Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Good morning, good afternoon and good evening everybody. This the ALAC Monthly Conference Call on 24 January 2012. The time is 1509 UTC and I welcome everyone here to this first ALAC call of the year. I hope you all have had a good break and ready to now work for another great year here at the At-Large Advisory Committee. Adoption of the agenda is our first standing agenda item.
I wanted to ask whether anyone wanted to add anything in any other business or wanted to amend the agenda. There is nothing. I have received an email prior to this call from Cintra who wanted to have a quick announcement with regards to the WHOIS Survey Review Team Working Group, that will be added in AOB at the end of this call. And now we can move straight over to the roll call please.
Gisella Gruber: Thank you Olivier. On today's ALAC call on Tuesday 24 January we have Pastor Peters, Eduardo Diaz, Cintra Sooknanan, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Alan Greenberg, Sebastien Bachollet, Oksana Prykhodko, Evan Leibovitch, Ron Sherwood, Sandra Hoferichter, Rudi Vansnick, Wolf Ludwig, Carlton Samuels, Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Yaovi Atohoun, Avri Doria.
On the Spanish channel we have Sergio Salinas Porto, Sylvia Herlein Leite. Currently there is no one on the French channel. Apologies: Jose Arce, Titi, Ganesh Kumar. From staff we have Heidi Ullrich, Matt Ashtiani, Silvia Vivanco, and myself Gisella Gruber. Our interpreters on the Spanish channel are Sabrina, Veronica and on the French channel we have Pierre and Ala. If I could also please remind everyone to state their names when speaking, this is very important for transcript purposes as well as for the interpreters to be able to say on the other channel who is speaking. Have I left anyone off the roll call? Over to you Olivier, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thanks very much Gisella and welcome to everyone. Again I see there are quite a few people here so we will try and do this call in an hour and a half. The agenda is quite long but a [inaudible 00:03:12] and with the review of action items 20 December 2011 ALAC. [Inaudible 00:03:23] and if I ask everyone to click on the agenda that takes you to there you will notice there has been a little bit of movement.
We will just go through the open action item and I thought we would also go through the recently closed action items since several of them were completed and need to be noted. Open action items, that’s to update list of cross constituency working groups on the ALAC Wiki page. There is no change, it's still in progress. Second one, Cheryl to manage winding up and archiving working groups to be closed, Matt to schedule time to work with Cheryl on this, these are all still in progress as Matt is doing this in times when he has a little bit of time between other works that he has to do.
Beau to Chair and repopulate the At-Large Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Working Group, this one was in progress last month, is there any update on this actually? I believe Evan was speaking to Beau about that.
Evan Leibovitch: There has been some contact but nothing firm yet. I know that it is an interest. He and I have had some email contact but I don’t think he is in the process of starting something.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thank you Evan. And then fourth, Gisella to synchronize At-Large’s Calendar of Events with Global Partnerships’ calendar, Gisella that’s still in progress?
Gisella Gruber: Yes Olivier it is in progress.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Now I wonder Gisella can we take this off our action items and put this - because it is in progress we can put it in ‘No Update Required?’
Gisella Gruber: Yes, I would agree.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thank you. We move that over to the ‘No Update Required’ long-term action items. And so I just wanted to go quickly through the recently closed, but prior to this anyone have any comments with regards to the open action items? No one, okay so then the recently closed ones some of them are actually quite old. Matt Ashtiani to send a message to the ALAC Announce mailing list regarding the new gTLD statement proposed by Evan Leibovitch, there is an update on this actually.
The Doodle has gone out and in fact that’s related to recently closed action Item #6, the new gTLD statement, a Doodle has been sent out. Is there an answer as to when we will be able to hold a call on this please? Or is the Doodle still open?
Gisella Gruber: The Doodle is still open.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thank you Gisella. Next Matt Ashtiani to see if further of the RALO Monthly Reports is possible, Matt has been looking at this. Any final updates since this is a closed item Matt?
Matt Ashtiani: No update at this time.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thanks. Matt Ashtiani to follow up with NARALO with the status of their monthly reports, in fact that has been done and we have received all of the missing monthly reports since then. I do have to say it's great to see that they are getting filled in all regions now. Staff to send OCL a final version of the ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program, that has been done and I think we closed that action item during our last meeting. Matt Ashtiani to conduct a vote on the [JAC] working group motion, that has been done as well.
The next one staff to set a call with Evan, we've just spoken about. And the last one conducting a vote on the SOI and COI question, do you agree that ALAC members, ExCom members, regional leadership and liaisons should have an SOI published on the ICANN website? Gisella is this still open or has this been closed since?
Matt Ashtiani: The poll closed this morning, two hours ago. The current results are 19 people voted, 18 people voted yes, the one person abstained.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thank you. I think we can say that this is all gone. Next, any suggestions or questions on the action items from anyone? No questions, okay so then we can move on to the review of current At-Large structure applications. And my goodness look how many we have going on in parallel, that’s quite a feat to see so many simultaneously. Who can take us through those, is it Matt or?
Matt Ashtiani: Yes I can take you through them right now.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Please yes.
Matt Ashtiani: Let's go one by one. 157 - Internet Society Cameroon Chapter, we are awaiting regional advice from AFRALO. This may need to be updated but 158 - The Association of Notary Public Professionals of Uruguay, we are awaiting regional advice from LACRALO. 159 - National Association for Digital Inclusion, we are awaiting regional advice from LACRALO. 160 - The Ecuadorian Association for Free Software, we are currently conducting due diligence. 161 - Internet Society Armenia Chapter, we are awaiting regional advice from APRALO. 162 - Wikimedia Austria, we are awaiting regional advice from EURALO.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thank you very much Matt and I see there is awaiting regional advice from several regions here. I just wonder whether we can just go from region to region and see how far the process has gone on this. Could I ask someone from AFRALO to be able to speak to us about Internet Society Cameroon Chapter application? Tijani please.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: For ISOC Cameroon, AFRALO decided to put a deadline for the ALSs to give their point of view and the deadline is today. By tomorrow you will receive advice of AFRALO. So far we have received only positive advice.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Tijani. And then I will ask for representative from LACRALO please. Yes Dev.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Thank you Olivier. Regarding the ALS applications, yes we are our due diligence and we hope to submit them by the end of this month.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Dev. Okay so we'll move over to the next region and that's APRALO, the Internet Society Armenia Chapter. Any update on this please from someone from APRALO. Sala do you have any knowledge of the progress on the application or has this not been passed around the region yet?
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro: It has been passed around, but I can confirm later perhaps by email.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Sala. And finally someone from EURALO Wiki Media Austria.
Wolf Ludwig: I sent a comment today to ALAC staff. I don't know whether this is enough for the time being, but our first reaction and response to the New Wiki Media Austria I think is positive.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thank you very much Wolf and I see two people have put their hands up. Dev, your hand is still up is this from before or do you wish to add something? No, okay and Oksana your hand is up as well. Do you wish to add something to what Wolf has told us?
Oksana Prykhodko: Thank you very much Olivier. I would like to support Armenia. I vote for chapter application, support of they participated in common projects and they know this organization very well.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thank you Oksana. So, that's noted. Support for EURALO for an APRALO application. I'm all too happy to see regions support each other. Thanks very much.
So now we can move onto the next part agenda item #5, the reports. As you will see on the agenda there are reports filed then by all of the RALOs, but also monthly reports from our liaisons with the GNSO and the ccNSO. We don't usually go through those, but out let the ccNSO and the GNSO liaisons just a couple words about what's happened in their communities should I say. ccNSO first please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I wasn't planning on saying very much at all especially since the monthly ICANN newsletters and policies has just come out and things like the new joining of memberships as I predicted in last time's report a few things concerned from Iraq have all been covered there. Just perhaps a full warning then seeming you have giving me the microphone. Thank you Olivier.
A very interesting server that we need to watch that they started with financial contributions from the ccTLD community to ICANN [15:38] and I think it will be worthwhile if Ron and I take a little bit of time in a future agenda to discuss the results of that when it comes through. So, it may or may not be at a fast pace on the timing, but I do think that tops the ICANN community and indeed many of our At-Large community members may not be aware in some cases significant amounts of income that ICANN derives the ccNSO community with ccTLD member contributions. Other than that if Miss Ron has anything to bring up I'll pass it to the GNSO.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Cheryl. Ron do you have anything to add?
Ron Sherwood: Yes, I agree.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thanks very much Ron. Okay and next Alan Greenberg for the GNSO liaison.
Alan Greenberg: Not much to report. The GNSO continues to have monthly meetings that are heavily loaded, items go way over time and we always complete before the end of each two hours allotted. I don't know how they do it or how we do it, but I think it's a lesson to be learned.
Nothing very much that needs knowing right now, most of it is in my written report. I did make a recommendation which I see is already followed based on a later item on our agenda, so I don't even think I need to highlight that. So, nothing at the moment other than to remind people that the final issue report on the RAA will be coming out soon at which point the GNSO will initiate a PDP since it's a board request they have no choice and we will need participation. So anything we can do to raise awareness and get people active in RAA issues will be a good thing.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Alan. Any questions or suggestions or comments to our liaison reports? All right, then we can move on to the new business items. I see Sebastien has put his hand up. So, Sebastien you have the floor.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah, I know that there is no liaison to the board and then you got that report of what is happening at the board. And I would like to take in support of the suggestion that you were because other work is going on as a board member and I think that it's important for you to know that last year work done at the level of the program for the New gTLD because you knew they are still subject and we have to decide a plan for example [inaudible 00:19:55], for example [inaudible 00:19:57] process and some others.
And the second point, it's also important to know that there are discussions about the RAA and I know that it's [inaudible 00:20:12] to the work done by the GNSO and I don't know how all that will converge because if we add that some of the requests currently going on [inaudible 00:20:27] and it's also all done by the GNSO, by the regional team. I feel that there it's a lot of things are not going on together and I hope that we will have a broader view. And I wanted to thank you for your position about RAA and others in the last thing she raised. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Sebastien and yes of course since you do keep a close eye on what's happening at large. I'm sure you mentioned to your colleagues some of the work that we've done here. And I said mentioned it as an oh yes I've read that and it might be interesting for you to read this to. Next is Evan Leibovitch in the queue.
Evan Leibovitch: Hi there Olivier thanks. Alan a quick question about the current activity in the GNSO about guidelines it is making for itself regarding Cross Community Working Groups. Since this activity does impact its ability and its bounds when it deals Cross Community Groups including working with us is there anything that we need to be aware of or act upon in the short term based on that?
Alan Greenberg: I don't think so. There will be a discussion in San Jose. I don't know if it's going to be Saturday or Sunday on the issue. The issue came up at this last meeting and there was a significant discussion on it. Any final discussion and vote was deferred until San Jose, feeling a face-to-face meeting would be beneficial. One of the clear issues is the point about whether a Cross Constituency Working Group should be allowed to start with multiple divergent or just multiple charters and I don't know how that will come out.
The overall issue I think was overblown to some extent in that there was criticism that the GNSO should not have been doing this unilaterally and I think there was a misunderstanding of what they were trying to do. The GNSO rarely delegates anyone to speak on their behalf and certainly not the chair as a matter of routine. So if we were to come up with joint guidelines across ACs and SOs someone is going to have to do the discussion because clearly you can't have the whole GNSO participating in that kind of process. And to do that someone had to give guidance to whoever will be discussing with the other ACs and SOs what was important to the GNSO and what was not important. And this was an exercise to try to do that.
I think it was healthy that it was done in public and in fact invited people from other groups, so I don't view it as a unilateral action. Yes, once some things put on paper it becomes harder to change but there was no other way to proceed other then for the GNSO to come up with some sort of outline of what they were interested in. So, I view the process as moderately healthy. I don't agree that we desperately need Working Group rules cast in concrete. I think we've done just fine without any, but there is a position in GNSO that everything must be documented and detailed ahead of time and so we are preceding down that path.
When the GNSO approaches the other ACs and SOs, which will include us obviously, we'll see what the responses from the other groups and how we precede. It's not at all clear what we'll do with the output and is not clear at this point what the output of this process is going to be because there is some disagreement within the GNSO. So, I think that's where it stands right now. I don't think it's particularly onerous if anyone is going to be in San Jose for the discussion and as I said I'm not sure which day is going to be at this point. They're welcome to talk. The GNSO meetings on the weekend are open and that will be it.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Alan. Just one thing I was going to suggest. Why does the GNSO not call for a Community Working Group to work on guidelines for a Community Working Groups?
Alan Greenberg: I think we need a different name for it otherwise we have a paradox. No, I think that is indeed the next step is it's likely he will be put together across the various groups to decide what's important and what isn't. But prior to that anyone going on behalf of the GNSO because ultimately the GNSO, like all the other ACs and SOs, is going to have to approve whatever comes out of this.
Someone needs to give the marching orders and that was this process to try to put their own, you know the expression used in English is their ducks in order to understand what the important issues are and what isn't. So I think the next step is going to be that and in fact if you go to the motion that was put on the table will be coming back in Costa Rica. The next step is in fact to approach all the other ACs and SOs and see what they want to do next.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Alan. It will be interesting to see how they do this because if they do it is a Cross Constituency or Cross Community Working Group the people they will have one that Working Group will not be representative of their own communities since that's what they're actually riding on.
Alan Greenberg: My position is this shouldn't be a free-for-all open working group, but each group should nominate some people to speak on their behalf obviously which will have to be ratified by the groups afterwards. But otherwise this is going to go on forever and that's just silly. We have real work to do not this process work.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Alan. So that this call doesn't go on forever we will move on now to item #6, the Policy Advice Development Calendar. We will swiftly move through the recently approved statements since these have been approved, filed, sent, and I thank everyone who has been involved in the drafting and the commenting on these statements because it really is hard work.
The five of them that I see here are the ALAC statement of the Geographic Regions Review. It was a huge amount of work to put this one through the process since there were many different views. The ALAC statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program, which is commonly known prior to this as the Joint Applicant Support, the ALAC statement on the Preliminary Issue Report on Thick WHOIS and we all know how controversial and how wide ranging the views are about WHOIS and Thick and Thin and well the different conflicts that we have with regards to that and so thanks for this one.
And the ALAC statement on the joint ccNSO and GNSO Working Group on single character IDN TLDs and thankfully there was a lot of consensus on this. And the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments which has just been approved. I must just note one thing. There were only eight votes on the last one of those, on the RAA. I believe that it is because of the time when the votes were sent and no reminder was sent. So I think that many people forgot to vote or just got lost in their flood of post holiday email.
In my view, and this is my personal view, there shouldn't be any note that the support of the statement is weak. It is just a matter of timing and calendar. Any comments on any of those or we can swiftly move to the next part of this section of the agenda.
Well, the next one is the upcoming statements that we have a number of public open policy forums. The IDN Variant Issues Project Draft Integrated Issues Report has a deadline of 30th of January 2012. Well if you click on it you will see there is a workspace that has been put there. The statement was drafted [inaudible 00:30:01].
Please and I'm speaking here to ALAC members. If ALAC members on this call cannot find their ballot please could they contact Matt so that he can arrange for another ballot to be sent or for a duplicate to be sent.
Initial report on universal acceptance of IDN TLD, the deadline is the 7th of February 2012 and there is a workspace there and I understand that there is now a statement that's on there. I ask everyone to read through it. I note that IDNs are somehow a complex subject and not everyone understands them, but for those who are interested and who do understand it please read through it and bring your comments to make any amendments to this future statement.
Then the dot cat who has proposed changes. Deadline for this is the 10th of February 2012. Now you might think that's quite a time away but in fact it isn't. Time flies and several people are already looking at this. Could I perhaps ask his Carlton here to say couple of words on this please?
Carlton Samuels: Thank Olivier. The cat requested what [inaudible 00:31:31] said to me they want to be compliant with the [inaudible 00:31:36] of the new bigger policy privacy protection perhaps. So they're asking for a small change in the Registrar Agreement with regards to how their managing process WHOIS bigger. I will send out a draft to the WHOIS Review Team that will essentially embrace what I think we need to say about that on Friday. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thanks very much Carlton. So next the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.
Alan Greenberg: Olivier it's Alan I have my hand up.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Sorry Alan I didn't see you. My screen responds very slowly. Thanks Alan.
Alan Greenberg: My question to Carlton is he said he's going to respond to the WHOIS Review Team. This item is response to ICANN staff addressing whether we believe dot cat should be allowed to comply with their country rules and whether the implementation is satisfactory to us.
I'm not sure we need to respond to this one at all, but if we're going to respond we have to respond specifically to the question asked and not to the more general WHOIS Review Team overview. You know it's not a policy statement on what our beliefs about WHOIS is, but we need to be specific on answering the questions.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: And I see agreement from Carlton, thank you for this precision. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Does that mean we are going to respond separately to this one or we are stepping back from this one and don't believe we need to?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Carlton?
Carlton Samuels: What I'm saying Alan is that the response that draft that I'll propose for the WHOIS Review Team will kind of embrace what I think our position should be and I don't expect that we should say anything more on the cat.
Alan Greenberg: So, we're going to be silent on the R-Step process which implies the [inaudible 00:33:58]?
Carlton Samuels: Yeah.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Alan, thank you Carlton for this. I note on the chat Cheryl has just noted, quite rightfully actually, that Asia is currently in a very busy holiday and festival period and in fact for all of our Asian friends on the call Happy New Year. I understand celebrations are on the way, a week long if not more.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Two weeks and at least a week or more prep.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Oh well there you go. It looks as though seeing the pictures on TV that it was very noisy indeed.
Okay, so we can move on now to the next one on our list and that's the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy part, the policy development process. Recommendation 9 Part 2 concerning a new provision to lock and unlock domain names. I wonder if anyone could speak to this briefly.
Alan Greenberg: I can, but I thought that had closed already so I'm a bit confused because it already came up in the GNSO meeting last week. Is that really an open item?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I see here a deadline of the 13th of February 2012. I'm only going from the agenda.
Alan Greenberg: Let me go back and look at that because I didn't get --
Heidi Ullrich: Alan this is Heidi. I just noticed that yesterday. Let me ask Marika. But I just noticed that yesterday on the PC.
Alan Greenberg: Alright, maybe it's --
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: So that is back again on the PC then is it?
Heidi Ullrich: It is. It is on the PC.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: It maybe because the IPC did make a comment which was submitted after the fact and the GNSO decided and staff agreed that the IPC comment was salient and therefore had to be considered. I wouldn't have thought it went back onto the calendar though, so I'm a bit confused. I'll look at it. Why don't we go onto the next item then come back to me?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Alan. In fact I think that is Avri perhaps on the call because I didn't send a note to her whether she was going to come or not. She might know something about this.
Alan Greenberg: I don't think she was involved in the Part B one.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Was she in Part C?
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, Part B of the report was delivered a year ago at this point, so we're almost.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. So, then we'll move on to the next one and if anyone knows more information by the end of this call we'll come back to it. The next is the framework for the FY 13 Budget. The deadline is the 23rd of February which is going to be a month from now. There is going to be a call about this. I just wonder. No, we're not dealing with this any later. Could I ask Heidi to give us a few words on the forthcoming call please?
Heidi Ullrich: The FY 13 Budget request. This is call that [inaudible 00:37:25] and the Finance Team will be having with all the ACs and SOs and it is to discuss the comment public comment on the FY 13 Budget framework. And the aim of the call is for them to review that with the AC SO members so that everyone can go into the PC at the same level of knowledge and awareness of the issue.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Heidi. Do we have a date and time for this yet or is this not setup yet?
Gisella Gruber: The Doodle [inaudible 00:38:17], so I'll be updating everyone by email, but it will be next week.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay fantastic. Thank you. Tijani has his hand up. Tijani you have the floor.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: So regarding newcomers on the [inaudible 00:38:53] fiscal year as we did before and I will [inaudible 00:39:01] because they had adjustments. Thank you. After the call you should know exactly for sure.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you very much Tijani. We look forward to this. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, okay I put it all together. There was some confusion. The GNSO works on two different IRTP B issues last week. This was the one that was actually approved, the staff proposed an implementation to the GNSO.
The GNSO approved the implementation which is a phase that I don't believe has ever happened before of the GNSO approved implementation, but nevertheless. And this is now the bylaw required one which prior to the board taking action there must be a public comment period.
So although with this closed with the public comment on the proposed action and the approved one has not changed the bylaws require or at least the interpretation of the bylaws require another public comment period. I don't think we need to take any action on it. We didn't comment on the first one and I don't think there's any action taken or required on us in this one. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thank you very much Alan and I note that Avri has joined and I think mistakenly said that she had been involved with this. Was it Part C that you were involved with Avri?
Avri Doria: Yeah, I was just in the group of Part B, but not an active member. I'm the co-chair on Part C.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. Shall I just leave this in both Alan and Avri's hand in case we wish to comment on this?
Alan Greenberg: I don't believe we commented on any of the levels of reports. There was a preliminary report. There was the final report and now the draft implementation and I don't believe we commented on any of them. So I can't imagine we really have a major point to make at this point before the board formerly approves what the GNSO has done inline with the recommendations of the PDP.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: We did comment on one or two but a long time ago. Of the recent ones we did not comment on and I think part of it was due to lack of bandwidth. So perhaps my question --
Alan Greenberg: Perhaps. I don't think there's a major issue on this, but if anyone else disagrees we can go do something.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Avri?
Avri Doria: Yes, you probably have the association between me and IRTP is because the one I've been annoying you about in the background is trying to get ALAC to respond to the comment period that just went out on IRTP where we're starting and where I've been trying to convince you to have the bandwidth to respond at least to the responses we got. So there is still that pending indication through ALAC from the IRTP Part C under the new rules of Working Group Communications that we sent our request to ALAC. And if they decide to answer we owe ALAC a response etc. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thank you Avri. So, we're going to have to have a look at that. If I may ask you to work with staff and just pointing them to the right location and then we can just --
Avri Doria: I think I already did that at least twice.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay and it's been sent out?
Avri Doria: I don't know.
Heidi Ullrich: No, that will be sent out today.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thank you. Right, we can then move to the next one which is the WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report. That's a long term comment period that's been open and I understand that Carlton you're already working on this.
Carlton Samuels: Yes, I intend to put out a draft to the WHOIS Working Group as well the workspace. Essentially they would review a team, the final report. It pretty much mirrors some of the settled ALAC positions on WHOIS. The one that is a note of interest is the issue of privacy services and so on and I thought we should have a position on that proposed for the At-Large.
They're asking some other questions of us in the process and it includes things like to comment on the implementation regime, comment on the time point of the WHOIS Review and so on. I think those are straight forward issues. There's one major thing that I should tell you. The WHOIS Review Team has said that they're quite concerned that there's no [inaudible 00:44:43] with policy from ICANN and they are recommending that there's a policy formulated.
Well, I think they mean that there's no pronounced policy and it's really a concept, a preacher of contract, the RAA contract. That maybe they must recognize policy that could drive that. I think that's a good assessment because we have already said that any ICANN contract ought to at least reflect the [inaudible 00:45:21] policy position that is given. So I think that we are aligned in that way.
I suspect that the only major issue is going to be how we deal with the privacy on proxy services. The proxy services related to privacy. I said earlier on that the .CAT recommendation for changing the registrar agreement has a way of looking at that. Essentially what they are proposing is this. European data protection and privacy law requires that there is a distinction between the WHOIS data provisioning for what they call natural process as suppose to legal process.
And the privacy of natural processes protected by the new law that says that if you make a request then they don't have to provide you with the details of their contacts, like their address and telephone number. It could only say something like you can go to the ISP, but they're proposing that they will have a variation on that in which if any person other than a little white listed group of IP addresses, that is people that are prequalified to see WHOIS information of natural process, are the only ones who will get that WHOIS data of natural process and you have do it by a web form. It means that you have to be qualified and so on.
I am sure that is one good way to look at it. It might still be problematic for some because it presumes that it's only white listed people will have a problem with redress of grievance from web service. I will retrieve that, but we'll certainly put together something that the community can look at and make their recommendations. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Carlton for all of this information. I trust the WHOIS Working Group is working quite hard on this. We have questions or people having put their hand up. Cheryl Langdon-Orr?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Olivier. I wasn't going to ask for would call to delivered which was a much larger review of the item. I was however going to note that with the timing on this is it possible that we have a final discussion on a draft or final draft of what we will be putting in during Costa Rica meetings. That's all, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl that's noted. Carlton?
Carlton Samuels: Can I say something on that to Cheryl?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Please Carlton go ahead.
Carlton Samuels: Yes, thank you. Actually just yesterday Silvia from the South agreed to put in a one hour session for the WHOIS Work Group on Sunday at Costa Rica. And yes, the idea was that we would put the draft up and there will be discussions between that and we never got the closure. And we expect to have some discussions and closure at Costa Rica, so that is well noted Cheryl that is what has been proposed.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Fantastic. Thank you Carlton and I saw green marks from several people on the call. Okay, any questions or comments, if not then we can move to the next part of our agenda. Thanks to everyone who is working towards drafting more statements and future statements. As you would have noticed the public comment system has changed a little bit. We now have slightly less time to produce an initial statement and then the time to reply afterwards. So, we might have to look in the future at our processes to be able to reply or have a process within our community to provide replies to statements that were submitted by others. This I believe has not been put together yet, so to be noted.
Now the next part of the agenda is agenda item #7, the FY 13 Budget requests with an update and next step. I point you to the Wiki page that has the different request there, the At-Large FY 13 Budget Development Workspace. There have been several calls first with the Working Group itself, but also with Xavier Calvez, the ICANN CFO. And also with several people from Finance who have been able to discuss our request already. So, the next step is for these requests to be filed with ICANN Finance. I understand Gisella was going to send them over. Is this in process or has it been done already?
Heidi Ullrich: Olivier this is Heidi if I may.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yes, please go ahead Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: I do not believe that they have been sent yet.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, so then that's an action item. I think we'll work on it later on today and file them by tonight.
Heidi Ullrich: Yeah, we'll make that an action item.
Matt Ashtiani: Olivier can you please state the AIs as you like to report them.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: AI is finalize the community request and send them to ICANN Finance along with the At-Large FY 13 master document.
Matt Ashtiani: Is that passed to you or who would you like it passed to?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you Matt.
Matt Ashtiani: I said who do you like the AI passed to?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Passed to myself and to staff and we will work on it tonight or this afternoon for you.
Matt Ashtiani: Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Now aside from this and I guess you can all have a look at all of the different RALO requests. I know that several ALAC members are in the Working Group, so I don't imagine there to be too many questions about them. There is a separate request for the ICANN Academy Budget because this is not a RALO. This is a cross RALO. This is a complete ALAC and At-Large opportunity and we have already talked about this in the past. That will be filed separately, so as for it not to affect our requests for our RALOs. Tijani I see your hand is up, so you have the floor.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: I want to ask if the subcommittee has drafted something to send it to the Finance department because they have the request of the [inaudible 00:53:47]. We need to seen them out because any letter we have, any note have come through from ALAC.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: If I may Tijani. There will be a cover letter that will be sent to those and the Excel worksheet which we saw and which I shared with the group will be included in there as well. It will be annotated so as to show what request is what. And I understand there will be an immediate response also, that the process this year has advanced in that as soon as a request is received by ICANN Finance within two or three days we will receive a reply with any questions or any follow-up is you wish.
So, the dialog actually doesn't finish now. It's not a case of just posting the letter and then waiting for a yes or a no answer. It really is the start of a dialogue based on the documents they were sending over.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Any other questions or suggestions? Yes, Sala please.
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro: Thank you. I have one comment to make though in terms of the budget to consideration and I also understand that it may be late in the day, but if you can factor in the cut to [inaudible 00:55:31] great in terms of committed ALSs all across the RALOs and I think some argument alongside recommendation for in the Wiki. And I'm just kindly requesting the Finance Committee to somehow factor that in. And in terms of Inreach and Outreach in terms of a serious matter as far as APRALO is concerned. It's something that IGN and I support within APRALO in terms of having remote learning capabilities developed and having this fact to be somewhere in the budget and yes, so [inaudible 00:56:20].
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Sala. Are there any questions or suggestions in addition to what Sala has said? I was just going to add a couple of more things, first that the ICANN Finance has asked for us basically to provide a measure of priorities, highest priority, medium, and low priority. And one of our calls was to basically rate all of the request which were sent in by the RALOs. It's very difficult to do such a thing, in fact if at all impossible to do such a thing. However the general consensus was that the General Assemblies which many of the regions have asked for was of the highest priority.
It really was something that would answer your concerns Sala with regards to Inreach and would also help very much with Outreach. It's a double sword if you wish. So General Assemblies will be the ones that we would be pushing for the most and that will be written in the intro letter, so as to say General we support those if we can request grant. Those ones really should be granted. Cheryl, you have your hand up.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, thank you Olivier. I was just going to point out that there is a nexus between what Sala was raising and this issue and the very next agenda item and perhaps we have a couple of opportunities. Not so much for the 2013 Budget although with the pointing out to the CFO and his team of the wider application, for example the FRALO follow-up on capacity building with online and sessional learning being applicable to all of the RALOs. I think we are starting to meeting up and raise the priority on the issues that Sala has put forward.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl. Any comments or suggestions? Okay, well all that remains for me to do is to thank all the RALOs for having filed those requests and I also will like to thank Sandra and her group for having filed a complex At-Large Academy Financial Proposal. So, thanks very much Sandra.
Just to add there were several calls with Sandra and a few members of the At-Large Academy Working Group with staff. So, this help in finding out the exact cost for venue, for hotel fees, for technical matters in putting together the Academy, the ICANN Academy is something that has been thankfully done to the extent that it looks quite clear now how much things will cost. And certainly having this help from staff immediately as it started now will help our chances in obtaining the finance to pursue the ICANN Academy.
We'll have a quick discussion on that in a few minutes when Sandra will be able to tell us about this in items for discussion further down. May I just ask one question from the group here perhaps since we are all of there? Sala your hand is still up.
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro: Yes, I will go after the relation to the Academy.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, well that is much further on, later on, in a few minutes. With regards to the current budget may I ask everyone here whether they are okay with the General Assemblies taking the highest of priorities? Alan you put your hand up. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, how many are we requesting for this fiscal year?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Well, I think that looking at the list NARALO is asking for one. APRALO is asking for one. EURALO is asking for one and I understand LACRALO is asking for one as well, so that really is four.
Alan Greenberg: Aren't there only three ICANN meetings in a year?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: There and some of those General Assemblies are asked outside an ICANN Meeting because LACRALO for example in FY 13 there were no meetings taking place in the LACRALO region, so LACRALO is asking for a GA taking place at LAC IGF with a lot of LACRALO members.
Alan Greenberg: Since we have a very long standing request that we be allowed to hold one General Assembly per region every three years though I think it may be a bit unreasonable to ask for more than two in any given year. But, we should say very strongly that given that we only had one last year two is mandatory this year. But, I think setting expectations that we can have four in one year is just not realistic.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Alan.
Alan Greenberg: I should say it would be delightful to do, but I think it's unrealistic given the current position that we ramp up from one to four in one year.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Well, I think Alan that if we don't ask we'll never get, so we do have to ask. The thing though is we put together a funding roadmap which effectively shows that when the decision or the aim was made to have General Assemblies in all five regions within a three to four year period nothing was done for the next two years as far as funded General Assemblies are concerned. So FY 10 and FY 11 were blank. We played catch up in FY 12. We really have to catch up now. We do not want to have the regions falling apart due to lack of interest.
Alan Greenberg: We just don't want to revisit last year where they fund four General Assemblies for each a quarter of the region so.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yeah, that’s understood Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: And I think that Finance has understood that as well. They have asked specifically for a roadmap for the future and the roadmap does show that if General Assemblies are not granted to some regions this year when do they next need to be granted. And really that's the worse case scenario.
Alan Greenberg: That's fine.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Alan. I see next Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: Hi Olivier. We seem to be constantly going through this cycle. Can we not try and engage financial staff in some even medium term planning. Where this can be done with some kind of sanity where it's not everyone scrambling for everything and every year. Is there any way that we can have either a separate or some kind of a special engagement with the financial staff to try and come up with a multiyear roadmap that even if they can only budget for these things one at a time at least offer us some kind of certainty, some kind of sanity so we don't have everyone grabbing at everything in every year. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Evan and I think that's what I was alluding to. Okay next Jean-Jacques.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Thanks can you hear me?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yes Jean Jacques, go ahead.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Good, so I'd like to support what Evan just said, but I'd like to go a bit further. A few remarks about strategy and then I'll end up with a few remarks about how to get there or tactics.
So the strategy, I think that it's important now and this I think is the right time to take a broader view and to take the argument one step higher. First of all I think Evan is quite right, if we should attempt to give a sort of roadmap for not just one year but maybe two or three years. And I think the quality of the arguments we are ready to use can win the day or lose the day.
I suggest that one of the strong arguments would be to say we had one ALAC summit and it gave this and that result. One of them by the way is not negligible because the first bylaws were changed so that there is a representative of the ALAC and the At-Large community who is chosen to be a voting member onboard. So for all sorts of reasons, which we must list, I think that this adds to the argument that it is time for us to go ahead.
The other thing is to say that we are conscious of the difficulty in planning, so we will engage even more with the financial staff of ICANN in order to do that. But I think that we must make clear, and I think this is the right moment to do so, that so far the whole of ICANN has been geared very much towards the needs of enterprise, of things like who brings what to budget etc., and I think that if we look around us there are so many indications that there is a much greater call for a defense of the public interest.
And as far as I'm aware that is where we are situated, At-Large and ALAC represent, in their own way, the public interest. So I think this is something we should not [inaudible 01:08:46] at. We should be brave enough to make that argument of course with the proper wording.
Now my last remark is about tactics. I think that engaging with the financial staff is fine. It's quite natural, but I would go a step further and say that when we do have a strategy I think it should be first of all for the chair of the ALAC to send the message to the chair of the board saying we have engaged the staff, this is where we stand. Now we need a whole new approach, a psychological approach to all this and therefore I am writing to you because these are our purposes, this is our intention for the next three years. Now please bear upon the CEO select this becomes possible. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Jean-Jacques. Comments are taken into account. I'll wait to hear all of the comments and then perhaps provide some feedback on them. Tijani next.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you Olivier. Yes, this [inaudible 01:10:06] supported before [inaudible 01:10:13] I think we need to address the [inaudible 01:11:12] issue not in the finance department with [inaudible 01:11:17]. It is [inaudible 01:11:20] of the finance department. So, it's not been approved by the board and we have another report. [Inaudible 01:11:35].
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Tijani and a number of people did not understand you too well. I must say I also had trouble understanding some of what you said if not most of what you said. But, what I did grasp from what you said was that this issue of asking for GAs and for the yearly budget request is something which we need to go beyond. And we actually need to take this up with the board directly and ask for the board to weigh in, specifically I gather the Board Finance Committee to weigh in on those request.
And I think that somehow fits with what Jean-Jacques was saying in that we need to push a lot more since we are affectively here to look out for the public interest and to bring the interest of the internet user forward and it's something which ICANN really seriously needs to be looking at now. Tijani did I catch your part correctly and Jean-Jacques did I catch yours correctly?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, you did. Yes, exactly you did.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thank you. And I note in the chat that Heidi has written that the At-Large event roadmap has now been posted on the ALAC agenda of today. So, if you refresh your page you will be able to have a look the previous version of the roadmap since I'm finalizing the version slightly at the moment with some explanatory notes.
So, you will see that a roadmap is actually being put together and that's a [inaudible 01:13:22] year budget roadmap which will show what we have not had funded in the past, what we have had funded in the past, what we would like to have funded in the future and how this could be somehow leading to a future summit which I believe is what we're all looking for in the next few years. There's still a queue in operation. Alan is next.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you. Based on the previous comment as in your summary I don't have much to say, but I'm agreeing whole heartedly. With regard to Evan asking for a sane way to look at multiple years I think we need to point out that we have been promised for at least two years now, maybe longer, that they are thinking about doing something on a multiyear approach but haven't quite figured out how to do it. It's not really that complex and I think we should point out that it's time for doing it, not say we're going to do it sometime in the future.
With regard to Jean-Jacques comment and follow-ups of going to the board, I whole heartedly agree. I believe this is a strategic issue not just to be addressed at asking for money please, but to focus on the fact that if they want us to do our job and public interest which is not directly ours but working with users is. And if they want us to do our job properly we need to make sure people understand and are involved and active. And, you know, we have reiterated many times in the past that we need at the very least one Regional Assembly every three years or a General Assembly every three years.
Asking for me is something that we can certainly try for, but at the minimum that's a mandatory requirement. I point out the cost is a little bit higher in the General Assembly, on a summit rather, then on the Assemblies. But one of the other has to be done and I think that it needs to be done not to the Board Finance Committee. We need to talk to the board. If the Board wants to charge the Finance Committee that's their prerogative, but I think it's a put your money up or stop complaining we're not doing our job properly. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Alan and I see several people having said yes they agree. I see a lot of text green marks saying yes we agree and also a number of plus ones on the chat to what you've just said. Just as an answer to your suggestion for asking finance now to start a multiyear budget, that's what they have told us they're starting now. So, this is why we are putting together this roadmap since it's something that will help them and us.
Alan Greenberg: If it's really going to be done this year find, if it's another, we're thinking about it, then it needs to be addressed one level higher to the board. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Now we've been asked specifically by Xavier Calvez, the new ICANN CFO, to produce such a document.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: We had shown it to him in one call that took place last week and we will submit that document with our input into the process and with our requests.
Alan Greenberg: Excellent.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Cintra? Cintra you might be muted. I'm afraid we cannot hear you Cintra. Okay, perhaps if you can type your question and then we will address it. Any other suggestions? Okay, it was by accident. Okay.
Yes, so I'll just tell you all if you do reload your agenda you will find out the link over to the At-Large Draft Funding Roadmap. That as I said earlier will change slightly it will be clearer by the time it is sent later on today. And of course you will have a copy sent to the Finance and Budget Subcommittee, the ALAC Finance and Budget Subcommittee.
Now, I think we can move on to the next part of our agenda if we scroll back to it and that's the request to establish an At-Large Outreach Working Group. And because my mouth is very dry I think I might let Cheryl speak to this one if she is able to do so please since it is something that's come out of the discussions in the At-Large Improvements Working Group. So, Cheryl you have the floor.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Olivier and it will be my pleasure to speak to this issue. This issue being one of several that we will find coming filtering up for ALAC discussion and later We Trust approval and our ratification as required.
As the At-Large Improvement Implementation Taskforce go through work and I might take manage report that we're now up to recommendation #5. I see 13 recommendations made in the original review, just at the beginning of 5. We will be [inaudible 01:18:58] with a number of and now ALAC needs to moments. And this is one of those and now ALAC needs to moments, so we wanted to get the issues in the discussions line and hopefully being in the action line on ALACs agenda.
Sala raised a number of issues and we've certainly heard a number of issues which of course are those two things, very important things, like the ICANN Academy conflict, but also the importance of the capacity building which we saw the excellent pilot in the RALO regions that are meeting etc. and the follow on budget requests.
The RALOs Outreach and Inreach is hugely important to be affective work of the At-Large edge communities, as well as the regions in what we do in ICANN. This is something that is particular to focus on how we look to the Outreach activities because it's not talking about capacity building or General Assemblies. As such although there's always opportunities for Outreach when these types of activities go together.
This is the way that the Taskforce feels we will be best to do ongoing maintenance, I guess as one way of putting it, preplanning and organization and orchestration is probably the best work so to speak, suggesting what we do here. Is that if we have a outstanding At-Large Work Group, an ALAC Work Group which involves ALAC representation from each of the geographic regions and regional representation form the RALOs whose ongoing role is to develop here it's thought in many ways, polished up, ready for input into those strategic and financial planning cycles in the future. So, this will be a very good [inaudible 01:21:07].
So what we are asking the ALACs to consider is the formation of what will be their second standing subcommittee. It is made out of something that will work at certain points in each annual cycle with the standing Budget and Finance Subcommittee because of the products of such an Outreach Activity Subgroup would be often calling on resources, some of those being financial.
What we would like to ask the ALAC to consider is the formation of this as a concept of a second standing ALAC Subcommittee modeled on the one we already modified from an original ALAC only model of the Budget and Finance Subcommittee. We've balanced regional input so that we don't get duplication of ideas, we get consolidation of ideas and we get the return on investment that can be seen when things are planned for the best possible outcomes and with the greatest financial investment for gains being made. It also means that we can do some of the multiyear planning as well. That's the background on it and I see Olivier you had a sip of water and you're ready to open on the discussion. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Cheryl and I've had more then one sip of water. I had two or three, but the floor is now open for discussion.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I note support from Sala and Wolf.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: My Adobe Connect has gone a bit strange. There was support from Sala and then there is a hand up from Sala. So, there's a queue now. Sala first.
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro: Thank you. I warmly welcome Cheryl's comments as noted on my check transcripts. Very quickly given the financial constraints and limitations and I also agree with Alan's comment earlier in terms of the sanity of a strategic [inaudible 01:23:39] in terms of addressing the body issue. And something recently carried out survey just to look at the penetration grid of the credited ALAC structures within the RALOs as for the information by the Dashboard activity. The Dashboard has yet to be updated.
I noticed the penetration rates were missing 30% within the region and for considering [inaudible 01:24:10] within the ICANN, but reported to hold in representation the view of the globe. It is critical that we be seen to address this particular issue and even more so when organization like the ICANN which deals with technical internet policy. I think it's something sustainable to look at capped and sustainable mechanisms such as remote learning mode off of delivery and also in terms of the Outreach.
This is not to say that we should take away from the face-to-face. Please note that I'm not saying that. You can say this is still critical and I fully support the face-to-face initiatives that are being held, that are currently being discussed. And also those that are been undertaken by global partnerships in terms of the NOG. I'm listening to the Wiki archives. I've seen the in depth exercise that even ALAC and At-Large in the past as they've had with NOG such as Middle East NOG and that sort of thing. But I'll strongly recommend the Working Group to be looking into further sustainable options and I said I strongly support the idea. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Sala. Next is Wolf Ludwig.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes, thanks Olivier. As chair clearly said already there are different dimensions. One side is Inreach towards our existing ALSs and this is not as sufficient in my eyes at the moment as do to lack of resources which also has a clear financial link. And, as discussed before, regular face-to-face General Assemblies are a kind of incentive or understood by many members as an encouragement for getting better involved into an ICANN and ICANN activities, so just one element.
The other element we discussed before. There are plenty of events, conferences, ICANN internet related events in our region that it would be very important to be present on a regular basis. This is clearly too much for mere volunteers engagement. We will invest our time to attend such opportunities, but for other cost involved like travel, reinvestment, etc. Volunteers normally do not have the means and the financial resources to pay this by their own pockets. That's why we need clear steps and a concept and a trial set already. It's not a much a question working harder but working smarter and it's going into the direction. Thanks.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Wolf and so far I've only heard support for this new Working Group. Has anyone got anything to say against it or would anyone argue that this not required and might just be done as part of the ALACs and At-Large's daily work. I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate, so without becoming too unpopular let's move on then to a quick vote although I do note that Jean-Jacques unfortunately has had to leave and we are beyond the one and a half hour mark. Yes, Cheryl please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. I think the Taskforce would be delighted if it heard back from the ALAC when you attend at the next meeting next week, that what the ALAC will be doing is formalizing. So in principle agreeing with nothing but support discussed at the meeting for this proposal of the Taskforce and that the implementation of this including a discussion of the role description and charter would be conducted during the Costa Rica meeting. That will then leave it open for team members of the ALAC and our trust representatives from the Taskforce to do the drafting of that so it can all be put to bed in Costa Rica.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Excellent roadmap and I think I'm okay with that. So, if that's the case then I guess this is what you will be able to tell the Improvements Working Group and we can therefore move to the next item in the agenda which is under items for discussion, the development of the At-Large objections process.
Before we start on this I've done a rundown on how much more time we will need. We will probably require just under 30 minutes, but what we will do because one or two of these items have already been touched on we might just fly across them and spend just a little more time on the objections process and the At-Large tentative Costa Rica meeting schedule. So Dev as the person whose been presenting the At-Large objections process over to the Working Group, the new gTLD Working Group, would you be able to say just a few words on this. If you all click on the agenda item on the Wiki you will actually get a map of the process itself. Dev you want to take over from here?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Thank you Olivier. Okay, actually in the web link in the Adobe Connect room there's a link to the draft objection process flowchart version 2. The item that had the objection process, just to give a brief background, was that in the applicant guidebook it was stated that funding for ICANN for objection filing fees is available to the ALAC contingent on ALAC publishing its approved process for considering and making objections. At the minimum due process for objecting to a gTLD application will require a bottom-up development of potential objections, discussion and approval of objections at the RALO level and a process for consideration and approval of the objection by the ALAC.
So there are certain grounds for objection. In the applicant guidebook there four grounds, string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest, and community objection. Regarding the first two we really don't have standing to object and we only have standing to object to the limited public interest and there has been some discussion regarding the community objection, whether ALAC should want to be able to file a community objection if, for example, ALS is one of the communities affected and that discussion is ongoing.
Now when reviewing the objection process and the process by which applications are approval there is a 60 day comment window when you meet with your staff which is called application comment period. And this is where comments can be submitted on an application for an evaluation panel consideration. And, possibly, also for the independent objector which also has access to the public comments, to consider then taking action on those comments to then file an objection.
So instead of version 1 of the flowchart, but right now we're looking at version 2 of the flowchart here. So my emphasis would be to focus on during the 60 day application comment period window is to focus on development comments first because the objection period is about 7 months from the time the application reports are published on ICANN's website. So the attention is for the new gTLD Review Group that will be formed before application start of the application comment period and ensure that it's ready to hit the ground running when the application comment period starts.
So when ICANN posts the public portions of the applications there is a notification sent to all the RALO lists and there is a what I call a Dashboard then setup that will then track the gTLDs and our comments that we will be making on this. And let me just put a link of the markup of the Dashboard in the chart. So, if you look at the markup of the Dashboard the attention is to try to automate it as much as possible. So we'll have essentially a spreadsheet or a table from you and I'm thinking consoles can be used for this that will have a list of all the gTLD applied for strings on the column.
The Wiki page on the gTLD string and the number of comments that has been received for the evaluation panels consideration and for objection grounds. And as persons make comments it will be automatically updated to show which ones has more comments and will therefore rise to the top of the chart.
I've done a markup on the actual console's Wiki and it shows the macros that do track the comments, so I think this is technically feasible. So, going back to the flowchart, the item will be that once this Dashboard is setup them for about two weeks after, at the beginning of each week, the review board will then post all the entry straight to the Dashboard to all the RALO lists.
And if it receives a comment from anyone, be it by email, be it by attending a RALO monthly call and getting comments and so forth, it will then update the Wiki and post the comments. And then what is suppose to happen is that person can also then directly respond on the Wiki and then by the end of Week 4 a list of comments would have been made hopefully on the various applications.
The rest of the flowchart which hasn't been drawn up yet, but essentially the rest of the flowchart will be treated as how ALAC deals with policy advice. A hard Working Group would then look at these comments, draft a statement, the draft statement is sent around to all the RALOs, comments are received then a final statement is published and then ALAC then votes whether to send its comment formally to the public comment period.
Just to briefly go over the objection process. The objection process will be the objection statement is drafted by a Working Group, you know certainly sent to the RALOs obviously, and then a final objection statement is then published. What happens then is that all the RALOs will then have to vote on the objection statement and if three or more RALOs then vote an affirmative support of the objection it will be sent to the ALAC as regional advice to the ALAC. And then ALAC will then vote on the regional advice as whether to accept to then file the objection.
Well, I believe that's a good summary of it and I guess I'll open it to questions or comments. Thanks.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thanks very much Dev for this very comprehensive summary. I noticed that Avri has had her hand up for awhile. So Avri.
Avri Doria: Yes and I want to thank Dev for doing that. I wanted to add just a couple of points and a question to you all as ALAC. First of all Dev has been putting an amazing amount of work into this. This is still a draft that the intention is within the next week or two within the group to get it to a stable point where it can be sent to the RALOs for further review and a review cycle and an update cycle. So, I just wanted to make sure that I said that.
In terms of the beginning of this there was a discussion over the scope of community objection. And the scope of community objection ranges from the very narrow interpretation of it's only if it's the ALAC community, the At-Large community, that's being targeted by the application. There's a slightly wider view that sort of says it’s not just ALAC or At-Large, it's any of the components of the At-Large so to speak the RALOs and the ALSs.
The most expansive region of it is as At-Large responsible for the user community as it faces ICANN policy implementation etc. that basically championing any of those in an At-Large relevant topic area should be included. Now this is a question that the Working Group itself can't really answer. It's a question A for you all to sort of say what understanding does ALAC as an advisory committee have on this. And then probably a secondary step if you take anything other than the most narrow interpretation is confirming that, stating that, declaring that, in any way that is appropriate to ALAC making its point and declaring if understanding of what ALAC community is.
The last point I wanted to make is that on some of these things there's still some technical issues that we're following-up for all of that to be there. We obviously are on a crash course to get this done because it has to go through the review cycle, the upset cycle, and basically go through whatever approval cycle it needs to go through before the objection process starts. So before that end of April date when all the applications are announced and I assume the approval and notification to ICANN or its staff as to what it is you're doing needs to happen before that. So thanks.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thanks very much Avri and just adding to what both Dev and you have been saying, the concern I have of course is the complexity of the process and how much more work this will mean for At-Large members, for RALOs for ALAC members, and of course for our members of staff who are supporting us.
One of the ways of working smarter is to automate task and this is something that the GAC has pretty much understood and is working currently with ICANN staff to develop a tool that will help them and their process.
Now I have been in touch with the representatives on the GAC that are working on this and thankfully our staff is also in touch with ICANN staff dealing with the tool itself. And Dev will be put in touch with staff in order to be able to develop some automation in the system. And of course based on the discussions that we are going to have both now, but also I think all the way up to the next meeting in Costa Rica, the face-to-face meeting in Costa Mesa. And in fact I think there's even a session that will be talking about this and Costa Rica.
We really need to finalize this as you said by Costa Rica, but we're working very hard to get this prepared, I guess, and automated as much as we can and streamlined. I see my screen is going with people putting their hands up and down. Cheryl is the only one with her hand up at the moment, so Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Olivier and yes I did put my hand up and down. It wasn't just your screen. I was going to say something, but then you said it anyway. But then I now want to say something else. I wondered Olivier if it was possible for ALAC to have at the end of the Costa Rica meeting something appropriately [inaudible 01:44:37] into a publishable form.
I'm just thinking that that's the ideal time if we went live with our published process in terms of being been able to be set up and ready to go and indeed get, I guess, a free ticket rather than financial support for the possible objections that may or may not come out of the first round or also the current round of the new gTLD [inaudible 01:45:14].
That might be a good date to aim for. I don't know if you believe it's possible, but I think it's laudable to try and attempt by the end of the Costa Rica meeting to have something published and perhaps your report on the Friday could be the announcement of that process.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl and I think that was the aim and I hope that we can stick to that aim. In fact one of the action items from the New gTLD Working Group I note is that Avri, Dev, and I will have a call with relevant ICANN staff to discuss the automated tool and I gather that Dev is going to continue his work on the flowcharts so that by this call we'll have full flowcharts. And I understand that we can count on the help of ICANN staff since it is something that might need more work now but that will save on work later on. Avri your hand is up again.
Avri Doria: Yes and I did the yo-yo thing for the same reason that Cheryl did. In response to the timing and the request to be able to have something that ALAC has left and declared that it's a process it will follow by the end of the meeting, that is really tight.
It has to get out in its full draft form which is not yet complete. It needs to have at least a three week pause through the RALOs. It needs to then come back and have the process reviewed and updated based on any comment and then it has to go through a full ALAC approval cycle.
I think it probably, if I understand the timing the things take and the fact that in the meetings things can be accelerated, so it may be possible, but I do add that there's a high risk that it will not be completed by then unless everybody is really working to a very tight schedule. The Working Group will and so far as it can, but I'm just sort of raising the serious risk on actually making that unless everybody is incredibly diligent. Thanks.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Avri for these points. Okay I think I can close the chapter on this subject. We only have a few more minutes until the top of the hour and I wondered whether we could actually put some of the next items for discussion onto our next call, the At-Large tentative Costa Rica meeting schedule. Heidi do you think that we could do this next time, next month?
Heidi Ullrich: Olivier if I can just have one minute because the deadline for the meeting confirmation form will be the 3rd of February so that is before the next call.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, so yes please go ahead.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, if people could just take a look at the At-Large San Jose meeting of 2012 workspace you will see that staff have already put to tentative dates and times of the meetings that have been requested by the RALOs, by the ALAC, and by the Working Groups date. You will also note that the timelines are absolutely full already, so if you can let us know also your agendas that you would like for those chairs that are having the meetings that will be most appreciated. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much and in fact I think we might need to look at this again because the meeting agendas which are further down, okay sorry my mistake. I'm just looking at the wrong page here.
Heidi Ullrich: It's basically right now the agendas are to be developed for the most part and it's primarily the actual meeting dates and times that are on the Wiki pages.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay because I can't see them full at all at the moment and I thought, wow excellent holiday at Costa Rica, but obviously you're going to be able to fill those up in time by then. Okay then we can move to the next part of our discussion, the next item on there, which is the At-Large Improvements Taskforce. Cheryl I think you already spoken a little bit about it. Do you need any more minutes or can we move to the next agenda item?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Move on.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl. So #12, At-Large ICANN Academy Ad-Hoc Working Group. We've already touched on the budget side of things. Sandra can you say a few words on then next steps please. You're probably muted. Hello Sandra? No, okay she's typing. I don't find the Skype window, but I think we might hear you if you speak.
Sandra Hoferichter: Can you hear me now?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Very much so, yes.
Sandra Hoferichter: Perfect, so somebody unmuted me and I was unmuted before on this call. Sorry for this confusion.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: There a lot of people working in the background controlling your speech. Go ahead Sandra.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay thank you. Due to time constraints I will be very quick to give a short summary for cost on the ICANN Academy task. Due to time constraints we had to submit a budget before we could discuss program Outreach and all these issues before. So I took into consideration what has been posted on the At-Large Working Group mailing list and what was discussed with ICANN staff and other program committee members into the latest budget which Olivier already pointed to.
I have to say that additionally to this Excel sheet there is also an intro describing, in a very brief way, where this idea comes from and where it should be developed. And I take into consideration that many members of the Working Group and many participants of At-Large see a big demand to develop a broader and wider capacity building initiative and only those 20 hour lecture courses we are currently talking about. And I strongly recommend to see this as a first trial for Toronto, specifically for Toronto which has to be review, which has to be developed further. And the overall focus on a long-term basis should be harmonized and synchronize the different capacity building provisions within ICANN already existing or the ones who should be developed that there maybe put them under an umbrella which could be called ICANN Academy or whatever.
For the next step we will have a program committee called later this week on Thursday and we will then decide how to organize the work to be done on the curriculum. Avri Doria started already with a very good proposal before Christmas, but as the budget had to come first we added this first. But I recognize in the community already there are plenty of very good ideas on how to draft that this curriculum and my proposal was to form a Sub Working Group to work on the curriculum, but this will be discussed with the program committee on Thursday and then will let you know and we will inform you by our mailing list.
In the third very important step which has to be prepared in parallel is how to contact the other communities in the upcoming Costa Rica meetings. It's a so called Outreach initiative. We should then start to get all the other constituencies behind this proposal to make it a real ICANN inclusive community project. That's from my point, if there are any questions I will be happy to answer either here or on the mailing list. Most of the people on this mailing list anyway, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much for this summary, very good to hear that this is progressing. Just one quick note, the other SOs and ACs have been banging down my door and asking about this ICANN Academy. Word travels fast and so far there's only been a lot of positive questions, well positive comments about it. A lot of people are interested in finding out what it actually is about and one thing, which you might consider, is to start involving them prior to the Costa Rica meeting, so already perhaps having a joint call or an information call to bring people up to date prior to the Costa Rica meeting so that actual progress can actually be happening at the meeting, at the face-to-face meeting itself. Any comments or suggestions? Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Olivier, very briefly. It just struck me that with the ccNSO tech days that are on two days prior to an ICANN meeting, yes I realize they are focused on technical issues, security, etc., etc., that there's not possibly a curriculum and a book of words and materials etc. and perhaps even some preparatory stuff. It might be good to have those as reference points for other peoples learning.
And I also encourage a close interaction with Ebihart [ph] on this concept of more involvement because if we can get the [inaudible 01:56:57] community then we also have the possible in the future opportunity for direct support of people being involved in the ICANN Academy from their well known position and activity in the local internet community. So I'd just be really keen to make sure that we meet up there. Olivier perhaps you can broker an introduction between Sandra and her team and Ebihart on that. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl, that’s a good point and it is noted perhaps even as an action item. I will get to broker an introduction between Sandra and Ebihart [inaudible 01:57:47] from ccNSO. Sala you're next.
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro: Thank you Sandra for the summary. Sandra reads an appointed I think I read when we're discussing another item which is that the request from the At-Large community for something broader then just the 20 hour and my thinking the [inaudible 01:58:20] is to ask Olivier whether which section or which form within the ALAC or within At-Large or which Working Group is tasked with remote learning and e-learning facilities and making these thing available online so to speak, what base learning, what platforms.
And the other comment and rightly noted that I made submissions and I posted it on recommendation on the Wiki within the At-Large Improvement recommendations on this particular matter. So, a request for clarification Olivier, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Sala. The answer is actually not a simple one. There are several parts of At-Large and the At-Large community that are dealing with community capacity building etc.. In general the RALOs has been doing a lot of work themselves as far as putting together a coordination between them, well there's a mix of Outreach on one side. So, you could argue that part of the work of the At-Large Outreach Working Group will be to look at this.
There is of course the academic side to it which you could then argue the ICANN Academy Working Group would be looking at, but perhaps not now because at the moment the priority is as the Working Group name entices actually building a ICANN Academy. So perhaps I see the capacity building as an extension of what's going on now with the Academy being a first step, the rest of the capacity building something that the RALOs will work on until a wider ALAC group works on it. Perhaps others have suggestions to make? I open the floor. I see everyone as either sleep or is still thinking. Sala you still have your hand up.
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro: Yes, I think it's critical that we identify precisely which facility within the At-Large will deal with this matter because we would like, and I seen concerns from other RALOs as well, at least three RALOs to have people put together a way forward in terms of addressing our [inaudible 02:01:14] mechanism.
Again, this is not to take away from the face-to-face. The face-to-face is critical, but at the same time giving the spread of our region and the enormous transportation cost and giving that the serious financial resource constraint emergency we like to finance and that sort of thing reveal that something feasible and relatively cheap, so to speak can sort of, be put [inaudible 02:01:48]. But we need to know precisely and I'm not speaking for myself. I'm speaking for my RALO. We need to precisely which facility, who to make submissions to. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Sala. Do you think that this will fit within Outreach? I see no from you. So, it's not Outreach, but it's a thing in itself. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, just a quick comment on that. We have very limited resources and I really can't see someone being charged with the general concept of remote education. I think anything we do is likely to be focused at least in the short term on particular in products because we're just not going to be able to put together the generalized one without very targeted requirements.
So I'm not sure we're going to see someone being charged with the general concept of how to do remote education within the ICANN context. I think it really has to be focused on more specific views on the short term and perhaps later generalized.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Alan and I see many hands going up now. I do have to cut this very soon because we are way over time. I'd love to continue the conversation here. Sala if it's to discuss this perhaps should we have a longer session of the next ALAC call so we all take part in this discussion and I have a little bit more time than the few minutes left in our call right now if that's okay with you?
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro: Sure Olivier.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay thank you Sala and Avri you still wish to add something or can we wait one month and discuss this and perhaps even start the discussion on the mailing list. I know that the discussion has taken place on the Academy Working Group mailing list, but perhaps an extended discussion on the ALAC mailing list might be something that people will enjoy and will wish to contribute somehow.
Okay we still have two more items for information but these are both allocated to staff, beginners guide on participating in At-Large. I'll let Heidi deal with those two please.
Heidi Ullrich: Thank you Olivier. The beginners guide to [inaudible 02:04:36] At-Large was sent out for comments to several members of ALAC and the liaisons. There were some excellent comments that were received and they now have been incorporated into draft 9 which is on that beginners guide workspace and has links to the agenda. That version will now be sent to the graphic designer and the final document should be ready by Costa Rica in Spanish, French, and English. So thank you everyone for your comments.
In terms of the briefing calls, the WHOIS Review Team briefing call which was an APRALO request that will be open to all members of At-Large. The Doodle is still open until this Thursday but it looks it will be this next Tuesday at 16:00 UTC. Once that Doodle is closed the briefing call for the updating of the At-Large/ALAC advice on the New gTLDs will be sent out and that briefing call should take place within the next two weeks. Thank you Olivier.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Heidi. And so there just needs to be one more item and that's in the any other business category and I received an email from Cintra regarding the WHOIS Survey Review Team Working Group. Cintra was unable to speak earlier. Cintra are you able to speak now?
Cintra Sooknanan: Hi Olivier, yes. Do you hear me?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yes we do.
Cintra Sooknanan: Okay fantastic. Well I realize all members in this working group which is the WHOIS to the [inaudible 02:06:26] Team would be progressing quite well. We're on position 5 of the survey. So, requests made [inaudible 02:06:40] who is the Chair of [inaudible 02:06:44] to actually have a [inaudible 02:06:47] risk [inaudible 02:06:48] at the Costa Rica meeting. So my request is to bring process to ALAC and what you think as well as we need to see a [inaudible 02:06:59]. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cintra and I know that the schedule in Costa Rica is going to be extremely busy. I think I'll just let staff deal with this and we'll find out if we can still find some time there. Okay, well any comments, any other business or if that's not the case then I will be able to close this meeting. But of course prior to closing my closing remarks will be that this meeting has taken place for two hours and ten minutes for an agenda which I thought was quite light.
Well, the GNSO manages to go through heavier agenda in the allocated time which definitely just means that I need to speak to the GNSO Chair and find out how in the world he does it.
So, thanks very much to all of you and thanks for attending and having lasted that long and hopefully we will speak to you next month. And of course for all of those who are involved in the Working Groups then we'll probably speak later on this week.
Thanks everyone, this meeting is now closed.
