Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, everybody. This is the monthly ALAC conference call starting at 15:08 UTC. We have seventeen points in our agenda, it’s very long – we’re going to have to go pretty fast.
So the first thing we’ll do is to adoption of the agenda itself and if there is any other business or other amendments that anyone wishes to add. Yes, Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yes, I have one item that I can either bring up in the section on liaison reports or somewhere else, but it will require some urgent ALAC attention well before the next meeting, whenever it is. So it does need to be raised quickly.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I would suggest that that point… Is it related to GNSO work?
Alan Greenberg: It’s related to the GNSO and the RAA.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: So I would suggest that you bring it up when you give your GNSO report or when you have the microphone when we address the GNSO.
Alan Greenberg: That’s fine, thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, thank you, Olivier. I would like to add the point about how to shorten our calls.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. We’ll have that in any other business if we have time by that time. Okay, thanks.
So first thing we’ll start with is a roll call and I’ll let Heidi deal with it. Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, everyone – this is Heidi for the transcript record. On today’s call we have Olivier Crépin-Leblond. We have Tijani Ben Jemaa. We have Alan Greenberg, Cintra Sooknanan, Cheryl Langdon-Or, Eduardo Diaz, Evan Leibovitch, Ganesh Kumar, Jose Arcé, Natalia Encisco, Oksana Prykhodko, Rinalia Rahim, Ron Sherwood, Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro – again apologies for the pronunciation; Sandra Hoferichter, Sébastien Bachollet, Sergio Salinas Porto, Titi and I don’t have your last name, I’m sorry; and Yaovi Atohoun.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Titi Akinsanmi.
Heidi Ullrich: Thank you. And from staff we have Heidi Ullrich, myself; Sylvia Evanko, Matt Ashtiani, Seth Greene and Gisella Gruber. And again, many, many apologies for the lack of Spanish translation today and we will try to make sure that does not happen again in the future.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Heidi. And may I ask is anyone on the call whose name has not been said, has not been mentioned?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Edmon is noting his name wasn’t called out.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Ah, so Edmon Chung is to be added to the list of people who are on there. Anyone else? Tijani, your hand is still up. Your hand is not up anymore, okay. Thank you. And I see here Rinalia mentioned that she cannot get a dial-out, so for the record at the moment Rinalia is on the Adobe but is not on the call.
Right, so we’ll move immediately then to the review of the action items from the ALAC meetings in Dakar. And there are a lot of action items, and what we’ve tried here to change things a little bit to try and make a bit more sense out of the action items – and certainly to make them more easily manageable. So if I ask everyone to go over to the ALAC meetings in Dakar 23-37 page, and while I do that actually I’ve also remembered one thing that has not been mentioned. Have we mentioned that Wolf Ludwig has sent his apologies as well? So Wolf has sent his apologies.
Heidi Ullrich: Olivier, this is noted.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you. So as you can see, there is a new way of organizing these action items and what we’ll have to do, and we do have half an hour to deal with this is to go through each one of the action items but they have special boxes where the priority can be changed to high, medium or low; and they can also be assigned to someone, they have a creation date, etc. It’s a test at the moment.
I will ask everyone to be able to provide their feedback later on, on two things: whether those action items actually show up well on your screen, whether they get your computer to crash and that might be the case; whether they are more useful in how they are now than they were before or whether we should actually go back to the previous format. And if you could do that by email it would be very much appreciated.
And we will start with the wrap-up session. So well we’ll go on each one of these in turn; I have them also printed out. If there is anyone who needs to say anything please could they shout out or I’ll also switch to the Adobe room to see if anybody puts their hand up.
I see Sala is not able to follow the action items that I’m referring to. If you go over to our monthly conference call ALAC agenda, there is a link to the action items which are on item #3.
Right, so first thing – wrap-up sessions. Staff and Edmon are to coordinate the revitalization of the IDN Working Group.
Alan Greenberg: Olivier, it’s Alan – a point of order?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: On my screen they show up all without the details showing, where you have to click them one-by-one to show all the details. Is there a way to show all the details so we can just scroll through them?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Well, I don’t know. I have to ask Matt because he knows more about this than I do. Matt?
Matt Ashtiani: Hi, everybody, this is Matt. No, you actually have to click it. The only details that are not showing are the priority and assigned to and the date it was created.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, so you’ve got to click them one-by-one.
Matt Ashtiani: Yeah, but if you also look at it, I mean most of the AI’s also have…
Alan Greenberg: I don’t want to debate it; I’m just asking the question. Yes, okay. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: They have a little arrow on the left in order to be able to click them, yes. So the first one – wrap-up session. Staff and Edmon are to coordinate the revitalization of the IDN Working Group. I know that this is in progress. Edmon, since you’re on the call are you progressing on this or what’s the plan on that, please? You might be muted.
Edmon Chung: Sorry, I was on mute. So we had a meeting, a sort of ad-hoc meeting in Dakar. We set out some general parameters of some of the work we are looking into and a mailing list has been set up. I guess those who, thank you for those who participated there and we already created some work out of it; but I guess it’s open also to… I’d like to take this opportunity also to invite anyone else who’s interested to participate.
We’ll start working, using the mailing list to discuss the number of issues and we’ll start to get probably a monthly or regular call to get our thoughts together from ALAC on a number of IDN issues.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Edmon. So anyone interested in joining the group should email you, then.
Edmon Chung: Yep, please do.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. So I think we can mark this as being done in our next meeting, and now the ball is in your court – you’ll just have to pursue this. Next, the wrap-up session: relevant staff are to send notice of ICANN events taking place in the various regions to the local ALSes within those regions. Matt or Heidi, any update on this please?
Matt Ashtiani: Sure, I can do this. So the most recent news which I’m not sure if most people have seen is the regional advice for our new applicant ISOC Costa Rica has been accepted by the local region. So as of right now I’m just waiting for your official permission to start the vote, Olivier.
Heidi Ullrich: Hi, Olivier, this is Heidi. Just a quick correction: the regional advice has been received, not accepted. It’s been received from Jose, the Chair of LACRALO, so again the next step would be for the Chair of ALAC to have a vote start, a five-day vote start. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Heidi and Matt, but this is not the question I was asking. I see here “relevant staff are to send notice of ICANN events taking place in the various regions to the local ALSes within those regions.” We will be speaking about ALS applications in the next part.
Matt Ashtiani: Okay, I totally misheard you, Olivier. Yes, I can give you an update on that. Mandy Carver and I have been working together. I gave Mandy a list of local contacts for upcoming events and I think she is actually going to contact a region about an event coming up in Indonesia.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. Well, what I have seen are notes that were sent to the ALAC list that was actually pointing us to a website, which is the new gTLD website and that actually shows where the roadshow is going. I think that might be one of the answers but it looks like people have not seen this, so can I ask that we have this sent out again, please?
We’ll move on to the next because if we take three minutes on each one of those action items we’ll probably be here by tomorrow. So next one: Gisella to send a link to the ALAC of the roadshow events calendar, and that’s exactly what I mentioned and I think that was done.
Next: rule of procedure – the ALAC is to create an ad-hoc Rule of Procedure Working Group and Sylvia is to work with the Chair of the Working Group to establish the date and time for the first call. May I ask either staff or Cheryl to provide us with an update on this, please?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Certainly. We’ve only got as far as establishing the name of the Wiki page as I reported to the mid-month Executive Committee meeting. This is second (inaudible) off the rank in order of importance with the Task Force (inaudible) of the ALAC Review takes first priority. So it’s something that a call for membership will be going out, and seeing as it’s something that is going to be going on over the next few months I would hardly think is time critical.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. So we can downgrade this to a lower priority for the time being.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Next: IT to test and see if translation of the AFRALO mailing lists is feasible. Heidi, any feedback on this?
Heidi Ullrich: No, we will get in touch with IT on all of the next three action items that are IT-related and we will let you know.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: So I’ll read through the other two just for the record and then I’ll move on to the next thing since we don’t need to have answers on each one. IT to fix known bugs, HTML-encoded characters, text encoding, subject prepends on the current translation list; and IT staff to create a quick guide on how to write emails that will be translated better by the translation tool.
Next, the ICANN Academy: the ALAC is to create an ad-hoc working group to develop an ICANN Academy, expanding on the draft ICANN Academy proposal; and Heidi is to work with the Co-Chairs of the Working Group to establish the date and time of the first call. May we have an update on this, please?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, this is Heidi. The interim Co-Chairs are Sandra Hoferichter and Wolf Ludwig. I will contact them today to find out when they would like to have the first call and we will send out a Doodle this week to set that up.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Heidi, and we will have the selection of the Co-Chairs later on in this meeting in ítem #9 of our agenda. Next one: the Geographic Regions Review draft final report – Rob Hoggarth is to check the English and Spanish translations of the Falkland Islands Malvinas issue. Has there been any feedback on this, please?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, this is Heidi. Yes, he’s noted that the translation issue, the work of the Working Group and they will not be meeting in the future. Let me look for his detailed email and I will let you know more details. I don’t want to misspeak on what he said. So can you come back to me later at the end of the action items, Chair?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay I will, thank you.
Heidi Ullrich: Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: One thing that I did do was to check the actual report, and for some reason while the main report has been translated in the six UN languages the Appendix has not, and what I did notice is the Malvinas Falklands were noticed only on Appendix B which has not been translated. So it is a question but let’s leave it on the side.
Heidi Ullrich: Olivier? I have the email if you would like me to read Rob’s response?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Please, Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay. This is Rob Hoggarth’s reply to my follow-up on this point: “At this point I can only confirm that the feedback/input has been received and recorded. Any decisions regarding the content of the final report is by the Working Group, not staff. The Working Group will not be formally meeting until after the comment period is over, December 19th, so they will not be discussing comments received or be making any decisions regarding the final content of their final report until after that time.”
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Heidi, and we’ll move on to the next one – the development of ALAC metrics where a working group has to be established to study the idea of putting together a set of metrics, design it. Cheryl is to be the Chair of the working group and Gisella is to follow. Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, does that need to be wrapped in with rules of procedure?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: So we can bring the two together, right. Make a note of that, Matt, to put the ALAC metrics and the rules of procedure under the same heading. And of course we’ve got two more under that with the development of ALAC metrics, one being ALAC requests that the NomCom start a process for recalling their selectees. I can give a feedback on this one. We have spoken to the NomCom. We as the Executive Committee was invited to go and speak to the NomCom on the Friday or the Thursday just before we left Dakar to tell them what we needed.
And we have mentioned the recalling of selectees. The reply that has been received from the Nominating Committee is that they appoint people; they do not recall people. So the ball is back in our court to choose how we want to proceed with NomCom selectees. This item is to be continued. Alan, you have your hand up.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I just wanted to note that there is bylaw precedent for a group removing its own NomCom appointees. We have the right; all we need to do is decide that we want to do it and decide how, thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Which is why if I may, it needs to be wrapped in with the metrics and the review of rules.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl, and if I can remind everyone to say their name when they start, speaking for the record.
Alan Greenberg: That was Alan Greenberg that spoke before.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Alan. Right, next – a liaison to the aforementioned Working Group is to be appointed during the next ALAC meeting. That is on our agenda further down so we will be speaking about this in a moment.
Next – the DSSA Working Group update, Matt to send the details of the webpages that have information on the DSSA as well as all of the material on these sites that is publicly available to the At-Large lists. Any update on this, Matt, please?
Matt Ashtiani: Sorry, Olivier, no.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Ongoing for the future. We have nice music in the background as well. Next, the At-Large Working Group’s next steps: Wiki pages to be created under common nomenclature. Any feedback on this? I see everyone jumping up and down on that.
Heidi Ullrich: This is Heidi. Matt and I will be working this next week on that, on setting that up.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. Then templates for conflicts of interest and statements of interest to be set up, and we actually have a discussion that will take place during our call here. So we’ll punt this to a later item now. Alan, your hand-
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, just a question: in the details they have “assigned to,” and for instance, the Wiki pages to be created is assigned to Tijani. Is that correct or are these assignments random in this document? I would have thought that’s a staff assignment, not Tijani.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: On my screen it doesn’t say that it’s assigned to Tijani, so that’s an interesting thing.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, it does.
Alan Greenberg: On mine it does.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You need to drop down.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: At-Large Working Groups’ next steps, Wiki pages to be created under common nomenclature.
Alan Greenberg; It says “medium priority, assigned to Tijani.”
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Very interesting.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: No, I don’t see that. I don’t see that on my screen.
Alan Greenberg: Alright, let’s not discuss it now but something curious is happening.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: But Alan, by the way-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier, Cheryl here. Alan and I are obviously more actively opening and closing the dropdown menus and the submenus under each of these items. If you push a little pointy triangle a few phases to the right you’ll find that that information is there, and not only that but randomly assigned.
Alan Greenberg: Or at least we’re seeing it there.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, well if it’s just for you and me, Alan, that’s okay too.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I think I have found the reason for this, and bear in mind we are just learning about this system. I clicked a little box on the left-hand side, there’s a little tick box and I clicked that, and miraculously the name that was first – I think it was Heidi and Matt – is now replaced with my name on this thing.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, let’s not discuss it – we have a problem. It’s Alan speaking.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I think it’s a bug, I guess – a bug or a feature, one or the other.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Olivier?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: May I… I think I understand why, because I clicked on this box before but I reconnected it afterwards. So perhaps my name was on there. And why I clicked on it, because I am not sure that it is redundant with the third after this one, talking about the Confluence and particular working group regions, and the more uniform accessible manner. So I think that those two action items have to be merged. You will find also my name there.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, it’s Alan. I just clicked on the little square box and now my name is there.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: So that’s it, okay.
Alan Greenberg: Back to the scheduled agenda.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you and we just notice, we’re learning about this system and it looks as though there are unknown features with regard to that. I do notice in the chat a question from Sergio Salinas with regards to the Falklands, and Sergio, would you be able to explain? Because I’m not quite sure I understand your question: you’d like to take the Falklands and integrate the working group.
Okay, so Sergio yeah, fine, we’ll read it on the chat and I can read it afterwards. In the meantime if I can continue… So At-Large Working Groups’ next steps: staff to send out a call for volunteers on standing working groups. Any update on this, Matt, Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: I’m sorry, which one?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Next steps: staff to send out a call for volunteers on standing working groups, and then there’s also staff to organize Confluence and in particular the working group pages in a more uniform and accessible manner. So…
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, this is Heidi. For the call for new members of the standing working groups, we are waiting for the Task Force that is now started who are going to be having their first call shortly to let us know which of those working groups we should make calls for first. In terms of the Confluence, staff will be working on that shortly.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. That remains then a standing AI, and I hope that we can close it on the next ALAC call.
So the next one – At-Large Working Groups’ next steps: At-Large members to identify member skillsets to more easily find group experts, and I see here Sala to lead on this. Sala, do you have some feedback on that yet or is this ongoing?
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro: Very quickly, I’ll design something today and send it out to staff, but prior to that I haven’t done anything and just attempted my first Wiki thing this week as well.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Sala, and so the ball is in your court on this one – please proceed. Next, looking at the list, we have At-Large Regional Leadership Meeting. Sylvia Evanko is to organize a Secretariat call to discuss the creation of criteria for inactive or non-quorate ALSes. May we have an update, please?
Sylvia Evanko: Hello, this is Sylvia. I will be contacting the leaderships to organize a first call to discuss this issue. So this will be sent out in an email and I will set up a convenient time for everyone, for the leadership to establish this.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you very much. Any comments? I don’t see anyone else on the comments so we’ll move on then. At-Large outreach/inreach – Mandy Carver is to respond to questions posed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr on the following Wiki page, which is the At-Large questions for Global Partnerships and Communications. I gather Mandy is not with us but Cheryl is the person who should have received an answer, so Cheryl, can you please say a few words about this?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Cheryl Langdon-Orr for the transcript record. I have not received a formal reply but this was actually taken into question with nudges out of the face-to-face meeting, and I would assume when a report comes back it would come back to you as Chair of the meeting held in Dakar, rather than via me.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Or perhaps it would come via Heidi to you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. What we’ll do is we’ll ask Heidi to follow up with Mandy, please, so that’s another action item as a follow up of this that can be batched with this one. Heidi, is this okay?
Heidi Ullrich: Absolutely. Actually we’re planning on doing that today and tomorrow, following up on all the staff-related action items. So that one already is going to be done.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Excellent. So the next one – Scott Pinzon to send At-Large a list of the new gTLD outreach events planned by country and region as well as those that have already taken place – I’ve seen that list, and in fact I think it was related to the earlier action item which Gisella mentioned: the roadshow events calendar to be sent to ALAC.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, I will put that link again into the Skype chat today. It’s actually on the New gTLD page – I’ll put that in right now.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you. Cheryl, your hand is still up.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, I thought I put it down – I’ll try again. Okay.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Now it’s down, thank you. So next: Olivier to prepare a more formal podcast with the assistance of Scott Pinzon for distribution during ICANN meetings, and then also ALAC to determine what its aims and objectives are for an At-Large podcast and Olivier to lead.
I have not recorded the podcast yet; we haven’t had the time so far. However, I am asking everyone here to please email the ALAC list with your ideas of what our aims and objectives are for an At-Large podcast. I could send an email out to remind you – in fact I’ll do that. And ask everyone because ultimately I don’t think I’m the person that should decide about what our objectives and what our aims are. It is really a group exercise. So I’ll send this out and record this as an action item for myself.
At-Large meeting with the GAC – the ALAC and the GAC should create a joint working group to draft a joint statement on conflict of interests. The GAC is to confirm at a later date if this is in fact an action item. It was an action item on our books. Have we had any reply or anything from the GAC to confirm whether this is an action item? Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: I’ve been in contact with the Secretariat support and I have not had feedback yet. I will send another reminder today.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you. Next, the ALAC is to liaise with members of the Board to discuss outreach. I believe this has not started yet. Is there anything? I see this is assigned to Matt. Silence certainly confirms that the ALAC has not liaised with members of the Board to discuss outreach yet.
Matt Ashtiani: Olivier, it’s Matt. Sorry, I was on mute. Sorry. It’s assigned to me because I typed it into the list so it automatically will assign it to me first, but I don’t think it was actually ever really fully assigned to anyone.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Please assign this one to me, then, and I will be in touch with the Chair of the Board and also ask Sébastien. And I will carbon copy Sébastien on this. Any comments? And I can see a comment from Sébastien on the chat – discussing this with the Chair of the Public Participation Committee, which is a very good idea indeed. So yes please, let’s record this as an action item for myself.
Next – At-Large meeting with the ICANN Board. Staff is to send the Board of ICANN a package of ALAC’s views on the various WHOIS issues. Heidi, has this been done?
Heidi Ullrich: No, it has been now assigned to Matt and he will be working with Cheryl to get that off to the Board. This is Heidi.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Heidi. Next – staff to create a Wiki workspace for the collection of At-Large views on the CEO search. The comments will be synthesized and the results will be sent to the Board. Heidi, an update on this please.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, that has been created. It’s actually going to be discussed on today’s call. It is called the At-Large 360 Proposal page.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Excellent, thank you. Next – At-Large meeting with Compliance regarding the non-lawyer’s guide to the RAA. The ALAC requests this guide to be upgraded in terms of simplified language, and Cheryl has put her hand up. Cheryl, you have the floor.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you – Cheryl Langdon-Orr for the transcript record. Just to note that again, as reported to the mid-month Executive Committee meeting, APRALO raised this and Holly Raiche was assigned the role of putting together an example because if not Compliance will not understand what we’re talking about; example if not a draft of it because as I also reported to the mid-month meeting Holly is on vacation until Wednesday of this week, so this should be a lower priority and an ongoing item – not reportable on at this meeting at all.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl, noted and we will follow up with Holly when she returns. Next, the At-Large meeting with Compliance: frequently asked questions on Compliance are to be compiled and posted by Compliance. Is there any feedback on this, Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: Hi, this is Heidi. The staff will be following up with the Compliance staff in the next few days on all the action items related to Compliance.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. Next: the At-Large Improvements issue of sanctions is to be discussed within the At-Large Improvements Task Force. I think that can be said as done.
At-Large Improvements: Cheryl Langdon-Orr is to allocate the recommendation and proposals to standing working groups or to the At-Large Improvements Task Force. That I believe is also on its way.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I may, Mr. Chairman – Cheryl Langdon-Orr for the record.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The way that’s written bothers me slightly. Cheryl Langdon-Orr would love to be given the supreme task of being in charge of everything, and in fact that is the role of the Task Force to do that – not me. I’m Chairing the Task Force.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: So this might have been lost in transcription.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (laughing) I’d be happy to do it but I do think it’s actually one of the agenda items we have at our first meeting.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Cheryl. So let’s consider this as done and sent over to the working group, the Task Force.
Next – assigning of reports at non-At-Large meetings, and the issue of meeting reports submissions is to be included in ALAC metrics. I believe that can also be sent to the Task Force. They will be able to deal with this, so could all of these action items please be packaged in a package that the Task Force will be able to work with?
Matt Ashtiani: Sure.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you. Next – oh, we’re reaching the end of the thing and we haven’t even finished a full hour yet, that’s great. Any other business: the ExCom is to develop three to five questions for the expression of interest for the search of the .mobi liaison. And now I have a couple of words to say on this one.
We actually for the time being are still searching for not only the liaison but .mobi itself, so the update on this one is until we’ve actually found someone to speak to at .mobi… And Heidi, have we received any response in the past 24 hours?
Heidi Ullrich: I have not seen anything. I will again look in my inbox and I will follow up with members of the Policy Board if I have not heard from the .mobi people.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you. We contacted the, I guess it was the Chair or the CEO or the person who was in our records for .mobi. That person has since left .mobi and therefore has not replied. But the replacement people, the general address – an email was sent. We didn’t get any answer to it and now we’re looking at the actual Board, there’s some kind of an advisory group of which [Andreas Scatza], who was our previous .mobi liaison, was one of the constituents. And we’re hoping that some of the participants in that advisory group know who to speak to within .mobi.
I would suggest that this action item therefore be held off for the time being. We do not need to develop questions because we’re particularly busy at this point in time. Cheryl, you have raised your hand.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Cheryl Langdon-Orr for the record. Just perhaps something which might inspire the .mobi people to respond to staff or yourself as Chairman would be a reminder that they would be failing to comply with their contract with ICANN unless they have a current liaison from At-Large into the policy advisory board. And before we (inaudible) they need to discuss it with you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl, and I think we will be discussing this offline. I understand from having scoured the .mobi website that .mobi is now also a wholly-owned subsidiary of Afilias, so certainly a number of changes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s getting tricky but that’s still part of their…
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Correct, yeah. Okay, thank you. So moving back, I was told that we did forget one thing. First, I want to put aside the next .mobi item which is a call for the new ALAC .mobi liaison is to be made by mid-November and should include the duties of this position. ALAC is to appoint the .mobi liaison on their November call – so neither of these two action items are going to take place this time around since we don’t know what is going on. We’ll put this to the future.
And going back a couple of action items, I have skipped one inadvertently, three action items earlier: half the exercise of the At-Large Improvements Task Force is to be held during the ALAC meeting scheduled for Costa Rica in March, 2012. Cheryl, you have raised your hand?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you – Cheryl for the transcript record. Instead of saying “Yes, yes, yes and yes again” at every single mid-month and monthly meeting of the ALAC between now and Costa Rica. What does a girl have to do to just get that as a noted ongoing item?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. We’ll have to figure out how to put this as a noted ongoing item with the technology that we are afforded, but once we manage to figure that out that will be done I guess. So Matt, please note this as an ongoing standing item.
Now, any other business: a call for the new ALAC .mobi liaison, so this one is done – sorry. So the next one: the ALAC meeting with the NCSG. The ALAC and NCSG are to consider the creation of a joint workspace. This, I believe, hasn’t really been worked on yet. May I ask our NCSG liaison to say a few words about this? Evan?
Evan Leibovitch: Hi, Olivier, this is Evan. In terms of a joint workspace, to be honest with you right now the NCUC is going through a little bit of internal post-Dakar thrashing and I’ll be looking for the right time to suggest it. Also, there has been a meeting requested by the NPOC – the Non-Profit Organization Constituency, which is a component of NCSG. I wanted to get that meeting done and had before we start thinking about a larger path. Right now the NCSG is rearranging some of its own internal mailing lists from what I can see, and so my preference right now is to see the dust settle before starting something new.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. So we’ll then put this aside and keep this as an ongoing action item.
Evan Leibovitch: Yep, just put it as pending for now. It’s still on the burner, it’s just right now waiting for a few other things to happen first.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. So we’ve reached the end of our open action items list. We have a few recently-closed action items and I thought we would quickly read through those. I’m not asking for any feedback on them or maybe I will open the floor at the end of all of them if anybody wishes to add anything.
The first one was the consumer metrics, with staff to contact Garth Bruen and obtain the statistics for the next Consumer Metrics Working Group meeting, specifically the number of registrars. And that list has been received or a link to that list has been received, so progress is going on.
Then rapid session – Rod Beckstrom is to request Communications staff to provide Wolf Ludwig with material on the New gTLD Program in German, and this is also progressing. And I understand that there is an event that is going to take place in, is it Germany or Switzerland? I wasn’t quite sure but in German.
Oksana Prykhodko: Both.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: In both. And I’m sorry, who is this?
Oksana Prykhodko: Oksana.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Oh, thank you, Oksana. So in both Germany and in Switzerland, and so the material has been sent in German. Next we have, and I see that Sondra has also said that the material has been received – fantastic, thank you.
Next: Christina Rodriguez, Heidi Ullrich and Olivier are to agree on minimum participation for work group interpretation. There was a call that took place last night and I understand that a formal announcement will be made by Christina. I understand that the current setup of requiring three people in a language channel for that call to be interpreted in that language still remains so, and that’s of course due to minimum participation requirements. And frankly, looking at the size of our regions I personally don’t think that three people is a very, very high barrier.
Tijani, I’ve noticed that your hand is up but I will wait until going through the whole list and then open the floor. So next – Olivier is to send a note to the Chair of the ICANN Board that the At-Large representatives were for the second time put into poor hotel accommodation, and that has been done.
We have received feedback from the Chair, Steve Crocker, who has said he was particularly sorry about this. I understand that he has shared this document also with several members of the Board and a couple of whom came back to me, telling me that they also had problems on their side – perhaps not accommodation-wise but a few of their members ended up indisposed and ill, probably due to the food or other matters.
And then the APRALO monthly meeting: Matt Ashtiani is to set up an At-Large workspace for all of the IDN Variant public comments with links to each of the individual case studies. That has been done, a statement was written and the statement was filed; and I urge everyone who has not voted yet on this statement to please take the time to vote. I think the closing of the vote is on the 24th so you just have a short time until voting closes.
Then the additional volunteers will be sought for the At-Large Improvements Task Force – that’s also been done. Wolf Ludwig to send the following link to the relevant parties, and that’s the one on the newgtld.ch, the Swiss website dealing with the new gTLD applications. And then finally, Matt Ashtiani to send members in Dakar a hash tag to use on Twitter for reports.
The floor is now open for questions and suggestions. I see that Alan has got his hand up, so Alan and then Tijani afterwards. So Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yep, it’s Alan Greenberg. Olivier, I don’t believe I saw a copy of the final hotel report you sent to the Board unless I missed it. Can you send it to the internal list so the rest of us have a copy of the final version?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Alan. I believe I did send it to the internal list.
Alan Greenberg: I saw the draft copy, I don’t believe I saw the final unless we’re having an email problem.
Evan Leibovitch: Olivier, this is Evan. I think what happened is there were a couple of final comments that you had from other people in the hotel, and I think what Alan is talking about is I don’t think we saw the very last version that incorporated those very last comments. It probably wasn’t a major change from what you sent to us but I think Alan’s right that we didn’t see the final one.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Right, thank you. So then I will take it as an action item for myself to forward the email that I sent to everyone. I thought I had actually sent this – strange.
Alan Greenberg: Well, I may have missed it. I certainly didn’t see it, thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Alan, for alerting me to this; and thank you, Evan, for that. I will as soon as this meeting is over forward the full report that was sent to the Board and sent to Rod, sent to David Olive, sent also to various members of staff in Constituency Travel. Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, thank you Olivier. I’d like first to confirm what Alan just said. I didn’t receive the last one after our last comments – I didn’t see the final report. This being said, I’d like to say that in Singapore, Christina told us that even if it is only one member of the working group who needs interpretation we can do it, and we were surprised. Me, Olivier and the others, we were surprised because we thought there was this rule of three-person minimum.
So I don’t know why she now changed her mind. Is it a misunderstanding? I don’t know.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, Tijani, your point is taken. I’m not able to provide you an answer on this at this moment. I see also that Sergio has put a note on the chat where he mentions that they had requested for the minimum for interpretation to be two people, and he’s asked what’s happened with that. I think we’ll just have to wait for the answer from Christina on this, but what we discussed yesterday definitely pointed to three and not less than three.
Any other comments or questions? And if we don’t then we can move on to the rest of the agenda. I don’t hear anyone. So we’ll move on to the next part of the agenda… Someone got disconnected, yes.
So yes, we now have a review of current ALS applications, and there is one ALS application – ISOC Costa Rica, the Internet Society Costa Rica. And the regional advice has been received. Now had we had interpretation in Spanish I would have asked Jose Arcé to say a few words about this. I don’t know if Jose, if you’re on the call do you wish to say a few words about the outcome of your region, please?
You might be muted. Jose Arcé?
Heidi Ullrich: Olivier, this is Heidi.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Jose has had to go due to work requirements.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you for telling me now. Okay, so then I guess I can say the advice from the region has been to accept the ISOC Costa Rica to join as an ALS, and so I’ve instructed staff to start a vote as soon as our meeting is finished and start a vote of the ALAC to ratify the ALS application.
Next, Tijani you have your hand up?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, please – Tijani for the record. I would like to ask the staff if the application of the ISOC Cameroon reached their services, because the Chair of the ISOC Cameroon told me that he sent his application and this was before Dakar.
Heidi Ullrich: Tijani, this is Heidi.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, please.
Heidi Ullrich: We have received that but we are going to be contacting you to discuss the history of this proposal, this application before moving forward with it. So we will do that within a few days.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. And I noticed that on the call, on the chat Titi is asking how the vote is to take place. The vote for an ALS application takes place as an online ALAC vote so all ALAC members receive an online ballot and will be asked whether they accept the recommendations from the Regional At-Large Organization to either allow or reject the application.
So in that case, the advice would be to allow the application and to accept it, and so the question that will be asked is “Do you accept…” I don’t have the wording…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Regional advice?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Regional advice, there we go. Thank you, Cheryl – you’ve seen a lot more of these than I have in my time. Right, so next the reports and we have At-Large reports from working groups. I point you all from our main agenda to the RALOs and liaisons’ Wiki page, also to the ALAC monthly reports. We’re not going to read through them – I just wanted to thank the liaisons for having filed their report and I ask everyone to read through those. It is interesting.
You can actually see what is going on in the GNSO, what is going on in the ccNSO, what is going on as far as IDNs are concerned; and then of course another point I would like to make is in regards to the ALAC monthly reports – some regions have been better than others at filing their monthly reports. I absolutely urge all the regions to write their monthly reports. It’s very hard for one region’s members to know what is going on in another region, and sometimes having a summary of what is going on in the other region is ever so helpful.
It certainly helps in inter-RALO discussions, and I know from speaking with some of you in Dakar you think that regions should speak a lot more with each other, and that probably would be the first step – having all regions file their reports.
So next we will have the policy advice development calendar – items for decision in the new business section , so #6. And I invite you all to have a look at the ICANN public comments page. We actually have a list on our agenda with all of the different current comments or public comments that are open for us. I know, Carlton, you’re not Rapporteur anymore but you’re knowledgeable about all of these public comments. Would you be able to say a few words please and run us through this?
Female: I don’t think Carlton’s on the call.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Oh, that’s an oversight for me.
Evan Leibovitch: Actually, I’m sure he’s not.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: He is not, and in fact – goodness, I hadn’t even seen this. In fact, can we also record Carlton’s apology in that case because I do recall him having sent a message somewhere on the Skype thing that he might have problems joining due to travelling.
Right, so in which case I’ll go through them and ask each one of the people who have been tagged as leading to say a few words. The first one: Framework of Interpretation Working Group, an interim report and this has been assigned to Cheryl Langdon-Orr to lead. The deadline is the 1st of December. Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Actually, no, nothing other than the Wiki pages has been done.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No comments received, no interactions have happened. It’s not exactly swamped.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Not exactly swamped at the moment, okay. Can I ask everyone to have a look? Do we have a link to that page?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I can try to find it.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: This is just an action item for staff. Let me just ask staff: when we have policy advice development calendar, rather than having links to the ICANN public comments themselves where we could really go to the ICANN public comment page – could we actually have links to our own working spaces where we actually write the comments and so on? Because this here is totally unhelpful.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, Olivier, this is Heidi.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, we do normally do that so apologies for not having done that for this particular one.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Heidi. But I don’t see any links for any one. Do you mean none of them here?
Heidi Ullrich: We don’t (interference) maybe last week. Is that correct?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I have a repeat please?
Evan Leibovitch: Yeah, the line was garbled.
Heidi Ullrich: Sorry, I’m asking Matt if that’s correct. I don’t believe that the policy forum, the policy comments that are listed here have had Wiki pages set up yet. Matt?
Matt Ashtiani: Hello?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Matt.
Matt Ashtiani: Yeah, hi, this is Matt for the record. I have to double check; it looks like there’s quite a few. I can’t give it all to you just off the top of my head. I think for most of you we have pages already.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier, if I may?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, please Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Cheryl Langdon-Orr for the transcript record. The Framework of Interpretation Working Group will be putting out chapter-by-chapter in sequence early drafting of what the consensus in the work group is of hundreds of terms. At the moment, the one that is out is the “consent” terminology. The one that will be coming out between now and the end of the year will be on “significant interested parties” and that terminology and definitions.
I would encourage ALAC to not consider the need to react to every one of these unless there is a problem; unless there is something in them that your ALSes or regions believe, or of course that ALAC believes, is an oversight or an issue. I for one am perfectly happy for the ALAC to simply say “Job well done, thank you so much.” But the regions and the ALSes need to look at it and make sure that that is the case. I just don’t want to get into a loop of having to respond to what is going to be a pretty heavy number of outputs from, for example, the FOI Work Group.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. Next on the list is Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I strongly support what Cheryl said, not just with relation to this one; the one exception being if we believe there will be significant negative comments from some people and we want to reinforce our positive comments – a comment is warranted. But other than that, let’s control the amount of work we give ourselves, thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Agreed, Alan.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Alan. Any other comments? I would say personally I totally agree with you and in fact, the fact that we don’t have to answer to each and every public comment has actually been expressed by many, many ALAC members and even non-ALAC members. Even some Board members have said “Why don’t you choose the comments that you make?” and I think it is only important that we are able to choose the important items for ourselves.
So next: the Registry Stakeholder Group alternative proposal for a Continuity Operations Instrument. And I take it by the way, as the Framework of Interpretation Working Group we neither have the time nor the bandwidth nor have this high enough on our agenda at this point in time to produce a statement, so we will not be producing a statement.
And then the Registry Stakeholder alternative proposal for a Continuity Operations Instrument – does anyone have anything to say about this please? This was assigned to Avri but I don’t see her on the call at the moment.
Now, I have received a note from Ganesh, I think it was from Ganesh who mentioned that if there is a statement to be drafted he might have something to contribute to this. Ganesh, do you want to say a few words, please? Ganesh, you might be muted. Unmuting is *7.
Evan Leibovitch: I did hear him on the call at the beginning but I don’t see him on Adobe anymore.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Have we lost Ganesh?
Heidi Ullrich: Olivier, this is Heidi. Let me look into that and I will let you know.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you. Next, the IDN ccPDP WG2 draft final report.
Alan Greenberg: Olivier, it’s Alan. Can I speak?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Oh yes, sorry, you wanted to speak on the last thing.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, on the previous item I don’t think we need to wait for an ALAC meeting. If Ganesh has something to comment on that he should be contacting Avri directly, and we should advise him to do that.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. So next, the IDN ccPDP WG 2 draft final report. Edmon Chung and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to lead. Will Edmon or Cheryl please say a few words on this?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’ll cede to Edmon because he is the IDN liaison.
Edmon Chung: Well, I’m actually not on that group so I’ll look into the statement and I’ll probably put the draft together, but Cheryl, I’m not sure if you are?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m not on that group either, Edmon. I’m in Group 1.
Edmon Chung: I think they created the group… Right, right, we’re both in Group 1 and they created this Group 2, and I don’t think they ever invited other people. So I’ll look into it and draft a number of points, and circulate.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Edmon. And for the record, who is “they?”
Edmon Chung: The ccNSO. I think that there were some discussions from the Work Group 1 and then it tangent-ed off and Work Group 2 was created without inviting other participants – I believe that was the case. But I don’t want to speak further to it until I find out specifically.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. So we’ll leave that in your hands, Edmon, and I see you both lead on this. We’ll leave it with you and with Cheryl to find out what that group is doing. And we’ll also leave it to you to choose whether we want to comment on this or not. And Cheryl, yes?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I may, it is one of those which unless Edmon has as IDN liaison a visceral reaction to the report I would be strongly suggesting that it can be a “We note and continue to support all things that make IDNs move into the root as fast as possible/ to benefit the next six billion people who need to use them.” It’s one of those rather good-type statements I would think unless he has a visceral reaction to something that is in the report.
Edmon Chung: Right, agreed.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Understood. The ball is in your court. Next, work continues to increase: developing economies participation in New gTLD Program, otherwise known as the Joint Applicant Support Working Group final report. There was discussion about this and about At-Large wishing perhaps to say a few more words or press with a few issues on this. Avri Doria and Carlton Samuels to lead: I see neither Carlton or Avri on the call.
Avri Doria: I’m here.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Ooh, Avri is here now. Avri, could you say a few words on this please? Do we need to have a statement from the ALAC on this?
Avri Doria: I don’t know yet. Certainly there hasn’t been a bottom-up request for it. I think we’re still in the process of talking about it and seeing what gets going. I think yesterday out of the New gTLD Working Group several people did bring up issues but whether we need to press further I think is still under discussion, and so we would bring that to you. So I guess it’s an alert that maybe yes but we haven’t gotten to the point of asking yet.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. Well thank you, Avri. I just want to remind you the deadline for this is the 16th of December. If we wish to respect procedure it would be great to find out as soon as possible or decide as soon as possible. I understand there is a call coming up with the JAS Group.
Avri Doria: Right, we have another call next Monday and hopefully we’ll get some discussion on it in the list, and then make the request one way or another. Part of what will drive whether we make the request is whether we actually have a letter drafted.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. Thank you.
Avri Doria: But we will come to you with a recommended letter if that’s what we’re asking.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Fantastic. And now that you’re on there-
Avri Doria: Yeah, sorry – I didn’t know I was supposed to be here. Forgive me for being late.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: No worries. Cheryl has put her hand up – Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Cheryl for the transcript record. I accept everything in terms of what Avri said and letters to come, etc., etc., but in the absence of anything this is another one of those… As a CO, as one of the two chartering organizations of the JAS Work Group with a significant proportion of the active JAS Work Group members coming from the At-Large community if not ALAC specifically; this is one of those I really question do we need to comment on what is basically our own report, unless there is a matter such as outstanding items or issues we believe still need to be looked at.
So it should be a fairly small I’d have thought response, if any. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. Avri?
Avri Doria: Yes, by saying what I said I was saying basically that the New gTLD Working Group, certainly there are things that ALAC may want to respond to, for example there’s a whole notion that presented itself in the GNSO motion. But I don’t know that there’s been an equivalent ALAC, which is what is the role of the JAS Group going further? In the GNSO motion there was some mention about follow-through… If the ALAC wants to accompany that, and certainly if ALAC wants to prod them on anything separate from the issues that are coming up in the New gTLD Group that makes sense.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Avri. And I note that the JAS Working Group has not been disbanded yet. So it’s not dissolved, yeah?
Avri Doria: Nope.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: It isn’t, so fine. Any other comments on this issue or… Now that you’re on the call, Avri, I was going to run back to the Registry Stakeholder Group alternative proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument; just mentioning that I understand Ganesh Kumar might have something to contribute to this. We’ve had no other interest from ALAC members or At-Large members on the call here. Do you have a few words to say about this or are you actually thinking that the ALAC doesn’t need to have a statement on this.
Avri Doria: This is Avri. I don’t know how to answer whether ALAC should or shouldn’t have a statement on it. I do think it’s an important proposal because I do think it makes the possibility of starting a new gTLD more open to more communities and this is not only talking about the JAS-qualified applications.
However, it does also help JAS support applicants, because if that were to be allowed it at least makes it a much more reachable threshold for them to meet as opposed to now it could be a much higher threshold. So as I say, it’s not for me to say whether ALAC should or shouldn’t but it does seem to be a worthwhile proposal though it does have the flaw of being one size fits all. So if someone were to comment they could both support it and be critical. Thanks.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Avri. Next we have Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I’ll support the content of what Avri said and say that I believe we must put a comment in on this. It was an issue that was talked about a lot prior to JAS, it was certainly talked about in JAS. We didn’t come into any resolution. This may not be the best answer but it’s certainly better than what was proposed in the Applicant Guidebook, so I think a short concise statement perhaps identifying the weak points should be made. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Alan. And so may I ask that you, Alan, Avri and Ganesh, liaise with each other by email so as to decide on the next step on this?
Alan Greenberg: It’s Alan speaking. I’ll certainly comment. I’ve got enough on my plate, and I’m about to volunteer for one or two others but I’ll certainly comment if something is drafted.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you, Alan.
Matt Ashtiani: Olivier, is that an AI?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thanks to Avri, and yes, Matt, that is an AI.
Matt Ashtiani: Can you please restate it as you’d like it recorded?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Alan, Avri and Ganesh to liaise with each other – and I guess Avri will take the lead on this – to decide on whether a statement is to be written in response to the comments about Registry Stakeholder Group’s alternative proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument.
I realize I may be saying this very fast…
Alan Greenberg: Olivier, you’re breaking up very badly – it’s Alan.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yeah, it’s that time of the afternoon.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m having trouble hearing.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: So is this better?
Alan Greenberg: Yes.
Matt Ashtiani: The last thing I heard was they were to liaise with each other to decide on whether a statement is to be written…
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: …about Registry Stakeholder Group alternative proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument.
Matt Ashtiani: Okay, thank you.
Avri Doria: This is Avri, sorry I didn’t put my hand up.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Avri?
Avri Doria: In response to what I think you were saying when you were breaking up, yes – I was already writing up my own response so I’ll take a subversion of that and put it on… I don’t know how I send it to you all but I’ll do something with it so that others can comment on it. I’m not on an ALAC list; I don’t know where you put this stuff but someone will tell me what to do with it.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: If I can ask Matt to please tell you and point you to the Wiki page, etc., etc.
Avri Doria: …and tell me what to do with it. Okay, yeah, I’ll find my way. Thanks, Matt.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you. Right, so we’ll move on to the next thing: the Geographic Regions Review draft report. Tijani Ben Jemaa is to lead on this. I know that there is a lot of input that is probably going to arrive on your desk, Tijani. You have the floor, Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay, thank you Olivier. This public comment is particularly important for me and for a lot of people because I do think that the review of the geographic regions missed the main objective of the geographic region implementation at ICANN, which is the diversity, the linguistic and cultural diversity inside the Board.
So I will draft the statement, I will do the first draft and I will advise of this when it is completed. I think that it will be done before the beginning of December or at least it should be the first days of December. And then I will put it on the Wiki.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, Tijani, so third day of December, thank you. I know you will receive much input, and I ask everyone including Latin America who I know has had a call specifically on geographic regions yesterday to contribute to this. And I hope you can all hear me.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I am using Skype at the moment and so sometimes there is a bit of packet loss. Okay, so next Board Technical Relations Working Group, BTR WG final report. Deadline – 30th of December. I must say I’m not quite sure what that is about. Perhaps if we have Sébastien on the line he might be able to tell us a few words about this. Sébastien?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ask him to unmute.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: You’re still muted, Sébastien.
Sébastien Bachollet: I tried to unmute.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Ah, now we can hear you. Welcome back.
Sébastien Bachollet: Thank you. Frankly, the question we ask here, this is one of these strange groups set up in ICANN 2.0 with the three organizations who would say to have a Board member but not too much else. And the question is how the Board, but more than the Board – the ICANN – get any feedback from the technical organization? And the three are the Registries, the IETF and one (inaudible), one Telco – [ITSE], sorry. And the question about [ITSE] may be a European organization but acting as a worldwide organization, and what we are waiting from ITU is in respect to a technical question.
And I don’t know if ALAC and At-Large want to comment on that, but at least I think it would be useful to know if you think it’s important that ICANN get inputs from the (inaudible) besides from IETF who have already messages to the Board; or sides from whichever, liaisons to the Board. If you think it’s important, which organization of the three, one of the three or just one or two of them. (inaudible) I think it’s not so much like (inaudible). It’s more how we get as an organization inputs from the technical side of the internet.
And if I may, again I think we need to be also thinking not just as a liaison to the Board but how you get inputs for example from the (inaudible), from ITU as an end user which is (inaudible) in this arena.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Sébastien. What I might suggest, because I think it would be hard for us to make a quick decision here – what I might suggest is that the ExCom, who will meet tomorrow, who will speak tomorrow in a call has a look at this and perhaps try and think about whether we should send a comment on this or not. Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Olivier, Cheryl for the transcript record. As a liaison I will be dialed into that ExCom call. I was interviewed in the process of this review by JAS, not the Joint Applicant Support but the consulting firm called JAS that did this review. The recommendations from it, because I read through it as they were happening, if memory serves basically said things like “The ICANN Board should work with the technical groups that they liaise with.” And that set of recommendations, which I think there were only two or three of them, has gone out for public comment.
So I’m happy to brief the ExCom on that but I doubt it would be something than a [motherhood] statement coming back if anything.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. Next, and now I wish – because we are again really running out of time, and we are spending a lot of time on this policy advice development calendar – the last three: the .asia one- and two-character allocation proposal. This one is going to be tough, and well we can’t send over to Edmon I guess.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No. (laughing)
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: So for those who don’t know, Edmon is with .asia so he’s not going to be able to comment on his own things.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: With .asia? He is .asia.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: He is .asia, so there you go. It’s Edmun.asia. So we’ll have to find another process to comment on this if we wish to comment on that, but I do know that there’s also discussion in our item #10 that also deals with single-character IDN TLDs. So there is a question on this.
Let’s move on to the next one: preliminary issues report on thick WHOIS. I know from seeing discussions, some of our members are for a thick WHOIS; some of our members are for a thin WHOIS. Alan, do you have a few words to add about this, please?
Alan Greenberg: Yes. This is one that I thought we had unanimity clearly; based on the discussion on the At-Large lists in the last hour or two we do not. I will take the lead on drafting something like this. And I think we need input from the rest of the ALAC on it, however, because since there is at least one dissenting vote and it happens to be ALAC representative on the WHOIS AOC Review, I think we need to come to closure on this and come to closure on it quickly. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Alan. And this certainly is a very important issue which affects internet users out there, so it’s very important that we come up with something that reflects the user point of view.
So finally, the next action item – this is dedicated to Alan, H). The next point I-
Matt Ashtiani: Sorry, Olivier?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Matt?
Matt Ashtiani: Can you please restate the AI as you’d like to recorded?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: The AI – H) preliminary issue report on thick WOHIS, deadline 30th of December, 2011, allocated to Alan. Okay?
Matt Ashtiani: Thanks.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you. Point #6-I – Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C policy development process. Alan, do you have a few words to say on this, please?
Alan Greenberg: Not really.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: None, okay. I think we’ll leave this on the side. We have not, as we the At-Large Advisory Committee has not actually put any statement out for IRTP Part B, so Intra-Registry Transfer Policy Part B. There was Part A, Part B, Part C. It’s particularly complex; some of it is very sort of law-inclined. May I ask for volunteers to have a look at this? I was wondering, actually – Titi, would you be interested in looking at that?
I see Alan has put his hand up. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, two things: number one, these are technical issues and it needs to be people who are familiar with or who are willing to make themselves familiar with IRTP and at least somewhat familiar with registrar operations. So this is a very technical issue. Whether we need to make a comment or not I don’t know.
I don’t believe that we have anyone working on the Work Group, however, and I think that it is important that there be At-Large representation on the Work Group. I won’t say there isn’t right now but I don’t believe there is, and I do think that it’s important.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Alan, point taken. And I see from Titi as well, very technical and probably particularly hard for someone to follow if they haven’t been on the Work Group or haven’t followed the Work Group closely.
Alan Greenberg: Well, it will require some homework and some time put into the process. I don’t want to scare people off. We need new people coming into this process but these are issues that if you’re going to participate and simply listen and never say anything, and then at the end ALAC makes a comment saying we didn’t like the results, we’re on very shaky seat. So we need participation, thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. Well, I note from the chat that Titi says she will take a look at it and give feedback – “ready for any challenge,” great.
Right, so we’ll move on to the next thing now: item #7 for decision, and this is just actually a proposal from me with regards to conflicts of interest declarations for ALAC members. Several of us who have participated in GNSO Joint Working Group or even in GNSO working groups have had to submit a conflict of interest declaration which is effectively a statement with several questions that are being asked, and some of them asking whether we have any benefit from the policy being discussed or from the discussion taking place; what our link with ICANN is, etc., etc.
What I would like to propose is that each and every ALAC member and also perhaps I would say regional leads would file a conflicts of interest declaration, and that goes in line with our search for full transparency and full accountability. So that’s the proposal and the floor is open, and I’m hoping we’re not going to have as much as 15 minutes on this since we are running behind time. But I’d be interested in hearing your views. Tijani and then Alan; Tijani first.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay, Olivier. This is Tijani for the record. I do think that we need a template for it. I don’t believe that everyone has to write what he wants to write – we need a template so that everyone will give the same information. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Tijani. In response to this I’ll ask Heidi to explain what the templates are. At the moment there is movement to just have the list of ALAC members with pictures. Heidi, do you have a few words to say on this, please?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes. If my understanding of the question is correct, Olivier, the question was what are the staff plans for the At-Large or the ALAC page for its members?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: The question that I asked, the question that Tijani said, actually it was a statement was “We need to have a template as to what questions will be asked from people.” What I was asking you is to tell us a little bit more about what is the current information that we’re going to have.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, the current information on this page for ALAC members will be similar to that setting for the Board. Matt, perhaps you can put the page that we are going to be copying in a sense – that will include photos of the ALAC members, that will include statements, their bios including their terms on the ALAC; and then depending on this discussion also a COI declaration. Now, I can ask Legal for some of the questions that are usually asked on such a declaration.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. I note from the chat that the GNSO Council has new templates and Cheryl has actually put on the chat a link over to her template. Alan, you’re next.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you – Alan Greenberg. I think we want to be careful. You’re using the term “conflict of interest” here; the term that the GNSO is using and the one that Cheryl put up is a “statement of interest.” There is more than a subtle difference between the two.
I do note that if your involvement with GNSO groups was over the preceding number of months, the new Operating Procedures for the GNSO required two different statements – one was the statement of interest, the other was the statement of “Do you have any conflicts based on what we’re planning to discuss today?” That latter one has been withdrawn, so the process has been simplified. So if your involvement was in VI or early JAS days there was a different set of documents than we see today.
And in any case, I believe the statement of interest implies conflict but it’s not explicitly “Do you have conflicts or not?” so I think we need to be careful, in addition to the content, on the title. Thank you. We may well at some point want a conflict of interest statement in line with new Board actions, but I don’t think that’s the one we’re talking about here.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Alan. And I note your point, and in fact I also see on the chat that some mentioned a possible declaration of interest, or continuous disclosure, or something to that extent. Yes, we are only saying “conflict” when it actually is a conflict. I would imagine that for the majority of At-Large members there is no conflict, or if there is it might be just a side occupation or something that they’re involved with.
In general, as Evan rightly says in the chat, if someone has a conflict of interests they would be excused from the discussion. Any other questions or points? And I’m going to ask then if there isn’t any more… Alan, your hand is still up?
Alan Greenberg: Oh, sorry.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you. I’m therefore going to ask now if anyone has any objections then to having SOIs, a statement of interest published; and if that’s not the case I think that we can proceed then forward with having this. I’m not sure whether we need an actual vote. I think if there is no objection to that then we can just take it as this being okay. We can announce it on the list and if we don’t receive an objection within seven days, as I understand from the Rules of Procedure, then this can be accepted. Alan, your hand is up again.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I hate to disagree with you but on this one I would suggest that we do take a formal vote. If we’re in the situation where we are requiring this and as new members come on we don’t want to be in a position of someone saying “I don’t want to do it.” So I think we should go on record as having taken a formal vote to require it, thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Alan. And I see Evan is agreeing with you. I’m open either way. I believe we might still have, let’s see… Do we still have quorum here please, staff?
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, Cheryl pointed out it needs to be put in the ROP at which point it will be adopted formally, and that’s probably sufficient. It’s going to take a bit of time but I don’t think that’s a problem.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, so what we can do is as follows: we can conduct an online vote, and ROP is the Rules of Procedure which are the rules by which we operate. That will actually be included in the rules of procedure soon. What we can do in the meantime is to conduct an online vote, so let’s do an action item on this; because just doing a vote as we are here is going to take more time. An online vote on this question of conflict of interest or statement of interest; the question that will be asked in the online vote will be “Do you agree that At-Large members and regional leadership should have an SOI published on the ICANN website?”
Alan Greenberg: And liaisons.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: And liaisons, yes. Thank you, Alan, for reminding me.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Olivier?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Oliver, it is ALAC and not At-Large.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Did I say At-Large? Sorry, ALAC members. ALAC members, so “At-Large Advisory Committee members, liaisons, and regional leadership.” Eduardo?
Eduardo Diaz: Yes, a question: are we talking about a statement of interest or a conflict of interest? Are both the same? I heard they were different things.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: We’re saying “statement of interest.”
Eduardo Diaz: Okay.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Eduardo. So that’s an action item for this. We can now move to the next thing: selection of available liaison positions. And we have two positions yet to fill: the first one, the ALAC Metrics Working Group liaison, and the next one being the .mobi liaison. I have spoke earlier about the lack of contact with .mobi, which means no .mobi liaison for the time being. We will push this to future ALAC meeting conference calls.
ALAC Metrics Working Group liaison? Cheryl, you have the floor.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, just to remind you that an ALAC liaison is in fact a member of the ALAC. These are liaisons to work groups. I’d love to come up with a different word but we don’t have one, unfortunately, but so you do have to limit your proposed individuals to members of the At-Large Advisory Committee. That’s just a point of order, because their role is to in fact act as interface between your work group and yourselves.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. And so now I ask if there is any volunteer for this. I have not heard anyone yet step forward for this position.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Olivier?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: May I please propose that Yaovi, if he wants to be the liaison?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: You may propose, Yaovi. Yaovi, you are on the call – would you like to say a few words.
Yaovi Atohoun: Yes, I am on the call now.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Yaovi, please speak. Yes, so Yaovi you are on the call. Tijani has asked whether you would be interested in being the liaison for the ALAC Metrics Working Group.
Yaovi Atohoun: Oh, oh. Is it too late for me to reply tomorrow because I see I’m late to the meeting and I can advise tomorrow if this is not too late.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: What I can do is to ask for members of the ALAC to think over this; perhaps send an email out asking for members of the ALAC to think over this and then we will appoint someone as a liaison to the ALAC Metrics Working Group, and that will give you time as well to think about it.
Yaovi Atohoun: Okay, okay.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Yaovi. Okay, so thankfully we can now move to the next thing: the ICANN Academy. And here we have a selection of Co-Chairs for the ad hoc Working Group on the ICANN Academy. And in fact, this was going to be a little bit of a different heading than this – it’s actually not the selection of Co-Chairs but it’s actually the next steps for the ad hoc Working Group on the ICANN Academy.
As you all remember in Dakar, we selected two interim Co-Chairs – Sandra Hoferichter and Wolf Ludwig – to take the Working Group to its next level which is effectively setting it all up with the Wiki page, the discussion and setting up a first call. The question now is what to do next. And so what has to be done next by the Working Group is to select a Chair, and I think having Co-Chairs is an important thing because one person might not always be available for all the calls or for everything. And at the same time it is important to have geographical diversity, and at the moment the two interim Co-Chairs are from the same region.
So I think that the step forward here would be to ask for any volunteers or people interested in being a Co-Chair of the ad hoc Working Group. I don’t think that we’ll be making a decision today. I certainly am of the feeling that it is for the Working Group itself to select its Chair at the beginning of their work, so at the first call, their first conference call. But what I do think is important is that we are all aware that this is taking place and to ask for members here to go for this position.
The floor is open. I see two people with their hands up, so first Tijani and then Sondra. Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you, Olivier. You said the right words. It’s not our duty to select the Co-Chairs; it’s the Working Group that has to appoint the two Co-Chairs. So we don’t have anything to do here. It’s the Working Group that has to select its Co-Chairs.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Tijani. Next is Sondra. Sondra, you might be muted… Ah, we can hear you, Sondra. Sondra? Sondra, you’re on.
Sondra Hoferichter: Yes. As far as I understood, Tijani, it is not necessary to select the Co-Chairs anyway. And just my two cents into the discussion: I think we have a number of people in ALAC which have experience in teaching internet governance issues, which is one of the main issues of an ICANN Academy as well. And we have people from the Latin American Region and we have members of (inaudible) who are teaching in summer schools in Latin America and also in the EURALO.
I think we could, or we have the kind of opportunity to think in those directions, to get their experience from the summer school project which was the ground idea of this ICANN Academy – to get it into the discussion. Thank you, Olivier.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Sondra. So any other comments or questions? Sondra, your hand is still up? Now, I see Eduardo is asking “Is there a Wiki for this ad hoc Working Group?” There is indeed a Wiki page for this ad hoc Working Group. What I will ask, Sondra, is when you do start moving forward can you please send a message to the At-Large Advisory Committee working list so as to ask for volunteers to join? And then you have the green light effectively now to move forward to get that Working Group to work and improve the proposal and develop it, effectively.
Sondra Hoferichter: Yes, I definitely will.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: And as mentioned, as this has now been mentioned I urge everyone on the call here to consider if they would be interested in this Working Group, consider joining the Working Group and then of course during that call to have Co-Chairs selected. And I would also say for the record that because you have been originating the whole concept of an ICANN Academy it would be particularly important that you would be one of the Co-Chairs. But that’s just a personal recommendation that I’m not saying as Chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee, but just as someone who has seen this progress taking place.
We can then move on to the next thing: motion for the JIG Working Group – Joint ccNSO and GNSO response, and as I say their letter to the ICANN Board regarding single-character IDN TLDs. On this specific point I see that Cheryl has put her hand up, and I was in fact going to ask Cheryl to expand on this. Cheryl, you have a few minutes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you; Cheryl Langdon-Orr for the transcript record, and the reason I put my hand up so promptly is for two reasons. First of all, our IDN liaison who would normally take the lead on this would need to not only withdraw from a potential conflict of interest with the .asia proposal for single- and two-character domains in their marketplace, but also was part of the JIG Work Group as well so I assume is part of the authoring of the proposals that are going to the GNSO and the ccNSO for consideration. And I think it’s important to make sure the record is correct here for this meeting, Olivier.
What I forwarded to the list was a letter from the JIG Work Group which was a joint GNSO and ccNSO Work Group on the matter, and the proposed resolution that that Work Group was putting forward to the co-chartering organizations; in other words, the two SOs – ccNSO and GNSO – as to what they would like the GNSO and the ccNSO to recommend to the Board.
It is a matter of particular concern and importance to Asia-Pacific regions’ internet end users and domain name registrants, current and future. It’s one that APRALO is already putting some drafting together on, and I’ll leave that to Rinalia and Sala to speak to obviously as ALAC members, but what the ALAC needs to consider is its ongoing support for the opportunity that internationalized domain names give to the billions of internet users yet to come on to the internet.
We’ve supported IDNs to date and I trust we would consider supporting anything that facilitated them in an intelligent way in the future. I’d also draw the parallel in case it is lost on some of you, between the importance of developing economies and applicants from developing economies having a chance at the first round; and the suggestion in the letter from the JIG Work Group that to be included in the first round when you have community-wide consensus to date on the desirability of the single-character new TLDs. Just it’s fantastical in my totally biased view not to consider it as endorsable.
So APRALO will be considering it and it won’t be something that I will be speaking about until we get to our APRALO meeting, but certainly if there’s any questions I would suggest that Edmon could answer questions but could not step forward to suggest or endorse. But I’ve pushed it so far and we’ll continue to do so. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Cheryl, and I see no other hands up. But someone is trying to call me repeatedly… I see no other hands up at the moment. Perhaps Sala or Rinalia wanted to say a few words on how soon they expect the APRALO text to be ready?
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro: Hello? Hello?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, hello! Who is this?
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro: Testing. Sala for the record.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Hello, Sala!
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro: Hello my friend, and all my wonderful friends all across the Earth. It’s an ungodly hour here in Fiji but it’s good to hear all of you. Yes, very quickly – as Cheryl had eloquently mentioned the APRALO region is severely affected by the Board’s decision to include IDN single characters in the first round. However, we’re very happy that they are requesting advice from the different advisory committees, and Cheryl has done an excellent draft.
And the region is still in consultation. As you can imagine, it takes quite a long time to extract opinions from the ALSes and it’s currently in process. But we should have a draft submission soon that should be ready to send in, and that’s all from me, Mr. Chair. Perhaps Rinalia would like to say something.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Salanieta. Rinalia, do you have anything to add?
Rinalia Rahim: Just to say that we’re going to have our APRALO conference call next week and I think that we will probably have some movement on the topic by then.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. And so what we wanted to ask here was just if there was any opposition from any of the other regions, de facto opposition to have this as an actual ALAC statement rather than having it just as an APRALO statement? I understand the Asia-Pacific region will be one that will be the most affected by this.
I see no opposition. So what we are waiting for is the statement and then it will go through the normal ALAC process of consideration for sending it out as an ALAC statement with the public comment open to At-Large members. Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Mr. Chairman – Cheryl Langdon-Orr for the transcript record, and I’m taking my mantle of Princess of Process here. It would probably be a very useful thing as time is ticking on, if we as a result of the APRALO drafting text were able to encourage the ALAC to deal with this intercessionally; in other words, a full and frank discussion opportunity here at this meeting and with a following on one both in a Wiki space – and perhaps staff could put the Wiki space up into the chat record.
So because it’s open not just for APRALO discussion but for At-Large discussion, so that any endorsement from the ALAC would be able to happen in the intervening fortnight or so in the middle of the December month. If the Board was to reconsider based on our advisement any input from the GNSO and the ccNSO on this matter, it would need to be in the Board’s hands by mid-December, I would have thought. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. So we’ve taken note on this. And I think we can move on to the next item on our agenda since we know what we’re doing now.
So Sala, Rinalia, and APRALO – the matter is in your hands. Please have something done as soon as your meeting takes place next week, and I urge the At-Large Advisory Committee to act quickly and I can say that on my side I will act quickly so as to have all of this on the Wiki page and ready for vote. If there are any comments, we will probably be asking for a very shortened comment period from everyone so as to have this firmly as a statement as soon as possible.
I note something from Alan who has not been able to add a comment during the liaison reports, and I wonder whether I could just give the floor to… I’ll give the floor to him right now, so Alan, Alan Greenberg.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you very much, Olivier. It’s just a quick note to remind the ALAC that the Board in its meeting in Dakar requested an issue report on any items that had been recommended for changes in the RAA which have not already been addressed. The Board requesting an issues report automatically creates a PDP – the GNSO does not have the discretion to refuse to do it.
The preliminary issue report will identify what the scope of the PDP will be and what issues are being covered. It is extremely important that we look at that and make sure that from our point of view, none of the issues raised during the RAA Drafting Team a year or two ago are omitted if we believe they need to be addressed. The Board in its motion described the processes being “urgent.” The GAC in its communique on the same issue used the term “extremely urgent.” Staff is treating those words at face value and working on this very quickly and expects the GNSO to similarly not delay unreasonably.
The staff have said the issues report should be out in a matter of days and the comment period will be started immediately. That comment period will therefore end either the end of December or very beginning of January, so it’s essential that we mobilize a group quickly to go back, look at the report that came out of the RAA Drafting Team and compare it to what is in the issue report; and make sure that any things that we feel should have been included, that we comment on them immediately.
So we’re talking about something that will happen likely by New Year’s or very soon after New Year’s. There’s a lot of holidays between now and then. I think we need to start doing our homework immediately so that when the issue report is produced within some number of days from now we’re ready to start work quickly. Thank you. I don’t want to discuss the substance of the issue but I think ALAC needs to put together a group or revitalize a group very quickly – enough said.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Alan, and I see that there is agreement from Evan on this, so I’ll leave it in your hands to make sure to keep us updated on this and to make sure that we are responsive.
Alan Greenberg: Well, I understand that but I think that if there is not a standing RAA Group – and I don’t remember whether there is or not – ALAC needs to find the volunteers and put together a group right now. I’m assuming it would include the usual suspects from the last time, which include Beau and Evan and I’m not sure who else; but we probably need wider, a little bit wider contributions than that. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Alan. And I note that we have now been on the call for two hours. We were originally scheduled to be here for two hours and the French interpreter is going to have to stop. So I invite those on the French channel to join us on the English channel, and if you are dialed out if you could please mention on the chat if you wish to be dialed by Adigo and what number from the English channel side. I expect that we’ll be another ten to fifteen minutes to cover the rest of our agenda, many of which are just announcements.
So moving back to our agenda, the next one is the At-Large Improvements – it’s an item for discussion. We’re going to have to keep this to a very small discussion, Cheryl, but you have the floor to provide us with quick details. I know we’ve already touched on the At-Large Improvements Task Force but you might have a few things to say. Cheryl, please.
Female: I think she got dropped.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, yeah – it looks like many people got dropped. So perhaps I can then jump to the next level. Okay, Cheryl is being dialed out to.
So the next one is the ALAC Finance and Budget Subcommittee, and that’s just a call for members. The Budget and Finance Subcommittee is probably one of the more important subcommittees of the At-Large Advisory Committee. Why? Because without money we’re not able to do anything, or at least we’re not able to do anything that costs money. And because many of our activities do ask for resources, both staff resources but also travel, etc., it is important that we have a fully functional Budget and Finance Subcommittee.
It is also important that we have one that is balanced across the world, and so because we have had several departing members we need to have more coming in to either replace them or more people to come into the Committee. Another thing is that it used to be called the ALAC Finance and Budget Subcommittee. We now call it the At-Large Finance and Budget Subcommittee because we allow and in fact we encourage people from the regions, so from At-Large Structures to join the Finance and Budget Subcommittee. Just having one composed of ALAC members is not something that is very conducive to having power closer to the edges.
So I open the floor for discussion, and Tijani, you have your hand up.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, Olivier. So first of all I agree with you that it must be an At-Large subcommittee and not an ALACA subcommittee. Now, it is the ALAC Subcommittee but it must be open to the At-Large members to be members of this subcommittee.
The second point: this Subcommittee is very important not only because it a matter of money but it is because it is a matter of planning, and it is very well plan our budget and our objectives. So I do encourage everyone who feels that he can contribute to come and to volunteer to be in this Budget and Finance Subcommittee. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Tijani. Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m shuddering – Cheryl for the record. I’m sitting here in absolute terror. The concept of such an important and needing to be I think quite honed in its purpose Work Group, to become a totally open Work Group filled me with terror. The design that the Work Teams on the ALAC Improvements Implementation proposed to the ALAC was one of not being merely, as it had been since 2006, a representative of the ALAC from each of the five regions but doubling that size to ten where it was one representative from the ALAC and one representative from each RALO – notice I didn’t say region, I said “RALO” – to ensure that proper integration with ALS and RALO (inaudible) is done, is what was to date on the table.
If it’s shifting to be a totally open one I believe it will be a monstrosity. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. Point taken. I think that okay, the way that this was worded might have not been totally correct. The meeting itself, or the Committee itself is open to having more members into it and encouraged to participate into it. I believe though that the core Committee in there would not increase in size. Perhaps it is something that we’ll have to put down in writing so as to make sure that we’ve got the nomenclature correct, and I can see the link on the website, on the chat.
Right, next: criteria for 2012 NomCom ALAC selectees. I have been asked by the Chair of the Nominating Committee to provide information to them as to what criteria we wish to have from our NomCom appointees for the future; and also what criteria does the At-Large Advisory Committee think that any other NomCom appointees would need to have.
Now so far this discussion has only been taking place between the Executive Committee and the Nominating Committee but we have been asked to ask the wider ALAC for their input. And so what I would ask is for everyone to… And I’m not quite sure whether a webpage, a Wiki page has been built on this? But if a Wiki page does exist and I would like staff to confirm this…
Heidi Ullrich: Olivier, this is Heidi.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: My understanding is that a Wiki page does not yet exist. We will create one shortly, in the next day or so.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. So what we would need before the start of December is for suggestions and recommendations from everyone on this as to what you think are the qualities that we require from an ALAC member, and what do we think are the qualities that the Nominating Committee should look for in someone to be appointed on the Board or ccNSO or GNSO Council?
The floor is open just for any feedback but I will look for the information about this to be put on the Wiki. Yaovi? Yaovi, you’re muted.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: *7.
[background conversation]
Yaovi Atohoun: Oh, I’m very sorry for the delay – my line was muted and my question is can you clarify what you are certain… Sometimes there’s a confusion. I remember in Dakar, people who are nominated by NomCom were representing themselves as NomCom… It was not very clear. So I just want to anticipate that since we have to create a Wiki page to clarify what you are expecting. Are we talking about people that the NomCom is going to send to ALAC or… You just need to clarify this, that’s my point.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Yaovi. And the question as I understand it, and I have received it from Vanda is she needs to find out, and the Nominating Committee would like to find out from ALAC what do we want in a NomCom-appointed ALAC candidate. But at the same time, also what do we think any NomCom-appointed candidates in other places should have? This is really our input into the process. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Thank you, Alan Greenberg. I think the distinction that Yaovi raises is important. I don’t think the term that’s used for what we’re talking about are “selectees” – I think they’re “appointees” because there’s a different term used for who we put on the NomCom. And that’s a discussion we need to have with the NomCom but it’s not the discussion Vanda wants today.
In terms of what we want, I think it’s really, really important that especially with the ALAC because no one else is going to speak on our behalf or no one else is really going to care what characteristics ALAC members have, whereas for the Board members there’s going to be lots of input. I think we need to say what we’re looking for in ALAC appointees.
If you look historically we have had a lot of appointees who have not been particularly successful. I think we need to analyze this a little bit and identify what is it we’re really looking for and so we have a reason. If the NomCom doesn’t make good appointees we can’t blame it on us, and right now I think we’re part of the problem. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Alan. Next is Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Cheryl Langdon-Orr for the transcript record. A couple of things: I think there’s two layers of information being required. Certainly as Alan said we are the only ones that are going to put the care and feeding into what we need out of the job descriptor for an ALAC appointee of the Nominating Committee back to us. And I’ve put there in the link in the chat what we have to date on the record, but we also have the opportunity to look at the additional information that was put out to other requirements.
The process we went through, selecting and somewhat [Seat 15] into the Board meant that the At-Large community has already looked at what it would expect a Board member to do, so perhaps we could repackage that material from our [Seat 15] appointment process. I doubt that it would need much updating and suggest that the NomCom look towards those criteria as what we would like to see in general Board members, because that’s how we designed our [Seat 15] characteristics as well.
In terms of ccNSO and GNSO I’m not sure that our care factor needs to be all that high. In the GNSO it would be nice if people had a significant technical understanding if they were going to go. In the ccNSO world, there you are looking at operators of ccTLDs and if you are bringing the voice of public interest into that you still need to have the appropriate level of technical knowledge to basically swim with the fish. And with the GNSO I would be taking the advice of our existing GNSO liaison.
At a different level, however, we also need to advise or have the ALAC more particularly via perhaps the ExCom or even perhaps just yourself, Mr. Chair, on exactly what you’re missing in the mix. You may have a desire to have a particular skillset; you might feel an overwhelming urge to have a certified practicing accountant put into the mix. There’s all sorts of minor things as well… Well, they’re not minor – more narrow and more specific things as well as the general characteristics, and I’m not sure that the latter is a matter for At-Large discussion. I would have thought that was very much a matter for ALAC deliberations. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Cheryl, and that’s a valid point. Of course personally I think we also need to have a good singer for the music night but that might not be something that NomCom would be selecting specifically for.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good singer is essential.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Essential. But I note that you’ve put the resolution on position description for ALAC members and ALAC liaisons on the chat. I would ask staff when they include the Wiki page to include this, to include this in there as well or at last include a link to it. And I therefore ask everyone but of course ALAC members specifically or especially ALAC members to comment on this.
And so we can now move to the next thing on our agenda, and that is the proposal for a leadership group to support CEO succession and input – our 360 Group proposal. I’m not quite sure what that title means but I can tell you, though, what’s under that title. I have received from Marilyn Cade, who is the Chair of the Business Constituency of the CSG, the CSG being the Commercial Stakeholder Group in the GNSO – that effectively we have printed and we reproduced and you can click on, and is proposing for a complete multi-stakeholder group to be involved with the selection of the next CEO in ICANN.
It is something which is still at a very early stage and I have told Marilyn that I will collect feedback on the behalf of At-Large and find out what our thoughts were on this. So we have a Wiki page that is on there. I urge everyone to click on it, and it is a page that takes a little while to read; for everyone to inform themselves of this and to provide their input into the process by commenting on the Wiki page. Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s just a request. I was hoping, I was going to bring it up under any other business but I’m happy to do so now. The page – yeah sure, it’s great; it says “At-Large 360 Group Proposal Workspace.” Not many people, particularly those who don’t speak the English language as a first language, would know what the hell that was all about. Can we have either better and more clear, simple, plain language titles for our pages in general; but now then specifically – because that’s what I was going to talk about in general other business – but specifically to this one, can we have a slightly more expansive introductory paragraph?
You get to the page, and only if you’re brave would you risk clicking on the link. I did because I’m like that but someone from Botswana or indeed Uzbekistan is unlikely to. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl, and please note that this was only received yesterday so it’s been a little bit of a rush to include it on today’s call, but because it was important I thought we would have it added to our agenda. Staff, can you please take note of this comment and perhaps make the language a little bit more international than “360?” Thank you, Heidi.
So that was one announcement, and then the next one – and we’re reaching slowly down our list – the next one is the Beginner’s Guide on Participating in At-Large. And staff, perhaps Seth if you’re online or Heidi, you have less than five minutes for this. I understand we’re 21 minutes over our allocated time now, so we have to be fast.
Seth Greene: Heidi, would you like me to say something about this?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, please.
Seth Greene: Sure, no problem. The next Beginner’s Guide being done by Communications in collaboration with ALAC is a Beginner’s Guide on Participating in At-Large, and it’s really a beginner’s primer on all of At-Large with an emphasis on how new members can get involved or prospective members can get involved; and the various tools that they’ll need to stay involved. So it’s somewhat of an instruction manual if you will for new members.
In that regard it will include, for example, short instructions on the various technology that’s needed for meetings – the Adobe Connect rooms, the Adigo lines, Big Pulse voting, things like that. There is a draft table of contents and a list of topics that has been looked at by the ExCom and that is open to comments by all of At-Large as of this meeting, and we’ll send around the link to that. And if people could actually take a look at it, people who are interested could take a look and give comments if possible – that would be terrific because we’re looking to move ahead with it along with Communications as soon as possible.
Heidi, is there anything else that we should mention at this time?
Heidi Ullrich: No, only that I have placed the link to the Beginner’s Guide workspace in the Adobe Connect chat, and it’s also linked to the agenda.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Heidi, and thank you, Seth, for this quick update. Certainly a very important piece of work since we always have new members every year, and it’s important for our new members to be able to participate as quickly as possible. And not only new members as members of the At-Large Advisory Committee but members of At-Large Structures and for them to be involved – we have to continue growing. So that Beginner’s Guide will be well appreciated by everyone.
We can now move to the next part of our agenda, #16 – RALO events. And we have a quick update from Tijani on the AFRALO Dakar events. Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you, Olivier. As you all know we had four events in Dakar: capacity building, showcase, regional assembly and AFRALO/AfrICANN meeting. I do think that the most important event for AFRALO is the capacity building program because it’s aimed at the participation of the ALS members in the ICANN process and the ICANN policy development process. And I think that this capacity building program was successful.
It was initiated because we noticed that there is a lack of understanding of the significant volume of policy-related publications and activities generated by At-Large, and also there is a lack of understanding of the ICANN’s mission, organization structure, and working metrics. So also we noted that to effectively contribute to ICANN activities, members are in need of information of skills and of knowledge.
The program was made of six sessions of two hours – five were started at 7:00 in the morning and one was between 16:00 and 18:00. The issues addressed were the ICANN role in the infrastructure of the internet; the ICANN mission, structure and constituencies; the ICANN policies, the ICANN policy development process; the ICANN public participation and communications. And we did study exercises about the policies and at the end an evaluation sheet was distributed to all the participants, and they gave the following impression: participants said that the program was beneficial and all of the presentations should be available for their reference and better comprehension.
The participants think that such a program should be previously prepared and also they think that better coordination between the speakers would reduce redundancies and repetitions. They also said that more interactivity between the speakers and the participants would make it better and more attractive. Such a program should be repeated not only during the ICANN meetings, they think; and also they said that more frequent programs should be implemented online and (inaudible).
In conclusion we can say that this first experience was very successful but needs more refinement. The presence and (inaudible) of the participants during the whole program despite the earliness of 7:00 can be taken as a sign of great interest. Their feedback on the evaluation sheet demonstrates that they gained information and knowledge but they wanted it to be better done for more benefit.
As the aim of the capacity building program is to give the ALS representatives an appetite more or less, an appetite of participating in ICANN activities and more specifically in the policy development process rather than make them (inaudible) in those policies, we would recommend for similar upcoming programs that the program should be planned differently. First, we think that we need to give the items of the ICANN mission and their role in the internet infrastructure, the organizational structure and the constituencies at the first two sessions.
The third one should be dedicated to the policy development process, and the fourth and fifth ones have to be dedicated to two main ICANN policies, the most important and the most active – one entire session for each policy. The last session has to be a wrap-up session and a general discussion with all the speakers and all the structures present.
The other items on policy as well as public participation and communication should be addressed online and using (inaudible). The presentation times should be shortened to allow more interaction between the speakers and the participants. The presentations should be prepared in a more (inaudible) manner to be more attractive and well-digested, and here I can say that [Rochel’s] presentation and Scott’s one were very, very good, appreciated and very well understood.
Another point: all the presentations should be available on the Wiki at least one week prior to the program start and remain there for at least two months after the completion of the session. Why do we need them before? Because people need to be familiar with them, so they can visit them and they can try to understand; and after the program so that they can catch things that they didn’t catch very well during the session.
And the last remark is that good coordination between the speakers will make it a complete and harmonized program. This is for the capacity building and I was very long on this because it is the most important task.
The second part is the Showcase and it was our second experience – the first one was in Nairobi. We tried to use more visuals than paper because we noted that in Nairobi the papers were not read. So we tried to make it more visual. The music and dance made the ambience, the environment very well and they think it attracted people and made it better…let’s say more cultural because at Nairobi there wasn’t this much.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Tijani, may I ask you please to summarize between time is running out and the clock is ticking.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay. So let’s say that the Showcase, you all were there – I think it was good and one of the indicators that the Showcase was successful is that Rod spent all the time there despite his engagement with the Fellowship party at 18:30, and the Minister also was there the whole time.
The second event was the General Assembly and I will not say a lot about this. There are perhaps some things that we didn’t address before, such as individual membership and such as the vote criteria and quorums. And the last event was the joint AFRALO/AfrICANN meeting and this is I think a (inaudible) thing. We as the At-Large African community, we initiated in Brussels this idea of gathering all the African community of ICANN to address very important points. And I think we were successful in that this time. The last two meetings we had the user security, that’s all.
And the last point which is very short is the contribution and the preparatory meeting of the ICANN Summit on Developing Countries, and I think that this Summit is a little bit I don’t know – it’s a little bit… Because you know the one who initiated it was Katim and it seems that Katim has not responded now, and I don’t see a very good strategy in it. So I am a little bit pessimistic, that’s all. Thank you very much.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Tijani, and I think that following on from this I was just going to ask you one thing, and you don’t need to answer now but one thing that would be required would be metrics, just numbers – how many participants, how many meetings they had, how many calls, various metrics about the amount of work that was performed by everyone who came to that meeting and who participated in the events.
But I was going to move because we are really running out of time now – we are over 35 minutes late on our schedule – and move over to the LACRALO Costa Rica events with an initial plan.
Alan Greenberg: Olivier, it’s Alan. Can I make one quick comment?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Alan, please.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, I’d like to thank Tijani for this. This is the first time I can recall this kind of postmortem analysis of an event like this. I think it reconfirms the professionalism of AFRALO which was demonstrated in the actual event, but this just reconfirms it. And on a personal note, I would like to thank AFRALO or staff, whoever it was, who ensured that there were chairs to sit down on during the event. It makes for a far better event than when everyone has to stand, thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Alan and I can see quite a sprinkling of “yes’s” and also of applause on the Adobe chat, so for the record I think we can all say “Yes, well done, AFRALO.” I think this has been a really amazing set of events and it really is great to see such dynamism in the region.
So now we can look at the next region and that’s LACRALO, and Dev, you have a few minutes – please make it short – to give us a little idea of initial plans for LACRALO Costa Rica events – Dev Anand Teelucksingh.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Thank you, Dev Anand Teelucksingh here. Well, LACRALO’s I think been inspired by AFRALO’s events in Dakar and I think we would like to try to do a showcase and some kind of capacity building events for our ALS representatives who can attend the Costa Rica event. We have done some initial cost estimates, they’ve been done but interpretation issues on last week’s LACRALO call prevented preliminary discussion of this.
I have noted, though, that the call for LACRALO Costa Rica Events Working Group did occur after that call and about 14 persons have responded, and our first call will be tomorrow at 21:00 UTC. And there has been strong interest expressed on the LACRALO mailing list to have all ALS representatives to attend the Costa Rica ICANN meeting, and right now we’re working on a draft regional request to try to see whether that can happen.
I think that’s the initial summary. I hope that’s brief enough – that’s it.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Dev, and thank you for being brief. Any comments on either of these two, well we’ve already had comments on the Dakar events – any comments on the proposed LACRALO Costa Rica events? I see no comments from anyone.
Well, I look forward to having further information about this, Dev, from the LACRALO region. And we know LACRALO is a particularly dynamic region as well so it will be very interesting to see the proposals.
So, we now reach the last part of our meeting – the any other business part – and we have two items in there. The first one was a request or question from Yaovi regarding moving the ALAC meeting time. Yaovi, do you wish to say a couple of words?
Yaovi Atohoun: Thank you. It is that many people in the Asia-Pacific region are having the same issue of having to stay on very late. Also some people from our region, like West Africa, are usually working this year between 3:00 UTC and 5:00 UTC. So my suggestion is if this can work for everybody, to move it through 1:00 or 13:00 UTC – this is my suggestion just to have more people participating. So it’s just a question of discussion to see if we can arrange the majority. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Yaovi. Any comments on this? I’m not expecting anyone to say “Yes,” or “No, let’s go ahead with it” on this call. What I can suggest is to have a Doodle perhaps sent out to ask whether a call should be brought forward one or two hours. It really depends what part of the world you are in, though, because when one looks at the western coast of the United States then it makes it extremely early for them to wake up for that call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Poor babies!
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Oh dear! I know, but you know, the Earth is round and I personally have no feeling about this. I know that Europe is pretty much in the middle of the day for this so a couple of hours earlier or later might not be worse. I know some people support full rotation and that’s a little difficult because it gets confusing if the time changes all the time. We have only one ALAC call per month so it’s one of these things. I would imagine that we would need a regular time to settle on.
Evan?
Evan Leibovitch: Hi, Olivier, this is Evan for the record. There’s two separate issues that people have been talking about and perhaps we can try an experiment to deal with both of them at the same time, one of which is that these meetings are way too long – my brain went to sleep half an hour ago, so I’m going simply on nervous energy. And along with that you have the issue that a lot of people are inconvenienced by the time.
Could we not, rather than one meeting once a month at this time for two plus hours, go to perhaps trying an experiment of having meetings every two weeks but having the time staggered so that one meeting time for instance on the fourth Tuesday is inconvenient for some people; and meetings say on the second Tuesday is inconvenient for another set of people? I know we may have to work around this with the Executive Committee times, but by having two one-hour meetings a month rather than one two plus hours’ meeting a month could we not address both issues of inconvenient times and meetings that run too long for people to keep their brains focused? Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Evan, and I was going to suggest two two-hour meetings per month.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s probably what it’ll end up being.
Evan Leibovitch: You can try.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: (laughing) Any other questions or suggestions on this point? I see people still wondering whether the Earth really is round and that’s another question we might have to put through to the wider group. Right, I don’t see any outright solution on this. Alan, do you have something you can add on this?
Alan Greenberg: I think we need some brainstorming on how to run these meetings. If we had a meeting every week and we still insisted on reviewing all the action items in each one, each would still be two hours’ long. We’re spending an awful lot of time updating ourselves on things that are ongoing and I think that’s a significant problem. I’m not sure what the solution is but I think we need to be innovative and think about this. We’re not doing well. As Evan said, this is almost a three-hour meeting at this point and we can’t continue like that. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Alan. If I can just add one thing, though – the action items are often where much of the policy discussion takes place.
Alan Greenberg: I said I didn’t have any simple answer. I didn’t say we should just scrap it and presume it’s not important; I said what we’re doing right now is not working.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. Can we just continue the brainstorming on the list and see what we do with this? It’s something I recognize myself as being much of a problem as well. If you think I like having such long meetings, I don’t either. So if we can find a way to address all of the issues but at the same time also not take so much time on the call then that would be a good thing.
Right, and I can see that a number of people have to drop off because of the time specifically and we’ve now addressed the two points. Evan and Titi and several people have to drop off, and in fact I think it’s time for us to close this call if there is no other ‘any other business’ to add. I will wait a couple of seconds…
Okay. So we can then move and…
Heidi Ullrich: Olivier? This is Heidi.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, Dev’s pointing out correctly that we did not return to the issue of the agenda item of the At-Large Improvements. Cheryl was off the call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Cheryl here. You can have the thirty second or less than view: the names of the members have been selected. It is a balance between ALAC and regional reps. It is also open to observers. Observers would be welcomed from any region or ALS but they need to recognize that there is one ALAC and one regional formal rep in the Task Force. The first Task Force Doodle meetings have gone out and it is planned for the end of this week. That’s it.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Cheryl, and thanks Dev, for pointing this out. Yes, we had to jump on that item since Cheryl had dropped off at the time so thank you. And with this I can now say that this meeting is adjourned. Thanks to everyone for attending and thanks for having managed to survive. We’ll speak soon and let’s follow up on the lists, please – we have to follow up on the lists. Thank you.
[End of Transcript]
