Olivier Crepin-Leblond: The need to address to an issue if, if even one voice says it well, this needs to be dealt with, a statement needs to be written, which therefore then caused the rest of the committee need to come together and perform all that. So we are, as part of the At-Large Improvements Project – and I can finish what I’m saying – as part of the improvement – no it’s just you’re scary with your instrument – we are as part of our al improvements project going to put together, and I mean this is in the plan.
We will be putting together some form of cathedral – some form of system to replace this which will involve – probably involve – the making of a policy team. And the policy team will be, will just make a quick judgment call like this, and will track. It will track the policy request of our request for comments in a closer way. And it will also liaise with the part of ICANN that deals specifically with this so as to have an advanced notice to what is coming up, so we can work smarter, and not harder necessarily. Cheryl you put your hand up and first I’ll go to Carlton and then Cheryl - Carlton?
Carlton Samuels: Thank you Olivier. David thanks for coming to see us, appreciate it. We talked about getting into the process and learning and I am speaking specifically to the JAS process resolution, you will see what’s happening there. We have a comment period for the JAS program, until 16th December. You know what happens in Christmas time, people are gone and not a lot but we are very anxious to see something happen.
So the question is this: Is there a way for us to mediate the public comment period and perhaps break it into parts so we could at least have an early – some kind of early output back to the Board?
David: Generally with the standard division ATRT re: openness and transparency we’ve been trying to regularize the comment period to 30 days. And with the reply comments requirements that’s an extra 15 days though that’s still yet to be implemented. That’s, I guess, a decision you could make, but again the point is in expediting that you cut short the ability to have people input and comment on it.
But that would be something that - this is not a formal PDP process. It’s not governed by the bylaws in A or B. You could talk to the organizers of that. Fritz is here and the legal people to give you an answer on that. My only reaction would be we have to worry about providing enough time for public comment.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. Cheryl Langdon Orr, and I’m not going to [inaudible00:03:44]. Now, jump a little bit old fashioned I have from memory here. In the days gone by we had people in work groups and working very hard to create a voice and I’m talking [Brett Hallford] at this point in time. Right back when, in the beginning, almost.
The voice of what ALAC was doing or was not doing was not – it was not particulated separately from the ordinary consensus of the input. So there is in fact an historical reason for statements of the ALAC to be made from time to time. It’s more than just getting the message to the Board. There’s also showing the community we are serving what we are doing and there is purpose in both. How you purpose for them to be objective can be reviewed.
But there’s nothing wrong with still having the statement so the community can see that people are not just very briefly and very rarely making comments when they come together at a public forums. Be very cautious when, for the desire of expediency, you start changing rules on the fly. Just to come back to your focal point and comment, our community is one that can be very reactive, and rightfully so. If there’s found to be a high degree of predictability. And the community we are protecting of course has asked for 45 legal standards, not 13.
And it would be a sort of the area of experts of what I thought was an excellent study which showed that technically it took 10-12 weeks to do the job properly and that would be pretty well unsatisfactory all around. So when you’ve got an advantage for the success to [inaudible 00:06:02] that’s running in the [inaudible 00:06:02] standard, you should be able to accumulate, all the factors coming in, you should be able to work in and accumulate the reactions that work perfect to do a lot.
And if I could suggest, it might be a very good idea, to look to some of the templates, some of you have excellent staff and you have absolutely astonishingly brilliant staff. David, they just wow me every time I turn up here to the work group. Some of the staff find it difficult to manage that input from public comment and perhaps it would be useful for the Executive Committee to look to David’s staff and see which of them has the best tools.
Carlton Samuels: If I may follow up here.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Cheryl. David you wish to add to this?
David: I just want to say we’re also trying to standardize those templates. You’ll find that on the public comment forum social log and others here and later we’ll come back with inputs from our policy team and that provides a very quick reference and easy way to look at and format those policy comments we’re happy to share those.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you David and maybe we can have this as an action item. I’d like to certainly have a good look at those. We need to make use of them. So anything that will lighten the load on our staff and lighten the load on our volunteers so it’s bearable. Carlton?
Carlton Samuels: Thank you chair, in following up on both David and Cheryl’s comment. That’s precisely what we were expecting. The issue is it’s just to make sure that the comments are processed in a timely way so that we don’t get bogged down at the end with the comments. So that was exactly what the intent was. So if we can look at the formats and the way it’s done and see if we can optimize the processing of the comments, then we’d be very happy with that. Thank you very much David.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Carlton. David?
David: And you know, Carla has been doing wonderful staffing for you and knows these things quite well as well. So it’s not rocket science. The new templates just make it a little easier to do it.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you, next is Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Comments on a few of the things. I’ll be very quick. With regard to Cheryl’s comment about the value we’re still making for making comments and things like that. It ties very well into the next part of the discussion we have on the process of dealing with comments by phone work groups and things like that. It’s changed from being non-existent, since the comments were lightly tossed in the basket, whatever, with the envelope and everything opened.
To something which is some work groups now it has related to who the staff person is and I think we can learn lessons from that, have been treated very seriously. Number 1, I would reinforce the concept that ALAC put hostile things in statements. They don’t have time to say “Yes we meant what we said last time”. If you actually want to effect the change on the report you need to say it and explain why and it may actually happen.
So we need to treat that really serious and that means starting those processes earlier in the game, than wait seven days before the comments are due and some of the drafts sitting here two days and send it out. It needs to be on a more common basis than that. But as I said, the tools and the seriousness with which comments have been taken sometimes, and it’s not uniform over the last six months, it is impressive and we need to make sure that we do it right way on JAS in that particular example. But things are working much better; we just have to make sure they can choose the right ways.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Alan and I’m a little concerned that we’re spending a lot of time on the comment and we’re also keeping you back David so thanks for joining us. And we no doubt will be seeing you in Costa Rica but in the meantime we have the next person who is Kurt Pritz, joining us.
Kurt Pritz: Thank you very much.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Off you go, quick then, switch, switch.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: And so Kurt while you make yourself at ease, on the hot seat, as we would call it the crucible, we are going to speak today about, well perhaps not so much about the [inaudible] this is launched but you are in charge of the, well formal participation of that. And I just wondered as a starting question effectively if you could define to us who your stakeholders are, what does that position mean, and then how I guess, how you will be able to work with us.
Kurt Pritz: It includes David’s groups, it includes the contracted parties, so the registries, the registrar liaison function. So the thing about that, there’s policy involved. And then there’s development, rather, implementation of policy. So you think about the policy developments, the supporting function, supports the development of policy and then registry and registrar services.
The rest of the services, serve to document the policy. So there’s an opportunity for us I think. That, you know at least in staff there’s this line between policy development and policy implementation and really especially with the new gTLD program. Other policies are blurring there because when we develop policies, policy making also come to staff and say, you know, let’s implement a whole new start.
What’s your advice on that? And take that into account. And similarly when staff is charged with implementing the policy, once it’s approved, we come back to the policy makers and say “Here’s our model. You think this is what you had in mind?” And I think you’re going back to the gTLD process but that’s a great example of that because while just while GNSO was working on the policy we were constantly in front of them saying this worth all this doesn’t it. And several of the efforts seen in policy was improved in comparison.
There’s been constant updates in the community and there’s been many people raising their hands, “That’s not the implementation of our policy” and discussion back talking about us more so think about the implementation of rights protection mechanisms backing this up. You know, not originally in the guidebook, developed by IE constituencies drafted. You know we formed this FGI group that really took up the policy question then and so are these new rights protection mechanisms consummate with developed policy or is it different.
And we say that we also think about what makes ICANN successful which, you know, having in-store policy making and having policy implementation guided by the policy makers to ensure that policy is being implemented in the right way so it makes for a combination of those functions. It's an opportunity for ICANN to do things a little more effectively.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Right so if I get this correctly, while initially you were primarily involved with the actual policy development you really are now at the stage of implementation. And so while policy gets discussed during PDP process and GNSO council, does implementation involved with GNSO council in the same way as policy development used to? Or are we now looking at a new era if you want. I’m trying to find out where does the At-Large and where does ALAC fit in the whole system.
To give you an idea, the Joint Applicant Support Working Group, as far as the At-Large is concerned, is seen as being implementation, not being policy. And I’m not quite sure, we haven’t had time to discuss this with the GNSO council, but individual members have spoken on their own behalf not on behalf of the council.
But have told me “Oh well it’s still policy development” so there hasn’t been a clear line. I don’t want to go back and try to define whether the JAS was or was not. But I think we want to find our place in the process and since there are some things which are rigid of us in the implementation side of things we wanted to see how we can work this one out with you so we don’t start on the wrong footing.
Kurt Pritz: This is just a discussion right?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: He means for the transcript record.
Kurt Pritz: So I think that -
Male: So it’s almost the wrong decision path that this policy is not right. The ICANN Board passed resolution and asked that they be informed on this question of applicant supported, you know, what we call it really doesn’t matter. We’re trying to get things done in some collaborative way that takes advantage of the skill set of everything in the toolbox.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay I see that hands are going up around the table so I will throw a few questions out, or let a few questions be asked and then we’ll see where we go from there, but I really like us to think along the lines of where do we go together from here? Where do we work? How do we work together? What are you looking for in At-Large in the next stage? And perhaps if we can discuss also what we can expect from you in the next stage. So first Tijani.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: He might speak French. I don’t think that he…
Tijani Ben Jemaa: [Speaks French].
Kurt Pritz: That’s perfectly right, and what the Board’s talking about when the Board discusses this resolution today, it had already discussed some of the ways of moving forward and some ideas that are being flushed out and asked staff to put those ideas together in some form that can be discussed in the very near term. And sooner than the comment period, for example, closes. And I will get to that in a minute so we’ll come back to the JAS and say “What is the best way to work together?”
And once that comment has been made, not by me, but by considering that, you know, some sort of subgroup gets appointed to create Board staff working group in order to move the process forward because the Board members on their own came up with some really innovative ideas for, you know, providing the ability to grow the amount available for applicant support.
Which you know, it changes the, it takes some of the comments out in the meeting and you know, I think it follows the JAS working group report but it might be different in a little way. Again you create those ideas, flushing out the details to be implemented, and so, anyway, so there’s an iterative discussion that has to happen. And one suggestion, I think that the JAS group can appoint a subgroup that can work intensively with staff and support.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Kurt, we have a queue and I’m trying to keep it short. Carlton, Cannish was coming in and, thank you very much Kurt! We have a queue and no voices it's the very last day. We have a queue with Carlton, Cannish and then other, and Carlton.
Kurt Pritz: Thank you very much Kurt though. You pre-empted what we were going to suggest. A couple of us had the discussion earlier on and the idea was that we would form a team from the JAS group to coordinate and work with the staff, to work with those so thank you very much for that.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you, and Cannish.
Cannish Clark: Hi this is Cannish Clark with the transport record. Cheryl should be proud of me now. Kurt I, this is my first meeting so, from Heidi, you know, I’ve seen all of the support that you’ve provided the advisory, the committee over here. But given the pretty different rules that you have, stakeholder, you know, support, planning, policy formulation and the implementation, now that the gTLD is not a small project by itself I was wondering how your organization is coping up with this extra responsibilities.
As a professional manager myself I could only imagine your organization is more than three-fold or you have a little checkbook which I assume that neither the case. So would you be able to comment on where you’re focusing your priorities. I mean without compromising on the technical support?
Kurt Pritz: Yeah certainly. And you know, it’s, by keeping small reasonable strands of control, and providing resources to each one. So if you’re a manager we try not to manage the priority. We manage to the due date. So what are the requirements? What, when are papers due? What happens when there’s one I can’t process? So deadlines have to be met. So for gTLD implementation you know there’s a separate organization for that. That’s under a gentleman named Michael Salazar.
He’s grown that new GLTD operation that’s managed the evaluation of applications. That’s off by itself and funded by itself. And then policy development support us very ably head by David and Rainer, so David’s an executive with the company and runs policies for the web, a lot of influence to me other than integrating and coordinating on key issues. And then we have a separate team that manages our contractive relationships. So it’s managed just like any other business.
You create a budget each year. You create objectives that should be accomplished within that budget. But I’ll say that when ICANN started we were lacking, well not when ICANN started but when I started with ICANN it was likened to a 5 year old soccer or football team, where all the kids are running after the ball, no matter where it is on the field. But ICANN’s grown now, so that has breadth and it can separate functions out so people can go back and forth depending on where the emergency and priority is. I don’t know if that’s the kind of answer you were looking for.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Kurt. Next is Alan.
Alan Greenberg: I’m going to go back for a moment to the JAS issue. When the JAS Committee was working, the people on that group were a combination of pragmatic people who understood we wanted to do something that would implement formidable for the time frame and implicitly within the budget. And some ideals to tell that there were important principals in this way that had to be honored.
I’ve already been approached by a number of Board members and one or two staff people in the last couple of days, who are asking penetrating questions. Like if you don’t really want these two what should we do? And we don’t see how we can do such and such if there’s some other way we can accomplish the same intent without the same details. And I think those are the kind of questions we’re going to have to answer quickly and I think we’ll find people who are willing to help you work with it. Thank you.
Kurt Pritz: So I want to talk about public comments for a minute. Because there’s this public comment process and I think we’re going to have to arrive at some conclusions before public commentary closes. So a provocative question is you know, why did you do a public comment period? If you think about a milestone period, if you write a report, right? So you write a well thought out report you get public comment, you can modify your report.
You write a second milestone in your report you get a comment on that. You know, when is it time to finish? If you think about your deadlines going forward and what has be done. We’re going to meet deadlines that clashes up against all the public commentary. So it makes me go back to staff support, and wonder how we can support, you know, either forward looking or backward past schedules that you know, show a path forward in the long term. We’re with ICANN you know, we’ll always work on our introduction public comment but that’s part of the problem we had with the applicant guidebook.
You know, had we ever not do a version for public comment so the Board would never vote on it. And that was sort of a painful thing.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Kurt. I think -yeah sure.
Alan Greenberg: Kurt you’re right. It is the way ICANN does things. If you look at the PDP process that has gone through endless public comments – the new PDP process – and was approved by the GSO on Wednesday. It’s now going to go to public comments for this report before the Board decides on it. However history shows that typically and the gTLD problem is probably the exception. But the number of comments get fewer and the number of really substantive comments required for change get fewer each time.
Carlton Samuels: With time.
Alan Greenberg: So I’m not expecting a huge number of comments which are plausible to where we are going right now. There may be one or two. But I don’t think there’s going to be a huge push in that direction. So anyway, during the implementation of power and that iterating if there is something substantive, I think it’s not going to be unreasonable.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Carlton and then Tijani.
Carlton Samuels: No I defer.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay so to Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: [Speaks French].
Kurt Pritz: I don’t think it is possible to shorten the public comment because once we’ve opened the public comment period; we’re sort of managed expectations in a way that people will have a period to comment. And so to shorten that after the fact is the wrong result. I think one opportunity to in fact shorten it is maybe deliver the product in the entry level.
Carlton Samuels: Before, that’s the whole point.
Kurt Pritz: I will publish that and say “Since this public commentary is still open, you may comment on this.” And we could make some decisions that are – that have a caveat that if we’re missing something remarkable in the public comment that would change our line. We should but it would allow the Board once to make some decisions, you know, right away. And so we want to provide them the opportunity to do that. But now we’ve opened to public comment we have what we have.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Kurt. Now would working with that require any special request?
Kurt Pritz: Like how do you mean?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Use [inaudible] for the request. No the request for having any specific point taken from public comment used in -
Carlton Samuels: No. You just bump up some, just you got some. He makes them prioritized. My understanding of what Kurt is saying is that you will have some comments that you can get that you know are going to be substantive and probably for the end of the public comment period. You begin to address those so you prioritize them in as a part of the answering. That’s what I understand he’s saying and that’s we’re back.
Because I was pointing out, and Cheryl was nodding, because they’re iterative public comment periods and you expect them to get less and less and less that’s one way that you can begin to do something before the official end of the period is over. So long as you put it out and the people know that’s what you’re doing, so I appreciate that from Kurt very well thanks.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay Cheryl and then that’s it. I think I’ll do with the queue because we’ve spoken enough about this now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much Cheryl Langdon-Orr for the transcript record. It strikes me that the, first of all, we have the opportunity right now, thank you Kurt, that there could be a small sub unit of JAS who work with staff and perhaps a Board member or two and actually do some continuing work. And there’s certainly no reason for letters confidential that products from that do get bought public comments. We’re public. We are all. That’s to put comments into public comments that in fact invite more public comments. Now I don’t think you need Tijani to bring it back earlier or change the rules of the game, rather more use it to your advantage. That’s all.
Carlton Samuels: Yes.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you. And, well I think we’re probably going to let you go Kurt because we do have Xavier who has been waiting for a while. I just want - but before you go, as a takeaway, I wanted you to think about the first question that I asked. Not specifically related to the JAS, which for us is actually only a small chunk of what we’re working on. There is the implementation phase which is coming upon us. We are called upon to develop ways, procedures or processes to vet applications. I might be using the wrong word for it. It’s not vetting applications but it’s being able to produce objections to
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Community objections process, is that?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Community objection. That’s the word I was looking for. And that will require help of course because we are volunteers and that will require both help and closer operation with ICANN and with your department so the. I just wanted to establish with you, or perhaps find out with you what the process was going to be, how we’re going to work together, as I gather that on JAS it was primarily for the cross community working group. So we have to see how we work from now on. On top of that there was one more thing and I think Evan wanted to mention something about [inaudible].
Carlton Samuels: Yeah, yeah.
Evan Leibovitch: As in outreach to. It was an absolute blessing when you brought him in to work with the JAS group so not only am I wanting to thank him profusely I want to thank him in front of you. It was a great thing giving him to us for a while and we may request your help giving him to us in the future as we do future policy work. He really, it was like [inaudible] when he came in and I really want to compliment the work that he did with us.
Carlton Samuels: Plus one.
Kurt Pritz: So I thank you for that. I base my whole career on the [inaudible] work of others.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Otherwise you’re in trouble.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Kurt and see you soon if you get to the next ICANN meeting.
Kurt Pritz: It was a pleasure to see everybody here. Thank you.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you Kurt.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Next.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: So next on the hot seat, if you please take your position Xavier Calvez, the new Chief Financial Officer for ICANN. Going through his first ICANN meeting - long week, lots of people asking for money. About $ 3.50 left in the bank and they have to be shared. How can we make miracles? So the first thing of course is to make the introduction. If you could please just introduce yourself to our committee members.
We've got Tijani Ben Jemaa on the Executive Committee and Carlton as well. And Evan Leibovitch as well and Natalia is unwell unfortunately so she has not been able to join us today. Cheryl is not anymore on the [inaudible] so she has a fan that she can hide her face behind from time to time. So I’ll leave the floor to you and just how much time do you have? Just one question.
Xavier Calvez: I don't leave until [inaudible].
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay fine so we have about half an hour, great.
Evan Leibovitch: Sorry just one other thing, in the room. You may not be able to do this in other rooms, but if you prefer to speak in Spanish go right ahead.
Xavier Calvez: I don’t speak Spanish. Just mirroring my behavior over the years and I’ll speak English right now and I’ll maybe switch to French a little bit later. I’d like to be sitting - is there a microphone or I’ll hold a mic -
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: The reason why we have mics is because we actually have remote participants and also everything is being recorded and it’s being recorded remotely. The other reason why we’re late actually is because none of that was set up and there was no internet when we started. So it took a little while to get this - there are people who are technically on the phone.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Theory and actually…
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Oh so the theory and practice in this case are actually working together.
Xavier Calvez: Sorry I just don’t like to sit in this type of configuration. I prefer to stand up. Thank you very much for your invitation to participate to this meeting. I appreciate it very much having me attend to meet everybody and uhm, not that it makes it easy on me, but it’s a good opportunity. I will try in my flight back home to remember every single name and every single face and match the one with the two. But I won’t let you know if I have managed to do that or not. I started 6 weeks ago in ICANN.
Have previously I was and I’m based in Marina del Rey, California. Previously I was Finance Manager at Technicolor, the movie services company, which happens to be actually a French group and not everybody knows that. French-owned group with a lot of operations in the US, as well as other countries, with a strong base in Hollywood, CA. I spent 10 years in the group, seven of which in the US and the other three in the suburbs of Paris. Prior to that I was working in an international audit firm, a big consulting firm in auditing, financial auditing, called Deloitte.
I spent two years out of the eight or nine years that I spent there in Miami and the rest in Paris, by the Authority. So I have about half and half of my career experience in France and spent it in the US. Originally I’m from the very far west of France, called Brittany, which has been occupied by the French for the past 500 years. It’s just temporary. So that’s about it. I’m married, have 2 kids.
Carlton Samuels: He has a sense of humor, I like that.
Xavier Calvez: One and a half, six and a half year old boy and girl. My experience includes a lot of financial management orientations, relatively large finance orientations that are across the world. Usually in Asia, Europe, North America, Latin America. So the international dimension of ICANN is reasonably familiar to me and certainly is an aspect from my perspective that’s something that’s actually great and I’m very much looking forward to continue to participate in.
I have done a lot of report, financial reporting work, systems implementation as well. So the, what see right now what I can need, in terms of financial organization and support, is - I have a certain amount of experience, in a different setting, sometimes larger, sometimes slightly more complicated, to deal with organization processes and systems. Now what I’m less experienced with is the type of relationship that the ICANN staff organization and the ICANN community have.
And those relationships are definitely something that I’m trying to make sure I understand better and better in order to better design as well how we can with finance, work well with the community in terms of processes, communication, information, and so on. So I have heard a certain amount of feedback from a number of constituencies from this week and I had, already also before that had a number of calls with a number of people including Olivier, Evan and Cheryl, where we had an introduction calls two weeks ago.
I don’t really remember what that - anything before that conference is very old. So it was helpful to get acquainted. It made our experience together here a little bit faster and easier. I also met the people from the CCN, and had them on the call also two weeks before. So that helped me to ramp up my understanding of the organizations, their history of needs and of expectations and satisfaction of those expectations or lack thereof.
And I’m starting to have a reasonably clear idea of the number of budget process, which I focused on several part of my attention prior to coming here on the budget process with the intention to communicate with this budget processes as we did Monday night. That was [inaudible] participating in this discussion.
It was very useful. So the budget process is an example of a process where I think a lot of you can interest and expectations and I can see that there are needs for improvement of the process from the perspective that the process supports better in the future. Your understanding – our mutual understanding of each other in terms of what we do, what we include, what we don’t include. What we receive, in terms of input, how we process that input, how we respond to the input that is provided from the community.
So to me this is really at the core of how to work together because this is really all the aspects of making this budget process we’re speaking about that now. Work is really for me and with the help of all of you in the communities be able to make it work. And I think it’s a lot about communication, explanation of what we do, or don’t do, communication on that, being able to listen.
And I know it is not necessarily something easy to do what all of us at our day to day lives, professional lives, that are demanding. It’s not always easy to do but that’s the challenge and the opportunity to also try to do that. So I’m conscious of that. I don’t get know all the steps that I need to put in place to be able to make that efficient but that’s the focus that I want to have. I think the technical aspects of the budget process is nearly less of a challenge than how we manage to communicate with each other on that budget process.
I heard a lot of comments about not being heard, not receiving responses, nothing being understood. So I think there’s a lot to do there. And I will try to design a budget process that’s detailed into more – sorry, that’s documented into more detailed manner. Not to burden all of you with details, but to be able communicate more efficiently as to what the steps are. And to be able to build together that process. I told Evan the background on that specific budget process, so I need to understand what I need to take into account.
And this is where the Olivier, the Evans and the Cheryl and their peers in the other communities have – are helping me and will help me further to make sure that I do take into account the constraints, the needs and the expectations of the various communities. So that’s my focus. If we do that well, the technical aspect of the budget I’m less concerned with.
One aspect of the budget process that I need to focus on as well, which is what related to the financial system competition which you may have heard that ICANN is implementing a new system that, for those of you who are interested, is called Red Plains or the most recent version of Microsoft Dynamics. It is - the hand mic has sort of popped -
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Whilst we reorganize ourselves to get the hand mic working. We have another mic, whilst our microphone is being dismantled, recharged, dissected somehow, perhaps I know Jean-Jacques wanted to ask a question, Jean-Jacques, do you wish to -
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay so we get [inaudible] presentation today. Should we say introduction.
Xavier Calvez: Okay so while the mic is being repaired and the batteries replaced I’ll just use the microphone here. So coming back on the financial systems implementation, the system is I think, a system that’s very capable for this size and the needs of this organization. It is currently being implemented, which started as a staggered implementation over 4 months. Started in July and supposed to be finished early November.
There will be some delays that have been triggered by a couple things, including me insisting that some part of the system are being held until we redesign correctly the processes that had not in my views been designed correctly prior to the implementation. So I’ll leave it at that. The reason I mention this system is because I do expect that to calm completion of the implementation and possibly partial redesign of some of the capabilities of the system, notably that relate to cost accounting – I promise that I won’t go into the details.
But the cost accounting capabilities of that system I insisted on [Etondo’s] because I do expect that this will help us as an organization and when I say us as an organization I mean, the ICANN staff and you guys, be able to exchange more detailed and more structured financial information by project, maybe by trigger, by function, in a matter that gives more details, is also more demanding, of course because the more information you have, the more processing and time you need to spend on.
But I think this is what the community needs because I’ve heard over the past five days, I think, a lot of requirements for more detailed information, in a better timing as well. And I think the system upon implementation will provide us with the capabilities that we were lacking to do a better job at that. The communication aspect is not something that specifically will enhance our own behavior and we’ll do that.
The system is just a tool to do something that we can do with more arms and the system is just a tool. But its capabilities are something that can help us do a better job with the same amount of people. So I’ll stop there and let anyone ask any questions that they may have at this stage.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Xavier, and first in queue is Jean-Jacques Subrenat.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Thanks very for Xavier. I find that your presentation, your introduction answers a lot of the unuttered questions we may have for someone who is arising in a corporation, so I find that very encouraging. A very high-level view and I’d like to make initial remarks on that. My remarks are focused on actually a link between ALAC At-Large on the one hand and the overall international component of the international dimension of ICANN.
Now, this will be complicated because of the context of the next six or 12 months. As we know there will be a change in CEO, in June or July next year and on the other hand the global relations committee has not yet submitted its first report on how it sees the resolution of priorities, international priorities, for ICANN. What I’m pointing at is that we are in a phase of uncertainty and to some of the major international priorities of ICANN in 2012 and beyond.
So what I’m suggesting is that we do need a degree of flexibility, and that actually is now my appeal to you as the incoming CFO. A degree of flexibility be maintained at your level to have some – how should I say? – flexibility but also the thinking ability to the emerging needs of At-Large, of ALAC, in very simple things such as attending a number of meetings. For instance, I thought that I would have been able to bring something to the presence of ICANN in the last idea.
I’ve been considering my past experience, and that was not possible for simply the travel and accommodations for me was turned down by ICANN. Now this is a personal note but never mind, I mean, you just have to talk to people as well. It simply strikes me because I happen to be in a profession which maybe could have helped ICANN, so, and that’s the way I think that it’s necessary for you especially to keep a degree of flexibility for the next six or 12 months because things will pop up, which may not be programmed.
There is for time being, it’s not a misfit. At least the time lag, which between the requirements and the necessities of our duty, as we appear on the one hand, and the formalization of that demand or that request in budgetary terms, which may take another six or 12 months, so I’d just like to make you conscious of that, and hope that you and your team will be able to accommodate requests which may be made on behalf of ALAC and I’d like to thank the executive committee for letting me speak although I’m not a member of the executive committee.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Jean-Jacques, Xavier?
Xavier Calvez: No worries Jean-Jacques. Quite a few things that you said are consistent with what we’ve already heard from the Cheryl and Olivier in the private session that we had together with Cherim Chalaby and Akram Attallah. To try to have a little bit of a direct and simple and comprehensive understanding of maybe the aspirations that ALAC has in terms of activities and their related funding.
So what I’ve heard from you this that because of the uncertainty and the inflexibility of what happens it doesn’t happen in the next few months, and I would actually argue that it’s probably more of a permanent situation. It maybe be worse in the next few months, but there’s always things that you don’t anticipate. Whether they’re things that happened that we didn’t think would happen or things that we anticipate happen that don’t.
I think the power with me is to enable to plan for the impossible, to plan or well, you without preventing yourself from having, to your point of flexibility of responding to requests. So there are difficulties to doing that and there are - the difficulties do not prevent to be a necessity in the ability to plan for them. Or is the plan to react to them? I think there is the matter, first of all there is the communication to that which I think is a matter of importance, but to me as long we keep the channels open and we manage to keep those channels open well, and then we have probably the possibility to listen and provide feedback.
The other question is technically what can we do when in the month of March and the end of the year something comes up that everyone would probably agree is brief but happened to not be budgeted. So what- there’s a technical answer to the subject, or a few technical answers to the subject, and I’m speaking a little bit theoretically now because I don’t yet have had the time to go into the details of that or to think a lot about that.
But I want to answer your question and I think it is educating me as well as to what I need to think about in the future. There is always the possibility, at least on paper, I don’t know if it will effectively be the case in the next few weeks or months, but there is always the possibility to try to put aside a little bit of money to try to plan for what we haven’t planned. And the question of course is how do we handle that?
How do we deal with that and how do we prioritize what gets supplied. So I don’t have the answer to that but I think it’s a direction that maybe we want to try to deal with and I know that there’s already been structurally the subject because we have a contingency in the budget with is kind of exactly that. The question is how do we use it? And what are the mechanisms that allow everyone to participate to offering or proposing users of that contingency and mechanisms to prioritize those requests and then to make a decision.
And I recognize, when I heard that a number of you have commented – when I say you I don’t mean you specifically, they like, but more generally speaking the community pointed out to me the difficulty to have the visibility as to how the contingency when it is required is effectively used. And I don’t mean to put on you the burden of becoming accountants but to put it more generally speaking, when you have an action that you know is going to require money that is not planned what is the process to be able to raise that subject and be given the chance to have a shot at getting it financed?
I think there is a requirement for us to formalize a process to deal with this contingency from a community perspective and at the same time I think to the point that you were making Jean-Jacques, as I understood it, even if we have the process to do that, we still need to have the flexibility to see how it works and how it doesn’t work.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: I’d like to underline of course that it remains marginal to whatever chunk of budget. I’m talking about marginal amounts.
Xavier Calvez: And if you could say your name – you were Jean Jacques. So, probably speaking a bit to the point which you were just making now, that what we’re talking about is marginal compared to the rest. It may sound like the answer technician, but it certainly does probably what it is. I’m expecting that the new accounting system that I talked about earlier will help us do a better job at managing at first understanding in a very timely manner what we spent and how that spent compares to what the budget is or was. It sounds very simple, you compare to whatever and you draw the difference.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: It’s a real time -
Xavier Calvez: But the issue to your point is to have a good processes to make sure we have a very clear view what’s been accounted for that is correctly categorized in the accounting and that it directly compares each budget at the right level of detail to the right amount on the budget. And one of the actions that we have from a finance process which is completely standard in a lot of companies is to be able to compare the budget to what’s been actually spent in the past, but also all the time based on what has been spent.
Extrapolating what we think we’re going to spend in the future. That’s called a forecast. And this is important because you may be spending more than you should have over the past two months, but maybe that was timing. Maybe you just anticipated things that had been budgeted for later. So that doesn't mean that you spent too much money. And vice versa, so that’s why I think looking at a full year of this is how much we spent and this is how much we think we’re going to spend.
That lets you determine issues or opportunities right? And so to the point that you were making earlier Jean Jacques, I think that’s a way to deal the bulk of tough operations that may give us more flexibility. Let me give you a very simple example. Not example but a very simple image. If we end up having a forecast that says “We’re going to spend $2 million less out of our budget for the full year than we thought” that’s the virtual addition to the contingency. But we have to have a handle on that.
We have to make sure that $2 million in the next multiple doesn’t become minus $1 billion because we made a mistake. So we need to be good at this. We need to have an efficient system that’s in force. But I think this is a technical answer in helping how that process works.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Xavier and the next in the queue is Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay I will speak in French. [Speaks French].
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Evan Leibovitch was your question piggy backing on this or do you wish to say separately?
Evan Leibovitch: Actually I wanted to take what Tijani said and try to relate it with some of the earlier things you were talking about, about the unknown, and that kind of thing. It seems when I came to ICANN that some of the budget process for us seemed to be entirely backwards. Rather than being given amounts of money and saying here’s what you can spend. Please come up with projects that will take advantage of this, allowing us to prioritize and think what’s important to us, wasn’t that bad a question but in terms of the process, of here is the amount of money.
Now come up with things that can take advantage of those funds. We were told to engage in a process in which the volunteers came up with a shopping list of things, probably many times more than have funding for from the beginning. And then at the end you know, this yes. This yes, this no this no. It was bad on so many levels.
First of all because it meant we weren’t involved in the prioritization, secondly because it involved we had all the unknowns. We didn’t know what we were working with, and we ended up wasting an awful lot of volunteer time and people come up with ideas that ultimately would never be funded because they simply were not high enough on the priority list. Most places where I’ve worked they say here’s the budget you have to work with, work with it.
As opposed to come up with something and only after everything is proposed and everything is all done then we can even tell you what we’re able to fund and what we weren’t. I don’t know if this was just me but it seems like the process we’ve been working with has been backwards. I have another question but it’s unrelated to this.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: It starts to become not a question but an essay.
Xavier Calvez: So let me answer Evan’s point. Yes but I need a little bit more understanding to this point to be able to respond to this question though I think I understood yours correctly. So you’re pointing out the fact that there is a very open question. What do you want to do without any budget in particular? No guidance as to what the amount you have to deal with is?
And therefore you spend a whole lot of time thinking about activities that amount to a number and at the end of the day the big total well actually only a quarter of that is available and therefore and then everybody does that. And then you don’t have any understanding of what the prioritizations, the rules, are, to get down to a quarter of what everything told.
Carlton Samuels: Yeah.
Xavier Calvez: So from a budgeting standpoint. Not trying to answer yet your question, but from a budgeting standpoint I’ve been dealing with both the purchase of ‘you’re given an amount and deal with it’ or tell me what you want to do and how much it’s going to cost and I’ll tell you if you can spend it, which can be a double impure which is either I’ll tell you if you can spend it or I’ll tell you that you can’t spend all of that it, but you can spend this much.
Which is part of your point of going back with - I don’t want to be auspicious but I heard exactly the opposite argument in a different session, which I think speaks to the fact that there are different approaches to cover with a bunch of - and it’s not a question of which one is right and which one is wrong. What I mean by that is, if I were to tell you well he’s $10,000, now reach that amount.
It may be progress vs. the past because it’s $10,000 more than you had. But I think that has the shortcoming of not allowing you unless you already have a starting point to actually broaden your mind at the input stage as to what you would like to do. Because I can imagine that if you would say $10,000 or $5,000 and as part of your request there would be, for example, like Allianz meeting in Mexico two and a half years ago.
That would not fit in the middle. So you would not even be able to bring up that kind of subject. So I think honestly at the end of the day it’s a combination of both approaches in an integrative manner. And I just find that they are conceptually and more comfortable with the idea of, for a proportion of the budget where we have a little more flexibility as to what it contains to ask you guys what would you like to do?
Even if in that approach we would ask you need to tell us what you would like to do and you need to prioritize the importance of each item from your perspective because I think that would also help us to do our job as a community to be transparent with the prioritization. And then with that information we can, because the issue is until it’s interactive, we tell everyone well you have $20,000, or $15,000 or $10,000 or whatever. It’s very contained and limited and that’s the argument that others have given me. We don’t want to start with a number has been determined by somebody else and that prevents us from having the ability to let things get done.
Evan Leibovitch: I was just going to suggest, I like the idea of some kind of a combination or at least something that gives us some idea of what the scale is. Like even give us a reach, so we’re not so far out. You know we’re not proposing 10 times more than there is, at least something that gives us an idea of what to work with. The word I was looking for before was uncertainty, right? There is no clue
Xavier Calvez: A number of reasons for [inaudible] and so this is something I think you can help me with. Last year I understood that the special requests from the communities ended up by being $500K, $500,000 right? Was that determined at the beginning or at the end or do you know?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We have no idea.
Xavier Calvez: Okay, so I don’t want to speculate or fast forward, but I can imagine that we could just find a process where there is this open question narrowed down towards the end, or we could say Guys throughout all the communities we have $500K to deal with. Go back and let me have an idea. You guys are six or eight and you know that you’re not getting $495,000 and everybody else $500,000. So it starts narrowing down the exercise and what we start to get from everyone should be adding to a lot more than $500 I’m sure, and it should by the way.
And it should be prioritized. And maybe you also need some tools to be able to evaluate what it costs to do what you would like to do. I can’t imagine any other way. So then when you get that type of input from everyone. Maybe to add to the interim type, it’s been prioritized by, contingency. I cannot see how to avoid if you have, if for a selected members. But a discussion as to Guys what do we do with this? We have $1.5 million in expenses, we have $500k in - and at the end of the day either we accept the challenge of discussing together and the responsibility that comes with we need to arrive at a number. Because I think we showed that we all need to deal with and certainly be as well as with communication comes responsibility. It’s easy for everyone to criticize when they don’t have any involvement in the process.
If I suddenly would create a committee with Cheryl in it and somebody else in marketing from the business constituency and somebody else and we are five in the room and we start talking about how things are, we have a responsibility towards community jointly and each of the participants towards their own community, to get your results and the results that can come from that. So I go too far with this but that’s the type of process we need to come up with. I have not totally understood the circumstances of your question. And if you can just elaborate on that it would be great.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay if you could excuse me please. So before [French spoken]
Xavier Calvez: [Speaks French].
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Xavier. We have first Carlton and then Cheryl. We’re packed for time so let’s just quickly a couple questions and then off we go.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you chair. I just wanted to say a couple of things. The process we understand and we can get back onto it. We have not much money we’re expecting to have. That’s where your tools of forecasting comes into play. You have historical information you have something to check it on. You need a process and it’s a hybrid system. As it were I see you have block granting with rules and you need contingency funding with rules, so if you know how much money you’re expecting, how much money you expect to spend you can begin to do the bock granting.
This is what is historical is part of the organization cause, this is what is historical about the organization. This is what I mean by block granting. So you have that framework. And then you have a contingency that, okay. Here the contingency in the event, because now we have more information from the forecasting tools that you use and you say “This is contingent upon being…” and you put some rules around it.
And the next thing that makes that work is you have some kind of group that sits down with the constituent and looks at it and says this makes sense or doesn’t make sense. I would suggest if you are that bad you would probably have less problems in the future. Thank you very much.
Xavier Calvez: Understood. I won’t elaborate but I think what you’ve described is something that we’ve been talking about today and you put it under a proposal that I think makes sense. I think the question is to take the next level of detail of how to make that work and what to deal with as well. I think the contingency is, the mechanism that the management of ICANN has been using to help compensate for the lack of predictability. That’s what it is used for and the more predictable you can be, the least, or at least conceptually, the least you need for contingency.
Therefore you reduce a little bit of your problem of how to manage it, so let me, not how good we’re going to be in improving the predictability, but that I do recognize that I’ve heard we do a mechanism to deal with the contingency generally speaking and at the minimum that mechanism needs to be transparent and as well as technically possible needs to take into account the input that goes.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Xavier, how much time do you still have?
Xavier Calvez: I’m already late but there was another question I think.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: There were about 100 questions. I can’t do them.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you I’ll try to be very quick and it doesn’t involve asking for new money. I don’t think it requires an answer. You have been well briefed I’m sure on this degree that we went into this budget year asking for general assembly’s in three regions. We got a certain amount allocated. The regions, two of the regions generously let the money go to the other one. We expressed extremely great thanks to Akram for being flexible and letting us hold the assembly here which was successful.
There are three things wrong in my mind with that whole process. Number 1, and it’s purely on our side, the ALAC should not have forwarded five regional budget requests and an ALAC budget request. We should have taken them and merged them or at least prioritized them, so you had at least some insight in how the process worked. Number 2, there should be some interaction in that discussion, so that we weren’t suddenly presented with three regions being able to look at six people each to a general assembly which made no sense whatsoever from our perspective.
And third of all, since the change did not require any change in budget or any change in intended use of the money, the decision to reallocate should be made far lower in the organization of Akram. You have very skilled trusted staff, delegates, I’m sorry to them.
Xavier Calvez: On top of that I just don’t know how, which is white engrained, mechanical, theoretical, in a streamlined manner. I don’t know how Akram could do that any of that without any input anywhere other than three questions probably what has happened. So if I can calmly ask a practical help if you wouldn’t mind putting that in an email and sending it to me. It’s just that my brain will overload pretty quickly if it hasn’t. And I think there’s a lot of questions that has not been asked. Olivier has my email, what I would suggest is to -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: My question was decided, if this helps.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay Cheryl is going to save you by asking her question and I think that she knows what she’s going to ask permission but, Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well I know what I’m going to do. It’s the rest of you that should be a mystery. We have formed many years ago, certainly back in 2005, something called budget and finance committee of the ALAC, which was in a standing committee.
In 2007 it hinted a number of different things working with a previous incarnation and that was actually alright. This isn’t… let’s not worry about that. But what we can do is send you materials so you’re brought up to speed on what has happened before and if that’s what you would like to point us to our pages then you can look at them on that wall so that for some other questions cause what we have proposed for a very particular assessment tools as they go up.
We now have a budget finance subcommittee which includes the regions directly. Okay there are regional reps on it. Therefore we should be able to get a lot of our house in order. Providing we have a system to work with. So if you’re interested in using perhaps our little model as a test case for other parts of ICANN how that might work. We should take this further in the future. That’s all I was going to say.
Xavier Calvez: Okay just two quick comments on that. There are other organizations that have either the think tank or something similar. And I definitely would like to be able to use that as the ALAC representation as it relates to budget finance. As a point of contact for to me to able to access the organization and have a more effective communication and I’m thinking, trying to structure in my head the future of how we can work out. But hopefully we can create a sort of finance or budget exploratory, or call it budget group, that is the representation of the communities with one or two heads per constituency and I would really say one ideally.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can we work with constituency? That’s purely GNSO.
Xavier Calvez: Sorry. So it’s [inaudible] everything else that I have not understood yet. So that we can, and the reason that I say one is because I think there is probably between six and eight groups, maybe nine, and I think about seven or eight, from an operating standpoint. It’s not working very well. So I would like to limit the number that works together, so in that also a channel of communication, then and now. And it’s easier for me to talk recurrently and frequently to a group of six or seven people that are identified and that have representation in their own community, to communicate on the budget process. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: And there’s just one last question from the gentleman over there. If you could please introduce yourself, we’ll make it very short and we’ll have a target for one minute for until the end of this part of this discussion.
Male: [Speaks French].
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: So back to English. And we can’t have, so Xavier thanks has spent so much time with us. We still have a few more things to do this afternoon. We have At-Large Improvements next steps, and we have a five minute discussion and after that we’ll have to go through our action items, since we’re doing things upside down. As far as the improvements are concerned I hand the floor over to Cheryl Langdon-Orr since she will be in charge of the post, what do you call it? Post task force era, I think, because this is a new era. So go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you mister chairman. Now the purpose of having this on the Executive Committee agenda is very particular. It’s absolutely wonderful but we’ve looked at the report and we’ve discussed it, we’ve debated it and we’ve voted on it, and we now have to do a few little things like make some magic happen. We’ve now formed a work group or a [inaudible] in this case, you the executive have got a chair, and that’s all you’ve got.
You haven’t given us a peer charger. Happy to rise, yes, but you haven’t demanded such a thing. You haven’t indicated what our mechanism reporting to you might be, you have not told us exactly what form of staff support we may or may not tap into. May I speak to Katrina, or may I speak to Matt. And what other sorts of resources such obviously hit and Wikis come expected, but are we for example going to do as we were requested to the language requirement minimum of three, I think you would be well advised not to drop below what Christina suggested, language services suggested that three users per language was appropriate build to provide interpretation services on full.
It would mean that we would be probably one of the first test cases of the changed translation services, or interpretation services I should say. My apologies girls and boys in the booth, I know you know what you are and I really do too I promise. But there’s still a whole lot of stuff that could be quite useful if we were to have a single approach to this. But to do that we also have to have a call for expressions to interest that’s why I like terms of reference thought of in advance to the call for participation.
If you could sign up to this little group, it’s going to know exactly what they’re in for. This has got to produce fast and has to work seriously. And it’s not going to pass within quite the same way as some of the other work groups have in the past, so I’d like to hear from the executive as to what they would like from us. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: You’re chair and the floor is open for you, for an answer.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If it may help Mr. Chair we have a series of dates coming up. We have a half day workshop with the rest of our at-large community in Costa Rica. That’s right Costa Rica. We have to be so far into our work that we’re already workshopping outcomes of our firm implementation options. We should be giving people really very clear messages about what this work group meant.
So we’ve got Costa Rica, half day exercise that I guess we can see there is an opportunity to socialize our implementation plan, but we are going to have to have specific terms of reference if I may perhaps make suggestions, if you have any of what we’re to do.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yes Cheryl, it’s Olivier. I guess I am part of the executive, so helping this to my colleagues; I will give you a list of several things. If you do have your charter in mind then please suggest it to the executive committee if you could be please email it to us we will consider it. As far as the staff support is concerned I think we should start with one staff that will be supporting and I will speak to Heidi and Heidi should make this our next item so we should be able to have it with staff.
Wiki page certainly needs to be prepared as soon as possible because I also believe that it should also be linked to the work team’s information before we’re at the next stage. So we will, perhaps should I let you deal with, speak directly to Matt and see how you wish to be, to fit with the rest.
As far as the language is concerned, I certainly do not wish to go against Christina on the language options. A mailing list, do you prefer a mailing list that is brand new or would you tie it to a process where there, I mean is there a general mailing list for the improvements? Or are there -
Male: There are 4 mailing lists on a separate -
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay so new mailing list. And as far as the expression of interest is concerned we may I guess as well. I shall hand this back to you because it will be up to you to deal with this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Mr. Chairman. What I’m hearing is I have autonomy to ensure that the 13 recommendations are implemented and the plan is underway by Costa Rica that the structural improvements committee can have then filed a report, shortly after Costa Rica. Is that what I’m hearing?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I can ask if in the next five seconds no one is against this. Yes no? Make it so.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I like when you get to use star trek references from the chair. If that’s the case then Mr. Chairman I would ask for any other questions on this workgroup before I would give a small outline of what taken care we should have for the record to go out to the regional lead. Are there any questions on this table? I don’t see any. I can’t blame anyone. I would suggest that this needs to be a regionally balanced workforce, taskforce. I would think that a minimum of two participants from each region would be ideal. Not that we expect both of them to be equally engaged but it would be nice to make sure that one or either of them was at all times. I might also ask do you wish me to serve directly in role as liaison with you at the executive subcommittee.
Carlton Samuels: Yes for that.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl as the first chair of this working group I would say that since you are the old member of it you need to be in it if you managed to find someone in the interim. There is one thing though that I wish to say, just to make sure, seeing baffled faces around the table as to what we’re speaking about. My understanding is that we have a deadline until the – José or Juan and [inaudible] José, to deliver a roadmap. As to how we are going to intervent everything that we want to intervent to finish everything by the Prague meeting. Is this correct?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay we have workshopping in Costa Rica. And we need to have a structural improvement committee formed between Costa Rica and Prague, has to be ready to be finalized, if I say, signed off and the Board resolved in Prague that it is a done deal, finished.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: So as long as we’re clear on this and as long as you’re clear on the time that you think you can deliver. And we’ll be -
Evan Leibovitch: Hi, just based on past history though. Normally we have a situation where at least there’s a liaison to the ALAC that’s on the ALAC so do we need to create that?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: No.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because this is a taskforce and not a work group we don’t technically need to. If you feel that someone from the ALAC and preferably someone from the ALAC executives act in officio or actively in then workgroups then it would really help certain possibilities to be sent which ALAC could send to the committee.
Carlton Samuels: I am going to support that. In the task force I don’t think we need to have one. As chairman that makes sense to me.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Carlton and may I ask that as our IPM, or not IPM, what am I saying? As our CCNSO liaison, I gather that you will still sit on ALAC calls and that therefore we will not have to call upon you specifically for the task force itself so that we will be well informed. Is there anything else that we wish to…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If that’s all then, I’ll work directly with Matt with the administrator. With your permission copies of any email to Heidi and Matt will be copied to you and you can feed them all to [inaudible]. I think it will practice with the chair of the organization to know what requests are going through regardless and when a message goes out to you through you, sir if you would be so kind as to make the announcement when the page is set up so people could subscribe to it.
I’ll do the usual practice and expect people to watch the space because the space is just to push out changes. So if they could then be encouraged through ALAC, be encouraged to subscribe to the page it would be useful, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Cheryl. And if fact, rather than you and me, you as in ExCom send us a carbon copy as is the case. Right so that’s the Step 6, At-Large improvements. Next steps, we now know where we are going and the next one is the Any Other Business with Emboch. And it’s interesting because before any other business we have to go through our action items.
Since I saw that, not that sorry, ah right, tired faces and I gather that our remote participants, that are also probably very tired of listening to us remotely for the whole week, just thinking the first agenda item, review of action items from 27th September ExCom and 27th of September of ALAC meeting could these be reviewed during our next ExCom call? Carlton.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you chair I was going to suggest that you do just that. But I was also going to say for the record that we have proposed to look at the whole structure of the liaison again and I would wish to make the note that in the next ExCom meeting the agenda item to fill it up. Thank you
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Carlton, point taken. Now strangely enough on this agenda which is on the screen there is something missing there called which is the any action items from the current meeting. I can’t see those in here. The Dakar action items?
Carlton Samuels: Yeah we did have a few.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Carlton?
Carlton Samuels: Chair might I suggest that there were a few from the Dakar meeting, from this meeting, from time to time you are. Can I also make the motion that those be collected and deferred till next meeting? Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I think Carlton, I think we need to identify whether anything needs to be done ASAP. The action items of starting some working groups, the critical one we just dealt with now, which should work past us, don’t have to be affected ASAP. In general staff goes on holiday for a week, we go usually go on holiday for a week don’t we? Not this time. Oh I see sad faces now. But those can be affected ASAP that would be great Heidi and I’m sorry to put the pressure but we are yet again under some tremendous amount of pressure to get things done.
Carlton Samuels: Yea but the point is you have to collect those because they were all over the shop.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I suggest that effectively, Heidi has them all in one document. Okay in order to save time Evan, would you like to add something?
Evan Leibovitch: I was going to raise one that I think we could at least get in motion right now it wouldn’t take a lot of effort. That would not take a lot of effort. During this week we discussed the issue of liaisons and we -
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: No, I didn’t say any other business. We are now in the action items. We’re trying to see if we’re going to keep the action items as they are, if we’re going to deal with them here or if we’re going to move them till later, so the first set of action items will be moved until our later meeting. The second set of action items are that I propose that we thread. That we actually have them emailed to the ExCom list, or put on a Wiki page and point the ExCom list to this, so for us to be able to act upon them ASAP.
That will not require much from staff for the time being and yes only ALAC ones, not the regular ones. The regular ones will be put on the regular site and the ALAC ones will be kept onto that. Then we also have ICANN policy issues, open policy issues we have something that we do need to talk about right now. And then afterwards we have something we’ll be dealing with any other business and we can get on. So I invite everyone to take over on the current items, open comment periods at the At-Large Policy Development Page. And so Carlton I’m going to of course, we have changed that haven’t we.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You have to ask Tijani that. Hello Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Hi.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: It’s that part of the meeting where the blood in Carlton’s veins freezes and we’re like Oh dear what comments do we have to provide? How much work am I going to dump on my poor colleagues? But this time around Carlton was smiling and looking straight across I see you not smiling so much.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: No I was smiling because I was not finished so I will [inaudible].
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Speaking [inaudible]. The AGM 1400 was the end of the Dakar meeting we’re actually in post Dakar. We need that welcome. We need some help to -.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: No I have to -.
Carlton Samuels: No I can take it. I can take it.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Tijani watch Carlton.
Carlton Samuels: I can take it. Chair there are several here room for public comment. There’s a series of open concerns the IBM variance issues project. I would always suggest that for the IBM matters -
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: For the sake of timing actually Carlton, this was discussed on the ALAC call, and so what we did was to pop that over to Edmond.
Carlton Samuels: Edmond, well that’s what I would suggest. We usually punt it to Edmond for access. Those are due on the 14th November if you notice. This graph is a treated plan. Those are also - that was also taken up, and that’s for the 17th of November. And internationalized registration data working group, that’s the new WHOIS with the international organization of the WHOIS, that I would suggest is also related to the idea of action and maybe we could have output there.
With regard to the framework of interpretation working group, this is the one now that has been set up that is looking at the GNSO, so that is looking at all these interpretations to make sure they are - CCNSOs rather to make sure that they are commonized with the delegation. That one is very important to the community. I would suggest that we ask our CCNSO liaison to lead on that one. The continual [inaudible] instrument proposal.
As you know, chair, this was a question that has to do with partially - well the background is the continuance record and the extent of failure or imminent failure of a registry or registrar there are some specific rules that apply to ensure that users, consumers are not adversely affected. And the recommendation there is that there might be some changes that are practical.
We need to keep a clear eyed view of them because since they affect end user interest it is something that we need to be mindful of. IT also impacts the statement from the JAS working group to talk about the committee, the instrument, as opposed to having them be involved in the process. And because of the sensitivity of it, I would suggest that the new gTLD working group chair take a look at that. And we can always be involved with that.
Evan Leibovitch: I think that the new incoming chair of the gTLD working group is already anticipating this stuff coming.
Carlton Samuels: Yes. I know she was talking about it in my presence. I was aware of it. Okay the developing economics program is above that. The geographic group had a report. It caused some noise in the channel. You may have heard and seen the results of that statement from one of our colleagues in one of the published policy editions. I am suggesting, chair, and I’m going to recuse myself from it because I was a member of the working group.
I’m suggesting that we make an appropriate response. If only to reinforce that the lab position is entirely neutral in this situation. But as I said I am going to recuse myself from it. Myself and Cheryl were the members of the At-Large that were on this working group, so I would respectfully ask that we ask one of our other colleagues to lead the effort. I certainly would want to ensure that whatever statement comes from this is only because of the situation inside their laws with political issues associated with that.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: For the record could you explain this briefly in one sentence.
Carlton Samuels: Okay in one sentence. The public participation forum Carlos Salinas Porto, the member from Latin America, Caribbean, is always in our interest and concern that the politics of the situation not seep into the work of the ALAC. And we tried to ensure very hard that this would not happen. I think it’s important for us to give them comfort -- that it’s our position our posture, and to ensure that whatever is set in ALAC, our representative At-Large send that message consistently.
This is what I’m saying. because you may have noticed that his comments in public participation has got some traction back home in Argentina and we want to ensure that the ALAC is on record being non political in its look at this, and being very neutral about it. That is the extent of the statement that I would wish to have here.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Carlton, and we would have, so I gather that staff has the list of who will handle what in all the action items? If I may ask again? Yes Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: On subject of the regions I propose that I draft the statement. I understand very well the concern of our Latin American people and also there are other concerns so I will draft a statement and I will secure it today to you and we will do it as soon as possible.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Tijani that’s noted. So what Tijani was saying regarding the geographic, we’ll start drafting…
Carlton Samuels: Okay.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yes, the lady next to Sebastien, if you could please introduce yourself.
Female: Thanks for coming to Senegal. I saw your post. I am a two year student of a two year course in internet [inaudible] . And I would like to use a ICANN reference at end of my study. So my question is, would you like please to deliver a certificate of participation, and could you provide me with that anytime?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you. That will be dealt with in the other business which is the next part. So just before answering that I think I’ll ask Tijani if we can give her participation.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: [French spoken].
Carlton Samuels: I have an excellent idea anyways.
Female: [French spoken].
Tijani Ben Jemaa: [French spoken].
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay so we can then move to the next thing. Just to make sure staff has got the AI for all the different people to contact for each one. And you with liaise with all of them to make sure this is correct. Right, last thing on the Any other items part is the end part, the Non
All: Not for profit organization.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: What happened is that after we have had our meeting this week with the noncommercial stakeholders, we have been contacted by the [inaudible] and told that they have not been told about the meeting.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Says it all. Effectively we would, there were so few people that came to that meeting. Probably for ESG that I think, and this is just my own thinking, that the, it would be beneficial to us to speak to them. I have no met with any of them here. I don’t know if there were any of the people from that agency. But what is important is that they had asked to have a conference call with us. So I would create to have a conference call as soon as we are all slightly rested, I think within the next couple of weeks or so. So I’m going to throw this to the floor and I will ask if anyone, what you feel about it basically. Doors open. Evan?
Evan Leibovitch: As the designated stakeholder I sort of figured that it was my duty to make sure that there was open channels and go out of the way to introduce myself to the various stakeholder groups regardless of whether or not they initiated contact. It’s our duty to try and have an open hand and make sure that they know that we want to have contact that we want good channels and I, even had they not contacted us I was going to make sure that they were aware this was going on.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay Evan any other? Cintra?
Cintra Sooknanan: I just wanted to say that I was in contact with Alan [Baromshin], was on with Chad working as well and he was involved. He wanted me to be with Debbie. Here in Dakar but I couldn’t get, but I know the chain number [inaudible] as well.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay so what I suggest is just for the matter to be referred over to Evan who can proceed with getting in touch with all the groups and particularly with this one to arrange for a call sometime next week or the week after, depending. I presently would be interested in taking a write up and finding out, you know, we haven’t have any call or any meeting with them so far.
So they are new and I understand the terrain within the NCSG appears to be quite a minefield but ultimately what goes on within the channel politics in that constituency has nothing to do with us. And we should be open to speak to everyone. So I don’t see any reason not to speak with them. And that’s all for the record. Also what I told you before privately.
Evan Leibovitch: I agree with you, but in the meanwhile that will not affect us directly. We have a lot of bridge building to make. We need all the friends we can get, as policy moves to the GNSO, and so while there may be problems internally we want to make sure that at least we are there coalition building and helping to move our business forward and with any friends we can get from there.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Actually if I may just add, and that’s the thing is here not as a recommendation, but as advice. We’re all very tired. A piece of advice. Yeah do carbon copy the NCSG leadership so you know that you’re getting in touch with someone there.
Evan Leibovitch: I’ve already put in the order for the mine-sweepers.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Right. Any other business? As we are reaching the end of our call, now, or meeting we have. People are running out. Tijani is already turned up. And also Sebastien would like to say a few words. So first Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: I’d like to know if we are already part of the getting a statement of the plan. We have to work, but time is… now we have to work because after that it will be very late, so I think that we have to hold that statement on that.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Tijani. There is now a response from Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Tijani this was an action item out of the last meeting, which I’m sure you remember, it’s still for me to do what I’ve done. And that was the Wiki page was set up and I went through the complete red line document, print out and deliver to anyone who want to read it what they need to look at. With the Wiki page going and stealing from somebody the necessary technique so you don’t even have to look at Page 2 for the four pillars I mean it is kindergarten ready. Now all of our pages are there, I’m on the Board of some of the [inaudible]. The Wiki page is there, it’s absolutely [inaudible].
Carlton Samuels: For the record I did say the process has started, so we
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Carlton on the mic please for the record.
Carlton Samuels: Sorry chair. I mean, when I did mention it in my intervention I did mention that the work has started and that was a short hand reference to the Wiki page and all the markups that Cheryl did. I was recognizing Cheryl had done the work.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s only a couple day’s work, do have a look at it.
Carlton Samuels: Yeah, but we did recommend. I did recognize Cheryl that the work was done, and it was under control. Thanks.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: I know that the Wiki page was up. Cheryl would like a statement?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh I need one.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: She did the most important work. Now someone to work on, cause we need the labor work.
Evan Leibovitch: Tijani did I hear you volunteer?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: By speaking we were all looking at you.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Even though the last one I did it, but no, I can do it, it’s no problem. But I want to know if there is someone already on it. Otherwise,
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: No one is appointed. Everyone is welcome to volunteer.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: And now they call me in charge to the rail rose on the 21st, I understand. 21st was last Friday. But everyone was sharking. No one went sharking but we had a whole week of tsunami. May I ask for an action item for staff to at least stand that call? Perhaps not right now, perhaps in a couple of days, when people have gone back home, have actually managed to open their eyes again.
Carlton Samuels: But it did go out?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: And to bring their brain back out from the current state that it is back to normal because I have a feeling that this sort of emails has been commonly lost in the lot of emails. But yes we have to keep the rights to it. And I asked some of my ExCom colleagues and, for some, and my ALAC colleagues to really put our minds to it and this is really a positive. Any further comments on this? And thanks for bringing this up Tijani.
And so, the last piece of business I gather. Cheryl did you have anything else to add to this? No? So we have the seat Number 15. We had our connected Board director very tightly joined us and been extremely busy this week so we saw him only at location. He has a couple words to tell us. Sebastien Bachollet.
Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you Olivier. First of all I want congratulate you for this work because you see that I have a lot of things to do but you do almost the same amount if not more. When I was coming to my meetings at 7 o’clock here there were already people in this room starting to work and it’s not just the bulk that were working hard but you, your team, your people were watching and I think it went very well done, and what I wanted to say on that subject is that, maybe I am reviewing what you already said but I hope that they will build on that.
Not just build on that for our platform but build on that for all At-Large. And do that as soon as possible. Because my feeling, and I try to push this idea, already with some people that I met. You yourself are the next generation assembly. Not next January. Not any specific month. But you need to work on everything what’s done and asking for as the next possibility.
Because when you do on this question that we are but in a drop in comparison with mission decision taken during this meeting. And I wanted to thank you for your support even I am not your Board member I feel always very good when I have feedback from you and I can push some ideas and be up in my duty as Board member. And my second or third point I don’t know.
Did you get my feedback on the specific meeting of the participation policy meeting, participation committee because I think you are one of the parts of the one of the organization that needs to tell us what you wish for the evolution of the meeting? Where it will go, and it’s a question of how the meeting itself is organized and remember that in that meeting it was [inaudible]. I would like to have you giving feedback and comment on that.
One of the reason is I think you are really the heart of the meeting like that after what you showed in the Dakar meeting, and the second reason is because I since a few hours I start to be the chair of this organization. And I will say maybe I can deliver it.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Sebastian did you say you are the chair of the organization?
Carlton Samuels: Yeah the chair of the committee.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: And yes, the memory does come back to me, seeing you on the screen.
Sebastien Bachollet: Just one thing you were not in the room, but I was the one who read the sign to the ALAC At-Large.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yeah I was there.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. Yes I didn’t count who was there but it was really good. And once again, you deserve to be helped. This organization is under tremendous change. Again, you have seven new members in the ALAC itself. I can’t stress more that if it’s the Board we’re going to this level of change it will be great. And you are to do that and you deserve that.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: What tells you that we are not crazy?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: He is crazy.
Sebastien Bachollet: He is crazy. Maybe just to- I am reappointing the finance committee. You can be useful. And I was appointed for the first time to the search committee. That’s the three committees I am a member of. And I really think, you are going through improvements. But I think when it’s up in this [inaudible] there is something wrong with the system. And I would like very much to have a discussion with you about that to see how we can fix something because seven out of 15, it is because some of you are back. Because if not it would have been -
Carlton Samuels: Literally.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s broken.
Sebastien Bachollet: Please Cheryl, let’s try to fix it. That’s my point. And I would like to help you, in trying to fix it.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Sebastien and I feel some guilt from Cheryl and -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Guilt from me?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Not guilt from Cheryl, never.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Sebastien, did you guys not write the initial rules of procedure or at least the last ones and not chase them. But you know it’s
Carlton Samuels: It’s a combination of things
Sebastien Bachollet: It’s a combination but it was not intended to be like that. There’s some. For example if you changed a few months ago one number comes with outcome it was not at all. It’s an additional thing, but I think we need to check about that and to fix it. It is inside the group that Cheryl is in. Or is it outside your decision not mine at all. But on that point I can, if you will, be able to help and maybe others.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Sebastian congratulations on all your appointments. You can create more meetings and you get to be probably more tired. And that’s what it’s all about. No actually it’s all about volunteering and all about having fun and matters and whatever. And so and yes and well, thanks for the advice. I understand, I was asked a question recently by a Board member. And so, what is Sebastian’s relationship with the At-Large? Do you advise him what to do?
Do you, does he tell you what’ going on with us? But that wasn’t linked to ALAC but I tell you one thing though. A cat behaves like a cat; a dog behaves like a dog, a monkey like a monkey. So when he makes decisions on that board, because he comes from our committee, he has the same background and he probably has the same thought process. As we do. So if he acts in a certain way, don’t think it’s because we tell him to act in that way. Himself is acting in the way we would have acted.
Carlton Samuels: Good answer.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Anyway, questions, and it’s on record now. And it’s important that it gets through because ultimately we might be accused of telling Sebastian what to do, as in the same way we accuse some of our Board members of acting in specific ways, there is no proof of such a thing happening and I’ve come to believe that Board members actually have the best interest of ICANN, and as to the interest of ICANN, well we’re not here to debate that. There you go. Any other questions or business or otherwise I will be glad to finish this meeting.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes please.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Oh Tijani has to say a few words. Tijani!
Tijani Ben Jemaa: I said Yes please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Close the meeting!
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Once again last thing, it’s the last meeting of this conference. Thank so much to Tijani for your team, to Fatimata and of course -
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you all. I want to make it clear that we have your support, especially the staff, without the support of staff I wouldn’t be well. [Inaudible] the maternity care and she was working hard on this project and that is fantastic. That means she believes. And Gisella she is the, I don’t know how to say in English, but she is always producing. And I will not tell you about much.
You know these things from such troubles. So we are really lucky to have them. And also the support from the chair, from the vice chair, everyone supporting us. And we are really lucky, so if there is a success it is the success of everybody. Thank you all, and if you leave me in the permission I want to also thank very much the interns. That was really - that we make them not come here at 7:00 every day, which is not easy for everyone. And we are always speaking on more than it was planned so thank you thank you thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Tijani, and just before closing I also wanted to thank all of your At-Large structures for coming here because I tell you something, when you showed me that daily schedule starting at 7am I thought Tijani by the 3rd day they will be in bed. And guess what? On the 3rd day they were all sitting here. So this one lap, I think we need from them to know that they are going to go home and I hope that they’ve enjoyed their week. It’s this feedback from them and the follow up from them.
What went well and what went wrong, what can be improved because this is only the beginning for At-Large, it’s not the end for AFRALO it’s also the beginning for AFRALO we can make this go better. But AFRALO being the pioneers will be able to teach us a lot of things about doing it even better next time and will be able to help the next meeting very much. And we can push for finance in case we might wish to try to finance and accelerate it.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: I hope that AFRALO will help other initiatives to make other things. But you maybe have to be repeated some of the time, but not often. We have to do other things.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Tijani and with this the meeting is now adjourned. Thank you for everyone listening to us remotely. The technical people have been doing their best to hook some contraption up together, hopefully we’re recording and that also worked. So thank you to the technical people to have come back. They were literally; they brought some thing like to make the magic happen. Thank you and see you all in San José, Costa Rica.
-End of Recorded Material-
