Coordinator: Thank you all for standing by.
At this time, I would just like to advise everyone that today’s conference is being recorded. Should you have any objections, you may disconnect at this time.
For further assistance, just press star-0.
Brad Faucet: All right, everyone, it’s Brad Faucet. I will act as the - as our Interim Chairman to General Assembly, I will act as the coordinator and chair of the telephone call until I have to leave. And then I would ask Luc to take over for me if he is willing.
Luc Faubert: Yeah, no problem.
Brad Faucet: Okay. Our probably be here for until - for the first hour of the call. And I think we’ll be able to cover most if not all of the agenda items.
Let’s start with a brief roll call and I’ll start to say that I’m Brad Faucet and I’m a member of the currently accredited At-Large Structure Web405 and also a voting member of ALS Information Group.
Maybe everyone else could identify themselves and say whether they are part of an accredited organization or applied organization or just an observer.
Since I don’t have a roll call, let’s just - let’s start with the people I know were on the call.
Luc?
Luc Faubert: Well, I’m with ISOC Québec, President of ISOC Québec. And we’re a certified ALS.
Brad Faucet: Okay. Evan, you’re on the call?
Evan Leibovitch: Yup. I’m with the Canadian Association for Open Source. We’re relatively recently accredited but, here we are.
Brad Faucet: Okay, (Jean), I know you’re on the call.
(Jean): I’m on the call as an interested individual observer.
Brad Faucet: Terrific. And a former ALAC member, I should say.
(Jean): That’s correct. I was put on via the NonCom process and served for two years.
Brad Faucet: Okay. So (Jean) knows a lot about this process and its history.
So, I’m sorry I didn’t get the other names on the call. Perhaps, if I haven’t called you out yet, you can say your name and put your identity on the record here.
Gerry Singleton: Gerry Singleton, I’m with the Canadian Association of Open Source as well.
Luc Faubert: He’s the second delegate for CLUE.
Brad Faucet: Very good.
Darlene Thompson: Darlene Thompson. I’m with the grassroots foundation called N-CAP in Nunavut, Canada and I’m accredited ALS.
(Gareth Sherman): I’m (Gareth Sherman). I’m with (Telecommunity) Canada and we are an applicant to the process.
Brad Faucet: Anyone else?
Okay, all right, well that is our group.
I don’t know if - I don’t - let’s give this 1, 2, 3, 4, what this, 7 people but 6 accredited organizations, we have 11.
So, I think we’ve got a majority of ALSs at least. If we listen on the volunteer, we’ve got that right when the mp3 is posted.
Well, the first item for our discussion is the approval of the operating procedures. I know that the vote was initiated today. Am I right, Luc?
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
Brad Faucet: And if you haven’t voted, please do so. And I know that - I believe each accredited ALS has two votes. So you should make sure that if you’re on the call and the second member of your voting team is not on the call, please apprise him or her of the fact that the voting is now open and they can make their votes.
Where do they make their, Luc, on the Wiki?
Luc Faubert: No, they vote…
Woman: No.
Luc Faubert: …on the NA-ALS list.
Brad Faucet: Okay, NA-ALS list.
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
Brad Faucet: So subscribe to that list and make your votes public record there.
Luc Faubert: Some have voted on any (unintelligible).
Brad Faucet: And did we - I don’t…
Luc Faubert: There are two - two have responded from the list that I haven’t blocked. So you’ve got some votes anyway.
Brad Faucet: Okay, good.
Now, the…
Darlene Thompson: I have - I show that we have a total of nine votes, two against, seven for. This is Darlene.
Brad Faucet: Oh, that’s correct.
Let’s see. So did we set any deadlines? I don’t believe we did.
Luc Faubert: No, no.
Brad Faucet: For the close of a vote?
Luc Faubert: No, we didn’t.
Brad Faucet: Yeah, I know - I don’t know that we should because I think not everyone will vote in the first day and I think we should probably hold it open for at least a week.
Luc Faubert: Uh-huh.
Brad Faucet: So…
Luc Faubert: One question that I have is that we are - our quorum now is the 70% of - what our (OPs) say is that it’s 70% of the accredited - the certified ALSs.
Brad Faucet: Yeah.
Luc Faubert: However, we have the intellectual property and technology people in Hawaii who aren’t, although they are certified, they are not even part of the conversation nor the list or...
Brad Faucet: Yeah.
Luc Faubert: I’ve emailed them in the last week and they answered back and they said it would be - they would be discussing whether or not they want to participate in the (RALO).
Brad Faucet: If I can make a suggestion, we haven’t yet ratified the operating procedures. So it may be a bit premature to actually operate under them for the purpose of this meeting.
Luc Faubert: Uh-huh.
Brad Faucet: Is there a way that we could at least agree that we can do this kind of thing either by consensus or that we can at least get this off the ground before the full operating procedures are ratified?
It’s kind of unfair to expect people to abide by them if we haven’t agreed to it yet.
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
((Crosstalk))
Brad Faucet: Oh, sure. I don’t think we can - I think we can’t really act as a group until we have a group. And I think we’re not formed until we’ve agreed to upgrade - until we’ve ratified the Operating Principle.
Luc Faubert: Yeah, but the question is…
Brad Faucet: And we’re not a group at ICANN’s eyes until we’ve signed the MOU.
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
But still, we’re in a (unintelligible) situation where the Operating Principles say that we need to have 70% of the accredited ALSs who vote for the adoption of the Operating Principles.
So if we interpret this strictly, it means 70% of the 11 certified ALSs of which two has not really participated – the people (unintelligible) and IPT or…
Brad Faucet: Yeah. And I think if they don’t vote, then we have to find out why they didn’t vote. And, you know, I don’t even know that we have a procedure right now for unaccrediting them if they decide that they’re no longer interested. And all we can do is…
((Crosstalk))
Woman: Now we’ve discussed procedures so that way; we never really came with anything.
Brad Faucet: That’s right. And even if we agreed to have a procedure like that to do part of the Operating Principles, if we don’t ratify the Operating Principles, we can’t use them.
Luc Faubert: Exactly.
And another question I have, so one is like what’s the (quota)? Is it 70% of the people who vote or 70% of the accredited ALS?
And the other one is how do we take into account ALSs for which only of the delegates vote, you know? Can someone from the - from an ALSs vote for two people or should we have individually (vote)?
The way…
Woman: I took the 70% rule - just on your first point there, Luc, I took the 70% rule saying that we needed 70% of the people to vote. And then of them, you know, but not 70% of the people to vote - to approve. I took it is that for quorum we needed 70% of the ALSs here.
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
Woman: That’s just how I took it though. I don’t know.
Luc Faubert: Uh-huh.
But our article says that these Operating Principles will take effect when adopted by no less than 70% of the active ALSs.
Woman: Shoot.
Luc Faubert: The active North American ALSs.
Woman: Yup.
Brad Faucet: Yeah, you know, it didn’t occur to me that we would have two voting members of each ALS and that there was a possibility that any accredited
At-Large Structure would divide its vote, which I guess is, if we’re going to have each - if we’re going to give (unintelligible) two votes, it’s perfectly possible that people from the same organization may differ.
Luc Faubert: Exactly. So I think we should go with 70% of the total - 70% % of the ALSs should - sorry - 70% of the votes should be for yes, regardless whether, you know, like as you say one - two reps under the same org could theoretically votes differently than the…
Brad Faucet: Right.
Luc Faubert: We don’t care because we look at the total number of votes.
But the question still remains about the quorum, about the 70%. Our rules clearly say that we need 70% of the active ALSs. So that’s…
Woman: Uh-huh.
Luc Faubert: …theoretically 11. We have now 11 certified ALSs in North America, of which two are not…
Woman: Interesting though that that word “active” is in there because if they’re not active and we’ve never heard from them, are they active, do we have to count them?
Luc Faubert: Well, the active is in there exactly for the reason where we - for the reason that we added the possibility for us to declare ALSs who have not participated and then so you can take (away) elections or in…
Woman: Right.
Luc Faubert: …the mailing list in the 12 months.
We added that active/non-active distinction because of that (unintelligible).
So, maybe we could use the fact that if they haven’t (participated) on the list, they are not considered active, you know.
Man: Well, there’s participation on the list, there’s registration on your Wiki, I mean there’s a number of ways.
Brad Faucet: Yeah, and I think we would have to - before we were going to call someone inactive, I think we would have to really document the fact that we had called them, we had mailed them, we had emailed them, we had, you know, done sort of all the outreach that we could possibly do to encourage them to at least react to list.
Luc Faubert: Yeah. Well, I did that, Brad. I mailed Sylvia Caras and the two guys from IT&T and I even have answers. They answered back, you know.
Brad Faucet: Uh-huh.
Luc Faubert: And I even phoned Sylvia Caras from people who - to have her register her second voting delegates. But she hasn’t returned my call.
So reach-out was definitely done to them, you know. It’s not a matter that they didn’t know about to what was going.
Brad Faucet: Right. I think we should delegate that sort of stuff of getting the other people involved to (unintelligible) and make them go through the steps of getting people involved and making sure that they’re still alive.
Because at the end of the day at least until we have Operating Principles in place, anyone - I think for anyone to declare someone inactive, that’s should probably come from ICANN and not from us.
Man: Well, I’ll be very happy for the purposes of ICANN when we declare ourselves active.
Brad Faucet: Yup, me too.
You know, that raises - so let’s see, is there anyone on the call who voted no on the Operating Principles?
Man: No.
Luc Faubert: There’s also the issue of the two individual user representatives we - the unaffiliated user voting delegates.
Brad Faucet: Yeah.
Luc Faubert: We’re - because there hasn’t been like a formal process, so the unaffiliated users haven’t come out and really (approved) the - now we have - at least now we have two enrollments here. And thanks, (Jean), for your - accepting to be one of them.
(Jean): No, problem.
Woman: Who is the other volunteer other than (Jean), I didn’t catch that?
Man: (Wendy) just volunteered today.
Woman: Okay, I didn’t see that (kicked).
Luc Faubert: So, that’s really nice. It’s just that in order for - my instinct is that to have like further sort of formalized, I’d like to see other unaffiliated users from the list of which there are only a few, say okay, these are the guys we want, you know, as a - or we can just declare them voting delegate by default and then (Jean) and (Wendy) could vote today.
Brad Faucet: Uh-huh.
Luc Faubert: I don’t really know what to do.
Brad Faucet: Yeah. Well, I think we need to go look back at the Operating Principles.
I was curious to find out whether if someone voted no if - and they were on the call, whether we could, you know, find a voted no because if we don’t get our 70% then we’re obviously going to have to go back to the revision stage and find out what we can do to turn those nos in the yeses.
Luc Faubert: Who - is that Brad?
Brad Faucet: This is Brad, yeah.
Luc Faubert: Okay. But we’re not voting on the call (now).
Brad Faucet: We’re not voting on the call, no. But since two people had registered nos, I was curious to know if they’re on the call.
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
Brad Faucet: Why, and maybe since we have some time delegated on the call today talk about the Operating Principles, if we could talk about their concerns and how to get their nos and turn into yeses.
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
Well, (John) said why. (John) explained in his email why he voted no. He said there, he voted no to the OP because he wanted more discussion on the bicameral option.
Brad Faucet: Okay.
Luc Faubert: And that he voted no on the Code of Conduct because there is a clause there that he doesn’t like. There’s the copyright thing.
Brad Faucet: Okay. Well that’s great. So we’ll get - so we’ve got his - I hadn’t read the email traffic overnight, so I’ll take a look at that and we’ve got his concern so we can address to them if we don’t get our 70%.
Man: Well not only that but, you know, Darlene, myself and some other folks would basically said that, you know, (John’s) points on the Code of Conduct were well taken.
And so, I’m in the awkward situation that I mean I - the way I’d love to be able to do this is to say I want to vote yes on an amended Code of Conduct as oppose to just loading no on the whole thing.
Brad Faucet: Uh-huh. Yeah.
Man: You know, going into a, you know, going into a meeting, somebody puts a motion and then somebody can amend the motion, and if everybody is happy with it, then there’s no problem. I was sort of hoping we could treat that this way.
Brad Faucet: In the - and you raised a good point because the Code of Conduct has only been on the…
Man: We put…
Brad Faucet: …on the table for about a week. And the Operating Principle has been on the table for a couple of months, so I think they probably give a little more time and focus before we could - anyone can sign off on them.
Man: Well, did - Brad and Luc, did you say that you - that there was going to be a close-off date on the voting because I guess it’s kind of premature to talk about the vote until you’ve actually said, okay we’ve collected everything?
Brad Faucet: You know, I think that we need to give people a sufficient amount of time to respond. I think that’s as I said earlier I think probably at least a week. But let’s see.
If we get 70% ratification in a week, then we can close the vote. If we don’t, then we can decide whether the additional votes would make a difference or whether we should revise the - what’s under discussion, you turn some of the nos into yeses.
If we can easily turn some of the nos into yeses then I think we could put a revised statement of Operating Principles out for a vote.
Why don’t we say – and tell me if anyone disagrees – that will look at the votes in a week and make a decision on the list whether we’ve A, got 70%, B, can get some of the nos turn to yeses or whether we can - whether we need to face down the initial vote?
Luc Faubert: I would just suggest it doesn’t need to be a weak. I figure it’s - you’re not going to probably get too many between Tuesday and next Friday. It might be worth revisiting say Tuesday night, see what you’ve got so far, take a snapshot and then make a call based on that.
Brad Faucet: That’s fair. Let’s do that.
Does anyone disagree with that Tuesday night?
Woman: Sounds good.
Brad Faucet: No? Okay.
So Tuesday night, we’ll look at the vote. In the meantime, everyone makes sure and cast your votes. And if there’s someone who - from your organization who hasn’t voted, ask them to cast their votes as well.
Woman: I notice that…
((Crosstalk))
Woman: …from Privaterra, (Robert) was the only one that voted. And he said for the - I forgot exactly how he put it but it’s like he was covering both of them, but I don’t know if we can do that. So I don’t know if we (can contemplate) or not.
Luc Faubert: No, no, no we can’t.
Woman: I - no.
Luc Faubert: There - say we don’t have any formal rules but I wrote that to the list afterwards to say that my understanding and what I have called you to do was to have both reps recorded and registered on the contacts page and the - registered, subscribed to the list.
So, no, the answer is in my understanding at least we - the voting delegates vote individually.
Woman: Perhaps we need to get a hold of (Robert) and let him know that so that he knows that he’s other person has…
Luc Faubert: It’s done.
Woman: …to step forward and give their opinion.
Luc Faubert: It’s done.
Woman: And, Luc, you’re good at that. Yeah.
Man: Can I possibly ask a stupid question? I have no feelings on whether the idea of two reps per ALS is a good idea or a bad idea. They both have their merit. Is there a precedent or a reason it was done that way? Is it done that way in the other (RALOs) or - I’m just curious to know why - how that was come up with.
Luc Faubert: If I’m not mistaken it’s Brad’s idea. It’s part of some of the chunks that Brad added under - I didn’t see any - what I thought was good about that that it sort of provides equilibrium with the two-voting delegates for users, otherwise we need to have only one voting delegate for users.
And also, it allows people within an organization to express dissent, you know, or yes. Let’s say they’re neutral on an issue, they have - they can vote one yes and one no, you know.
Woman: Okay.
Brad Faucet: You know, as I’m sitting here today, I was sort of surprised to hear Luc stated I drafted that. I could have very well drafted that. I have…
((Crosstalk))
Woman: Yeah.
Brad Faucet: …as to whether I did and if so, why I put it in there. It may have been that it came from some other organization.
But I think it does have some - you know, it may have some ability to on a - certainly on a an issue like .xxx or if we want to talk about new TLDs, for large organization, they may not speak of one voice, maybe, you know, letting them have two votes let them divide that vote into two.
Man: That the ALS is split internally on the issue. This is their way to be able to express that at the…
Luc Faubert: Yeah, that makes sense.
Man: Okay.
Brad Faucet: I think, you know, it certainly doesn’t have to be. We can figure out whatever we want.
Man: No, I mean the ALS internally is divided. And so its reps would come to the RALO and basically express that that to the two votes.
Brad Faucet: Correct. That’s right. That’s one way to use it.
Luc Faubert: I think I wasn’t right, Brad. I’m trying to see in the history and I think it’s been there since the beginning. Sorry.
Brad Faucet: So I think we’ve done about all we can with the operating procedures, except we don’t have the ability to talk to anyone who has disagreed with it. So there’s really not much to say here except try to vote and if you vote no, please like (John) did, state your reason so we can try to address them if we need to.
Luc Faubert: The reason why there were some no votes we know it’s because of the bicameral model that…
((Crosstalk))
Brad Faucet: Yeah.
And, you know, I think on the bicameral model, maybe this is the good time to give it 5 minutes if we want.
I think it’s an interesting idea, but I think maybe it was (Evan) who said on the list we should organize before we - you know, we should walk before we show that we could sprint or something like that.
Man: Yeah. Yeah.
Brad Faucet: And personally, it’d be my view that we go ahead and ratify and create a RALO and have an MOU with ICANN based on organizational model and pledge to create a mechanism for individual to participate in the RALO by, say the annual meeting in November which would give us, you know, an additional five months to do it. But not wait until then to participate on an equal footing with the other RALOs that are already underway.
Luc Faubert: Right. That, I couldn’t have said it better.
Man: I also agree.
Woman: I totally agree. I mean especially since we have two individuals. It’s not like it’s a huge point right now. And but if it does in the future like we can look at it.
Man: Well, even going under the assumption that’s there’s more than two individuals. Essentially the way I see it is we’ve been asked to work within a structure by ICANN. That structure may not be perfect and there’s things that we can do to change it.
But let’s first create something in line with what has been intended and, you know, through it, we do demonstrate that we’ve got the skill, the background and the leadership to be able to pull off that next level of creativity as it’s been called, you know.
Woman: Yeah.
Man: I mean I’m not saying let’s not do it; I’m saying let’s demonstrate that we can get the basics down before moving beyond that.
I mean, clearly there’s people on this list that have been very, very frustrated by the way ICANN has worked in the past. And I see that, you can feel it in the way that the posts have been made.
And there’s part of me that is really sort of anxious about, you know, are we going through all this just to be ignored? You know, that’s totally possible. But at the same time, I’m thinking to myself, we got to give this setup a chance. And, I don’t know.
I’m all for trying to figure out a way to give greater participation to individuals. But as it is, I’m unwilling to want to go along with something that basically takes the individuals who are members of my own ALS and sort of say, “Well, you don’t have the same seat at the table as the people that bypassed that and went direct.”
Brad Faucet: Yeah, I agree with that. And I think we’ll also - this is Brad again. I think we’ll have more credibility with ICANN when we evolve from what they had planned rather than trying to present the, you know, the evolved model in the first place.
Woman: Did somebody else just enter the conference call?
Man: Yes.
Woman: Your name?
Randy Glass: Randy. Randy Glass from America-at-Large.
Brad Faucet: Hi, Randy. Welcome to the call.
Randy Glass: Hi.
((Crosstalk))
Brad Faucet: So, Randy, we’ve just - just to bring you up-to-date, we have just finished talking about the RALO status and basically we were encouraging everyone to vote.
And that’s the bottom line. If you all have voted yet, terrific. If you haven’t, we’re going to see how many votes we get between now and the end of the on Tuesday. So try to vote sometime over the next few days.
Randy Glass: So we have until Tuesday?
Brad Faucet: Certainly, you have until - well, you have until we get 70%. And hopefully we get that and we can close up vote and move on to the next stage.
Randy Glass: Sounds great.
((Crosstalk))
Brad Faucet: So we were also talking – e had moved on from that to talk about the bicameral model that had been proposed. There seemed to be consensus, if I can use that word, among the people who are on the call. We now have six or seven accredited organizations now that you’re on the call. Six or seven?
Man: …do you agree?
Brad Faucet: We had people saying that we ought to go ahead with the model that ICANN has asked us to build, an organizational model. And then evolve from that, perhaps over the second half of this year to a bicameral model or an individual participation model that will give those people an equal say with the organizations in the (unintelligible).
I think there’s a solid commitment on the part of the people on the call to do that. But the thought was to start with baby steps which what ICANN has asked to do. And that’s where we were. That’s where we were when you called up.
Man: If I can make a suggestion, there might be two things we can do on this call that may make the vote go a little smoother.
One of which is perhaps consolidate the wording on the Code of Conduct that can be put forward and maybe encourage people to change their vote from a no to a yes if it can be more acceptable.
And perhaps the other thing is to basically give a commitment to the people that have concerns right now that voting on the OP right now is not going to eliminate the desire to move forward with an individual representation model.
Brad Faucet: You know, I was thinking that. If we can’t get - if we don’t get our 70% vote on the model that’s on the table now, let us add some provisional statements in there about our commitment and (probably) get that to hope that that gets to the people who voted no to vote yes.
Luc Faubert: I didn’t want to change the - as I explained on the list, I didn’t want to change the Code of Conduct, why the vote was happening. But if people agree on the call here, I can change it right away and it’s really simple. It’s eliminating one line that says that one of the inappropriate content is the posting that violates the - whether there’s…
((Crosstalk))
Man: Trademark and copyright, yeah.
Luc Faubert: That infringed upon a copyright or a trademark. So everybody on the list today agreed that that (unintelligible) was to be - should be removed?
Brad Faucet: I would agree with that.
Luc Faubert Yeah? Okay.
Woman: I’d agree.
Luc Faubert: Okay.
So I’ll remove it right away.
Brad Faucet: Okay.
Luc Faubert: And the other one was concerning the duration of the suspension. We haven’t - the two last sentences we have in that paragraph now say that, “When determining the duration of the suspension, the chair is encouraged to take into account the overall nature of the postings by an individual and whether particular postings are an aberration or typical.”
And then we have another sentence that says the usual duration of the suspension will be six months. So people have proposed to eliminate that and to let the chair decide to - on the duration and make it proportional with the infringement, you know. So I can just eliminate that last sentence and then I think everybody is going to be happy.
Brad Faucet: You know, I think we might…
Woman: Uh-huh.
Brad Faucet: …just take the Code of Conduct off the table for a vote for a little bit and let everyone have a chance to - I don’t want to create impression that somehow the operating procedures and the Code of Conducts are a package.
Woman: They are so.
Luc Faubert: Because, Brad, we have an article in the Operating Principles that says that we - that people participating in a RALO abide by the Code of Conduct. So we referred to it.
Brad Faucet: And not only that, but the only objections so far that have been expressed to the Code of Conduct have been about those two particular things.
Luc Faubert: Yes, exactly.
Brad Faucet: (John) said those were his objections, same with (Wendy) and I think Darlene and I both talked about it in a sense that I think the - there is not an objection to a Code of Conduct per se or even the bulk of what’s out there on the Wiki, so much of those two particular issues.
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
Woman: Yeah.
Luc Faubert: So if it’s okay for everybody, I propose that I just do the modification right away and I’ll inform the list that it’s okay. I had qualms about doing it without consulting with people but we’re - how many are we here? Twelve?
Brad Faucet: Yeah. Yeah.
Okay, well then that seems like a good way to go.
Luc Faubert: Is everybody comfortable with that? (Do we have some opposed)?
Okay, good.
(Jean): Excuse me. Brad?
Brad Faucet: Go for it.
Yeah.
(Jean): Brad?
Brad Faucet: Yeah. Is that (Jean)?
(Jean): This is (Jean). I’m sorry I can’t stay on the call. I have to leave. But if could just take one second.
Brad Faucet: Go.
(Jean): The fact with the individual situation, the reason why it’s important is that that has to be specified by the bylaws in the memorandum of understanding. So it’s still provided by its MOU with ICANN. A RALO may also have as its members individual Internet users who are citizens and residence of the RALO’s geographic region.
So this has to be in your MOU. So if you don’t have it in the MOU, then you would have to go back and actually amend your MOU. So that’s why it’s important to get it in before the MOU signing.
Man: But that’s not what we’re voting on right now.
(Jean): I understand that but…
Brad Faucet: But procedurally, that’s a good point.
Man: Yeah.
(Jean): Yeah, okay.
Woman: Yeah.
(Jean): Thanks a lot.
Woman: Yeah.
(Jean): Talk to you later. Bye-bye.
Man: (Jean), (Jean), (Jean)?
(Jean): Yes?
Man: I wanted to ask you a question.
(Jean): Okay. I got to go though.
Man: How do you see that the approval for the unaffiliated voting delegates should be done?
(Jean): Well I don’t know because we’ve never really publicized that we’re looking for them except just on the list. I mean we haven’t, you know, really gone very far to beat the bushes for more individuals.
Man: Yeah.
(Jean): You know, so I, you know, as much as any of us can say that we’re represented of anything really, I mean, you know, how many - I don’t know, I mean…
Man: There are about five unaffiliated users on the list of which only three are active.
(Jean): Yeah. So, I mean I don’t know. You could - I really don’t know and I kind of feel like, well, you know, this is not my thing to say but…
Man: Uh-huh.
(Jean): …now I’m glad (Wendy) stepped up. I thought I was going to be the only one.
Man: Okay, well we’ll discuss it on the list.
(Jean): Okay, very good.
Man: Okay. Thanks.
(Jean): I’ll talk to you guys later.
Bye-bye.
Man: Bye.
Woman: Bye.
Man: Regarding these points, we have it already in our 3.1 paragraph in the MUO that we saw that the NA RALO shall be comprised of ALSs and the individuals within the North American region.
So, it’s not - I don’t think we have to - that the MOU has to include how we’ll - what we’ll allow individuals to do within any RALO, just the fact that they can be members, you know.
Brad Faucet: You know, I - one of the issues that ICANN faced early in its life, in fact the first year of its existence, one of the first taskforce that created was something called the Membership Advisory Committee. And the current board member, Peter (unintelligible) and I don’t know who else still around were on that committee.
But they’ve talked about how you would create individual participation in ICANN, and there was great, great concern about authentication and making sure that people, real people and that two people where one people - one person, you know, that people are creating…
Man: Yeah.
Brad Faucet: …fake identities to vote in multiple places.
And in fact, if you look at the London School of Economics report that was prepared about the gNSO that came out last year, it talks about again that sometime you had organizations voting and then you have members of those organization is voting, and it was really hard to weigh the vote because people were voting as organizations, then they were voting again as individuals and you didn’t have authentication on the individuals.
So it was hard to figure out what weight you should give any particular comment. So I think we’re going to have that too. And I think as we’re thinking about creating individual participation model, we need to think about all the same issues how where we’re going to authenticate people as possible and how are we going to coordinate them?
Luc Faubert: (Nick) says he has a voting system in place that we’re welcomed to use. I don’t know if it includes really strong identification, but - and I don’t know how it would link to our registry of voting delegates, but he offered to use it. So we can discuss this with him.
Brad Faucet: Okay. Yeah, we should.
Gerry Singleton: Excuse me.
Brad Faucet: Yeah.,
Gerry Singleton: This is Gerry.
I have to leave the call at the moment. (Evan), would you vote for me please?
(Evan): Well, we won’t be doing votes here. But I mean to the rest of you folks, Gerry and I have been in fairly close consultation about these issues and we’ve been in fairly good think about this. You haven’t heard from Gerry because he lets me write in order to tone down the response. Sometimes there’s a desire to - oh, never mind.
Gerry Singleton: Yeah. He’s trying to say that I like to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Brad Faucet: That’s funny.
Gerry Singleton: But no, I have to leave now for personal reasons. So far everything looks good to me.
And the 70% - if there’s only 11 or 12 ALSs accredited or in the process thereof, that means that there are really only what, 16 people that would be voting.
Man: Right. (Thank you).
Gerry Singleton: To reach our 70%.
Luc Faubert: Well, we have 11 ALSs and so that means we need eight yes votes to - if we’re going to reach 70% of the certified ALSs, even if they’re not participating.
Gerry Singleton: Meaning 16 out of 22 people?
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
Woman: That’s correct, yeah.
Gerry Singleton: Ah, okay.
Anyways, I have to go. I will be monitoring the list and the progress and the comment as needed.
Luc Faubert: Okay, thank you.
Gerry Singleton: And thank you for inviting me.
Luc Faubert: Okay, bye-bye.
Gerry Singleton: Bye.
Woman: Bye.
(Evan): Bye, Gerry.
Woman: (Evan), you know I’m just giving you a hard time, right?
(Evan): Nobody gives me a hard time.
Woman: Yeah, yeah, whatever.
I (unintelligible) even tougher when we do meet.
(Evan): Oh, boy.
Brad Faucet: Okay. So let’s see, where are we? I’m looking back at our…
Man: Brad…
Randy Glass: Can I jump in for a second?
Brad Faucet: Okay. Go ahead.
Randy Glass: This is Randy.
Yeah, regarding the Code of Conduct, there’s already been an announcement that we’re voting on two things – the Operating Principles and the Code of Conduct. So where we’re just discussing that we’re dropping one of those votes?
Luc Faubert: No. What we said is that we demand that - there were some reservations expressed this morning on the Code of Conduct on two particular issues on the line saying that inappropriate postings included those that infringe on copyright and trademarks.
Randy Glass: Yeah, yeah, I heard that part. That’s all - yeah, that’s all good with me. Those changes are all good with me.
Luc Faubert: So that’s the only changes that we’re proposing - those are the only changes that we’re proposing today.
Randy Glass: Okay. But otherwise, we’re making that Code of Conduct a binding type of a thing?
Luc Faubert: Yeah. Well we can always amend it later, but for now it’s - our Operating Principles say that participating in a RALO implies that people abide by our Code of Conduct.
Randy Glass: Yeah.
Man: The code is binding; the consequences are discretionary.
Man: Yeah.
Randy Glass: Okay.
Brad Faucet: That’s the way to think about it.
Luc Faubert: Randy, on the list you said you thought it was a bit weird. What did you find weird about it?
Randy Glass: Yeah, well there’s a few things that I find weird. Yeah, normally, it would be part of something we’re agreeing on, right, rather than something that’s just kind of thrown out somewhat arbitrarily.
And I understand why we would have the Code of Conduct and why we would definitely want to be all on the same page on it. And I totally am in agreement with the Code of Conduct and the way it’s written.
But just as you just said, it’s discretionary in nature. It’s binding but discretionary. And that’s what I find as kind of weird. You know what I mean?
Luc Faubert: Okay.
(Evan) I think part of the problem - this is (Evan) and I’ve been involved with doing a couple of these in other the organizations. It’s sort of a grit the teeth kind of thing to have to put them in at all. Nobody wants to do it. I think that the whole basis is you want to put something in with the (dear hope) that it never gets invoked.
And the main purpose behind this is to make sure that people coming in know that there is a certain that you conduct yourself when you’re talking to other people, you know, on blogs or whatever. There’s an explosion of people that just totally get hostile because they’re not working people in the face.
Man: Uh-huh.
(Evan): The discretionary part, I’m happy with essentially because, you know, no particular - no two particular shall we say offenses are going to be the same.
Some think it could be out burst, some could be, you know, long patterns of harassment. There could be all sorts of different ways of doing this. And I don’t think two, you know, two particular incidents could be treated the same.
So I was sort of hoping that we can give some discretion to the chair in consultation with the rest of the group and saying, you know, is this something objectionable to the point where it has to be dealt with.
Man: Okay, I’m into that. That sounds good.
Woman: Yes.
Randy Glass: In the Operating Principles, I’m actually just still getting through. But can I make one more question? I should have two more real quick.
We also led into the thing about the individuals being represented in the RALOs. And, you know, I fully believe in the individual participation that’s why America-at-Large was formed to represent the individuals and North America.
And that’s kind of what we see as that’s the job of the ALSs is to involve the individuals and not necessarily the RALOs and ICANN directly, you know.
And I’ve heard a couple other people kind of edge at direction but I was just trying to be blunt and see what kind of a response that I get from that.
And the third thing that I wanted to bring up real, real quick is what’s going on with the MOU staff?
That’s all.
Luc Faubert: The ratification of our MOU is planned for the fourth of - sorry - for the 11th of May. Or if you look at our schedule at our home page on the weekly, you will see that the formation schedule there - schedule should - I think we say in English.
Woman: Either way.
Luc Faubert: So (unintelligible) are there.
((Crosstalk))
Brad Faucet: Are we really need to get I think closure on the first issue of our operating procedures and then hope that we can move on from that to the next stage of preparation.
Luc Faubert: Exactly.
Man: But just to address quickly the first question as I think the way we’re trying to deal it with it is to say, it’s sort beyond the scope of the OP as we’re discussing right now that there’s some people that want to deal with the concept of individual representation at (unintelligible) that may be something that folks here want to do, but it shouldn’t impede that progress of the existing OP as it is.
Luc Faubert: Uh-huh. Exactly.
Woman: Agreed.
Man: Yeah.
Luc Faubert: Also, I mean, there were months and months for people to discuss the Operating Principles, you know. And this idea of the bicameral structure came at maybe, I don’t know two weeks ago or something like that.
So I - as I said, I’m also willing to discuss it then. But let’s not make it an impediment to agreeing on our Operating Principles. Because we can’t do anything until we approve our Operating Principles.
That’s why it was a first step, you know, because that gives us the way we work and that defines the way we go about doing things, so it legitimates our profit.
Brad Faucet: Yeah.
Does that answer your question, Randy, about that?
Randy?
We may have lost Randy.
Man: (Unintelligible).
Brad Faucet: All right. Let’s see. We’re - get back - pull up the agenda here.
Luc Faubert: Okay. I’ve been working from the agenda that ICANN staff sent?
Brad Faucet: Yes, one from (Susie).
Luc Faubert: Okay. Yeah. Okay. Because I have sent comments to list on that because our second point is vote for a chair and the…
Brad Faucet: Yeah, I think we can do that after we’ve got an MOU.
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
Brad Faucet: My understanding was that I was acting as interim chair until we actually were a RALO.
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
Brad Faucet: So, I think we could skip Number 2.
Luc Faubert: Actually, we have our vote in the schedule. We have our vote for the chair and secretary after we adopted the Operating Principles. It’s theoretically the next thing we should do.
Brad Faucet: Yeah.
So we’ll hold up on Item Number 2 for a week.
Luc Faubert: Yeah. Okay.
Randy Glass: Where is that calendar you were talking about?
Luc Faubert: It’s at - I’ll send you with the link, Randy, okay?
Brad Faucet: Luc, can you send that to the whole group, I mean to the list?
Luc Faubert: Yeah, sure.
Brad Faucet: Okay.
Randy Glass: Good.
Brad Faucet: I think we can all use a refresher on that.
Woman: Yeah.
Brad Faucet: Let’s see. The - discussion of the MOU between in a RALO and ICANN, we’ve been talking about that on and off in this. I think the operative thing is that, Luc, you said that May 11 is when we need to start loading on that.
Luc Faubert: May 11 is one we vote on the MOU. So that means we’ll have to discuss it beforehand. They vote…
Brad Faucet: Yeah. So we need - so I think the item here is just to have everyone focused on this I think very hard over the next two weeks and post comments to the list, make any changes you want to the WIKI.
I’m personally going to think about how to put some place holders in there for individual involvement so that perhaps we can make our commitment to involve individuals a little more clear and hope that that satisfies a lot of concerns that we’ve heard on the call.
Luc Faubert: Okay.
Brad Faucet: Is there anything else to talk about on the MOU?
Luc Faubert: No.
Brad Faucet: Any specific things anyone wants to raise?
Luc Faubert: One thing for sure and this I’ve gotten from ICANN is that the ICANN Legal will not approve the MOU with the two last paragraph on the fact the they pay for legal expenses and on the third beneficiary thing…
Brad Faucet: Yeah.
Luc Faubert: …over the two last paragraphs added by (Wendy) sometime ago. And the so ICANN won’t agree to an MOU that contains those. So the first thing I’m going to propose on the list is to eliminate those two paragraphs.
Brad Faucet: Okay. Now, Luc, who just told you that because what I would love to have is basically somebody from ICANN Legal tell the group point blank this is the case?
Luc Faubert: ICANN…
((Crosstalk))
Woman: Yeah.
Luc Faubert: …have consulted with the ICANN Legal and I’ve got the answer from ICANN staff from (Nick).
Brad Faucet: Okay. I just don’t want you to be holding the stick being the, you know, the person that takes all the flacks for ICANN Legal.
Luc Faubert: No.
Man: Yeah, I think we ought to have some transparency around that. And so…
Woman: Uh-huh.
Luc Faubert: There were some public mails on this from (Nick) on the mailing list. I forget - they went by I think about one week or two weeks ago. So this is not confidential information.
I had just pressed ICANN staff to validate our schedule before this conference call. And that’s why I had put that in my version of the agenda that I proposed for today. It was the first item actually for ICANN staff to validate our schedule, you know.
Woman: Uh-huh.
Luc Faubert: So it’s in - (Nick) said informally that the schedule looked okay, you know, but I wanted formal approvals. Because I don’t want to push people on the list to follow the schedule if we’re going to hit a brick wall somewhere because of ICANN staff, you know.
Brad Faucet: No, and well - on things of ICANN staff, I am completely fine fighting battles with them. And personally, I would say that if there were matters or principle that I cared strongly about, I’d rather not form a RALO then form with things that I thought ICANN was imposing on us unreasonably.
But the last two paragraphs of the MOU, the one about the (30 season), third party beneficiary, I think, you know, that to borrow a phrase, I think I’m not willing to die on that particular hill.
Man: Uh-huh.
Agreed.
Brad Faucet: That’s not one that I think we blow ourselves up over.
Luc Faubert: No.
Man: And I think most people knew when it went and that, that was probably a more a matter of wishful thinking than something we were going to get. I mean, let’s be honest.
Man: Yeah.
Man: If you were ICANN Legal, would you sign that?
Woman: No.
Luc Faubert: I’m not even comfortable with trying to get away with it. I mean I don’t feel it represents properly the spirit the understanding that we are trying to reach with ICANN.
Man: Well, then perhaps, maybe I can suggest that after we finish and we’d actually counted the votes and everything, assuming once we have accepted an operating procedure that there be a new sort of the kind we’ve been doing, these action items, that basically gets people off of their chair to make sure they’re comfortable with the MOU in the same way that you’re getting people to be comfortable with the OP.
Luc Faubert: Yeah, exactly. That was my plan. I’ll do that.
Man: Is that then needs to be revisited like immediately?
Luc Faubert: Yeah. Yes. But I was waiting for the vote on the OPs to occur so as not to distract people because there are so many different things that I am trying to not to inundate people what to do, you know, with (that).
Man: Thank you.
Brad Faucet: Okay. So now let’s see. The next order of business, issues to raise at the ICANN San Juan meeting. This one, I don’t know that you’ve even seen an agenda yet for…
Man: Well, is the whole Yonkers-Montreal thing (done)?
Man: I hope so. I hope so because that would have been…
Man: I mean next week, right?
Woman: It would have been next week. It’s way too soon. We can’t possibly do it now.
Luc Faubert: No, no, no. That’s been done. So we’re condemned to work on the list and with conference call. We can hold on the conference calls. I think that’s…
Woman: Yeah.
Luc Faubert: … - can be good.
Brad Faucet: Well, if you think about it…
Woman: There is one thing though I wanted to bring up because when we were discussing the Yonkers-Montreal, Las Vegas whatever thing, I mean I did a little count and the majority of us wanted a meeting and spoke out (and said) that we did, and it a majority. And then it just kind of (slipped) away.
Maybe we need to have some kind of, you know, method of taking votes here, a rough consensus or whatever so that the few that don’t want it but that are extremely vocal can (shout down) the rest.
Man: Uh-huh. Yeah.
Actually arguably, we’ve already done that with asking Brad to be an interim chair and here we are now. So, maybe…
Woman: True.
Man: …in around about where the failure of that process (unintelligible).
Woman: True. Excellent then.
Man: Yeah.
(Gareth Sherman): That’s a good point actually, it’s (Gareth).
((Crosstalk))
Luc Faubert: So as far as San Juan goes, one of the things that I would like for us to start working on slowly is to push the idea of having ALAC to have people from At-Large on the board, you know.
One idea I had was to push for five new board members from ALAC, one from each region, you know. When you think about is ICANN’s work is for - ultimately is for Internet users, you know. So it’s - it would just make sense to push for voting board members representing individual users.
And I think it’s a good times to do this because there was a bit of the limbo for a few years after ICANN ousted - voted At-Large representatives or user representatives on the board.
And because of external pressures, I’m - I think that the board would be more of open today than they were two years ago to have voting board members representing individual users, you know.
Brad Faucet: And even until that time – this is Brad again – we have each region of the ALAC has a voting member of the nominating committee. So we will - once we get up and running, we will elect a member of the nominating committee, and the ALAC has five which is by far of the largest (LAC) on the nominating committee.
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
Brad Faucet: This is year, they’re seated until the end of the annual as Michael Froomkin representing North America. But this is the - you can only serve two years in a row and this is his last year of service. So, we will definitely need to pick someone new for the - to start service in 2000 at the end of the annual meeting in 2007.
Luc Faubert: Uh-huh.
What do other people here think about the idea of pushing for direct board voting board? Because ALAC has the non-voting board representative at the moment, you know. But we don’t have real votes on ICANN board.
What do you people think of the idea of pushing for the voting representation on the board?
Man: I agree with that.
Woman: Totally agree.
Man: Absolute - yeah, absolutely.
Man: I like that. I would like to go and step further and I’d like to find out if there are some nice concise resources that explicitly describe the ICANN food chain, and knowing who elects with - who, you know, what’s the flowchart, who sent people to what, who can vote, who’s (just the) advisory.
It’s a real kind of spaghetti and I don’t think I’ve mastered it yet.
Man: Uh-huh.
Luc Faubert: Basically NonCom nominates some board members and then the constituency nominates some. (And) Brad, is that how it works?
Brad Faucet: There - I mean, there is a flowchart that looks like a big octopus. I mean it’s really hard to figure out. That I believe is somewhere on the ICANN Web site and we should probably ask (Nick) to hunt it down for us and provide some sort of explanation because that’s a document if it exists that all ALSs ought to have. And it’s a document that if it doesn’t exist, I would think ICANN needs to create.
Man: This is something I’ve been pressing (Jacob) in private email, you know, that if ICANN wants to hold their part of - hold up their part of the bargain and not be as opaque as, you know, the old timers around here would like us to believe, then ICANN has an obligation to sort of provide an orientation for the newcomers and say, you know, here is your welcome to ICANN, here is where - here is your tiny little wheel and the machine and this is how it works.
Man: Yeah.
Woman: That was also brought up in the Vancouver meeting that sort of happened but then that (Jacob) was on the other end of the phone on such like that. And that was definitely - I made that point actually because I was the real newby at that time going, “Oh, my God, I’m so confused.” So I definitely brought that up then too as well. So, that’s coming at them from two different areas.
Man: I have - I…
Man: Well then, why don’t - I mean this ought to be an agenda item for San Juan as we ought to ask ICANN to prepare such a document that it can give out to you all new ALSs.
Luc Faubert: Uh-huh. You won’t get any objection from me. I guess I don’t know the processes. That’s the kind of thing - I mean so far everything has been very informal. I sort of thought ones we had a RALO, the RALO would say, “Hey, we need this.” Or do we not even have to wait for that?
Man: Well, I think on the - if we do this on the current plan, I think we’re going to have RALO accredited in San Juan, so that we ought to be able to say in San Juan as the North American RALO, this is something that we would have found helpful as we were preparing. And now that we are here, we ask you to do this for us.
And in the anticipation of new ALSs that we are still trying to solicit, this is going to help us bring them in.
Woman: Uh-huh.
Man: This is not just for our RALO. If this is translated widely enough, they should be useful anywhere.
Man: Right.
Woman: Yeah.
Luc Faubert: I have a slide about the board and where the people on the board come from. I’ll send it to the list today.
Actually, is there a way just to either post it on the Wiki or have it downloadable from there?
Luc Faubert: Okay, yeah. Sure, I’ll post it on the Wiki (today).
Man: Because right now in the absence of anything else, the Wiki is, you know, the Wiki is sort of going to be our go-to place for anything regarding the resources that we need and failing official ICANN staff, “Look what you’ve been putting up,” has been phenomenal for me.
Luc Faubert: Uh-huh.
Man: They’re really helpful.
Luc Faubert: Well, and then…
Woman: I agree with having it posted on the Wiki, but I don’t mind it being posted on the Web - on the list too because I’m - I know, this is probably just me personally, but I’m horrible at going to that Wiki and looking at and see if anything has been added. Sorry.
Luc Faubert: You can put a watch on pages. And you’ll get an email whenever it changed. There’s a little watch tab on top of the pages, you know, that you go.
Woman: Oh, that would help, okay.
Man: And you can…
Man: That’s great. Yeah, I didn’t know about that either.
Luc Faubert: Yeah. It’s really - the - maybe a Wiki that ICANN Wiki uses is really a great piece of software and it’s been phenomenal. But we’re having a little bit of a conflict here because ICANN staff wants us to use the (Social Tech) environment that they put up.
But I hate it. It’s - I’ve been trying to get posting permissions on the site for three months and I still can’t even update the site, so I said the hell with it, we’ll go with the ICANN Wiki.
Woman: For sure.
Brad Faucet: All right, let’s see. Anything that we want to try to raise for…
Luc Faubert: Well for this board thing, Brad, the - in terms - one thing I’d like for us to do is to start to, you know, where - any RALOs is not going to this alone, so we need the cooperation from all the At-Large community.
And we also have to delegate some liaisons who will do the lobbying for us at the board and the other constituencies because whenever the - when the - if ever that project goes on at on a votes by the board, we want to be sure that all the other constituencies are okay with this as far as if possible, you know.
Brad Faucet: Yeah.
Luc Faubert: So, we really need to go through. The way I see it is, at least that we need to delegate some liaisons who will talk with the other constituencies, so that we raise awareness of the issue and explain what we want and try to bring the people on board with the (movement) that we’re trying to create, you know.
Brad Faucet: You know, speaking of San Juan, another thing we need to figure out is, I think we need everyone who is an accredited or applicants ALS needs to give ICANN the contact information of the people who are going to travel so that they can make arrangements for us.
I saw some references that (Nick) put out on the list recently to a - approved to travel list, something like that.
Luc Faubert: Yeah.
Brad Faucet: So we’ll need to make sure that we’re all up and running on that.
Luc Faubert: You’re right.
Woman: Uh-huh.
Brad Faucet: Yeah, I mean obviously for most of us this is our first ICANN funded trip. So whatever procedures are necessary to do this, I need to know ASAP.
((Crosstalk))
Man: I don’t think any of us need to have Visas to go to Puerto Rico being Canadians and Americans.
Woman: We don’t?
Man: I don’t think so.
Darlene Thompson: Oh, good because I’m just going through the passport thing right now and I’m thinking, “Oh, my God, if I’ve got to get a Visa too, I won’t take it…
Man: I don’t think so.
((Crosstalk))
Man: I don’t think so, Darlene.
Brad Faucet: You won’t need a Visa, you’ll - but you will need a passport.
Man: Yeah.
Darlene Thompson: Yeah.
((Crosstalk))
Man: …I’ve been to Puerto Rico. There’s no customs if you’re coming in from the US.
Brad Faucet: Yeah, right. Those of us coming from Canada will need…
Man: Right.
Brad Faucet: … - we obviously need our passports.
Man: Yeah.
Darlene Thompson: Yeah.
Man: But I don’t think we need a Visa going to somewhere like Puerto Rico.
Man: Yeah.
Man: We don’t need a Visa for the states.
Man: Yeah, diplomatically treated as if you were traveling to the US.
Darlene Thompson: Awesome. Great, okay.
Man: So in other words, you fly to Montreal or Toronto? What will happen is you’ll probably go to the American pre-clearance that either Montreal or Toronto and you’ll land in San Juan as a domestic flight.
Darlene Thompson: Okay. Cool.
Man: And typically the way ICANN deals with travel is that ICANN will buy your tickets for you and send you an e-ticket. They will pay for your hotel, so that there’s not upfront cost that you have to incur.
If you want to book you own ticket, typically you can do that and seek a reimbursement. But personally I found it easier to let them do it.
Luc Faubert: Does that mean they pick the flight or you tell them what flight to buy?
Man: You - they give you the name and contact information for the travel agent and you deal with ICANN travel agent and you can coordinate your own flight.
Brad Faucet: Perfect.
Darlene Thompson: Oh, good.
Brad Faucet: And then…
Darlene Thompson: Oh, good. Because coming from where I’m coming, they will get it screwed up.
Brad Faucet: Yeah. So they’re typically pretty good and any travel to the airports, any meals that you are out of pocket when you’re down there, keep your receipts and submit them when you get home and there’s a standard reimbursement form that (Nick) will give you when you get back to submit, and then ICANN will reimburse you.
The only problem we’ve ever had is the ALAC is that they’re not always timely getting those reimbursements done. But I think typically you can get them done within 60 days.
Man: Most of us are…
((Crosstalk))
Darlene Thompson: Will they also - I’m sorry.
Man: Most of us…
((Crosstalk))
Darlene Thompson: …will they also book a hotel like for on the way down? Because if you have to overnight somewhere, will they also book and pay for that ahead of time?
Brad Faucet: I would think they would. Yeah. I don’t know if that will - is that something you’re going to incur to do?
Darlene Thompson: Oh, absolutely. I can’t get anywhere without staying somewhere overnight.
Brad Faucet: Okay.
Darlene Thompson: I kind of get (unintelligible) to Canada.
Brad Faucet: That’s great.
All right, well good. Yeah, but tell them your needs and they’ll work it out.
Darlene Thompson: Okay.
Brad Faucet: The idea is that it should be not a financial burden on us to participate.
Luc Faubert: In the case of meals at meetings with this, are there usually things the conference either has themselves catered or is that our responsibility to find food and then bill them?
Brad Faucet: Typically, all the lunches are provided in the hotel. And the ALAC gives you a lunch voucher and you go give them your launch voucher and they let you in at a big (unintelligible) table. That’s the way it’s worked. I think the majority of ICANN meetings is that lunch has been available there.
And then there’s usually one or two dinners that are provided courtesy of the host. And then there are one or two dinners that you have to do on your own.
Luc Faubert: Okay.
Brad Faucet: And I think breakfast is typically on your own.
So at almost every ICANN meetings, there’s been a mid-morning coffee break where there’s been pastries and coffees. So if you want to just to skip breakfast and wait for that, you can.
Luc Faubert: Okay, that works.
Brad Faucet: Yeah.
And I’ll send (Nick) a reminder to get all the ALS accredited and applied with the contact information for the travel agents so that we can…
Luc Faubert: Now if I review right, all of the 22 people so far accredited plus two reps from (HAL) is yet to be accredited or eligible to go?
Brad Faucet: I don’t know about the numbers.
Man: I think it’s one per ALS.
Brad Faucet: My guess is that…
Darlene Thompson: I’m quite sure it’s one ALS, yeah.
Man: Yeah.
Luc Faubert: Okay.
Brad Faucet: Let’s see. Any other business…
Man: Hello.
Brad Faucet: …that anyone wants to raise? I think we’re about on time here.
Luc Faubert: I just want to be sure that as to what we’ve agreed on for the vote of our Operating Principles. So what we’re saying is that we’re leaving ourselves until Tuesday, end of day to see if we have 70% of the certified ALS. Whether they participate or not, right?
So that means we need eight votes…
Brad Faucet: Yeah.
Luc Faubert: …for yes.
Man: And if we don’t have eight votes by Tuesday night, what happens?
Brad Faucet: We’re going to hunt down the people who haven’t voted, if it’s going to make a difference. If we certainly - if we have more than 30% of the people who have voted “No,” then I think we need to deal with those people.
If we have some people who haven’t voted I think, then we still have the theoretical possibility meeting 70%, I think we’ll deal with people who haven’t voted.
Luc Faubert: Okay.
((Crosstalk))
Darlene Thompson: Will we also not going to change the Code of Conduct right away or not?
Man: Yes, that’s done already.
Darlene Thompson: Okay.
Brad Faucet: I think we gave - and I’ll put a summary of what we’ve talked about today on the list. And please, if you’ve been on the call and you have things to add or things to provide or supplements, follow up with those after I post. I’ll post it later today.
Man: There’s a…
Darlene Thompson: I’ve pretty much taken full minute, six. They’re kind of rambling but I’d have…
Man: Yeah, I believe…
Darlene Thompson: …that way.
(Gareth Sherman): I believe there’s going to be - this is (Gareth). I believe there’s going to be an attempt to have another vote on the applicants in the next week or so. I heard something came to the list on that. Can anybody confirm that?
Brad Faucet: I think we lost - well, I think we don’t have - they only have - we have two ALS members from North America right now. We have an open seat on.
(Gareth Sherman): No, I’m talking about the accrediting - the organizations being accredited as (ALAC).
Brad Faucet: Yeah. No, that’s why I’m thinking that we don’t have any ALAC committee members on the call, so we don’t have…
(Gareth Sherman): Okay.
Brad Faucet: …any insights into that.
(Gareth Sherman): All right. Sorry.
Brad Faucet: But I think that’s a good thing to follow up with. It’d be great to have those approved in the next week.
(Gareth Sherman): Yeah, yeah.
Luc Faubert: You mean, Brad, you mean to have our ALAC representatives nominated, right?
Brad Faucet: No, I meant…
Darlene Thompson: No.
Brad Faucet: …the ALAC - well the ALAC representatives are the ones to approve the application.
(Gareth Sherman): Yeah.
Brad Faucet: And what I heard, (Gareth), I think (unintelligible) that there’s a vote maybe late next week…
Luc Faubert: Okay.
Brad Faucet: …by the ALAC to approve more…
Luc Faubert: Yes.
Brad Faucet: …organization.
Man: Yes, we have two more votes until (unintelligible) one.
Brad Faucet: Okay, good.
Bye everyone. Well thanks for participating. Let’s continue this on the list.
Man: Good.
Man: Okay.
((Crosstalk))
Man: And by the way I want everybody to know that this is - I mean despite a couple of blips, this is still - this is a good bunch of people. And I know I’ve been discouraged from time to time, and I want to make sure that nobody else is here because we got (bumps) but I do see a light at the end of this.
Man: Right.
Man: I agree.
Man: Yup, me too. I agree.
Darlene Thompson: Totally.
Man: Okay. Good.
Man: Okay.
Man: Thanks everyone.
Man: Okay. Bye-bye.
Man: Thank you.
Man: Bye-bye.
Man: Bye.
Man: Thanks to everybody.
Darlene Thompson: Bye-bye.
Man: Bye-bye.
END
