ALAC%2008%2005%202007%20Transcription.doc
ALAC May 08 2007 Teleconference Transcription
0:02:36.5
WOMAN: Okay, shall we get started?
WOMAN: Has everyone seen the agenda? We can run through it really quickly for those who haven’t seen it. Okay. Adoption of the <garbled>. Adoption of the minutes. Review of option items…
NICK: Sorry everyone. I was on mute. We still need to know all the people who are on the call for the minutes. All I have is Alice, Cheryl, Vittorio, Annetta and Jaclyn
MAN: ALAN, Wendy…
NICK: So that’s seven out of eleven.
MAN: Did you get me <garbled>
NICK: Yeah.
WOMAN: Jaclyn, Wendy, ALAN, Cheryl, Alice…<garbled>
WOMAN: Can somebody send a mail that we…<garbled>….
WOMAN: <garbled>
ALAN: I don’t know who’s talking but I can’t understand a word you’re saying.
WOMAN: Me neither.
NICK: So everyone knows: the noise was coming from Hong’s line and she’s been muted. She does know that if she wants to speak that she does have to tell the operator.
WOMAN: Okay. Nick, one thing…the...uh…this was a short version…this does the same as one of the other conference systems I’ve used, and that is, every time I pressed star-6 it tells me it tells me that I’m in talk mode….in which case I’ve missed half the conference call by the time I’ve cut in and out. If there is an expedited version with less instructions, that could be useful too.
NICK: I’ll ask Susie if she can get such a document from Verizon.
WOMAN: So, star-6 is the universal code for every system I’ve used…
NICK: Star-6 doesn’t mute you.
WOMAN: yes…it does “unmute’
WOMAN: it takes 30 seconds to get back from mute.
WOMAN: yes, but you miss this lump while you’re being told that you are in silent mode and you need to push it again to un-mute.
NICK: That’s right.
MAN: …<garbled>…she’s saying we need a non-verbose mode.
NICK: We will see about getting one, ff that’s possible.
WOMAN: Verbose conference call…<garbled>
WOMAN: Okay. First, Agenda. Reports from the <garbled> and others. Then other agenda items will be the ALS applications, the evaluations…garbled…discussion and decisions. Any questions on current ALS applications the vote that is currently open. The decision on when we should elect our officers, and the policy matter’s request for the issues report, and request <?> on registrars. And…preparation for the San Juan meeting…and regional activities. Other business, budgeting forms and update on current fiscal year, and ICANN support for running the ALAC website. Does anybody have anything else they want to add to the agenda? I hope not.
MAN: Do you want to discuss the letter to the Board about the ombudsman and the…
WOMAN: Yes, you can add that in.
MAN: Hello this is <garbled>, I just joined.
WOMAN: Okay. So, I’ve added the ombudsman reply letter… to the agenda. Anything else?
NICK: I’m just adding that now for you.
ALAN: It’s ALAN, here. I don’t know about anyone else, I’ve got a hard departure at 10.30.
WOMAN: So, if the agenda is okay, we can move to adopt it
MAN: It’s a move.
WOMAN: Move.
WOMAN: Any objections?
ALL: No objections
WOMAN: Okay. Apologies from members…
NICK: Mohammad and <?> both had unavoidable conflicts. I did invite them to make their views known on the agenda items if they could by email.
WOMAN: Did they?
NICK: Not so far.
WOMAN: Minutes of the previous meeting. Did anyone get to read those?
Wendy: Yes, I think we corrected the <garbled> liaison to the PRO group, I’ve entered my co-liaison services only …and I still haven’t been added to the list.
WOMAN: Really?
WOMAN: The PRO was Wendy and <?> as joint.
WOMAN: Then how can we make sure that you get integrated?
WENDY: I don’t even know who is running that or...
MAN: Christina Rosette
NICK: We can send a note to her…
MAN: I thought their deadline for delivering their product was somewhere around now.
0.09.36 garbled
0.09.50
WOMAN: Any other adjustments to the minutes?
WOMAN: Am I the only one listening to that extra noise or…?
MAN: No, the little bongs are heard here also.
WOMAN: So, if there are no adjustments or changes do we accept the minutes with that one change that Wendy proposed?
ALAN: I abstain, ALAN.
WOMAN: You didn’t get to read them?
ALAN: I didn’t get to go to the meeting. I cancelled on them and it’s…<garbled>…
WOMAN: I abstain from those portions therein which I was not connected to the conversation.
ALAN: I wasn’t there at all so… I abstain from voting.
WOMAN: Okay. That’s true.
WOMAN: <gabled> a review of action items of the previous meeting. Action items were…
WENDY: Nobody went to the wiki to add to the or…prioritize the Top Ten items?
WOMAN: No.
WENDY: So that’s a failed Action Item.
WOMAN: May I ask for something really simple? Some people have problems to enter the wiki right before the conference or something and it would be much easier to just at least send out the agenda in the email and also give the link to the wiki. So that we just have both, it really helps a lot.
ALAN: I support that strongly.
CHERYL: having had to come up to my office sp I had access to all the documents that <gabled> into midnight, so do I.
NICK: That’s not a problem. We did send out the documents though part of them were resent recently. We can also paste the agenda into the email, that’s not a problem.
CHERYL: you can use your PDA or your hands down, o r one of those things.
NICK: Sure
WOMAN: Okay
WOMAN: Alright, Action Items. Does anybody have any additional things for the Top Ten or should we…just go ahead and pick it out and try and prioritize it like this?
MAN: Well, let’s give it a couple of more weeks. I have to admit, personally, I forgot...<garbled>
WOMAN: Okay. So we put a new deadline of the end of this month. That would give us two and a bit more weeks.
NICK: Do you all want me to…see about setting up a Big Poll’s poll that then all the various regions could rank the issues that they think are most important on the list. It’s quite a big list.
WOMAN: That would be very useful.
WENDY: I just think that <garbled> if people would just add…<garbled>
WOMAN: Wendy, I didn’t hear what you started saying. Could you…
WENDY: I hate the polling software. I don’t like using it, and so I think it would be more useful to get everyone using a wiki and if not everyone is permitted to edit this wiki I will happily port the list over to the ICANN wiki and invite people to join there.
NICK: The polling process that I’m talking about here is what was used, for example, by the PRO working group…
WENDY: Yes, and I found that to be a horrific survey to enter…I know precisely what you are talking about.
MAN: Wendy, how do you propose that a wiki help us prioritize the items?
WENDY: Uh…you read through the list…you put a plus next everything with which you agree and we count up the pluses at the end.
MAN: I’m sorry; I don’t know how you are going to view the results of the poll. Unless…you know…we have a methodology for making good use of the poll. I don’t see how one could…
NICK: I would say that if 50 people vote, basically, then there is a ranked list of the results of the vote. You don’t need much of a methodology then to say we are going to deal with the Top Ten voted things, do you?
WOMAN: How about we say that in the next…by the end of this week…we can look at potential, we hopefully even agree online as to how we’re going to do it and then we do it until the end of the month. Does that sound reasonable?
WOMAN: I didn’t get it.
WOMAN: Well, Nick can set up a draft poll and explain how his option would do it. You can set up a draft as to how your option would do it. Everybody could look at it online and send back an email saying “yeah, this is what I prefer” then we can agree on that by the end of this week.
ANNETTA: Ahh...that sounds complicated to me. If we just use the…let’s try to make things easy. The good part about the wiki is that people can also add why they think it’s important and this is something I really prefer instead of just, you know, pushing a button. So, if I have some explanations, I am really happy, and people can just say, “yes, I think this is important” and they have the chance to say why, and I really appreciate if people give reasons.
NICK: Just so you know, that is also a feature that the polling software would have. The other thing that I would say is obviously… <garbled>…pretty much all of ICANN is going to start polling widely even from the font page of ICANN.org using that tool so it will become something that pretty much everybody is familiar with.
WENDY: Well, what a terrible technology choice.
MAN: I want to second what Annette has said, you know…<garbled> I don’t know how the polls are going…somebody’s going to use the results of the polls. I feel uncomfortable but, you know…
JACQUELINE: …<garbled> …that Nick do a draft to show us how it would work because it seems as if we’re not understanding what he is saying. But, if we prefer to use the wiki system, let’s agree to do that then. Is there anybody who particularly does not want to use the wiki system? Besides Nick, who doesn’t have a vote anyway. No?...Wiki it is! We will for this process, use the wiki system and can people…do we want to use the social text wiki where people can just add comments or do we want to use the ICANN wiki where people can register, log in, and actually edit the document to put their pluses and minuses.
MAN: How many wikis do we have?
WOMAN: We have the ALAC social text wiki. Every region has their own wiki. And, then, ICANN…but those are wikis where only members of ALAC or the <railers> can post, and then other people can make comments… Everybody cannot actually edit the document. They can add comments on the bottom for, like the Top Ten. The world can add comments on the bottom but only ALAC members can edit the page itself. So, the concept of putting pluses next to your items would not work on the social text one unless it was all people who were part of the RALO, the ALAC people, or the ALAC people.
MAN: I hate to be a grinch but putting plusses beside what you’re voting for will only work if it’s not very successful. If we have hundreds or thousands of people voting it is not a practical methodology.
WENDY: We’re not trying to get…well…the request that began this with was which issues do the ALAC consider the most important, being the committee and its associated appendages not what issues do At Large individuals think are the most important.
WOMAN: Okay. Well, in that case we can use social text then…
MAN: That’s right…wide participation is not necessary if we don’t want wide participation.
WOMAN: Okay. Cool.
WENDY: …the problem that our ALSs can’t participate on the social text
WOMAN: We have Top Ten issues; we are going to do them by the end of the month. ALAC, all of us, are the ones that have to go and put our plusses and minuses. Okay? No minuses, the pluses.
WOMAN: Wendy, did you just do a little note to everyone explaining exactly how you’re supposed to do your pluses?
WOMAN: Because, you might, you know, want to plus everything. If you want people to put in like a ranking system or how…
WOMAN: Is that okay with you, Wendy?
WENDY: Sure.
JACQUELINE: Cool. So we do that by the end of the month. So, it will be ready for the next teleconference. Rules of Procedure…well, Vittorio …we did have an online discussion and we have the one item which is outstanding which is the Terms of Voting. When do we vote for new people which is on the agenda further down. Ombudsman report, reply was due the end of the month, we were a week late: it went out today. I don’t know if everybody saw it…
WOMAN: What is it that we don’t know?
WOMAN: The reply on the Ombudsman’s report that is due to the Board this week.
WOMAN: That was being worked on by me, Vittorio and <garbled>, and the draft letter was sent to ALAC internal today, this morning.
MAN: <garbled> I think it was good. I liked it.
VITTORIO : <garbled>…I haven’t seen any activity on the Board list about preparing a reply to the Ombudsman so I’m not sure about what sense…<garbled>…but I’m not sure that it would come up.
MAN: What was the deadline, Vittorio?
VITTORIO: In theory it is May 12th for the Board to reply to the Ombudsman, I mean, we don’t have any deadline. No one asked us to produce anything yet. The Board will have to take care of the matter and reply to the Ombudsman, and the Board has until May the 12th which is <?> days from now.
WOMAN: But the Ombudsman report included something that said, if the ALAC does not object and so on and so forth, so we thought that we should send a substantive response to the report to the Board to say, “okay, we really considered the report, we’ve discussed it, and this is what we think, and this is what we’ve already done out of the recommendations..” and so on and so forth, to make us look a little more proactive and on the ball. So that they would have it if they did decide to discuss it and respond to the Ombudsman. They would have it, you know, given to them.
MAN: What is the objection by Wendy about adding something about, you know, Ombudsman reciprocating, you know, his…about the language he used?
WOMAN: So, I can add another paragraph, or I can edit it, to put in a…something a bit stronger?
ALAN: I would modify what Wendy said; Wendy said something about the strong concerns to the oppositional stance of the Ombudsman I would phrase it in a positive way; saying, we would have preferred if the Ombudsman had approached this problem more from a…looking for a way to resolve it rather than being purely…you know…I don’t know what the right word is…you know, if you look at the mandate of the Ombudsman it is to negotiate, it is to create a meeting of the minds…not just to critique.
MAN: Is it really?
ALAN: Yes.
MAN: Does he see it that way?
WOMAN: <garbled>…he already knows that for him, at least. But he doesn’t agree with that.
ALAN: That’s in the bylaws which he quotes frequently.
WOMAN: We should also add something…you already mentioned here, concerning confirming the quoting rights. I just checked the bylaws, and…not that he’s just joining our list without…that we know of…but he’s quoting…and this is not the correct quote. This is…you know…something very special.
ALAN: I agree with the substance but I’m not sure that this forum…this letter to the Board…is the right place to do that.
WOMAN: What I did put in was a bit about we need to be clear as to the roles and responsibilities and access to information etc, etc, etc…but I didn’t like, spell it out.
ALAN: I think that was well worded.
WOMAN: Because you don’t want to state…<garbled>...we want to know exactly what he has access to and not access to…looks like we’re trying to find a state where we can function without him being able to access the information which is part of what he told the Board…<garbled>.
ALAN: At this point, I’m happy to have him go in as is…I’m not sure that we can wordsmith on a conference call.
WOMAN: I will do something and send it out as soon as the meeting is done.
MAN: A minor point, may I ask? In item number ten, itself has a number of points under it, and there seems to be a repetition: three seems to be part of four.
WOMAN: What I did there was to go through his recommendations, one by one, and some of his recommendations are like that.
MAN: Uh-huh. I see…So, the exact sentence you have under 10.3 also is repeated under 10.4, so that’s intentional.
WOMAN: Yeah, because he talks about our delays and then he talks about our delay again. But he put them in two different points so I repeated the thing…<garbled>
MAN: I understand.
WOMAN: The same way he responded, each of those points responds to his recommendations: one, two, three, etc…So, if you read his document, side-by-side with the sub-points under item 10 then we can see. For one, I recommend that <garbled>…. His point two was that he recommends that the Board grant ALS status and we say no. We stand by our decision, and we don’t want to <garbled> etc, etc…
WOMAN: Jaclyn, picking up three of us comments, probably the Board does not have the list right next to our letters maybe it would be helpful to just have the lines <?> or something. Because, you know, looking at the list, you really have to put…
WOMAN: the two documents together.
WOMAN: Yes.
WOMAN: I think you should not put so much time and energy.
WOMAN: Okay, I’ll do another draft in time to go. I’ll quote his bit and then do our response to it. How’s that?
WOMAN: Perfect.
CHERYL: It makes it easier for them even though it’s a little bit longer in form letter.
WOMAN: It will make it a lot longer.
CHERYL: You can do a synopsis: start then dot dot dot and end the sentence.
WOMAN: Okay. I will try that. The draft will come out today so everybody could take a look at.
CHERYL: Fantastic.
Vittorio: <garbled>
WOMAN: Sorry, I did not understand a single word.
VITTORIO: <garbled>
ALAN: Can someone repeat that…I didn’t hear it…understand it either.
VITTORIO: I was just saying that I <garbled> the next full meeting is in two days, I <garbled> if it comes up in the next full meeting <garbled>
JACLYN: Well, if we can get it agreed because its almost agreed…if we can get agreed in the next day or so, you can get it in time to transmit to the Board in that meeting.
ALAN: Jaclyn, if it’s a matter of sending it out with those additional definitions of what his points were or without, I would send it out without to make sure the Board gets it.
WOMAN: I think we can agree on it now.
WOMAN: You could just give it…send it out to us to get some remarks or anything, if someone changes something…
VITTORIO: If the issue does not come up with the Board I will not do it, but if it comes up, I better have something ready…
WOMAN: Okay, you will…
WOMAN: You will have something ready by tomorrow.
VITTORIO: Thank you.
WOMAN: okay.
VITTORIO: …and then, if we have more time, we can refine it further...
WOMAN: Okay. So, Vittorio, Board Liaison report.
VITTORIO: Okay. So, well…as I was saying the next Board meeting is in two days, so tomorrow I’m jumping on a flight to San Francisco, the Board is having a retreat which means two days meeting only with Board members and the staff people …<garbled>…some discussion we should have the staff members or should not have them…<garbled>
NICK: You are very muffled, Vittorio.
ALAN: It started off fine then it got worse.
VITTORIO: Pardon?
WOMAN: Try again.
VITTORIO: I was saying that there will be some discussion on the replacement for leads <garbles> maybe different persons doing different things, because, anyway, there is no way you can find someone like you, and …
WOMAN: For what its worth at some point it’s a disaster to have multiple chairs.
VITTORIO: Well…well…if we could be moved to chairs, it could be possibly a chair, maybe not doing everything and other people lead other tasks that’s still to be discussed. <garbled> In the end, I am neither <garbled>
WOMAN: I can’t hear you
VITTORIO: Everybody is waiting for the meeting…<garbled>…The only other thing I have to report is that the work on the review process has started I am on the uniformity working group which means that we are doing the recommendation from the <garbles> and deciding what we want to present to the Board.
MAN: Actually, it is still very preliminary but it seems to me that many of the members of the <garbled>. Of course it is still preliminary so I will not…I am not able to tell you…what we are able to come out with…but I’ve been saying, and I’m not the only one, actually that <garbled>, and I don’t know if you would agree with that. So, any opinion you might have on his kind of issue should be utilized. I don’t think that we will end up with a so-called merger between the ALAC and the NCUC. I think it could be more like <garbled> but that’s the kind of reasoning that we are having at this point in time. And also, the other idea is to make the <garbled> group less <garbled> struggles between constituencies stem more from < garbled > so you try to get rid of some of the challenges at the social level even personal level…between the different constituencies. The only other thing that I have to report is that I feel some dissension on the North American <garbled> on the part of the …< garbled >…
WOMAN: I missed that entirely. What did you say?
WOMAN: I don’t understand
NICK: Vittorio, just so you know, we are not going to be able to minute what you are saying. The transcriber is not going to be able to transcribe it. It’s just not audible about two-thirds of the time. You will have to send a written summary in.
VITTORIO: <garbled>
ALAN: Vittorio, can you simply repeat what it is that you are going to move? I didn’t hear what you said.
VITTORIO: That, I mean, that there were a part of the minutes of the last Board meeting stating something like <garbled>
MAN: And you were going to correct that?
VITTORIO: Yeah, and I have to correct that.
WOMAN: Ok
ALAN: good.
VITTORIO: <garbled> I think I have to go now. <garbled>
WOMAN: You can say one thing on my behalf, third party beneficiaries from the contract.
VITTORIO: pardon?
WOMAN: Third party beneficiary status for the public.
VITTORIO: <garbled>
NICK: Again, that entire exchange will be un-minuteable, I’m afraid.
WOMAN: I have no idea what you’ve been saying. I’m sorry. I just…NOTHING…not a single.
NICK: You may as well just stop, Vittorio. You’re just not audible, I’m afraid. I’m sorry.
VITTORIO: There’s not much I can do, I guess. So…I will try to send a report about this as soon as possible.
ALL: Thank you.
WOMAN: ALAN, do have anything
ALAN: There’s not a lot going on now. Bruce Thompson elected as the representative to the liaison to the Board, the committee is in the process of selecting a new chair. I’ve used up more than my ten seconds allotted right now, that’s it.
WOMAN: About the mail you send out, is that on our agenda or not?
ALAN: It’s on the agenda towards the end; I’ll be gone by then.
WOMAN: Then I think we should, you know, get that included.
ALAN: I can give a very quick report. Most of you, or all of you, should have seen the almost last version, I made a number of grammar changes and things like that after that. I was about to send it out yesterday when I received the note from the…I got a statement…a very formal and very elegant statement from the Registry Committee…Registry Constituency…at this point I have sent them a copy of the current document, asked them if there was anything objectionable in it – ‘cause, I really don’t want to start a new process of reworking the document, we’re already a week late over a week late – I’m waiting for an answer from them. Hopefully, the will say go for it, and leave it at that. I can’t predict what their answer will be though. In any case, I…there may be because of this one more iteration. At which point, I would appreciate any quick feedback. One way or another, I think it’s exceedingly important that we be able to say that they are supporting it, in the document. They are the crucial group, and we do have a very strong statement saying they are supporting the process. So, I may have to do a re-work, if not it will go out today or soon. If it’s a re-work you’ll see it soon in any case, it’s not going to go more than a few days.
WOMAN: Okay.
WOMAN: Who is…there is no more who is working group, and then there’s this working group that anybody and everybody can join. Wendy, do you have any idea how many At Large people are joining the new working group? Hello? Hello?
WENDY: I’m putting you on hold. Sorry.
WOMAN: While Wendy has us on hold, do you want to switch to IDN <garbled> are you there?
ALAN: She has to go off mute which takes 30 seconds.
ALAN: Can we go one to the next item then?
Man: I already sent a…let me just add this…I asked Chris <garbled> if I can share the joint issues report of the ICANN CCNSO with ALAC members and he said that because its an internal report maybe I shouldn’t do that but I can make a summary of the, you know, basic items, that are, you know, that can be general knowledge and maybe send a note or…
ALAN: That would be appreciated.
NICK: Just so that everybody’s aware. If we received some kind of written report, there’s a section in the wiki now for them, and we can put those reports in different sections, and then anyone in the community who’s interested in a particular area can see what the state of things is.
ALAN: Nick, I don’t understand. <Garbled> has just said that he doesn’t have permission to share even with the ALAC.
NICK: No, no, I understand that there are some things that can’t be shared, but to the extent that things can be shared if they’re in writing then it’s easy for people to refer to them if they are kept together and we are happy to administer doing that.
WOMAN: Oh, okay. We actually have to mention that we should possibly start having ALAC working groups.
WOMAN: Which is a good idea because we spend so much…I mean, we haven’t done it before because we spend all out time focusing on getting the ALAC actually running with the <railers> and all that. But now that we kind of have that finished…
NICK: Right, you’ll all remember that at I suggested we do something like this in Lisbon as well, and it was, I think, pretty generally acceptable. We get more of the community to volunteer to help effectively staff all these working groups that are going on.
MAN: Uh-huh…its important to identify what kinds of IDN issues that really At Large issues, you know, if we could just concentrate on the few items that they think, you know, we should concentrate on, and uh…it can force us to identify those. It’s a start.
WOMAN: In our rules and procedures that Vittorio is working on, set up a way to say, ok, this is how we determine, this is how we vote and say, yes, you want to create a working group and this is how a working group is constituted, and this is how long a working group should run for, and so on and so forth, or no? Or we should just have them ad hoc?
NICK: Well, it needs to be solid and ad hoc thing, you’ve got something going. We could start asking for volunteers for the various groups that you want to form, and we can work on administratively on, how, you know, we can give them mailing lists, or whatever they need to work together.
MAN: I think maybe we should, I don’t know if <garbled> can hear us or whether she can …I think for this particular issue, as Nick suggested, maybe we can just jot something experimentally and then from this experience we can come up with some general rules about how to, you know, have other working groups. So again, it’s a bit…if you don’t start early…quickly enough…we’ll miss the boat because everybody else is working hard on this and, you know.
WOMAN: Okay.
NICK: Just so you all know, I think there are now something like 19 policy-related working groups of some term or another going on now. You know, if you wanted to, for example, say, ok...start…will you keep a list of all the working groups as they come and go, and all pull volunteers from the community each time a group is created, and one person from the ALAC maybe as the chair of those working groups, if we just sort of institutionalized to see, you know, if there is interest in an issue, people will come forward, won’t they? And, if there isn’t then they won’t.
WOMAN: Okay. That’s two different things. That is good. Because that means that we can keep up with what is going on in the wider ICANN working group community but I think what we were talking about was internally <garbled>.
MAN: Well, actually, both. I was thinking that we could get some input from the ALSs and, you know, other people interested. Because, you know, by definition our community is supposed to be responsive to the general community, so we should, you know…Most other working groups, have you know, limitations of who can join, you know, they have definite constituencies, and so on, and there is a lot of struggle about who has a vote and who doesn’t. So, maybe we should break that mold, and you know, just make it more open, you know.
WOMAN: Okay.
NICK: We are certainly happy to do the leg work to, you know, put out announcements, and <?> volunteers, you know, all of that. We can also make note on the list of what working groups there are where there is actually a voting or nonvoting liaison lot for At Large, where there isn’t but…you know, maybe even where there isn’t an official lot for At Large, people would still be concerned that some point of view be put forward.
WOMAN: Okay
CHERYL: That would be excellent. I work within a consumer space in telecommunications a lot here in Australia, and because we’re all volunteers, understaffed, and totally unpaid, and representing our own organizations doing all that, we find that working groups often need an occasional teleconference to just crystallize our final pieces of documentation before they go out to the rest of the group.
NICK: We’re always happy to help coordinate that sort of thing for you.
WOMAN: Okay, so what we have now is Nick is going to <garbled> a listing of all the various working groups that exist and who is where and where we have a space to join and we are going to start an IDN working group for At Large, and I think Nick, you will send out requests to the ALSs for interested people to sign up for that.
NICK: Sounds good to me.
WOMAN: Next item would be the PRO working group. Wendy still has us on hold…or she’s back?
WENDY: There’s nothing to report. I don’t know what the group has been doing or who the group is or where to find them.
NICK: Can I do what? I certainly find out about the email list thing and all that, and get a few of them added.
WOMAN: And the other thing we have that is very important is that the survey’s that they send out does not include a survey except in Jamaica and that we do not live all in Jamaica.
WENDY: The survey that they sent out was biased in so many ways. That is a problem to point out.
JACLYN: People from Dominique <garbled> because it wasn’t there. People from Trinidad and Tobago <garbled> because it wasn’t there. St. Lucia isn’t in there. Ghana wasn’t in there. Everybody was all excited and running to fill out the survey and we couldn’t fill it out because there was no Caribbean representation at all.
WENDY: Protecting the rights of others providing they live in major countries with major trademark holders who are members of our working group.
ALAN: Jaclyn, in the absence of anything more formal, get in touch with the chair of the committee.
JACLYN: As soon as I find out who that is. I sent the email
ALAN: Christina Rosette.
JACLYN: Okay, because I sent an email back to the person who sent out the email but I never heard anything more.
NICK: I will chase the contact for you. I have that too.
JACLYN: Okay because the original person who sent the “hey we’ve got this survey”, I responded to them saying, “Where is the Caribbean? We can’t fill it out because these countries are not on it”. And I never heard back from her, so…Alright, so Nick you can find the contact information and we can…
ALAN: She’s the North American rep to the IP constituency on the GNSO; her email address is on the website
JACLYN: Okay, cool. What’s her name again?
ALAN: Kristina with a “K”. Kristina Rosette. You can’t miss her. If you go to the ICANN Web page, structures, GNSO, IP constituency.
JACLYN: Alright. I will send her an email, today.
ALAN: It’s ALAN, I have to leave now. Since I won’t be here for the discussion, if we ever get to it on ALSs, I’ve resent my memo of April 9th which is still the position I have if anyone cares to represent me, they can look at what it says. Have fun. Bye, bye.
ALL: Bye
WOMAN: Now, what was that about?
JACLYN: That was ALS thing. ALAN said he had sent a note on it on April 9th and he resent it today.
MAN: I suppose I should be getting it soon.
CHERYL: I’m just looking now.
MAN: I just got it.
WOMAN: Okay, so the next item would be Staff Report.
NICK: I will also take my own advice, henceforward, and put these reports in writing. There are a couple of main things, just briefly, we finally have the server that I have asked for which will amongst other things allow us to have a document store where all of the documents for At Large can be kept, the committee can keep things that it is working on, we can also have some public documents, some of them can be kept privately, if they’re subject to work in the <?>. It will also be the staging area to At Large and Kerin is also keen to have us test some of his public participation ideas such as using the backend engine of the slash dot dot org site as an interactive forum, news, and information gathering service. So, there should be more about that shortly. I’m in the very, very last stages of getting Doug Brent to agree on a new travel policy for our constituency which amongst other features will have a per-diem-based system. Instead of going out of pocket and then getting reimbursed you’ll get a per diem. And we should also have a new travel agency service which will allow people to call local numbers in their own local languages and book tickets directly rather than by email with the West Coast of the United States. As soon as that comes out it will get translated and then we will be able to invite the North American and Latin American delegates to the <garbled>. Separately, there will be a draft budget for you all to review very shortly. I simply have to take out all the stuff that you have to take out of budgets salary information, and all that kind of thing, and then send it along. It does, amongst other things, provide for a full-time fairly senior person to work entirely on supporting the <railers>.
WOMAN: Thank you, Nick. A question: this travel was that related to San Juan for us now or?
NICK: Yes…the whole constituency.
WOMAN: Okay, so we have to wait until…?
NICK: I’m expecting the final blessing on it today, actually. The latest…tomorrow. Doug was unwell yesterday; otherwise you would have had it yesterday. And then it will be promptly sent off and translated. But I’ll send you all the English version as soon as it’s done. And all the other versions too but I’ll send the English first. It should be much simpler for everybody.
WOMAN: Good. And the other stuff was already about the budget or I didn’t…?
NICK: Just that you’re about to get a draft budget for the upcoming fiscal year. I’m just getting rid of all the identifying information, the salaries and all that stuff that you have to take out.
WOMAN: The draft budget – made by whom?
NICK: I, me.
WOMAN: What happened with it is that given that Nick was on vacation during the budgeting process when he came back, he was trying to send it in with like, a day, so he did it based on our, whatever we discussed previously, was what he thought should happen, and we do have input into it in this round.
NICK: Before I went on holiday, just so people know. I was told, don’t worry were only just beginning to get into the budgeting process when you get back you can go through the whole thing and draft budgets and all that, and I got back and had one day to turn in something. So, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed, it gives us funding for a whole additional person to do nothing but help the <railers> and the ALS committee as well as myself and Susie plus money for other things including 35 people from the community going to each ICANN meeting next year, so the 15 of you plus another 20.
WENDY: Does the community get to select those people?
NICK: Does the community get to select those people, is that the question?
WENDY Yes.
NICK: The community always gets to select who goes.
WENDY: uh… no…when I proposed that somebody else go as a substitute for me, I was told that I couldn’t do that.
NICK: You are not an ALS representative. You’re just an ALAC delegate…ALAC member. You don’t have an alternate.
WENDY: Well, am I not a member of the community?
NICK: As you know, and it is not news to you or anybody else: when we invite the community to come, ALSs and candidate ALSs are invited to send whomever they would like. That is the way that it has always worked.
WENDY: So, so, once again we are being told that this is a budget provided for At Large by ICANN which the ALAC committee can’t direct for spending. I just want to be clear on…
NICK: No, that’s not what we’re saying at all. There has never been a request made to the staff – that I am aware of-- to say we’re just going to opt for general funding for anyone who wants to come to an ICANN meeting <?>. Nor would anyone buy that. So what, we’re going to take 3000 people to an ICANN meeting? It’s not going to happen, Wendy, it’s not realistic. But it’s not been requested in any case. As to how the money is spent, yes, there’s considerable flexibility within the budget for projects to be originated and for money to be spent on them. But again, if you want to actually have a specific project that you want funding for you’d have to actually propose it at some point in advance of the budget being due. I repeatedly asked since last December for those budgets to be put forward…
WOMAN: Hold on, hold on. Whoa. Hold on. Wendy, what would you like to say now?
WENDY: I was merely clarifying that once again, that this is not an ALAC discretionary budget but a budget set by…from above…into which ALAC can sometimes channel some of its activities. I have requested research and we hoped that we could finally make some progress on that, and I have requested alternate participation in meetings to which I couldn’t travel to attend and was told that that was not possible.
NICK: I’ve never had that request made of me.
WOMAN: My I say something? <garbled> I just want to talk about the procedure of drafting the budget. I’m disappointed because we were really in time, asking for it in December, and I thought we were really, you know, way ahead and ready, you know, to plan something. And then we were told, “Oh, the forms are late. Oh, the whole process is later” and all this, so what we actually, what I thought, you know that, at least, the last time the budget committee did it, and this is what we expected to do really in time, was that we wanted to ask the committee and the At Large Structures <railers> in place, what are there projects so that we could get an idea and could do the planning. So, maybe the result is great. I have no idea about what has been done but it hasn’t been done by us. And, I think that is, as we asked for it and as we were told that we would get the forms, and that, yes, there is enough time, and that, yes, the planning is made, and so on, and so on. But that we would still be in time. So, this is…from the procedural point…this is very disappointing.
NICK: Well, all I can tell you is I have asked…yes, I was told that we would have more time than we ended up having. As I’ve said to you, I didn’t create the timeline. I simply had to respond to it… so, I did. As to what the community would like to fund, I’ve been asking since December and saying to the regions as well, “look, if you have something specific in mind, please tell me what it is.” In default, my default position is going to be that we have at least one more full-time person and that all that person does is help the regions. And so, there is nothing that prevents anyone from saying, “we should do a project on this”, “we need another body for that”. In fact, it’s far more persuasive for me to say to those above me, you know, that the community wants to do this and the community wants to do that, than for me to say, “I think we need another body, and here’s why”. It would be far more persuasive coming from you.
WENDY: And I think we don’t need another body if we don’t actually have a direction of that body.
NICK: I’m not sure what I get…you want?
MAN: I think one of the problems is that people just, you know, we really don’t know how to go about this, you know. We don’t want it to be a one-to-one thing, you know, one person or one group of us proposing one thing to the At Large...to Nick... instead, you know, if we could have this budget committee in ALAC that evaluates various proposals and communicates with Nick then maybe this would be easier, rather than individuals or individual subgroups of people communicating with Nick about general budget needs.
WOMAN: Right. What I thought would be the best way would be if each of the regions—the <realors>--- to work out their work plan – what do they want to do for the year – and then bring it to ALAC and then the Budgetary committee sits down and says ‘ok, Europe wants to do this, and ASAI-Pacific wants to do that, and this is how much its going to cost” and so on then send it all up to ICANN staff and say “ok, this is what we want to do”. But the regions didn’t give us any of that information. So, what are the leaves we have is a trunk of money that hasn’t…that can be…the four regions that will then need to be individually, say we want a project in Latin America, we will need to fill out the forms say “this is what we want to do, this is how much its going to cost” can we get the funding for it? And that will have to come to the ALAC <garbled> and to the ICANN staff and say, “right, yes, we’ve got the money, let’s go do this’.
MAN: But, you know, not all our budgetary needs are regional. There are some you know, like, you know, this research project, for example, this cuts across regions, it’s not regional. So, that’s the kind of thing that the ALAC budget committee can’t comment on and evaluate.
JACLYN: Funding, in general, for research, but since we didn’t have …we are no discussing Wendy’s research proposal that doesn’t have a cost attached. It’s a little difficult to say, yeah, you know, let’s put a line in there for this research project because we don’t know how much it’s going to cost. But, I don’t think that…I mean, it is…ICANN funding and they do have to have staff involvement. We can’t…because of the way we are formulated, elect to get our own funds and hire our own people…we can’t really say that this is what we want this person to do, and the person doesn’t have to take direction from us because were are not paying their salary. It is…I don’t see how any ICANN staff ho are paid to support us will be saying “no, we’re not going to do this”.
NICK: That’s right. We don’t get paid for ignoring you.
JACLYN: So, if we want something done, we say we want it done and, 9 times out of 10, I think 10 times out of 10, it will be done...Alright, what I would suggest is that we hold off on the rest of the discussion until we actually see the budget and see if there is anything left out that we particularly wanted in. At which point we can say, yes we want this in and this is how much money we want for it, and see if we can get it through in the next round of discussions because the budget isn’t finalized yet. It’s not set yet. We still have opportunity to adjust and add and subtract.
NICK: That’s right.
WOMAN: What about the report of the current financial year?
NICK: That was sent by email about a month ago…maybe more than a month ago now.
WOMAN: Then it was when I was sick. I apologize for not keeping up with my emails.
NICK: I know the problem, believe me.
WOMAN: We got your report. I’m still working on it, actually.
NICK: I’m waiting for the Lisbon report now…so, I’ll include when I have it.
WOMAN: Okay. Any other comment on the staff report? Because we still have a lot of things to go through and…
WOMAN: An hour… and fifteen minutes over.
WOMAN: Yes, I know. But we do have to get to the ALS applicant criteria.
MAN: I think we can discuss briefly what Vittorio wanted. We have to, you know, decide how we want to…when we want to elect at least a person who will be the Board representative, you know.
WOMAN: Right. So, those are two things we absolutely have to get to. So, do we put an end to the budget for now, until we get the new budget document that Nick is preparing and we can discuss it either online or in the next teleconference? And right now go on to the decision on when we should vote…no…the application and evaluation criteria.
MAN: Could I just say something about that?
WOMAN: Yes.
MAN: You know, we had a brief discussion of that in Lisbon, I think I was one of the few people who talked about it. And I felt uncomfortable…I was generally negative not because I was because I was necessarily negative, but because I felt that it was not the right time to discuss it, right after the Ombudsman intervention. It looked like we were reacting to something. And we did not have enough time to discuss this really in Lisbon. I want to suggest that—this is a very important issue—and I want to suggest that everybody looks at this carefully and we set a good block of time in Puerto Rico to discuss it.
WOMAN: Any comments on that?
WOMAN: I think that’s a good idea to discuss it there.
WOMAN: <garbled>…and discussing it properly in a meeting face to face there
WOMAN: And agreeing on it there? We have to agree on it.
WOMAN: So, in the meantime, everyone will look…
WOMAN: <Garbled> has been muted, and she is very angry.
WOMAN: She can’t un-mute?
WOMAN: No.
WOMAN: Well, look at your email
NICK: I don’t have an email from here, so I’ll…
WOMAN: It’s on the internal list and it’s to you so…
NICK: I don’t know...I haven’t got it yet. Yeah, yeah…Susie’s working on it. Can she not press star-6?
WOMAN: She says it doesn’t work.
NICK: <garbled> If you can hear us, try star-0.
WOMAN: Okay, while we’re trying to get <?> back. So we have agreed that we will…is it okay with everyone then of the…put the ALS application, evaluation criteria, discussion, and decision to a face-to-face meeting in Puerto Rico?
ALL: Yes
CHERYL: It’s too important to try and rush.
WOMAN: Okay.
NICK: I’m hoping that you all don’t feel the same way about the process and the reason that that is the case is because the MOUs have been in place for a variable amount of time now and we do need to actually embody their role as provided by their MOUs in the advice process of handling applications.
WOMAN: Yes.
JACLYN: Okay. Process, then. Has everyone read the process document? Is everybody ready to discuss and agree on the process?
WOMAN: I didn’t see the final-final. I was happy with the beginning.
NICK: The one comment that I will bring up that was mentioned, was…on the third-to-last step the number of ALAC members who would need to vote down an application…I put in three quarters which is, of course, the same margin that now is required to approve an application. In this model, that would be the number required to vote against an application. Obviously, that is not a magic number; I use three-fourths only because that is what we use now.
WENDY: I am puzzled by that because I don’t see any place where the region can vote against an application, and if the idea is to give more power to the regions, wouldn’t you want the region voting yes or no, and then the ALAC voting to approve or reject the region’s recommendation.
NICK: The region’s role is in the week seven which they are invited to vote yes, no, provide their advice yes, no, or abstain.
WENDY: Rather than making it a three-quarters vote to disapprove how about majority or super-majority vote to disagree with the vote of the region. So, if the region’s vote were “we all think this group doesn’t belong” then perhaps that should be…the default submission of the ALAC committee.
NICK: It seems logical anyway.
MAN: This is…are we getting in content, are we getting to discuss this or did we postpone it to Puerto Rico?
WOMAN: No. Puerto Rico we postponed the actual criteria, this is the process by which we can…
MAN: But this is also important. This is obviously something extremely important.
WOMAN: You want to discuss it together?
MAN: Why not? I mean…
NICK: Please remember, the regions have a role in their MOUs. The current process does not conform to the region’s MOUs. That’s the problem.
JACLYN: You prefer to discuss it face-to-face and agree on it in Puerto Rico?
MAN: The bylaws specify how this is going to be done, I think. And, if the MOUs are not consistent with the bylaws then there’s something wrong, you know?
NICK: The MOUs are consistent with the bylaws and nothing in this process is inconsistent with either.
MAN: So, are you saying that the way we have been voting on this has been inconsistent with the bylaws or neutral with respect to the bylaws?
JACLYN: I think what happens is since we didn’t have <railers> then we were consistent in that the regional representative were the ones that provided the regional advice on behalf of the as-not-yet created regional organizations. But we need to…since the <railers> have been created, we need to adjust our process to allow for the actual ALSs in the region and the secretariat in the region to provide the regional input, as opposed to the members on the ALAC providing regional input. But, what I will say is if we only have one more vote before Puerto Rico anyway, so if people are really uncomfortable with going ahead with it now, I don’t think it’s going to kill us to not have a formal process in place for one more vote. ‘Cause we’re in the May vote now, we will have one more vote in the beginning of June and then we’ll be in Puerto Rico so by the July vote we should have this agreed. If we postpone to Puerto Rico. If we don’t postpone to Puerto Rico then we’d have it agreed in time for the June vote. I don’t think it’s going to kill us either way, especially if anybody’s really uncomfortable with going through it very quickly now.
WOMAN: I’m fine. Let’s to both things, you know, together in Puerto Rico.
JACLYN: Okay, who votes for doing it in Puerto Rico?
CHERYL: I’m happy to deal with it in Puerto Rico, but I must say being a new person, I thought this proposed process covered all the bases very nicely.
JACLYN: Okay. Does anybody definitely want to <?> now. If not, I think we have an agreement that we can <place> this whole thing on the agenda in Puerto Rico, and get it done there and agree on it there.
(garbled)
WOMAN: Okay. Any questions on the current ALS applications?
WOMAN: Well, I tried to find the <CD> it’s not in the library and…
WOMAN: It was sent by email again, yesterday or today.
WOMAN: I didn’t <garbled>
SUSIE: Hello, it’s Susie here, I’m just sending out <garble> but as far as I can see in the library <garbled> I don’t know if there’s a problem with you viewing the library but I am literally just attaching a second one to an email for you now.
WOMAN: I got the rest that you were attaching in emails. I didn’t understand anything before, I’m sorry.
SUSIE: I’m sending an email with those two European to you now. Those two you should be able to view on the library so I don’t know if there’s a problem with your viewing the library because they are up there but I’m sending you an email now, this minute.
WOMAN: What I did get was the applications but not the due diligence. I was a little bit unsure about it and I also asked if that shouldn’t have been sent out to the RALO discuss list. So, I’m unsure for the moment what the first group is. It looked nice though.
NICK: This is the problem: we staff people are in a very difficult spot. We don’t have a process to incorporate the regions the way the MOUs state because the process gets tabled month after month. At the same time, there’s not a discussion over what to do in the meantime. So, I don’t want to make it up as I go along. To be honest, I don’t think that is my role: is to make up an ad hoc way to handle applications. So, as a result, we send them out to the regional ALAC members and we hope that you all are at least asking the regions for their advice. We can’t have it both ways. If you want to table something, you’re entirely within your rights to do that, but we can’t then root around and come up with something ad hoc.
JACLYN: What I suggest then is that each regional ALAC group take responsibility to for talking to the regions and getting some sort of feedback and condensing that feedback and sending it in to the ALACs. How’s that?
WOMAN: Yeah, I can take responsibility of that right today. For the time being, that’s what we’re going to do.
WOMAN: So, Nick you don’t have to go route here <garbled>
NICK: Well, it seems to be clear we’re not doing that. We’re doing what the normal process is until you all agree on what the new process is.
WOMAN: Okay. So, any questions on the ALS applications to discuss or do we move on? The vote ends on Wednesday, and when I checked only three people voted so far.
MAN: You mean tomorrow, right? This Wednesday, right?
WOMAN: This Wednesday, yeah.
WOMAN: But only three people have voted so far, in the week that it’s been opened.
CHERYL: Well, I’ve gone right through it. I certainly wanted to wait until this meeting to hear what, if any, discussion went on in the next item of business. I’ve read everything that is linked back to voting start. And Nick has quite kindly provided us with a little bit of background briefing, and of course there has been an ongoing discussion in the list as well. So, I have no intention of voting until after this meeting.
WOMAN: Okay. Does anyone have any questions or discussions on the particular applications before us right now?
WOMAN: <garbled> because I didn’t get the …I would have to look into the due diligence Suzie kindly sent to me now. I looked at the applications of the two European things and I did not really understand how they are organized <garbled> .So maybe the due diligence is information on that and then I will I will be fine. But I’m certainly not able to get a feedback within a day now by the region.
WOMAN: No, so that is certainly not possible.
WOMAN: Well…um...should we extend it until Friday? Nick, would that be possible, to extend it for a few more days until Friday so that everyone gets a chance to read and see how much feedback we can get and so on and so forth.
NICK: Sure. I know that we have a quite complicated slate of applications this time around so…Probably the most complicated set of applications we’ve ever had in one go that I can recall.
CHERYL: I’m glad to hear that because I was thinking <?> this is going to be exciting.
NICK: It’s all downhill from here Cheryl.
CHERYL: Thanks.
JACLYN: Okay, so when do we want to extend it to Friday or next week, Wednesday?
CHERYL: Friday, it should be.
JACLYN: Friday should be enough time for everyone?
MAN: Okay with me.
JACLYN: Next, and hopefully, second-to-last item is when should we elect our officers? Options are in San Juan, in this case in San Juan, but in the meeting before the AGM, if we should do it online and one month before the AGM in order to get the Board liaison position in time for the…to comply with the bylaws. At the AGM, but that would put us out of time with the bylaws with regard to the Board Liaison, and just after the AGM ends with the new members participating which would also put us out of synch with the bylaws which requires that the board be named before the AGM.
MAN: Could I make a simple suggestion? You know, could we just concentrate on one item, namely selecting the Board Liaison because this is the one that requires, you know, voting before the AGM. If it is agreed to have that vote, maybe online one month before the AGM that would do it. I just hate to have to go through another set of elections; we’ve had two sets of elections recently, and then having to go through another election for the Chair and the Vice-Chair and the Liaison, you know, this is really going to take so much time.
JACLYN: The thing is we have to do the elections every year.
MAN: Yeah, we do it at the AGM, you know…
JACLYN: We’re just trying to firm up when so that our election process is in line with the bylaws and stuff. So we can either do it the way we’ve been doing it which is at the AGM before the new members take their seats, or—and we do the Board liaison in advance of that—or we can do things in advance.
WOMAN: You’re talking about…the annual …the meeting in December or November, whenever it is.
JACLYN: Yeah, that meeting. That is the meeting in which the new members officially take their seats. That is when we get our new Board Liaisons to go to the Board meeting, and all the new members start at the end of that meeting.
WOMAN: So the discussion is if we are electing in San Juan or if we are electing after San Juan.
JACLYN: Well the discussion is wither we elect at the meeting before, if we want to elect in person…then we would have to elect in the meeting before because that’s the last…that’s the closest time that we are in person in time with the AGM.
WOMAN: That’s what I’m saying.
JACLYN: This year, that would be in San Juan.
WOMAN: Exactly.
NICK: May I just say you could include a transition arrangement to deal with the current year differently if you wanted to not have an election again having just had one three months ago.
MAN: At least that’s, you know, if you want to do it at the meeting before the AGM…let’s make an exception this year. Except, you know, if you want for the Board Liaison or just reconfirm the Board Liaison selection.
WOMAN: I think the more time we have, the better it is because, you know there’s so many people we didn’t even meet, you know, so it would be nice to get the chance to get to know each other and…
JACLYN: Okay, but remember this isn’t for just this year when we have a whole new set of RALO members and regional members but it is for the future: next year, and year after, and year after and all that. The only two ways that we will fit the bylaws are either we vote online, not face to face, for the Board Liaison and then we vote at the AGM for the rest of the positions. Or, we vote at the previous meeting for everything.
MAN: Or at the previous meeting for the Board Liaison, and the rest of them at the AGM.
JACLYN: Right, so we have three options.
WOMAN: That one makes sense to me.
JACLYN: Okay, do we vote at the meeting before the AGM for the Board Liaison and then at the AGM for everyone else? The question then is: do we vote at the beginning of the meeting—before the new members take their seats—or do we vote late in the meeting— well, the Friday afternoon when the new members have been officially put on the ALAC.
MAN: Actually, we’ve been urged to leave before Friday afternoon so…
JACLYN: Well, if we want the new members then we’re going to have to vote Friday afternoon, Friday lunchtime, Friday afternoon because as only when the Board meeting finishes that the new people take their seats. So, we can’t have new people voting in advance.
WENDY: …we could have the old members delegate their votes to the new members even though the new members are not officially instated.
JACLYN: We could do that too.
NICK: Or you could also have a nomination before and the actual election done online in the few days immediately proceeding…
WOMAN: <garbled>
NICK: After the meeting. <garbled> then electronically. You wouldn’t have to literally stay an extra day. Not everybody might be there either, remember? All the new members may not be there physically anyway.
WOMAN: So, let’s decide.
MAN: I think this last alternative sounds good. At the meeting before AGM, we discuss, you know, who the candidates are and then we vote online. How’s that? This is for the Board Liaison, right?
WOMAN: Right. So, we split it and we do the Board Liaison. We discuss it in the meeting before. We vote online immediately after the meeting. In the AGM we discuss all the candidates for all the other positions and we vote online immediately thereafter as well.
WOMAN: So, that’s the proposal on the Board?
JACLYN: Is there anybody who has something against this particular proposal? Is there anyone who has strong feelings against that final proposal?
WOMAN: Could you repeat the proposal? I’m sorry.
JACLYN: The proposal is: we discuss the candidacy for the Board Liaison at the meeting before the AGM and vote immediately online after that meeting. So, in this particular case, we discuss it in San Juan, vote on it online after San Juan, send the name to the Board well within the 30 days before deadline. At the AGM, we would then discuss the candidates for all the other positions: Chairs, Vice-Chairs, etc, etc, etc…and those people would then be voted for online after the AGM. <Garbled>…and immediately take up their positions, I guess. So, by the beginning of January, we would have everybody sorted.
W: Yes, that makes sense.
JACLYN: Any objections to that? Oh…thank the Lord, okay. In that case, that’s the process.
CHERYL: Excellent.
JACLYN: And the last thing…I’m sorry we’re going on so late but…the last thing is the request to staff to the <unregistrars>…that’s the second to last thing, sorry… request to staff to the <unregistrars>. Wendy, as an action item last time did draft a request which…Nick, what is the next…you have it…
WENDY: Sorry, I move for a vote on formally requesting such…that research.
JACLYN: Okay.
NICK: May I, just briefly put something in here. There is, apparently, some research of this nature which already exists. I talked to Denise about this earlier which she is going to get forwarded to me. My suggestion to you is…not that you not want this done, ‘cause it seems like quite useful information, but the compiling of this information across 840 registrars would be quite resource-intensive, would require somebody to do just that, and it would be much easier to sell that if along with the request if you closely have looked at what there is along this line and decided that changes some of the questions that you wish to have asked or not but secondarily, that you can extract what use the information would be…how it would be used, since its not trivial to acquire it. So, I guess what I’m saying is; if you could steer your way clear…asking if this research could be done but if could make that request taking into account what you think of what already has been done and how it would be used.
WENDY: Given the total inability of anyone to do any work in between conference calls, I first would like to move for the vote that I’ve called for.
JACLYN: Okay, could I suggest that we change here your wording, slightly? And say that we would like to resolve, the same way we did list the <?> report, that we would like to resolve that we create a formal request for said research including the input of whatever, whatever, whatever currently exists.
WENDY: I’d actually…I move that we vote to request the research as set forward in that paper. People vote that down, I’m happy to consider alternative wording.
JACLYN: Okay. Alright, there is a request for vote on the table. Anybody in favor?
WOMAN: Aye.
WOMAN: Yes.
WOMAN: Anybody else in favor?
WOMAN: Aye
JACLYN: Okay, anybody against? Okay…since nobody’s against, I guess that’s it. So… Do we? What’s the next step? Do we actually…
NICK: I will transmit the request. I feel sure that I will be asked to answer the question that was the second part of my intervention there – what use does ALAC intend to make of this information once it’s gathered? You might wish to consider how you would answer that question. And, I will, of course, forward to you all, the information that currently exists.
JACLYN: Okay. Wendy, is that okay with you?
WENDY: Thank you.
JACLYN: And could you liaise with Nick on the things that he thinks we will get asked? About the use that we are going to put it to.
WENDY: Sure.
W: Because it’s always better to have the answer before they ask the question.
NICK: Let’s put it this way: that intervention of mine was not accidental. I can assure you that question will be asked.
WENDY: And I’m sure individually, we all have answers to that question. I just have no confidence that spending more time talking about it on the phone would bring us closer to those answers.
JACLYN: I want to jump to support for a <?> ALAC website because Denise has received our request and sent back a request for more information with a series of questions. I’m not sure if everyone has seen that email, and do we have anyone volunteering to fill out those questions, and respond to her so we can get the funding? Do we want to discuss wither we should continue to have a separate ALAC website. One of the things that she did bring up is…interesting…is that the point of the ALAC site was originally that we run it ourselves so that we don’t have ICANN staff interfering and requiring everything to be passed by ICANN legal etc, etc…and we would have a space for us to say our own thing.
WOMAN: This is why there must have been a misunderstanding invading our proposal. As far as I have seen the last version we had sent in…very much drafted my <?> and myself…was what we…and what we agreed on before was that we don’t want to have someone writing the text but someone who is coordinating it and…that it is easy for us to just hand it in…someone who looks and says, “well, this is missing”….sort of organize it but not writing the content. We are the ones who write the content so it wouldn’t be necessary that, you know…it’s not authors we are hiring and so, I think there is a misunderstanding here.
NICK: I can speak to that point if you like. If an ICANN contractual or staff person is posting something that is publicly accessible it has to go through the same approval process as if that person were the originator of the text being posted.
WOMAN: That is new to me.
WOMAN: Well.
JACLYN: So, basically it means that if I send you a document to put up on the site as opposed to putting it up myself, you have to send it through the process?
NICK: Yup
JACLYN: So, it’s easier if I post it myself?
NICK: And then its free of…being reviewed.
JACLYN: It’s free of being reviewed? This happens even if I post it on the social text site or any of the other official ALAC ICANN sites?
NICK: The social text sites are the…have the fortunate status of being exempted from this because they are wikis and…I…fought a lot…
WOMAN: Excuse me? “Because”? I didn’t hear you/
NICK: Because I fought for the exemption so that the whole site represented being editable by the community and therefore they are not considered as ICAN sites. What I proposed to them does actually go through legal excepting anything related to agendas…staff agendas for meetings, and that kind of thing.
JACLYN: Okay
NICK: You can imagine how fun my job can be.
JACLYN: Right. So, what it means then is that the social text wiki is free ICANN legal oversight. The ALAC.ICANN.org is subject to legal oversight. And ICANNALAC.org would be…anything that is posted by Jean as a contractor would be subject to legal oversight but if I posted it myself, or Wendy or whoever, then it would not be subject to ICANN legal oversight.
NICK: That’s right.
WOMAN: I don’t get it.
WOMAN: and legal exists to help all of us…remember…
WOMAN: I’m this poor person who did not study law…
JACLYN: Basically, what it seems to be is: Jean is paid by ICANN, and if she posts in the social wiki…the social text wiki isn’t subject.
WOMAN: I’m just asking…if there was Jean, hired by ICANN staff, and she puts text in the social text wiki then there wouldn’t be any problems…
JACLYN: No, because then she would have to submit it, because then she would be in the same position as Nick.
WOMAN: But Nick does not.
JACLYN: Nick submits…anything he posts has to pass through…
NICK: If it is a draft agenda then I don’t have to get it reviewed or “here’s how you connect to the meeting” or “here’s Verizon’s conference call” that kind of thing. I don’t have to review those things but any matter of substance I do have to have checked.
JACLYN: So, if Jean were to post as an ICANN contractor to he social text wiki anything of substance she would have to send it to legal for it to be vetted before it was allowed to be posted.
NICK: That’s right.
JACLYN: So, if we…if I send a document to Jean and say, “hey, put it up on ICANNALAC.org for me”, she would have to submit my submission to ICANN legal. If I logged in and posted it up myself, it would not be subject.
NICK: You got it.
WENDY: Having this discussion, we should be having the discussion why they adopted such an insanely overwrought policy.
NICK: It’s something that has been discussed many times, as you might imagine.
JACLYN: So, what I would suggest that if anyone…let us form a little sub-group to draft up some responses to the needs on this and decide…and say, “this is what we want”…Have we agreed that we do want to keep ALACICAAN.org? Because that seems to be a question that Denise is asking as well. And, if we agree here today, “yes, we want to keep it” then we can form a little sub-group to…without the reasons and the rationals…and present her with a full-blown piece for…yes…why we should have it done and how we intend to have it work. Do we want to keep ALACICANN.org?
>Yes
JACLYN: Does anybody not want to keep ALACICANN.org? Okay. Who wants to be part of this group to work on this? I will. If nobody’s volunteering…it doesn’t make sense for me to work on it all by myself. Anyone? Is anybody still on the call?
NICK: I’m here.
CHERYL: <garbled> telling us our lines are silent or not silent, and having to get back in again…I’m not willing to either commit at this stage.
JACLYN: Okay. But we do want to have the site but, you see, the thing is there is nobody willing to enter quick content then why are we bothering to have it? If we can’t even, you know, volunteer to create a document to fight for it then how are we going consistently put content on it?
NICK: Is it worth me saying a bit… in writing more…about what will soon be possible on the server that we just got, in terms of blogs and all the rest of it, because I know that there’s only very brief mention of that?
JACLYN: Yeah…I guess so…everything will help.
CHERYL: That could be very useful because there’s one thing to pick a particular site and name, there’s another thing of perhaps transporting some of the activities in terms of user content …user-generated content…
NICK: It may interest you to know that I am not a carve-out from the…so many words come to mind I’m not going to use any of them…legal process of approving postings is the blogs, the ICANN blogs…So, I can imagine how people might find the existing approval system overkill…might be a word, I suppose that could be used…But, it is being reviewed and all that…at some point it will continue to evolve more but it…you know…we are…what we have is what we have at the moment.
JACLYN: Okay. Well…I will start drafting some responses and push them out…and see who comes in on it. Okay. And that should be the last item on the agenda and it has been two hours. But it did take 25…nearly 25 minutes for people to get connected. So, Nick, we’ve got to do something about that…because we end up not starting and we wait for 10 minutes, until, you know, 10 to, quarter to, when we’re supposed to start at half passed because we have to…because it takes so long for people to get in to the call.
NICK: There is a…we can check on this…I know that there is the possibility of having calls where you just directly key in your access code. For instance, the ICANN staff calls are like this. I think if you opt for that method…I’m looking at Stevie meaningfully as I’m saying this…then you don’t have somebody managing the call, but I’m not sure. But we can check on that because then there’s no delay; you’re not sitting on call waiting for an operator to answer, you just key in your code and you’re on. So, I’ll see if we can get those.
JACLYN: That is good for those who call in but those who are called, for example, I was called at 9.15, so I’ve been on this call for two hours, 15 minutes.
NICK: Well, that we’re going to take up with them, and we’re also going to take up more strongly the problems that <Hans> has had.
CHERYL: Yeah, because that’s ridiculous.
NICK: Yeah.
CHERYL: You should be able to just star-6 yourself in an out, even if you do have to listen to that inane message 27 times during a two hour meeting.
NICK: We will, say, check on wither or not we can get simple mode which doesn’t actually tell you the same thing a thousand times.
CHERYL: I mean...I’m not that stupid…I remembered.
NICK: I’d be very worried if you needed that instruction that many times, Cheryl, I’d be very worried.
JACLYN: Okay. So, thank you very much everyone for this very long…not supposed to be long…but ended up being long call. And we will continue to reduce the length of time because this one was actually shorter than the last one.
CHERYL: You’ve done well, but now I’m wide awake, what does a girl do at half past one in the morning? Any suggestions?
JACLYN: Drink a glass of wine and listen to music, and look at the view …I don’t know.
NICK: None of them would work nicely with a recorded teleconference.
CHERYL: Well, I don’t know …Thank you very much. I must say that I found the…other than the echo… it was easier…auditory this time than it was last time so there have been some improvements, Nick. So, you don’t feel a bit stressed, me having a bitch. It was actually easier this time than it was last time that the echo seems to have disappeared during the call this time which makes a big difference.
NICK: I’m glad at least one thing worked about this call. ‘cause otherwise, technologically it wasn’t widely admired. I’m very sorry about that, guys.
JACLYN: We will keep improving. You’ll not believe but it has gotten a lot better since last year.
NICK: If anybody wants to , I can just…in five seconds…go over he Lisbon stuff but…otherwise, I encourage you to hit the link on the agenda page for this meeting because I’ve set up some place holders after talking with Jaclyn for meeting times and dates, and things.
WOMAN: Perfect.
WOMAN: I would be very happy to put together this two minute schedule of the most important issues
NICK: The heartbeat summary would be that the LAC regional general assembly would take place all day on the Sunday, along side the North American region’s first meeting. So, those regions, ALAC representatives would come in time for Saturday night, everybody else would come in time for Sunday night…or Sunday, if you wish…and we would then have two workshops back-to-back early in the week, one of them being Wolfgang’s thing on geographic <PLZs> and the other being a generalized policy <?> and discussion with the community as a whole. And then on Thursday afternoon has ALAC business meeting with the meeting with the Boards at the same time and date, Tuesday from 11.30-12.30, as at the Lisbon meeting. So, that will become a standing meeting with the Board.
JACLYN: Okay. I think that standing meeting is a good time.
NICK: We should be in a position, as I said; once this travel policy is done…we should be in a position to have ALAC members start buying their tickets through the ticketing system…next week, really. That’s my goal.
JACLYN: Great.
WOMAN: And talking about standing meetings, I had the honor to give the report to the high level group on Internet Government…
JACLYN: Hello?
NICK: I think we’ve lost her.
CHERYL: That’s ridiculous.
JACLYN: Oh…my Lord…
CHERYL: Nick, this is so unfair for…some of us…
NICK: Yeah…well…this is…we’re in danger of hitting a new low. If we stay on for 10 or 15 more minutes we can find a few more things wrong with Verizon, if we’re not careful.
JACLYN: Okay, wait. Is somebody back?
NICK: It sounded like a click. It sounded almost as if she could have unintentionally hit the hang-up button or something. I’m sure she’ll tell us if she thinks that’s what it is, but with out luck it probably isn’t that, it’s probably Verizon. The other thing is that we should start planning relatively soon for what exactly At Large wants at the IGF in RIO. There is money in the budget for three people to go from At Large. But, obviously, that could be something at Lisbon…I mean, San Juan.
JACLYN: Yeah. Okay. Alright…well…thank you whoever’s still there.
CHERYL: Those few of us who are still in communication.
JACLYN: See you online and talk to you next month.
CHERYL: Nick, I’m going to email you on one or two little tiny technical matters, if you don’t mind. But, it won’t be right now, so you…
NICK: That’s alright; I think you should stay up all night to email me. Needless to say, I’m joking.
CHERYL: We could talk them all through, if you want me to.
NICK: Until we’re disconnected too, I’m sure that’s only a matter of time.
CHERYL: I suspect that could be a test, yes.
NICK: One thing, Cheryl, though, if you could send a bio to me, ‘cause there’s room for bios of the committee members on ICANN.org, and I just don’t have a bio for you.
CHERYL: Okay, that’s not a problem. I can do that. <Garbled> I’ve only been on the list for a certain length of time. I’ve gone back through tonight’s meeting and I’m not totally sure that have that original budget, you know…seeing that I’m on he budget sub-committee I probably need to be able to access the…
NICK: I will send it to you.
CHERYL: So, its just little things like that, you know, now I’m being <garbled> background for that type of stuff. I think if we could just do that online rather than waste your time now when you’ve got a working day in front of you.
NICK: Or just tell me when you want me to ring you, and I’ll...you know, call you up at a civilized hour.
CHERYL: There’s nothing civilized about me. You’ve met me more than once now, you should know that.
NICK: We can pretend.
JACLYN: What an you possibly do …<garbled>…a budget package that includes the forms and the document that says how IANN does its budgeting that we got in Morocco before you were there.
NICK: Yeah…once I find it, I’ll send it…if I find it…
CHERYL: …some stuff that I’d like to be briefed on. I mean, I did do my homework but the mechanisms for navigation are probably not quite as easy as they could be, and I suspect that something is being fixed with the new servers and how you will be able to operate them. Is that not the case?
NICK: Yeah, that is the case. Now, that I’ve finally got access to the damn machine. Yeah…that only took eight weeks so…
CHERYL: Ah, well…that’s alright…we’ve got plenty of time.
NICK: It was supposed to be two days and it took eight weeks, so what can I tell you.
CHERYL: <garbled> Good night all.
ALL: Bye.
