Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Good morning, good afternoon and good evening. This is the ALAC monthly call on the 24th of May, 2011, and we, the time is 14:09 UTC at the moment, and the first thing we’re going to start is a roll call please.
Gisella Gruber-White: On today’s call we have Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Sandra Hoferichter, Ron Sherwood, Gareth Sherman, Sebastien Bachollet, Alan Greenberg, Evan Leibovitch, James Seng, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Marc Rotenberg, Edmon Chung, Cheryl Langdon-Orr. On the Spanish channel we have Sergio Salinas Porto. We have apologies from Carlton Samuels. From staff so far we just have myself, Gisella Gruber-White. Interpreters today are Maya on the French channel and Derrick on the Spanish channel.
I hope I haven’t left anyone off the list and if I can please remind everyone to state their names when speaking. This is not only for transcript purposes but also for the purposes of the interpreter to allow the other people on the other channels to know who is talking. Thank you, over to you, Olivier.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thanks very much, Gisella.
Dave Kissoondoyal: (inaudible)
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I’m sorry?
Dave Kissoondoyal: Yes, it’s Dev here. I didn’t hear my name.
Gisella Gruber-White: Apologies, Dave Kissoondoyal is on the call as well.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you very much, Dave, and thanks for shouting out. Anyway, well thank you for all of you to attend this call today. The first thing that we need to do is to adopt the agenda which is on the Wiki at the moment, and I wanted to ask whether there was any amendments or any other business that people wish to add to the current agenda that we have.
I don’t see anyone putting their hands up or shouting out so I think we’ll move swiftly on over to the review of the ALAC items from the 26th of April, 2011. Just before that I was going to suggest one small change to the agenda. We have several items for votes today, two of them being item #7 and item #8. I understand that Sylvia might have to leave early in which case we will have to do the votes likely earlier than we expected and I was going to suggest that we move item #6, which is the timelines of the policy advice development calendar until after item #7 and item #8. Is there any objection?
I see Cheryl agrees. No objections, so let’s do that. And let’s go quickly then into the first thing which is item #3, the action items from the 25th of April 2011 meeting, which was the last ALAC call that we had. And there were quite a few action items on that. I think that several of these were already reviewed, well let’s just go through them quickly and see if there’s anything that sticks out, the first one being the ALAC Work Group on Future Challenges, and Jean-Jacques Subrenat was destined to be the interim Chair. Well done, Jean-Jacques, and I understand there’s movement on that. I think we can probably say that most of, if not all of these action items, are currently taking place. Is this correct?
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: This is Jean-Jacques, hello. Thanks, Olivier. Just to point out that I requested staff to put out a little poll on the most convenient date and time for the inaugural as it were meeting of the Future Challenges Working Group. So that would be the first step. I would like to add that the agenda of that meeting will then be sent out as a proposal so that members will have time to react to that and of course we do count on all the members to make it a lively and fruitful meeting.
We do have a large number of things right from the start, for instance to start on the charter of the Working Group and to have a general discussion, further discussion on the purpose and content and method of the Working Group. I think I’ll leave it at that as an introduction. Thanks.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thanks very much, Jean-Jacques, and I guess the first action item then is for this Doodle to be sent out and so that will be followed up immediately by staff after the call I guess.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: That’s fine.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Next part in the action items is the review of the At-Large Working Groups, and the one which remains there is of course that the ALAC members will review all the standing and ad-hoc At-Large Working Groups in Singapore. There is a specific meeting that is going to take place I believe on Sunday morning and so we’ll be able to look at each one of them and put some shape, revive those Working Groups that need to be revived and perhaps close and archive those that have no standing anymore.
A formal vote of thanks to staff on the Confluence Wiki guide that has been done, and the Board has received a copy of the Wiki guide. I understand the ccNSO has also received a copy of the Wiki guide and it has been very, very much appreciated. So thanks again to the staff for producing this excellent document.
Proposed ALAC statement to the Board on the RAA negotiations. That has been voted and done and sent. GNSO liaison to update GNSO on ALAC activities on RAA, Alan to hold the pen on the RA statement. This whole process has taken place and a statement was produced and is available on the ALAC correspondence page.
Moving further down – Board resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition & Innovation. That’s still in process at the moment. There is going to be, and I do need confirmation on that, actually. I think that there is going to be a forum taking place in Singapore. I wonder if anyone has feedback on that. Gisella?
Gisella Gruber-White: Sorry, could you just repeat that please, a forum on?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: The forum on Consumer Choice, Competition & Innovation. There was a discussion with Rosemary about the Working Group staging a session in Singapore. Is there a progress on this?
Gisella Gruber-White: Yes, we’ve got a date and a time. We’re working on the agenda, just need to get the date and time up for you – the Consumer with Rosemary is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, the 22nd of June, from 11:00 to 12:30. It’s going to be the Consumer Workshop and the lead ICANN staff person on that will be Margie Milam.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Perfect, okay. So that’s also in place. Next is the identification of data to be shared with registrars. As you may all be aware there is a discussion taking place between the registrars and At-Large. We’ve had several conference calls, well, we had a conference call, we also saw them in San Francisco. There is not going to be a direct discussion or a session with the registrars in Singapore, however the last conference call that we had has asked At-Large to provide questions to registrars: what are the questions that users would like to hear an answer for, sort of a frequently asked question-type document that we will work together on with the registrars.
Are there any comments on this point? Now, this is something that’s in process and I will ask staff if we can follow up on that please, so that we can actually produce questions for them before Singapore. We did say that we were going to have that.
Next, Danny Younger’s comment regarding cyber-squatter registrar and that has been noticed, and the point will be made to Compliance in Singapore. It’s something that I think we’re particularly strong about, we have to remain strong about. Compliance is something particularly important and certainly cyber-squatting is something that affects users on a daily basis.
Cross-community Work Groups, ALAC to look at the Technology Evolution of WHOIS Service. Has, now I’m not quite sure, I’m not briefed on that one. Has anyone got feedback on this? Would it be Alan perhaps?
Alan Greenberg: No, I have no feedback at this point.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Not yet. Okay, well I guess we’ll put that one into touch for the time being. Perhaps (interference) and get back on that one. And the call for community volunteers on IDN Variants…
Alan Greenberg: Olivier, on that one do we have anyone who’s on that group?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: For which group? Sorry.
Alan Greenberg: The WHOIS one.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: The WHOIS group? I thought that you had said you were going to be… This is just very vague from memory so I’m not quite sure.
Alan Greenberg: I don’t believe so. Alright, I’ll put it on my to-do to look into it and see whether someone is on it or not.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yeah, let’s look into it please.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, and then the last action item is the call for community volunteers on the IDN Variants TLD Case Study Teams. I believe that Edmon, you have a few words to say on this?
Edmon Chung: Sure, this is Edmon. I think the IDN Variants Issues Project, the IP is getting under way. I have, well thank you, Olivier, for sending in the note to Dennis and the team. I think I sent myself in as potentially an observer for all the teams, right now as the IDN liaison from ALAC, but right now they’re still trying to figure out what if any, how to deal with a structure of observers.
On top of that I guess myself, I will also be involved at least in the Chinese Script Study Group, and I believe there are community representatives for each of the study groups. The names and the people who are in the team is probably going to be published shortly, definitely before Singapore; and there are a series of meetings scheduled for Singapore I think on the Saturday before the (interference). So that’s the update from (interference).
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Fantastic, Edmon, well thanks very much for the update and good work, and hopefully we’ll get more news by the time the Singapore meeting takes place. Any comments generally on any of the action items that we’ve covered just now?
And I see no hands up so we’ll swiftly move to the next part of the agenda, which is a review of the current ALS applications. And I’ll kick the ball over to, is it Marilyn whose going to speak about this or has she not made it on the call yet?
Gisella Gruber-White: Marilyn’s not on the call.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: She’s not, okay. Well, Gisella? Or I can do it I guess if…
Gisella Gruber-White: Sorry yes, I’m just dealing with issues with the Spanish translator, sorry.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Alright, let me then deal with it in the meantime. So there are four ALS applications that are in the pipeline at the moment, two in the EURALO region and one in the Asia-Pacific and one in the African region. I think we’ll go through them one-by-one. I’m not quite sure what the process is because this is the first time that I’m dealing with ALS application reviews, but I guess we’d look at each one of them and ask the region for advice perhaps? If we look at FORCAS…. Yes, Tijani please, FORCAS. And you might be muted, Tijani.
Gisella Gruber-White: Yes, Tijani is muted. I’m just unmuting him.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Tijani? Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Do you hear me?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, we can hear you. Yes, go ahead, Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay, very good. So FORCAS. This application took a very long time because they gave….
[call technical difficulties]
Tijani Ben Jemaa: What is that? Do you hear me?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes we can hear you, Tijani. Please go ahead.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay, thank you. So this application took a very long time because at first they gave a very, very bad application. They didn’t understand the questions and we did a lot of extensive email with them, and then at certain times they didn’t respond to our emails. So we gave them a deadline to respond and they responded. They gave a new application, a clean application, and I asked the members of the AFRALO to tell me if they agree for this application and they are responding by email on the list. And I will send the final decision of the RALO at the end of this week to the ALAC.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Tijani. Any comments on this, other comments on this application?
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: This is Jean-Jacques. Could I just say one thing?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes please, Jean-Jacques.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes thanks. Tijani, did you talk about a decision by the RALO? I suppose it’s an advice or an opinion?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Right.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Okay thanks.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: No, one moment… Jean-Jacques, can you hear me? Jean-Jacques?
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: The RALO gives advice to ALAC and ALAC decides. So the advice of the RALO is now being made, people are more or less voting on this application and at the end of the week I will give the ALAC the advice of the RALO.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: I understood. I was just pointing out that it would not be absolutely correct to say that the RALO was taking a decision; it was just giving an advice. Yes, thanks.
[crosstalk]
Tijani Ben Jemaa: No, the RALO was taking the decision on what kind of advice they have to give to ALAC, okay?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Olivier, Cheryl Langdon-Orr for the record. In terms of process, Olivier, if I may assist you here, as we appear to have the regional advice expected in from AFRALO in by the end of the week and we have an acceptance advice on the other two coming in from the EURALO region, if we could get staff to follow up with APRALO leadership and bring the advice into sync, into some synchronicity for the end of this week then it would be appropriate to start a [big pulse] vote on all of those ALS applications with the ALAC members being asked to either accept or reject the regional advice.
That means that by five to seven days, in another week we can have hopefully four more At-Large Structures. It is important that we take the voting on the ALAC on the decision to accept or reject the regional advice in a formal big pulse vote. There are many things we can vote on by raising of hand, acclimation or otherwise, but the formalization of an At-Large Structure is something we need a clear audit trail on. So I would recommend that you follow that pathway, get the APRALO advice as soon as possible, before but certainly no later than the AFRALO advice is expected to be in; and then all four ALSes go to work as is practical after that. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Cheryl, and I was going to ask the APRALO leadership when they were expecting to be able to provide their advice.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I would suggest that as there has been nothing but positives as said on the list, as soon as the APRALO leadership stop doing their presentation in [Kalan] or Sri Lanka where I’m at right now they can put their fingertips to their keyboards and give you the affirmative. But that does need to be formally said, so perhaps Edmon could see whether Pavan has already been given the approval for that advice to come through as Secretariat, but in the absence of Pavan having already been given that advice to send staff should reach out to Charles who is the new Chair of APRALO just to formalize that. But I envisage less than a 24- to 36-hour turnaround on that advice.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Perfect. Right, well thanks very much, Cheryl, and one thing that I did want to ask though, not that we have a way forward, is perhaps if there are any questions from anyone here regarding any of those four applications that we have in front of us prior to of course the vote taking place in a few…in a week, let’s say.
And I see that no one is putting their hands up so we can therefore ask an action item as Cheryl has quite well described, searching for the word, for APRALO to follow up and provide its advice as soon as possible and hopefully within about a week, and APRALO to provide its advice on NetMission Asia also within a week so that we can have a vote taking place before the Singapore meeting. It’s particularly important to have a formal vote and I do hope that we’ll have good votes on this. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, just on the assumption we’re finished with that item I did post something on the chat regarding WHOIS Service, and there is a call for participants for work for a drafting team out. So either I can send it out or staff can send it out to our various lists. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. Right, shall I ask you, please Alan, to send it out to the list. Staff is a bit stretched at the moment.
Alan Greenberg: Will do, I can’t do the announce list but I’ll send it to At-Large then, thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thanks very much. And so we’ll move over to the next point in the agenda which are the reports, so Alan your hand is still up?
Alan Greenberg: My mistake.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thanks. So the next part of our agenda are the reports and the reports are all available, the monthly reports are all available on the page which is referenced in the agenda. There are a couple of questions which I did have. Just looking through the reports not all regions are so up to date, and I was hoping that regions are going to be up to date. Tijani, you have your hand raised. You might be…
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Hello, can you hear me?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead, Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay, so for AFRALO the monthly report of the last month was ready on time. It was my mistake I didn’t put it on the Wiki. I’m sorry. But for this month it is not ready yet, and I want to propose that we define the period that we want the report to be on. If we want it to be until today, the reports will be from 20 to 20 for example, or from 25 to 25. But if we want it to a calendar month report we cannot ask for the reports of the month, for example, April, May, etc., which is not done like this.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. Well… Cheryl? You might have…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Olivier, Cheryl Langdon-Orr for the record. Tijani, I understand very well what you’re saying – it does make it a challenge. With the regional reporting there’s usually an opportunity for creation of an update at least, if not a full report, after the monthly meeting. And so that or at least links in the Wiki pages to the agenda and the minutes and the notes from the monthly meeting does contribute to reports.
As now a liaison I’ve found the best way to manage is to ensure that for the ALAC meetings, I have reported on activities in the ccNSO up to and including whatever is reportable to today’s date; but I file it in the Wiki under any given month. So I will continue to update my May even after today’s meeting, so anything else that happens in May I will go back into the Confluence Wiki page and update it.
So whilst I file it as a calendar month I do a report from an ALAC reporting perspective to ensure that everything’s up to date for the date of the ALAC meeting. I don’t know whether that helps but that’s the way I’ve approached it anyway, but I would think of pivotal timing for the region is their regional meeting reporting.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thanks very much, Cheryl, for sharing this with us. Any other comments or questions? I was just going to say the AFRALO is a little late on its reports, APRALO too, NARALO too and so is EURALO although EURALO has won a reprieve until its GA, General Assembly that’s taking place in a few days. But well done to LACRALO who is up to date. So perhaps we should all look forward to…
Just fill those reports. They are important because they do keep a good track of what’s going on and it’s just sometimes a few words and it will make a difference for someone who comes onto the site and tries to see what’s going on in our different regions. They really are the showcase of our regions here. There are… Oh Sandra? Sandra, you have your hand up.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, thanks Olivier. I just want to mention that I uploaded the EURALO report today to the EuroDIG website as a (inaudible) before the EURALO General Assembly. I don’t know if you’ve noticed already.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I have not, no, and thank you for mentioning it. I’ll have a look later on.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thanks. Right, then of course Working Group Chair reports and ALAC liaison reports. The Working Groups, I guess we will be working on in Singapore; and as far as the liaison reports are concerned, thanks to all our liaisons. Some have been a little bit behind. I think well, certainly the Board liaison report is one thing that should be marked as obsolete these days. Cheryl, you have your hand raised?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, you took the words out of my mouth on the Board liaison report. But I was going to suggest one of the benefits of the Confluence Wiki is that you can subscribe to page changes, so perhaps if the ALAC and regional leadership who should have a vested interest in some of the liaison reporting set up their email or notification from changes from the various liaison changes, that might be (inaudible) to ensure ongoing up-to-dateness. If there was another word which I could use I would but it’s been a very long day for me already and that’s the best I can do.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thanks very much. So that’s just to repeat correctly the ALAC and regional leadership to set up notifications on those liaison reports so that whenever there is a report they are advised about the change on the page. Alan? You have the floor.
Alan Greenberg: A question for Cheryl. I know you can subscribe to updates on a particular page – can you subscribe to updates on a particular page and all daughter pages?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s a question I would need to ask IT.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, what would you have to do in this case if you wanted to see your reports as they were posted?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (crosstalk) Yeah, well it depends on how the various liaisons do their reports. I don’t do it as daughter paging; I run from the top down so new news goes at the top. So any change that happens in the ccNSO liaison page would be notified.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, sorry I didn’t realize that. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Alan, thank you, Cheryl. And I think we can move now to the next part of our agenda, which is the new business. And as we have said a bit earlier in our call we’ll start with item #7 so as to be able to have a proper discussion and have enough people for the vote since Sylvia will be leaving us early. Review of the JAS Working Group and decision on the Board/At-Large/GAC participation in the JAS Work Group meeting as per the Board’s suggestion.
The background is, well, quite long, so I will ask if Evan is on the call? Because Carlton is not, is he?
Gisella Gruber-White: No.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Carlton is not, so Evan, could you please just say a few words and what the status is and what we should do basically.
Evan Leibovitch: What we should do, okay, that could take up the rest of the call.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: What you suggest…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Now Evan…
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: You have five minutes.
Evan Leibovitch: Oh okay, so the condensed version. Alright. Sorry, I have to have some fun – it’s been a bit of a rough slog going through this thing. The JAS Working Group has released a second milestone report which is the result of an awful lot of deliberation by an awful lot of very good, hardworking people going at a Working Group that was meeting twice a week and often even more than that using chat rooms and email beyond that.
So what happened was because of timelines and an intention to try and have something in the Board’s hands in advance of last week’s meeting in Turkey there was a milestone report that was released to the chartering organizations – one being ALAC, the other one being GNSO – and hopefully most of you have already voted on two motions that were regarding that document, and I hope in the process of voting on it you’ve read it. So as of right now I believe those votes have carried. Those documents are in the hands of stakeholders who have requested it, and so the next steps as partially described in a conference call that happened immediately before the ALAC one is an issue of going through next steps.
And what we need to do is number one, find out, basically go through the milestone report itself and find out, just basically redline the many rough edges yet on work details in the report that need to be worked on, but even more importantly is to try and get some feedback from the target audience, so to speak – that is, from the GAC and from the ICANN Board – to find out at least whether or not the report is going in the right direction and whether the charter and the goals under which it was formed are actually addressing the needs of the community that wanted this to happen in the first place.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Evan, you might not be looking at the chat at the same time, it’s Olivier here, but slow down a little bit for the interpretation, thank you.
Evan Leibovitch: Well, I can compensate for having spoken so fast by the fact that I really don’t have a whole lot more to say in the summary version.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. So now, and it’s Olivier here, now we have the Board and some other stakeholders that have the report, the second milestone report in their hand. And now both chartering organizations, both the ALAC and the GNSO have received a request from Katim who has asked whether we would be interested in staging, and whether I guess there would be an interest in staging a conference or a session in Singapore in order to discuss this on a multi-stakeholder basis. Is that correct?
Evan Leibovitch: It’s my understanding that there is an attempt to try and have this, and we would absolutely welcome it. I mean at this point in time we know that this issue is very important to a number of ICANN stakeholders. You now have governments that have spoken out; there is an email going over the JAS mailing list I believe about the government of Sweden having issued statements on gTLDs and applicants that required assistance.
So we know that this is receiving attention at the very highest levels, and so it’s important for us number one, to understand what it is they need and make sure we address those, and try and keep that consistent with the charter and the skills of the Working Group members that are there now.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. Thank you, Evan. So the status on the ALAC side, because as you know the Working Group was chartered both by the GNSO and the ALAC. The status from the ALAC is that we have received the report, the second milestone report. We have voted on it and we have ratified it and sent it over to the Board. The GNSO unfortunately hasn’t reached quite that point. Alan, would you be able to tell us what the status is with regards to the GNSO and the JAS please?
Alan Greenberg: Yes, certainly. Avoiding all rhetoric there was a motion put forward at the last meeting last, on Thursday, to approve the report. The standard GNSO practice is if some stakeholder group or constituency feels that they need more time to review it, a vote such is that is deferred for a month. A request was made and the issue will be addressed at the meeting at the beginning of June, June 9th I believe. That means there will be a vote on that motion. Whether that motion is defeated it means like the first JAS report, they will have taken no action at that point. A rejection of a vote to approve does not mean rejection, so it’s not clear what will happen if it is not approved.
Evan Leibovitch: But officially, Alan, it means essentially no action.
Alan Greenberg: At this point probably. Whether there’ll be an alternative motion put forward before the deadline to take other action if the first one is defeated, which is often what happens, that could still happen and I would like to hope it will happen. But we’ll see.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: And as I said I was trying to avoid rhetoric.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. Well, it doesn’t look as though so far the report is going to be ratified by the GNSO before the end of the month, and before any suggested times at which there would be a joint conference call between the JAS Group and the GAC or selected GAC members and selected Board members.
So the question we have to look at at the moment is, is the ALAC okay with such a call to prepare any conference in Singapore to take place, bearing in mind that the GNSO has not ratified that report and is not close to ratifying it since they have not even ratified the first one to start with?
Alan Greenberg: Just a correction, what happened in the first one is irrelevant at this point. This is a separate issue so let’s not mix the two.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Well Alan, it’s about expectations on how soon we expect them to ratify the second one, and might there be a case if they don’t?
Alan Greenberg: As I said, there will be a vote I believe on the 9th. If it’s ratified, fine; if it’s not ratified, will there be another vote to reject it? I don’t know, I can’t speak to that. That’s going to depend on what happens in Council between now and then. There is a vote, there will be a vote on the 9th or whatever the right date is to consider the motion that was raised by Rafik.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. Thank you, Alan. So the question then, because the GNSO’s response so far – and I’m saying the GNSO through the voice of Stephane Van Gelder, was to say that they are not looking positively at having the Board and the GAC work directly with the JAS because they haven’t ratified the report yet. We have a choice now whether we want to say yes to this, and so we have prepared a statement and I guess we can do a vote on that, which would effectively be – and I think, shall we do just a cut and paste on that? Let’s have a look.
I’ve pasted it over in the chat and the vote that we would have is that the ALAC is pleased to note interest from the Board shown towards the second milestone report of the cross-constituency Joint Applicant Support Working Group – JASWG. To this extent it’s therefore welcome the organization of a conference call for interested Board members and the GNSO, GAC, and At-Large reps to discuss the status and way forward for the recently released JAS Work Group report.
Evan Leibovitch: Olivier, do you need a mover for that?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Well, first I was going to take comments and then if there were no more comments I was going to ask for a mover for that. But Alan, you have a comment?
Alan Greenberg: Are you deliberately excluding the JAS Working Group from this other than the few At-Large people on it?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I think that’s a mistake, I guess – “and JAS Working Group,” sorry yes, that had to be added. And that was a genuine mistake, sorry.
Evan Leibovitch: Mind you, Alan, everybody-
Alan Greenberg: I would tend to say “…the GNSO, the GAC, the JAS Working Group and other participants who are interested in discussing it.”
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: We welcome GNSO people with open arms.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Happy with that.
Alan Greenberg: What we’re carrying in the arms we don’t talk about, but-
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, so-
Evan Leibovitch: It keeps dripping out.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Are we okay with this? Now, do we have staff support again or are we still down to Gisella at the moment?
Gisella Gruber-White: Sorry, Olivier, you still only have me.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Oh dear, this is DIY ALAC I see.
Gisella Gruber-White: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank heavens we do have you, Gisella. I’ve got an approval up, it’s Cheryl for the record, Olivier. This is one of those times when I fall back on the At-Large for everyone rapport. There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t go ahead in our usual open meeting method. I think it’s important that we don’t lose the energy and impetus on this. It certainly has my approval to continue and go ahead and be open for whatever informal input anyone from any part of the ICANN community wishes to have in the process.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Great. So we have the text again, so let me just do this on the fly: “The ALAC is pleased to note interest from the Board shown toward the second milestone report of the cross-community Joint Applicant Support Working Group – JAS WG. To this effect it therefore welcomes the organization of a conference call for interested Board members, GAC, and…” please fill in here, “...GAC, At-Large reps and the rest of the community to discuss this status and wait for word for the recently released JAS Work Group reports.”
And Evan, your hand is up. Would you like to speak?
Evan Leibovitch: No, I’m just- I’m actually offline trying to see if I can craft some better wording.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Do we have to wait for you on this or should we in the meantime move to the second vote that we need to take?
Evan Leibovitch: Go right ahead.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Cintra? You might be muted, Cintra.
Cintra Sooknanan: Sorry, I was muted. May I just suggest that the GAC also be invited to this session and also the Board?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Cintra, the GAC is already invited. The GAC is already mentioned in there.
Cintra Sooknanan: And the Board as well?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: GNSO, GAC, At-Large, Board, everyone – it’s open doors.
Cintra Sooknanan: Okay, thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep, the Queen is welcome.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, absolutely. As long as you’re human you’ll be accepted. Right.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, I think things are too narrow there.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Whilst Evan works on part #7 so as for us to have a workable motion, let’s move onto the next one which is the review of ALAC’s statement about the eG8 Forum. As you are well aware there is a forum taking place today and tomorrow in France which is an eG8 Forum where various heads of state and captains of industry are meeting to discuss the future of the internet, or various things in the future of the internet.
The problem of course is that several organizations have not been consulted and are not present there, ICANN being one of them. They are present as participants but they have not been taken on as speakers and therefore they don’t actually have a voice, which is rather strange.
Dev has put a live feed through Facebook; that’s there. And whilst there is certainly a lot of displeased people in civil society and in the usual governance circles due to the fact that most of the invitees and most of the people intervening in the eG8 Forum are companies, corporations and CEOs of major content providers. So the question therefore goes as to whether ALAC is to send a statement over and we have the ability to send a statement to the organizers.
And with this I open the floor to discussion. There’s a link in your agenda to the statement on the eG8 Forum. The statement was originally drafted by (inaudible) and several other people have added and modified it, and we’ve reached a v2 which I believe is complete there, although I have noticed a mistake on the date. It says “Paris 23rd, 24th of May,” that should actually be 24th, 25th of May.
The floor is open and Jean-Jacques, you have your hand up.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes. I’d like just to say that I think this would be the kind of item which would be worth discussing in the Future Challenges Working Group. I say this but of course it’ll be too late to have any sort of impact on this particular eG8 meeting. But it is very policy-oriented, it is the kind of place where I think the At-Large Structures and Representatives should aim at having some sort of influence in the same way as ISOC makes statements which are generally well-crafted, well-suited and well-timed.
So maybe one of our tasks would be to look at the way in which it would be possible to have that kind of influence by ascertaining what is the right approach, the right calendar to have that impact. Thanks.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Jean-Jacques, and certainly I had questions in my mind whether it was within our charter to work on such statements, but definitely the model that we are defending is something that is core to all of our members and so all I’ve heard are that everyone is totally in favor of a statement.
Evan, your hand is up. Is it having to do with this?
Evan Leibovitch: No.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: So that’s probably when we come back to you afterwards. What I would suggest is the statement which reads as follows, and it’s a very short statement… I’m just putting it in there, just typing it quickly. “The ALAC fully supports the contents of the statement on the eG8 Forum and its transmission to the French President and his advisors as well as to the ICANN Board.” Several people have their hands up – Jean-Jacques?
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes, a quick remark. Making a statement has never been a problem anywhere in the world. The real thing is, actually two things – one is the circuit. I mean who do you approach in order for your statement to have an impact? And two is the timing. The timing I think in this case is quite obvious but the thing I’m insisting on is once you have made a statement, you just send it to the Board of ICANN and to the organizers of the eG8 and that’s it? I think that’s not sufficient and that’s one of the things I would for one very much like to have discussed one day in the Future Challenges Working Group.
In order to increase the impact of At-Large Structures and representation in this kind of large public policy issue, maybe we should make a statement which would be not only sent in a confidential way somewhere but also made public and therefore there should be a communication policy to go with it. Thanks.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Jean-Jacques, and I have addressed your concerns in an email I sent was it, this morning I gather – it feels like yesterday… No, yesterday it was, and the statement itself will be sent to the person in charge of electronic communication at the Elysee Palace, an email that was provided to me through contacts in the French government- the French GAC representatives who have been very helpful and supportive, the ICANN Board, the ICANN CEO but also to (inaudible), the [Mode Newspaper] and also the eG8 Forum organizing office, which is a slightly different channel than the Elysee Palace itself.
Does this, I mean that certainly will bring it more punch than just sending a statement internally to the Board.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes, that’s the idea. But I think that… Thank you for that explanation, Olivier, but I think that exactly we should also look at a sort of standard communication policy which could be suited to this kind of event and reaction more widely. Thanks.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Jean-Jacques. I think we can go to a vote now, so I was going to ask everyone whether first… Well, we’ve seen the statement here. First thing we need is someone to second that statement.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: I can do that.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: And sorry, for the record who is this?
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Jean-Jacques.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Jean-Jacques, okay. Thanks very much, Jean-Jacques.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You mean you didn’t recognize Jean-Jacques’ voice?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: No, I’m sorry. (laughter) There’s noise in the background, I’m not sure whether you hear it… So the vote is “The ALAC fully supports the contents of the statement on the eG8 Forum and its transmission to the French President and its advisors as well as the ICANN Board.” For the record, the statement will be sent both in English and in French, just in case. And so the vote, if we can have it now – is anyone against? I think we’ll do it just by voice. If anyone is against they could shout or if they’re against they can put a cross rather than a tick mark. If anyone is abstaining?
Okay, thank you. So I gather, and I’m going to have to ask Gisella to do the counting here of what all of the members currently on are voting for.
Gisella Gruber-White: Let me check the language channels.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Olivier, what was your last question please?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Anyone for? Oh sorry, anyone against? Anyone abstaining? And the last question was anyone voting for, but “anyone voting for” is by default the number of people who are on the channel who have not abstained and who have not voted against. I guess I could put a tick, too.
Gisella Gruber-White: Yes, Sergio has responded as well.
[background conversation]
Gisella Gruber-White: (inaudible) Dave Kissoondoyal, Gareth Sherman, James Seng, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Marc Rotenberg, Sergio Salinas Porto and Tijani Ben Jemaa.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Well everyone who is ALAC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Next?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Sylvia (interference) as well. Okay, we have everyone. Okay. I’ll wait for Gisella to give me the okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just move on, Olivier. I mean anyone who thought their vote was being incorrectly recorded would have screamed very loudly in whatever language channel they were on by now.
Gisella Gruber-White: All the ALAC members who are on the call who have not said anything have accepted it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thanks very much, and so we’ll move back now to the item #7 which was the item asking about the review of the JAS Working Group, and Evan has now put some text on the Wiki, on the Adobe and Evan, would you please read that text?
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. So for this statement this is “The ALAC is pleased to note interest from the Board and elsewhere in the ICANN community regarding the second milestone report of the cross-community Joint Application Support Working Group, abbreviated…
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Applicant.
Evan Leibovitch: “…Applicant Support Working Group, abbreviated JAS WG. It therefore welcomes the organization of a conference call for interested members of the JAS WG, ICANN Board, GNSO, At-Large and other interested stakeholders to explain the JAS Working Group’s status and discuss ways forward.”
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you very much, Evan. So that’s the-
Evan Leibovitch: Sorry. I also have a note in the chat but this might be more appropriate for item #9, that the Working Group would also actually like to have a session in Singapore in addition to this conference call.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: So vote for, have a-
Evan Leibovitch: This vote is for the call.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: For the call, yeah. So I’ll let everyone read this and I’ll let Maya, well the interpreters translate them in the respective languages. Now are there any questions or comments on this statement or on this vote? And first is Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I would support including the reference to the Singapore session in the note to say “We are also, the JAS Working Group is also interested,” and just to get there ahead of anyone who says that their Working Group cannot ask to schedule sessions at an ICANN meeting. There are long precedents that Working Groups schedule sessions without asking permission of the chartering groups, so I think we have plenty of precedence for that, thank you.
Evan Leibovitch: But Alan, aren’t we here as a chartering organization?
Alan Greenberg: No, but the wording there is the JAS Working Group is asking for or is interested in.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: So I’m just pointing out there is a long history of scheduling sessions without permission.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, and Cintra? You might be muted.
Cintra Sooknanan: Hello?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Cintra, you’re on.
Cintra Sooknanan: Okay, thanks Olivier. Are the GAC and Board also included in this session because it’s a bit (inaudible)?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Evan didn’t actually type GAC in his note.
Cintra Sooknanan: Okay, so would this session actually include those other two groups as well in a similar way that the call is structured, open or…
Alan Greenberg: I don’t think we need to get that specific here.
[crosstalk]
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Sorry, one at a time please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Cintra, this is Cheryl for the record. It does already say “Board,” he needs to add GAC. That was just an oversight.
Cintra Sooknanan: Okay, thank you.
Alan Greenberg: It’s Alan. Cintra was asking about the Singapore session referencing those two also.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes?
Alan Greenberg: And the words that Evan put on the chat do not include them.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: But I don’t think it needs to. TI’s a JAS-related session, the implication is the same cast of players.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Alright, well Evan has added now the GAC and has added the second part which speaks about the multi-stakeholder meeting at the ICANN meeting in Singapore.
Alan Greenberg: Fine, thank you. This was Alan, bye-bye.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much. Okay, I think we’re ready for a vote. Any second to that motion?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, I’ll second it. Cheryl Langdon-Orr.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. And now let’s go for the vote then. Is anybody against this motion? Is anyone objecting to it?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Abstaining, perhaps.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I hear no objections so again, record unanimous vote for the motion. And I think I might need to read the motion for the record, for the transcript: “The ALAC is pleased to note interest from the Board and other stakeholders towards the second milestone report of the cross-community Joint Applicant Support Working Group [JAS WG]. To this extent it therefore welcomes the organization of a conference call for interested members of the JAS Working Group, the ICANN Board, GNSO, GAC, At-Large, and other interested community members to discuss the status and way forward for the JAS Working Group. We also request the creation of a multi-stakeholder meeting on this issue to be held at the ICANN meeting in Singapore.”
Well, thank you very much, I think we’ve been through these two votes, and Gisella, have you managed to record the list?
Gisella Gruber-White: Excepting for all the ALAC members on this call.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. And the ExCom will then take this forward and reply to the Board, to the request from the team, and I guess also advise the JAS Working Group and obviously advise also the GNSO of our vote. Any comments before we move on to the next items? I was going to comment and say thank you for this; I think it’s a particularly important process.
The JAS is something that we have felt very strongly in At-Large, and I think that it will certainly make a difference. So we’re not moving on to – well, moving back actually, to ICANN number six, items for decision; and its review and revise the timelines on the policy advice development calendar.
Now since Carlton is not able to do this, I guess I’ll have to do it myself; or could I ask perhaps Cheryl to take over here, while I have a glass of water?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, you can.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The policy advice schedule, the PAD, is needing a little bit of updating, but we had on our agenda the current status in progress already to be finished, that we need to add to our PAD. The ones that are finished, or are in progress, is the ALAC statement on the academia representation on NomCom, we have another day or two for comments to be accepted through that. And I would have a call for comments to the Wiki page on that, and the eG8 Forum has just been completed.
The ones that we are seeking your input on, as to whether or not we do want to comment are the following: first of all the proposed .mobi contract amendment, additional equitable allocation options for .mobi one and two character domains, which again end in a day or two; we do have a ALAC representative on the .mobi Board, that’s part of the .mobi contractual arrangement. We have a strong influence in the very early and formative processes that go on in the wonderful world of .mobi, and so with that short data, I would put it to the ALAC, if I may, Olivier, that we consider taking short order advice from our liaison to .mobi, who I would have thought would have told us if there were a problem.
But just to make sure that there isn’t something we need to comment on, and let Andres who is currently the liaison to .mobi indicate that we should put in a short form comment if we do not do that. Perhaps we need to open the floor and discuss that with the rest of the ALAC, once it’s reviewed. Does anyone believe we should put in a .mobi comment, or should we put that across for recommendation of yay or nay from our liaison? Any comments? Any questions? Any disagreement?
In which case we’ll just talk to Andres to see if there’s anything we’ve missed. If there’s anything that needs our attention in the absence of that, we will let that one slide. The next one is the ICANN financial year ’12 Security, Stability, and Resiliency framework; this rolls to the 7th of June. It would be appropriate for us to put something in on that, and I would suggest that that is a piece of drafting that should be complementary to what we’ve already done in the general FY ’12 framework.
Olivier, if I may be so bold, much of what we need to look at in the evolution work from the DSSR work team, of course, crosses into this territory. Perhaps the early drafting of a brief statement on this could come out of the executive for the rest of the ALAC to review, seeing as how we have a couple of us in the executive and we have our sit-in vote in the general Security, Stability, and Resiliency Work Group world, but also in the Financial and Budget Work Group as well, beyond that.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. I would second this, and certainly without having our representative in DSSR currently on the call, it would be difficult for us to just draft one there and then. Let’s kick this over to the executive committee and discuss it afterwards.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And reach out to our liaison, because that’s an integral part of it all. We did make questions, we did take some notes, and I’m sure that we should be able to put something together in short order as a draft response. The change in reporting and the attempts to make it digestible and easily understood will go a long way toward meeting some of our needs and responding to our previous criticisms.
But for example, one item that sticks in my mind is there is no clear method to the FY’12 SS&R framework and its implications in budget, and how much of that is constrained within what is purely ICANN’s mandate, which of course is something that the DSSR Work Group had tried to establish in cold hard metrics as well. There is some crossover there with a (crosstalk).
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: A work in progress.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, exactly. Did you want me to continue?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Do you have anything else --
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, I mean to finish on. I assume you’ve had your glass of water by now.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I have, but I guess you started so well, I’m not going to break your stride.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, you can always try. The next one of these is the proposed ICANN process for handling removal of cross ownership restrictions for existing gTLDs; it ends the first of June. Again, not an inordinate amount of time, and I would be asking Alan as the GNSO liaison’s advice on this one to decide on the yay, nay, or perhaps pile. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Sorry, I was away for a moment, I just heard my name. Can you repeat what you asked?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No problem. Just asking the ALAC and asking your advice for the ALAC or to the ALAC as to whether or not we should be responding to the public comment period open to the first of June on the proposed ICANN process for handling requests to remove cross ownership restrictions for the new gTLDs.
Alan Greenberg: I guess I’m of mixed minds on this one. I think the only thing we can say is we support a level playing field, but to the extent that there are significant markets, competitive market issues involved, the Board should take due care. I don’t think we want to come down for or against the specifics of the request that was made by NuStar.
I do note that in the new .net contract they are still keeping specific restrictions, presumably because of the huge market share that VeriSign has. So you know, we say something prudent like that, it is a consumer issue, so I wouldn’t say anything in a lot more detail than that, other than saying we support level playing fields, but we have some concerns.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: A short and sweet and very much ‘mother would like’ statement which is in keeping with our principles, pretty much cut and paste –
Alan Greenberg: Pointing out that we don’t know the right answer, but we trust them to do it right, yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Now you’ve gone too far, Alan. You had my absolute support until that last statement. Olivier, go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: There was an implicit statement there, yes. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl. I do have one concern, which is that of staff bandwidth. As you know, we are short on staff, and having to draft another statement that should be ready in five days, is it? Because it’s the 7th of June; well, in seven days, in addition to the others that we might have to do plus other work which is just about to fall on us, including the finalization of the At-Large improvements report, is something which I think might be unfeasible for both the community but also for our staff.
I do remind everyone we’ve only got Gisella at the moment on the call. I’m not sure whether Gisella wants to write reports while she follows our calls at the same time. That’s something I just wish to remind everyone of.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That has crossed my thoughts too, but she’s not totally --
Gareth Shearman: Olivier, this is Gareth.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Sorry, I hadn’t noticed that you had your hand up.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I may, I know you’re concerned about getting votes out and everything else, I assume that we’re quorate, you could continue to ask the ALAC view on quite literally a mighty tidied up bit of work of what Alan said.
In other words, we go to the transcript, we do what is probably less than 100 words on this, and it just gets transmitted by you. And if the ALAC has agreed to such a general principled statement, providing that what is put out to them in their list to double check before it’s transmitted is in keeping with that, I don’t think that’s going to be too onerous on staff. And perhaps Alan could be prevailed upon to put pen to the chat space and put the text of that together now.
He’s typing; he’s doing it as we speak. And we could approve that rather than take it through the onerous process, if that makes your concerns any less. While your – oh, there we go – the text is – summary that ALAC can vote on now. ALAC supports level playing field, but does not have -- but does have some concerns regarding market power issues and unfair competition. Subject to perhaps a comma and little more changes to that, if the rest of the ALAC is comfortable with such a simple but important statement going in, we could just make that so.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you for the suggestion, Cheryl, and I think that if – well, first I would ask if there are any comments or anybody wishes to speak about this. I see a tick from James. I already see measures of approval, in which case I’m not against a vote. In fact, if there is no objection, then we can vote on that certainly, yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier, we can discuss if anybody has any objections, but if nobody is objecting, then I think you’ve got your permission for that. It’s hardly a detailed and intricate statement, I think it’s fairly safe – not too much could be criticized with those few words.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Very rough and broad, but definitely shows what our values are. So anyone seconding this? May I second this? I guess I may.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You may, seeing that you’re currently the (inaudible).
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Well, Cheryl, you are terrific running this part of the agenda.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, thank you – you may second it, because right now you’re not running this part of it.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: So I’ll second it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, what you can do is rather than call for a formal vote now, Alan will be posting the final wording later today, and if the ALAC agrees, it will go unless there is an objection raised on the list on the final wording.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Does anyone disagree with that? Make yourself known. Anyone on the language channels? Okay. Done. And the last two to be dealt with is the proposed permanent charter of GNSO non-commercial stakeholder group; again Alan, I’m going to talk to you, but I did think we had already exchanged some email if not Wiki information on this. I know a couple of people have raised a few concerns at various points in time. Are we at a point where what’s happening in that chatter is of sufficient concern? Do we need to react or not?
Alan Greenberg: I posted something, and I don’t think anyone objected to it, but I still have two concerns, but I didn’t think either of them were worth posting, given that the principles involved in it and the Board advisory committee did not seem to be objecting to it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So we can let that one lie, is your advice?
Alan Greenberg: That’s what I would think.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent; moving on to the last one, which we have already put a fair amount into, and that’s the FY ’12 Operating Plan and Budget being ready for community consideration ending 17th of June. We have traditionally insured that we do respond to all things budgetary-based.
It is obviously the purview of the Finance and Budget Subcommittee, and if the time between now and the 17th of June we expecting a call so that the staff bandwidth issue that Olivier has raised is a good one to be considered as well as travel commitments that some people will be bringing to their own business lives in preparation for leaving for Singapore, is this something that we have said enough about? Or can we raise a few additional issues in a general response now that we have greater details? Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you, Cheryl. I volunteer to prepare a draft statement of ALAC about the FY ‘12 Operating Plan and Budget. I think that ALAC has to give a statement about this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Personally, I do agree with you, Tijani. Is everyone happy for Tijani to deal with the draft? We do have our existing Wiki space, so we’ll use that confluence Wiki page to gather comments and feedback on that draft. Tijani, when do you believe that you might be in a position to publish that draft in its early form?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: By next week.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In which case, Olivier, there is a simple yes by not responding to that. A time caution, the PAD which has – putting it in probably on time, but with a vote to ratify happening face to face when you’re got a quorum around the table in Singapore. Over to you then, thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Cheryl, and I was just going to come back to one small thing, which was the ALAC statement on the academia representation on the NomCom. Comments accepted until tomorrow, 2359 UTC. I would urge everyone to have a read through the draft text that was written by Christopher Wilkinson. I understand that we have a handful of – well, we had a handful of comments.
I can’t see them, but Cheryl; you had a comment about this, if I could ask you to put it down in writing on the Wiki page? It’s important that we show a track of comments when we write our draft statements, so as to show that it’s not just one person writing things, it’s the whole community reading this and saying “No, I don’t agree,” or “Yes, I do agree.” It doesn’t take that much time, but it is an important part of the bottom up process.
So with this, thank you and we’ll move now to the next half in our agenda, which are the items for discussion. I realize it is 20 minutes past the hour and this should be the end of our call, so we will have to extend a little bit, but thankfully we have gone through most of the agenda so far.
The part of the agenda we’re looking at now is number nine, the ICANN finance decisions regarding requests for additional funding, and I expect this discussion to take only a couple of minutes, or perhaps half an hour, depending on how happy or unhappy we are with the results that we have. If we will all open the document that was sent to us, and which goes through each one of the requests that were made by the different SOs and ACs, and SGs, and we come down to some of the requests that we have made, that the regions have made and that the ALAC has channeled over to the finance.
So on the question of whether we’re going to go through each point in turn, or whether we – each request in turn and discuss it, or whether we’re going to have just general discussion, so what I’ll do is to open the floor, and someone who has his hand already up is Tijani. So Tijani, you have the floor.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you, Olivier. You understand that I am really disappointed by the results that come from the finance. The one who can understand the most my disappointment is Cheryl, as she knows exactly, she was following with us, she more or less did with us those projects, and we worked on them, worked very hard on them.
We proposed everything, and last year they said “No, excuse me, because it was not very well explained. Next year we will give you the opportunity to have it.” And nothing was done. The $25000 is – I don’t want to say anything about that. I would prefer not to have them – six persons. I will do a capacity building session with six persons? It is really disappointing. I don’t know how to react, but I am really disappointed and I am thinking about the way to make my voice the right to the decision making people. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Tijani, for your comments. Any other comments from the floor? Certainly I can’t hear any cries of joy and happiness in the ranks at the moment. Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Cheryl Langdon-Orr for the record. Olivier, I don’t hear cries of joy, but I actually am not – I’m crestfallen from individual projects that have been put forward and well thought out and well designed by community, obviously, but I do think we need to give credit where credit is due. The process and the interchange and the feedback and the ability for us to see what has happened where, and in the ‘how things may happen in the future’ from this particular iteration of budget and finance deliberations with ICANN has been, I think, a great step forward, and I think we should recognize that.
I would note that with the exception of Asia/Pacific, most RALOs were able to do something on the lines of you can take five or six people to some form of local regional assembly, and yet that’s a long crooked way from what was desired, and certainly a long way from the very important capacity building work that was outlined in the AFRALO program, and indeed, with the internet governance activities that AFRALO was looking towards doing as well. But what we do see, I think, is a very clear and reasonable attempt to make it clear to the community how decisions were made.
There is only so much cake on the plate, and clearly we can’t all eat all of it, and a number of things which could have just had simple no’s, haven’t had no’s; they’ve had ‘we will look at this again’ and I think that’s acceptable, but let’s stay diligent and make sure that stuff happens.
A number of things that could have been not responded to at all have been put across to other budget entry paths; looking at translation and some of the outreach work as it’s being [in a vertical as] owned or sent across to line items that are appropriate for that, seen as a bigger ICANN budget and not seen as a SOs and ACs additional request. But I think that the process itself needs to be seen as a step forward and I hear the disappointment, and I can assure you timing is also part of the issue here as well.
Then we look at the matter of even what support the RALOs have been offered for additional travel for representatives to be engaged in local business of ALAC funded normal travel expense, with ALS members in local ICANN meetings. Of course, thanks to the matter of timing, Asia/Pacific has missed out totally, and will probably do so for the next round as well, if you look at the forecast and timing as well.
So there are winners and losers; security, stability and therefore SSAC has got a good amount of support, and as a core focus and a feature of what ICANN is going at the moment, that’s an easy argument to see why things went that way. But one of the reasons we do need to respond to the specifics of the Security, Stability, and Resiliency budget is to have greater transparency, greater clarity, and the ability to understand exactly what’s going on in that field, in addition to what we see in terms of support for SSAC, recognizing that all of those community parts in ICANN now, or the component parts of community parts of ICANN now I think have had their very first taste of the new way of doing things.
So I think we can respond in the draft that Tijani’s doing for the public comment input, and we can probably not need to go through one by one, because it is what it is.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much Cheryl. I hope it’s not you that just fell. I just heard an awful noise. You’re still breathing, still breathing.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, on the JAS Group.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: You’re okay, okay. Right, thank you very much, Cheryl. Are there any comments or questions, even on the language channels as well? Anyone (interference)? Yes, Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, I do recognize the evolution, the quality evolution of the process. It is better now, now we are dialoguing with them, and they are responding to us, and that is a good improvement. What they did is more or less like… I cannot think of the word because it’s in French but I cannot translate it. But they tried to make a balance between the RALOs, and it is not a good thing, I think because it is nonsense to give a RALO which wants to make (interference). It’s nonsense, and for a capacity building program, it’s more nonsense. That’s my comment.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you very much Tijani. And you have a comment, second comment – oh, Adigo has her hand up. So judging from the comments that I’ve heard, I’m also seeing I think the two sides. I guess on one side we had an ALAC – we had fantastic projects and I certainly thank all of the regions for coming up with the short list.
Of course it’s a great disappointment to see that many of the projects were not funded, or the majority of them were not funded, but one also has to look at the current environment that ICANN is evolving in. As Cheryl mentioned, the cake is only a certain size, and which the New gTLDs launch having not been affected yet, ICANN is still in a financial position where they are trying to keep as much in the kitty in case things go wrong, and they’re not in a position where they can start spending more.
Certainly judging from the feedback that we have received, and that’s one thing which I think we should be very grateful about; the amount of feedback that we have received for each one of our requests, the ones which were approved, the ones which were partially approved, and the ones which were – which didn’t have funding approved. The feedback is more than any feedback that we’ve had in the past – well, I think ever since ALAC At-Large has existed. I might be wrong, but to me, from what I’ve read in the past three years, this looks like something particularly comprehensive.
So we should be very thankful about that, and I see that many of those points are that they are not ready to fund us this year because of the financial environment and funding might be approved or hopefully the finance will be approved for this later.
That said, it is particularly distressing to see that some of the points we have made here two years, three years ago have not been remembered, because there appears to be absolutely no memory whatsoever on the finance side. That is, of course, partially due to staff changes, but it is particularly worrying that we have had to answer the same questions and we have had to justify ourselves for expecting general assemblies or requesting a second At-Large summit, when we have had, in the past, some fantastic promises.
But now the promises seem to have disappeared somehow. I see Sebastian’s hand up, but I saw Cheryl’s hand going up and down a few times. I think that Sebastian came first, so Sebastian?
Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you, Olivier. Can you hear me well?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, we can indeed.
Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you, I will not defend or say something against or for this budget, but I want to remind you two things. The first one is the concentration on this budget, and it’s not yet the final budget. I know that it’s tiring to say again and again in three years the same thing, but it is the moment to once again put on hold the question of the general assembly, the summit, and it’s important that you do it during this calendar year if you can.
My second point is that in regard to the answer about outreach, it’s not a no to the project; it seems to be more that everybody in the community is asking for outreach, and they decide to approve that all together in one lump, it will be the time when this will be discussed, and where you will have the opportunity to pitch your idea again.
And once again, I know that double work, but it’s the way to go, one step by one step. I hope that we will get some approval of the budget that At-Large wants to push what’s important. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you very much Sebastian. Certainly I can say yes to these words of wisdom, and hopefully yes, you are right. Cheryl had her hand up; she’s put her hand down. I guess the next one on the list is Sergio. Sergio, you have the floor.
Sergio Salinas Porto: [via translator] He would like to say that he is both disappointed in the process of the reports, that there was not enough space or more space for comments from Latin America or from the developing areas. Sergio is disappointed that there wasn’t more opportunity for input from the developing countries with respect to the report on the conversation. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you.
Sergio Salinas Porto: [via translator] Okay, he’s talking about the – that he’s a little disappointed that ICANN does not give as much importance to the communities, the public communities in the developing world. And that would be all he said from Sergio.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you very much, Sergio. This comment is something that we’ve heard a number of times now, so Tijani, if you could take notes, I guess the transcripts will probably be very useful to you when you write that statement. Any other comments, or more? Okay. Well, it looks like we’ve closed that subject.
What I suggest is that we follow up with Tijani, who is going to write that first draft of that statement, and we all follow up and we all have a look at the results on the Wiki page, so as to have a good statement that will take into account all of our concerns. But at the same time, be balanced as to recognize the improvement in the process, hopefully being able to continue that improvement and actually have some yes answers once ICANN is more in a position to have a larger cake than the one at the moment.
So moving on, I suppose we can now move to the next part, which is the At-Large – so item number ten, the At-Large meetings in Singapore, and that’s making the Singapore schedule as of the 16th of May. I’m going to ask Gisella to take us through this quickly, because I realize we are now way over time. So Gisella? Thank you.
Gisella Gruber-White: Thank you, Olivier. My suggestion maybe on this one is that we are finalizing the schedule as well as the meeting with the GAC and I’m happy to send this on to the ALAC as soon as we’ve done this, for any comments. As you can see, the GAC meeting is on the Sunday afternoon from 2:00 to 2:30 (inaudible).
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. Any comments from anyone? I gather this is still being worked out, I understand there are several sessions which are not cast in stone yet.
Gisella Gruber-White: Correct.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, so perhaps we can keep this one into touch, although it is very late in time, but I guess with all the changes that have taken place, certainly the GAC and Board discussions which are still ongoing, we’re not really sure, and I guess some people are even less sure than we are what they’re doing in Singapore. So the next part is item number, and it should be eleven now. We have two tens.
That’s what happens when you don’t have it automated. Number eight, and that’s the review of the 16th of May ALAC and GAC meeting. 16th of May, that was – yes, the discussions that we had at those times, I’m saying it was ten days ago, it seems like a long time ago. So the executive committee and the GAC Chair have had a conference call so as to continue being in touch with what both sides were doing in the run up to Singapore, but also to prepare for the Singapore meeting. So as for us to have a joint meeting with the GAC.
There are several action items that have come up with that, I’ll just read through them. The first one is to set an agenda together, obviously that’s quite appropriate when you have a meeting. But also, the whole theory of having an ALAC liaison to the GAC was discussed. Certainly --
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --2005, 2206, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Sorry.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Perhaps this time around we might be able to score a goal rather than just passing the ball.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s not going to happen Olivier. Not yet.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay. Heather is still looking to having meetings between the GAC and ALAC on various topics. Now, that’s something which ALAC staff has followed up with. Has there been any reply, Gisella, by any chance?
Gisella Gruber-White: No, not that I’ve seen.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Not yet. The problem with com with the GAC is they are rather slow in responding, due to their attention being taken elsewhere, on several subjects. And Alice is to organize a call between the lead JAS people of the GAC and the ALAC, and it appears that this ball was actually picked up by Katim, and it’s in the discussion that we had earlier.
So that’s a process that’s moving forward. Any questions or comments on the interactions between the executive committee and the GAC Chair? There is no shouting or waving the hands around, so maybe we can move to the next part, to the number eight now. It’s written as 11 on there, but there are two eights and there are two tens, so item 11, review of the 5th of May ALAC registrars meeting. I think we touched on that a little bit earlier, where the ALAC and the registrars, or just the Working Group from the registrars spoke on a conference call.
It came out with a number of action items and I’ll read through them. The first one, Marilyn to find out the name of the ICANN staff person who is in charge of making the ICANN site more user friendly. The idea, of course, is that we find that so far users interested in finding information about domain names and basically what some refer to as consumer information, but we refer to as user information; it’s very, very difficult to get hold of, and we thought about having some kind of redesign of the www.ICANN.org website; it is currently being redesigned, it appears to be a process that has taken ages.
So I’m not sure if anyone has any progress report on that or feedback, but it might be something that we will have to take up with the right people when we all meet in Singapore. I see here the person leading in Michelle Jordan and she’s in ICANN’s communications department, so we’ll have to follow up with the coms department. Again, staff to find out if ICANN is already working on material similar to that which is being discussed in the ALAC registrars meeting.
The discussion was what are the questions that users ask themselves about domain names? When somebody purchases a domain name, do they own it? Do they just rent it? Do they – what rights do they have? What rights do they not have? This sort of thing, these sort of questions which users might wish to ask and which they can’t really find a proper website to get an answer from, because it’s just not out there these days. So that’s one thing that needs to be done.
We had thought that ICANN was already doing this, and it’s useless doing something in parallel when it is already being done elsewhere. And the next one is staff to set up a Wiki page used to collaborate on content ideas for the education materials that are left by At-Large and registrars. So that collaborative workspace has been set up, and what I would ask is for each one of the regions to ask their members, ask ALSs, what are the questions that they want to ask from registrars on these issues, and take it from there. Alan, your hand is up.
Alan Greenberg: It was pointed out or suggested that it might be premature to be doing this. There is a strong recommendation coming out of the PEDNR group that covers a fair amount of this. Not all of this, certainly, and that will require, assuming it’s adopted by the GNSO and Board and we expect it to, to start work on those kind of efforts. So I would suggest we not do this entire level prior to that. I understand we don’t want to delay things, but building on top of something that will definitively happen or at least should happen, is better than asking for new resources that aren’t in the budget for the coming year, out of the blue.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you for this information, Alan, and thank you for reminding me this. Any questions or comments from anyone else? Okay, I don’t see anyone putting their hands up. We are just four minutes before the next hour, and I think it’s time for any other business.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier, Cheryl here, I just stepped away...
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I guess I better put my hand up. I did have a piece of any other business, and it’s somewhat distressing, I suppose. The regional leads from the… I’ve got a terrible echo, hearing myself back so is that happening to everyone else or just me?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I’m not hearing an echo.
Alan Greenberg: We hear it but we can live with it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, two of me could do very exciting stuff. But at the country – the Use of Country & Territory names Work Group, which is an important cross-community Work Group chartered by the ccNSO, each region put forward a representative, and they have a liaison in that space as well.
The Study Group’s first meeting occurred and let me read to the record the group we had. We had – let’s see, there is, what would have been six At-Large and/or ALAC representatives who had put themselves forward to be part of that Work Group, two of us turned up. And that’s appalling. In a number of the regions, the opportunity to be heard on this Work Group was contested by more than one person, and I’m quite sure whoever did not make the cut for their region to put them forward to be endorsed by the ALAC to contribute to this very important work would be equally as disappointed as I no doubt would at being the only At-Large voice at the table.
It’s not a matter of all people being able to make all meetings at all; but a simple courtesy of an apology I would have thought would be a minimum. If this is to happen again in an ICANN wide and very publically scrutinized Work Group, I believe the ALAC should take some sort of action that brings a measurable performance criteria against the list of names of people who put themselves forward for representing their regions in important Work Groups and then failed to not even contribute, not even send an apology when they’re not attending.
It really was a great embarrassment, and one that I trust won’t be repeated. My complaint might just make its way back to the regional leadership, and by the regional leadership the people who unfortunately failed to even send an apology. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl. I note that we have probably less than 30 seconds in the interpretation, so I do apologize for those on the language channels. I expect that we’ll probably have just a couple of more minutes, because we just have a little bit of subject to discuss. So we’ll quickly do that.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, very quickly. Cheryl said if this continues you may have to resort to talking to regional leadership. I would suggest that has passed. I would suggest that the regional chairs and vice chairs should be reminded of who they sent, and that that person didn’t show up. I know in this public call we don’t want to name names, but I think in a private email to regional leadership the names should be named, and ask them to take action. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thanks very much Alan. My personal feeling is yes, we are dealing with volunteers, it is sometimes difficult, but certainly an apology is a minimum that one has to supply. It takes a minute to send an apology, and it certainly is a lot more courteous.
Alan Greenberg: If four of the five regional people didn’t come, it’s more than everyone happening to have a doctor’s appointment.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you. Dev?
Dev Teelucksingh: Thank you, Chair. Dev Teelucksingh for the record. I just wanted to find out what will be happening regarding the At-Large improvements? I know that both ALAC and At-Large have been so busy with many other matters that we haven’t heard anything regarding the improvements, I mean presentations were done and so forth. Is it that ALAC had to formally approve these improvements that were proposed by the Work Teams? I guess I just want some ideas before going to Singapore, on this matter.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Dev. Cheryl has put her hand up. I could also answer, but I’ll let Cheryl speak.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, go ahead Olivier, and if you skip anything I’ll fill it in.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: You can add, okay, thanks. Well, as you might have noticed, the staff bandwidth has been rather restricted, so there is some delay to the At-Large – to the title report being drafted. We were supposed to have it in our hands today, but this hasn’t happened.
Probably also because some of the Work Teams have not finished or concluded their work. That’s another point. There will be an email sent to those remaining work teams to help with finishing the work in the work team so as to be able to produce their part of the report. We’ve all been pushed for time, and the other – so what will happen is rather than having a vote taking place today, the vote is likely to be an electronic vote before the Singapore meeting.
But that report is forthcoming, and you should hear from Seth in the next couple of days to follow. So thank you. Does that answer your question Dev?
Dev Teelucksingh: This is Dev. Yes, I guess I have another question, a quick question. The Joint DNS Security and Stability analysis Working Group, the DSSA Working Group, has that started? I didn’t see any sort of, (inaudible) persons were nominated for this Working Group and so forth. Has anything been done?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Dev. That has started. The Work Group chairs have met on a weekly basis, well, had conference calls on a weekly basis and today was also the first wider Work Group discussion, the first meeting of the Work Group that took place just before the ALAC call started.
That went well, and we have a pretty large group of people including the industry also in the Working Group, so there is a lot of anticipation that the work, although it’s going to be particularly tough, is going to be – it’s going to live up to the standards that it’s trying to live up to.
Dev Teelucksingh: Okay. Thanks.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: If I may add actually, although we had several people in At-Large that were supposed to be on that call, only a handful of us were on there as well, so I concur with Cheryl that it is a problem. If we’re going to have a large group of people represented in a cross-community work, we have to fight to have this number of places on that Working Group, then we really have to fill those posts, and we really have to take part.
Not just have a seat, but actually have someone in the seat. It just reflects badly on the whole ALAC community, and all of At-Large. Right, any other points? I notice that interpretation is still ongoing. We are six minutes past the hour. Any other business to add to this? And if that’s not the case, then I would like to thank everyone for attending this marathon call, from the ALAC and I appreciate that we had a good turnout today for the call. So thank you very much.
Thanks to the interpreters, and thanks to Gisella. You have managed to hold this whole call together of course with Matt, who has arrived in time to hold the building together. Thanks, and this meeting is adjourned.
[End of Transcript]
