, remember of course that we have not only the Rod Beckstrom, but the Structural Improvement Committee that is very likely a meeting with him to slot in on what is very likely to be the Tuesday.
Nick Ashton Hart: We have noted to them that it looks like Wednesday could be a possible day, also. Based on what we see on a draft schedule, there are some times when there would be a conflict. For instance, you know, there's a workshop on DNSEC currently scheduled from 9:00 to 12:30, but there could be a delegation from At Large who could go to that and you could, you know, separately still meet if you wanted. Especially if Rod or the FIC comes and says that that's a time they could do.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well clearly, meeting with either the Structural Improvements Committee or indeed the CEO is a high priority one. And I think what we should do is slot off for ALAC a formal meeting time, as Alan proposes, on the Tuesday through to the user house meeting at the lunch time. And within the agenda there make use of time for one or other of those – heaven forbid both – on that day.
It then also brings us to the opportunity for the currently listed At Large and NCUC joint session, which is traditionally either the last couple of meetings and has focused firstly – as a major meeting, it's focused on the aspects of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group charters and the debate between the two variations on the theme from the NCUC membership, the NCUCCSA and the CTAT as a member of NCUC in previous face-to-face meetings. And then, of course most valuable at our last meeting in Sydney, of course, the joint work involving the IRT was devoted with the joint NCUC and At Large session.
The question of course rises, when technically the NCUC will be about to dissolve, whether or not we need to devote schedule time between the ALAC and At Large and the NCUC at all in Seoul. What's the feeling of the meeting on that?
Alan, perhaps this is the point where you could also cross into the ten myths and, of course, the future of us needing a liaison with NCUC at all.
Alan Greenberg: Well--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (Unintelligible.)
Alan Greenberg: My understanding at this point is that the board has put in place a stakeholder group charter, which still includes the concept of constituencies and, therefore, NCUC is not dissolving. But they can choose to do what they want. I don't – I really don't know what's happening--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -I'm simply quoting – I was quoting their most recent and somewhat prolific press which quotes ad nauseam that, you know, they will dissolve and that the NCUC is not continuing. Of course, that is I suspect predicated on their intention to not have the currently accepted Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group charter as the board has put forward, but rather their own version of that. But-.
Alan Greenberg: -I haven't read it fully-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -I'm only quoting-.
Alan Greenberg: --But – I haven't read it fully, but I believe Robin's letter to the board says that she understands that the decision has to be made and now they have to go forward given that that position's to be made at least on the short term. I think it said something to that effect. In any case, whether we meet with the NCUC or decide we want to meet with the stakeholder group, that's a nomenclature issue, I think.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, yes, because we're actually spending – the user house is – we're having 90 minutes. I believe it is a 90-minute meeting with the user house.
Alan Greenberg: I'm not quite sure what the – what will (unintelligible). Maybe you know better.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No. I'm just aware that from – is it 12 or 12:30 on the Seoul schedule, Nick?
Nick Ashton Hart: 12:30.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: From 12:30--.
Nick Ashton Hart: --12:30 to 2:00.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: 12:30 to 2:00 the user house is having its meeting. And of course, the user house is the commercial and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.
Nick Ashton Hart: Lunch will be served.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, that is a meeting inclusive of lunch and that appears to be the prime opportunity for the At Large Advisory Committee to interact with the GNSO user house, both commercial and non-commercial.
Alan Greenberg: Based on some emails that went out today, the user house may be starting to prepare a battle with the contracted house. Or at least somebody--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --It could be a very good – it would be a very healthy and exciting lunch and we out to look forward to being part of that.
Alan Greenberg: If it's a real lunch and not a box lunch--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --We can have a frank and fearless discussion.
Alan Greenberg: Let's do it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent.
Nick Ashton Hart: I would note that what we have done on the Seoul schedule that you see that you should consider is we have taken the regional secretariats' meeting and the joint session with NCUC and said either one of them can be at 1400 to 1530 and the other can be at 1600 to 1730. Because at the last meeting it was noted by both At Large and the NCUC that having that meeting at the end of the day wasn't ideal. So--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Understood. But I must say two things. First of all, Asia-Pacific regional At Large organization, APRALO, would like to have its meeting at 2:00 that day. That is its normal monthly meeting time and, if at all possible, it would like to do that. And secondly, as Chair of the ALAC, I have already written to the Chair of the NCUC and asked whether or not there is any desire on NCUC's part to have a joint session.
Nick, seeing as I am now in her spam filter, can you tell me via the staff at ICANN.org email, have I had a reply?
Nick Ashton Hart: We haven't. I think it's not that you're in the spam filter, it's that there is a misconfiguration of her host. And your domain is, for some reason, not allowed. It looks like a technical error more than a spam filter--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Hmm. So, the (unintelligible)-.
Nick Ashton Hart: -But yes, you cannot reach her-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -But you forwarded through the messages is my-.
Nick Ashton Hart: --Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: As far as I know, you forward through the messages.
Nick Ashton Hart: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I see. And you've had a read receipt or some mechanism to know that my--.
Nick Ashton Hart: -I offered-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --My formal request for clarification on a joint meeting has gone through.
Nick Ashton Hart: I did offer the read receipt and I have yet to receive one.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Nick Ashton Hart: I will try again.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But for this case, I think what we do is we leave open, should we need it, any form of meeting with constituents – with other constituency, regardless of it's NCUC or some other nomenclature for the 4:00 to 5:30 slot and PD about the time of day. But I see no merit, putting on my Asia-Pacific rep hat, in not having the time that the region wishes for its meeting in that time slot is in fact desirable.
Nick Ashton Hart: We shall then find another suitable time of the secretariats' meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Which could be the 4:00 slot.
Nick Ashton Hart: Indeed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Sounds like a perfect plan to me. Anyone else want to raise a matter on that? When obviously we have – we will be moving the APRALO meeting from the Wednesday and that will free us up for our various work groups and mainstream ICANN meetings, and possibly either Structural Improvement Committee or meeting with Rod Beckstrom. And have we heard back about confirmation of the board breakfast yet, or not?
Nick Ashton Hart: The board breakfast is on the draft schedule we have seen for Thursday morning. We asked for a different time and that was, unfortunately, all that was possible.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. It's unfortunate but, you know, we take what we can around face-to-face meetings.
Alan Greenberg: Nick, has the post-expiration domain name recovery meeting been – or it's not been scheduled yet?
Nick Ashton Hart: Let me look.
Alan Greenberg: We tentatively said Wednesday afternoon, but I don't know if that's when it was actually put.
Nick Ashton Hart: I do not presently see that meeting on--.
Alan Greenberg: --It would be nice if ALAC did not have a conflict with that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hmm. That would be very unfortunate.
Nick Ashton Hart: On Wednesday, it would not. We had tentatively scheduled that APRALO would be meeting on Wednesday at 1700, but that is obviously not the case now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. If--.
Nick Ashton Hart: -And there may be another reason to take that spot, but-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. If we clear that up, then that means our Wednesday's nicely freed.
Nick Ashton Hart: I'm just looking for the PENDR (ph) meeting. I know there was a concern that they did not want to schedule it against an At Large meeting, so--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Of course not. Anyway, it looks to me like we have our schedule--.
Nick Ashton Hart: --Ah, yes. I can confirm at the moment the PENDR meeting is scheduled from 1400 to 1530 on Monday.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So, that's a Monday one. Okay.
Nick Ashton Hart: And we currently have the ALAC and secretariats regional planning and resource allocation meeting at that same time. In looking at the schedule, I can tell you that Monday is very difficult.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, it would be.
Nick Ashton Hart: New gTLDs are from 11:00 to 12:30.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hmm.
Nick Ashton Hart: 1400 to 1530 there's the IPB-6 showcase and improving institutional confidence sessions. And 1600 to 1730 we have the SOAC meeting and the fast track meeting, at the moment. So, Monday is not a great day.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah.
Nick Ashton Hart: You may wish to consider doing your allocation of people to meetings on Sunday, at the end of the Sunday session.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That sounds like a wise plan, actually. It certainly does sound like a wise plan and I think we might take that onboard, unless someone else objects. In which case, if we need to have a specific additional ALAC meeting, we might sneak that time into there on the Monday as we – we'll leave that allocation there, but we may change the agenda.
Nick Ashton Hart: Yeah. The only issue there if, of course, that's the only reasonable slot for the PENDR meeting, which is the--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --Understood. But we obviously would like the majority of our people at the PENDR meeting.
Nick Ashton Hart: Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What I'm saying is, because the – I'd rather have a room allocation and resources in the schedule now--.
Nick Ashton Hart: --At the present, yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's right.
Alan Greenberg: If I could ask a question. Do we have any--?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --Please. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Do we have anything specifically scheduled for the Sunday? We do have nine hours allocated there, which is a lot of--. Unless it's already taken up with things I don't know about.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, it's traditionally the way we do a lot of our work group activities and a lot of our prep work. And I would suggest that we do do our allocation of who to do what there on the Sunday, if we possibly can. Is that what you are proposing, Alan?
Alan Greenberg: I'm – I was asking if there's already a layout of that date that isn't showing on the document.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We haven't fleshed out--.
Alan Greenberg: -Okay-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --More than there is on the document at the moment.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. I'm just pointing out there's a lot of hours there.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Meaning? You don't want that many hours allocated?
Alan Greenberg: No, no. I'm just saying we do have flexibility in using that time to cover for other things that won't fit somewhere else.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, indeed. Indeed. But you know, there will be IRT, there will be IDNs, there will be geographics, there will be PENDR. All of those things will require some preparatory work by us. And what tends to happen is that we run out of time rather than we have additional time. But I think we should schedule our allocation as part of that time at the moment.
There is one glaring meeting yet to be consumed and that of course is one that has traditionally ended up on the Tuesday, and could very well end up on the Tuesday again should the Chair of the Government Advisory Committee agree to have a meeting with us. It's certainly our intention to ask for such a meeting, a joint session between the GAC and the ALAC, unless anyone at this call would object. I would have thought it was well worthwhile having. And it's very likely to take the slot immediately before the user house at the end of our new extended allocation of time on the Tuesday now. That's certainly what I would be proposing as opposed to immediately after lunch. I think immediately before lunch, if that's possible, would be ideal. Is that what we should aim for?
Nick, do we have any idea what the GAC schedule might be on the Tuesday? It may be that they don't even have a bilateral with us. If that's the case, okay, but if they do want to have a bilateral with us, I think we would probably be better to aim at the pre-lunch time on Tuesday. If not, perhaps take some of our Sunday time for that activity.
Nick Ashton Hart: The GAC is solid on Tuesday. They have a--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (-Unintelligible-.)
Nick Ashton Hart: -(Unintelligible.) I think it's open, by the way, on – from 9:00 to 10:30 on Tuesday, where they're talking about the role of the GAC in light of the end of the JPA. Then they have IPv4, IPv6-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hmm.
Nick Ashton Hart: DNS, lunch, a joint session with the ccNSO, a closed session preparing for the meeting with the board--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Yep-.
Nick Ashton Hart: --The closed meeting with the board, and then an open meeting with the board.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hmm. See, I can't see us getting a Guernsey (ph). And it may very well be that, if we are going to get any time, it will be time on the Sunday. What is their Sunday looking like, do you know?
Nick Ashton Hart: Let me look at Sunday. Plenary on IDN, ccTLD PDP from 9:00 to 12:30. New gTLD guidebook version three from 1400 to 1600, and then meeting with the GNSO council.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hmm. So, if we are going to have a bilateral, and we need to recognize that we don't have guaranteed bilaterals with the other ACs and SOs each time, if they wish to have a bilateral with us, then I think I'd be angling for sometime on the Sunday if possible. If--.
Nick Ashton Hart: -Now, I would say, just in case it's helpful-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --So sorry (unintelligible). Go ahead, Nick.
Nick Ashton Hart: I would just say I should note that, at the moment, they don't have a lunch scheduled with anyone on Sunday. So, perhaps they would be willing to do that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let's perhaps pen that in as a query. If you could mention that to their secretariat, that might be handy perhaps. But I'll leave that open. We haven't had our AC/SO meeting this week yet, so if you just remind me of that as a possibility and I'll see if we can work towards that.
Yes, Siva. Go ahead. You might be on mute. Siva?
French channel: Excuse me. Could I interrupt just a moment? This is Tisha.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Certainly.
French channel: And I have two questions from Fatimata.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please. (Unintelligible.)
French channel: Let me just – my (unintelligible) in before we get--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Please. Followed by (unintelligible) Siva-.
French channel: --Oh, thank you. She's wondering if at – I believe she's talking about Seoul, if you could have – if they could have a AFRALO room and have a meeting of – and then also have an individual regional meeting between them before the RALO.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The short answer I'm sure will be anything is possible. Her request would be noted and in ample time before the closing of resource allocation happens. And I'll ask that Heidi and Nick take that up further, not only with the AFRALO regionally, but also the other regional leads. Because it sounds to me like she was requesting that it happen at a particular point in time before the secretariat's meeting, if that's the case. Please confirm.
French channel: Exactly. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. No problem.
Alan Greenberg: It would be useful knowing how many people.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. Which is why, rather than have that conversation now, I thought I'd leave it to staff and the regional leaders to do that.
Siva, go ahead. We realize you're unmated, but now no one else is speaking so please go ahead. Siva, are you going to put it in the text or in the audio?
Nick Ashton Hart: He's just put it into--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I can see it in the text.
Nick Ashton Hart: Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If he's going to read it to the record, fine. If not, I'll read it to the record.
Alan Greenberg: Will someone read it?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I feel a little bit like a radio announcer with dead air space, so I'll be happy to.
Alright. This is from Siva and it's in the Adobe room record but, for some reason, there seems to be a problem with the microphone. Can we just ensure that everyone in the Adobe room realizes that the only audio bridge we use is the Adigo telephone bridge. We don't have the Adobe audio bridge functioning. I'm wondering if that might be where the confusion seems to be happening.
Heidi Ullrich: No, it's--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: To read it to the record – oh, sorry, is that Siva now? Go ahead.
Heidi Ullrich: No. Cheryl, this is Heidi. He is on Skype audio, so that may be a problem as well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, until we sort out that – and we do realize that there are problems with Skyping into Adigo. This is on the inter-constituency meeting on IDNs. "I sent" – this is Siva – "I sent a mail to ALAC internal and to ALAC unofficial awhile ago. These meetings you've organized as inter-constituency meetings would take IDN forward." Okay. "I would seem that--." Siva, if you can type in the Adigo – sorry, in the Adobe room, that will be fine. You're referring to the mainstream scheduled meetings on IDNs, correct?
Nick Ashton Hart: I think I can help on this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please, go ahead, Nick. I'd be delighted.
Nick Ashton Hart: He's reminding everyone that he had made a proposal of setting aside a day in Seoul to, soup-to-nuts, have every community go over everything related to IDN so that more accelerated work on moving to a launch could be done.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. That was noted and went into that which is meeting planning. And the outcome of that was?
Nick Ashton Hart: Well, I mean, the statement was made on the cover of the--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Correct-.
Nick Ashton Hart: --ALAC statement on IDNs.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Correct.
Nick Ashton Hart: And he sent it to Tina and to Bot (ph)--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Correct-.
Nick Ashton Hart: --Some of this today. There hasn't been any other – if he has communicated this to anyone other than Tina and Bot today, I'm unaware of it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And neither am I. Siva, is that the case? Please type at us if you can't use the mic.
"I sent email with cc to Tina and Bot."
Okay. Fine.
Alan Greenberg: I would suggest that if it's not in the schedule, it's not happening. No matter--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -I would agree-.
Alan Greenberg: --How (unintelligible) it might be.
Nick Ashton Hart: There are meetings, obviously, on this subject.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Yes.
Nick Ashton Hart: But not a whole day.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Okay. Siva, I understand the message to ALAC did not get posted because there were too many copies. That's fine. You could always send to three people and then send to another three people. And the moderator would let such an important message go through to the ALAC anyway.
We encourage all At Large ALAC and RALO people attending an ICANN meeting to go to the mainstream meetings and activities that are of particular interest to the At Large and ALAC, and IDNs is clearly one of those. And one of the purposes of our having our specific allocations of people into each of the meetings that is going on and having them report back such, as we did in Sydney, is to make sure that we do have extensive coverage. And there will be, wherever possible, in things like PENDR, the post-expiry domain name recovery activities, and I would have thought also IDNs, as many people as possible.
To quote you now – this is me reading to the record on behalf of Siva: "Apart from taking it up with Tina and Bot, can the Chair take this up with other constituencies as a suggestion?"
The Chair will undertake to raise it with the other Chairs at the joint Chairs meeting, the AC/SO meeting that we have prior to the face-to-face meeting in Seoul. But beyond that, it's other Chairs who can encourage or otherwise their constituencies to take up interest and to attend meetings. I'm not sure what else I can do other than say that every time we've had an IDN fast-track specific meeting at past meetings, they've been incredibly well attended and I would expect these to be well attended as well, not only by At Large folks, but also from other constituencies; specifically those, of course, who have IDN related issues, be it ACC or G-space ones.
Siva Muthusamy: Okay. But what if--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --Oh. (Unintelligible.) Sorry. Go ahead, Siva. I'm sorry.
Siva Muthusamy: I'm on the phone. So, this idea actually, basically the first (unintelligible) ICANN meetings have so far been automatic. And so, IDNs are discussed in At Large and then different constituencies and different constituencies think of different issues. There are technical issues, policy issues and each get discussed in a different nature. So, what I thought was if we can get everybody together in one room, or at least representatives from each constituency and those people working on IDNs altogether we can (unintelligible) with the (unintelligible), with ICANN executives, everybody together in one room where all pending remaining issues are looked at and discussed and solutions identified, then we'll have a whole lot of solutions by the end of the day. And what I said to (unintelligible), this meeting can take place on Wednesday in our prepared room as an IDN room while other (unintelligible) can do their other business in concurrent sessions.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, of course the constituency, the support organization who would have control of that would be either the ccNSOs for the IDNs or the GNSO for the GIDNs. And that is the type of activities that we're undertaking in the various early stages, both in the GN, ccNSO specifically fast-track. Yes, we hear what you're saying, Siva, but do you understand that others of us who are making that suggestion which we made as a front piece on our last formal statement and we can't book a room and make that happen unless we take resources away from an already posted agenda.
Alan Greenberg: Can I interject? It's Alan.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please do.
Alan Greenberg: I would suggest that if ICANN decides they wanted to allocate a half day or one day for looking – for focusing purely on IDNs, it would have to have been done much earlier than this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Months ago.
Alan Greenberg: This is far too late to try to set aside a day when all the other groups are already deep in their planning, as we are.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Alan Greenberg: So, whether it's a good idea or not--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -It's not-.
Alan Greenberg: --I think it's months too late to be considering it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. It's certainly not questioning the idea, as Alan is saying. He's saying that that sort of activity, we would be needing to decide in Seoul that it would happen in Nairobi.
Siva Muthusamy: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In fact, when we have the ccNSO fast-track IDN workgroup beginning, it is very likely to be something that happens at a future meeting, at least from the cc fast-track point of view. And I would assume it would take up a lump of a Wednesday when the G-space-PDP on IDN goes ahead as well. It tends to be the sort of thing that happens as a PDP process is going on.
Have I captured that correctly, Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Well, regardless of when it gets done, if it's going to be done on an ICANN-wide basis, it's got to be planned way, way ahead of this--. This no point in hypothesizing what day it would be on.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No. Fair enough.
Alan Greenberg: I don't think this is a productive use of our time right now in trying to flesh out what our – what's gonna happen in Seoul.
Siva Muthusamy: So, (unintelligible) please make a suggestion and then let's see what comes out of that. So, I leave it at that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You wish to make another suggestion, Siva? Sorry--.
Siva Muthusamy: No, no. No, no. I would like you to make the suggestion to other constituencies and if nothing comes of it (unintelligible), then it's okay. So, please go ahead and make a suggestion and see if – at least it's explored.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you. As I said--.
Siva Muthusamy: -Thank you-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --At the very beginning of this, I will mention it to the other Chairs of all of the support organizations and advisory committees when we have our joint meeting.
Siva Muthusamy: Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fine. Okay. And then back to our agenda. Do we have any additional discussion at this stage on the Seoul scheduling?
Alan Greenberg: I have a question.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: This Friday afternoon meeting, is that targeted at the outgoing, the incoming or both ExComs, assuming we still have an ExCom at the end of that meeting?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, you'll have elected officers because that's part of our (unintelligible). So, what we call those.
Alan Greenberg: (Inaudible.)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I mean, I can come up with another set of initials if you'd prefer.
Alan Greenberg: It was a joke.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm very short of sense of humor at the moment, Alan. And we probably could have that read into the permanent record as well.
I would think that it should be for both if both decided upon. But as I understand it, it would be the outgoing.
Alan Greenberg: I just wanted the schedule to say which it is so people would know.
Nick Ashton Hart: Well, you won't have elected your officers until – the elections--.
Alan Greenberg: -Ah, sorry-.
Nick Ashton Hart: -(Unintelligible) 48 hours before the-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Yeah-.
Alan Greenberg: --My apologies. My apologies.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. That's why I said it would be the outgoing.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Although, if some people have gone (unintelligible) and remaining uncontested, I guess some of them may be continued, but--.
Okay. Anything else on the schedule? Then can I now ask the very important matter of are we aware of any issues with travel arrangements? I take it that everybody has been contacted by constituency travel and that they see the person in charge of travel and there is no particular issues, at least those that I'm unaware of that need to be raised?
Siva, your hand is still up. Is this a carryover from before? You mentioned at the APRALO meeting today that you've already been approached regarding your travel arrangements, so--.
Siva Muthusamy: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's fine, as long as there's no problem that I need to be aware of.
Siva Muthusamy: (Inaudible.)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. Okay. Let's now look at those decisions. We will flesh out those agendas as we discussed in tonight's meeting. And we will obviously work now at greater detail with our Sunday agenda, focusing on various work group activities and regional reports, along similar lines to what we've done on previous Sundays, I believe.
The review of the policy advice development schedule. The additional ones we need to note are the SSAC retreat. Sebastien, I know you wondered the ALAC retreat might occur, but perhaps I might suggest that our summit was the equivalent to that. But thank you for making me smile when I read that email. I could do with a smile from time to time and that was quite amusing.
And the bylaw amendments relating to the restructuring of the GNSO. Vanda is on the Spanish channel and, Sebastien, you're on the English channel. So, if I may, while I take a very small break, I'll be listening, but I will just hand the Chair over to Sebastien for us while we go through the policy advice development schedule, the changes – any changes of deadlines and the – noting that the request has gone out for interpreters – sorry, translation of some protection documents on certainly part A. Thank you, Sebastien. Go ahead.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes. I will try. I was cut off two times in the last five minutes and it will be difficult to follow. And I would like to ask Adigo to call back Hawa. She's also not any more on the call. Please.
Then the subject, if I am right, we are on the number two review of the At Large advice development schedule for deadlines. Can we have feedback on the topics we are really on schedule? We need to work out certain things that we have something about SSAC. And do Patrick want to say something on that subject?
Patrick Vande Walle: Yes. I'm not on mute? Okay. So, there's not much to say about this, I guess, because part of the meeting. And I guess the main part of the retreat will cover some internal SSAC business, especially regarding our SSAC members work because there is a (unintelligible) issue in SSAC, as there is in ALAC. But the fact that people may not always be available. But unlike the ALAC, SSAC had sometimes to work very hard and do comprehensive laboratory testing to – and some extensive research before coming out with an advisory. So, this can be very hard work. SSAC is large, but it requires very skilled people for and people are not always available.
So, one of the suggestions that was at one stage that would be that maybe SSAC members could be compensated for the work they do for SSAC. And this immediately started a discussion because some people are prevented from receiving compensation for work they do outside the company that is employing them. And so, they would not be able to accept any sort of compensation. And also, the fact that many of these people could have issues due to either conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest from other parties. For example, within the SSAC you will find people running root servers. There could be a possibility at some stage that, as a report comes out, someone could say, for example, that this report cannot be considered objective because one specific person participated in the report and is himself a part of the – a part of running one of the root servers. And this can also happen for – in other matters.
So, I think the main part of the SSAC retreat will cover these aspects and all SSAC can reorganize internally to better streamline the work. And also to minimize perceived conflicts of interest that may exist. For example, we were asked last week to submit a written statement saying which conflicts of interest we could have in the framework for SSAC work. And this has to be filled out by every SSAC member.
For the other parts of the discussion about DNS related security and stability issues, one part is – this will be quite high level discussion, that the goal is not to come up with an advisory, but rather to try to identify which potential risk there may be. For example, it's well known that the DNS has been used in the past as a tool to spread viruses, for example the (unintelligible) virus--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Yes-.
Patrick Vande Walle: --Some time ago. That – and that the discussion will be at quite a high level. I don't think that the ALAC can contribute any input at this stage because I don't expect the outcome of the retreat to be something that can be immediately sent back to the community for a useful and short-term use.
Pretty much summarizes what this retreat will be about.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much, Patrick. And yes, we do recognize that it is a very rare and very demanding role that the SSAC has. But I think that the inter-relationship that we have via our liaison with the SSAC is a vital part of our understanding, as part of the ICANN community, what goes on and how we can best contribute. Would you be advising us to make a formal statement in any way supporting the SSAC in its retreat activity?
Patrick Vande Walle: Well, if you want a one line saying we think it's a good idea and please go ahead with your retreat, of course we could do that. We could word it a bit more diplomatically and say that we think that the issues that are going to be addressed by the SSAC we think are very important and we look forward to the work of the outcome of this meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hmm.
Patrick Vande Walle: I could do that. The only thing is that we – when do we need – we need to submit a statement by the 8th of September, from what I see.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, that's correct.
Patrick Vande Walle: I don't think we will be able to have a formal statement by then.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But we could certainly have a statement that will then go through a ratification process if that's the view and the desire of the – at the meeting. Would someone else like to speak to that matter? Anyone on the French or Spanish channel?
Well, how about I put to the meeting now, because we do have this as a matter for decision, that we pen a simple and supportive note along the lines that you were crafting with your words earlier, Patrick. And that you and I can – if we do some basic drafting, I'll – with the support of the ALAC – send it on to the SSAC as a statement coming out of this meeting that we have those in principle support of what will be going on at the SSAC retreat. Can I put that to the meeting?
Patrick Vande Walle: Yes. I'm fine with that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sebastien, was that you? Go ahead.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. I second your proposal.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Sebastien. Does any from Spanish or French wish to speak to that matter?
Spanish channel: We agree with Spanish.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Spanish. The French channel? Hawa (unintelligible)?
Spanish channel: Just a question from Carlos Aguirre when you get a chance.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just one moment until I hear from French. Any matters to be raised from the French channel?
French channel: Tisha. I hear no answer from the French, so--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Tisha.
French channel: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go ahead, Carlos.
Carlos Aguirre: (Interpreted.) I'm not too sure. When you're talking about the SSAC retreat – now, is the ASAC going to be disappearing from the ICANN structure? That's what I'm not understanding. If you could clarify this, please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed. I will pass that to Patrick. For the matter of those who are not using English as a first language, Patrick, could you share with us what the word "retreat" means in this context, please. It is not--.
Patrick Vande Walle: -Oh. Right-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --I would think to add them leaving or being in any way nontransparent within ICANN. Go ahead, Patrick.
Patrick Vande Walle: Yes. Well, in this case, Carlos, retreat is a closed meeting, closed in the sense that it's a meeting within – for the members of a strategic group, SSAC in this case, that will work between themselves how they could best organize their work in this case, and think ahead about issues that might be forthcoming. Not trying to solve issues that are here today, but rather have a longer-term view on how can we deal with this issue in a structural manner in the future.
For example, in the case of the DNS, it could be that there may be problems today with a virus using the DNS as a way to spread around the world. Of course, you could have immediate actions and try to work with registries and domain name operators and to try to slow down the spread of the virus. But of course, it is always short-term solutions. The goal of the retreat is to try to think ahead and say, okay, what can we do in two, three, five years time from now and how could we influence the course of things so that we can better manage these sorts of threats in the future. And the goal, of course, is to work--.
Spanish channel: "--And I understood. Thank you so much," says Carlos.
Patrick Vande Walle: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. And I think it's a delightful example of how use of language and terminology needs to be so carefully cross-checked when we're working in a global multi-lingual environment. Thank you, Carlos. And thank you indeed, Patrick.
I will now put that motion to the meeting that we write a short, but well-crafted in principle support message that Patrick will help with the initial drafting. And it can go on behalf of this committee under my name as Chair of this committee. I'm quite confident that Patrick's words will be pretty close to what was said, and that has been seconded by Sebastien.
Yes, go ahead. Who was that? Who did I hear then? I see no one in the Adobe room writing attention and I don't hear that person again. I'll assume it was a glitch in the phone system. Okay.
I'm putting the motion that we have decided to send a yes to the drafted in principle support for the SSAC retreat based on our discussions here tonight. I'm calling for anyone who wishes to have their name voted – noted against this motion. Anyone from Spanish or French channel, make yourselves known. I see no one in the Adobe room. I hear no one on the phone. I call for anyone who wishes to have their name recorded as an abstention from this motion. I see no one in the Adobe room. Anyone in Spanish or French, please make yourselves known. I hear no one on the phone.
Spanish channel: No one in Spanish.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. Therefore, it would appear that we have the following members in support: myself, Patrick, Garreth, Sebastien, Vanda, Carlos, Fatimata, Hawa, Alan and Thu Hue. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. And I think that's an important thing for us to put forward in a timely way.
Moving on to the bylaw amendment related to the restructuring of the GNSO. Note here on the agenda from staff that Spanish and French editions of the consultation documents have been requested. The closing date is the 24th of September, so this will need to have been processed and actioned before our next meeting. Obviously, they will let us know once these are available, but it is something that each of the regional leads should be taking out already through these following months to their ALSs.
Yes, Sebastien, go ahead. Go ahead, Sebastien.
Sebastien Bachollet: Sorry. I was mute. I wanted to (unintelligible) bylaw for improving our accountability. We tried to start this (unintelligible) in the working group, both future and the transparency ones. I will send an action item tomorrow, first draft to those working groups on the comment that ALAC would make. But of course, it would be great to have the French version of these two documents. Thank you. And the Spanish of those. Sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much, Sebastien. And that of course is listed on our existing policy development schedule. The other one that is not listed on our policy development schedule at the moment – and the question before us is should it be. I would believe the answer is probably, from Alan's briefing. I'll take his lead on this. Should we be making a comment? My guess is yes, even if it is at a single affirmation level. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: To be honest, we are talking to the bylaws, right?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We are indeed.
Alan Greenberg: Yes. Okay. I would have suggested, no, we don't need to make a comment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Happy?
Alan Greenberg: I have partaken in the discussion. I don't think there's very much there that is onerous with respect to the At Large.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hmm.
Alan Greenberg: I think this is one of those things that we can say it's not a direct concern for us. We have no particular urgent reason to state adverse positions. The only thing--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Well, in the absence of an adverse position-.
Alan Greenberg: -In the bylaws that doesn't make any sense at all-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Um-hmm-.
Alan Greenberg: --Is the – they did some rough changes with regard to the NomCom. But to be honest, it's no worse than it is for us today.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hmm.
Alan Greenberg: And I don't think we need to make a comment on this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And certainly--.
Alan Greenberg: -We could make some passive one, but-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --I'm wondering along the same lines as the SSAC retreat one, if we shouldn't make a very simple – if you could pen us something, you know, along the lines of, you know, our GNSO liaison has been, you know, an integral part of the development of and we remain, you know, affirmative and supportive of blah, blah, blah.
Alan Greenberg: I can live with that. It's one extra piece of work, but I can live with it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think it's a matter of us not putting additional (unintelligible) in in any way, but letting the community, the wider ICANN community know that we are paying attention and that are making affirmative comments as well.
So, along the same lines as what we have just done for the SSAC, if we add those two things onto the At Large policy development schedule so that there is an auditability and note that they will be – well, one is we've just had the motion put forward in one, and I'm gonna put the second motion now that we do a similar simply affirmative short paragraph to go in on the possible changes to the GNSO.
Alan, do you want that put forward as a motion in your name?
Alan Greenberg: No, I'll let it be in your name. I'll second it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. That's fine. Happy to do that. In which case I'll ask if anyone - Sebastien, your hand's still up. You want to talk to that matter?
Sebastien Bachollet: I'm – no, sorry, sorry. That's okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Careful! You were about to be recorded against. I'm gonna call for participants from the ALAC who wish to have their name recorded against this pro forma motion, similar to the SSAC with relationship to the proposed bylaw changes to – relating to the improvement of the GNSO, with me as Asia-Pacific Regional At Large rep putting the motion forward and the GNSO liaison as second.
Anyone wishing to have their name recorded against it? Please check in Spanish and French channels. I see nobody in the Adobe room.
Spanish channel: Spanish agrees.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. I hear no one in disagreement on the phone line. I now call for anyone who wishes to have their name recorded as an abstention. Giving time to check the Spanish and the French channel. I see no one in the Adobe room. I hear nothing on the phone. Therefore, we can read to the record the same affirmative motion from the following people on that matter: myself, Patrick, Garreth, Sebastien, Vanda, Carlos, Fatimata, Hawa, Alan and Thu Hue. Thank you all again.
Moving to the – because we are now an hour and ten minutes into our meeting. We did start a little late and I'd like to start close – to finish close to our actual end time for once. Going on to 2B, the draft spec of the ALAC on the public consultation of ICANN meeting dates geographic rotation, 2011 to 2013. And your link is there. We note from the staff note to the agenda that this is a synthesis of comments based at the request of Vanda Scartezini as public consultation on ICANN meeting date closed on the 14th of August. How would we like to proceed with this statement? I know what I think, but what do the rest of you think? And we should also note at this point that, of course, this is a matter for decision for the board at the meeting on the 27th later this week. That's the 27th of August. So, it will be something that will be decided upon by the board later this week.
Anyone want to speak to that? If not, I would like to--.
Spanish channel: --Nothing from Spanish.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What I would like to suggest that, seeing as we've done the work on this, we ask that in fact we do transmit this statement to the board posthaste. We can do it, the Executive Committee, the Chairs and vice-Chairs can agree at the following meeting to transmit it later today with the understanding and the preamble that this is a statement that is going to vote. So, we will start a vote on it so when the vote closes, after a five to seven day vote period, five days is probably fine, that it will become a formal statement of the ALAC, but that the statement as it is linked to this agenda here can be transmitted as an advisory, which is under current gratification.
Is that the wish of the meeting? Does anyone want to speak against that? I'm getting ticks up on the board. Well, it sounds to me like it's exactly we are being instructed to do, so Matthias, we start our vote on that as soon as it's humanly possible. And I'm seeing general agreement on that concept and I'm hearing no one from any of the language channels, including English, against that. So, we will simply make that so.
Excellent. We do have time. Time will allow, because we started a traditional 10 minutes late, and I will steal that time back from us if no one disagrees, to go on with the final matters on the agenda tonight. If I can switch number four and number three around, a very quick matter.
Okay. A very quick matter to look at. We have two options for the geographic regions report. We do need a little webinar or teleconference. And I would like to have that done either on the 31st of August – and unfortunately, Carlton, the other member, the other representative from At Large who's been on that committee is unavailable. Or, we can proceed with Carlton being available on the 7th of September.
I'm happy with either date. I really want to know the feeling of the rest of you and, indeed, the regional leads, to see which of those dates you believe would get more people attending. Is there any reason why we shouldn't do it in the week of the 7th of September where you have both Carlton and myself present?
Sebastien Bachollet: I guess it's better – it's Sebastien – I guess it's better if we can have both of you participating then. Since we'll have one more week to wait, it will be okay I guess.
Spanish channel: Carlos Aguirre has a comment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please, go head, Carlos.
Carlos Aguirre: (Interpreted.) Yes. I do think that September 7th is best so Carlton is able to participate. And also, this teleconference needs to have interpretation obviously in Spanish and French, of course.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely, which is why we want to make sure that in fact we get a good attendance in each of those channels and why I would be very keen to have the regional representatives rally as many of their ALS's to this meeting as is possible.
So, is there anyone who feels that we do need to do it on the 31st of August as opposed to the 7th – the week of the 7th of September? I'm not hearing anyone. I'm not seeing anyone. Therefore, we will proceed with the 7th of September. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for that decision.
And Gisella, you can now go ahead and do the necessary planning. And if we can ensure that Heidi reaches out to the regions and we get the usual advance notice out to the announced list as soon as possible, that will be great.
And indeed, we do note that, thank you Nick, has noted into the Adobe room that--.
French channel: -Excuse me. I'm sorry-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -(Unintelligible) sufficient-.
French channel: --Excuse me.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please go ahead.
French channel: Hi. Yes. Sorry, this is Tisha. I just was – heard from the French channel who has a question. And I will see if we can get it clearly across. Hold on just a second.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Go ahead, Tisha. Just while Tisha's doing that, Nick was saying the--.
French channel: -It's Hawa-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --Longer – longer advises (unintelligible) as well. Yes, Hawa. Go ahead.
Hawa Diakite: (Interpreted.) First of all, I'd like to ask Cheryl with respect to the meeting on the 7th of September if we could have it around 20 UTC time or right after 20 UTC time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hawa--.
French channel: That is her question.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hawa, it is--.
French channel: -Only the conference-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -It would be (unintelligible) for it to be around 20 UTC time from my perspective. Gisella, can we-? That would certainly suit me. Gisella, you might be on mute.
Gisella Gruber-White: Sorry. Yes, I was on mute. I'm just – I'll need to confirm with Carlton.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. The answer then, Hawa, is Gisella will confirm with Carlton--.
Spanish channel: --And also, Spanish channel agrees 20 UTC is a very good time for them as well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Brilliant. Well, if we let Carlton know that both the French and the English channel and the ALAC Chair are thoroughly in support of that time, we might (unintelligible) him as well.
Gisella Gruber-White: I'll set that up and then I'll get back to you as soon as I do.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much, Gisella. Excellent.
Okay. Now, Alan, you're still on the call?
Alan Greenberg: I'm here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. Time does allow, and I did note – I wasn't sure whether you were hearing the phone bridge at the time. I did note early in the call that you've put out additional information on this matter. But seeing as you're here and we have time, the floor is yours on item three.
Alan Greenberg: I think I--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --Recognize action to the board relating to the new RAA.
Alan Greenberg: I don't know to what extent people have read what I put out. The original--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --Well, I did encourage them to read it from the very beginning of the meeting, if they hadn't already because we were going to try and deal with our option choices.
Spanish channel: And Vanda is going to be joining English in a moment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. Thanks, Vanda. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: The question at this point, since the part of what we were requesting is already going to be done, but only part of it, the question is, do we put this on hold until we see what comes out and then make some statement or do we go ahead with a modified motion at this point. The motion I modified removes the request that the status of each registrar be noted because they – ICANN has said they will be doing that in the relatively near future.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hmm.
Alan Greenberg: We were also asking for those registrars that have not signed on identify when the new RAA will kick in.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah.
Alan Greenberg: And there were a number of requests associated with where this information be posted on the ICANN website. And – excuse me – among other things, right now if someone tries to find information about registrars or want to issue a complaint, they are taken off of the ICANN website and I felt that particularly inappropriate because it sends the message that ICANN is not interested in that kind of thing, so--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Indeed-.
Alan Greenberg: --I was taking the opportunity to try to address that. But that is not nearly as urgent as the original. And the most urgent part is say which RAA applies and ICANN has said they're going to be doing that. So, the question is do we put the whole project on hold or do we go ahead with what we had originally planned and modify it as appropriate.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thanks, Alan. Does anyone have specific questions for Alan on that in terms of general discussion? Anyone from the Spanish or French channel? And I'd like to thank Alan for doing the machine translation. At least that does assist when we're looking at these things in short order. Thank you.
I'm getting – my browser is asking me do I want to kill all my unresponsive pages, so I'm not actually going to be – well, I'm not going to kill them either – pull up the exact words, Alan. So, I may rely on your for this next part.
I do have a question if no one else does. Alan, recognizing that I don't have the page open in front of me right now, if we look at a delay, what length of delay out are we expecting? Are we looking at perhaps revisiting this issue next month or Seoul or what?
Alan Greenberg: I would think it's one of those two.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And is there no--.
Alan Greenberg: --I know via email – perhaps private email, I don't remember at this point – Vanda had indicated that she would prefer a delay. I had indicated that I thought reworking and approving. So, if Vanda is on one of the channels, we can ask her.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Certainly. Vanda, have you joined us in English yet? I think she was joining us for this particular matter. I thought she was coming to English so she could speak on this matter. I haven't heard her join us.
Maya, is Vanda still in--.
Spanish channel: -No, she's not in Spanish anymore. So, should be-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --Yeah. I imagine she was going to come across to English so she could participate on this point. Can someone check with Adigo if she's joined us yet and we just haven't heard her?
Well, rather than delay longer, obviously when she joins us in the English channel then I'll hand the floor on this matter over to her. But at the moment, you have two options, correct me if I'm wrong, Alan, do nothing for a short amount of time or do something in terms of a modified process.
Spanish channel: And just so you know from Spanish as well, Carlos has agreed that it would be good to delay this for awhile so we have more time to study this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you, Carlos. I appreciate that. So noted.
Alan, is there a downside in leading this as a modified motion for our September meeting then?
Alan Greenberg: I don't think there's anything particularly onerous about that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alright. Well, things I'm hearing – I do know Vanda wanted to speak to this and it may very well influence the rest of the committee, and we've also heard from Carlos that he would appreciate the additional time, Alan, if you don't – if you would take that as a friendly amendment to the motion that we in fact put it for decision in the September meeting. Do you have any objections?
Alan Greenberg: I wouldn't consider an amendment. I just think it's not inappropriate to table it if--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Okay. Alright-.
Alan Greenberg: -So the committee – several committee members don't feel comfortable-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Okay, fine. So, if we-.
Alan Greenberg: --And the world is not gonna fall apart because of it, yes, certainly we can.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fantastic. Okay. Well, under that advice from you acting in our liaison capacity, I'm going to take the motion that we have attached for tonight and have that as a matter for decision at the September meeting. And at the September meeting we will be putting it through to the vote unless, for some unforeseen reason, between now and then our GNSO liaison advises us that it has become some matter of urgency and then we could do it to an online vote. But at this stage, let's put that from tonight's agenda. It's been tabled and it will be for decision at the September meeting. (Unintelligible.)
Alan Greenberg: So that – that's--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ladies and gentlemen --.
Vanda Scartezini: --I Vanda answer in English (unintelligible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Vanda, we filibustered until you joined us in English. And in case you missed it, we put the motion recommending board – recommendation to the board relating the new RAA will now – it is tabled tonight and will be going for decision at our September meeting.
Vanda Scartezini: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And I would very much encourage all of the regions to look at this and make sure that – we don't have much time on debate at our next meeting--.
Vanda Scartezini: -Yes-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --But that we make a prompt decision. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: For clarification, we are tabling the motion as modified in my second--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Email-.
Alan Greenberg: --Is that correct?
Vanda Scartezini: Yes. Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Correct, as modified in your email.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Vanda Scartezini: Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And that – we'll need to change that obviously on the – for the September meeting.
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we've had our allocated time. And I believe we do have the – any other business and the matter for discussion still on our agenda. With your permission, I believe we can do this is a 10-minute extension. Does anyone object to a 10-minute extension?
Vanda Scartezini: No problem.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don't see anybody on the Adobe and I don't hear anybody on the phone objecting. Okay. Let's then move – but I will ask do you wish to move the any other business forward, Alan? I know you're at a conference and you've got matters on the any other business. Do you want to move that forward or do you want--?
Alan Greenberg: --I would appreciate it and invert the order.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Okay. In which case I'm happy to have – Siva, you had another piece of any other business or you're agreeing we do any other business now? I'm assuming that's support of doing the any other business now.
Siva Muthusamy: Yes. I want to raise some fine points on – that came upon Alan's (unintelligible). This is for both respond and exchange between NCUC and ALAC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Certainly--.
Spanish channel: --I'm sorry. This is the Spanish interpreter. Could you please repeat that? I really did not get that. I'm so sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No problem, Maya. I'll do my best.
Spanish channel: Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It was Siva informing us that he wished to raise a point with regard to what Alan is raising – and in fact not just Alan, but we are discussing in any other business regarding the NCUC liaison and the NCUC statement on the Top 10 Myths relating to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. Okay. And what we're doing now is dealing with the any other business. And Alan has requested the reverse order, in which case discuss or response to the NCUC statement on the Top 10 Myths related to the NCSG, Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.
Alan, the floor is yours.
Alan Greenberg: I'm not quite sure what to say.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry.
Alan Greenberg: The 10 myths on the NCSG charter, or whatever the documents are called, has been exceedingly widely distributed. It has been posted on--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Yes. I have it twittered at me-.
Alan Greenberg: --Many blogs and in many, many different forms. I have no comment on most of it. I have personal comments, but I'm not – this is not the forum for them.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Alan Greenberg: However, one of them specifically refers to the ALAC and quotes an ALAC document. That is a document which we in fact never approved due to an administrative problem, but it had the support of people on both sides of the discussion within the ALAC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hmm.
Alan Greenberg: That is, those who felt strongly for the NCUC charter, proposed charter--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -And those against-.
Alan Greenberg: --And those who felt against it, agreed on the wording in that document.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Correct.
Alan Greenberg: The myth number six in my mind misquotes some of the text in that document and has an inference which is very wrong in the other part. Specifically, we said some members of the ALAC, they said many members of the ALAC. We specifically quoted that some of those members who supported this think that delinking council seats was a good thing. The document reads as if the ALAC made the statement--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Yes-.
Alan Greenberg: --Saying the delinking was a good thing. I would request that the ALAC Chair, in consultation with whoever she thinks is appropriate from a legal and staff point of view, write a letter to someone pointing out-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Yep-.
Alan Greenberg: --That we have been misquoted and we believe this was not an ethical thing to do.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hmm.
Alan Greenberg: The ALAC Chair can take whatever words she wants instead of the words--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Oh, the ALAC Chair is highly motivated to take-.
Vanda Scartezini: -(Unintelligible-.)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --(Unintelligible.)
Alan Greenberg: I believe we are complaining about an error in fact. I do not think this needs an ALAC vote to do it. But I believe we cannot go silent on this.
Vanda Scartezini: Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I couldn't agree with you more. And I'm hearing the same from Vanda.
However, Siva, apparently you have a comment on this. Please go ahead.
Siva Muthusamy: No. I'm just reading the exchange between Robin and Bot--.
Alan Greenberg: -That is not what we're discussing right now-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --That's not the matter – that's not what we're discussing now.
Siva Muthusamy: Yeah. That's why I raised it in any other business. It's just a fine point. It's not that I'm finding fault with Bot or Robin in particular.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Wait. Wait. Wait. That's not the any other business we are dealing with now.
Siva Muthusamy: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What is before us now is the response to the errata, misquoting, misrepresentation and misleading statements enshrined in the Top 10 Myths related to the NCSG. And Alan and Vanda and I are proposing to the meeting that the Chair, as the Chair of ALAC, with whomever we feel is appropriate to help with the drafting – and it will be checked for legal accuracy – the ALAC needs to rebut and correct the public record.
Siva Muthusamy: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Is anyone else not clear on what we are discussing and what we are planning to do?
Spanish channel: A comment from Carlos.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please go ahead, Carlos.
Carlos Aguirre: (Interpreted.) And I think what Alan says is very, very accurate. It's very important for the ALAC Chair to write a letter, a very strong letter may I say, expressing that, you know, the statements were very badly misconstrued. And you know, this controversy has a lot to do with – you know, with the personal interpretation that the members of the NCUC have had. And I also want to clarify that I support that motion.
But you know, I also do want to say that when I went to the meeting with the NCUC, the people from the NCUC, you know, they would not be very appreciative with our work. And so, we need to show the whole ICANN community that we are two different entities. And you know, when they say things that we did not say, it is very important to clarify that it was not us who made those statements. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Carlos. Anyone else wish to speak to this matter? Okay. In that case, it will be my absolute pleasure – hello, Rudi. Thank you. I should note you on the presents. I didn't have you in my liaison box. Sorry, Rudi. You're now in my official liaison box for the meeting.
It'll be my absolute pleasure to draft up such a letter. And I'll work out with appropriate legal advice who is the most suitable target for it and exactly how we should get coordinated.
Alan, in the next piece of any other business, if we're closing that piece off, is the ALAC NCUC liaison issue. Poorly worded. I would like to change that. In fact, it probably should be matched to reflect the following information in two parts.
Firstly, it is my duty to inform the At Large Advisory Committee that as of the 22nd of August our current NCUC liaison, Beau Brendler, has written to me and to the Chair of the NCUC, Robin, informing both of us of his immediate resignation from the role. And I noted that and had accepted that.
And as I carry over from that, we need to now discuss, as I flagged earlier, the role of having a future liaison with the NCUC when we have a post-GNSO improved environment and a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. Obviously, we need to have a relationship with the user house and, specifically, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group within the user house, about the role, the formal role of NCUC liaison is one that I was going to propose when we called for those appointments to be made a little later on in our process, to have it in the nomenclature change. And I don't think, therefore, that we need to look at replacing Beau with an interim NCUC liaison with his current resignation.
Does anybody wish to speak specifically on that particular matter, i.e., the acceptance of both Robin and myself of our NCUC liaison's resignation on the 22nd of August? And indeed, titling in advance the fact that I believe we need to look at exactly what naming and what relationship we have in any form of liaison role with the new Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group in the future.
Just for the record, we should also go back to the earlier transcript of tonight's meeting where I did note that I have very specifically asked the Chair of the NCUC if we need to have a meeting in Seoul. And when I did that, I specifically suggested that the topic for such a meeting, should it in fact be held, would be the matters that have developed out of – and I notice "developed out of" were not necessarily causal to Beau's resignation.
Now, with that being said, I believe that Siva, you're on the speaking list tonight (unintelligible)--.
Alan Greenberg: -And Alan-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --Based on the – and Alan, thank you. So, I have Siva and I have Alan who wish to now speak. Not to those resignations (unintelligible), which is accepted, and not to the fact that we do not need an NCUC liaison at this time; nor indeed in the future. But what we do need to do is have a new form of relationship with the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, you know, post-Seoul environment.
Go ahead, Siva.
Siva Muthusamy: Yeah. And that's exactly what I'm talking about, a new kind of election (unintelligible) and fills the order. With any other constituency (unintelligible). When I see the exchange between Robin and Beau, I get the impression that this is not (unintelligible). This is not like a conversation between two constituencies. And so, just a point that I want to make. What will be our (unintelligible) communication (unintelligible) as we see on the list has to be little moderate. Otherwise, NCUC say something which upsets (unintelligible) which brings down NCUC. And both the constituencies are weakened in the process. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I assure you, there's no way the At Large Advisory Committee, which is not a constituency in any way, shape or form of the GNSO as a support organization is in any way weakened by what goes on in one subset of a subset of a subset of a support organization. But go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Well actually, I was going to speak to one of the subjects that you said we're not speaking on. And--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Oh, no. Go ahead. Please (unintelligible)-.
Alan Greenberg: --And specifically I support not taking any action at this point. This is very much in regards to the NCUC or the NCSG to be formed at this point is not in a business as usual mode.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah.
Alan Greenberg: And I do not believe there is any need, or it would be to our advantage, to attempt to name a liaison in this position at this time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you for that.
Alan Greenberg: I support the decision that you made for the representation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Thank you for that, Alan.
Vanda Scartezini: Hello?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Go ahead, Vanda. Was that Vanda?
Alan Greenberg: Not talking to us, I think.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think she's talking to another phone with her hand over her mouthpiece. Never mind.
Carlos, you're still on the Spanish channel. Do you want to make any further comment on this matter, seeing as you were the previous NCUC liaison? I do note and would note at this time again you mentioning that you felt form time to time the work of the At Large Advisory Committee as it was represented to NCUC by you was not necessarily accepted or respected in a way you would like to have seen. Is that the correct interpretation of what you said?
Carlos Aguirre: (Interpreted.) I respectfully – I am going to disagree with Alan, very respectfully, because I know of his work. But I particularly do think that we should manifest, you know, our position and our disenchantment with the NCUC because whenever the NCUC, you know, has wanted to, they've actually, you know, showed how displeased they are with our work, with whatever it is that we do. And you know, many times me as liaison and many time Beau as liaison, you know, there were never good results because always there was a problem with a document or, you know, they would create documents that would have, you know, a formatting depending on their line of thinking that did not correspond with our line of thinking, so--.
That was it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Carlos. And I think, therefore, what I've heard is that coming back to what I suggested would be the only topic worthy of our joint discussion in Seoul, if we are to have a conversation at all with the NCUC, is what appears to be a less than satisfactory liaison experience from both of our previous NCUC liaisons, indicates to me that we have a huge gap in both the understanding of the ALAC and At Large and, indeed, the respect for the work of the ALAC and At Large occurring by at least some of the key players within the existing NCUC. And I must say that, whilst writing a letter correcting the record on the Top 10 Myths, which I'm already empowered to do, I am also more than looking forward to some forward, frank and fearless discussions face to face in Seoul on this matter. But I also don't want to see the trials.
Yes, Alan. You have your hand up.
Alan Greenberg: Yes. I just wanted to point out that, despite Carlos' respectful disagreement, Carlos did not disagree with me. I agree with everything he said.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Alan Greenberg: All I said is that we not name a liaison at this point. I did not say that we shouldn't express our disagreement, our displeasure with how things have gone. And in fact, I can add some examples to the list of Carlos and Beau.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. It seems like--.
Vanda Scartezini: --Well, this is not new. May I talk a little bit?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please. Go ahead, Vanda. I was hoping you would. Go ahead.
Vanda Scartezini: Well, this is really not new. We have a lot of discussion about how they took (unintelligible) during my time on the board. So, it's something that in some ways they will need to – it's important for us to make clear our disagreement.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hmm.
Vanda Scartezini: But I believe, you know, soon the board will state some disagreement about what is going on since more done, you know, eight years or something like that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hmm.
Vanda Scartezini: So, it's – I believe it's very important for us to make clear we don't agree with this. But anyway, I will suggest also (unintelligible) plan some kind of position or, at the least, explain what's going on in this kind of relationship. It's not with us only. But I believe we need to, you know, push a little bit the board in that direction.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Okay.
Danny Younger: Cheryl, this is Danny. Could I get in the queue please?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Danny! Delighted to have you in the queue, especially as you are a no longer a card carrying member of NCUC, but you certainly were a member of NCUC. Go ahead, Danny.
Danny Younger: Thank you, Cheryl. My big concern is the NCUC letter to the board that has specifically asked the board not to recognize any new constituencies in the NCSG--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Yes-.
Danny Younger: --Until they believe that the charter issue is resolved. Now, speaking as a user that would appreciate the opportunity to join a new constituency, perhaps a commercial constituency, I find this to be an inexcusable delay and I would expect the ALAC to voice their view on this topic. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I would be most supportive of that, Danny. And I think what I'm hearing is that there is two very different letters – well, no, very similar letters of that one letter with two topics in it that need to go. One quite specifically dealing with the (unintelligible) Top 10 Myths, but the other one is addressed to the board and I certainly would be thinking that, as an ALAC, we need to respond to that letter to the board and point out that things like the consumer constituency and the opportunity for end users to join new constituencies, particularly those who've brought to our attention direct experience of the existing NCUC and why they are looking forward to being re-engaged in a future model is a very important thing to bring to the board's attention and to bring to the board's attention before their board meeting on the 275h.
Alan Greenberg: Could I get back in the queue, Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: All yours, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah. I would suggest we separate those letters and not do them in one.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I did. Yes.
Alan Greenberg: The second one, I believe we need some positive – given what we have been accused of saying before, where we make statements that are not formal ALAC positions, I would think that we separate the pointing out the inaccuracies in their myth number six and we separate that from an explicit statement about what we believe the board should do with respect to the NCSG, and that be something that we take a formal decision on. Quickly. But I think we should want to separate the two.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, I do think the separation, particularly because we may in fact end up with slightly varying audiences for both of those.
Alan Greenberg: Indeed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Anyone else wish to speak to this topic?
Vanda Scartezini: No.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think this is an opportunity for – I will pen it as a letter from the Chair, but clearly as a result of the ALAC meeting here, it will be at the wish of this meeting and of the members of the At Large community who have joined this meeting. And Danny, thank you for doing that. I find, and I'm happy to have on the public record both here and at any other time anyone cares to ask me or listen to me, the current practices and the way that our formal liaisons with NCUC have been treated now and in the past. Nothing short of reprehensible. As an individual, I think that the current NCUC – sorry, the most recent resigned NCUC liaison should probably take this matter up wit the ombudsman because I think it's an appalling piece of albeit--.
Alan Greenberg: --That has already happened.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's excellent to hear. Albeit successful mechanisms to ensure that voices of volunteers of a broad scale and of diverse view are not heard within the world of the GNSO. And it's something that I look forward very strongly to seeing rectified in the new user house and in the bicameral model of a modified GNSO for all that's good, at least it may give an opportunity for this nothing short of criminal – and I do mean in many cases slanderously criminal – behavior to perhaps come to an end. And I'm more than happy for this record to be taken in context from this meeting and to be a quote from me as an individual.
Does the meeting also wish me to consider writing to the ombudsman as the Chair of the ALAC and advise him of our wholesale concern as a separate matter to what appears to be two letters; one as a rebuttal to the Top 10 Myths, specifically myth six, etc., and the second one as a response to the open letter to the board?
Alan Greenberg: It's Alan. I would suggest the documents which have been place, or are being placed, in the public record by a variety of people be forwarded to the ombudsman for his opinion on whether this falls under his definition of respectful behavior.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'd be more than happy to do that if the rest of the meeting agrees. Does anyone think that's not a good idea? If so, speak now. In that case, I have my work cut out for me in the next few days. And I hope you'll forgive me if I maybe don't be seen quite so frequently on the chat (unintelligible) while I do all of this.
I think this is something that we need to take very careful balance and, indeed, a moral high ground. It's not going to be I think profitable for anyone in the wash-up of all of this if the ALAC lowered itself to the apparent levels of behavior that we are criticizing others for. And so, we will have a carefully crafted set of documents and I will work with staff and legal counsel as required to make sure that they are exactly that, carefully crafted documents. I'd be more than happy to pass on behalf of all of us the information that we have so far to the ombudsman and ask him, indeed, that very important question, is this in his view respectful behavior.
In which case, I believe we've come to the end of a very productive meeting. And I'd like to thank each and every one of you for the additional time you've spent dealing with some extremely painful – and I do mean that quite literally. I can only imagine the personal stresses and strains that the – both the board – I'm sorry, both the NCUC liaisons have gone through in the past dealing with the NCUC. Apparently--.
Alan Greenberg: --Cheryl, I'll point out it's ALAC representatives, not only the liaisons.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Thank you, Alan.
Vanda Scartezini: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And I think what we might do is call for anyone past and present with any sort of anecdotal experience if they would care to send it to me by private correspondence. We are not going to (unintelligible). You know what I'm going to be doing. You know what I'm going to be writing. You know who I'm going to be approaching. And anything that you would like – any one of you, or if you hear of someone who would like to have additional anecdotal or copy material passed on to the ombudsman on this matter, I will be happy to do so, but in a confidential manner, which of course all things to do with the ombudsman should be. And in fact, it's a lack of confidentiality that is one of the (unintelligible) that I make of this whole debacle.
Any further comments from anyone?
Nick Ashton Hart: I think Alan has one and I've got a question.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Certainly. Alan and then Nick.
Alan Greenberg: No, sorry. My hand should have been put down and I will put it down. I do have something to say before the call adjourns, however.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Nick and then Alan.
Nick Ashton Hart: I just note the one final item on the agenda was the whole movement of the implementation plan outline in order to allow the community, the At Large community, a chance to read over the draft and comment on it in good time for all of you to be able to endorse a plan with amendments. In time for it to be sent to the board and the Structural Improvement Committee for Seoul, you'll have to act pretty directly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry. Well, I think – sorry, that was me skipping over the agenda in my keenness to, A, end the call and to, B, deal with what now seems to be a mountain of work in front of me. I think – is there anyone on the call who wishes to speak against or speak about working, that we agree a 30-day communication consultation on the outline? We've all looked at the draft. It means it can begin on the 1st of September, conclude on the 30th of September, and the final text incorporating comments can go for a vote from the 7th of October, closing on the 12th of October, as is outlined.
Alan, is that you that--.
Alan Greenberg: -Yes. I made a request and I may have missed it, but I don't believe I saw an answer I would like that data available in a form other than reading it online on GoogleDocs. And I personally have not been able to get it off in any way other than printing-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -If you want – you want-.
Alan Greenberg: --Which is exceeding tiny print.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure.
Nick Ashton Hart: I'm certain we would – if you agree to go forward, we would – with consulting, we would publish in a wiki version and provide--.
Alan Greenberg: --I want something I can export I don't have to read online.
Nick Ashton Hart: No, no. We--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -Yes. It'll be as a pdf-.
Nick Ashton Hart: --We'll extend a documentary version and also get it translated, of course.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Danny Younger: And what is the outline currently--.
Alan Greenberg: --Let's take this offline.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don't think the download is currently available, Danny. What we're doing is putting it forward that it needs to be – we need to put the draft out for public consultation, with the consultation date beginning on the 1st of September. So, it will be available on the 1st of September.
Nick Ashton Hart: Well, it is linked to the current agenda.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. I was gonna say what it is in its draft form is linked and it's a Google document, which is what I was gonna say to Danny, which in some cases is – unless you're (unintelligible) of it, you can't download and print out and that's what Alan wants to do.
Danny Younger: Okay--.
Alan Greenberg: -I have not been able to read it yet-.
Danny Younger: --Is it similar to the policy advice schedule?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It's similar to the policy advice schedule, correct. But what it does is break the post-ALAC review implementation requirements into relatively small bite-sized pieces and put them in an order that make intelligence sense.
Danny Younger: Okay. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Great. Alan, back to you.
Alan Greenberg: I was just going to ask, is there a follow-on meeting to this and, if so, am I needed for it?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: As far as I know, there is supposed to be a short officers meeting. And if you are able to hang on for – or re-dial in, sorry – for a very short period of time, I would personally value that.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Then we need to do it soon and very short.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed.
Alan Greenberg: I am very sleep deprived and need--.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --Not a – I won't --.
Alan Greenberg: -I'm very hungry and I need to eat some real food-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --I won't use my stress techniques on you, I promise. I'll try and distress you and get you to your well need rest as soon as possible.
In which case, ladies and gentlemen – Nick, I'm assuming your hand has gone down.
Nick Ashton Hart: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If not, it will be instantaneously.
Nick Ashton Hart: And we will see you all, obviously, or many of you, at the call with Rod later.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed. I do want to mention that the call with Rod Beckstrom is on. It's on a very specific agenda. We're hoping to have a more formal meet and greet face to face in Seoul. And then I look forward to talking to many of you again in that call.
This call now comes to an end. Thank you very much for the additional time and thank you very much for the hugely important and substantive decisions and matters that have been dealt with in tonight's meeting. And those of you who are on the Executive Committee, the elected officers and the regional representatives from Africa if they are available, should dial back in – let's say two minutes after this call is closed.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Cheryl, I'm gonna dial back in on Skype. I don't need a call out.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's fine. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Good morning, good evening--.
Vanda Scartezini: -Okay. Thank you-.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --Good day, good night and good work. Bye.
Vanda Scartezini: Okay. Bye-bye.
