The meeting is now beginning for the transcription of the recording.
Thank you very much all, and welcome to the first post-Sydney meeting. At the moment, we have online Patrick, Alan, Garreth, Carlos in the Spanish Channel, Hawa in the French Channel, Adam and Vanda and myself – Cheryl Langdon-Orr.
From staff, we have Matthias and Nick. We have apologies listed from Fatimata, Mohamed, Beau and Sébastien.
We have Ron Sherwood, our ccNSO liaison with us online – and we're expecting José to join us in a dial-out shortly. We have no ability at the moment to dial out on request to Vivek. The phone is not connecting through, there. There's a technical difficulty there. And we've yet to hear from Sue Wade.
The very first item on our agenda tonight is a call for any other business or any re-ordering of the items. We have had a request from NARALO for a piece of any other business. Alan is the only North American rep… No – Garreth – you can do it as the North American rep. I'm quite sure at pro forma you'd be happy to propose this to the meeting. Apparently Evan will join us a little later in the meeting. But he wishes to discuss – the terms used to be by Nick were – a "Way Forward," with the IRT process.
Garreth – are you happy to have your name linked to put that forward?
Patrick: Yes. Cheryl – Patrick, here. Yes.
Garreth?: Please remind me again of the issue that Evan brought forward.
Alan: Whoever is talking, I can't hear them.
Cheryl: Thanks, Garreth – you're very, very quiet. Could you yell at us, perhaps?
Garreth: Yes. I just wanted to be reminded of the issue that Evan wants brought forward.
Cheryl: Certainly. The IRT – of course – is the Intellectual Property Group Report that we all worked so hard on with our last-minute piece of work with the NCUC in Sydney. Evan would like to discuss something on that matter – in "Any Other Business."
Garreth: Yes, of course.
Cheryl: All right. Then we'll get back to "Any Other Business." Is there any other "Any Other Business?"
Patrick: Yes, Cheryl. Patrick, here.
I'm not sure I will be able to take part in that discussion. And I very much regret it. But I will have to leave the call around 5 pm. That means in about 5 minutes from now. Because I have a business meeting starting in 45 minutes.
Cheryl: Certainly. In fact, I also note from messages from Hawa that she also has a meeting she needs to leave to. Would you like us to reorder? That, of course, is the other thing we do at this point in our agenda. To reorder our agenda…
Patrick: Yes. I would like to, indeed. Depending on whether Evan is able to join the call.
Cheryl: Yes. How about as soon as Evan does join us, we move to that item? With everyone's permission.
Perhaps if someone could see if Evan is on Skype or e-mail him… Mention that that's what we're doing, and he might be able to dial in.
Alan: We will also be under-quorum when all those people leave. So I need decisions made before.
Cheryl: Exactly right. We need to get as much as we possibly can. Even when José joins us – with 4 apologies – we won't be able to make any motions.
Moving on to the next item – inaudible
Adam: inaudible I had my hand raised in the Adobe Chat.
Cheryl: I do apologize. My inaudible was covered with so many other things on my screen. Go ahead, Adam.
Adam: Thank you. I was wondering if we could discuss briefly the comments on the stakeholder charters. I think we have probably some disagreements on whether or not we agree on which inaudible should be saying about the non-commercial stakeholder group charter.
Cheryl: Certainly. As a second case of, "Any Other Business," that's fine.
Moving onto the next item – which is the adoption of the summary minutes. Alan – you pointed out that there's no link to that. I gather then that staff doesn't actually have those summary minutes to adopt. Is that the case?
Vanda?: Yes.
Alan: Regardless of whether they're summary minutes, there should be findable pointers at least to the meeting agenda. Things like that.
Currently, the only pointer for the meeting agendas point to the ICANN site – which doesn’t work.
Vanda: Yes.
Alan: It certainly doesn’t point to our wiki agendas. Just because the meeting is in Sydney doesn't mean it should become invisible.
Cheryl: Well, I don't know. Most things are.
Alan: It's not listed in the regular meeting and it's not listed in the list of ICANN meetings.
Cheryl: inaudible. So the question is, "Where is it," and "How can we link it?" It needs to be linked to "here." Is there a link that we can look at? Or do we leave Item 3 for our next meeting?
Alan: I thought someone said there aren't any minutes, anyway.
Matthias: Yes. Sorry – it's Matthias. Actually, there are no summary minutes from Sydney. But we have transcripts from most of the meetings. They can be found linked to the main ALAC wiki. They're linked to all the reports from each day. You will find all the transcripts linked to that page.
Cheryl: That's fine, Matthias. But it's not the minutes of the June 23rd ALAC meeting – which is what we're looking for.
Matthias: I know. Because there are none.
Cheryl: Right. Are there going to be?
Matthias: No. We only provide transcriptions for the meetings, and not minutes.
Nick: This is Nick speaking. This was discussed a couple of ALAC meetings back. We would provide transcripts within 48 hours of meetings, and then – instead of having summary minutes on top of transcripts – simply have action items and transcripts.
Cheryl: But can we have it linked to tonight's meeting page?
Nick: Matthias?
Matthias: Certainly at the very least, we need lists of motions made at meetings, also. Just action items alone does not tell us what happened at the meeting. Those are what didn't happen at the meeting.
Nick: Yes. I certainly follow you.
Cheryl: Yes. The link to the transcript from that needs to be linked to tonight's page. So whilst they're not summary minutes – if they are transcripts, we don't need to approve them as such. We can modify the agenda item to clarify that.
Nick: More like maybe adoption of action items and review of the same.
Cheryl: Yes. Review of them.
Nick: We can certainly, moving forward, ensure that we link all motions and votes for those motions.
Cheryl: Excellent. If we can fix that, that would be fantastic.
Moving to… I know Evan has joined us on the English Channel. So, welcome Evan and thank you for jumping in. Some of our members have apologized this evening, and some have needed to leave. So we'd like to move to your point of, "Any Other Business," as soon as possible.
We'll just now go through the action items from the Sydney meeting. The ALAC Regional Leadership Working Session has a number of action items. We have links within links here that need to be looked at, there. If we all have time to have a look at those…
Adam: No. This is Adam – I'm sorry. These arrived a little bit too late. I was looking at this page earlier this evening. There's too much here. I think we should pass it on to the next meeting. Or we can just agree to them in e-mail or something like that.
Cheryl: I'd propose the first thing we should probably do, Adam – with the delay of them – is to have a very quick look at them to see if there's anything time-critical. To pass something on to the following meeting… if it were time-critical… would be a little bit of a worry.
Looking straight through the first one, it seems to me that we have a number of items that are works-in-progress, anyway. Those will be picked up by other matters in our meeting, tonight.
The topic there is the RAA. Obviously, that's a workgroup that we're currently about to be engaged further in the next steps of. Also, the post-expiry domain name is mentioned there. That, again, is the piece of work that we're currently…
Alan: That, we do need a little bit of discussion on.
Cheryl: Okay. Can you pick that one up later, Alan?
Alan: Yes.
Cheryl: The Post-Summit Review and Reporting of the ALAC work group… Most of that's captured now, I think, in the policy-advise-development schedule – which we're also discussing, tonight.
There's an action item there on Rudi, regarding the presence of ALSs and the ccNSO membership. Ron is with us tonight, but to my knowledge, that action has already taken effect. They've done that.
Something to do with public comment on the gTLD – which again – is being done…
If we quickly move them to action items for the Breakfast… If anyone else has got a faster computer than I do, please feel very free to pick up on this. Is there anything there that's time-critical? Has someone got that open already?
Nick: I can say that the note there is that outreach to consumers has come up in multiple reviews and processes. It will cost money. It is essential that funding and priority be given to this.
Cheryl: That's very much a work-in-process, and we don't need to worry too much about that. The policy-issue discussions… Again… That's inaudible faster for me. But I would've thought that our action items are coming up.
This is the one where we get the tribunal. All right. I'm confused. This is the page that was the one coming up when people were looking at it before.
Alan: Well, this points to that page. But, yes. It was a PDF.
Cheryl: Yes.
Alan: Can someone explain what this is? I have no memory of it whatsoever. Either the discussion or the existence of a tribunal.
Nick: The staff proposals – which were posted as "Improving Institutional Content – The Way Forward…" included a tribunal for the review of decisions made by inaudible.
Alan: Ah!
Nick: There is actually a statement drafted by Sébastien, which is on the docket of At-Large responses to policy issues that had been posted for review by the At-Large community.
Cheryl: Ah. That wasn't terribly intuitive, from what we have in the record, then.
Adam: This is Adam. Is this anything to do with the public comment that was announced a day or so ago about bylaw changes to improve accountability?
Nick: No. Interesting. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
Adam: Ah, well, you see – it's our working group. So Wolfgang and I are on top of this, he says.
Adam: Anyway…
Cheryl: So inaudible like Adam, is it?
Adam: Yes. Life is that boring. Correct.
Cheryl: Adam – quite seriously – can you help us understand if this is part of that inaudible?
Adam: I think it possibly might be. Yes. It's the changes to the bylaws to change the various models that we have. Well – challenging decisions and reexaminations. And so on and so forth. The ombudsman process. The review processes that the board has.
Then, the word I'm looking for is the external review process.
Cheryl: Does that now have a date associated with it?
Adam: Yes. The 22nd of September. So a 60-day public comment – which is quite a long one. I did actually send an e-mail to Wolfgang today to talk. We have talked about it. I was just joking.
But I think it does come under the working groups that we had for the summit. I guess also when Sébastien's back, we'll include him, as well. Because it includes that working group.
Cheryl: Of course, the work on improving institutional confidence in general… and the statement that Sébastien has put out… have never had a fixed ending date on it – up until now. We now need to modify our processes, so we make sure to capture all of that in a timely manner.
Perhaps that will be picked up at another point in our meeting.
The final items, then, arising out of the Sydney meeting… The action items that are a second link below the 26th of June. There, we've got the online voting and the affirmative – rather than negative and confusing – words.
I think we've got that happening. Have we not?
Nick: Yes, indeed.
Alan: Can those words be passed by us before they first show up in a vote?
Nick: They have in fact already shown up in a vote. We used them the last two ALS application votes.
Alan: That includes the one we rejected in Canada?
Nick: Yes.
Alan: Then the discussion was about changing that wording to a new wording, which is less confusing. So I would say that it hasn't been done, yet. This was a discussion in Sydney about that particular vote – where there were some anomalous votes we thought were caused by confusing wording.
Cheryl: Oh.
Nick: I will try to get another version of that and e-mail it around.
Cheryl: Yes. That would be very good. Certainly we've got a number of new ALS applications in at the moment. Some of those have had their due-diligence done, so they'll be coming up for a vote in the very near future. We don't want a continuation of the confusion.
Alan: Nick – if you want someone to bounce it off of, I'll be glad to work with you on it.
Nick: Sure.
Cheryl: That would be great. Thank you, Alan.
The other items that – I think – looking at this top-level page in terms of job descriptions, et cetera… are being picked up in items in tonight's agenda, anyway. There's a second level of information there, which – again – is talking about the job descriptions and the various models that some of the RALOs are currently doing, to evaluate performance.
There's a suggestion from Fatimata and Carlos, creating a list, which enumerates the advantages of being an ALAC member – to get buy-in from employers. That's something that we need to ensure we do between now and the next meeting.
Is there anything else we need to cover off on action items from Sydney? If not, we can move on.
Alan: Who was working on that list of reasons to become members?
Cheryl: It would appear that we should ask Carlos that. Fatimata isn't with us tonight.
Tonya – can you ask Carlos if he's working on that? Is there the need for a call for members to assist that? Or are we going to ask a committee of the whole to come up with it?
Alan: I think committees inaudible. These on the whole are fine for critiquing a draft document, but not writing it. At least in my mind.
Cheryl: Well, at the moment, Alan, I couldn't agree with you more. But at the moment, we're about to have a number of changes. We'll have new non-com people joining us, and a whole lot of shifting happening around.
It might be important to get this done as soon as possible.
Alan: I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying someone actually has to do it.
Cheryl: Yes.
So – Tonya – has Carlos been asked that in Spanish?
Adigo Operator: Yes.
Carlos?: I just wanted to tell you guys – because you're asking me… We've been working with the group. We have not drafted anything, so far. But I just saw an e-mail from you, with the draft. So it would be a matter of working on that draft, for now.
Cheryl: Sorry – from Evan?
Nick: Yes. I'm posting it now.
Cheryl: Thank you. So you're saying the RALO has put a list forward? The advantages of being an ALAC member?
Nick: No. This is related to Evan's AOB profile.
Cheryl: Ah! So we seem to have a point of confusion there.
Tonya – if you could just say to Carlos… The question was specific to a list which enumerates and outlines the advantages of being an ALAC member. So that our ALAC members can use this list or letter to get their employers to understand the need for release of our ALAC members to come to face-to-face meetings. The actual words are to "get buy-in" from employers.
At the Sydney meeting, this concept came forward from Carlos and Fatimata.
Spanish Channel: Yes. We've actually been working within at least our RALO on that, as well – in our regions. We've actually done a small drop that we can post. But really, I was never in a position to the general consensus.
Cheryl: If that could be posted… I know that Adam is in a position where this is a tool that people in your particular position with employers – needing to get the advance permissions and requests in – is something that you may, indeed, find quite useful. I'm wondering if Adam might be able to have a look at the draft, if Carlos will post it – and José – from LACRALO's position. Then we can work with it on the list. We certainly would need to have that in a final stage for the next meeting.
As an action item on you and some of the other RALOs' leadership – between now and perhaps the next fortnight… So that we're in a position for the next meeting, to be looking at that as a draft to approve.
V: inaudible
Cheryl: In that case, if we refresh, have you posted that to… The piece of work from Evan… Have you posted that to our meeting page? Or to the Skype?
Nick: Yes. You will find it in the agenda page, now.
Cheryl: Okay. So we'll need to refresh, now. Anyone following the wiki needs to refresh, as we move now to the agenda item put forward by Garreth, on behalf of NARALO – with the work that Evan has presented.
I'm desperately scrolling down to find it.
Spanish Channel: One more comment from Carlos, in regards to that.
Cheryl: Certainly. Go ahead.
Carlos: I just wanted to say that that actual draft is not so much a LACRALO proposal, but more a proposal that I worked on. It really just sums up very well the letter that I got from Patrick.
Cheryl: Okay. Thank you, Carlos.
Right. If we're all happy to move on, Evan, we've now got the proposal from you. Titled, "Resolution of a Way Forward for IRT Process." Thank you for joining us. Would you care to speak to us, please?
Evan: Okay. I just wanted to first of all apologize to Patrick and Hum because essentially, I've been drafting this on the fly. Resulting from some phone calls earlier this morning.
I've been involved since the outcome of the Sydney meeting, where we had our positions that you and Robin read out at the public meeting. Since then, there has been a minor flurry of e-mails going on, to try to figure out, "Okay… If we reject the IRT, what next?"
I believe that we have caught the ear of ICANN's current-board and senior staff. But in order to actually have a process to go forward, we can't just be destructive and say what we don't like. We have to start to propose something that we do like.
My complaint is simply that the public voice was not being heard when the IRT was meeting. So I'm proposing that the ALAC authorize a very small, quickly moving group of three people, to try to put together some kind of multi-stakeholder process. One that can butt heads, thrash out something and – with a little luck – come out with a proposal in Seoul that can be accepted by both the IP constituency as well as ALAC. And, I would hope, some other groups as well.
Essentially, we had a really serious problem with the IRT. It's not that we're fundamentally against the concept of trademarks. It's – I think – that we believe the IRT really overstepped its bounds in solving the problem – in a really nasty way.
So I think there is some common ground to be found. And I'm asking for the authorization for the three people who've been the most involved in these discussions since Sydney, to try to engage with staff and other constituencies – to try to thrash this out. To come forward with something that would help move things forward, as opposed to simply being seen as negative.
Cheryl: Thank you for that, Evan. I would just like to ask Patrick – while he's with us… You're getting this fresh as we are. Your immediate response to this, then, Patrick?
Patrick: I just got this resolution right now from Evan. Of course, Evan, I don't mind you drafting that without consulting us – because this is what you are actually doing, right now.
I must say that I followed the e-mail exchanges over the last weeks. Indeed, it is the way to go. Obviously, saying, "No," and not coming up with some alternatives is not going to fly.
There's always a thin line between suggesting a process that might allow us to find common ground, and add some NCUC people – as suggested – to negotiate directly with the IRT. To see what could be achieved.
I don't think that it's useful to try to negotiate with the IRT directly. I think indeed that we should find common ground with ICANN. With the ICANN board and the senior staff, rather than with the IRT, itself.
Alan: The IRT has claimed they do not exist at this point.
Cheryl: Exactly. Quite vehemently in the New York meeting, at the very least.
Alan: Presumably the non-existent IRT is still being funded for travel. But that's notwithstanding.
Cheryl: inaudible or they're very generous with their time and funds – making it to not only New York but London and Hong Kong. But they say that they no longer exist.
Alan: Yes. And any attempt to find common ground, I would think, has got to include some IP lawyers that are espousing the IRT solution.
V: This is why the motion – as it is – is open-ended, and is not specifying who is in this multi-stakeholder approach. I'm asking ALAC to entrust these three individuals to go out and identify people and stakeholders with a common ground on the issues. Those of wanting to protect trademarks, but not going too far with it. And seeing if we could come up with some common ground that could basically help save face to the ICANN board, in dealing with the issues of IP – while not being quite so inaudible about it.
So I'm asking for – essentially – giving a little bit of trust to these three people. To be able to move rapidly and identify who would be good participants in a process – and then, move forward with it fast enough to have something for Seoul.
Cheryl: Yes, we understand that, Evan.
The next point, I suppose, just before we move to a general discussion on this… It would be remiss of me if in Hong's absence… She's not commenced these meetings, but… In the absence of her being involved in this conversation, we should also point out – for the record – that Hong also worked particularly hard just before the Hong Kong meeting to ensure that there was a voice.
Not so much a voice of the anti-IRT, but a voice that raised the concerns that – in our joint state – had been raised in Sydney, at the Hong Kong meeting.
The inaudible UNA and ISOC AU were the only two At-Large structures within the Asia-Pacific region that were able to mobilize quickly enough in the short time allowed, to prepare a statement to be read to the record. Which was read – I believe… Again, because Hong isn't hear, I'm saying, "I believe," it was read to the record by Charles Mok. Or it was meant to be read to the record by Charles Mok – who is the chairman of the Hong Kong ISOC chapter. He was also – I believe – moderating the meeting in Hong Kong.
So there are a number of other players, of course, that may be interested in being involved in this. We need to note what APRALO was able to endorse in their meeting today on this, as well.
Certainly, we all realize that this was not a multi-stakeholder process. If it had been a multi-stakeholder process, many of the problems that were raised may have been avoided. It's a very good example of why a true and genuine, open and transparent multi-stakeholder process is so important to ICANN.
Opening the floor for discussions on this proposed resolution, I'm looking at the Adobe Room. I don't see anybody with their hand…
Alan: I have my hand up, even though it's not up there.
Cheryl: Okay. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: A couple of things.
First of all, on a procedural matter, I don't think we're in a position to vote on a resolution just put to us right now. That doesn't mean we can't have an online vote starting almost immediately, if we choose to.
In terms of what this group's endgame is, I think we need to be quite clear.
If, for instance, you look at the statement that ALAC made in conjunction with the NCUC, I agree with the statements there. They're not necessarily statements that represent the needs of end users.
To some extent, the IRT is right in that the more you restrict use of names, the less confusion there is on the part of an end user. It also restricts freedom of speech and a variety of other things.
So we need to make sure what our end-target is. I'm not making a statement for or against something, but… I think if we're putting together a group to address a problem, we need to say what the endpoint is. I think we need to say that quite clearly.
Are we trying to find something that meets the needs of all parts of the community? Are we trying to find something that meets "end-user" needs and satisfies IP issues? Or what? They may not all be the same thing.
Cheryl: Sure. Adam – go ahead.
Adam: Yes. I'm quite comfortable with just endorsing this resolution – whether it's now or in a vote later. But I think the staffing point – we've really got to go back to what the board resolution was, and what it was trying to achieve.
That says it was to propose solutions to the overarching issue of trademark protection, in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs. So it's enormously broad. That would be for the three people to make staff inaudible.
It's not really specific about whether it's consumers or anybody, in particular. All of those issues have got to be taken into consideration by implication. It says that those people should be consulted during the process – which, of course, they weren't.
I think that seems – to me – to be the starting point. To go back to that simple statement of the board resolution. To ask Patrick, Hong and Evan to see what they can come up with. Knowing what they'd do if the non-commercial users' constituency position and ALAC positions inaudible.
Alan: In the absence of any statement forward, I'm assuming we're not asking for funding to do this.
Patrick: Of course, things would be much easier if we were granted $100,000 just like the IRT.
Cheryl: Yes. Indeed. Patrick, thanks for that.
I've just shared with you in the Adobe Room, and in a moment, I'll do so in the Skype Chat… The Google-dot-link to the way that APRALO tried to get its statement against the IRT report from the perspective of Asia-Pacific At-Large community together.
I note here that Robert Gregory – who, of course, is also part of ISOC AU – was one of the editors. One of the inaudible I put my initials in CLO with my concepts. But the rest of the editing was done live – between ISOC AU and CDNUA.
It would be – I think – quite reasonable, Evan, for you to also ask if any of those members of the At-Large community who previously put their hands up to be part of the IRT working group within At-Large – that they might also be able to bring value to any such activity of this.
Adam – you've still got your microphone. Did you want to say more before I pass it to Evan?
Adam – you still have the microphone – did you want to say more before I pass it?
Adam: Oh, no. I don't know where the microphone cam from, and I should've put my hand down. Sorry.
Cheryl: Okay. Evan – go ahead.
Evan: Okay. I'll answer a couple of things.
First is that the whole point behind this is to try to put together a process that identifies a fairly broad but fairly nimble-and-quick-to-move group that is capable of representing the different viewpoints. But one that hopefully has few-enough people that we can move nimbly. To try to come up with something that represents the parties in time for Seoul.
In terms of costs – we were joking about budget and so on… In my perfect world, I actually want to propose to ask the CEO of ICANN to fund a long weekend, face-to-face for this group – assuming that it makes sufficient progress to have a face-to-face, where we butt heads for a long weekend. Perhaps something like near the end of September, as part of this process, moving forward.
It isn't a requirement, but I always find that a face-to-face sometimes accomplishes things that a conference call and e-mail does not.
V: Evan.
Evan: Let me go on.
V: Just a clarification.
You said a face-to-face of this group? Do you mean the three or the larger group it puts together?
Evan: The larger group it puts together.
V: Thank you.
Evan: Oh, no – the three of us just talking – we're quite comfortable with conference calls and e-mails. I'm talking about the hammering out of a negotiated stance in advance of Seoul that has to happen.
V: Just asking for the clarification. Thank you.
Evan: Okay.
All I'm suggesting in this proposal is to give the three of us the leeway to try to identify what an appropriate group would be. It would have to have people from the IRT process. It would have to have people obviously from our point of view. Hopefully, to address the objections we have and the needs that they have – and hopefully to be a small-enough group that we could hammer out our joint interests in time for Seoul.
Cheryl: Thank you.
Anyone else wanting to raise a question or speak to this, at this stage?
V: No.
Cheryl: Hawa – from the French Channel. Do we have anything from Hawa?
Spanish Channel: I just asked Hawa – I know that Maya left. She had to leave. She said her goodbyes about a minute ago.
So I'm waiting for Hawa, but I don't seem to hear anybody there. I will ask once again.
Cheryl: Thank you. But I'm concerned… Do we have Carlos not now with us?
Nick: Carlos is in chat.
CarlosSpanish Channel: He's still with us. I would like to say, actually, that I completely propose Adam's proposal. Mainly because I understand that these face-to-face meetings are very important. Especially with a few specialized people.
For example – the attorneys that work with the ALAC. Hong and I could definitely help. Not only in maybe preparing documents against the IRT, for example, but that also try to come up with a natural and valid proposal.
That obviously needs a long time of discussion. It would definitely mean really giving time to that. Thank you.
Cheryl: Thank you, Carlos.
It was important – because he was certainly one of the people who – along with I think 4 or 5 others – Hong, Evan and Patrick, I believe were included in that group… They put their names forward to be part of the ALAC working group on that matter. I think it's important that we hear your support and your voice on this.
Evan – I want to play devil's advocate here for a moment. Please take it in that vein.
What is the difference between a newly-proposed subset from the user perspective working now? What is going to be the difference in what they produce? How are they going to get a broad buy-in?
In particular, a buy-in from those people who are supportive and have committed the money, the time and the roadshow effort into the existing IRT report? How is it going to be a different or more successful outcome if this happens in-between now and Seoul?
Evan: Would you like me to answer that?
Cheryl: That's exactly what I want. I want you to fill us in a little more.
Evan: We have in front of us an IRT process that was created in haste by ICANN, in response to needs that have seemed to engage in some form of a trademark protection regime. Unfortunately, it put together only one single constituency to do that.
That constituency produced a report. Despite its best efforts in Sydney, it met an incredible amount of community resistance.
So I'm suggesting right now that rather than just toss that in the bin… basically, to go back to the people that drafted it. To say, "Look. There is significant community resistance to the method you've used. But we are not fundamentally anti-trademark."
We're not here just because we want to advocate child porn the way they were painting it as a roadshow. If you didn't like their trademark protection, you were advocating child porn.
I want to basically get it back on a track where we can come up with common ground. I believe we do have common ground. We don't want consumer confusion. They don't want consumer confusion. I believe there's common ground.
I think if we have a small and nimble group, we can discover that common ground, and actually come up with something that would meet far more than the resistance it encountered in Sydney.
Cheryl: Thanks for that clarification. It's not so much the value of the inaudible proposal as the validity of a proper exercise involving all parties.
I think – if memory serves – certainly to my expectations in Mexico… And because we had members from our own group – both Beau and Vanda – who put their names in to be part of the original IRT group… We expected a great deal more. Not only of transparency but interaction with the end-users.
At that time, it certainly failed. I think that – as you rightfully point out – what we all felt was the issues to the IRT report. What happened not only in Sydney, but also at the roadshow, since, has echoed that loud and clear.
A proper engagement with wider community has not really won full over to a unified way forward.
What your proposal and what the resolution specifically asks for… I'm wondering whether or not it needs to be so much of a resolution as such – but a revitalization of the original small group. That's still a little more than you three, I'll hasten to add.
But I'm wondering whether or not we can put forward to the ICANN board a very clear and articulated set of views – building on the experiences that many of you have had.
Olivier Crepin, for example, was at the London meeting. I know some others, of course, from the RALO, would've been at the New York meeting. And we had Hong in Hong Kong. Whether or not we could simply legitimize an intensive piece of work by this group, to come up with a meaningful document. One that acts not only as a formal criticism to the ICANN board of the lack of multi-stakeholder input in the IRT process, but also brings all of those positives that I think I'm hearing are what your intentions are, Evan.
So – rather than having to deal with a formal resolution here and now – which as Alan said, is probably not able to happen, anyway… With it here and now, we can not only endorse and encourage, but enthusiastically support this activity in another way.
First of all, Evan, your response to that. Then opening the floor to any other member. Particularly, I'd like to hear from Patrick on that concept. Then probably Alan and Adam. Go ahead, Evan.
Evan: The mechanics of whether there's an official endorsement or not is relevant to me, then. At least the ALAC awareness that this is happening. That it's moving on, and that ALAC does not have any resistance to it. That's basically in the interest of just trying to be open and transparent.
I want to make sure that what we're trying to do is totally made aware to ALAC – that you're okay with it. And that you're okay with us moving forward.
I could go a step further, Cheryl. I think we may get some pushback. If we want to get a joint statement with other constituencies, that basically talks about the deficiencies in the process-to-date… that isn't what I had in mind.
For this particular group, I had in mind to simply be totally forward-thinking. To come up with a solution. A dissection of the problems with the process would be something different.
Right now, I think we have enough on our plate to move quickly. The last thing I want to do is irritate people by trying to point out what was done wrong.
Cheryl: Certainly. Well, I think it's painfully clear what we've done wrong. inaudible and it may be that we need to do little more than mention that in a preamble.
Alan – Adam – and then…
Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: I don't have too much to add. I'm perhaps somewhat dubious about the potential outcomes. But I have no problem with people trying.
I'm a little bit worried about how one approaches other groups – without sounding like we have the wisdom of the ages – and that everyone else would've benefited from, if they had just asked us that. I don't quite think it's that simple.
An awful lot of the negative statements that have been made about the IRT did not acknowledge the fact that not everyone on the IRT was happy with the result. There were a lot of negotiations and middle ground found.
But as long as we proceed with a little bit of caution and not too much arrogance, I can certainly accept it.
Cheryl: Yes. I think that's very much what I was trying to tease out from my devil's advocate role. I think whatever is done here – and I certainly believe something needs to be… I think we need to be doing a best-practice model, for want of a better set of words. To ensure that it is not simply another negative exercise – which I'm gathering is very much where Evan is coming from. Wanting some meaningful proposals for consideration.
Adam – go ahead.
Adam: I didn't really have anything to say, actually.
Patrick: Patrick.
Vanda: And Vanda on the line.
Cheryl: Okay. Thank you, Patrick. Okay. Vanda will be after you. Go ahead, Patrick.
Patrick: Just a few more words before I leave the call. I think I support Evan's aim in putting this resolution forward. Even if we do not adopt it in such a formal way.
I think it's important for this group of people that want to go ahead on this issue to be totally transparent to the ALAC – so that we are not at a later stage of being suspected to be working on inaudible only. And that we show that we have the backing of the ALAC. So that it reflects a consensus among the ALAC – more that just the position of a few individuals.
Cheryl: Here, here. Thank you.
My priority concern is that we ensure that the product of what needs to happen here is something that can very quickly and promptly become a statement of the ALAC.
Of course, the ALAC has the ability to get it directly to the board's attention. I assume that is what we all want. We want to raise this, and have it heard properly and well – and surely before Seoul.
Patrick – any final things? Again, I'm hearing inherent support in your willingness to go ahead with this.
Patrick: Yes.
Cheryl: Okay. Thank you. I recognize you need to leave. But I'm glad you were able to stay for all of this discussion.
Yes, Vanda.
Patrick: Okay. Bye-bye.
Vanda: Well, I just want us to remember that what I expected from this group is a statement only concerned about the end-users. That's the idea I shared with Alan.
From my point of view, we are not or he is not inaudible completely their proposals. We need to sift what we want from the end-user inaudible. And we discussed with that.
Cheryl: Okay. Thank you. Evan – response to that?
Evan: Obviously, I hope you can entrust the three people together with others that we want to bring into the process. You've got some of the people that have drafted some of the ALAC strong wording against the IRT.
I don't think there's going to be any question that the end-user point of view is going to be presented. But I want to make absolutely clear that the intention of what I want to do is to come forward with something that ultimately the board can accept as an IP protection regime for new gTLDs, moving forward.
The intention is to take the consumer and end-user points of view by common ground with the IP lawyers, and essentially come up with something that is palatable and allows the ICANN board to save face, move forward, and protect both us and what the trademark lawyers need.
Cheryl: Yes. Evan, of course, that last part is hugely presumptive. It would be presumptive on the ALAC to believe that it can present something to the board and have the board go, "Thank you, dear saviors – we appreciate this."
What we can, however, do is to ensure that the proposal or suggestions and the way forward – which is a beautiful set of words and I trust will be used in the final document when it becomes an ALAC statement… It's something that the board should find.
We can't preempt or predict what the response will be from the board, or indeed, from the rest of the ICANN community. But certainly, that is its intent – to influence those outcomes.
The focus on the end-user perspective is something that I hope you're hearing very clearly. Go ahead, Evan.
Evan: Like I say… I don't think you have any worries about the end-user perspective being put forward. Between the three of us – and Carlos and others who are involved in the process… The whole point of this is saying that the end-user perspective is not represented. We're going to offer something that shares common ground with the IPC, yet fits the needs of end users.
We have some fundamental agreements, I think, with them – on consumer-protection issues. But at the same time, they went too far, and they may be asking for their own inaudible.
Having said that, I inaudible believe there's commentary.
Cheryl: Yes. Absolutely. I think you're hearing nothing but that support and affirmation on that matter.
Now we do, of course, have that small work group that was formed in expectations of support of the end-user view going into the original IRT process. I would like to suggest to the ALAC that what we do is formally reactivate and revitalize that group – under the leadership of Evan Hall and Patrick as co-leaders, right now. And that exactly the intent of what the resolution goes ahead, without it being a formal resolution, as such.
We would like to – I suppose – know as you go along, how we can help. Each of our regional representatives has the opportunity to perhaps in this next-month's cycle of meetings – to take some early draft work back to the ALSs within each region.
Obviously what Hong CDNUA and ISOC AU put together has gone to the APRALO attention. So that's just one small building block.
But perhaps many of these building blocks can be brought together over the next few weeks. As long as that process is very much an inclusive one, I think we're looking toward success.
Could I ask one final question before we go to an affirmative motion? That is – would you consider in getting at least by invitation – those people who sat around the table in Sydney when we did the shared work with the NCUC… Because we had additional talent from the At-Large community around that table.
Of course, it may be that one or two of the members that are formally members of the NCUC movement are on the IRT and may also wish to contribute to your work. Alan?
Alan: You could take that as a given. Essentially, the wording was open-ended. But there is a whole number of people that I think we have in mind.
Our knowledge is between being as inclusive as we can be, getting the expertise and the sense of history and the legal talent that we need – while being small enough to move quickly.
Cheryl: Yes.
Alan: That balance – I don't have that magical formula, right now. I guess I'm asking for and entrusting this group to try to figure that out.
Evan – we keep on using the expression, "This group." That alternately refers to the three people mentioned in the proposed resolution. And the larger group – including NCUC – and IRT people. I want to make sure we know which one we're talking about.
Evan: Okay. I'll say, "We three," and when I mean, "This group," I mean the larger one. Okay?
Cheryl: One thing you'll need then from the start, Evan – you'll need the list of everyone that was around that table in the joint NCUC/ALAC/At-Large meeting.
Evan: I think you'd be surprised that there's already been a lot of continuing conversations.
Cheryl: Evan, I'm quite sure of that. But that's not the point. Having sideline conversations is one thing. Having a formal and transparent process in the name of the ALAC is another. I want to make sure that your group is given – and you as one of the three leaders of the group – are given all the resources and support you need.
Evan: Absolutely. That's why we're here.
Cheryl: Thank you. In which case – for example… There were a couple of people around that table who I doubt have been captured. They're relatively new players in this field.
If staff would like to circulate who they think the people that were sitting around that table at that meeting were and the ALAC and the regional meetings can crosscheck with our memories, and collect whatever e-mail addresses and additional information that the work group might need.
I'm seeing this as an urgent revitalization of an existing work group. It therefore doesn't need any form of fresh resolution, because it's a work group that's in existence. It needs intense support and interaction and assistance as required from all of us.
We already have the workspace, and we need to make sure that Hong, Evan and Patrick are familiar with that existing ALAC workspace – and that they have all the necessary edit-and-rights facility.
Evan: This is not the gTLD working group?
Cheryl: No. There was a subset of the gTLD working group put together specifically for the IRT process.
Evan: Understood.
Cheryl: You've got a whole lot of additional more talent in there.
Evan: Got it. Okay.
Cheryl: Because that exists, I don't want those people offended by not being offered inclusion. So even if very few more than just you three end up doing the work… and I hope that's not the case… if it's done on the space they already have access to, that's part of the importance of the transparency and openness.
Evan: Heaven forbid the word gets spread around.
Cheryl: laughter – well, it would be nice if it did.
Evan – do I take it that you will below contacting Hong?
Evan: Yes.
Cheryl: And if you would be so kind… I will invite both you and Patrick to the Google-doc workspace that was set up for the APRALO effort.
Has someone clicked on that link? Can somebody who's even… Alan, for example? If you could click on that link that I put in the Skype and the Adobe chat – just tell me whether or not people who are not collaborators can view the document.
Alan: If I can find it. Hold on.
Cheryl: Just rather than repeat things, that's pretty much where the document was worked up for what went to Hong Kong.
Alan: How far back was this link? Ah – there I see it.
Google-docs.
Cheryl: Yes.
In that Google-doc, Evan, there were a whole bunch of people that are of like mind and support. They were invited as collaborators, for example.
Charles Mok – who's the chair of ISOC Hong Kong – and they – were co-hosts at the Hong Kong meeting. He's the collaborator on that document. So you might find that allows some of those names to give you additional outreach.
Alan: Cheryl – the answer is no. It asked me to sign on. Once I signed on, it says I don't have access.
Cheryl: Okay. Thank you.
Well, Hong and I'll make sure that that's opened up and goes across to the workspace that the subset of the work group already has.
If we can have an action item for Hong and me to work with staff – to make sure the what APRALO has done in this letter is included into the IRT work group workspace. And to ensure that Hong, Evan and Patrick have all the necessary edit features and are familiar with that workspace. To start using it as seen as possible. That would be great.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak against, "This Way Forward?"
V: Yes.
Cheryl: Do you have any wishes to speak against, Carlos? I assume your support is still ongoing? We have no one on the French Channel. Therefore, can I say, "Thank you very much," Evan? I look forward to seeing a very strong and inclusive example of how concepts can be developed in a less-negative way than we came to go down with these. To put out a report and then speak against it, I think. As Kathie said, she tires of yelling at the microphone in 3-minute increments.
Alan: I share Evan's concern. I'm going in with my eyes open. It's possible that this process may not bear the fruit I'm hoping for. But we won't know unless we try.
Cheryl: Exactly. That's why I'm very keen for it quite quickly – and well before Seoul – to have some form of alert in the name of an ALAC statement – going on this matter, being presented through to the board's attention. It is something – as you say – that needs to be nimble and quick, and needs to be very, very positive.
You have more than our blessings. You have our absolute support. We don't need to do it as a specific resolution as you put forward. But I do believe if it's as powerful an outcome as it could be, then it will've at least given the end-users our very best efforts. And we can do little more than that.
But we certainly can't predict what the outcomes will be as accepted by the board. We can only do our best to influence them.
Thank you very much, Evan. Is there any other item or any other person that wishes to speak in closing this item? This, "Any Other Business," item?
V: I inaudible for having not been on the call earlier. But…
Cheryl: Well, I hope inaudible. laughter
As you can imagine, we had a piece of "Any Other Business," brought forward. So Patrick had to leave us, but he was able to be part of the conversation. It's a revitalization. It originally was a semi-formal resolution on the Way Forward in the IRT process.
The leadership was Evan. There's a small resuscitation of an existing work group. Clearly, we'd very much like our board to hear from our liaison. How still energetic and important the At-Large community thinks this matter is. It's not just a few people grumbling at the microphone at the roadshow. There's a whole lot more movement than that out there. That might be something you could perhaps bring to the meeting on the 30th. Hardly your 30th meeting. You probably feel you've done 300 of them. laughter
Going back to the standard agenda…
I think we are now up to a quick look at our ALS applications. What has changed?
We've had a few new ones coming in. As of today, we've had the due-diligence in from the OSIA – the Open Source Internet Association of Korea. I know that from Asia-Pacific, the regional meeting today, the regional advice for that will be coming in very, very shortly. I would predict that we will be asking for a vote of the ALAC on the regional advice between now and the next ALAC meeting.
Nick – do you want to speak to any of those other applications or any other matter on that?
Nick: No. I would notice, though, that we should have the AFAC, OFAC and Altemia due-diligence rather earlier than the deadline. We're just going to check it through the regional liaison or the Middle East Bhai Eznet – as none of us read Arabic.
Cheryl: Fair enough. I'm hoping then – if it's possible – that we could perhaps have the ALAC vote on the acceptance or rejection of the regional report. The regional information on these. Clustered together, but done in the period of time between now and the next ALAC meeting. Is that likely?
Nick: That would be up to the regions, really.
Cheryl: Well, we can perhaps ask our regional representatives to strongly encourage that to happen. That's certainly what we did with APRALO today.
If the due-diligence is done… No… we have no one from Africa on the call now, do we? Is Hawa still here?
Nick: No. She's had to leave, as noted earlier.
Cheryl: She had to leave at the same time as Patrick. Yes. Okay. Well, perhaps if we could just put an action item on there. I'll need to ask Heidi to pass that plea on from us. If we could possibly cluster the votes together, that would be excellent.
That brings us then to the matter of reports. Wendy – I know your time is limited. You've put out a call for anything to be brought up at the meeting on the 30th. But is there anything in particular that you had feedback on? Or anything that you'd like us to give you specific input for?
Wendy: No. I put the discussion from Sydney into the report. I've heard nothing on that. Much of the upcoming meeting is new constituencies. Constituency restructuring and discussions.
Cheryl: Yes. Obviously there's a piece of "Any Other Business," that we have on that matter, too.
Adam – I see your hand raised. Is that for the current report?
Adam: It is. Yes.
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Alan: Thank you. One of the issues is…
It's a question, Wendy – hello!
Has there been any discussion on the board list about the ALAC's voting seats and what have you? It was something that was passed on from the Sydney meeting. Or is it something that you're just in discussion of at the meeting on the 30th?
Wendy: It is definitely for discussion only at this meeting. I've raised a question of why it is that we won't be ready to make some stronger decision on that. It's caught up in various board governance. Structural Improvement Committee discussions for interactions with board review and non-com issues.
Cheryl: Thanks, Wendy.
Wendy: I have not heard any strong statements of opposition from anybody, lately.
Cheryl: Well, that's good news. Is there a follow-on, Adam?
Adam: No. That's fine, thank you.
Cheryl: Any other hands coming up? I'm not seeing anything in Skype, and I'm not seeing anything in the Adobe Room.
Adam – as the main part of the conversation in the "Any Other Business," section goes to the new constituencies and stakeholder groups – would you like me to bring that forward to now? Seeing that is – as Wendy just said – one of the main topics with the discussions for the Structural Improvements Committee?
At the next board meeting, they're looking at – particularly – the various charters for stakeholder groups in the gNSO.
Adam: That might be helpful. Yes.
Cheryl: Okay. Does anyone else object to that, going forward?
Okay. Adam.
There was a reiterated statement that went in. It was not voted upon by ALAC, but rather an attempt to reiterate the vast amount of work that was done since Paris on this topic. Do you believe that this was not, in fact, accurate?
Adam: That is what I would suggest. Yes.
I think your statement, Cheryl, was fair. I know it's difficult to try to go back over… Well, this discussion goes back to the time that I wasn't a member of the ALAC. So that's quite a long time.
Cheryl: Exactly.
There was something that I didn't put into that statement. That is, I also recognize that a number of our ALAC members are, of course, either current or previous members of NCUC. There's never been any attempt to say that we are wholly unified. In fact, when we have voted on statements, they have gone through as votes that we haven't had unity on. But they have been majority votes.
Adam: I think the problem I have with the statement you made, and by endorsement that Alan supported… You implied that we supported the staff-proposed, non-commercial stakeholder-group charter. I think we did not.
I think it's important for two reasons, and I'll try to explain both. The first reason is because this is something that we should or should not vote on. I don't think you can say through a reiteration of any of the past debates that – in fact – we did support it.
Then, looking at the specifics of that particular staff draft… It is a very close approximation of the cyber-security draft. The Cheryl Preston Draft, as we refer to it. And to which we explicitly inaudible
Cheryl: Sorry, Adam – to be clear… Which "we" were you referring to?
Adam: I'm sorry – "We," as ALAC. In our last statement on constituency inaudible
Cheryl: If we ever refer to anything by name, we may appreciate it.
Adam: Yes.
Cheryl: We certainly would never have said "Cheryl Preston Draft."
Adam: Well…
Alan: You said something about the Port 81 draft.
Cheryl: We would have used the Port 80 Draft, but we would never have used Cheryl's.
Adam: May I?
What we did say was, it was only the April 16th draft. We were talking about the two drafts. I think one was certainly the NCUC draft. We said we couldn't reach agreement on it, and we made a point of that.
But we explicitly rejected the other. However, we named it. I think we probably said, "Cyber Security," in that case. I can check that in a second.
The problem I have with your statement is that the staff-proposed charter very closely mirrors the cyber-security draft, which we explicitly said we did not support.
Correct. Right?
Alan: I disagree with that statement.
Cheryl: Let Adam finish. Go on.
Adam: I suggest you read the 16th of April statement that you wrote, Alan. We specifically said – at the end – there was no support for the cyber-security draft.
Alan: I agree with that.
Adam: Thank you!
Cheryl: Yes. We all agree, there.
Alan: I was disagreeing that the staff proposal is close to it.
Adam: I think if you rewrote Hogarths summary of the draft, going back to the gNSO listing, you'll find that it is extremely close.
It's a top-down draft. It does not allow for individual use participation. It has a very close, board-created constituency. It has absolutely nothing to do with the NCUC draft – which we discussed at great length and were trying to get some consensus on. It's extremely close, in my opinion, to the cyber-security draft.
We've all been looking at this. This is a contentious issue. As far as I can see, we should not in any way have supported the staff proposal. It is not close to anything that we were close to agreeing to in our previous discussions or in our previous statements. That's my concern.
We have supported a staff draft, which frankly, I am nowhere near close to supporting. I don't think our previous statements come close to supporting it.
There was one from August of 2008, which actually goes into some of the details of why constituencies are extremely difficult to form. They've always been a means of excluding people.
But just generally, I think it was a mistake to have said that we supported the staff-proposed, non-commercial stakeholders charter. Simply because there's no history of the ALAC having done anything of the sort.
Now Alan, you're next. But you have some clarifications, Nick. Alan – do you want to hear Nick's clarifications before you speak?
Alan: Sure.
Cheryl: Nick, go ahead.
Nick: Firstly, I think that it may not be entirely accurate to suggest that these drafts are the staff drafts. They were created to give the effect to request from the Structural Improvements Committee that certain elements of the charter proposed should be given effect.
In specific, I realize that the NCC strongly objects to the board approving constituencies. But the board has not agreed with them.
We have to serve the community. We also have to take direction from the board. So to suggest that… if there's any thought that the staff came up with this… We didn't come up with this stuff.
We were directed to do certain things very specifically by the SIC, and that's why we did them. If there's an objection to the text, it's really the board that they need to take it up with – not the staff.
Wendy: Could I say further that the SIC is not the board. So, lots of these things come from that piece of the board committee, and not from the board as a whole.
Cheryl: Yes.
Nick: inaudible draft, by the way.
Cheryl: I just wanted to point out to Adam that I can't remember a single user house meeting where I have not said – with the exception of the Sydney one – where the… Actually, no, I did say it in the Sydney one – but not in these precise words.
At each of the user house meetings, we hadn't pointed out that we had ever discussed the CTAT1s. There were aspects of it – the Port 81. There were aspects of it which were closer to meeting the requirement of the review. We would like to have seen that incorporated in a third option. Neither the NCUC nor the Port 81 met those needs totally, in our view. That is what we said all along.
Alan: Can I get back into the queue, please?
Cheryl: I think now for… I just couldn't help myself there, Alan. Go ahead.
Alan: A number of comments.
First of all, inline with what Nick said…
An awful lot of the huge outcry from civil society has been that staff is imposing things. I think it's unfair to staff that you may agree or disagree with what the words were. But it was done at the request of a board committee – which may or may not see the light of day after that.
I think it's an unfair characterization, but that's beside the point.
The objection that the ALAC has consistently raised is that the draft that the NCUC put together did not make it particularly attractive for new constituencies and brand new players to come into the game.
The board or SIC or whatever the new draft… Excuse me… I don't know if it's Vanda talking or someone else. But there's a huge noise.
Cheryl: I've asked Adigo to mute whoever's line it is.
Alan: Okay.
The new proposal addresses that need. It also addresses the potential for capture by individuals that want to essentially take over all the council seats – or a large number of the council seats.
It is consistent with what ICANN has done before. If you look at the interim ALAC – where there was not a mechanism in place to adequately represent the various regions on the ALAC because of the lack of RALOs – and the board, with recommendation, took it upon themselves to name the people in the interim. Until there was an infrastructure in place that would allow the community… in this case, the non-commercial community… to name them. To come up with a structure and mechanism that would address the issues.
I think that this proposal is consistent with past ICANN practices. And it addresses the particular needs.
Whether this proposal would be endorsed if it went to the ALAC – and whether it would get a majority number of votes… I don't know.
Cheryl: Nor do we have… inaudible
Alan: But it does address the issues.
I haven't really read Cheryl's statement, but I think all the statement said is that it does address the issues that have been raised by the ALAC. Not that the ALAC had supported this proposal.
Wendy: inaudible is saying that the ALAC supported the proposal.
Alan: Pardon me?
Cheryl: We'll be happy to clarify.
Alan: Sorry – say that again.
Wendy: I said it has been read as being a stronger level of support. So I will be happy to clarify.
Cheryl: It is saying that where the other ones on the table just don't speak to needs, this comes as close as we've seen.
Alan: inaudible It addresses the issues that have been raised.
Adam: Alan, it does not. inaudible crossing
French Channel: Sorry – two people are speaking at one. Could you just be one at a time? This is the French interpreter. Thank you so much.
Cheryl: Yes. Go ahead, Adam.
Adam: Thanks.
Alan – you said it's going to be more accommodating to new users and new constituencies. There's an ALAC statement saying from 2008 saying that board-created constituency is a barrier to that exact same thing happening.
We're not being consistent here with past statements. We're not being consistent…
Alan: Can you read me exactly what was said? Because I don't believe we said that.
Adam: No – but it's about a paragraph and a bit long.
Cheryl: That's all right.
Adam: We also may defer from some of the current constituencies on how the gNSO should evolve after the new structure is implemented – as noted in the BGC report.
The process for forming new constituencies has been in the bylaws as long as the gNSO has existed. But it never happened. Presumably, due to real or perceived heavy burden of self-forming, and then ongoing management.
Within the new structure, it may be even more difficult, due to the potential for existing constituencies to believe they can represent all points of view. Thus, intimating the need for new constituencies.
It goes on to make comments about constituencies that are being created without barriers – as we've seen in the past. This is an ongoing debate.
We have seen historically within ICANN that once a group has power, it will then not want to give it up. It has been the opportunity of constituencies to form… This has happened with the At-Large process, itself. It was a function of that. The supporting organizations formed, and then all of a sudden, the At-Large was not allowed to form in a way that it was promised.
We've seen the opportunity for individual constituency within the gNSO since the gNSO was created after the dons. It has not started, and never been allowed to start.
So, I believe very strongly that we've got statements here that are not stating what you're saying, Alan – that this is welcoming to new participants. It might be welcoming to one. Or those in place. You're not going to get any…
Alan: Adam – we're running out of time, here. If you can point me to that statement…
Cheryl: Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: If you can point me to that statement, I will explain offline to you and to the rest of the group why I think what I just said was consistent with that.
Cheryl: It certainly is. Alan – you and I and several others including Zumi, Vanda, Sébastien and several others… we were in the thick of it at that time. That certainly, I think, is being misread. But it was not intended to say back then what it seems to be being interpreted as, now.
Alan: I would be glad to. I don't work well listening to long paragraphs and commenting on them.
Cheryl: Yes. Adam – seeing that that was quite a busy time with a lot of interaction to wordsmith those lines… Are you happy to discuss this offline with Alan, to hopefully make it clear? Remembering, of course, that we recognize… It's difficult when people come in partway through a process.
Adam: And remembering that we did have a last statement on this. That should've been the one that was quoted.
The closing line of this particular statement from April of this year, Alan, does actually say, "The charter proposed by Cheryl Preston…" Yes. We did use those words! Although Cheryl, in your most-recent statement, you did say, "Port 80."
The charter proposed by Cheryl Preston does not have the exact same failings as the NCUC version. But for a number of reasons, it's not perceived as any stronger.
Alan: I still support that statement.
Adam: For this reason, we cannot advocate its approval.
I'm sorry. But Cheryl's statement – Cheryl Preston's statement – is… And I did not mean to say "Cheryl Langdon-Orr," then…
So the cyber-security statement is close to the draft that we're considering that was produced by the staff. Not the NCUC.
Cheryl: What you're actually saying, though, Adam… What we're saying – and we've heard it loud and clear… You want to raise that objection as remembering that we didn't discuss inaudible in that response why the cyber-security one didn't get the whole staff support. It was less to do with structure and more to do with ancillary matters of the group that were being put forward. I think we'll all be very clear to remember…
Garreth – you were concerned at the time of that CTAT discussion about the need for us not to go down a pathway to discuss the particular personal and personality and religious and cultural issues that were being discussed at the time. That certainly influenced how we worded this… in a less-subtle way, perhaps, than we should have. We were not just against the Port 80 specifically because of the fact that it had a number of points in it, which more closely met the suggested requirements. However you want to term them.
I'm agreeing with Alan that we rejected it for a whole bunch of reasons. Not because of the way it's structured. It actually had a number of things that were attractive – just as the NCUC one. That had a number of things that were attractive.
What we said was that neither of them fully met our needs.
Alan: Can I get in the queue? It's Alan.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: I stand by what I said. I do not believe that the proposal before the board or the SIC right now is close to the Cheryl Preston / Port 80 / whatever requirement, at all.
Specifically, that one had a rather arcane method of selecting counselors. It tried to address the situation of more than six constituencies. It was an ongoing charter – which I thought was going to weave the NCSG into a morass – a tangle.
I do not think it was appropriate at that point, and I strongly say that. Until there are more players at the table, if there ever are… the board on an interim basis could select the people until there were a process put into place… whereby the new constituencies have an opportunity.
There is at least one new constituency in formation, right now. At least they'd have an opportunity to partake in the dialogue, as opposed to seeing a fait accompli.
I believe that changes the character completely from the other proposal. That's the reason I do not agree that they are similar.
Moreover, Cheryl's – or that – proposal… whatever it's called… the cyber-security proposal… also still allowed individual voters to select council members, which was subject to capture in a large way. The new proposal sidesteps that issue, all together.
For those two reason, I'd say the current one addresses the concerns that were raised. Whether it's a good one or a bad one is an issue that the board and the SIC need to decide. There've clearly been a lot if comments from NCSG or NCUC and friends. They will be duly taken into account.
Milton has promised a firestorm in Seoul if the board doesn't back down. We'll see what happens. I don't know.
But I don't think we said we support the proposal. I said we think it addresses the issues that were previously raised. Whether it addresses them well enough or not is a different issue.
Cheryl: However, Adam – you're clearly saying that is not how you read it. I believe Wendy has clearly said she's heard what you say.
Adam: Yes.
Not only that. I think you have to be very aware that the whole world believes that the ALAC has just endorsed this empty SG charter.
Cheryl: Then perhaps the "whole world…" and I'd be delighted if the whole world were actually interested in what we're doing…
Adam: Our world, certainly.
Cheryl: Should this then and perhaps read very carefully what I thought we were very careful about what was said – and how it was said.
There is, however, one charter that we were asked to particularly look at and comment on. What we've said is that it meets a number of the criteria. But we're not being asked to vote on it.
Adam: No. But you've given the impression to people – and Wendy was one of them – who thought that you were endorsing on behalf of the ALAC, this particular charter.
Cheryl: It is the best we have seen to date.
Adam: That's your opinion, Cheryl. That's my point.
Cheryl: Actually, I thought it was really very clear.
Adam: No – the last time inaudible crossing
Cheryl: When I wrote my opinion, it was prefaced with "my opinion."
Adam: Our chairman of the ALAC used it many times.
My point is this…
Cheryl: Personally, it was at the end. If people cannot disassociate that personal from what is the reiteration, well… there's nothing I can do about that.
We've heard from you, Adam. We've heard from Alan. We've certainly heard far too much, apparently, from me.
Garreth – would you like to make a comment, please?
Garreth: Sorry. I just had to take myself off mute.
French Channel: This is inaudible Garreth. Thanks.
Garreth: I just wanted to make sure that the parts of the Port 81 or cyber-security proposal that I was objecting to are not sort of stuck into this. To anything that we're trying to support.
Cheryl – is that what you had in mind, that you wanted to hear from me?
Cheryl: Yes. Indeed. There were a whole lot of things. I think Alan has gone over a number of them that many of us had problems with on the Port 80. What we were doing was commenting on the one that was currently on the table. That is neither the NCUC or the Port 80.
Garreth: That's right.
We just have to be careful that we're not allowing any particular group or viewpoint to inaudible anything that comes out of this whole process.
Cheryl: Indeed.
The points of capture and everything else are ones that Alan has gone over.
Carlos – please – are you wishing to speak to this matter?
Spanish Channel: No. inaudible Carlos. So let me try again.
Cheryl: Thank you.
Spanish Channel: I'm not getting an answer from Carlos. I hear something in the background, so I'll try again in a moment.
Cheryl: Thank you. If and when he wishes to come in, the invitation is there.
Vanda – you're on mute at the moment. But would you like to weigh in on this? At the moment, we're really hearing one or two voices – not the whole of the ALAC. And of course, we don't have the whole of the ALAC on the call, there.
Vanda: Yes. I'm on mute now. Are you listening?
Cheryl: No – you're not mute, now. Thank you.
Vanda: Yes.
Spanish Channel: Sorry – who's speaking, please?
Vs: Vanda.
Vanda: I believe Alan has just said what really happened. I have nothing to add to this comment, because I completely agree. It's not the same thing.
Cheryl: Thank you for that, Vanda.
Hawa has also left us, unfortunately. Is Carlos back on the line?
Spanish Channel: Not yet.
Cheryl: Okay. Thank you, Tonya. If he wishes to put a point forward on this, just let us know.
Spanish Channel: All right.
Cheryl: Well, we've had a long discussion on our "Any Other Business." We have a process by which Alan and Adam will be further discussing this online.
But Adam – do you feel that we've spent enough time? I don't believe we can spend any more time on this matter.
Adam: Only to say that the board's appointing of the three missing counselors has not been objected to by anyone. That is a bit of a strawman, Alan. The NCUC is in support of it – and that's in the comments.
I would support it, because it's practical and sensible. As you say, it's historically valuable and well-supported by history.
Then we agree on that? We have one thing to agree on.
Cheryl: Well, you can't put 15 people and expect uniformity is an automatic thing. It's called the building of consensus. That does mean a variety of views. Not everyone will win every argument.
Thank you for that debate. Now – back to our agenda.
Wendy – is there anything else on the agenda for the board that we're likely to need to prepare for? Is there something in the forecasting for the next meeting? Unfortunately, the ALAC meeting is happening so close to the board meeting. Are there any issues that are coming out that we should be preparing for?
Alan: I have one more statement to make, if I could. Alan.
Cheryl: Certainly, Alan. Go ahead.
Alan: I'm having a parallel Skype discussion with someone else about the same subject. This has been going on.
I wanted to make sure that Wendy is crystal clear that nothing we've said implies we were supporting the alternative cyber-security draft proposal. Despite our being happier with some of the issues in - and the SIC ones. They may or may not be similar to the cyber-security ones. We were not supporting cyber-security, nor are we now supporting the cyber-security one.
Cheryl: We have not gone back on that. Not was it back on the table.
Alan: As I said – this was prompted by a side conversation. Not with anyone on this call. I just wanted to make that crystal clear.
Cheryl: Okay. Wendy – is that crystal clear?
Adam: I think she's dropped off. But she may just jump in. She's not on Skype, any more. She said she could only stay for 15 minutes.
Alan: Then maybe we need to reiterate that in an e-mail.
Cheryl: Yes. Okay.
Wendy: Yes. I'm sorry. I dropped off and got reconnected. But I heard the, "Is that crystal clear?" But not the rest.
Alan: Due to a parallel discussion I'm having on Skype with someone not on this call, I just wanted to make it quite clear that despite our feeling that some of the SIC staff new version of the charter addresses some of our issues… Nothing we've said implies or should importantly that we were or are supporting the cyber-security draft proposal.
Cheryl: Yes. So we still aren't supporting either of those that previously were on the table.
Alan: There seems to be some misunderstanding that criticism of the NCUC proposal implies support of the alternative one submitted to the board originally – which is not the case.
Adam: If I could just make a quick comment… I think the reason is that many people do actually believe that the report that's been produced for the SIC is actually quite close to the report that was produced by the cyber-security proposal. That's where the conclusion lies.
Alan: Noted. But some of us disagree completely.
Adam: That's fine. But this is – again – a perception that you're getting from other lists and other people. So…
Cheryl: I understand that, Adam. But we really can't change that beyond making our points that we're at now. And we've spent a lot of time doing exactly that.
Wendy – now you're back on. Just before we move on from your section of the meeting… I was asking if there's anything that might be forecasted to come on to future board meetings or activities that we might be needing to prepare for.
In as much as what often happens is… Obviously, you don't get your agenda for any given month until very close to the ALAC meeting. SO as you could imagine, it would've been nice if we could've been having this conversation more than a few days or two days out from the board meeting.
Wendy: Well, if you have confidence in predicting that this will continue to be on the board's agenda – along with new gTLDs and all of the IDNCT questions and trademark questions and so forth… Until those are ultimately resolved.
Cheryl: So there's going to be the usual subset between now and Seoul. There's nothing moving on the horizon that's going to take us by surprise.
Wendy: No. And as soon as I'm at a point where At-Large board seats are on the agenda for decision, I will alert.
Cheryl: Thank you very much.
You mentioned the IDN sent. In our APRALO meeting today, we from Asia-Pacific in the region are still very concerned about the variance issue. We would be encouraging the board to explore those matters further.
We do not believe it's been fully or adequately explored. So if you would be so kind as to note that from a regional view when those topics come up, that would be greatly appreciated by Asia-Pacific.
It is a matter that we all recognize is fairly unique to not just the CJK, but also – of course – the Indian scripts. We do believe that at least with Cyrillic and some of the European scripts, there are concerns.
Unfortunately, we don't have – I think – anywhere near enough discussion on this, as yet. Adam – it might be a good thing if you would take that to the EURALO and APRALO's concerns on that. Obviously, Europe is one of those other areas that would have such interest.
I'm sure that you've got ALSs that would be bringing that to the EURALO board's attention. Where of course in Asia-Pacific we do have those ALSs that are bringing it to our attention.
Adam: I was going to ask Wendy if she noted at any point that there was any response to the letter that James Sang sent on behalf of a number of the lead actors in the CJK movement. That was quite specific on these issues. And it's probably the one that – along with the APRALO – they should be responding to. Or they should be reading it and thinking about it.
These are the major parts of the community – the mix from the region. The various ccTLD managers and so on. That would be one to particularly note. Has James Sang's letter been addressed? Will it be addressed? And if so, how?
Yes – Cheryl, thanks. I'll mention this to EURALO.
Cheryl: Thanks very much. Unless they hear it from a number of sources, it would seem – of course from APRALO's perspective… And Adam – again – you might see if it's something that could be discussed at EURALO. Wendy-- - When it would be an ideal opportunity in Seoul to focus a great deal of energy on this matter. And we would be more than supportive of that. In fact, we'd be shocked and horrified if it didn't happen.
So, whilst we're not underplaying the importance of the numbers of other issues on the table – IRT and IP and new gTLD matters, as well… There is a great deal more to the new gTLDs than just the cost of the applications and the ongoing. And a huge one of those inaudible in the room – from our aspect – it's certainly a variance one.
Wendy: Okay.
Cheryl: Okay. Anything else for Wendy?
Thank you very much. You certainly have plenty on your plate at the moment. There are not going to be easy answers for any of them, I'm sure.
Jumping over – the reports… I trust if they're not linked, they'll be linked very soon. We did want to have a decision at this meeting, but we find ourselves at an exhaustion of time.
We can't have decisions unless we're quorate. We're not quorate, at the moment. We've lost Patrick and we've lost Hawa. Therefore, we're not able to take any decisions.
How does this group want us to continue? We have a number of pieces of work that are yet to go on. We had very important debates on some very important matters. But in fact, there were two pieces of "Any Other Business." Those pieces of "Any Other Business," is important as they were, have taken the available time we all have.
Do you wish us to have another additional meeting? Or do you wish us to proceed in some other way?
Alan: I would like the opportunity to speak for two minutes – no more – on the two issues that I was supposed to be speaking on.
Cheryl: Is everyone recognizing that we can't take any decisions because we're not quorate? Is everybody happy with that?
Alan: Yes.
Cheryl: Is Carlos back online?
Alan: Did José ever come on?
Spanish Channel: He's still on the call. He's just – I think – on the phone.
Cheryl: Thank you. Okay. It's still without quorum. Yes. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: Number 1 is the post-expiration domain-name recovery. The first meeting of the working group is in a few hours from now. There is good representation on the committee from all constituencies and groups – with the exception of ALAC and At-Large.
The group includes me, Cheryl and Shiva. It includes nobody else from At-Large – nobody else from the ALAC committee. And since this is our proposal – and I think the needs of users and registrants is the group that we're trying to support… It would be nice if we had additional people to fight for our cause, and to then put the case forward.
At this point, I am the interim chair. I hope that will not continue. But as long as I'm the interim chair, I'm not in the position to make strong statements.
Cheryl: Exactly.
Alan: It's rather disappointing that the issue we've put forward – perhaps the most user-registrant-oriented proposal that the ALAC has ever gotten to this stage with… We do not have a lot of participation in the process. I'm rather disappointed.
It would be nice if that could change.
The second issue is – very late last night I sent out the first draft of the position description for ALAC members and liaisons. I reformatted it into a form that I think makes it easy to comment without every paragraph numbered.
I have included my original comments to it. The areas where I disagree with what is written. It would be nice if we had other comments from ALAC and RALO leadership – and of course, other At-Large people – to the extent they want to get involved in this.
Cheryl: Yes.
Alan: That's it.
Cheryl: How do you want to proceed with that, Alan? Do you want to…
Alan: I've sent out an e-mail. I've posted it on the wiki.
Cheryl: Yes. We've got it on the wiki. But do you want to propose that we discuss it in the list online? Or seeing that we have items for decision that we have not been able to get to…
Alan: I was not implying that we should be discussing it today.
Cheryl: Okay.
Alan: We can certainly discuss it by e-mail. People can post comments on the wiki. Either or both are welcome.
Cheryl: Okay.
Alan: I agree with that, too.
Cheryl: laughter
Can I ask Heidi… I think you're on the English Channel now, aren't you?
Heidi: Yes. I am, thank you.
Cheryl: There was a plan to have a discussion with Steve and/or Kevin in our preparation for Seoul. I know that a number of the regions will want to be involved with this. So this is for the regional leaders who were part of the ALAC and would want to be involved in that.
If that's going to happen in the next week to 10 days, I'm wondering if we have any possible dates out of that yet, or not.
Heidi: No. But Kevin said that he is available.
Cheryl: The reason I'm asking this, ladies and gentlemen, is that whilst it would be ideal to have a single-purpose call, I'm wondering if we could – in fact – have a short agenda-based call of the ALAC. At or about the same time as the single-purpose call on travel goes on. Just trying to find a way of dealing with our decisions when we – at this meeting – don't have a quorum.
Yes, Adam. To that point is it?
Adam: No. It was to a few points Alan made, and one other issue.
Cheryl: Okay. Sorry. Go ahead.
Adam: The first one… Alan, your concern. You're quite right. Could you please resent the information about the thing we're not participating in again?
Alan: Sure.
Adam: Yet again – yet again – if you'll just give a quick summary of what we're meant to be doing. I know I've promised probably to have done it.
Alan: Do you want to participate in today's meeting?
Adam: No – I'd like to go to sleep.
Alan: Okay. In that case, I will send it out after today's meeting, with a report of what's happening – and encouragement for people to work together.
Cheryl: The first meeting's in two hours.
Alan: That's correct.
Adam: That's fine. Just say that there's more. We are interested. It's just that it's somewhat inaudible
Alan: I understand.
Adam: The PD – that's the Position Description, isn't it?
Alan: Right.
Cheryl: Yes.
Adam: You've already got a bunch of comments from me, from Patrick and Evan.
Alan: Fantastic.
Adam: We agree with you. We don't agree with you. We don't agree with ourselves. All of the usual sorts of things.
Alan: I don't agree with myself half the time.
Adam: I think it's helpful to be that way.
The other issue that I did want to mention – which I'll come back to – is the board liaison. That's very time-sensitive. The election and selection process. We really do have to decide what we're doing about that. Even if we can't vote on it.
Alan: Well, we're out of time.
Cheryl: In fact, Adam, I wasn't going to let that particular one go. That's why I'm actually trying to get anther meeting.
What's important, of course, is that we have heard today that it is unlikely that the non-com will be releasing their appointments until the end of August.
You wouldn't think that… Why it would take that long, I'm not sure. But anyway, that's not our problem. What is our problem is – of course – that it could very well be that the types of people we want to be putting forward not only and particularly for board liaison, but also for all of our other liaison positions and appointment positions, may already be being appointed. Or we might need to consider various geography and diversity issues. They might already be being positioned elsewhere in ICANN.
Nick – if you wouldn't mind speaking to what I asked you to follow up with today… the non-com. Also, the fact that you've already made a request. Have you got anything back from that request, yet?
Nick: I'm informed that the non-com announcement – at the latest – would be the last week in August. It is likely to be the third week in August. We don't have anything more concrete than that.
Cheryl: As that happens, then, it's not impossible for us to delay the formality of the election call. Remembering that the election call means that we then have what is effectively a 21-day process after that. We have to have it completed before the AGM in Seoul. That's the ICANN AGM, of course.
But we also are going to see whether we can get some information without it being specific to person. Rather generically, regional, et cetera, et cetera, from the non-coms.
I'll be writing to Tricia to – A – let her know that this delay in non-com is having very direct effects – not only on the board liaison election calls, but – in fact – the election calls for all of our liaisons and appointments. It is a point of great concern.
I would like to think that we can – in fact – have a quorate meeting in the next 7 to 10 days. If that proposal meets with your approval, I'd very much like those on the call to let me know. Adam – your hand's still up. Go ahead.
Adam: It's still up because I forgot to take it down again. But yes, I'd be fine with another call. I'm just trying to think.
I can't remember what the original schedule for staffing this process was. Wasn't it about a 5-days' time?
Cheryl: Yes. Originally, that was the case. But we do actually have a very small amount of time to play with. We're not at a mission-critical point in time just yet. But it will be for those regions that are already trying to put names together and names forward.
Without non-com information being in, that may affect those outcomes. I am certainly concerned about that.
Adam: I'm not sure how much the non-com liaison really effects our decisions.
Cheryl: No, no. Not the non-com liaison. All of their appointments.
Adam: I'm sorry – no – I meant our liaison to the ALAC is affected by whomever the non-com selects. What we're asking for from the RALOs at the moment is for them to simply begin a process of selecting people.
Cheryl: Right. For example – let me give you an example from Latin America, Adam. That's the quickest way.
At least 2 of the 4 names that I'm aware of have put themselves into non-com positions. If they get those positions, then they aren't in our pool.
Adam: They will know by now whether they have those positions or not. The non-com has made its decisions of what it's doing now. In my experience, it's due-diligence.
So if those people…
Cheryl: That's exactly why I'm going to be writing to Tricia.
Adam: Okay. Perhaps you could just write to the people you know who put in… Anyway, it's okay… Carry on. It's complicated.
Cheryl: You do see the complications.
Adam: I do see. Yes. It's too complicated for this call. Yes.
So let's just carry on. Yes.
Cheryl: Okay. So is anyone else on the call wishing to object to an additional meeting? Probably linked with the single-purpose and travel and travel-to-Seoul discussion. Certainly a doodle would be most helpful, where we also convene to look at the issues for decision at this meeting.
If anyone objects, could you please let me know.
Can you ask Carlos, please, Tonya?
Adam: Just a query.
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Alan: I'm wondering if in the interest of streamlining the choice of dates, if perhaps we could start with a couple of dates that those on this call – date and time – those on this call could all do. We would then be in a better position to allow those not on the call to select amongst them.
Spanish Channel: Carlos does agree with having another meeting.
Cheryl: Thank you very much, Carlos. I appreciate that.
Yes. I think that's a very good idea. Vanda – are you on the call right now? Or are you on mute?
Nick: She may be muted.
Cheryl: It's just I need to take a small break. Gisela or Heidi – whomever has access to the very broad calendars of events – we need to avoid… We have a lot of people – Alan and myself and a number of others – that are involved in various other workgroups. We need to avoid those work group loads.
I must say that the load today – Adam – I appreciate your need to go to bed. But today we've got meeting after meeting after meeting. Not just regional meetings, but work group meetings after the ALAC calls, as well. If we can avoid that type of thing, we may have our volunteers surviving a little bit better.
Gisella: This is Gisella. We have got quite a few calls within the workgroups next week.
Cheryl: Exactly.
Gisella – while you're there – can you give us some open dates, then? Vanda – are you there? I'd like to hand the chair over to you while this discussion is going on.
Gisella: If you're looking for a similar time…
Cheryl: Well that's another question. We perhaps need to ask if we are looking at a similar time.
Gisella: I'll let you guys talk. I've got the calendar open.
Cheryl: Okay.
Adam: Perhaps you could give open inaudible and dates.
Gisella: Are we looking at next week or are we looking at the end of this week?
Cheryl: Next week.
Gisella: Monday – 1800 UTC onward. Tuesday – 1730 UTC onward. Wednesday – not good. Thursday – 1530 UTC onward. Friday afternoon – 1400 UTC onward.
Nick: Is there anyone who – for example – could to do Thursday or Friday at the beginning of those time windows?
Alan: Sorry – what were the time windows again?
Vanda: It's hard to listen with the windows.
Gisella: Thursday – the 6th of August – we could do 1530 UTC onward.
Alan: 16. I've got a PDP working team that might run starting at 1400.
Gisella: Yes. We've got the 1400 PDP.
Alan: Yes. That might go over an hour. I think the normal schedule is 1.5 hours.
Gisella: Yes. That's why I said 1530 UTC.
Alan: Oh – sorry – I didn't hear that.
Nick: And then Friday?
Gisella: Friday afternoon, we've got one call from 1300 to 1400. So let's give it a half-hour leeway. 1430 UTC onward.
Nick: So we have 1530, Thursday the 6th, onward. And 1430 the 7th, UTC onward.
Alan: It's okay with me.
Cheryl: I think we have to set a doodle, because we have very few of our ALAC on this call, now.
Vanda: Yes.
Gisella: inaudible shortly.
Nick: I'm just seeing if it's hopeless for anyone on the call, now.
Adam: It's getting a bit late for me. When it starts getting…
Spanish Channel: I'm sorry.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Adam – then Carlos.
Adam: Yes. It's just that anything that's starting after… Calls that start after midnight are not my favorite time. Probably they're just awkward because I have to take them at home. But that's our Japanese apartment hassle.
Generally, if the call is in PM, go for it. It's not going to be that long, is it? Just hoping.
Cheryl: Hopefully.
Adam – I must say, I think if we cut the doodle out, it's going to be the only way we can successfully resolve this. Can we also look at the fact that we were able to get reasonable regional representation all the way through to the 1800 and 2000 time slots, where we were doing summit work groups?
To have a look at something that's slightly more human for Adam, as well.
Alan: Can we have the three-color doodle, this time?
Gisella: Absolutely.
Alan: Yes, no, and under duress?
Cheryl: Yes! You may get us all there under duress! laughter
All right. Well, we actually have end-to-end meetings on, right now. So can I ask if there are any final comments from Spanish Channel?
Spanish Channel: Just clarifying – from Carlos… He will not be available on those two dates – Thursday and Friday – because he will be out on a regional conference.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, is it better to put in what day he might be available? Gisella – there were also other days that week that he mentioned.
Gisella: The second Wednesday – the 5th.
Cheryl: Is Wednesday possible, Carlos?
Gisella: inaudible Tuesday would then be better at 17.15 UTC onward.
Cheryl: Thank you, Gisella.
Carlos – would you be available on Tuesday or Wednesday? Just so we could put the day in the doodle.
Spanish Channel: Yes. As long as it's the afternoon for my time zone, that is.
Cheryl: Okay, Gisella – just see what you can do with that as we do the doodles. Okay? It just means that we have to have times other than the Thursday and Friday.
Nick – was there a reason you chose just the Thursday / Friday?
Nick: Simply that it provided lots of advance notice, since we would have to do a doodle. That's all.
Cheryl: Okay. All right. We'll put the Thursday/Friday in, but also start something on a Tuesday at the very least – if not the Wednesday.
All right. Thank you very much for the somewhat heroic efforts this evening, this morning or inaudible morning if you're out in the night. Thank you all who've been managing to stay on the call.
We'll stop this call and then start the next call straightaway? Or does everyone need a 5-minute break? That's Vanda and inaudible?
Vanda: It's okay for me.
Cheryl: Okay. Alan – do you need a break? I think we need to get onto it, because we've then got the next meeting after that at 4 am my time, anyway.
Nick: Bye-bye.
Cheryl: All right. Thank you.
We'll inaudible now and we'll dial back in, in five minutes.
Vanda: Okay.
Heidi: Right.
