Cheryl: Okay – Olivier – very great thanks. I'm glad to be so serendipity that you caught me between the meetings. If you could start from the top – very briefly – I'd greatly appreciate it.
Olivier: Okay. Can everybody hear me well?
Vs: Yes.
Olivier: Okay. Perfect.
As you probably know, I went to the London meeting of the IRT. I met up with a chap called Konstantinos Komaitis who represented the NCUC over there. He came up with a statement.
In the meantime, also, having met Kathy Kleiman from NCUC in Sydney, I got in touch with her and basically discussed the IRT with her on various occasions.
In the meantime, there have also been discussions between Kathy Kleiman, Konstantinos Komaitis, Patrick Van de Walle, Hong and Evan – which were going on about how to tackle this whole IRT thing.
The problem that Kathy is faced with at the moment is that she was funded by NCUC for a while. She is running out of funds for this whole thing. So she's starting to get a little concerned about the fact that it looks as though ICANN staff at the moment is trying to really push this IRT thing forward through the whole roadshow system. And that we will end up in September with a new drafting of the IRT – where it'll be too late to make any comments and to stop this altogether.
There are two schools of thought. We could stop the IRT, itself. The first one is where Kathy thinks she would be able to – along with other people – go to see the ICANN board or see the directors of ICANN. We're talking about directors and vice president as well.
We have to find some kind of solution to this. We understand the pressure you were under on your side. But at the same time, we also do not like what is in the IRT. Can we find a middle of the road solution? Or is there a way that we can actually have counter-proposals put forward to have things return more agreeable to everyone?
The inaudible is the work of Evan. In a way, I think he's right, as well. He basically said that, "Well, our members have outwardly rejected the IRT proposals, and we have to stick to our guns. If we don't, ICANN is never going to really take notes of what ALAC does – and they're not going to take it seriously."
These are the two things that we have.
Whilst I was in London, I was also online and discussed the IRT online in the discussion room that was taking place at the same time. PDT came to me and said, "Look. I understand that ALAC is against the inaudible and voiced it quite a few times. We know that. However, do you have any counter-proposals for us? What do you suggest, instead?"
I have a feeling that somehow they must be under intense pressure from inaudible to come up with something. The IRT team itself has come up with a solution that the board also feels might not be the best solution.
I spoke to a number of people on the IRT team that inaudible including Fabricio Vera. The thing is, I have a feeling they don't even want to change whatever solutions they've built in there.
They are absolutely convinced about the difference in there. They're convinced that trademarks are there to protect people. In fact, even people should pay for trademarks to be there to protect them.
At the end of the day, they always come up with the initial things. Talking about medicines and fake goods that might injure people. Trademarks are enforced. They will basically have to be somehow paid for by users and – of course – by themselves.
That's the gist of the story. But the big question we're faced with now is, "What can we do right now?" Does ALAC want to continue working with NCUC? My own belief is that those two constituencies can make a really strong case. Then at the same time, is ICANN going to push back and say, "Right! We hear you guys. We know that the users are the most important people in ICANN. So we're going to stop that."
Nick: Well, I have a comment there that may be useful.
Alan: And I have a comment, also.
Cheryl: Yes. I believe it's very important that Nick – you're probably going to make the clarification that I suspect you're going to. So, if you'll go first – and then Alan.
Nick: I was just going to note that – as far as I know – and this is really all that I'm aware of… The only thing that the staff is doing at the moment related to the IRT is… looking at whether or not their proposals are actually implementable. Because it's not at all certain that even if there were agreements, those proposals should be accepted. They could be implemented in any way that would be really workable.
I don't know of any stop effort that suggests that the IRT report should be rammed through. The board has certainly not resolved that in any way. They've done nothing but thank the IRT for their input.
ALAC and the NCUC are far from the only communities that objected to various parts of the IRT report. I think there are plenty of people who feel that the report is imperfect in various ways. Evan, of course, has proposed a way in a multi-stakeholder way to try to come up with something that would work, and gain wide adherence.
That said, I have to tell you – and I hope that you'll accept this in candor, and not repeat it… The At-Large community has far more credibility on any issue you care to mention than the non-com users' constituency does. The best evidence of that is what is going on with the NCUC charter.
I don't think you all need any help in making your position known and being respected for the positions you take. If it suits you to make common cause with others, then make common cause with others.
I don't think you actually need to buttress your concerns with that of the NCUC, in particular. There are other communities that actually have more standing that you could ally with, if you really wanted to increase the impact of your statement.
Cheryl: Thank you for that. Alan?
Alan: I guess I heard something in what Olivier said – which was very different from what Evan said.
Cheryl: Yes. Exactly why I've asked Olivier to share this additional information – which doesn't change the outcome of our discussions, but I think is important input.
Thanks, Alan. Go ahead.
Alan: Olivier said there are two options – two ways – to go forward. One is the one proposed by Kathy. It essentially says or is prefaced as saying, "Go to the board," or, "Go to the individual board members or president." To say, "Is there some way we can try to middle-ground?"
He characterized Evan's proposal as, "Stick to our guns," and say, "We're against the IRT." That's not what I heard Evan say.
Evan's proposal was far closer to what I just heard Olivier characterize as Kathy's proposal. Maybe the mechanics may be somewhat different.
I think this is important. As one of the discussions in all of this, Olivier has a completely different opinion of what Evan said than what Evan said out loud to us. I'm somewhat concerned. I'd like to resolve that before we go ahead.
Cheryl: Yes. I guess that was very much why I got concerned. I would like to have heard, as Evan was speaking to what at one stage was a formal resolution, that all of this background work has been going on. Indeed, when we discussed – and Olivier, I won't keep you very much longer… But that resolution that I passed through you the URL for did not go through as a resolution at all.
In fact, what happened is that we – as an ALAC – said that of course we already have a workspace for the ALAC IRT work group. A number of people with significant expertise have put their names forward to that.
With Evan, Hong and Patrick being co-leaders of that revitalized work group – that work group was put together to support delegates that we thought we would be putting into the original IRT process. But as you know, that didn't happen. We can resuscitate that.
A multi-stakeholder exploration – building very much on what it sounds like you've all been doing anyway – should be encouraged. We also instructed Evan that what we'd like to see – and staff is going to assist here by making sure we know who was around the table at the joint NCUC and ALAC meeting on this matter in Sydney. It was the new players, and some very useful contributions were being made. So they could be invited to be in this process.
Olivier: Cheryl – can I just say one thing? With regard to Evan, I think the gist of what he was saying was that ALAC should stick to its guns on its original contribution that it came up with.
Alan: That is not what I heard him say, at all.
Cheryl: That's not what the resolution of this discussion tonight… That's right, Alan.
Alan: By the way – I tend to agree with Nick. Treating our primary ally and the primary resource as NCUC, I don't think, is a good strategy. I don't want to exclude them. But I don't want to have it perceived that this is an ALAC/NCUC endeavor.
Vanda: Yes. I certainly agree, Alan.
Cheryl: Yes. Thank you, Vanda.
Olivier – I think it's important that you hear this, as well. Very clear in the ALAC meeting was that we want a genuine multi-stakeholder input. But specifically, focused on user interest. To simply put up in counterpoint how things are just against IRT would be not only not adaptive… it probably would just meet with outright rejection because of the huge amount of belief. And of course, the energy, effort and funds that have been exploited on the IRT process, today.
We need to handle the whole thing very, very carefully – but ensure that prior to the ALAC, we could take to the board's attention the perspective from the user point of view. Outlining where agreements on principles are – as well as what we think are our limitations. That's a helluva long ways from just rejecting IRT.
Olivier: Okay.
Cheryl: But Olivier, we need to be very, very clear. We would like the people who were around the table to be involved. So we'll make sure that it's a comment. But you need to hear that – just like the matters of the charters for the non-com stakeholder group – to someone not necessarily entrenched in the history of the criticisms of specifically the NCUC and the gNSO review… we need to be very careful. We must have a genuinely broad – not just bilateral – approach.
Olivier: Yes.
Cheryl: You know how it is with some people where you see their names on e-mails and you don't even bother reading the e-mails? You respond. You predict what you're going to hear. By doing that, you risk actually missing out on particularly useful and good information when inaudible.
We would risk doing that to some of the board if we just hitched our wagons solely to NCUC.
Olivier: Okay.
Is there anything I can do? Obviously, I'm going to respond to some of the discussions that are taking place, here.
Cheryl: Keep up the energy and the good work.
Basically, you've heard what the ALAC discussed. I would encourage you to listen to the mp3. Look at the meeting notes from tonight's meeting. But you should be… and I believe I did mention your name in the discussion… an integral part of the work group that builds the next steps.
As should Kathy – as should the others that you mentioned.
Alan: Cheryl?
Cheryl: Yes. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: In particular, if Oliv`e feels that Evan's current position is the one he characterized. That a large part of this effort should simply be to pursue the ALAC and the ALAC/NCUC position of, "We object, we object, we object – you can't do it."
If he feels that is still a current position, we need to know about that. Because that is not what he asked for permission to do.
Olivier: Obviously, these are discussions that we're currently having. So obviously, I'm not sure. If you haven't given the green light to change that view…
Alan: He didn't say anything like that when he talked to us.
Alan: Not having heard you, I would not have applied that position to him, at all.
Nick: Nor did he say that to me when he talked to me in advance of the ALAC calls, in the same vein.
Olivier: Maybe he's now his position today. I don't know the date that you spoke to him.
Cheryl: Well, that would be wonderful if that's the case. But if it's not the case, we would certainly want to know about it sooner rather than later. I don't believe it would be in the greater good for what we've all agreed upon – the end-game, here… which is to alert the board in a way that is proactive and productive. To encourage them to consider views that clearly are coming from the community, but that are consolidated into an end-user view, and put forward to them via the ALAC – as we have direct ability to advise the board on matters.
Alan: I think we need to keep in mind the pressures on the board. They have the pressures from the IP community. They have the pressures from – at this point – us and NCUC and others saying, "You've gone far past what IP law allows." And you have all the people who want to sign up for new gTLDs saying – and I use the vernacular… "We don't give a shit. Just get on with the process."
Cheryl: Yes.
Believe me, there are users interests in that, as well – because you're tying up IDNs in the same way.
Alan: I understand all of that.
Olivier: It sounds like you've all got a good grasp of what's going on. So I'll let you get on with the rest of your meeting.
Cheryl: Olivier, I appreciate that. Please maintain a highly active role. Feel free to certainly contact me, as I know you do – but any of the ALAC people. As you can hear, we're all rather passionate about this matter. It's a huge amount of work, but it has to be done by "the community."
What we've said tonight is that the ALAC wishes to support it wholeheartedly.
Oliv`e: You have to be passionate about it. I think it's very important. It's one thing where ALAC would actually make sure – and the At-Large community would make sure that – ICANN does not make a major mistake that would be a total Pandora's Box when opened.
Cheryl: But if it goes out in the name of the ALAC, it has to go out with extraordinarily high standards and criteria. Otherwise, it simply won't go.
Olivier: I have full confidence that you'll be able to do that.
Cheryl: Well, all we can do is work with you inaudible. inaudible goes to the garbage bin.
Alan: Thank you, Olivier.
Cheryl: Thank you, Olivier.
Olivier: Thanks very much for listening, and I'll keep you updated. Cheers.
Cheryl: Thank you so much.
Olivier: Bye-bye.
Cheryl: Bye.
Cheryl: Thank you for indulging me to bring him in on that. But I was just hearing stuff from him that was totally at counterpoint to what we heard in the meeting.
Alan: It was only the statement about Evan. I don't know about you, but I had read all that background before, and don't feel that Evan left it out with any malice.
Cheryl: Well, when he was speaking to me, his quote was, "F*ck the lot of them." Evan's quote was…
Alan: Well, as I said, that was the discrepancy, to me. Not the lack of background.
Cheryl: So – we just need to watch that closely. Right. You're all going to have to come with me on a bio break. I can't mute my headset, so… Vanda – can you just sort of manage it for the very next item that we should be dealing with.
Alan: What do you need from me in five minutes? That's what I need to ask.
Cheryl: You're just determined to kill me. I know.
Alan: No! Go! But I don't know how quickly you're going to get back.
Cheryl: Well, I'm not leaving.
Alan: I'm going to really embarrass myself and ALAC if we don't…
Cheryl: We actually have simply the policy advice stuff – the descriptions and the election process – none of which we got through at today's meeting.
Alan: I'm going to ask you to discuss what you need. You have my phone number. Call out to me if you want to get me involved. I need to start doing some prep. Okay?
Cheryl: Yes. Okay. And Alan – how are we going to manage bringing in new people for this new meeting? Is that something that we can encourage the post-expiry domain name? Can we encourage Heidi to raise this at each of the RALOs?
Alan: Let me see how this meeting goes, and then I'll do something – either with Heidi or alone. Okay?
Cheryl: All right.
Alan: Call me if you need me.
Cheryl: inaudible Alan.
Vanda: Okay.
Cheryl: Bye.
Okay – Vanda – you inaudible start.
How light – quite literally – can we go with these election polls and still meet our criteria? One thing that comes to my mind at the moment is, we probably need to run them all in parallel – all the liaison positions – including the board liaison position – if things run much later.
Vanda: Yes.
Nick: You couldn't do that without reaching the rules of procedure. You need to do all the other liaisons after the Seoul meeting.
Cheryl: Yes. We've got to call for them before the Seoul meeting.
Nick: You can call for nominations, but I believe they're taken up to…
Cheryl: They're taken during. But we have to run them just before.
Nick: Or just after.
Cheryl: No. The voting goes just after. We actually open it just before. So we can still accept people during the meeting.
Vanda: Yes.
Nick: Yes.
Cheryl: So how late? What is our end-date for doing the board-election call? Have we worked backward?
Nick: Well, technically, one could have the result of the board elections on something like the 25th of September. That would be basically a month before. Let me give you the exact date.
Heidi: Nick, I have a suggestion. Is there any way we could get a calendar together that has start-dates of nominations and deadlines, et cetera, for all of these open elections?
Nick: They need to go into our general calendar. The point is, what are the dates? That's what we're trying to establish.
Vanda: Yes.
Nick: The board meeting is on the 30th of October. You could have the result of the liaison nominations go to JJ on the 30th of September.
Vanda: Yes.
Nick: You could, in fact… inaudible rather late.
Cheryl: Yes. If we find out… Sorry – go ahead, Vanda.
Vanda: I believe we need some time. We should inaudible. It's a little complicated. So we're going to have a lot of questions from the RALOs, and debates about how to do this and that. We need some time.
In some areas – like Europe and the United States, in our group, it's hard to find people. They will start to think of that in the beginning of September.
So inaudible and try to get people to the discussion, and open at least one meeting for inaudible
Nick: For example…
Cheryl: Is it possible and practical for me to flag the community that I will be putting out the call for election of the board liaison on the 30th of August? Or the 30th of August?
Nick: I'd say something slightly different.
All of the dates where you read "August," in the proposed letter, could read, "September." And the announcement of the result of the voting could be the 1st of October, 2009. That would mean that you could say, "Look…" The formal election call will be issued on whatever date in September.
The RALOs have between now and the 17th of September to propose their candidates for the positions. That would give them quite a bit of time.
Cheryl: Yes. Okay.
Nick: Even including holidays.
Cheryl: Yes.
Vanda: Yes. It's not difficult in the South part of the world. But in the North, that's summertime. They will not be there.
Cheryl: That's a heap of time, though, Vanda – if we do it as proposed.
Nick: Even if they were off for the entire month of August, it would still give people two weeks of September.
Cheryl: Yes.
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: Okay. Let's do that, then. I'm happy with that way forward.
Nick: Then we could get this translated.
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: Vanda?
Nick: I think she muted herself or hung up on herself.
Vanda: Yes. I muted myself. Hello!
Cheryl: laughter
Nick: There were a couple of other comments on the text, which you might want to consider.
Cheryl: Yes. Well, we're looking at the text. What are the comments?
Nick: The comments were… They're all on the agenda page for this meeting that was today.
Cheryl: Yes. I've just gone back there.
Nick: The level of commitment… People said, "Is this realistic?" To have this level of commitment.
Cheryl: ?
Nick: Yes.
Other than that, the timeline is the main thing.
Cheryl: I'm looking basically at questions asked, and you've answered them all. Is that not the case?
Nick: I think most of it. Yes. I mean there were questions about people – well – Adam – not having read the whole procedure.
Vanda: Yes.
Nick: Yes. I guess other than that, the only other thing is the level of commitment question. But it's your e-mail. You can say what you'd like.
Cheryl: The fact that we didn't get to this… We've listed it as a decision at this meeting. We've now said that we will be finalizing anything that we didn't get to for tonight's – today's – meeting next week.
If we can change the dates…
Nick: Sure.
Cheryl: …then start the announcements. I think around next week's agenda, whilst it was an issue for decision at the meeting, it is – in fact – more of a discussion than a decision matter. It was more of an information sharing than it was.
They've had a chance now to have a look at it. I think we might just post that for review and information at our next ALAC meeting.
Heidi – when we put these agenda items together for whenever the doodle decides, the process of the liaison election should be a Number 2 or Number 3 item. It says, "Discussion of the proposed text," and "Here is the link."
The text can be in English at this stage, but we can already start the translations, once those dates change.
V: inaudible
Cheryl: Back to our agenda.
Was there anything else we need to catch on that or not?
Nick: I don't think so. The main thing I can foresee is that we need a number of dates for the policy advice that's out in the schedule. I suspect you'd also provide that very readily.
Cheryl: Yes.
Let's go through that, then.
Nick: On the first thing – improvements to the public consultation process… We have that consultation having closed on the 8th of July. However, we did not have the French and Spanish versions for technical reasons until quite recently.
So if you all like, we can simply say that there is 30 days more to allow those language versions to be reviewed. And we can publish an announcement to the same effect in those languages.
Cheryl: Yes. That would be good.
What does that new thing that… Sorry – I really have had enough, today.
Vanda: I can imagine.
Cheryl: The matter that was brought up tonight. The new announcement that has a September date on it… Where does that fit in?
Nick: I'm just changing that date while we're all here.
The new announcement of the proposed bylaw amendments that relates to…
Cheryl: That relates to this.
Nick: The "Way Forward" text. That ends on…
Heidi: The 25th of September. I'm just putting the link in, now.
Cheryl: Fantastic. We may as well have things in sync.
Nick: Yes. Announcements. Every time I look at the inaudible site, things have moved.
Yes. 60 days. So – the public comment runs 'til the 25th of September on this. We could just move backward from that time and simply ask Sébastien and those two working groups to come up with not only the text he has done, but reply…
Cheryl: …to the additional one, as well. Yes. Great. That works for that. So we just change the NAs now to meaningful dates.
We're on track for the board review working group. That went in, didn't it? Didn't we send a warm-fuzzy?
Nick: Board review working group. No. We have a text. I'm trying to remember now. Matthias – are you on the call?
Matthias: I'm thinking.
Heidi: Nick, Vanda sent an announcement out to the lists. But there was no deadline for it.
Nick: No deadline was set.
Cheryl: Right.
Nick: At that same time, there is now a bylaw amendment proposed, related to…
Cheryl: That's right.
Nick: Related to the reviews process. That doesn't take into account the comments proposed on the independent reviews that you put forward. You all put forward something more substantial.
Actually, this whole thing needs to be rethought. All that's proposed in the bylaw review is simply that instead of 3-year reviews, there would be 5-year reviews.
Cheryl: Can we not represent that information in a response to this new call for comment?
Nick: You certainly could. Matthias, we're going to need another line, here. Where has that gone? I thought was on there, before.
Matthias: I think we decided to delete it, because…
Nick: No. I don't think we decided to delete that. Anyway… We just need to put this back on.
The public comment window for that closes the 9th of August. So we can simply work back from that.
Cheryl: That's not much time.
Nick: Well, you'd have to start loading, basically.
Cheryl: Yes. Which we should be in a position to do.
Nick: Yes.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: So we'll put in a line related to this, to make clear the link to the statement and thought of vote.
Cheryl: Yes.
Vanda: Okay.
Am I mute or not?
Nick: You are not mute.
Vanda: Okay.
Cheryl: You're very quiet, though, Vanda.
Nick: Muffled, but not muted.
Vanda: Yes. I make a lot of things together. There is a lot of noise here with helicopters coming down near the building, and going out. It's awful.
Cheryl: Are you in the middle of some adventure, Vanda?
Vanda: laughter No. I'm in the middle of Police Avenue. That's the problem, here.
Cheryl: laughter
We've had you in so many interesting situations for some of these meetings. Being escorted from buildings by security, and things like that.
Nick: I'm literally watching ghostly edits here on the text in realtime. It's very interesting. Matthias copies and cuts and pastes.
Vanda: I have one thing that I need to put over the table. The regional lGF meeting, here.
I sent an e-mail, I guess, but I'm not sure if I sent it to everybody. What I believe is… I inaudible believe should be at least what they do. Show off my face.
There is a lot of movement against ICANN I follow.
Cheryl: Yes. We need to watch that carefully.
Vanda: The last time I went there, they were preparing the meeting real and then had to go back. This time we're being real. And what I believe is, I don't need support for the same real. I have a lot of places to stay.
But I need something to have a ticket there. It's not a big one. It's something like $100 or something like that.
Cheryl: The matter of ALAC or At-Large representation in the variety of IGF activities that was listed for discussion at tonight's ALAC meeting is one that was also brought up at our APRALO meeting today. I think it's one that – with the proper thought and discussion – our regional leaders would be very interested in.
As we know from the Sydney ICANN meeting, there is more and more interest in thinking globally and acting locally in the future, for IGF.
There are people within ICANN's senior world that I believe it might be worthwhile having a conversation with. To properly make sure that our At-Large expertise and our regions and the ALAC itself are being better employed and deployed. In ensuring that the voice of Internet end-users – but specifically with the basis of the multi-stakeholder model that ICANN has developed over so many years – is being integrated into IGF matters.
Nick, Heidi and Matthias… I'm wondering if now that we have our next meeting yet to be doodled… whether or not we might be able to invite someone from ICANN. One or two people from ICANN who are particularly tasked with the outreach into IGF matters. To perhaps spend a small amount of time – if not at our next additional meeting, but at a single-purpose meeting after that… If we could propose perhaps to have a revisit of some of what was said in Sydney.
I did not that the IGF-based meetings that I attended were fairly poorly attended by our regional leaders. The Sydney meeting was just so packed full of things that people had to do.
For our continuation of tonight's meeting in our next section next week, we might propose to the ALAC that we have a single-purpose call. Again, this may mean that it goes into two time zones. Where we can have…
Nick – what sort of names would we be looking at from ICANN, who could perhaps talk to us on IGF matters? And how we could be better utilized?
Nick: I would say Nick Thorne would be at the top of the list. Teresa. And I would also at least invite Rod. He's trying to learn his way around, and this is pretty subject.
Cheryl: It seems to me that that's a wonderful mix, where it's all for the greater good of ICANN. And we are a hugely powerful, potential tool that is being under-exploited. But of course, if they're going to exploit us, they also need to support us.
To that end, we could have a full and frank discussion – including the ALAC and the regional leaders. I know Hong was particularly interested to know exactly what this item meant on our agenda. She was concerned, I believe, that there was some form of competing workshops or activities being planned by the ALAC.
I was quick in today's meeting. Heidi, as you noticed, inaudible to reassure her. That wasn't the case. She has enough of those coming at her frame left of field.
But it is important to realize that a couple of things need to be done. For the very next IGF meeting, we need to know whom amongst our At-Large community might be attending. So we can perhaps brief them and authorize them to speak formally on our behalf, if the need arises.
Also, to look at future planning – assuming that the IGF does, in fact, have a future. I believe it certainly should do.
Heidi: Cheryl – as I mentioned on the APRALO call – NARALO will also be speaking about this regularly. Monique Chartrand is now the IGF representative on the NARALO.
Cheryl: All right.
Nick – can I ask, because I think it's appropriate – that through staff, the chair wishes to post an invitation to those. Obviously, to Rod as CEO – but to Nick Thorne and Teresa? To see if sometime next month we can set up one or two calls specific for this purpose. Then we can just clarify that at our next closing off of the ALAC meeting.
Nick: I'm happy to make those requests and copy various people around.
Cheryl: Thank you.
Nick: Do you have a proposed date? Sorry if I missed that, on, "When." Or arrange dates that you would like this to take place.
Cheryl: Well, not next week. But as soon as possible after that.
Nick: So the middle of August.
Cheryl: Middle of August. Does that work for you, Vanda? I believe it would do.
Vanda: Yes. Well – let me see the dates. The meeting of the regional IGF here will be at 11, 12 and 13 of August.
Cheryl: Yes. Can we…?
Vanda: I do believe I could be there on the 12th and 13th.
Cheryl: Yes.
Vanda: But…
Cheryl: Vanda, if you're going to be at that meeting, I assume that Teresa and Nick would be there, too? Would they be going to the regional meeting?
Vanda: I don't think so. It mostly is regional.
Cheryl: Just regional.
Vanda: They never… Probably they'd go to Africa or something like that. inaudible I can check with Teresa. But I do believe that they normally send their regional guy.
In our case, it's just Pablo. Pablo is too innocent for that.
Cheryl: laughter Well, perhaps if it happens during that time… I believe that as the vice-chair of ALAC, you're there speaking with the full voice of ALAC. We know you're doing the very best for ICANN and the Internet end-user voice within the region in IGF.
Perhaps it might be quite good to have this meeting or proposed meeting around that time. I was just concerned that Nick and Teresa might be directly involved. But if she uses her regional people rather than going directly to regional IGF meetings, that could work out perfectly. You could bring in some real-time examples of where working together would benefit us all.
Vanda: Yes. I'm trying to remember last time.
They didn't come. They mostly go to more complex areas. Here, they already have some problems in the real meetings. But that time, I believe they described that it's not a big deal.
I went there to make sure they opened up the new thing and they guy was going to say something. We have one stupid guy, but the others are inaudible. So we could manage a little bit.
But after that inaudible, they just pay attention to the country and the region. I believe – again – it will be in Asia. They will start with the people from ALAC world and this kind of thing.
Cheryl: Let's then see if we can set something up that is involving Nick and Teresa and Rod – if he's available, with our community. It would be an ideal opportunity, I think, to do this in the week. Either at the end of or immediately after the regional meeting in Rio. It is in Rio, isn't it, Vanda?
Vanda: Yes. So we'll be there. Yes. We will be there. It's supported by Latin wiki and the other organizations around Latin America.
Cheryl: Nick – if I could ask you specifically to make sure that both Nick Thorne and Teresa are aware that Vanda is going – and the purpose of her going. And obviously, any input or support in her activities that they might be able to give – or information they could perhaps share with her – could be quite useful.
Did we just lose Vanda?
Cheryl: Yes. We just lost Vanda.
Well – golly – what would you like to talk with me about? laughter
Heidi: Well…
Cheryl: Or am I here by myself, now? That's just tragic.
Alan: I'm still here.
Cheryl: laughter Thank heaven!
Nick: I was on mute, talking away. Nobody heard me.
I have another question on the policy advice on the schedule. That is the board review working group's statement. When are we voting going that? Are we going to vote on it now?
Cheryl: Yes. We'll have to do that as soon as possible. Otherwise, we won't make the deadline.
Nick: Okay. So if we open the vote… Matthias – could you set it up for tomorrow, do you think?
Matthias: Sure.
Cheryl: Yes. No reason why not.
Nick: To start.
And how long do you want it to run for?
Cheryl: Do you want 5 or 7? I don't care which.
Are people are tending to vote when you put the calls out these days?
Nick: It's always quorate by a good margin. I think we get 11, 12 and 13. Don't we, Matthias?
Cheryl: That's good.
Nick: Do you want me to make it a 5-day? Do you have another vote to start tomorrow, Matthias?
Matthias: Yes. But the thing is, I just put in the dates for the one on the bylaw amendment. That one would start on Friday. This is just my suggestion. Then we could end it on the 6th of August – which is a Thursday. That would give them to pass this and end it on Friday.
It ends on Sunday, and I'll be traveling over the weekend.
Nick: So I was trying to find what those dates are. Could you fill those in?
Matthias: They're already in. Yes.
Nick: No, on the line for the Board Review Working Group Report.
Matthias: Oh – just the same days. Okay.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: I'm clearing out my things. Then we'll have dates for everything – until they come up with something else. laughter
Cheryl: laughter
Nick: Until they add some new consultation on something.
So you want that meeting to take place after the Rio consultation. Right?
Cheryl: During or after.
Heidi: inaudible just said that any of those dates we discussed for the travel call are fine with him. That week would be the 4th, 6th and 7th for the possible travel call.
Cheryl: It'd be the week after, then.
Heidi: Exactly. So now the dates of the Rio conference Vanda said are the 11th? Did I hear that right?
Cheryl: Yes. I thought 11, 12 and 13.
Heidi: So, Monday the 10th – if they wanted to do it before – is really the only day for that.
Cheryl: I don't think before is going to be as useful as during or after. But let's put Monday into an option, anyway, if you like.
Did you note that Vanda… Can we dial out to Vanda on her mobile, please?
I think some of those helicopters probably took out the six telephone lines.
Nick: laughter Let's hope not!
Cheryl: I must say – I'm looking forward to one day visiting Vanda's office. There's an awful lot of excitement that happens around her street.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't have anything in our At-Large policy advice development program at the moment for modifications at the UDRP. We have had list traffic on that, have we not?
Nick: Yes.
Cheryl: Also, the proposed ICANN meeting dates.
Nick: Yes. Where the proposal… I have been asked and I have done this… I have been asked if the staff saw any impediment to simply swapping the June and March meeting continents in 2011. So that the North American meeting would not be held during the winter. Then there could be a Toronto bid.
It was also noted that during the winter, all hubs in Northern North America tend to suffer from snow and inclement weather delays.
Cheryl: Yes.
Nick: Quite seriously.
Cheryl: Which is not a good inaudible for us.
Nick: So it would be better – on the basis of that – not to have the meeting in March. I'm just waiting to hear back.
Because they may just say, "You know what? Actually, that's totally logical."
Cheryl: Yes.
Nick: Why don't they just send in a comment saying that, and that's what we'll do. Unless someone has some strong objection.
Cheryl: So we're talking about closing the 14th of August. Yes, there's been some discussion on the NARALO, at least.
Nick: Do you want to actually put in a very short response?
Cheryl: I think we need to put something short in, for certain.
Nick: So you want me to make a 13-08 closing? Oh, no.
Cheryl: Vanda, we're just talking about the proposed ICANN meeting dates. The suggestion was that the June and March for 2011 – North America and Asia – be switched. Because of the likelihood of getting snowed in, and travel issues and various things happening.
No – she's not. Can we try again? I'm speaking to Vanda, and she's not back, yet.
Vanda: Hello – Vanda!
Cheryl: There we go!
Hello, Vanda! I was busy talking to you, and they said you weren't back! laughter So those that are listening to the mp3 will think I'm…
Vanda: Hello.
Cheryl: Hello, Vanda. Are you there? Are you back? We've got background noise, so I suspect you're back.
We're just discussing the need to put the proposed ICANN meeting dates…
Cheryl: Oh, for heaven sake.
I'm going to work around the fact that Nick has just left. I'm going to just talk to Vanda and Matthias and Heidi for the next few minutes.
Vanda: Yes. Go ahead!
Cheryl: Talking about just the other things that we need to put into the policy advice development schedule. We do need to make just a short comment of some form, based on the traffic that we've had in a couple of the lists. Specifically, the North American lists regarding the ICANN meeting dates and geographic regions.
Nick has just said there has been talk amongst staff, at least, of switching the March and June 2011 geographic region rotation.
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: So that North America is in June, rather than in the middle of their winter.
That makes perfect sense to me. I might say it's probably more pleasant from an Asian perspective, as well – depending on where it is in Asia, of course.
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: He's just working backward on those dates. Or he was before he dropped out. So we can put in a supportive and simple statement about those rotations.
Vanda: Yes. Adam and I just sent personal suggestions and exchanged some ideas about the date of the meeting.
I was a member of the Meeting Committee in the past. There are a lot of difficulties around setting up dates of the meetings. It's very difficult.
Most of the time, someone from some region is not happy with the dates. The best thing that we could have is really a fixed time. But it's also hard to have hotels available for fixed times.
We have passed this idea in the past, but we haven't seen it. So anything that Adam and I have suggested…
…to allow some time between meetings. To allow the end-users to participate and communicate. To make some kind of policy work.
When it's too close and it's in the middle of some big holiday or some holiday, there is no real time for working – real work – between meetings.
Cheryl: Yes.
Vanda: We just suggest something like the week before thanksgiving, in November. These kinds of things.
I believe we could put some general suggestion back in, englobing the idea of NARALO.
Cheryl: Also, the point being made… but interestingly enough, Vanda – I don't see either your or Adam's comment on the public icon.
Vanda: No. We just exchanged personal ideas. He said some in the open suggestions. He sent some and I sent some. So we exchanged some ideas about that.
Cheryl: Perhaps we can task you and Adam to help us put a very simple comment together. But I would be remiss if I didn't put on my APRALO hat for a moment. I might note to the ALAC executive – it seems like I'm the only one wearing an APRALO hat, these days. Yes. I was being a bitch. But I think it's probably reasonable, don't you, Heidi?
The APRALO would be most concerned – as we were in the past – if the consideration of the plethora of religious holidays – not only globally, but specifically in the Asia-Pacific region – were not included.
I note the very specific comments that have already come into the public list, here. They're managing to clash with two of the most important Hindu festivals.
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: Sigh, again.
So I think…
Vanda: Yes. I can exchange with Adam. We can put some points and send to you and Nick. Just to exchange amongst us.
Cheryl: Yes. The switching with March and September. But there's also the need to – wherever possible – avoid the cultural holidays in the region that you're having the meetings.
Vanda: Yes. At least that. Yes. I don't know if you have been there, but… We went to Tunisia in the Ramadan. So we could not eat.
Cheryl: laughter
Vanda: We could not eat! I thought that also. It was Ramadan.
Cheryl: That's a perfect example to put into the report.
Vanda: laughter
It's a inaudible
Nick: laughter. I'm sorry. I shouldn't be laughing.
Cheryl: No, no! It's absolutely typical. Absolutely typical of the US and Western Euro-centric way ICANN is run. They forget about Ramadan. Gosh!
Vanda: Yes. That time, just to exchange the problems… For instance… I was in the GAC, and I was the vice-chair. The chair of the GAC was Muslim.
He could not drink water during the meeting. Even eat. So in the middle of the meeting, he could not speak any more.
Cheryl: He was inaudible. Yes.
Vanda: inaudible
Cheryl: It's not funny!
Vanda: inaudible remember – Sherio from Malaysia.
Cheryl: Yes. I remember Sherio.
Vanda: Yes. It's amazing! It was amazing. We need to answer and act as a chair. How inaudible every day. Because he could not drink water. Speaking all the time, you need a glass of water.
Cheryl: You cannot function like that.
Vanda: Yes. Well, those kinds of problems really make it important to pay attention.
Cheryl: How about I inaudible… Bloody hell, we're having trouble keeping people. I'll do my best to find as many major religious festivals that would be limiting productivity and the ability to move.
There are some things that are festivals that it's a joy to be in the region. There are other things…
For example, when we held the last meeting in Asia-Pacific in Delhi… It was a huge problem. Not just because of the cost of having it at the height of the wedding season – which anyone who knew anything about Delhi would've just said, "How stupid could that be?"
But most importantly, we couldn't have any number of Asian people traveling where their New Year festival… and all of the New Year festivals happen in that February period… And a number of religious observances… they can't travel!
They can't go overseas. It is a time that inaudible
Vanda: Yes. There are a lot of them.
Cheryl: So I'll do my best to find as many of those festivals and dates and times. And I'll contribute that. Okay?
Vanda: Yes. Okay.
I will do that with Adam. We can exchange some ideas and send to you both.
Cheryl: Sorry, Nick. Have we got everything that's on public comment now? Or have we still missed one?
Nick: Yes. Sorry. I dropped out there a minute. I had a power cut. As luck would have it, my phone was not plugged into the UPS. I've fixed that, now.
All I wanted to make mention of is, I know that at various times, comments have been made about having more regional meetings. Not just international meetings. I don't know if you want to bring that up.
Cheryl: Actually, that would be well worthwhile. Let's make sure that we do bring that up.
Vanda – can you ensure that genuinely regional meetings – as opposed to…
Nick: Registrar/registries.
Cheryl: Yes. That's another thing we want to have addressed.
But anything else on that? Or can we move on?
Nick: Yes. Actually, you could have that statement done anytime before about the 6th. I'm restarting everything. I think it's the 6th of August. If somebody is looking at that spreadsheet, they might be able to say better.
Matthias: Which one?
Nick: The meeting dates.
Cheryl: The new one – meeting dates. And the other one is UDRP.
Nick: We're working on getting together a briefing on – A – the UDRP 101. For people that aren't familiar with that. The second half being the EUDRP, and what that is.
Cheryl: Okay.
Vanda: Okay.
Cheryl: Excellent.
How is that fitting with our time? Sorry – she says – going back to the public comments.
Nick: I'm waiting for everything to start. So somebody else, maybe.
Vanda: I guess you have a meeting, now.
Cheryl: Oh, I've got minutes before the next meeting! 12th of August – we don't have much time. UDRP rules ends 12th of August.
Nick: Yes. I don't know. I'll have to do that within no time.
Cheryl: Yes. That one… Can we capture or ask for input from the lists? We've already had some. Can we capture that? And what was made clear at our last executive meeting, where Wendy was present? I want to speak to that in a minute, as well.
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: The matter that we also need… Whilst we're now doing a very good job of putting ALAC comments into the public comment period inaudible and requests, they actually don't get anywhere near the board.
At the next executive meeting – the one we have in the middle of the month – I'd like to have prepared a document that we can then ask the ALAC to endorse. An overarching advisory to the board. Basically bringing them up-to-speed on what we've done.
I'm feeling there is a serious disconnect – not the least of which is because the board is very focused on the noisy wheels in the machine.
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: A serious disconnect on what we are doing and what they understand we are doing.
Nick: May I?
Cheryl: Please.
Nick: I'm happy to come up with something. But I'd suggest that if you could standardize on the At-Large staff account being used to transmit all voted-on statements… And simply say that since you're an advisory committee…
You may send something to a public consultation period – but – always send it to the board. Say, "Look. We are an advisory committee of the board. This is an official statement of an advisory committee. We are therefore notifying the board of its contents. We look forward to any comments the board may wish to make to us."
Something like this.
Cheryl: Yes.
Nick: Obviously, when you're specifically doing something that's not related to a public consultation, then that would make a difference in the words to it.
But just always send it to them. You're entitled to.
Cheryl: I certainly understand that. But we've sort of swung the pendulum. We went through a period where we were playing our, "Send it to the board card," because we were behind the 8-ball on getting things done.
We're now getting things done. We're forgetting that the board has no bloody idea what we're doing.
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: I'd like to do a catch-up exercise. At the expo next meeting – the mid-August expo meeting – I want to work on and create. To then go out to the ALAC and the other lists… the At-Large working list… that, "Here is an update on what we have done. Pick a date." It doesn't really matter. I don't care. We can take some of them back to the dotters as far as I'm concerned. They haven't paid any attention to us since then.
Yes. I'm feeling a little testy.
But then, as part of that, to try and formalize a standard procedure – along the line of what you suggested, Nick. When I'm not here – and I could very well not be here after October – then we've got some standardized performance or pro forma behaviors that the ALAC can continue to do.
Surely it would be a situation where in the future, when we have voting board members, this is the type of information that we should be constantly feeding them, as well.
Nick: Sure.
Vanda: Okay.
Cheryl: Okay, Vanda. Then thank you so much for all your time and energy. I think we've finished our agenda, haven't we?
Vanda: Okay. Try to rest a little bit. Bye!
Cheryl: Bye!
Nick: Bye, Vanda!
Cheryl: We have covered our agenda, haven't we? I think we have.
Vanda: Hello – Vanda.
Cheryl: Being capable of hearing an agenda or remembering an agenda. Yes, we have, really.
Nick: Yes. No, it's all right.
