ALAC ExCom 30.03.12 Transcript

(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Gisella Gruber:
Good morning, good afternoon and good evening everyone, this is the ALAC ExCom Conference call on Friday, 30 March 2012. And the time is 1302 UTC. We have a pretty busy agenda today so the call will last possibly an hour and a half, hopefully not more. And we will start immediately with the roll call, please.

Welcome to everyone on today's call. We have Olivier Crepin- Leblond, Evan Leibovitch, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Alan Greenberg, from staff we have Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani and myself Gisella Gruber. I don’t believe Heidi Ulrich has joined yet. And Carlton Samuels has joined us as well, welcome Carlton. If I could please remind everyone to please state their names when speaking for transcript purposes, thank you over to you Olivier.

Thanks very much Gisella. Have we missed anyone actually? Good morning everyone I'm here.

Hello Carlton we've just started. The first point on our agenda is the reviews of the action items from our very, very long and tough meeting in Costa Rica. And I have to thank Matt for having put these action items together. There's quite a few of them so we’ll go through them. In fact, I thought there would be more than that, so if you do note that there are any meetings where we have missed out any action items, please speak out when we're going through them.

The first one, the At-Large Working Groups, and that was Olivier to ask the chairs of ACs and SOs if there's interested in holding an open session on SOPA in Costa Rica. Obviously there was. And of course the SOPA discussion is still very much in the news at the moment. SOPA, ACTA, everything. I think several of us attended the ccNSO section, is that correct? The question now is to basically ask the chairs of ACs and SOs, I have done that.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Carlton Samuels: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
Note: The following is the output resulting from transcribing an audio file into a word/text document. Although the transcription is largely accurate, in some cases may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages and grammatical corrections. It is posted as an aid to the original audio file, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Evan Leibovitch: Carlton Samuels:
There has been some interest to have that. And possibly actually having it on the 1st day on the Monday, Monday afternoon, what we have found is that until [inaudible 00:02:37] there used to be a cross community discussion taking place on the afternoon of the Monday. This was then replaced once the new gTLD process was launched this was replaced by a number of meetings that staff were running so as to explain what the new gTLD process was, et cetera.

And it looks as though now we might be able to put those sessions back in place. What I'm pushing for is for a session like that to deal with SOPA, ACTA, government control, et cetera. Any questions or suggestions? Okay so this effectively ongoing. And I'll continue with this and there should be some news soon and of Crouse I will bring that subject again to the SO and AC chairs. Sala has asked the RALO leaders to discuss the possibility of updating the dashboards and consistency on how the information is compiled. Is this something that staff should follow up with?

Yes we can do that.

Okay thanks very much Heidi. Next the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Working Group or the RRRWG is to consider the issue of the extent of dominance of US Registrars in regard to the internationalization of ICANN. I suggest just punting this over to the Working Group itself for it to work on it. Evan as you - Evan and Carlton you both are part of the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Working Group?

Yes that’s correct.

That’s true. Quite frankly Chair I am between two matters in this, registrars are the business. They come up and they get, there is a process in which there are accredited and so on. And the fact that it could be good if you have a shift of more registrars to the self and all that given the growth of the internet and so on. But I am not sure that this is something that we want to wade into too deeply. It's a question of business practice and how business

Page 2 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Cheryl Langdon-Orr:
works. What we might want to do is to use the outreach possibilities that are available to us to encourage registrar business models to develop from themselves that might help to improve the number of registrars accredited from other than the United States. It seems to me that’s one way to do it.

This business of trying to get into - it takes some kind of action and I'm not sure we should approach it about dominance. Rather we should approach it in terms of looking to see what we can do as a part of an outreach effort to encourage business models that [inaudible 00:06:12] other side of the world. That’s my feeling on it at the minute.

Okay Carlton thank you. Cheryl has put her hand up and then Alan.

Thank you Olivier. I just wanted to point out to the ExCom although I'm sure you would’ve done this anyway Olivier that this is in fact a metric that is proposed for the consumer trust confidence and competition measurements. It's in a post new gTLD world. It is something that will be being measured it will be a massive end for probably review by the review team under the AOC that will start 12 months after the first entry into the root of a new gTLD, which is actually very near term for us.

And so it's something that we as an At-Large community will have an opportunity to weigh in on in other for a as well as the outreach, thank you.

Thank you Cheryl and I therefore note that because the CCI report is out for probably comment at the moment, we should be checking whether there would be any statements that might be made by other communities against these specific metrics if that’s the case.

We might need to make something affirmative, warm, fuzzy and positive seeing as it is up to the ALAC to agree, disagree, use or

Page 3 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Alan Greenberg:
otherwise those metrics in their own recommendations to the ICANN Board.

Okay thank you Cheryl, next is Alan.

Yes thank you. I guess I tend to agree with Carlton and what Cheryl just added reinforces it that I wasn’t sure when I first read this was come up with metrics to try to - not a metrics but come up with a statement of what the impact is not just this is a bad thing because, or you know this is a bad thing because. Or whether it was an attempt to fix the problem which really means we’re getting into the business of trying to increase registrar businesses in other parts of the world.

I think the metrics are definitely not our job. And Cheryl is implying that’s it's already someone else job so I don’t think we need to get into that. And to the extent that with our ALS contacts and things like that we may be in a position to help along the creation of registrars in other parts of the world. It's a very peripheral thing from our point of view and I can't really see that being as part of our mandate.

So it's something we should be cognoscente of and aware of and perhaps help in outreach efforts that are going on through ICANN staff and other parts of ICANN. But I can't see this as a major task that we should be taking on.

Okay Alan and I see some agreement from Cheryl as well. I think this well two things from this, we can still leave this is the hands of the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Working Group but at the same time bearing in mind what we've just heard, I do agree that it's something which is certainly in hand and we will be able to find out if this problem is eased with the introduction of new gTLDs or if it is going in the other direction.

I would then suggest we go to the next thing capacity building session. [Inaudible 00:10:13] volunteers to take the capacity

Page 4 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Evan Leibovitch: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Carlton Samuels: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Carlton Samuels: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Carlton Samuels:
Heidi Ullrich:
Evan Leibovitch:
Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Tijani Ben Jemaa:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
proposal to the next step is to take place. And I gather that this is for all volunteers who are already involved with capacity building at the moment. Could anyone care to explain this a little bit because I think that’s a session I wasn’t in at the time?

As in the RALO leadership session?
No that was the capacity building session on Sunday morning. Oh - the Sunday morning one I was there.

The ICANN Academy Capacity Building Program with Sala and then the establishment of a standing subcommittee on outreach and next steps. Effectively this would be the three points which we’d need to push forward with.

Yes Chair I thought Sala was leading on this one?

She is so what we just have to reaffirm here is that should we get staff to follow up with Sala so as to continue pushing on this?

Absolutely of course. Yes we can do that. Hi Heidi.
Hi Evan.

I see Tijani has his hand up. Tijani?

Yes thank you Olivier. I am a little bit confused because we are still working on capacity building as something a part of the ICANN Academy and yet we said from the first that ICANN Academy is a framework of the whole learning activities in ICANN and also for us as ALAC, as the At-Large. I think that all the interest in the capacity building must be treated by the ICANN Academy Working Group.

Thank you Tijani. I think -

Page 5 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Carlton Samuels: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Carlton Samuels:
Chair?

Yes Carlton?

I think Tijani is right, we did agree on that. I mean that’s one of the reasons we thought that we should have Sala go with Sandra and the others who are leading the ICANN Academy. And work out a part of it. What she did say as I recall that there were some elements that she thought were required to make it a full summer she has in mind. And there was this as Tijani outlined or reminded us that the ICANN Academy [inaudible 00:13:13] so I think what we need to do is to remind Sala to harmonize with the ICANN Academy initiative.

Thank you Carlton we have Tijani and then Rinalia. Tijani please?

Thank you Sala is already on the Program Committee of the Academy so she is with us and we work together. So everything can be [inaudible 00:13:40] there I think.

Okay thank you Tijani, next is Rinalia.

Yes thank you. As I recall when Sala raised the issue in the meeting in Costa Rica, Olivier you said she should get other ALAC members to participate in the capacity building aspect of it first before forming a Working Group, an official one. And then in terms of [inaudible 00:14:08] with the ICANN Academy there would be cross fertilization due to cross membership of the two committees.

But I think in the beginning when Sala moved to the idea she was concerned about having capacity building plugged directly under ICANN Academy because ICANN Academy is now being forced to be face to face oriented rather than the online dimension. And I think Sala is very insistent the capacity building one has more focus on the online dimension.

Page 6 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Tijani Ben Jemaa:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Rinalia Abdul Rahim:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
Thank you Rinalia. Actually you are all right, all of you are absolutely correct in what you're saying. It's actually a mix between the two I think, the certainly harmonization and capacity building within probably the same Working Group working on both will probably be what will happen. However, we do need to keep those two subjects apart for specific reasons. First of course because the ICANN Academy has now got a life of its own and if there is outreach for other SO and AC chairs specifically for this test pilot.

And I would like to avoid mixing a wider capacity building program with this so as not to confuse everyone else and certainly so as not to confuse ICANN Finance. Because we all have to remember it all depends on whether this will be financed or not. But certainly I see, and I think we all see the ICANN Academy as being just a first step into a wider capacity building program.

That again there has been a lot of discussion in ICANN with regards to capacity building not only in our room but in other rooms as well. And it might be that the online capacity building is a program which we also started developing and we might have to involve other SOs and ACs outside of that.

With that said we probably are the community that requires the most outreach since we work on this with volunteers and we have to bring them up to scratch to what's going on in ICANN and in At-Large. People have put their hands up again, Carlton and then Tijani. Carlton please?

Thank you Chair, just to touch on something Rinalia mentioned about the online, there was a discussion if you recall when Glen McKnight came in and did the Moodle presentation because I know of a fact that was one of the issues whether or not we could have the ICANN Academy also oriented to the online world. Glen McKnight was there and Lance Hines from Guyana. He volunteered to help with hooking up the Moodle instance and so on. And I know he's talking to Sala about putting up an instance to

Page 7 of 55
Carlton Samuels:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Tijani Ben Jemaa:
test. I think the conversation about the convergence and the harmonization has already begun. And I think it's a good thing. I think we should - what they were saying is that the online component, if you add it as a part of the entire package would actually cost very little because most of what would have been committed would have come from volunteer effort, thank you.

Thank you Carlton. Next is Tijani.

Thank you Olivier. Thank you Carlton for saying that because all of the kinds of learning are already included in the last paper we produced. And we said that this first eyelet project is only a pilot project and that the Academy is about all kinds of learning including virtual learning with conventional e-learning and [inaudible 00:18:28] and etc., etc., any kind of learning. So if you want Olivier to prepare the work for the Academy by setting a working group to look into the capacity building needed in the At- Large I don’t mind. But the final destination will be inside the Academy. Thank you.

Thank you Tijani. I see on the chat that there is also a discussion on this with regards to outreach, inreach, outreach and also being doing capacity building or you can do outreach by capacity building as well. But I also see that there are two things in the same twine as Cheryl. Alan I know you have put your hand up.

Thank you, I think we need to remember that if the Academy is going to become an ICANN wide issue, there is a separate capacity building issue of giving the At-Large twists to things. I know in my presentations that I've done in regional capacity building exercises in the last couple of meetings, I'm not giving a tutorial on in my case, the GNSO or policy or whatever the subject is, but how ALSs and how At-Large people should interact with this.

And there's always I think going to be that aspect of it that we have to manage ourselves because that’s not something that’s going to come in the generic version that is being designed for a new GAC

Page 8 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
member as well as a new GNSO members as well as a new At- Large or ALAC member. That part of capacity building I think is always going to be ours no matter what happens in the Academy, thank you.

Thank you Alan. What I suggest then is to keep this firmly in the hands of both Sandra and Sala. And get them of course to work together. I guess the initial push that will happen will be on the Academy since we have a hard deadline for this being the Toronto meeting. But in the meantime Sala can work with some group of the people currently involved with the Academy or maybe of super group of it depending on whether more people wish to get involved to build this up so as for us to continue. But certainly linking the two would endanger the speed in which we can move forward with our own capacity building. Cheryl?

Thank you, I think from - well I just want to ensure that what we’re doing is not having a subcommittee meeting in the ExCom. We will be having plenty of subcommittee meetings in the future I'm sure. Form a point of view of action item this is going to be one of those that needs continual care. But it is a medium term not a near term action item.

We probably need to be very careful about making sure it gets continued you with the [inaudible 00:21:59] and thank you for Alan for building on that metaphor to entwine it in our future both strategic and financial planning. But I would think we won't be getting down to new business in it until after the Prague meeting, in between Prague and Toronto.

It may have more energy put into but from an action items point of view, I think it needs to be very much a “Yes we see where it needs to go and yes it needs to get going. But it also needs to be properly planned and put into play when the opportunities come up.”

Thanks Cheryl. Absolutely share those views with you. Heidi?

Page 9 of 55
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Heidi Ullrich:
Yes I just wanted to let everyone know that on Monday after the meeting, I had the opportunity to have breakfast with Marilyn Cade and she took the opportunity to stress her concerns about the Academy and the need for wider capacity building activities within ICANN and within the ACs and SOs towards this project. And I did stress that the Academy was planning on having that in the future, that this was a pilot project.

And that eLearning was going to take place. But she noted with a raised eyebrow that nowhere in the proposal as it is currently is that stated. Perhaps that’s something that the group might want to consider adding.

Thank you Heidi. I think one of the reasons why the capacity building was not mentioned in the Academy proposal was so as not to confuse Finance. It was just one thing and then we’ll deal with it next. A little bit like chewing the food a little bit before dishing it out. Okay we can then move on on this. We've got the action item as a long term action item until at least Prague. And of course after Prague I'm sure we’ll have more on that as well.

If I could ask staff to follow up with - while I know there is a meeting that will take place of the ICANN Academy Program Working Group sometime next week, perhaps add this to the agenda so as for this to be discussed and of course to make sure that Sala will be there as well. Tijani?

No sorry.

Okay thank you. Now we move to the next thing, outreach, staff is to send out a call for membership of the Outreach Subcommittee to RALO lists. I gather that’s been done?

Yes it's in progress just about ready to go, working with Cheryl on that.

Okay thank you. I guess on all of that the Secretariats are to discuss holding a meeting to review the membership of the

Page 10 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi Ullrich:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Cheryl Langdon-Orr:
Outreach Subcommittee, was this discussed in the Secretariats meeting or?

No it was not, there was a very full agenda. And I don't think that was mentioned.

Okay well maybe in the call the Secretariats would have to be included in that.

Sorry just another point, I do recall that it was decided to hold another meeting, a Secretariats meeting between actual ICANN meetings so perhaps that can be discussed at that point.

Okay thank you Heidi. Cheryl?

Thank you I think it's important to note that a call for the membership of the Outreach Working Group will be very, very particular in its design to ensure that like the other similarly tasked regionally balanced input designed standing work groups of the ALAC that there will need to be a fixed number of regional appointees. We’re kind of coming at it from both ends. I'm not overly concerned about it in terms of that.

I am however concerned that we don’t just get the same people in all of these work groups. That the regions do find a way to spread the load and remember that it doesn’t just have to be their executive or their Boards or whatever. That there are these ALSs that they all have and that it's okay for those reps to be involved as well.

Thank you Cheryl. And I note that many of these ALSs are involved directly with capacity building in their own regions so that makes an ideal working group to join for new members who might wish to or even old members but who are not that active and who wish to be active.

It could be a good resuscitation pond yes. Excellent, so the first -

Page 11 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Heidi Ullrich:
And this is something I'm not sure if it's pertinent at this time, but it's something that Olivier and I discussed this past week and I had a chance to discuss more with Mandy Carver a few days ago is perhaps Cheryl right before you have your first call of the Outreach Working Group that there be a briefing call with the new VPs of the global partnerships.

That would be Nigel, Rodrigo and [inaudible 00:27:43], as well as invite Jamie and then that would be an opportunity for them to talk to At-Large as well as ALAC to talk to them because I believe one of their reasons for the development or establishment of the Outreach Working Group is to have more of working relationship with global partnerships.

Yes I think that would be perfect, it might also be useful if Olivier considers some opportunity for a block of time in his Prague agenda for a follow-up on that with a similar lineup.

Okay thank you.

Thank you Cheryl. Let's have this as an action item, those two. I'm not sure when we’ll start on the schedules for Prague. But -

You should already be starting Olivier. I have already started without me.

He's started. There are 84 days including weekends until we leave for Prague.

Oh.
Okay it's on countdown team.

It's just one long countdown this whole life. The first call of the Outreach Subcommittee is to include GP; I'd be interested to find out what GP is.

Global Partnership.

Page 12 of 55
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:

Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi Ullrich:

Carlton Samuels: Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Carlton Samuels: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Carlton Samuels:

Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi Ullrich:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi Ullrich:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi Ullrich:
Okay that’s one [inaudible 00:29:07] then. Heidi you're not training him very well.

Yes I'm not thinking very well, it's the afternoon here; Friday afternoons people usually relax with a beer at the pub. We’ll move swiftly then with the next thing, compliance. And the ALAC will consider the issue of suspension and send further questions to the compliance staff for clarification. I believe this hasn’t been done yet has it?

No we sent out a new compliance - there was a complaint update form that was posted that shows what the update was. I have not really been following the issue so I can tell you what is the difference between what was sent as the new form and the previous form. I note Evan had made some comment on it.

Olivier? Yes Heidi?

Actually yes on the next one which I think they're connected, yesterday Maggie sent you and Garth and perhaps a few others a link to the new form.

Yes that’s correct, yes and Garth has already fired on it by saying that it doesn’t actually have or give the ability to point out what registrar one is speaking about.

I think both of those are completed. Okay so completed but in hand though?

Yes that’s something maybe an issue to talk to them about in Prague or earlier as you wish.

Or even earlier I think. Yes.

Page 13 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
Is the - from what I understand this is just a pilot or a test form that is not in use yet. Perhaps it would be good just following up and I'd be happy to share it with everyone else on the ExCom. Okay so we move to the next thing Garth said the new form was a step backwards, that’s how he fired on it. Events roadmap, so ALAC to vote on the draft ALAC statement on the WHOIS Review Team Draft Report during the ALAC wrap-up session on Wednesday 14 March, and that was done and the statement was passed, thanks for this.

And the ExCom is to ask Akram Atallah, ICANN’s COO and Xavier Calvez the ICANN CFO why ICANN cannot fund outreach activities to non-ICANN events. That question for the record, was asked. No response was given yet. Has anyone gto any view on this or should we just swiftly move on?

Move on.
Nothing to see here move on.
I see Tijani has raised his hand though.
Yes the question wasn’t answered because it is not no. They said they don’t know yet.
That's right.

It's not no but they are now studying the requests so they will give - I will speak about it in any other business about the evaluation sheet of the requests. The finals are using this sheet to evaluate each request and the request we will try to find a lot of elements of success that they will judge or they will evaluate. So they will perhaps accept some events are not with the ICANN events. But it depends on the score they will get on the evaluation sheet. So it is not no.

At least it's something happening. It's not no yet.

Page 14 of 55
Carlton Samuels: Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Tijani Ben Jemaa: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Tijani Ben Jemaa:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Carlton Samuels: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Cheryl Langdon-Orr:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Carlton Samuels: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:
No it's not no yet.

It will hopefully never will be no but we will see, to be continued, Alan?

Thank you, just to be clear and for clarity’s sake ICANN does fund outreach and various other things to non-ICANN events, they just don’t do it for At-Large. Board members are always going to other things and maybe - and certainly staff members are. For clarity we should say exactly what we mean, not a generic statement which is in fact incorrect.

Thank you Alan for this precision. You're absolutely correct on this. Cheryl?

I certainly agree with what Alan just said. But the reason I put up my hand was I remembered the extensive comments that I put in on the particular topic in the internationalization and globalization survey. And I was hoping that others particularly at least in the ExCom might have been responding to the survey with similar verbosity. There is an opportunity to influence not this round of funding but future planning with appropriately worded responses. And they certainly got quite a few chapters from me.

Thank you Cheryl. Have we all responded to this survey yet? Yes I have.

It takes a little while, it takes about 35 minutes or even 40 minutes but it is -

It took a lot more than that.

I think that several of us who have answered so far have probably been firing on all cylinders. And I certainly have put my fair bit of TNT in their direction.

But sorry Olivier - I'm not sorry Olivier just sorry to jump in. My point of raising that is whilst Rinalia said it's not no yet, it may be

Page 15 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
no this time around. But I think there is a clear intent and precedent now being built by those questions in the survey and about other things that we’re hearing, even just the way Xavier approached his briefing on the ExCom. That in the near future, I'm fairly confident we may see change per our advantage as well as for [inaudible 00:36:04].

Thank you Cheryl and to the extent that it would be good to have a strong ALAC voice in the responses that are given, perhaps a reminder to the announce list that this survey is a good idea, maybe not right away but sometime in the middle of next week.

Olivier for the record, I completed the survey.

Fantastic, I think the majority of us here have. Those who haven’t remain silent but please send it out. I think it's a really good way of showing if the whole ExCom and certainly I would hope that all of the ALAC was able to fill that survey, it would certainly show what we think they will notice. Although we haven’t spoken to each other on the survey and what we would reply, I think we have pretty much all the same view of what needs to be done. I can see Alan didn’t get the compliance form on the chat. No only a handful of us -

[Inaudible 00:37:09] I think I can just forward it.

Yes I will forward it. Okay so let's move on then to the next action item and that’s the Future Challenges Working Group meeting. Now I wonder though are these action items for the ALAC or are these action items for the Future Challenges Working Group itself?

Actually these are for the Future Challenges Working Group. These actually should not - there's no need for the ExCom to discuss. Those are more for the Future Challenges Working Group.

Okay thank you.

Page 16 of 55
Carlton Samuels: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Heidi Ullrich:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Evan Leibovitch: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Evan Leibovitch: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:
Not only that Olivier, but there may be other things tasked to that Working Group done at this meeting.

Okay do you wish to report on this or this something we can then move on with and we just pass and leave it to the Future Challenges Working Group and for them to come to us when they have something to report?

I'd say leave it to us for now.

Okay thank you. Next At-Large meeting with the ICANN Board, two action items there, Heidi Ulrich to forward the Dashboard presentation to the Board.

In progress.

Okay thank you Heidi. Next staff to work together to have a different configuration for ALAC Board meeting, I think that came without saying.

Yes that will be in progress probably in May or so. I don’t think Diane’s going to be working on that yet.

That really is something for the Board to work out because they didn’t seem to understand that they had requested this type of arrangement.

Yes, actually I will follow up with Diane and see how she's planning on approaching this. That was something I think Steve clearly called for.

Yes and I see there's a note from Evan asking to return to the informal breakfast. As I understand the Board doesn’t meet with everyone during breakfast or lunches. So they have to choose depending on the sessions. It might be that in Prague we will get back to that. Cheryl and then Heidi.

Thank you Olivier. I just wanted Heidi it's really more directed to you to perhaps follow up with meetings and Diane. I assume that

Page 17 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Heidi Ullrich:
the layout of the Hilton in Prague is fairly well known. We were somewhat limited with options on meeting room configurations. [Inaudible 00:39:52] what we want to do but we are limited by the actual physical location of these meetings. Just if it's on top of their agenda while they're planning it, that Tuesday concept of the Board staying in one place and everyone coming to them. That was really the first time that’s happened and I think it's an ideal opportunity to get the design right for Prague because I think everyone realized the design wasn’t right in Costa Rica.

Okay thank you Cheryl I'll mention that. And Heidi you have your hand up?

Yes thank you Evan regarding the breakfast, again there basically have got two sorts of meetings, one is a more formal meeting and the other one is more of a social event. Now that social event only occurs, I think Gisella correct me, I think it's every other meeting or at once a year. For Prague I believe that it's ALAC’s turn to have a social event in addition to the more formal meeting. And again, correct me Gisella, I think ALAC will be having a dinner this time with the Board for their social event. Okay Gisella says “Correct” okay thank you.

Fantastic, thank you. Evan?

Hi I guess my issue is not on so much the food but the way that the meeting is done. I found that the formal way that we did it was stunningly ineffective. And just on a regular basis to be able to have this engagement that has small groups of At-Large together with small groups of Board members at the round tables doing that kind of thing, where you had suggested agenda topics, I seem to recall extremely well-functioning meetings like this.

And to me it's not a matter of the food; this could just as easily be done in a regular room. My thought was when you have a bunch

Page 18 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Evan Leibovitch:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Alan Greenberg:
of people that are sitting around a single U-shaped table you really don’t get a chance to do what we were able to do. It's not a matter of that you're eating food at it, it's a matter at you have little round tables where you have personal engagement. And that’s what I'm hoping that we can do on a regular basis as opposed to okay it's our turn now, thanks.

Thank you Evan next is Alan.

Thank you Olivier. Just to point out that the issue of room configuration is a bit more complex. About two meetings ago the Board also had a, you know, we will be in one room and other people will come to see us. And they had at the head table a few Board members and a few reps of whoever it was but the room was much larger. Other people could be in the front row, could easily stand up and talk; the problem in this case was not so much the configuration although it may not be optimal. It was the exceedingly cramped situation which changes the dynamic completely.

Not to harp on - I don’t want to be a room designer but it really needs to be a configuration that works and it's not necessarily a round table or a U or classroom setup. There's a whole bunch of complex interactions there. Just to keep that in mind, thank you.

Thank you very much Alan. And I think we can move on from the subject. Just one thing I do reiterate, the fact that face to face discussion with Board members, even with individual Board members is always a good idea as well, so all of you and I guess all ALAC members should try and see who they get on with mostly on the Board and also use any time in the corridors and informal meetings to press for their views to discuss views directly with Board members as well, very helpful.

Moving on to the next thing, the next item is the At-Large meeting with the GAC. And I see an action item here which I'm not too sure about because I felt there was another action item in that

Page 19 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Evan Leibovitch:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi Ullrich:
meeting. The one which is listed here is ALAC to send invitation to have a meeting on the human rights, rights of internet users. Can anyone refresh me on this? Evan?

Hi Olivier. There was something mentioned briefly about this and that I think Heather and there was a very brief subject on this where since we mentioned we had an interest in registrants rights I think there were a couple of the country members that said that they shared similar interests and there was sort of an ill-defined stated interest in working together. But I don’t think it was as well defined as the other topic I think you have in mind.

Thank you Evan. Yes I remember a conversation about it but not quite sure whether there was an action item to have a meeting.

Yes I'm just reading my notes and I do remember during that meeting Jean Jacques raised the issue of the concern of [inaudible 00:45:43] actions on the internet. It's time to have a fresh look at this. Every stakeholder has an equal right but the question is are we in a period of crisis of community confidence in the internet governance system?

He suggests setting a joint working group on this issue and the weakened credibility which we see all around us. And EU Commission supported that, interested in this working group. I think there was something a bit more. I can follow up with Jean Jacques if you'd like?

Yes, please Heidi that would be good. And perhaps even following with the person from the EU Commission would be good as well.

Matt can you make an action item that I'm to follow up with Jean Jacques with what his suggestion was during the GAC meeting? I believe there was something -

Page 20 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi Ulrich:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Evan Leibovitch:

Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
Actually Heidi I suggest putting that off until we discuss the next issue coming up from the GAC because that also involves Jean Jacques.

Okay.

That’s right and the next issue which is not listed there but which has to be added is the creation, well the comment drafting of a statement on the conflict of interest issue which I think was the highlight of our discussion with the GAC. That is one which Jean Jacques has taken a pretty big lead on. And certainly I would be happy to have him push on that. Along of course with the people who were involved with the previous joint statement which we had, so Evan?

Actually Olivier I think we actually went around the room and there were people - Jean Jacques and myself indicated our interest from the ALAC side and I think there might have been individuals from the GAC side, individuals reps that also indicated they were interested. So I don’t know if it's worth going through the transcript or just going back to Heather. But I do remember there were specific individuals. I think it was also the EU person as well the one from Portugal who were interested in engaging on this.

Okay thank you Evan, so for the sake of lightening heather’s workload perhaps going back to the transcripts and finding out who were those people on the GAC who were interested and then contacting those people, pretty much as what happened last time, of course keeping Heather informed of what's going on is the way forward.

Yes when we did this the last time it was essentially myself and Alice Monyo taking the lead with her finding some people in the GAC and me finding some people on the ALAC side and sitting us together in a room and doing something. I think that worked very well and I think if we target this so that we have some meeting

Page 21 of 55
Evan Leibovitch:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Evan Leibovitch:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Evan Leibovitch: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Evan Leibovitch:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Alan Greenberg:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan Greenberg:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan Greenberg: Carlton Samuels: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
room space and some people designated before we get into Prague that will make that go a lot smoother.

Thank you Evan. In order to lighten, well I know that At-Large staff has already got a huge workload of things to do and catch up with, may I ask you Evan the [inaudible 00:49:01] task to go through the transcripts to check who was interested in the GAC.

I was afraid you were going to say that.

Sorry. It's just that there is a lot going on simultaneously and just do a search on.

Okay if somebody could just put the transcript in my hands, I'll do my best.

Okay thank you Evan, Alan?

Yes I don’t remember the exact words that were used in that meeting but I'll just note that in some people’s minds human rights and internet user rights are not the same thing.

Absolutely.

So it may well be that we talked about both of them in which case this is fine. But don’t conflate the two unless other people actually did also. There are certainly people who will defend internet user rights whatever that means and not come to and say we’re defending human rights and perhaps vice versa.

Yes you'll get some pushbacks from AC that’s for sure. Actually if you look at the US vice versa is probably correct. That certainly is correct.

Okay thank you Alan for this note and certainly there's even discussion in the IGC about this and in the IGF, some people wanted to make that some event related to human rights and there

Page 22 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Alan Greenberg:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Cheryl Langdon-Orr:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Alan Greenberg:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:
was pushback from some members. And in fact some members think internet users have no rights but there you go.

Well let's face it; none of us have any rights.

Okay so we will move on.

That was an unknown speaker for the transcript record.

Unknown Speaker.

Anonymous.

How appropriate especially at the time we’re meeting at least from an [inaudible 00:50:51] point of view.

Okay next the ALAC Policy Discussion Parts 1 and 2, the ALAC and SO are to continue working together so as to engage further. The list of contacts and countries that ALSs are in are to be sent to the ASO and the ASO is to send the ALAC a list of their meetings. Could I ask staff to follow up on this please?

Yes Olivier we will do that.

Okay thanks and of course I'm in touch with Luis Lee and John Carron about this as well, certainly some opportunity for inreach and outreach in the regions. Okay next LACRALO Working Session 2, I just wonder whether this has to do with -

Olivier one minor point? Oh yes Alan.

And on the previous one, next time we invite people let's make sure that the name cards in front of them have the right names on them and have the right positions on them. At that meeting we had two Chairs of the ASO and that was a little bit, more than a little bit confusing to some people.

You probably had an ASO and a NRO Chair.

Page 23 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Alan Greenberg: Cheryl Langdon-Orr:

Alan Greenberg:
Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
We did indeed but the two cards in front of them both said “Chari of the ASO.”

Yes well that’s because not everyone knows the NRO and the ASO are different.

Touché, just a note for future meetings, thank you. Thanks Alan -- noted.

Okay so LACRALO Working Session 2, I have a feeling this doesn’t have anything to do with ALAC.

Correct we can move on.

Okay anything we should look at in there? Well staff is following us I guess on all of these. Next there -

Olivier did you just say that LACRALO has nothing to do with ALAC?

No I'm saying -
Sorry it's been a long day already.

I'm saying the session has nothing to with the ALAC, the session itself for the transcript record. LACRALO is part of the ALAC as well all know. RALO Secretariats meeting to have a conference call with the next month to continue discussing the various issues. Well first thing I'm not quite sure whether this has to do with the ALAC as well. And the action item is interesting to say the least, perhaps we should move on to the next one.

Rapidly.

Rapidly and it's the ExCom meeting and so if you have downloaded the page a while ago, you might wish to refresh because a few things were added to it. The first one, staff to remind Xavier of the question from Sala on the percentage of the

Page 24 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
ALAC budget which is allocated towards outreach in the last five years on an annual basis, that’s ongoing, I guess?

Yes, it is.

Heidi to work with Xavier to find a time for the call for the FDS in the ALAC in the next couple of weeks, that’s also a follow up. And then should Olivier approve the liaison reports webpage, staff are to setup a Wiki page template based on the ccNSO Liaison Reports web page for other liaisons.

Work in progress.

In progress yes and then finally Heidi to follow up with compliance regarding the lack of a .mobile liaison, that’s also in progress.

Yes.

Any other action items which might not have been reflected in the current lists that any of you remember from your meetings? No, so we can now move on to the next part of our agenda and that’s items for discussion and decision, Part 3 with the Policy Advice Development Calendar. We have a number of recently approved ALAC statements, the first one being the ALAC statement of the WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Recommendation that was passed and voted on.

The next one, the ALAC statement on the reservation of Olympic and Red Cross names in the new gTLD application procedure. That was also passed. As you all know the GNSO Council decided to vote to ratify the report which they have put together and I just wanted to check with staff. Our statement was also sent to the Board wasn’t it?

Matt can you follow up on that?

Yes sorry I was on mute. It was presented to the Board as well in addition to the corrected version.

Page 25 of 55
Heidi Ullrich: Matt Ashtiani:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
Okay it might be good to remind the Board or perhaps I could send a copy of this over to the Chairman of the Board so as to remind them of the big reservations we have about this. And definitely noting that the vote itself, that took place was not a - so next statements currently being drafted or reviewed by the ALAC, and I'm glad to say that many of them are already on the way.

The first one is the ICANN Board Conflicts of Interests Review, with revised conflicts of interest policy and related governance documents. The deadline is 2 April which is in a few days’ time. The deadline for At-Large comments is today. There is a wide range of views that we have on their first draft that was prepared by Beau then revised by Carlton, then revised by Titi, then revised by others.

Tijani.

Tijani as well - revised by many people. We have more than one statement as a result and I was just going to suggest that Carlton , Evan and I work together perhaps later on today or over the weekend to put these together, certainly taking into account all of the notes, all of the comments which were given. In fact, I note many different comments including those of Yrjo regarding the NomCom’s ability to work together as a team, etc. This certainly is a very political statement, very important so we have to measure the amount of firmness we have whilst at the same time not offend anybody outwardly. Evan you have put your hand up?

Yes Olivier thank you. Part of what's come up during the discussion of these statements and some of the feedback we've received indicates that there's actually a good bit more homework and work that we need to do on this. And what I mean by that for instance is as an example the comments that were made by Karen McCarthy, who is saying on one hand that this is a very, very important thing for us to be doing.

Page 26 of 55
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
Evan Leibovitch:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN

On the other hand we better do our homework, we ought to be consulting other sources, for instance, best practices outside ICANN on conflict of interest because we certainly aren’t the first organization to be doing this. What I mean to say though is that we have a number of statements in front of us that are dealing specifically with the timeliness of the issue and the urgency while essentially making a statement that will commit ourselves, that will commit ALAC to producing a future document that will outline specific recommendations based on best practices elsewhere and further study on the issue.

I'm leaning towards the second one that would essentially say we should craft something. We should definitely craft something this weekend, but do it with the idea in mind that this will be an incomplete statement, that we're going to give some thought on this matter, and come up with some better more in-depth analysis and some specific recommendations in the near future before Prague. And that's my suggestion that we create a document but we don't try and do everything in it that as we make it we acknowledge that there is more work to do and we commit ourselves to doing it going forward. And this is one of the reasons why I suggested putting off some of the action items about the Future Challenges Working Group.

I have not talked to Jean Jacque about this issue but I know he's passionate on the issue of conflict of interest. So in fact what I'm going to suggest here at the ExCom is to create a statement that gels together with what Carlton and Tijani and myself and others have done in the workspace, but something that conveys the urgency and importance of the matter while acknowledging that our work isn't finished and charging the Future Challenges Working Group which has already been working on this in the sense to come up with a more detailed document, and more detailed analysis, that comes out with specific recommendations. Thanks for your indulgence.

Page 27 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Alan Greenberg:
Thank you Evan and several people have now put their hands up so there's a queue, first Alan Greenberg.

Thank you. I think it's important when we talk about these things to remember that this subject and not unlike WHOIS has the number of competing and diametrically opposed constraints in it and targets in it. We want to remove any perception of conflict of interest. On the other hand we don't want to remove so many people from the discussion that, you know, the whole board can't partake in it and those two are opposite things.

The way to address it as some people have proposed is to make sure that there aren't any contracted parties on the board which start saying, "Well we have a multi-stakeholder model except for some groups which are not multi-stakeholder," and we've got a whole bunch of conflicting interests. We are not going to satisfy all of them in the extreme. Any results and policy is a offense sitting one which tries to balance the various constraints and I think we need to remember this as we go forward that we're not going to find a perfect answer and it's going to be a judgment call where the division goes. Thank you.

Thank you very much Alan and certainly the comments that were made during the speech of the CEO where he said that people should not have any conflicts whatsoever when they are on the board. It's one which was frowned on by many people thinking well hang on.

But remember that would mean the whole concept of how the board is selected including the people selected by the ACs and SOs goes out the window.

That's us.
So careful what you wish for, you may get it. Oh yeah, an independent --

Page 28 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan Greenberg: Cheryl Langdon-Orr:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Carlton Samuels:
I don't have the right answer. I'm just pointing out that we have a lot of conflicting constraints. Thank you.

The point was made in the comments also, not to refer directly to the CEO speech as well as --

Oh yes please.

There's a queue Evan so first it's Carlton and then Tijani and then you, so Carlton please.

Thank you Olivier. First of all let me just send us to what Alan says and put it short because that's the caution I wanted to point out that I would never agree to [inaudible 01:03:43].

We have a balancing act and you could never have multi- stakeholder organizations such as we're trying to do with ICANN by leaving out some of the stakeholders and certainly contracted parties are important stakeholders. It is going to be a balancing act. I think as we look at it and this is why I support the idea of trucking back the statement and make some sort of interim statement and then telegraph the fact that we're going to look longer and closer at the issue before we make a more fulsome statement.

At any rate what is going to be required in my view is that we have to acknowledge the contracted parties as stakeholders and they have a right to be at the table and what we might wish to do is probably as the way we go about choosing the board and looking at it we might have to clear the deck and see what we can do again. And this is one of the reasons I think the Future Challenges Working Group might be a proper place to do a more long-term analysis of what we might say in this respect. So I look forward to us deciding on having an interim statement that is probably a little bland but certainly giving the heads-up to everybody else in the

Page 29 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Carlton Samuels:
community that we're going to look at it in depth before we make any further comments. Thank you.

Thank you Carlton. Do you envisage that the further comment might come before the end of the overall public comment period?

Yes, I think it can happen. I know Evan is committed to having Jean Jacques. There is a framework. I know [inaudible 01:05:57] have been shared with you that we were kind of banding about how we might approach this as a part of the Future Challenges Working Group.

I think it's possible. What Alan says is really the government of why we have to put it down that way because you don’t want to make something that you don't look at all of the issues clearly and come across as being knowledgeable on those issues. And whatever we might put forward it has to be in the context of a balancing act and how we balance interest and that is going to take some time.

Thank you Carlton. Next is Tijani.

Thank you Olivier. First of all I think that the statement will be called to a proper as the time, a more detailed statement will follow and I think we have a project of a joint statement with the GAC and it can be this framework that the detailed statement can be done.

The second point I think that the statement have matured and now we are saying that the contracted party or any other commissioned party are there and they are part of this multi-stakeholder model and they have to be there. But we said at the end that the selecting body has to be fair, have to be more or less impartial, that it doesn't have any interest to [inaudible 01:07:45] so that they can make the best [inaudible 01:07:49]. So I think that this is already [inaudible 01:07:53]. Please study so [inaudible 01:08:01] can finish it. I think it cannot [inaudible 01:08:06].

Page 30 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Tijani Ben Jemaa:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Evan Leibovitch:
Okay, thank you Tijani. I also heard that you were breaking up a little bit towards the end of your sentence. I thought it was me. Okay, thanks Tijani. Agreed and next we have Evan.

Well there's a discussion going on in the chat room. I think it would be absolute foolishness to put out a statement that deals with the timeliness and urgency of the issue and doesn't mention Rod's speech. It was the reaction to his speech that essentially has put ICANN on the radar of the mainstream media and has attracted global attention. Yes, there's been work without ahead of that. Yes, At-Large was at work on that, the FCWG was working on that well in advance of Rod's statement. Lots of people were considering the issue.

You know we had the ATRT and all these [inaudible 01:09:08] that were dancing around it. Rod's speech brought this into focus and he attracted world attention on ICANN. Ignoring that is a mistake and if we are going to put together something that addresses the timeliness and the urgency, who are we kidding if we ignore the reason why everybody is talking about this now. Thanks.

Thank you Evan. Rinalia I know haven't put your hand up but you've written a number of things on the chat, would you care to expand please?

Yes. It's just a feeling and the feeling is that Rod does not have a lot of good will around him and the circumstances of him leaving leaves a rather bad taste. He raises an important issue. We've been concerned about this issue and we were doing something about it within the ALAC At-Large world and I think that we should say that we've been working on this and we can also refer to basically Rod's mentioning it as sort of like reinforcing the point that we shouldn't make Rod's statement as the main focusing event.

Sorry, I never suggested that we would. I just said we can't have a statement that doesn't even mention it. I'm just saying he helped

Page 31 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Rinalia Abdul Rahim:

Evan Leibovitch:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg:
call attention to it, but of course the issue is larger than Rod, the issue is larger than us and it started ahead of time. All I'm saying is that he helped bring it in to sharp focus. We do need to have something that is both immediate and a different document that is more thoughtful and analytical and long-term.

And if we are going to do something immediate that deals with the timeliness I'm saying yes we call attention to the fact that this has been a long burning issue but I'm just saying we can't ignore the fact that it was thanks to Rod that this is brought on everyone's radar. And in fact if Rod has become less popular because he did this, you know we are here to make a point and it Rod raised an issue that has made enemies for mere mention of the point it doesn't make the point less important.

Thank you Evan. I think however I still do think that if we put too much emphasis on Rod's statement it will basically make everyone think that the ALAC has only just started on this. Well I recognize that we actually been on this for a very long time already. Rod's statement just emphasizes what we've had to say in the past. Alan and then Tijani and then we'll close the session.

Yeah, I don't care whether we mention the statement. I don't want us to be perceived as saying "Rod was right, listen to him" because some of what he is espousing although it identifies a problem his potential solution is counter to what we have publicly said many times before is in the public interest.

We have claimed a number of times vociferously that the multi- stakeholder model is what is going to save the public level, public interest, and he is making a strong statement against that from some perspectives at least that is how it is viewed by some. So to mention it fine, to imply that we are rubberstamping it and supporting it, and the rubberstamp is the right word, without a lot of caveat I think is potentially a dangerous path to follow. Thank you.

Page 32 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Tijani Ben Jemaa:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Tijani Ben Jemaa:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Carlton Samuels: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Carlton Samuels:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Carlton Samuels:
Thank you Alan. Next is Tijani.

Okay I agree that we don't have emphasis on Rod statement. We can mention it as a trigger of the media noise, but we said in the statement if you read it that we had this concern much before the statement. So it is already in our statement and we have only to mention it as a trigger of the media noise. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much Tijani. I have a question for all of you because the statement that is proposed is in response to a public comment period on an actual set of documents which have been provided for public comment. I don't note that our statement actually deals specifically with those documents, any thoughts about this? Tijani?

Absolutely.

Yes, you are right and I had the same [inaudible 01:14:07]. I read the public comment and I wonder if it is the real response to this public comment. But it is a concern that At-Large had and that was discussed very long and I think we have to bring the point to the board.

Okay, thank you Tijani.

Can I ask a question?

Yes Carlton please.

Who among us do not think that those documents were referred out because of Rod's statement?

No, Rod's irrelevant. On this it's irrelevant. A huge amount of work was already being done and continues to be done despite him.

I do not disagree with that at all Cheryl. I'm just saying that if you look at the statement timing is everything on this and I am yet to see anybody convinced to make the case that what Rod Beckstrom

Page 33 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
did in this statement did not precipitate a movement forward on this. Remember our issue is for the public interest. It's not just about the statement for the documents. It's about what we're projecting for the public, that's how we're positioning this.

We are positioning this as an ongoing concern for the At-Large and we are going to make even more fuller proposals on this so we are ready in that stream, at least this is what I think we're getting to that we are going to do this. And the other thing that I need to say quite frankly is the original mention of it came out of NARALO. I mean the NARALO folks are very hot to trot on this one and it came out.

I think we have done a lot to make the original NARALO statement a little less strident and probably more acceptable by a larger cross section of us. I think it would be ill advised if we do not look at the genesis of this statement and take that into consideration as well. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much Carlton. I do note that the comment period was open on the 11th of March and the board has been working on this for a very long time already. The documents which are actually provided for public comment go a very long way into defining what the conflicts are and the code of conduct etcetera. Perhaps in the statement there should be acknowledgement that these go in the right direction. But I disagree with the point that Rod's speech has focused things on anything more than just putting it out in the opening and having the press involved.

I think that this is something which we heard about in the last meeting prior in Dakar as well. It was an extensive discussion and I'm just uneasy about putting too much weight to Rod's speech as in saying you know since the CEO has come up with this we're now working on that. It just shouldn't be perceived as that. Alan and then we'll close this discussion.

Page 34 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Alan Greenberg:
Yeah, just to return once more you know you just said that the board has been working on this and we should make a statement saying we're going in the right direction. The direction they have been going in has resulted in among other things the Chair and the Vice Chair of the board do not participate in any discussion about New gTLDs and plus other members.

And a fair amount of the criticism that has been raised is not that we are too loose on conflict of interest but we may be too strong on conflict of interest and I think that's what yields Cheryl's comment about very targeted disclosures. It's a complex issue. If we try to simplify it we're going to end up putting our feet in our mouths. Thank you.

Thank you Alan. So can I suggest that Carlton, Evan, and I work on a simplified interim statement right now and we continue the discussions for the next 21 days with all of you involved of course. So ask for a stronger statement to be sent that might not even be a statement replying to the public comment, but a statement that will be going along the public comment periods so as to be known by other stakeholders in ICANN but also sent to the board.

Olivier we will have in this case three statements, this one, the other one in 21 days, and the one with the GAC.

Correct. Yes Tijani because the one with the GAC I don't see as being able to do it that quickly. Things do take time with the GAC and I'd like to unlink this and have it as an additional statement outside of our on processes just because we're faster working directly like this. Working with the GAC I don't know the GAC's timescales are on this because the one with the GAC will be pretty powerful. It might require a lot more work than just 21 days, so as to make sure that it's to the point but at the same time it's not going to alienate or offend. Well maybe not offend, it might offend, but certainly alienate parts of the multi-stakeholder model that we're working under especially when it comes from the GAC where the

Page 35 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi Ullrich:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Matt Ashtiani:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
GAC has often been accused of circumventing the multi- stakeholder model.

Okay so moving on to the next thing on our agenda. So that's the Draft Advice Letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition. The deadline has been extended to the 17th of April. There is a page that was put up by Matt on there and I believe this has been taken up. I don't even have a note. Who took this up?

Olivier this is Heidi.
Yes Heidi please remind me.

Yes on the EURALO call it was agreed that a small, I believe, EURALO group consisting of Wolf, Yrjo, and others would work on a draft. So we can send a reminder to them.

Yes please send a reminder to them. Thank you for reminding me. I asked them to provide a first draft by the weekend so as for everyone else to be able to comment on this. They will act as the pin holder basically and then have the comments on this page. So action item for staff is to follow-up with them and then once the draft statement is up send it out over to the ALAC for review.

Okay, so Silvia or Matt can do that today.

Thank you. Next Security, Stability, and Resiliency of DNS Review. Again here there's a small group that has said that they will be working on this that would be primarily Sala, Julie Hammer our new liaison, and also -- I can't remember the third name now. It was Alejandro Pisante of course. So again follow- up with them and get them to get a statement up there ASAP. Matt you put a wiki page up already, have you?

Yes.

Okay, so if we can publicize this over to them that will be great. The next one is the Fake Renewal Notices Report. And Alan you started work on this I understand preparing a statement and you

Page 36 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Alan Greenberg:
Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi Ullrich:

Alan Greenberg:
Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Alan Greenberg:

Carlton Samuels: Alan Greenberg:

Matt Ashtiani: Alan Greenberg:
very kindly put a wiki page up but actually I've asked for Matt to put a wiki page up.

We're trying to organize things so as to make them more easily found and Matt has found a hieratical way of putting those in the wiki so the wiki workspace is actually up and now linked to the agenda. That really is your home Alan for this.

All right.

Olivier this is Heidi.

Yes Heidi please.

Yes, I do note that there is no statement on that page actually, so Alan have you posted that draft statement some place else?

No, there is no draft statement at this point. Not yet. Okay, thank you.

Alan would you like to send out a call to get input on this or are you going to just draft a first draft.

I already did. That's how the issue came up. Have you had any feedback from it yet?

There have been a couple things in the mailing list. I haven't checked my page. Is the page I pointed to still there by the way or is it gone?

No it's gone. It would have changed Alan.

Has the public been told about the change or do we simply have a page not found if someone follows my link?

Your page was not deleted, so people will still be able to access your page.

Okay fine, that's was I was asking.

Page 37 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg:
Matt Ashtiani:
Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Rinalia Abdul Rahim:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Rinalia Abdul Rahim: Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi Ullrich:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Rinalia Abdul Rahim:
So if we can have a pointer on that page to the new page that would be great and perhaps reissue a call within that page.

Okay and where do I put my statement, just below that big box?

Yes please.

Okay, just trying to understand what the rules are.

They're no rules. They're just guidelines. Okay back to this, Rinalia you put your hand up.

Yes, I believe the IDN they're in issues project next step. They've extended the comment period and I believe the IDN Working Group is planning to submit a statement and Edmund is drafting it.

That's interesting because it doesn't appear on the agenda for some reason.

Yes exactly.
Yes, that is correct. Olivier if I may follow-up on that. Yes Heidi.

Yes. It's going to be the week after do to the availability of Dennis Jennings who will be presenting on the briefing call on that topic and the second part of that call will be the next steps of that working group on that statement.

Thank you Heidi. So that's certainly in hand, any follow-up Rinalia? Your hand is still up.

Oh sorry. No, I think where we left it was that the working group had a meeting and we discussed the components of the statement and Edmund said that he would do the first draft, but we also agreed that we need more people in the group with multilingual and technical skills. So I think Julie Hammer is going to be absorbed by the group and I think Jean Jacque recommended some

Page 38 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Rinalia Abdul Rahim: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg:

Heidi Ullrich:
Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
people and I think they also ask you Olivier if you have some names to forward to the group as well.

Rinalia I was volunteering remember. Oh wonderful Tijani.

Tijani is also to be listed on this. Okay, so we can move on to the next thing now, The Current Open Policy Forms that we haven't decided on so far. The first one being The Global Policy Proposal for Recovered IPv4 Address Space. The floor is open for comments.

Olivier its Alan. Just a point of order, if staff can fix the numbering under "C" to make them Roman numerals not A, B, C. It's just confusing as the agenda [inaudible 01:27:26] right now.

Yes, it bothers me too Alan. I'll fix that right now. Thank you.

Thanks Alan. So the Global Policy Proposal for Recovered IPv4 Address Space is one which was actually developed through the ASO by the Regional Internet Registries. As we had our meeting with the ASO they explained to us that policy doesn't actually take place in the ASO but actually it takes place in the Regional Internet Registries. So, errand [ph?] on one side. It's an errand public mailing list or public policy mailing list and write [ph?] on the end I understand there's been a lot of discussion to reach this global proposal. I just wonder whether this is our remit.

I have briefly read the proposal. It looks like a lot more has gone into it. I think we would look pretty unpopular if we were to contradict any of this work having not even indulged in the earlier discussions that took place in which by the way our open mailing list which we can all subscribe to if we wish to as well. So I suppose we can decide not to have a statement on this except if

Page 39 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Alan Greenberg:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Cheryl Langdon-Orr:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:
someone decides that they do want to have one, but for the time being the default will be no.

The next one, The Review of the ASO. The floor is open. I personally don't feel strongly about any statement apart from our support for the ASO review which I believe was carried out in an equally professional way as the ALAC review was carried out. I don't see anyone jumping up and down so we can probably put this on the side as well.

And the third one, The .com Registry Agreement Renewal. Not that might raise a few more hands and I already see Alan's hand up. Alan?

Yeah. I'm not sure that we need to say anything but I think we need to put some work in to make sure that that's the case and if there is anything I think we need to say it clearly and concisely. And I've been chatting with Holly and I think she is willing to take the pen on that assuming she's backed up by other people.

Okay, thank you. I see that Cheryl wonders if Julie knows this. I'm quite sure ---

I think that absorbed into the IDN.
Oh into the IDN thing. Okay well that's ---

I would be god smacked if Julie was going to be specific expertise into IDN discussions and perhaps I'm wrong.

That was from what Rinalia told us. I don't know. It's up to her really if she wishes to take part or not I guess. I would have thought she would be more interested in DSSR and DSSA and these issues but we'll leave that over to the IDN Working Group.

Yes, but still I was typing in response to that and your current [inaudible 01:30:56].

Page 40 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg:
So on the .com Renewal because we're now on the .com Renewal. I see Evan having said a few things, supported but not leading. Alan can I just leave it to you for the time being to check on this. I must admit I haven't read the report yet, so I can't emit any thoughts on that yet.

Well I have and Carlton has and made some comments and I'll be commenting on Carlton's comments sometime over the next few days. Holly has privately expressed some interest in it and I asked her if she's willing to take the lead on it. They may result in we don't need to say anything, but we may want some clarifications or we may actually have some bones to pick. The most offensive things of the .com Contract are the things they put in the last contract go around and are not going to be removed now.

So largely what is in the .com changes this time are aligning it with the other contracts that have been signed recently and essentially bringing it up to speed and moving slowly towards having some uniformity in the TLD Registry Agreements. I'm not sure there's anything very controversial in it but we need to go over it with a fine tooth comb and make sure that we're satisfied if that's the case and if so I don't think we need to make a comment, if not we need to make clear comments.

Thank you Alan. Is this something that the New gTLD Working Group might need to look at or sorry the gTLD Working Group?

It could be.
They certainly could.

Well actually Olivier your slip of the tongue was actually appropriate because right now that working group has been totally focused on the new program and I don't even know if it's designed to cope in general with the hold existing issue. That will probably be worth bringing up with Avri, but I wouldn't inflict it upon the group without that consent.

Page 41 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan Greenberg: Even Leibovitch:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Alan Greenberg:

Even Leibovitch: Alan Greenberg:
And we've got a pretty tight deadline on this so.

On this as well, yes.

I mean it's not as tight as some of the others, but nevertheless it's going to come and hit us pretty quickly and it's going to require a fair amount of detailed comprehension of the contract. There is at least one sentence in it that needs that neither Carlton or I can parse and it may be trivial or it may be important. We're not sure.

Alan do you say we need to say something even though it's hard for us to grasp and the deadline really doesn't allow us to give it that kind of study. How much can we say?

Well I didn't say we need to say something. I said we need to study it. My perspective is if we are happy with what it says then we don't need to say anything. If we think something is missing that is indeed viable to put in at this phase then I think we need to say it and if we disagree with something that is being put in I think we need to say that. I think we can be silent if we are content to let it be.

You know we have to understand these are contract negotiations and we're not going to get everything in the sky put into this agreement just because we wanted there, but I think we need to look at it seriously and make sure there is nothing missing and there is nothing that we find exceedingly offensive that has been put in at this phase.

Thank you Alan. Tijani you had your hand up earlier but then you put it down now.

Yes, I just want to say that I don't think that it can be one of the points that the New gTLD Working Group can work on. It is about the New gTLD and not about the contract. It's a registry contract and it doesn't have anything to do with the New gTLD Working Group.

Page 42 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Tijani Ben Jemaa:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg: Carlton Samuels: Alan Greenberg:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Carlton Samuels:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi Ullrich:
Okay thank you Tijani. Could I then ask that Alan you follow-up on this but at the same time staff sends a request. It's not a request for a comment. I'm not quite sure how you call it, but a request to the ALAC for them to read or at least to those members that are interested in those things to read through and send any comments that they might have.

That request was already made.
I thought that have already been done.

That request has already been made several days ago. Carlton did respond. Holly is likely to respond and I'm taking the lead on a number of things and I'm up to my ears. Holly has said she is willing to author something assuming other people work with her to decide what the content is. I'm happy with that.

I'm surprised there is so little response though because these are the usual suspects. I do recall that some members of LACRALO in the past have put their hands up when there was contractual issues and have said they would be interested in pushing and going to this is well.

Can I just say that I have had several conversations with Fatima on this. She's not sure of it and she told me that she would rather just have the one on one conversations with me on this. So she's asked for clarification. I balance it. I have other conversations with Alan on this too. You know there's only one problem and Alan couldn't help me and definitely we thought maybe we need some clarification and we prefer first to get that before we say anything. But I quite agree with the perspective by Alan.

Okay thank you Carlton, that certainly allays my fears. Okay Heidi you put your hand up.

Yes just for clarification. Olivier can you state an action item on this. Is Carlton leading, but also will Holly be involved?

Page 43 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Carlton Samuels: Heidi Ullrich: Alan Greenberg:

Heidi Ullrich:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi Ullrich:
Alan Greenberg:

Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Alan Greenberg: Carlton Samuels:
Alan Greenberg: Carlton Samuels: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
Holly will lead. Holly will lead, okay.

With support from Alan, Carlton, and whoever else has any interest.

Okay Carlton, Holly, and Sala. I noted Sala. She has indicated some interest as well.

That's right. Y es. Okay, thank you.

But that doesn't mean we are drafting a statement. That means we are evaluating.

Yes reviewing and then if so then okay. Thank you.

Do you have a target date by which you'd be able to form an opinion?

Me personally?

The group.

Sometime in the next week or two.

Yeah, we're going to have something.

We have six weeks. We're not tight on this.

Yeah, we have a lot of time. I give it another couple of weeks.

Well the original comments close on the 26th of April. That's not six weeks.

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay sorry. I was just dealing with what's in the agenda which said a deadline of the 17th of May. I didn't actually look at the details.

Yeah it's the deadline for the reply period.

Page 44 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Carlton Samuels:
Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Alan Greenberg:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
Okay, so we don't have six weeks. We have three. Yeah.
No, we don't have six weeks but we have some time. Okay.

Okay, so that's deadline.

I'm working to deadline on a few other issues over the next couple of days. I'm attending this conference call but everything else is locked up right now. Once I finish that I can go on to the .com.

Thank you Alan and since I wouldn't want to delay you any further in all of this work. I think we can move now to item #4, The ICANN Academy, with a brief explanation of where the next steps are.

The Academy itself was presented to the wider ICANN during the Public Participation Committee. There was support all around apart from some parts of the community. We're concerned that it was pushing aside any wider Outreach, Inreach, and Capacity Building. We've already discussed this a bit earlier on the call just now.

The next steps are for a call of the Curriculum Committee to meet sometime next week to discuss what it will do. What I'm going to be pushing for is for representatives from all of the other SOs and ACs. And I'm actually looking at the wider SO as in not only the supporting organization leadership but also the different constituencies specific in the GNSO, for them all to be involved with the building of the course itself.

It's vitally important from the feedback that we have received so far. It's vitally important that all of the communities in ICANN are involved in putting the curriculum together. One concern that was expressed was if only one part of ICANN provides the course to all of the people it will only give a one-sided view of what ICANN is

Page 45 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Tijani Ben Jemaa:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg:
and it will have the potential of making ICANN more capturable because of that single track view and that's something which I totally share as well.

So the call to the other communities should be done as soon as possible and certainly that will be discussed during the call next week. And after that I gather that there will be bigger or larger calls with other members of the community outside. We're not going to go into a Cross Community Working Group because that's something that the GNSO creates, but it will be as a working group that will be hosted by At-Large that will receive people from the whole community in order to build this. So this is ongoing. I see that Tijani you put your hand up.

Yes, thank you. I think that one of the first steps we have to do now is to prepare the letter to the other SOs and ACs to invite them to participate in this work. We wrote a letter to invite them too, whether or not it was done we presented the project in San Jose. It's done and now we have to invite them to participate in the project.

Correct Tijani. Yes, that's right and in that letter it basically needs to say that your involvement is important because someone from your community is going to teach the newcomers or the people in the Academy what you do in ICANN. Alan?

Yeah, just to correct something you said Olivier. You said Cross Community Work Groups is something the GNSO does. Please don't say things like that. Cross Community Working Groups are Cross Community Working Groups. They may or may not involve the GNSO in any given one. GNSO may not be a participant and it's not led by the GNSO. Then GNSO happens to have taking a lead on discussing things within their own house. The Cross Community Working Groups are very much Cross Community Working Groups period.

Thank you Alan.

Page 46 of 55
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Alan Greenberg: Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan Greenberg:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Evan Leibovitch:

Alan Greenberg:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
And DSSA was not started by the GNSO. They participated in it.

Well it's a big question. I think what I was saying and I might have not explained it correctly. A Cross Community Working Group the term itself has been defined as a term by the GNSO perhaps wrongly.

They have used the expression. If anything the DSSA started out of the ccNSO if it started anywhere.

Actually it was absolutely a choice between GNSO, ccNSO, and ALAC, the three Chairs not give up and build it.

Sorry, we've already had too much visceral reaction to the internal actions the GNSO took to try to get their own ducks in order on that concept. Let's not replicate the problem. That's all, thank you.

Okay thank you Alan and I stand corrected. Evan?

I was just simply saying if we want to have a Cross Community Working Group we as ALAC are in as good a position to request it and start defining it as anybody else. There's already president for this and so Olivier if it's something where we want to start in action item and we want to involve the rest of the stakeholders we are as well placed as the GNSO to be able to initiate this.

You bet. Now whether the Academy is something we want to do this on or do it in a more ad hoc way is a different issue, but I agree there's nothing that would stop us from doing it if we're sure we want to except for the lack of interest from any other party which would stop us.

Thank you Alan. The concern I have with regards to calling it a Cross Community Working Group is that this would involve creating charters and this would also have the possibility of delaying or stalling the process of the working group moving forward by having competing charters and people using the making up of a charter as a tool to slow the work down.

Page 47 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Alan Greenberg: Evan Leibovitch:
Which is why some have subjective to the formalization that the GNSO has gone through and preferred more ad hoc nevertheless.

Olivier how about just saying okay ALAC is creating a working group. It's open to public participation from every stakeholder. We are shepherding it but are inviting participation from all corners just as we've had conversations go in recently saying that At-Large people have always been invited or accepted into GNSO Working Groups. Likewise we basically have turnabout on that and saying, "Okay, ALAC has initiated this idea. We're shepherding it, but we are inviting participation from all stakeholders into this group." What's wrong with is doing that without having to go the route of multiple charters.

Nothing.

There's nothing wrong with that Evan, so that's fine. Okay, I was going to go back to Tijani because I cut him off and then I'll go to Cheryl after that.

Know just to say Olivier that we have to tell them that they will teach but also they will define the curriculum with us. So it is something that we do to get together from the beginning to the end. We just prepared the frame. It was an idea and now it's a project. That's all.

Thank you Tijani and that's obviously something which the ICANN Academy Working Group will be working on, this letter. Cheryl?

I was just going to suggest that you use the term Curriculum Committee. It doesn't have to be a working group. We've already got ICANN Academy Working Group which is by definition already open and you can always add others. But what you're asking for is a Curriculum Committee which has ICANN wide impact.

That's noted, so we'll discuss this during the call.

Page 48 of 55
Alan Greenberg: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

Tijani Ben Jemaa:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Cheryl Langdon-Orr:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Cheryl Langdon-Orr:

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
Cheryl we have a Program Committee. Does it conflict with the Curriculum Committee?

If you have program versus curriculum then yes it would. If it's one in the same then you'll have to find the letter appropriately for the two separate strands. And you do want community wide input in both and you'll have to frame the letter appropriately.

Okay, that's absolutely true.

Not wishing to split hair but I'll think we'll let the working group work this out, the ICANN Academy Working Group, and I guess it is the Program Committee that will meet. So we'll let them work it out and it's all about defining what it is. If we define it as a Curriculum Committee or the Program Committee, if they are the same thing, then we have the problem of including other members of the community in what is supposed to be a subset of the ICANN Academy Working Group. Anyway we'll leave it to the working group itself to work out.

Okay, so that's it for the ICANN Academy and so we're now on #5 and we're a little bit late if 20 minutes is a little bit late. Any other business? Yes, Tijani.

Thank you Olivier. It's just to update you or let's say to tell you about the meeting that the Finance had in San Jose to present or to explain the new model of evaluation of the additional requests from the community. And I think that now that we all came back home from the meeting we can program a meeting for the Finance and Budget Subcommittee to give the point of view of the subcommittee because I have my point of view. I have given it in the meeting but I need the committee to give its point of view so that it will be the view of the At-Large and not the committee.

It is an evaluation sheet composed of six sections. The first on the information. The second one is about the alignment with a strategic plan with the five pillars of the [inaudible 01:49:46] and

Page 49 of 55
Tijani Ben Jemaa:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Tijani Ben Jemaa:

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
then the third one is the alignment with the 13 priorities. And here I want to have emphasis on the fact that there's a question asked by Evan during the session with the subcommittee about priorities. Is there priorities for this FY13? And the question wasn't answered because I think the subcomittee was a little bit nervous. But in fact there is if you read the budget framework that they distributed a few weeks ago there is in fact 13 priorities that are defined priorities, so section three is dealing with the alignment to these priorities.

Section four is about the clear deliverable and outcomes. The fifth one is about the six metrics. And here again we come back to the four pillars of the strategy plan and for each one there is metrics defined here and they try to see if those metrics are verified. And the sixth one is about sustainability of the vision.

So this is the sixth part of this sheet that will be filled with every project, every additional request, and the decision would be made according to this sheet. That's all.

Okay, thank you very much Tijani for this. Is this going to be shared with the Finance and Budget Subcommittee?

I want you to call for a meeting and I will send an email to give it to the members so that they come with the sheet with them and we can discuss it.

Okay, so let's do this as an action item, so a call for a meeting of the Finance and Budget Subcommittee to review the information that you've received. Okay, thank you. Any other business? I don't see anyone putting their hands up.

Now a couple of things to bring forward, the first one is to just bring you up to date and I guess it is for the record as well on the LACRALO event that took place in Costa Rica. It was a resounding success, the Capacity Building sessions were all fully filled with people. The only thing that was a bit of a hiccup on was

Page 50 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
the GA with the rewriting of the bylaws. That took a lot more then originally expected.

In fact no rewriting even started then because of ending with a dead end and tempers rising in the room at the time. It was decided to have a meeting on the Friday morning with the ombudsmen acting as a mediator, as a neutral party, being able to find out how to break this deadlock. And what came out of this meeting is that because the rules of procedures and the ALAC rules are all changing and because there is a wish that was admitted from the At-Large Improvements that the rules of procedures of each one of the RALOs should be harmonized. This is work that will actually be taken up by the Rules of Procedure Working Group. Cheryl can you say just a couple of words or should we say it's all in hand?

I think we leave it to it's all in hand and we report back both at the next ALAC meeting and more importantly at the next Executive meeting.

Okay, thank you Cheryl and just one more thing on LACRALO. One thing that would be of great help, of course, would be to collect the feedback from all of the ALSs that came to Costa Rica. I think that Tijani you did that with the AFRALO ALSs and it would be great if you could help LACRALO with perhaps establishing a questionnaire. I've been sent a reminder of the report that you sent to the ALAC at the end, but it would be good to have maybe the list of questions that were asked and so on. Carlton you put your hand up.

Yes Olivier. Just to comment on this there was a big kafuffle on the list afterwards because of private communication between Olivier and the ombudsman was inadvertently circulated. That caused a lot of noise on the list. A couple of things and I want say much about it here because I really do believe that we should take it out of here. But for one there might have been misrepresentation of my views and that's all I will wish to say here on that. So it was

Page 51 of 55
Carlton Samuels:
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:
unfortunate the ombudsman inadvertently circulated it, but it actually exacerbated the situation, so just to make mention of that.

Okay, thank you Carlton. So then moving to the last thing I wanted to touch on and that was the statement of interest ALAC page which is a follow-up on an action item we had prior to Costa Rica. And that was a page we initially thought was going to be put up on the www.ALAC.ICANN.org website, but do to current unavailability of staff to update that Matt and I decided that it would probably be a lot better and maybe better for us to control to have it on our wiki.

Matt has put together a page to start. I don't know if you have the actual URL of this page that we can put in the chat, yeah the link. I know that some have not sent their information yet, so I urge anybody who hasn't and I haven't checked. So it might be that we here have all put our information up. Some have not, so if you could please send it over.

This is a first draft. It will evolve. Ultimately it might be a good idea to follow the GNSO Council or rather the GNSO format that they have adopted with specific questions, but it's a good start. I see both Heidi and Matt have put the details there.

There's some beautiful pictures of many of us and the SOIs are under our name and the other few also for some of us. So I think it's a good start and what I was hoping is that we could, because it is now a wiki page, also extend this and invite anybody in At- Large. Not only the ALAC or the Regional Leadership but anybody else in At-Large to add their statement of interest pretty much like what the GNSO does for all of their working groups. Matt will be working out how we can have that done in the same matter as the GNSO does, so as for staff not to have to update those but for people to be able to update their SOIs themselves.

Okay, so I think that's all. There's one last bit. Oh yeah, one more thing I wanted to add, today is Silvia's birthday.

Page 52 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012 EN
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Tijani Ben Jemaa:
Heidi Ullrich:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:

[End]
Happy Birthday Silvia. Happy Birthday Silvia. Happy Birthday.

So Silvia Happy Birthday and I guess we're taking all your birthday time right now, so maybe it will be time for this meeting to be adjourned pretty quickly. Any other business and if that's not the case then this meeting is adjourned and Silvia you can go pop the champagne bottle and start your party. Thanks very much everyone.
Page 53 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012
EN
Page 54 of 55
(AL) ALAC ExCom 30 March 2012
EN
Page 55 of 55