Sebastian Bachollet: I hope everybody is on line with the agenda; there is a long list of topics, eight different items but in each a quite long list. The next stop I followup on the action item of 14 June of the Excom meeting and the 25 June in Brussels meeting. I just had a quick look at that and saw it is already done that is the Alan was working on the (inaudible) and it was done by ALAC, just to change the schedule during the meeting and some other duty he had during the meeting to improve the At-Large improvement presentation for the (inaudible) all that was done, and I guess we can go to the item number two. We have list of proposal feature At-Large community call.
Do we wish to schedule community call on the following topics, and I will read you all those topics and we can discuss on that. Travel support guidelines, At-Large, IV, update on ICANN compliance, conference training, a series of three success – more advanced call for a period of six weeks, initial discussion on the fiscal year 12 budget planning, transition for IPv4 to IPv6, cultural diversity training, and other ALAC working group and current VI matters, any comments or thoughts on that?
Alan Greenberg: On travel support I think there’s no point to at this time. The next travel is a long time from now; there is some indication that there may be changes. I see no benefit at all in doing the travel support guidelines right now.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay.
Female: I agree.
Alan Greenberg: I don’t know to what extent anyone has had a change to look at the document I put out yesterday, I’d like to have at least a very brief discussion on that sometime before this meeting ends, because I believe we need to send that out, or I need to send that out really quickly.
Sebastian Bachollet: We can add that to any other business, travel restrictions from Alan. I hope we will go there.
Alan Greenberg: As far as webinar, I don’t know what that was talking about.
Female: Yes, let me ask if you have been put some ideas about the future, the way we decide in the public participation committee, it was left for comment. If you have some idea, suggestion, if you agree, disagree, if we have some points on this new process that we could forward it.
Alan Greenberg: That’s the one that – that’s not the survey, but simply the statement that you plan to do internal searches. I plan to put out a very brief comment on that personally, saying that I strongly support it.
Female: Okay, it said we need to go further with that because to organize all those things and put that to approval, those kinds of things, so if you have some ideas, please vote.
Alan Greenberg: Well, I think it’s probably too late for us to make a formal comment if we haven’t already drafted one, because –
Female: You can send email.
Alan Greenberg: No, I think.
Sebastian Bachollet: I would suggest that we simply send our – well, we’ll discuss it, but my suggestion would be that we simply endorse the email that you send, Alan, as a statement from us.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Sebastian Bachollet: That’s what I would do.
Alan Greenberg: I planned to have that out a week ago, and it didn’t happen. It will happen. Essentially all I’m saying is I support doing the internal search as well as calling for proposals and I hope that they will be scheduling meetings multiple years out, to take advantage of price benefits and planning and things like that.
Female: Right, the idea is - well I send a previous mail – I send an email to Heidi yesterday and not allow us to send emails anymore, to you, I don’t know why, but anyway Heidi is going to look at that for me.
Alan Greenberg: You’re not allowed to send emails?
Female: For you, for ALAC, Excom, At-Large or internal ALAC –
Alan Greenberg: Why not?
Female: I don’t know. I guess you are tired of me or something.
Alan Greenberg: Who made that rule?
Female: I don’t know, but anyway, I just asked Heidi to reconnect me.
Alan Greenberg: Oh. You don’t mean you’re not allowed, you mean it isn’t working anymore.
Female: Yes. That’s what – a lot of the information that I get, it says you are not allowed to send emails to this list.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Female: So it’s done, but I send some information about this process, but anyway if there is not disagree with that, it is okay. We go further with that, we have a meeting this week for the public participation, so I am glad to know.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, may I suggest on this topic of planning the future community calls we keep some of them because my feeling is it’s once a month, and even once a month could be a good way to go, and I would like to say with the At-Large working now it’s quite important, because it was supposed to be before the Brussels meeting and now we have to schedule how we will organize it and what we want to do with this one.
I will suggest postponing the compliance one, not because it’s not an important topic, but because as you see the leader of this stuff is leaving ICANN and I guess it’s better if we have the future leader on that prior to our discussion. Conference training, it is needed because we are to change the tools we need the training, but I want to be sure we are going to train the right people and in the right time, and it will be tough because we want to have three meetings a month. May I suggest that I finish this item and I give it back to you, the chair of this meeting?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s fine, except there is a bad echo since I dialed in.
Female: Yes, apologies, (inaudible) are not answering their calls, they’re not online, I don’t know.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Something may be going on with them. Continue on.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, then we are on the item two of planning of future community call, what we say up to now is that travel guidelines is not need to call amendment at all because the next travel is far from now. We tried to discuss which topic would be interesting to have on our list, and I was saying the following, webinar we were postponing after the Brussels meeting, we need to organize it, and compliance maybe wait for the next leader on the ICANN staff for that, conference training, it’s a mess but we need to be really careful on how we organize to be sure that all the ones who will need to use it to have this training.
It is free training once a week for three weeks. And let’s say that my two other points even if it’s to leave something on the role if we start now the fiscal year 12 budget it might be better, because if we want to possibly make a change to the agenda of the other year rule between planning budget and the specific planning too, and I will say that we need to think how the working group (inaudible 10:47) will be in the near future, but I think that part is more political issue and part more organizational work, even if it came at the end to political work, then the working group will organize it, other comments on that subject? Yes, Carlton?
Carlton Samuels: Yes, thank you Sebastian. I would say that I support the fact that we can put all the travel support (inaudible 11:24) I wanted to add that for those of you who have seen Alan’s email on , that was sent out yesterday, Alan has asked for time to discuss it and I think we should do that. My proposal would be to adopt the contents of the email add an At-Large statement and our ALAC statement and send it through. The At-Large Webinar – I think we should have an At-Large, but I was more concerned with the details of the contents of the webinar.
I certainly believe that we should include the most topical issues that are in ICANN at the moment, and that of course is the dag, the new gTLDs obtained from that, we need to have a very focused webinar on that and especially around the issues of vertical integration and so on, that is causing so much heat and lightening. The initial discussion on the fiscal 12 budget, I want to think we should get into it early, but I think we should begin to – previously we have spent a lot of time looking at the ALAC budget and the At-Large budget and so on, I would suggest that we also put some laser focus on some other areas of operation, for example the compliance area, as well as our staff budget.
If we begin – if nothing else, if we engage earlier we can begin to ask the questions and indicate our disquiet from earlier in those areas. I really think when they craft these budgets sometimes, for example, in the compliance area, maybe some of them fit, but maybe if we start talking about it earlier we might get some wind from other areas of the community and maybe we can see if we can make some change in the thinking before it gets there. The cultural diversity training, I’m not so sure what is obtained there. I see it linked to several things, but I’m not sure. Perhaps I don’t have the background for it, and probably I need some help in seeing what the objective was.
Heidi Ulrich: If I may, this is Heidi.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes, go ahead.
Heidi Ulrich: This cultural diversity training is something that has been developed internally, with (Steve Antinoff) leading it, this is a course that most of the staff now have taken, and it is being developed into an online version, and we’re hoping that the At-Large community would be the first one to go through this training, or at least go through this course, this online course.
So what we were planning on doing, of course if the At-Large community plans to do so, is we would initially have a community call on this, and then possibly there would be a training in Cartagena on the Saturday prior to the start of the meeting, so that would be the plan. Again, there is the possibility of At-Large case studies being put into this course.
Carlton Samuels: Okay. So the At-Large might be a net contributor to the content of the training?
Heidi Ulrich: I think at some point. I’m not sure how quickly the comments would be incorporated, but I would suspect that at least case studies could be added to the training course.
Carlton Samuels: Okay, all right. I think I have a bit of sense now of what it is. I just didn’t see it before now. The conference training, I agree with you Sebastian we should get it, but one of the things I think we should pay some attention to is how the training is moving forward. Certainly online elements and using much more needed content for the online would be a good way to extend the training to the community, because as you say, the decision is who do we train, and to what depth do we train them is certainly going to be a big issue in using the tools, so the methodology that we use to train would have to be considered carefully to make that happen.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, thank you Carlton. Other comments? Cheryl, go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, just a clarification as I’m going over the notes so far. What’s under the travel support guidelines? I understand the support for Alan’s text, that clearly needs to come back again in today’s meeting for the Excom 2, to get a proper place on the ALAC agenda, because that is where we need to move forward on an ALAC statement under Carlton’s proposal, but I’m not sure what ‘do internal searches’ is, which Alan has supported and Vanda has proposed under public participation committee. What does that refer to?
Alan Greenberg: I can – I don’t know what the notes say because I didn’t look at them, I know what I said. What it said is I plan to submit a personal statement saying I support the direction of also including internal ICANN searches in addition to calling for proposals and I hope that they would be attempting to schedule meetings several years out to get benefits from all the things one gets benefits from; better prices, more accessibility and such, and –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So we’re talking about supply of (inaudible 18:17) services.
Alan Greenberg: This is the one paragraph that they put out saying on July 21st they plan to issue a call for proposals, the intent is to look at the proposals and look at ICANN internally, a site selected internally by ICANN and pick the best site regardless of which path it came into the process by, and they’re asking for comments on that prior to them actually issuing the RFP. Personally, I support that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Under public participation?
Alan Greenberg: This is the public participation – yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you.
Alan Greenberg: And Carlton I think said if I write something – it may garner support, but since the RFP is being issued the next day, I’m not sure how quick –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sounds like that might be a lot of – yes –
Alan Greenberg: It’s due tomorrow, and they are issuing it the day after, so
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Thank you. While I have the microphone, on the webinar I am a little concerned, Carlton, that you went into such detail on things like vertical integration and other current PDP processes. Certainly my understanding of what the At-Large webinar should be much more about what an ALS in its role and regions and their role is in the ICANN ecosystem, to use that term, inadvisably perhaps. But I wouldn’t have thought it would be driven down to specific PDP topics. I would have thought it needed a greater longevity. I guess a less topic restricted life, but perhaps I’m – the current processes and planning use for At-Large webinar.
Carlton Samuels: Yes, I am not excluding that at all, Cheryl, I am saying that we could make it a little interesting by making it more topical, and –
Sebastian Bachollet: Like surface some of the popular issues at the time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In terms of examples of the importance of wanting people to get involved and engaged. Okay. I just would be very fearful of it becoming a pseudo topic (inaudible 21:14) exercise.
Carlton Samuels: No, no, it’s not intended to be, I’m just saying we can just juice it up a little by showing people why these issues are important and why they should engage, by using a topical issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right. Okay, fine. Thank you.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, thank you. May I suggest that we take this; we start to put some possible dates on each of those topics and come back to the role of Excom to finalize how we organize all that. We have a sense after this discussion of what is more important than the other, but all of them are quite interesting and how we can handle that in the next six months, I would like to suggest that, and to give the chair back to our chair.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Not until you finish this particular topic which I’ve raised my hand for, and I believe –
Sebastian Bachollet: Sorry, sorry. I didn’t – oh, now I am allowed to give you the floor.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You can do it verbally. You don’t have to do it electronically.
Sebastian Bachollet: Go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Sebastian. I wanted to explore a little bit longer and particularly follow on with the scheduling on the matter of how the working groups and other PAD matters; I think we are losing valuable time in each month and each quarter, and most importantly in each ALAC meeting by going over those ‘should we or shouldn’t we’ on matters that have come up and need to go into the PAD, but more importantly when things are either in a PAD or current policy development processes such as PIDNA now and vertical integration in the next week or so, we know these things are coming up.
We have ongoing input into their policy development processes and we have not scheduled and I would suggest we are at fault for not having scheduled necessary community calls in a timely manner to ensure that we can elicit community feedback and information for the ALAC to use in its outreach for what we need according to any statement we put together. And I think whilst we don’t need to do it on this call tonight, we do need to institute a system which allows us to get ahead of these things, particularly on topics which we know will need to have community calls because even when we have working groups we’re simply not getting the input that we need.
And I think I have call waiting coming in, is this (inaudible 24:53) trying to dial me on the hour, instead of a half hour before?
Heidi Ulrich: Actually I’m hearing it as well. Let me call them again, they’re still not on Skype. Let me go ahead and call them.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Response to some prior planning, and in the lack of prior planning, can we at least do things like schedule now, some of the necessary calls which are coming out of policy development and work group programs that we’re already heavily involved with such as they are, and we know it’s going to be the public comment and it’s going to be running between now and our next ALAC meeting, and it seems like a valuable opportunity lost if we don’t schedule a community call perhaps both for briefing and also for getting feedback on the matter.
Alan Greenberg: I have a couple of comments.
Sebastian Bachollet: Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Looking at the list of things that I was supposed to do last week, which I didn’t for a variety of reasons, there are currently 13 open comment periods that I think I should either be commenting on or deciding not to comment on. There’s probably a few more that fall under ALAC responsibility that I didn’t consider my personal interest. We do not have any process in place right now to address them, and even if we spend 45 minutes of each ALAC meeting reviewing them and coming to the conclusion that we want to do something about them, we’re not doing it.
I can propose all sorts of things that we should do, but unless we can get intersessional work being done by at least some people, whether it’s us putting out for every comment that comes in within three days, putting out a statement saying I think we should respond or shouldn’t respond, or something, it’s just going to keep on passing us by.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I may, back on Alan’s point there, and I suspect Alan has another point to follow –
Alan Greenberg: I have one more going back to the previous topic, but let’s finish this first.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, Alan, that is very much to the point of what I’m doing. We have a huge amount looming out ahead of us now, let alone those things that we knew were coming, the light at the end of the tunnel and it was an oncoming train. To leave these things to the next meeting just to decide should we or shouldn’t we, it is faulty system. We like to think that the community though is engaged, let alone the wider community that we’re involved with, those most engaged in the community, the RALO leaders, etc., etc., are reading and getting the rank and file reading and stuff up to speed on these things, but they’re not.
And we’re spending a ridiculous amount of time on it. We have at least one region right now talking about vertical integration and suggesting that they would like a briefing or a community call to bring them up to speed on the topic of vertical integration. I fear that if we start just catering to the needs, as an ALAC, if we start catering to the needs of each individual region on topics that they find fascinating or interesting, that we’re going to have sort of a hodgepodge tapestry of an attempt to try to meet needs. If we ask the leaders of a particular GNSO work group or ICANN wide working group to bring (inaudible 29:07) to their community rather than, in an organized manner reach out to them and suggest that we know that an interim report is coming out on the VI, let’s use that as an example because most of the public are deeply involved in that, we know that that report is going to go into the GNSO and will be hitting the community for public comment in the very short term future.
Now is when we should be scheduling a call for the leaders of the working group, and key proponents, should we wish to expand it that much, to engage with us, the ALAC with anybody in our community, i.e. all of the regional people and the ALS rank and file, to (inaudible) and have questions asked and answered on the matter of the VI to get a specific background briefing from those people we have appointed from our community who have been attending in these working groups.
Specifically, in this case, the VI; that’s a number of us, and assists in the crafting of some generic concrete responses for the community from our own statement. Most importantly what seems to happen at the moment, is that when one particular group puts out a draft or particular report, let me use the example of the AFRALO response to the recommendation for the six month plus three year period, that once one region has put out a statement, that a whole bunch of other regions, whether or not they’ve discussed it or if it just derived from emails I don’t know, but other regions come in behind it and you begin to see the crafting of a pseudo if not an actual, general support for something.
And I think we as the executive of the ALAC need to encourage that type of action rather than a lack of activity which I feel is what we’re seeing, which is a huge waste of time, and what Alan was alluding to.
Alan Greenberg: Well, and in addition to that I think we are missing opportunities, for one we again are taking anything that there should be interest in At-Large on, and saying we much comment on it, and we do not have anywhere near the resources to do that. We’re going to have to reject some of the really important ones and decide where to put our resources. We are really bad at doing that, but –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: How do we fix that, Alan?
Carlton Samuels: While Alan thinks about that, can I say something?
Sebastian Bachollet: Go ahead Carlton.
Carlton Samuels: Let me say that I agree, Cheryl with the general gist of the statement that you made. That’s always been my worst two issues that I’ve always felt strongly about. One, if we’re depending on the edge – that being influenced in ALAC and what we say from the edge in, that is to say from the RALOs in, then it seems to me that we have experience to know that we will have to do some evangelizing outside, because they are just not getting involved in the process soon enough for us to make our statements on time.
That has always been an issue for me. Second, there are far too many issues for us to comment on all of them, so we have to cherry pick the ones. I think the best way to do that, and it’s not a foolproof system, is for us to look at an interest in one region, and then try to get the other regions to show an interest in that same statement. That is why, for example, when the AFRALO statement came out, I sent the statement to LACRALO and suggested that they support, that LACRALO make a statement in support of that.
I know that on the cause this once, I was trying to tell them about vertical integration and the all the issues surrounding the new gTLDs and I did not sense there was much take up of that issue in the teleconference. I think if one region- what I do know is that if one region comes out and shows an interest in a topic, that seems to send a flag to the other regions that it might be important for them to look at. If the region has already done the work in examining the issue and crafting a statement that looks sensible and provided enough members of the other regions would have read the statement and at least some of the background information, then you could get a movement that way.
That will enable us to say that we are dealing with issues that come from the edge and have had input from the ALO’s and the RALO’s and so that when it comes into ALAC, at least those issues we will not have a problem showing the genesis of all prospective positions on it. So I think we should continue to support regions taking an interest in a topic and then trying to get the other regions engaged by collecting a statement from the originating region. I think we should begin to use that as a basis to decide which issues are important and therefore we should make sure that those appear on the ALAC agenda.
And three, I think we still have to continue to give an indication to the edge which issues we think, as ALAC, are important to the At-Large. Those are the three that I think we should continue to work with.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I stepped away from my computer. Sebastian, can I just respond to a couple of points that Carlton just brought up?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes, and then Alan will be next.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Carlton, I see what you’re saying and I agree with a great deal of what you’re saying, but not all. The bit I am concerned about in what you said follows. I’m very concerned about just leaving it to a region who to my cynical mind will probably not exist unless they happen to be English speaking and led by a couple of people who are highly motivated on a particular topic to get out there and start waving a flag on any particular matter.
I do think that it is up to the ALAC to push in a timely way, early enough, an opportunity and to facilitate an interactive point that it open to all regions and interested als members from whatever region, to get themselves up to speed if they are not already involved in a particular topic or policy development process. When we are, however, involved in a clearly high priority policy development process, be it vertical integration or be it new gTLDs, we shouldn’t have to wait for a region to come forward with a piece of drafting.
The ALAC should be, there are a bunch of topics that are important enough, and to be honest, most things that come out at the policy development stage or at interim report or report stage, should at least get the ALACs eye and exception or rejection or whether or not we put on a community call and then start to write a particular comment on it. We also need an opportunity to say we will have a community call on a matter, which is informational for our community and the regional leaders, and the probable outcome and design of that type of community call would be less of what I was pushing forward earlier, which is to try and rally the troops and get that energizing system that sort of draft going.
But more on the matter of, well, you already have At-Large input into this process from the following people; here, here, here, look at the list, these are the people that have said they are interested and have been involved and I guess we need to admit who’s been actively involved and who’s been more or less involved, in a particular process, and that group could forward a proposed draft. I don’t think we can leave it to just one region or another, we do need to under the ALAC improvements get out to the edges much more, but I do think the ALAC’s job is to facilitate that, and part of that is the planning. Sorry I hijacked that a little bit.
I see Alan and also Carlton wants to respond; now Dave has his hand up. But without spending much more time on this topic, we do need to shift around the discussion of what we should discuss and simply say here are – we are going to be running this many calls at this period in any average two or three month period, have those dates fixed, and populate those dates in peoples diaries with topics, whether or not they are of a generation of public comment or an informational sense or a advanced preparatory sense of topic, I don’t particularly care. I just think we need to get a skeleton put together to make sure things are happening.
Carlton Samuels: Let me quickly respond. I don’t think you are disagreeing with me at all in that Cheryl, because that is precisely one of the areas I said. I said I believe some of them it’s the ALAC that has to lead and make the thing. For example, the (inaudible 41:03) working group, we put out a statement before there was any discernable interest at the edge, and that’s one area where the ALAC leads because we are involved in the working group, so I endorse that. I am saying the reason why we would also endorse the other option is to have the RALOs put out a statement and then circulate that one statement because it does exactly the same thing that the ALAC does, except that it comes from the RALO.
So I’m saying that we are covering ourselves there to show that we have at some times, we have input from the edge in, instead of from the center out to the edge. So I’m making the point that that is a contribution to the idea of policy development process from the edge in, and we should embrace it, is what I’m saying. It’s one way to help us to address the backlog, so I’m giving that specific instance as a good way to go also on top of the ALAC doing precisely what you say we should do, and which we have done.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In any particular between monthly ALAC meeting regions have come out with either pieces of statement or proposed draft that they would like to put forward into an ICANN policy development process, or public comment period, I think they should automatically get a space on the subsequent ALAC agenda for discussion and/or further action and/or support.
Alan Greenberg: Can I get in?
Sebastian Bachollet: Alan, please.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, several different things. I think using both VI and At-Large director as examples are bad. On the At-Large director, it is one of the few items that we have particular skin in the game on administrative level and the reaction has been quite different than for any of the other general policy issues.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh I don’t know Alan. I think (inaudible 43:30) and travel support are the two things we can guarantee we get reaction on.
Alan Greenberg: And that’s good, but I don’t think we can generalize from them. On VI, we know the outcome at this point. At this point in time, we are going to be divided, and the issue is so complex that we know it’s going to be exceedingly difficult to try and brief people on, so –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But that’s why we need to do something like a call –
Carlton Samuels: That’s precisely why because it connects all the dots. It concentrates the mind because it is so complex –
Alan Greenberg: May I continue? I was not saying we don’t discuss it, I was saying we shouldn’t be using those as the model that we are going to solve all the rest of our problems with. I believe we came up with a methodology that the new PAD was automatically going to be sending out messages to the right working group and within a few days we would have a recommendation on what to do with it.
We have Alan down with all that. I think we need to, again, discuss what we are going to do and come up with something that is actually going to work. Maybe it’s not automated, maybe it’s going to require a person to do something, but I think this group, the Excom, needs to have a dedicated call. We’ve already used most of this call on this subject, and we need to come up with something – some emails ahead of time for making proposals, so we can come up with something that workable, otherwise we’re just going to discuss it ad infinitum.
I agree with Carlton that if someone comes out with a statement there’s a good chance everyone else will support it, I’m not quite sure that’s a good thing or a bad thing –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think it could go either way.
Alan Greenberg: There’s a me too syndrome if someone says something credible without them necessarily thinking through all the thoughts. That may be good, may be bad, I don’t know. It’s a reality. But I think we need to stop discussing this again and again and putting up proposals that don’t end up being implemented, and find something simple enough that we can actually have a chance doing it. I’m not sure we’re going to solve this in this group. Generally I agree with what Cheryl was saying, but I think we need a methodology to actually make it happen.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And Alan, the topic that we’re discussing in the Excom, and I know Sebastian needs to go to Dave next, is topics should be organized for community and briefing calls, and that is one tool that I think we can use to meet that need.
Alan Greenberg: I’m not disagreeing.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, Dave, please.
Dave Kissondoyal: What I was thinking was that on our previous work call was saying okay let’s take the AFRALO statement before the knowledge of the AFRALO statement I’m just continue what Carlton is saying. EURALO does a statement which is some contradiction to what ALAC wants, we take the example of the AFRALO statement, if the AFRALO came up with the statement that we want two terms, one six month term and the other one three month term, which is different to what ALAC wants, and then since it is statement from AFRALO, other RALOs just go and follow and say, yes, we agree.
So then what will happen? It will go against the wish of the ALAC. This is my point, so I don’t think it is a good idea just to lead the RALOs connect on themselves or sense (inaudible 47:43) themselves. I think the ALAC should at the end of the day should have – the statement should come from ALAC first, so I think that the best way to do it for having any statement is the RALO send to the ALAC or to the excom and then the excom does the vetting because I think we as executive committee members we know where ALAC is going, what the – I think what Carlton did mention to my point of view is totally wrong.
Sebastian Bachollet: Thank you, Dave. Do we want to proceed? I have the impression that we need to discuss this but find a way to solve it, with working group and different solution is not really working well. Sometimes we have working group with nobody really participating but sometimes we have a lot of people or some people participating and even though it’s not very easy for a working group to come together with a proposal and I want to refer to the gTLDs working group, but do we take the idea of Alan to try to write something and try to have a specific call of Excom in say toward the end of summer or September to discuss that issue specifically?
Vanda Scartezini: I say yes.
Sebastian Bachollet: Thank you, Vanda.
Carlton Samuels: Yes, I think you can put it down that way.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m just – I’m also particularly keen to not repeat what we do as an Excom in the following ALAC meeting. Now some of that has to do with the timing of what gets shoved out of the system that ICANN seems to use to decide what gets put out for public comment all at the same time. Occasionally as we do now, we did have the luxury of knowing some things were coming out of the tunnel, but mostly, about ten of those things that are on the burner, if not more than Alan listed we didn’t and couldn’t have known about, so they’re always going to be coming out not quite from left field, but in a less well managed way.
We do have a mid-month ALAC Excom meeting and perhaps one of the important roles for that is to have some trigger point to set up call priorities, to decide what does and does not, in our opinion, get a (gurnsey) for a community briefing call, and perhaps we could try testing that between now and our August and/or September meeting.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, then you are suggesting Cheryl, that we start the discussion on Skype and exchange mails and then we come back to a specific meeting let’s say the beginning of September about this –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We do ourselves now, online, in the next couple of days, and in advance of the ALAC meeting, in other words, we have several sets; a few topics. VI is one of them that I succinctly think we need to do a call on.
Alan Greenberg: Presumably that report is coming out soon – 20 days.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That needs to go out to the community. We need to ask the community how do you want to proceed, and we also need to poke some of the working group because to be honest, they’re not working in isolation the way they should do. We need some (inaudible 52:42) points to work from.
Dave Kissondoyal: It’s why I would like to go to do our work, and VI is example because hopefully at the end of this week or next week there will be a for comment.
Alan Greenberg: But that’s going to be open for twenty days.
Male: But we will have to do something.
Alan Greenberg: The people in this group who have been active in the working group, in the VI working group are the ALAC working group. There’s no other –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And we’re the only ones who know about it. We need to have an opportunity to answer the questions of the community so they understand why we’re coming down in one particular direction or another, and we can be tempered and advised by their opinions.
Sebastian Bachollet: On this topic we will need to set up a call as soon as we get the – even if we start scheduling now –
Alan Greenberg: We better schedule it now, Sebastian.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We have too. And I would really like to see placeholders for policy development community calls, and I’d rather have those – maybe on schedule, and then go, oh, there’s no policy development topic in community, do you want to replace the policy development for September with this generic issue and then planning on the FY12 budget. You know, original input and requirements. Just have a bit of predictability so people can organize and schedule themselves better.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, I support that. We can always cancel if we don’t have something.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Exactly.
Sebastian Bachollet: May I suggest that if we have to do one thing it’s to have this call for VI to be organized, and then all the things we are discussing now we need to put it on a way to be organized on the regular minutes and we need to discuss that either by Skype or by mail and in the next few days we can end up with a good solution agreeable by all of us, and we can put that in place. That’s like two different perspective time of topics, but the same issue at the end of the day.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: With travel support, the matter that we’re going to have come up at the next ALAC meeting will be from the LACRALO region, where they will specifically ask the ALAC to support their desire, just as we’ve been asked by other regions in the past, to support their desire for a general assembly when the ICANN meeting is in their region. and we do have to, I think, also come up with mechanisms where not so much briefing calls, but pseudo statement development calls can be treated in this fashion as well, and that’s an example of where a regional need which probably will have multi regional interest needs to be able to put into a schedule as well.
Sebastian Bachollet: I guess that’s on the topic of the item five, but I guess as we are –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I just mean since we’re scheduling.
Sebastian Bachollet: We are on the new budget and it seems like it will be easier than from this other region prior to this new year budget, so hopefully it will be easier.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, maybe.
Alan Greenberg: I didn’t understand that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s not what I see out of the budget that they’ve just adopted.
Alan Greenberg: I agree. I don’t see any flexibility at all, unless we decide that no RALO people are coming to the following.
Sebastian Bachollet: I guess I have to read again what they told us, but it was something a little bit different, but you may be right and we will have to work on that anyhow. Okay, can we say that we had some conclusion about the point so I clear item number two and we go to the item number three, and I give the chair to Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You just want to - Sebastian - okay. We do have an action item. The action item is we still need to work on item two, but we’ve had a full and frank discussion about it and I think it fits in with a lot of what we need to do for our ALAC improvements implementation as well, so this is now going to move into the next few days with inter sessional work.
Thank you for that, Sebastian. Item number three is the planning of future beginner guides and future beginner guides is something that as an interface with the, they should be interested and are thinking about becoming involved age community, we probably have a very unique opportunity to nurture and to encourage topics to come forward. We’ve got a bit of a short list here for our discussion tonight or today I should say, sorry. One is beginner’s guide to IDNs which would include ccTLD, gTLDs, and IDNA protocol.
We’ve got a beginners guide to DNS security, certainly a topic of the month if not the year, new gTLDs, and IPv4 distribution. That’s in no way an exhaustive list, but Excom really should, before we take it to the ALAC, decide are there glaring holes in that or do some of those really not merit the encouragement we can give for ICANN, not ourselves, but for ICANN to develop future beginner guides.
I think if we hold firm ownership or at least our hand goes to the pillar on some of these beginner guides, we’re doing the community we claim to serve a great service. So, the floor is open for discussion on planning and topics of future beginner’s guides, and perhaps, Heidi, it might be appropriate for you to give us a little bit of background on beginners guides are put together, but while you are preparing yourself for that, I see Sebastian and then Carlton. Go ahead.
Sebastian Bachollet: My first point is that we need to learn from what we do or not do with the first beginners guidebook about the DNS because it’s long time ago we start to write it and it’s not yet published and finished, and we need to maybe put some agenda or schedule for it (inaudible 1:00:28) I don’t think we can be ready to have a beginners guide for the new gTLDs until the finalization of the dag, and even so it will be (inaudible 01:00:45) something that we need to be ready during the year where the guidebook, the new gTLDs guidebook will be finished and the time it will be launched, if we do something on IPv4, I think we will need to do something, even if it is short, on IPv6. We can’t tackle just one subject and not the other.
Even if we decide to concentrate on IPv4, and we need really to start something on IDN, it’s something important and even if we know it will be a never ended work, because I don’t see when the new IDN gTLD will come, but we need to be ready to release something on the IDN ccTLD with placeholder for the IDN gTLD and anything else and what I would like to see how we can handle that to have a document up to date. We will have to print one every three months or six months, or each year, but we need to have a place where we can have it up to date to tell people that if there are some questions they can go to the last version on the web. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Sebastian. Carlton, I’m really thinking in terms of somewhat (inaudible1:02:27) Sebastian, we need to go back to some of your points and hear from Heidi about the ICANN intention of what is a beginners guide and how is it created, because our history on the DNS one is a slight variance with the new proposal and plans. Go ahead Carlton.
Carlton Samuels: Yes, thank you chair, Carlton here. I would just suggest that we have two. I think it’s important to put out a beginners guide on whois and a beginners guide on the obligations of registrars, just kind of distilling the RAA. Those two topics are linked and I think probably it would help the community if they knew whois because it feeds into the issue of privacy which is a big one in some areas, and it might be helpful to get a greater dissemination of the whois and what it is supposed to be.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks, Carlton. Heidi, can you then brief us on and I guess also bring us up to speed on the almost historic and epic history of the beginners guide to the DNS just so we all are on the same page here, because I’m a little concerned that we need, and more importantly ALAC, the wider ALAC and the community need to understand how a beginners guide is now to be developed.
When we looked at the DNS it was something that was very much our picks, our business, our proposal, and our work and our disagreement on the outcome of the work. Where these days’ beginners’ guides are a more corporate approach and we have more influence and topic and content.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, again, just given the time I’ll be brief. In the past, the original one was the At-Large guide to the DNS, and under Barbara we changed that to the beginners guide to the DNS and that would be a series of beginners guides in a suite of documents for different levels of users. One would be if you’ve seen the new IDN brochure that was modeled after the At-Large and the RALO brochures that would be the first very simple introduction to a topic.
The beginners guide is then meant to be a slightly longer, deeper; around 20 pages guide with graphics, etc., for the next step, and then the third version on the same topic would be a longer definitive guide for that particular topic. The topics that are on the agenda today, they were picked from ones that we thought would be of interest to the At-Large community, Carlton. The whois one, the RAA obligations for registrars, we can obviously bring those back as well. The proposal right now, and this needs to be confirmed internally, would be the author would be an internal expert on the topics, and then obviously it would go out for comments from the community.
Where we are with the DNS, the beginners guide to the DNS, we are very close to having that finalized. As you saw in Brussels, we’ve now updated it. Not only the graphics but the content is much more readable, much more inviting. I would think we are still going to be sending it through legal and to go back just to a few more people internally and we’re also inviting comments from you. Sebastian, you’ve already offered so we’ll set up a call for that. We’re hoping to have that out in the next month or so.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Any other discussions on this from the Excom other than what I think is certainly – I think the whois can probably go in a mix to get a (gurnsey) but at the very basic level. We’re not trying to make this rocket science explanation, but very much a beginners guide, on whois and the rights of registrars, sorry, the obligations of registrars. Whether or not those things need to be cleaved in two is another question.
It might be two separate topics there, but I think they should go on the to be considered list. Do you know, while I am looking at a very short amount of time, at least while I can be on this call with you, you can complete the call, obviously, without me. That we might want to have this particular matter raised as an agenda item for wider ALAC input? Do you want beginners guide on the ALAC agenda.
Alan Greenberg: I don’t think we need to discuss it a lot. I think it would be good to say kind of what Heidi just said. That there is a lot of work that ICANN is now supporting, and give the list. I don’t think we need to talk about it. Everyone is going to agree.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, good. Well if we can just ask for a very short briefing on current state and we can do a running list on the favorite topics and any future topic can always be added in to that list. That is perhaps the way forward, then Alan.
Alan Greenberg: I support that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, while you’ve sort of almost got the microphone, I note your line in the chat room that we don’t have the review team applications on the agenda. I think that gets an automatic (gurnsey) it must be on our ALAC agenda, so unless someone moderately disagrees with that very sensible suggestion, that to me is a clear one that needs to go on the ALAC agenda.
Alan Greenberg: When is the ALAC meeting?
Heidi Ulrich: The 27th.
Alan Greenberg: Well, that’s only two days before the deadline. Three days –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s correct.
Alan Greenberg: I meant it wasn’t on our agenda today. Sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right. I mean, it closes on the 29th, so with the huge masses of considerations we’re going to have to deal with; we can probably do that in two days.
Alan Greenberg: I didn’t mean selection of the person, I meant encouraging that there be at least one application. Have we – I haven’t seen any yet. Are they any?|
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Any that have been put through, I am aware of several that are being discussed and encouraged.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Do we need to encourage anyone specific to apply for any of these?|
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, it’s being discussed out on the original list, and everyone should continue to encourage that.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sebastian, I can’t give you, you’re a host now, and I can’t give you speaking rights.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, thank you. It was just to say that we have candidates for the Europe region for the technical one and but I was have a chat with him and he told me he already sent it and I was concerned that we didn’t get the feedback from –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We haven’t got it back as yet. If he –
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay. I will check once again, and I hope that we will have some candidates, at least one, because I heard there were people asking other people to be candidates, but I didn’t see nothing yet.
Alan Greenberg: That was the point I was making, when I said we I meant –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, other than doing things privately or on list, and it is already happening on list, and our next best opportunity to remind people is at the ALA meeting, but we need to put it out on list again. But you know, the dates been closed. In two days, we can do what we can do. As you know, with most things, people tend to do it at the deadline.
Alan Greenberg: All right, can I have a minute on the travel support one?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Where does that fit into the current topic?
Sebastian Bachollet: We add that on the other business—
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But we didn’t get to other business yet. Can we – first of all, Vanda go ahead, and then we need to actually get through the At-Large improvements list.
Vanda Scartezini: That’s what I want to talk about, is this item four. So (inaudible 1:12:18 ) have been discussing this item, the actions on emails, and I had that call today, and the idea is to have some of, more information in the topic related to the aoc, so in the last review, we’re going to change the (inaudible 1:12:53) that is the aoc, because it’s too much general information that means nothing, and what we really have done to improve the accountability and transparency is not clear here, so we’re going to rephrase this (G) and probably we’re going to put this dashboard forward to make it easy to understand for the Board members. They have more use to deal with that. So that is one point. The other point I would like to raise because in (terminals) I will need to enter in another call –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: My call is already coming in, as you can hear. Sorry about the call waiting.
Vanda Scartezini: Yes, what I’m very concerned about in the dag 4, I don’t know because I haven’t read all these statements from ALAC, but I don’t know if you have paid attention enough. In the dag 4, the section 121, it’s about global (inaudible 1:14:30) it’s something amazing and strange. It says that the background of the people will be checked corruption and bribery –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, yes –
Carlton Samuels: I’ve got a note on that and I intended to look at it –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s a very serious issue.
Vanda Scartezini: That is very serious in that we cannot do that with this kind of – you know, ALAC cannot accept it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Exactly. We have to come down against that theory very seriously.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, what was that wording? I missed – it cut out when Vanda was saying that.
Vanda Scartezini: It’s –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The background check. That people will be checked, so matters such as your potential risk as a terrorist, etc.
Alan Greenberg: Ah. Okay.
Vanda Scartezini: It is confusing because there is no – it is not our mandate. There is no mandate.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’ve got you.
Vanda Scartezini: To how they will check.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I have got to hang up, I have got to now leave you, but I know that Seth and everyone will get back to me on your discussions on ALAC and (inaudible 1:15:43). Can I encourage you now to continue on with At-Large improvement plan as we have put together some of the matters for what you think are priorities for discussion and decision on the ALAC agenda and I will catch up after this next call goes ahead. Sorry, but I’ve got to get to the next ATIT call. Thanks so much, bye.
Sebastian Bachollet: Alan, you want to take the lead for this next part of the meeting?
Vanda Scartezini: I have another call as well, but I just want to make sure that you pay attention on that.
Alan Greenberg: Vanda, where were those words? I’m sorry, I must have missed them, but that was in the document on approval?
Vanda Scartezini: Dag 4, section 121, eligibility.
Sebastian Bachollet: Eligibility, yes it’s there.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, but which document?
Vanda Scartezini: Dag 4.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, thank you, sorry. That I knew, but I thought you were talking about At-Large directors were going to be checked to be terrorists. Sorry. Okay.
Vanda Scartezini: This is amazing, amazing, out of our scope as ICANN. I don’t know why this kind of thing enters into this dag. It’s amazing. If you remember we have someone in the public complain about that, and –
Alan Greenberg: And there’s no way it’s going to continue living, but yes, we can comment.
Vanda Scartezini: Just that, just to inform you about this before I leave. just to inform you about what’s going on on the Board, we’re going to have two retreats this semester, one we’re going to be on 20 to 22 of September just to debate and approve the new gTLDs,
Alan Greenberg: Okay, that’s good. That’s a retreat?
Vanda Scartezini: Yes, it’s a two day retreat for finalize everything about the new gTLDs , and the order will be the normal one at the end of October and that is for strategy issues and so on. And probably we’re going to have a problem with the IPU to face what really has been done during the historic interface the IPU challenge certainly, and so on. But anyway, just to inform you about that.
The other information I would like to share with you is that I personally enter into the SSAC ad hoc because there is a lot of important issues to be debated one on one in the ad hoc, and I do believe that it has become a very important advisory committee. They are like us, advisory, but a lot of important issues become interesting like the Chair of that advisory committee is a member of the Board, and we may think about that, related to ALAC.
Sebastian Bachollet: You mean having the Chair of ALAC as a member of the Board, you mean?
Vanda Scartezini: Yes.
Alan Greenberg: Well, let’s put this in perspective. That position, the SSAC has a liaison, he is not the liaison. He happens to be a noncom appointee to the Board, who was kept as the Chair of the SSAC. Which some groups might think in inappropriate, because the Board is not supposed to be participating in discussions that end up going to the Board.
Vanda Scartezini: Yes, that is not – considering the advisory committee is like the GAC, they are there, why not the others? So it’s something to think about, just that because it could be a very good way to be heard much more than ever.
Alan Greenberg: I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. Are you suggesting that the ALAC designate the ALAC Chair as its Board member?
Vanda Scartezini: Yes, just it is something to think about, because these two are the ACs in the ICANN structure, the Chair of the Board is in the Board of ICANN.
Alan Greenberg: But it has its liaison. That would have been appropriate when we had a liaison as we do now, I’m not sure – now that it’s a by-law mandated selection process, I’m don’t think, I’m not sure that’s possible.
Carlton Samuels: To me, I’d rather have two bags of the apples, to tell the truth.
Vanda Scartezini: Yes, but it works for the others, the GAC is liaison just because they decide to be, just because there is no real representative of a bunch of countries. So that was their decision, to be a liaison, not a member – a full member. That’s their decision. But from the SSAC, it’s working like that, so I don’t know. It’s something to think about, what is the advantage and disadvantage of this thing.
Alan Greenberg: We should have had that discussion three years ago, if it’s appropriate.
Vanda Scartezini: Yes, but I’m just now –
Sebastian Bachollet: Sorry, but we had that discussion, and I remember proposing that the chair of the ALAC become the liaison automatically at the time when it was a liaison, it was time when we decided to have election and to stay with that. I –
Alan Greenberg: The policies of this group change from year to year.
Vanda Scartezini: It’s not – so relevant issues, just to think about if there is an advantage or not, and I will exchange with Seth, some points and the other point that I hated that I don’t know if all the people are aware about that and I hate that (inaudible 1:24:13) in our lunchtime in Brussels was the results that Rudy had done related to ALS and ACs and people in the Board were very interested in those results, so I believe we should add something like that. Did you have the entire results with you (inaudible 1:24:51) you know what I am talking about?
Heidi Ulrich: Vanda? I believe that those results were preliminary, for both the ALS ccTLD survey as well as the ALS survey, so we can get back to both – and Rudy and Ron to find out where they are with their final analysis.
Vanda Scartezini: Yes, because the people in the Board were quite interested in this survey and it could be a very important issue to our participation in the aoc. And this brings new cc’s to the community and they connect ALS to these cc’s so it’s quite important for the AOC process. So could you get some information from that?
Heidi Ulrich: Yes. We’ll make that as an action item.
Vanda Scartezini: Okay. Thank you. So for my point of view it’s all I have to say. If you have some questions I’m glad to try to answer.
Sebastian Bachollet: Alan, you want to talk?
Alan Greenberg: Yes, I want to comment on what Vanda was saying about the chair of the ALAC being the ALAC Board member. I think the train has left the station on that one. Whoever is selected as the Board member is clearly being selected as someone who is representing themselves and not a group, so yes, in theory, one could hold the chair of At-Large at the same time one is a Board member.
I’m not quite sure one could continue in that role afterwards, and certainly that person could not be changed out a year later if the chair or the ALAC changed. That’s just not how the by-laws talk about Board members. If we wanted our chair to be the liaison, we should have done that. As Sebastian said, it has been talked about, it was rejected, and the fact that the current chair of the SSAC is sitting on the Board, he’s not sitting on the Board as the chair of the SSAC, he’s sitting on the Board as a nomcom appointee, and in fact if there were a discussion about SSAC, he would probably have to recuse himself, because of a conflict of interest.
I think we need to make – whether we’re going down the right road or not, who knows? There were some people within the Excom who strongly opposed the concept of an At-Large director and said we should be keeping a liaison, too late to have that discussion again, I think. And it’s a waste of our time.
Vanda Scartezini: Yes, just something for the future, if we want to think about when they change – those policies are all time change. (Inaudible 1:28:04) review, for instance, in three years.
Sebastian Bachollet: Well, anyway, we will have to discuss that. It may be a good way to come back after one or three years about the fact that At-Large ALAC still need a liaison and perhaps it could be the chair of the ALAC at that time. We will have to see on how all that would be organized.
Vanda Scartezini: Okay. That’s for my side –
Sebastian Bachollet: Thank you Vanda. Do we want to discuss into more detail, Seth you wanted feedback on the ALAC improvement project plan? Can you tell us where we are and give us a short summary and tell us what we need to do? And Alan, do you want to take the lead of the meeting?
Alan Greenberg: Not really. I’m going to have to leave in a few minutes anyway. I thought the call was ending on the hour and I have something else scheduled.
Sebastian Bachollet: Then may I suggest that we do the ICANN 4 and we will stop there –
Alan Greenberg: I would like to talk for a minute about the travel support.
Sebastian Bachollet: Let’s finish the point four, and you wave us one minutes before you have to leave for the travel support and we finish the meeting after you leave. If Vanda, Carlton and you are leaving and Cheryl already left we need to stop the meeting.
Alan Greenberg: Which means we probably need to reschedule something else –
Vanda Scartezini: Just to make it quick, Seth and I are putting this last version that is in the agenda, the last Item, G, we are rewriting this just to make it more clear about what are our contribution, real contributions to the AOC. And put this instead of a word format, a kind of dashboard like the GNSO used to present things to the Board make it more easy to read and you can expend that for more than one page. You can put three slides or something like that. Okay. That’s – so we are exchange Seth and I, today, and certainly he will send to everybody afterward.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, Seth. Can you give us a short summary of where we are?
Seth Greene: Certainly. Thanks Sebastian. I’ll try to be very, very brief. On the summary draft that – to which there is a link on the agenda, the latest draft, what we’ve done is basically just updated the executive summary text from the full version of the project plan. Largely this update, under your part E by-law changes involve adding one line, the second bullet point regarding that legal’s recommended by-law amendments are now in the public comment period. You all see that.
We’ve also added some links, I’ve added some links in the next section, implementation steps, to the simplified improvements, which people seem to find very useful. Vanda has already explained, in term G, it’s her impression, as she said, that relating the improvements to the aoc, it’s very important we should have something in there, but instead of just citing the section which people usually don’t have committed to memory, actually state some of the work that’s been done in line with the affirmation, and in fact Vanda is going to send me a paragraph that she thinks would be of the most interest in that regard to the Board.
I suppose we’ve also, the plan as of right now, I’d be interested in hearing peoples thoughts on this, is to go to change over from the current format, which is obviously just a one page text document with bullets, to that dashboard look and feel that the GNSO started using for reporting. I believe the downside is that it’s going to make the summary longer, the upside, if I’m understanding correctly, both generally and specifically what Vanda was saying, is that while it will be more pages, it will look more user friendly, it’ll look more like a PowerPoint Presentation of a few pages, with a very simple lift. I suppose, honestly, my concern is translating some of the points in this current summary into simple phrases, but I suppose that’s an obstacle that we can deal with, so that’s the update right there, of where we are, if anyone wants to discuss this.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, thank you Seth. Maybe before we discuss the layout we need to discuss if we agree with the two items, the F was the implementation type and the G was ICANNs affirmation of commitments. We already have those into the document and it’s not really new and my feeling is that this summary could go right to the Board now. Which format, frankly I don’t care. It’s just a question of format. Have you any point for the contents you want to raise, Alan, Carlton, or Dave?
Alan Greenberg: I haven’t looked at it in detail, but I will over the rest of the day. I was gone until last night and didn’t have much time last week.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, but that’s the change of the two bullets, the F and the G. The rest is as we agreed on, and it’s really nothing new except the point with the link to the aoc, and we write something specifically in the document. It’s just a summary we bring into that part, and F was the link to the annex, now a link to the (inaudible 1:35:36) and I see no worries on what they’ve done. What I suggest is that if you have any remarks in the next 24 hours, just send it to the list and then that will take care of that, and I suggest that we stop now the discussion and I give the floor to Alan about the travel and we will stop the meeting there. Thank you.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you. I just wanted to highlight what I sent out, and I really want to get the draft to Kevin well before the end of my day, so we’re talking about ten hours or so. If anyone has any specific comments, be they typos or if you object to any of the concepts in there, please I would like to hear about them quickly. What I’ve described there is far more complex than I’m happy with, but I see no way to avoid the complexity if we’re in a position where ICANN cannot put a fair amount of trust into the travelers to do the right thing and to make reasonable decisions, and the internal guidelines within ICANN for staff is that people should make reasonable decisions and there are managers to make sure that any individual person does that.
That is not the case with volunteers, in the general case, and I see no way of getting around it without putting some very specific rules in place. Hopefully, if they were to take my advice examples could help simplify the overall description. Again, I’m asking at this point is there anything three that you feel if they implement it, it would make things worse, not better. Or is there anything that I have omitted? The troubles you’ve had in the past that are not addressed by this kind of thing? I’m going to be sending this as a personal comment, I’m assuming that within a short amount of time afterwards, the ALAC may well endorse it, but the first step is for me to send it as a personal comment. That is what Kevin asked for. I’m assuming that he will not object to it being supported by At-Large but I’m trying to get some words in quickly.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, any comments from the other participants?
Vanda Scartezini: I need to go.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay. Thank you for your time. Okay, one comment Alan. I read the document and it is far too complicated, but it’s not your fault. It’s the fact that travel is complicated. My only point I will – I disagree with your last sentence, your last item. It’s not numbered after the 12. The reimbursement I think, and I have worked with different companies and with each it’s much more not just costly for ICANN but also for users to have to ask for real reimbursement and I will really as a traveler prefer-
Alan Greenberg: I’m sorry? You’re not talking about the airfare, but the reimbursement for the travel expenses?
Sebastian Bachollet: I am citing what you say, also not related to air travel. I agree with your air travel discussion. I would leave that out, I disagree and I can’t explain why, but I think it’s a little bit out of scope and I will be more comfortable that you send it without that. But that’s my point of view.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Noted, and I’m certainly happy to take it out. I would like to send it there because I believe it addresses some private conversations that Kevin and I have had about per diems, but I don’t completely disagree. I’m quite happy that they keep per diems.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes, it’s overall a lot of work to not have – it’s why I would like to avoid.
Alan Greenberg: The reason I included it is I have had discussions with both Kevin and others that for many people their per diems are probably overly generous. For others, because of visas and other costs they are too low. But I think that’s better handled by exceptions than trying to do expense accounts for everybody.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay thank you Alan for your document. If you have other comments to be sent prior we decide that it’s becoming an ALAC document, if you want to send it from you personally first that’s no problem from my point of view, but then we’ll have to include that on the ALAC discussion.
Alan Greenberg: Sebastian, if you can send me a note, I’m not quite sure – I’m not quite sure if you are saying we keep per diems.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes. Keep per diems.
Alan Greenberg: So we’re agreeing on the conclusion, basically.
Sebastian Bachollet: If you have any other comments send by mail please. May I ask staff to help us reschedule our next ALAC meeting, check with Cheryl to see when, and we will have another meeting to make sure item five and six is done.
Heidi Ulrich: So we should send a google out for another quick Excom on item five?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes, please.
Alan Greenberg: And Heidi, the Wiki page you posted with my email, if you could add the word draft in the title I would appreciate it.
Sebastian Bachollet: I would like to discuss if we can have two minutes, the Wiki page with a lot of comments that are out of topic with links for some reason, and I would like very much if we solve that, because it is a new thing and I am not very comfortable with that. If we can find a solution even if it’s before we have to go to conference.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, thank you Sebastian. On the scheduling for the single issue Excom call for the ALAC agenda, could that also be on Monday? the reason being I’m also going to be traveling towards the end of the week for a team leaders retreat, so it would be difficult for me to be on the call later this week.
Sebastian Bachollet: I guess we don’t need to - it may be before the ALAC and the ALAC is the 27th.
Heidi Ulrich: What we could do is have a few options later this week, and I probably won’t be able to be on it, and that’s fine and then also Monday morning, perhaps the same time?
Sebastian Bachollet: For me Monday is fine.
Alan Greenberg: We have to publish the agenda more than one day ahead of time.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay. So we can have it toward the end of the week then.
Alan Greenberg: I think so. Cheryl said her next two days are hell, so it would probably have to be her Thursday/Friday.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay. We’ll work on the time.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay. Thank you, I guess we can close.
-End of recorded material-
