ALAC 26.10.10 Transcript EN

Evan:                                       Hello.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Hi, Evan. Okay, right, we are now quorate.  I’ve looked at the call for adoption of the agenda and any other business or amendments.  Adam, do you have any to add, or points to raise to the agenda?

Adam Peake:                           Only the note that I put at the bottom of the agenda, which is to say that I would like to see of the Cartagena meetings.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              I’m sorry; I don’t see that on the agenda.  I see no notes on my copy, unless you’ve only just recently put it in, because I’ve had my copy open for some time.

Alan Greenberg:                      It says an hour ago.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              There you go; it’s been open longer than that.

Adam Peake:                           It just says the Nominating Committee would like to be invited by the ALAC to say hello, and then to invite the Executive Committee to the Nominating Committee later on.   

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, well we have the schedule in item eight, so we’ll cover that if you like in item eight, under items for discussion on the agenda, the schedule for Cartagena. (crosstalk)

Adam Peake:                           superb.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay.  In which case we can now move to action items, and the action items from the meeting of September, ah seem to be a hell of a lot of things for staff to do and then for the Executive Committee. I’ll take the first one, before I toss across to Heidi.  I did not write to the ATRT on the Board books, and matters that came out of our discussion, but I did make representation at the ATRT meeting in Harvard, in fact, it was made several times, and the point was made on behalf of our community , as those of you who were listening to it will remember, that the great promise of the Board books being made available to assist the community’s understanding on what material the Board  has to consider in its deliberations for its resolutions was greatly appreciated in Brussels, but it was rather an indictment on the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation when the only Board book  that was ever seen, heavily redacted, was the one from Brussels.  So our point has been made and it will continue to be made.  Over to you, I guess, Heidi, for the other action items.

Heidi Ullrich:                          Okay. Starting with the first one relating to staff, actually the first two, we did complete the access related to the rec six team Working Group. The third one, staff to find out when the proxy settings are due, we have asked the relevant staff, and are still waiting for the response, so I’ll follow up today on that.  The question on whether the (Vandy facebook) has been changed yet, we did check into that and we did send out a note on that. 

                                                The next one, on the five to seven day vote on the three ALSs, yes, that has been completed, and we have now 128 ALSs. The next one, on staff to give RALOs a heads up on the new budget cycle.  I did report that to the At-Large improvements Work Team C that has a representative from each of the RALOs. At the time, that was the schedule I had been given from Kevin Wilson.

                                                But in the meantime, that schedule has been slightly delayed, and the latest I have is that you, Cheryl, will be getting a note from Kevin in the next couple of days indicating who you would like to have on at At-Large introduction call with Kevin and others related to the fiscal year 12 budget development process.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              So that stays on the books as an ongoing action item then, because we’ve been promised that note for about the last ten to fourteen days, so I’ll believe it when I see it.

Heidi Ullrich:                          Yes, I understand.  Then the next two, I was to check with Vanda on the Board’s reply about the At-Large director related bylaws changes. Yes, that has been done. Now the question, the action item on the publish the white paper schedule.

Translator:                              Hello, Tijani is now on in French.  I apologize.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Thank you.

Heidi Ullrich:                          What we’ve done is actually we’ve taken the schedule that the BCEC had and we have developed a timeline for that, and that should be published in the next day or so.   So the BCEC reviewed it during their call last week, they’ve made some additional comments, and we’re just having the graphic designer include those, and then we’ll publish not only that one, but also the one of the process, At-Large director selection process that Olivier originally developed, so we’ll be sending those --

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              And that’s also under an agenda item later, Heidi.

Heidi Ullrich:                          Yes.  For the schedule, yes.  Okay, Cheryl, back to you on the next one.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Well, I’m happy for you to finish the last three, but while I’ve got the microphone again I’ll jump in and say this needs to be listed as a continuing action item. At this stage, we have (terminally) a conversation going in between the co-chairs of the chartering organizations and the leads of the GAC, ALAC, and GNSO. So that’s a conversation that’s still being had. 

                                                One of the questions that was raised recently was if there could be value in finding some face time in Cartagena to further this discussion, but we do need to recognize that the GNSO decided to not have any joint follow up with the ALAC under – or the GAC in terms of recommendation six. But I believe that there is still a possibility that as co-charter organizations something might be in terms of followup with the JAS Work Group, but I’m also aware, and I’m hoping that Evan will be on the call, or if he is already that he can make himself known that there has been a request for information put in Avery and Evan under the JAS Work Group as leads of that Work Group.  So I’m quite sure that they would have mentioned to our JAS Work Group meeting that just finished if there’d been a reply on that. So that action item needs to stay open.  Back to you, Heidi.

Heidi Ullrich:                          The next one is about Vanda was to forward the report on vertical integration from the Board retreat to the working list.  I believe she’s done that.  I know I wrote to her, and I thought I did see a report.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              We definitely had it at the mid-month ExCom meeting. I’ve been very distracted by other demands, and I cannot for the life of me tell you whether I saw it go to the working list as well.  So perhaps we can double check that it did actually go to the working list.  She did, however, prepare a report, but I got it under separate cover.  She sent it to me via Skype before the ExCom call as well, so I’m just not sure that I saw it come through the working list.  Perhaps Alan or Sebastien or someone could confirm that for us.

Alan Greenberg:                      I cannot, but I do have a comment on the previous item.

Heidi Ullrich:                          Cheryl, can I just finish the last two before we go to Alan?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Yes.

Heidi Ullrich:                          Okay.  The last two have been completed.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Go ahead, Alan.

Alan Greenberg:                      On the Board books, there was an answer given, at least in the GNSO meeting, if not other places, though I thought it was other places also, that the official answer is that Board books will be published prior to the next meeting. They are sticking by that answer even though they are clearly not doing it.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              That was also the answer that was discussed in the ATRT face to face, and again, we made that point, that even that would be nice, but they’re three meetings behind.

Alan Greenberg:                      Yeah, that’s the point. The (inaudible 0:09:39) should be published this week, and they still haven’t published the August 5^th meeting.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              The ATRT is taking the view that Board books should be published to the public at the same time as they go to the Board.  So that’s where the ATRT is pitching it from.

Adam Peake:                           It does make sense doesn’t it? Because our argument was that if there’s misinformation in there, then we have to be able to see it, and there’s not much point in seeing this information three months later.

Female:                                    I’m sorry, who was that speaking?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              That’s Adam.  Exactly right, Adam.  So, certainly when it comes to specific recommendations and final recommendations out of the ATRT, support for that type of thing would be extremely useful to come from the ALAC as a formal comment.

Alan Greenberg:                      I guess I’m reacting as much to the concept of double think, that people continue to say what they are doing, when it is clearly, patently incorrect, with the belief that if they say it enough times it will be true.  That’s the part that I find objectionable.  It’s bad enough when people tell you something thinking it is true, but when it’s known not to be true at the time, I have a real problem.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              I think the word duplicitous and misleading come into play.

Alan Greenberg:                      Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              They’re certainly the words I used at the ARTR meeting.

Alan Greenberg:                      Okay, enough said.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, but we do need – perhaps we should make not so much a specific action item, but an awareness raising exercise for the ALAC that we need to keep onto this, and we certainly need to keep on to this as we have macro-recommendations being released in the next few days, as soon as the translations come back, for the draft recommendations from the ATRT going out to public comment between now and the Cartagena meeting. Our public comments should address not only the specific first run macro draft recommendations, but also these specifics in as firm and specific language as possible.  I’m happy to use the misleading duplicitous language again in that. Any other discussion on action items? Anything from the language channels?

                                                Anything from Gareth or anyone else?

Gareth Shearman:                    Nothing here, Cheryl.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Thanks, Gareth.  Was that yes or no from language channels.

Translator:                              Nothing for the moment.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Thank you very much.  Okay. In which case we will now move the current ALS applications and tracking. And we just have a couple of updates, to Matthias or Heidi, who’s going to deal with those?

Heidi Ullrich:                          Matthias?

Mattias Langenegger:              Sure, yeah.  I can do it. We currently have two, well three applications that are still ongoing.  One of them is quite old, it’s from May 2009, and we haven’t heard back from the applicant since August. They said that they still apply for ISOC verification, and they were expected to do so on September 11^th , but we haven’t heard since, so we’re still waiting for them to confirm.  We also have the ongoing ALS application from Binary Egypt, and there’s nothing new there.  We sent the follow up message, but we haven’t been able to reach the main applicant, so it’s still open, it’s currently put on hold.  And the application forecast from Cameroon is also put on hold, the applicant sent in an old application form with some of the questions missing, and we followed up just a couple of days ago, to ask them to complete the form to send us the answer to the missing questions, but we haven’t heard since.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay.  They’re all on hold, though, aren’t they?  Just to confirm?

Mattias Langenegger:              That’s right.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, that’s fine.  Can I ask with the (inaudible 0:13:34), the lack of response since September, have we got only one contact that we’ve been using?  It’s possible that someone could be on vacation or away for five or six weeks – is there an alternate contact to reach out to this applicant, or not?

Mattias Langenegger:              I only have one contact, but I believe that some of the AFRALO members are familiar with the applicants --

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Perhaps at the regional level you might want to pursue that then, Mattias.

Mattias Langenegger:              Sure, I’ll put it down as an action item.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, thanks. Any discussion on current ALS applications? Other than I think formally noting we’re very close to cracking the 130 line, which is rather exciting.  We’re seeing a slow and steady growth, which is great, and as we usually get a new application or two out of a face to face meeting, I’m hoping that by the end of the calendar year we will be at 130 or above.  Of course, if we can get one of these off hold, it would be nice as well.

Heidi Ullrich:                          Cheryl, Tijani has raised his hand.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Sorry, my AC room must have dropped out then.  Go ahead, Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                    Thank you so much.  I want to ask a question, and this is in regards to how much longer are we going to keep the open applications?  I know that Binary Egypt, I know that it was an issue with a lack of responses.  I know that we got responses at the beginning, and we all looked at their website and we all agreed that the issue was not really an organization for internet users, there was more of a commercial organization.  We asked for more evidence, we got no more evidence, so in my opinion there should be a limit date to say “you know what?  This is the end.” And the application should be closed.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Well, thank you for the question, Tijani.  In fact, our processes don’t have a drop off end point established.  Putting things on hold does exactly that.  It means that we are not tracking against our KPIs for approval to introduce a ‘are you on hold more than a particular length of time’ or if correspondence is not being responded to by a certain point in time would involve a change in the processing mechanism. 

                                                I’m happy to explore that, but they don’t exist within our mechanisms at the moment, and remembering that the mechanisms we currently deploy were developed out of recommendations by an ombusdman investigation for inappropriate handling of an ALS application, it’s very important that we are very cautious and very correct on following our rules and procedures to the letter. So perhaps, Tijani, the new ALAC post December may wish to discuss, or even discuss at the Cartagena meeting with the existing ALAC and the incoming members if a revisiting of that part of our process would be merited, and if so, I’m happy to put that on the Cartagena agenda, which we can discuss later on. Okay.

                                                If there’s nothing else on the ALS applications, the usual links are there for Work Group reports, liaison reports, and regional reports.  I would just note that there is considerable work being continued between our last meeting and this, in not only our Work Teams, which we will hear about later, but continuing work in the JAS Work Group, and there have been a couple of meetings in RAA  related activities as well.  Is there anyone who wants to raise any questions or make any points on the pro forma reporting?

                                                In which case, I’ll move to new business, which is our item for decision. Carlton is not on the call, is he?

Heidi Ullrich:                          No, Cheryl, he is not.  We weren’t able to reach him. I know he had a conference at CareCom today.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay. All right, well looking at the review for At-Large policy advice development schedule, the various ones listing in the currently open public comments; Public Participation Webinar Information, Summary Of Impact Of Root Zone Scaling Study, Delegation Rate Scenarios for new gTLDs, the Privacy Proxy Registration Services, and the FY11 update on Security, Stability, and Resiliency, have all been allocated to appropriate Work Teams or Work Groups, and Carlton has, I know, had exchange with leadership from those Work Groups. 

                                                I’ve seen some, as we all have, seen some discussion particularly on the delegation and the impact of root zone coming from the technical issues Work Group, but I’m unable to speak on any feedback he may have received in terms of drafting for any of the comments that are coming up for ending in the first week in November, which all of them but Privacy and Proxy does.  Privacy and proxy ends on the 28^th of October. Our issue of wanting to wait and see the results of the WHOIS study currently being worked on, including the misuse study, etc., and the fact that we haven’t had a response as yet on whether or when those other studies are coming out, would lead me to suggest that we, as an ALAC, do not put in a PC as such for the privacy proxy registration service study report.

                                                Other than if you with the ExCom will put in a placeholder to that public comment that says ALAC will be responding to the suite of studies when they have all been released for comment.

                                                Is that how you would like to continue?  Is that what you would like us to do? Discussion, please.

Alan Greenberg:                      Cheryl, its Alan.  When you say released for comment, you mean the results of the studies, or the proposal for the studies?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              There is currently WHOIS studies being worked on, and we’re expecting calls for public comment to come out in the medium to short term.  We’ve asked now for more than a month when they are going to be released.  They are at least inclusive of a misuse study, and the privacy and property abuse study.

Alan Greenberg:                      Okay, so you’re talking about the proposals of the study, not the results of the study, most of which have not yet even been approved or funded.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay. We’re not going to do reaction piecemeal to every dotted i and crossed t, on everything that is ever coming out of this. We need to recognize we have the WHOIS review team now running it.

Alan Greenberg:                      I would suggest that we don’t even need to put a placeholder in.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, well that’s what I was just asking.  Do you want to even put a placeholder in?

Alan Greenberg:                      No.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, anyone object to us not even putting in a placeholder?  In which case it will be an action item on Carlton to follow up on those others. For decision then, is the addition of the recently opened for public comment matters, which certainly the first ones, from the Asia/Pacific At-Large organization’s point of view would need to be responded to. I’ll be putting in a ‘we think we should be putting something in’ or ALAC should be, which is the review of IDN ccTLD fastrack process, ending on December 17^th.  ALAC, and particularly some of our regions, Asia/Pacific, quite specifically have been very involved if not instrumental in a lot of the IDN activities, and APRALO would certainly be asking that the ALAC do consider putting in a formal public comment, even if it simply endorses what might come out of the regional comments on this. 

                                                Is it the view of the ALAC that we do add the review of IDN ccTLD fast track process currently out for ending the 17^th of December onto our schedule?  Onto our calendar?  If we do, we can, of course, take some time to word craft and discuss such a comment while we are together in Cartagena, informally if not formally, in our schedule. What’s the view of the ALAC?

James Seng:                             I support the view – this is James – I support the view --

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Oh boy, James.  If you don’t support it we’ve got trouble. (laughter)

James Seng:                             I would say something before it ended – I do think we should put in a comment. And I’m happy to draft the comment (inaudible 0:24:46).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Good to hear, James.  The ball is now firmly in your court.  And if we can facilitate any calls or any directions or any Work Group activity to assist you beyond, obviously, what we discussed in the APRALO meeting today, just let us know. I believe I’ve lost connectivity to the AC room, so Heidi, if you can let me know if someone is waving at me that would be appreciated.

                                                The other one that has come out recently is the technical liaison group review came out I think in the last 36 hours or so.  The independent external review is draft report, ends on the 21^st of November. I think we can probably put in a very small and simple response to this, and where it doesn’t actually fit into a particular Work Group, ad hoc or otherwise that we have, it would be useful for us to take a moment to discuss it here, and perhaps task the executive or executive plus some regional input onto crafting a fairly short response to this. 

                                                To those of you who haven’t read it yet, and I have, the short version is that independent external reviewer is going to be – or has recommended that the role of the TLG be removed. In other words, there would be no formalized technical liaison group, and therefore a position held on the ICANN Board from someone in rotation from the European tele-communications group, the ITUWC3 and the IETF. Now, whilst the use of having technical expertise, I think, is unquestioned, to have that sort of technical expertise on the Board, one of the considerations, and a set of recommendations that’s coming out of the accountability and transparency Review Team in terms of Board skill sets and Board make up is to strengthen and specifically mandate, year to year, what skill sets and experience are desirable in Nominating Committee appointees.

                                                There is an opportunity, should the ALAC agree, for us to say we’re happy to go along with the independent external reviewers recommendations, providing that the technical expertise, that input from these other tech bodies in the internet eco-system are still brought into the Board mix in some fashion, either through Nominating Committee roles that are specific to bring in high level technical expertise to the Board, or in some other sub-comment or sub-committee form.

                                                And I doubt that we’d need to say much more than that, but what’s the view of the ALAC?

Gareth Shearman:                    Cheryl, this is Gareth.  I’m a little concerned about the impartiality of some of the groups that are named, so we want to make sure that any technical expertise that is called out is monitored so we don’t start getting ITU flavored too strongly in comments to the Board.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Interestingly enough, Gareth, one of the rationales – and I did spend some time with the independent external reviewers, because any of these reviews end up talking to the chairs of the ACs and SOs.  One of their concerns, this is historical issue, that when this beast was built, it was quite clear that having a close and an interactive relationship with other key players in the field to bring technical expertise into the ICANN Board was a very, very good thing, and a very important thing.  So the system is, there is a seat on the Board for a liaison, a non-voting Board member, that goes in rotation from the ITUW3C, or the IETF.

In fact, At-Large and the ALAC have benefitted by a close, substantial, and very productive relationship with those people that we see as just Board members, but how have, in fact, come to the ICANN Board via this role process. One of the concerns that the independent external reviewers have had, and it’s highlighted in their report is why only one tele-communications tech body gets in there, other than the ITU. Why the European one is listed as one of the four groups, and no other regional representation.

                                                They questioned if one needs an ITU input, that it is not simply done in some other form, via memorandum of understanding or whatever else.  But having a rotating seat where ITU occupy it once every three years didn’t seem to be the best model of getting interaction between peak bodies at all.  What you’re raising though, is that our own responses could be biased?  Is that how I’m reading it?

Gareth Shearman:                    No, no no.  I’m just hacking back to the days of  (wissis) when the struggle with ITU trying to think that they control the internet was terrible.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Yep, and again, I think that’s part of what this particular independent review panel is looking at as well.  Heidi tells me we’ve got Adam and then Alan in the speaking queue.  Go ahead Adam, and then Alan.

Adam Peake:                           I don’t think it’s a great idea actually to get rid of the TLG, is that what it’s called?  And I preferred their option to make it a three year term and to ask the groups to find consensus among themselves to select a Board member. I don’t think it’s a good idea to dump it on the Nominating Committee, you’re changing a liaison role for a voting role, but that’s a different matter.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Now, let me make it clear.  The ATRT is going to be dumping on the Nominating Committee the need for specific Board skill sets and requirements to be mandated.  That is not replacing the TLG, it is a mechanism by which should --

Adam Peake:                           Oh, I’m sorry.  I was thinking of the recommendations in the report rather than the ART, so don’t worry about that.  What the transparency group does is not what I’m thinking of, but its particular seats.  And I agree very much about the IETF situation.  I thought it was rather sensible, if you want to add technical groups, then something like unicode, given the interest in IDNs, might be a sensible group to add, and then the matter of reciprocal relationships. So that is there is a liaison to ICANN, then ICANN has a liaison to that organization. Something like a Board member.  It also makes sense, and it fits a little bit with ITU Secretary General Toure’s comments about improving (inaudible 0:33:14) relationships, but he’s probably trying to take something over.  But anyway, generally I do think it’s an issue to put a statement probably along those lines.  Too early to say if three years would be a good idea – it simply isn’t enough – something like that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Well, quite literally, capturing some of what you thought and putting that into the conversation would be the next paragraph in what we need to put in.  Let’s go to Alan, but what I’m generally hearing is yes, we will be adding it to the PAD calendar and we’ll be putting something together before 21^st of November.  Alan?

Alan Greenberg:                      A couple of different issues.  First of all, I’m not 100% convinced that as a body with ICANN we should be commenting on the disbanding of another body or not.  That being said, the recommendations, I find, are problematic in a number of different ways. By the way, it’s not IETF, it’s the IAB. The IETF has a separate liaison seat, which is not part of the TLG. Although I agree the one year on the Board is not enough to really do something, and become an integrated part of the Board, even as a liaison, given that the bodies that make up the TLG are very, very different bodies, it’s not clear that a representative from one of them can really do a reasonable job at representing the others.

                                                So it’s almost as if for one year, or if they make it three years, the ITU get to put their two cents in, then the WTC gets to put there two cents in, and then the IAB. Very, very different flavors and very, very different personalities and modes of operation. So the whole issue is problematic.  I find it equally problematic to say it should be disbanded and the nomcom should have the responsibility of filling the technical gap.  The nomcom has a hard enough time filling the other needs for directors, especially since we’re talking about voting directors, to add technical expertise representing these various different communities in parallel with it is simply bound not to meet the target.  So although I’m not happy with the current form of the TLG and its representations on the Board, I’m not sure that the recommendations are any better.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Well, we obviously need to make comments, so it does get added to the PAD.  What is the ALAC’s view on who should be doing this?  Will the executive plus a couple of you own this? Obviously I would suggest that Adam join Alan and two or three others to pen some drafting to go to the working list on this. Anyone object to that way forward?  I think it is important, and I think if the flavor since I’ve been involved with At-Large that having technical expertise at all appropriate levels of ICANN, but in particular the Board is very important.  We want to maintain that.  How it’s done and how effective it is, is up for discussion. But whatever they build needs to be a better model, not a less efficient one. Okay.

                                                I’ve lost connectivity to the AC room again. Can anyone tell me is there anyone wanting to speak at this time?

Heidi Ullrich:                          Cheryl, this is Heidi. No.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, thank you.  In which case, let’s move to our items for discussion, and we have – oh, fancy that, I get to talk. The At-Large director selection process, BCEC update, the time table and scheduling Heidi alluded to in her mentioning of action items completed, the current state of play from the BCEC is that they have continued to agree with the strong direction from the European representatives, sorry, the EURALO representatives on the BCEC that the BCEC should not release its slate of candidates, and indeed, the candidates date of release date is the date for all of the SOI details from all of the conforming SOI applicants so be released. 

They’ve done it in concert, until after the Board resolution on the bylaws has passed, we are expecting that in the consent agenda for the meeting of the ICANN Board on the 28^th, and as soon as Vanda pings Heidi, me, or anyone else – well, actually Heidi or me, to say the consent agenda has passed, there will be someone, depending on the time of day, hit the send button and the by then finalized slate of candidates and other information will be released. So to concern to you all that the 28^th of October is the date for release.

                                                Now, that gives us 19, not our desired 21 days between the time of release of names and the election process, but with the Board meeting being when the Board meeting is, and with the bylaws not being resolved until that meeting, there is little else we can do.  So you will expect in the next day or two to have some flow charts. as Heidi indicated. Hopefully each of the regions will be poised at a time yet to be determined, but as soon as we have got the all clear on the resolution on the bylaws having gone through, either in discussion or in the consent agenda for the ICANN Board, the slate and all the other SOI details should any of the RALOs feel that the BCEC has done an appalling job, and has missed out on such an enormously highly qualified candidate off the slate that they wish to gather together with other regions and petition, that’s the current timetable.  So that’s part A; is there any questions on what you can expect from the BCEC?

Heidi Ullrich:                          Cheryl, Alan has his hand raised.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, go ahead.

Alan Greenberg:                      Yes, there’s been discussion of having – I’m not sure, it was regional meetings or single meetings with the candidates.  Given that we know, within a couple of hours when the bylaws will be passed, shouldn’t we be scheduling that meeting?  We can always cancel if something happens.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Already being done, and the Doodle, if it’s not already out, will be out in a few hours.

Alan Greenberg:                      Okay, that’s all I was asking.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Not a problem. Any other – and that will be the week beginning the 8^th. At times, the BCEC felt it inappropriate to run the community call earlier than the 8^th of November, just in case three regions have an overwhelming urge to put in a petition for a candidate.  We needed to give sufficient time for that to happen. Any other discussions on just that update part of it?

Alan Greenberg:                      Do we know – I never received a confirmation from Vanda that she is following forward on our recommendation of the motion make reference to the ongoing process.  That is, that the process has already started, prior to the bylaws.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              That only came out in the last 12 to 15 hours, Alan, and I know she’s been traveling and involved in meetings with the government during that time.

Alan Greenberg:                      Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              She will, however, pick up on that before the meeting, and we will instruct her to do so as our liaison from the Board table as required.

Alan Greenberg:                      Okay, thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              I don’t think it’s an option, I think it’s an instruction.

Heidi Ullrich:                          Cheryl, Tijani has raised his hand.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Go ahead, Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                    Thank you so much. I know that the delay that we have from the Board , in order to – the bylaws are something that have been very difficult through the whole process, but I think that the time we have now, between the elections is not enough. Because we do need the agreement from any of the RALOs .

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              You only need the agreement if there’s a need for petition. It’s not mandatory, it’s optional.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                    I understand, but it would be really a matter of making sure that all the ALSs had the time to give the point of view to all the RALOs, so the RALO representatives are able to vote based on the ALSs.  And that will take time, and we run the risk of really being in a very tight schedule. Mainly because we started this process without really focusing on the bylaw statements.  You know, there was the BCEC deliberation before – you know, that too was taken. So we could have continued working on that same path, and then at the same time maybe published the list of candidates and then the candidates chosen by the BCEC as soon as possible, so the RALOs and the regions are able to start working on this process as soon as possible so everyone has the opportunity to give their opinion, and then carry on with the elections.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              If the RALOs can’t get themselves organized in 19 days, it’s a very sad state of affairs, indeed.  It would have been nice to have given them the standard 2 days, but with the Board meeting being the 28^th , not earlier in the month, other than making missing seating our Board member in Cartagena, I’m not quite sure what Tijani is proposing. It was not up to the BCEC to get the bylaws through.  The structural improvement committee and the Board have called the timing on that, and we have had considerable discussion in the At-Large community about the risk of going too fast in our own processes before the resolution has been settle on the bylaws, which allows the seat 15 to be properly created in our processes to be enacted. 

In fact, Alan has made mention earlier in today’s call on particular wording that he has put forward to make sure that if the resolution on the bylaws goes through just on simple consent agenda, that the Board resolution does ratify the work of the At-Large community and the ALAC in its processes to date. Otherwise there’s a very real risk that someone with particular motivation could do their best to have our person duly appointed to seat 15 removed. Alan, I’m out of the Adobe room again. Perhaps you’d like to speak to that?  It seems to be germane to what Tijani is saying.

Alan Greenberg:                      I think it’s not just my concern. I’m the one who voiced the words, but there had been statements made that because the process had been started before the bylaws, anything that comes out of it is invalid, and people have talked about a formal challenge to the seating of the directors, this is just a reaction to that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              It’s a very real risk.  I believe Adam has his hand up?

Heidi Ullrich:                          He did.  I’m not sure –

Adam Peake:                           I do, sorry, I lost my connection as well. I was going to take my hand down, and then put it back up again, but I could not.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              You’ve got it.  Go for it.

Adam Peake:                           Two general questions.  I’m sorry, I might have missed you describing both of them, but let me go ahead.  One is will we see the list of all 22  candidates,-

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Yes.

Adam Peake:                           Okay, thank you. And the – what is the process of due diligence?  I’ve seen the listing of --

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Due diligence has already started on all short listed candidates.  Anyone who is in the BCECs current short list has been written to by the companies in the regions that ICANN has contracted to do due diligence.  But the BCEC has made sure that all our ducks are lined up and ready to go. So there will be a number of people who are already getting permission for their due diligence in their local legislative requirements, you know, whether you’re in Africa or whether you’re in Europe, or Australia it’s different. They all should have been contacted, references have also been reached out to, reference material is coming back in, and when the BCEC, at its next meeting, brings the slate down to the three to seven, a number of those will come into final play.

Adam Peake:                           Okay, thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Heidi, is anyone else waiting in the AC room?

Heidi Ullrich:                          No.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, that’s really the update.  Now we need to move to the matter of the letter received, well email received regarding this from EURALO, where they part B under seven, and RALO request to ALAC on At-Large Board director election process. Remembering that this was written, I believe, we don’t have Olivier who penned it – or not penned it, but who forwarded it on behalf of the EURALO Boards, but we do have Adam and I trust Adam and Sebastien were on the EURALO call and part of the drafting.  I gather this was drafted before we had the 28^th  as the release date? Is that the case? Has the new date made some differences to your concerns?

Adam Peake:                           Yes and no. The information we – hello, sorry, it’s Adam. I don’t think Sebastien will want to speak on this because he recuses himself.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Quite probably not.

Adam Peake:                           Somewhat, but not entirely.  The information, we did know it was the 28^th at that time, but we were expecting the BCEC to be sticking to an earlier schedule which I think was a bit later, so that was one concern, but you’ve reacted to that by moving – sorry, the committee’s reacted to that by moving the dates a little bit.  There are still concerns over is there time for petitioning built in, and it does not seem that it is quite.  There’s still concern that should a person be selected, will they actually be able to get to Cartagena.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              that is yes,  we’ve had that assurance.

Adam Peake:                           I’m sorry?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              In terms of getting to Cartagena, yes, that is yes.  We’ve had that assurance.

Adam Peake:                           well, it’s a matter of things like if the person is from an African country, then they’re going to have to spend two or three days in Egypt to get their visa --

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              We understand all that.

Adam Peake:                           But it’s just the difficulties involved.  And then, of course, it’s the fact that they won’t be as prepared as they might have been, so generally some of the things that have happened since the letter has been written are pleasing, but the basic problem is why on earth has the Board left it till the 28^th?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              I couldn’t agree with you more. But it’s not something that we can respond to.

Adam Peake:                           Well, it’s something that we could make a complaint about, in the sense that if we don’t, the concerns that Alan raised over the legitimacy of the election process and of the person that we seat, we should be making clear that these problems are not the result of the At-Large, but are the result of the Board, and that hopefully --while the general concerns that people will raise over that legitimacy won’t be a questioning of the At-Large’s legitimacy itself, as the electing selecting body, and hopefully that would give some defense to this poor person who we’re putting in the seat. My idea being we’re trying to insulate ourselves and this person as much as possible from anybody who wishes to through stones.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Well, anyone who is putting themselves up to take seat 15 needs to be able to be resistant to more than stones being thrown, but that’s another point. Adam, my reading of the letter from EURALO wasn’t a setting up of a defense, as you’ve described it, and if indeed we have problems, and for example, the issues raised on time for petitioning presumes that the BCEC will have done such an appallingly bad job that they missed the best candidates.

Adam Peake:                           No, I think that’s a – a lot of it has been involved in process, it’s like the ISOC trustees, which is the common example.  Petitioning is actually quite common, and it’s not meant to be a reflection on the --

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Hold on – it’s not the design of petition in our white paper process. The white paper process, it’s all very nice to have the other comparisons, but let’s stick to what we have, which is what the white paper presented.  The purpose of the petition is for three or more regions to have put back onto a slate a conforming SOI candidate who was not selected by the BCEC. In other words, three to seven people have been selected, and in the view of at least three regions, the best candidate has been missed out on that slate.  That’s the petition process we have.

Adam Peake:                           Yeah, and one would say that, you know, there is somebody missing who we wish to have the opportunity to vote on and discuss among our RALOs. I think we might be looking at the petitioning process somewhat differently. But anyway.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Well, I’m looking at it the way it’s designed at the moment.  Do I think it’s a fault in the system?  Quite possibly.  Could it be done better?  Absolutely.  But we don’t get to review this until after this run, and certainly in the review of this after this run, the petition process and formalizing amounts of time, you know, A) we can fix any issues that still remain in the mechanism for the petitioning, B) we will never have this hold up because of the bylaws, ever again. This is simply an issue of first time and really unreasonable and unconscionable delays.

Adam Peake:                           What I suppose I’m disagreeing with you is the characterization that the petitioning would be only because the BCEC has made a mistake, and I don’t think that’s correct. I don’t think we would be saying you made mistakes, just that people disagree, and reasonable people disagree on such things as candidates.  It’s the way we think about it, I don’t think it’s --

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              But what I heard Tijani, and perhaps that wasn’t characterizing what he was saying properly, was AFRALO had considerable concerns about the amount of time to allow for the petition process, so what I was hearing there was an expectation that the petition process is a natural consequence of the At-Large Board director selection process. And it’s not, it’s not a mandated part, it is an optional part. It is a failsafe, for when the deliberations of the regional representatives in the BCEC have failed to meet the needs as seen by at least three of the regions, by not having one of the conforming SOI candidates included on the slate.

And yes, it is as you say, how you view petitioning, but I’m very concerned that the regions don’t believe we’re trying to shortcut from anything to interfere with petitioning.  I’m fairly confident that if when the regional leadership and the ALSs look at the 22 SOIs, it won’t take them more than seven or eight days to decide whether there is a name that three of them believe should be added.

Adam Peake:                           Yeah, but it still needs the potential, and that’s what we’re talking about.  And therefore it needs potential time, that’s all. And you can’t petition while people are campaigning, so it’s not anybody’s fault.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Adam, with the BCEC discussion on what Christopher brought forward to us before this letter was received; we felt that we had managed to get 19 days between announcement of the slate and the selecting process by vote beginning. How does that fit now, with what the EURALO letter is asking us to do?

Adam Peake:                           I’m not entirely sure, I’d have to get back to my peers and --

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay.  Okay, now the other thing is, of course, the letter is written to the ALAC and the copy to the BCEC, but under the white paper and the processes, actually, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s under our rule 27 now – the rules of procedure. It’s the ABSdt that has control of the timing issue.

Alan Greenberg:                      That is indeed supposed to be the case.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              So a response – what I’m asking now is that the ALAC pass the EURALO request on to the ADSdt for a formal response.

Heidi Ullrich:                          Cheryl, we have Olivier and Tijani in the --

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Olivier has joined us?  Excellent.

Alan Greenberg:                      And Alan also.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, in that order then.  Olivier, Tijani, and then Alan.

Alan Greenberg:                      I think I was second.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              This letter needs to be responded to; I just need to be able to work out during this call who is going to pen it.

Alan Greenberg:                      The order is Olivier, Alan, Tijani, according to Adobe.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, Olivier, Alan, Tijani.  That’s fine.  Go ahead, Olivier.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you very much, Cheryl.  Just a few things I wanted to sort of address in this particular subject.  The first one, I think the letter, if I recall correctly, I have actually sent to both the ADSdt and to ALAC. So there was no copy sent to the BCEC, I believe that a copy might have been forwarded to the BCEC, but as far as I can remember, and as far as I can see in my emails, I have confirmation on the ABSdt this letter was received.

                                                I wanted to provide a little bit of context on when the letter was written.  It was indeed written before the announcement that the start of the process would take place before the 3^rd of November, but there is a small paragraph in there – I do apologize, but we have sent this letter as an email, and not as a document that would formatted as such, and I could have been using bold characters so as for key chapters or key paragraphs not to be missed out.

                                                The chapter, the paragraph I am thinking about is the one ‘we are aware that an earlier start to the election process could ease the pressure by, for example, the BCEC announcing the final slate of candidates earlier than 3^rd November, 2010,’ which is exactly what seems to have happened. Or what is going to happen.  ‘We feel, however, that whilst this will ease timing for candidate RALO petitions, should those be called for, it doesn’t ease the pressure enough on RALOs who are trying to conduct ALS consultation on the final voting rounds.’

The main concern that was voiced during the EURALO meeting, on one side of course, the timing for the petitions, but on the other side was the actual timing for the vote of the ALSs.  ALSs require at least ten days.  They also require to know who the candidates are, they need to be able to talk to them, there needs to be some kind of process where there is an open – I don’t know – question and answer session or something, which we haven’t seen anywhere in there. This is the reason why we have suggested to delay the closing time for this election from the 19^th of November till the 30^th of November.  That would provide a lot more time for everyone to be able to voice their – well, ask their questions, find out who the candidates are, and then make their votes so that the EURALO representative would make their votes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Olivier, just there – you may not have been on the call, the community call with all of the slate of candidates, with or without petition additions, would be either already being set up for some time that the Doodle will decide on the week beginning the 8^th of November. That’s already being planned, whether it was going to be the week earlier was the only option, but with the concern of the EURALO Board on having sufficient time for petitions, it was proposed to have that set up on the week of the 8^th, so that there is sufficient time to have additional candidates added in, and included in the community interview calls. We’ve done that for Board liaisons in the past, we’d certainly be doing it for a Board slate of candidates, in this situation.  That’s in keeping with the interview process that’s done in other ACs and SOs.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Okay, that’s very good.  That’s a good piece of news.  I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware of that specific part.  You mentioned the week of the 8^th, if it’s anywhere closer to the end of the week, we are speaking about less than ten days for ALSs to be able to cast their votes, and so the EURALO representative would not have the time to cast its votes, because if I understand, it’s – we start with five or more, seven candidates and during the end of the first round of voting, you have three, for example, who are still in the – who all seem to have similar number of votes, and there’s going to be a second round, etc., etc.  So we need to establish this.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Your ALS input would be giving your electorate, your chair and if you’re directing your regional representatives vote – their vote, their prioritized order. You wouldn’t be going back to them during the rounds.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          So we’ve come up with a suggestion for the 30^th of November. First question, really, is there a reason why the 19^th of November was taken as the deadline?  Is there a way to delay this?  To perhaps extend this to say 30^th?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              That, I believe was actually as we were working out the visa and travel issues, that the 19^th was feasible. If, for example, someone did have to have – as was pointed out earlier, a little bit more extensive visa and travel arrangements being made.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Well we had suggested later on in the letter that visa issues could be dealt with.  We would expect a minority of the candidates to be afflicted with visa issues, although we don’t know any of the candidates at the moment, but perhaps the short list of candidates could be told as soon as possible --

Interpreter:                              I’m sorry, this is the interpreter.  I’m sorry. You said move from the 19^th to the 30^th what exactly?  I got a bit confused there.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          The deadline.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              The close of the electoral process. So moving the election, or the voting, to finish from the 19^th to the 30^th is what the EURALO letter is asking.  Okay? Back to you, Olivier.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Well, this is the question.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Well, no one in ALAC can answer, because it needs to go to the ABSdt which will need to be convened.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          I’m aware of that, so I hope that a solution can be found for this, because as it stands at the moment we have several ALSs in Europe who are casting doubts on the credibility and the validity of the election process itself.  Or our AP saying ‘well, how in the world are we able to find out who are the people that we’re going to vote for in that little time.  It all seems to be very rushed, so I hope we can find a solution.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Through no fault of the – as Adam was making clear – through no fault of the At-Large part of the process.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Oh, of course.  Absolutely, there is the general frustration of the Board having taken so much time and squeezing the time to such an extent.  It’s not a problem with the At-Large process at all, it is a – and I’m not saying it’s a criticism of anyone, but it’s a frustration that we’re just being given so little time to go on with our process. And so I’m hoping, and I hope that it’s made clear that all of EURALO is hoping this can be eased a little bit.  Thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Well, if you think the difference between 19 and 21 and 25 days is going to make a difference let’s hope the ABSdt can discuss and make some recommendations along those lines. Action item, obviously, from this side of the conversation, is to convene and ABSdt meeting. Now, I have Alan and then Tijani.  Alan, go ahead.

Alan Greenberg:                      Yeah, a couple of things.  Regarding the Board’s delay in passing the bylaws, even if they had done it much earlier, we still would have had the issue of the At-Large process starting before it.  So the questioning of the possible validity of the process because of the timing does not really change. The late Board decision does, however, affect the kind of timing that Olivier has been talking about. In terms of – I read the EURALO letter focusing more on the ALS input rather than the petition process.  The petition process has been hurt by the decision of the BCEC not to release the full list of applications earlier, because that would have allowed RALOs to hypothesize that if ‘x’ is not named, then we will add them back on, or go through the petition process.

So that has been slowed down, but as you, I don’t see the petition process as being the major one. So although we clearly don’t want to delay having the person seated at the end of the Cartagena meeting, we also don’t want to have the process being questioned that it’s not valid, so I would think that all parties have to go back to the BCEC and I would ask EURALO to look at whether ALSs really need ten days to make a decision, whereas most of our other voting processes within At-Large are far condensed from that. So I don’t know what their bylaws are about allowing time, but one questions whether it can be shortened from ten days to something a little bit more reasonable, even if it is extended.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Alan, just on that, with the BCEC discussion, remembering that you have two representatives from each region informing the BCEC. Those representatives are not regional leads, they’re not members of the EURALO Board, they’re not members of any of the RALO leadership teams. They are rank and file ALS representatives. When we discussed this, as Christopher brought it forward to us at the last meeting, the only region that was concerned with having that length of time was EURALO.

Alan Greenberg:                      I understand that, I would only hope --

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Though I can only assume it’s a bylaw issue for them.

Alan Greenberg:                      I would hope the ABSdt late can find a way to provide some more time, but on the other hand, EURALO may want to go back and see can their processes be condensed within their bylaws.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Well, if it’s bylaw it’s bylaw, and if when Olivier comes to the ABSdt  for the discussion on the response  to this letter, if he can bring the bylaw and justification for EURALO needing a longer length of time than the other regions seem to, that might help us come to a resolution.

Alan Greenberg:                      I know ALAC rules say we normally allow five days or seven days, but there’s discretion to shorten it, in time of duress.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              This is an extraordinary length of time.  And most processes, even in international not for profit only run 21 days. Tijani?

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                    Thank you so much.  I do believe as it was stated by Alan on the mailing list the ABSdt is the responsible party to establish the election schedule. Therefore, an urgent ABSdt meeting would be necessary for many reasons. First of all, to I think take the elections to November 30, I think that would be very wise.  I can tell you that EURALO’s concern is that this is a very fast election, it’s not only something that’s from EURALO; it’s something that comes from others.  I know that Hong has mentioned this previously, I said something similar to that on the mailing list, but I do believe that it would be very wise to move this to November 30. Even the publication of the names of the candidates is something definitely that should have been done before.  Yes, it’s true but you know the issue here is that because of the way this has been done, it’s just prejudice and it affects all the elections. The election process, excuse me.

Alan Greenberg:                      I put a comment in the chat you may want to look at it.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              yes, so am I. Have you finished, Tijani?

Interpreter:                              He is done.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              All I can say is I hope you make sure that the APRALO, sorry, the AFRALO view on this is sent to the ABSdt  meeting that’s to be convened, but to be very clear, Hong was – Hong’s comments were preemptive, undiscussed with her region, and have been withdrawn.  So if AFRALO agreed with EURALO that extended periods of time beyond 19 to 21 days is required, I’m assuming it was a EURALO bylaw issue and that’s one thing.  But if it’s a desire of AFRALO, that needs to come to the ABSdt for its deliberations. But there is no concern from APRALO. And Hong has withdrawn her comments. Heidi, do we have anyone else in the room?

Heidi Ullrich:                          No.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, I’ve already asked for and ABSdt meeting to be convened.  Recognizing that the ABSdt is restrained at least by the starting point of when the BCEC will be releasing its slate, the only matters that it’s really going to be able to deliberate and advise is shifting from the 19^th  to the 30^th  as an end date.  I’ll ask staff to double check with any logistics issues that might be needed to be brought to that table during those deliberations and discussions. Olivier, go ahead.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you Cheryl.  I might rephrase the questions differently.  Yes, shifting from 19^th to 30^th might be the original idea.  Perhaps delaying by any amount between the 19^th and the 30^th is also something that might be considered.  Anything that brings us closer to the 30^th. Thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay.  And it appears that from what Adam was saying that the substantial concerns outlined in the rest of the letter are really issues that are too be addressed if and when problems occur.  If there are issues of this and if there are issues of ratification, if there are issues of petitions.  I do understand that it is difficult when there is no knowledge of the four SOIs at this stage, but I’ll also point out that it was the BCEC’s rationale under the guidance of the European representative that we didn’t actually release the SOIs earlier.  But they are all going to be released at the same time, and the delay to the 28^th is only because of the Board meeting.

So we’re not setting up for future issues, next time this exercise is gone through, there will be no impediment to a far earlier, and I would have been thinking many months in advance of the annual general meeting and actually what was the original design in the white paper, a mid-year appointment, so that the incumbent director selected to occupy seat 15 on behalf of the At-Large community was able to join all the preparatory stuff such as retreats that are often held before the annual general meeting, that we would certainly be looking to go to the far more sanity saving exercise of having mid-year decisions being made instead of last minute ones, as a product of this first time round . So those people who are part of the ABSdt will be being Doodled, and if there’s no further discussion on this, we will now move forward to other items on our agenda.  Next one being joint SO/AC Work Group on new gTLDs application support, that was the JAS Work Group. Carlos and Evan are the ones listed to give us some information.  I don’t know if Evan has joined the call.

Evan Liebovitch:                     He has been here for every wonderful minute of it.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Ah, well, how thrill packed and exciting for you, Evan. It’s all yours, go for it.

Evan Liebovitch:                     Well, okay.  As you know, there has been this meeting going on, and there has been a painful, but lengthy and productive deliberation of this group that has representatives from GNSO and ALAC with the intention of trying to put together a proposal that the Board and staff would support, regarding some kind of either reduced costs and/or additional benefits available to applicants for generic TLDs coming from areas of the world that are in disadvantaged economies.

So we have been discussing a number of different things, such as trying to put together a pool.  It was mentioned there would be an attempt to try and collect a pool of upwards of $10 million, although it is extremely unclear where this money is going to come from, and in fact, disagreement on who is going to collect this money.  There are a number of areas where consensus has been reached, not everywhere, but it seems like there has been very good progress made in trying to determine the kind of organizations that would qualify for assistance in the creation of new gTLDs, as well as at least try to go through the current process and look for areas where some savings can be made and some reduced cost can be passed on.

                                                In terms of – there’s not really a whole lot more to say on that, because the work of the Working Group is ongoing. We are near, I believe, the home stretch, the final few meetings. I believe we need to get something out at least about the time before the staff is making its next applicant guidebook, which does not give us much time.  The Board resolution coming out of its retreat in Scandinavia was a little disconcerting in that it essentially said they are not going to change the price, but the Working Group has determined that it is going to put forward this recommendation and so we need to be on the record as having requested and made the case and defended the case that there are categories of applicants for which the price of 185 should be reduced.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Thanks.  I’ve been pinged, I hope it was relevant to your report, Evan, that Adam has raised his hand.  Is that right?

Adam Peake:                           I did, but it was the last matter. I’m sorry, I lost my connection.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Oh dear. Okay. Well, did you want to say something about JAS Work Group, Adam?

Alan Greenberg:                      Alan does, however.

Adam Peake:                           I did, as well, but Alan can go first.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, Alan then Adam.

Alan Greenberg:                      I just wanted to make a very brief comment that I participated in an awful lot of Working Groups, and the meticulous of this Working Group in crafting its report is unmatched, I think, in anything that I’ve participated in before.  So one could say that’s a good point or a bad point in how much time is being spent, but I think there’s an awful lot of effort going into trying to craft something which does indeed reflect the feelings of the participants and hopefully will change the results, because of that.

Evan Liebovitch:                     We have a challenge ahead of us, in getting the Board to buy into the big picture, let alone the minute details.

Alan Greenberg:                      Yeah.  The good thing is, despite the resolution saying no, we have been assured that that isn’t what the Board actually meant. 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              That seems to be a very common thread in a lot of what came out the meetings.

Alan Greenberg:                      Indeed.  Yeah.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Adam, you do now need to say something about this matter.

Adam Peake:                           I was just wondering what the reaction of the committee  had been to the $200,000 that the Board obviously did mean, because that’s what’s in the budget for – what is it, yes, $0.2 million to cover certain outreach activities, results of recommendations of applicant support Working Group. I’ll bet you’re skipping and jumping and really happy.

Evan Liebovitch:                     Well, in the whole scheme of things, $200,000 isn’t going to pay for a whole lot, and also outreach means a lot of things.  To me, it would mean an awful lot of things that are outside the scope of what we were working with.  So it was hard to know what to make out of it, and I’m not going to – well, the Working Group itself has not had a lot of discussion on this. We’ve been basically focused on what is needed, and the fact that they’ve tossed this amount of allotment in the budget, in the possible direction of what we’re working on really has not sidetracked us, which I think is a good thing.

Alan Greenberg:                      Yeah, my understanding is that that’s staff trying to implement some of the outreach processes.  Outreach is not the right one, I think.  I’m trying to identify who potential donors are, identify who potential applicants are.  None of it is to actually go into the task of making it easier for applicants to apply.

Evan Liebovitch:                     We have a well defined list of deserving applicants, and not knowing what to do with them.

Alan Greenberg:                      And it’s focused primarily on the non-monetary aspects, not the monetary aspects.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              No skipping the corridors, Adam, is the answer to that question.

Adam Peake:                           No, I was being a little bit sarcastic as well, I think.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, Even, just for the ALAC‘s interest, how close are you to having a next steps document that you may need us to consider, endorse, discuss, etc.?

Evan Liebovitch:                     Well, we’ve been near the end of the document perhaps for about the last three or four meetings. And so we continue to occasionally have new things added, but I’m fairly confident, especially given the end of the meeting that ended just before the ALAC meeting started that from the looks of things, we have all the major things resolved.  There’s a FAQ section that we still need to go through, but best I can tell that is all that’s left on our plate to do. So conceivably, there could be something in your hands by next week, but no promises.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, is that something we should be looking at for our November meeting, then?

Evan Liebovitch:                     Yes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Fantastic.

Alan Greenberg:                      Presumably, since the Board will give any final direction to staff as of this meeting, I think it’s important to get something in the same timeframe, if that’s what’s going to be triggering the final guidebook, or the final draft.

Evan Liebovitch:                     Believe me, Alan; the chairs of this group have been trying to move this along.

Alan Greenberg:                      I wasn’t doubting that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Thanks very much for that, Evan.  Is there anything that you need from us now?

Evan Liebovitch:                     Patience.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              (laughter) Well, some of us have more of a choice than others on that. We’ll do our best, and we’ll put a placeholder as there was for this meeting in the November meeting as well. But hopefully, as you say, there’ll be something out to the working list before that day.

Evan Liebovitch:                     All righty.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Terrific. Thanks very much for that.  Okay, just before we move to the new items in ten, and the rest of the agenda, which hopefully we’ll be able to go through post haste, we did start quorate some twelve minutes after the hour, so while we’ve just got to the normal scheduled endpoint of our meeting, I will ask your indulgence to try and finish the agenda in the remaining time.  Adam, you had additional questions for the previous matter?  Which was the At-Large selection.

Adam Peake:                           I wondered, all of the other directors, when they’re seated there’s a requirement to inform, I think it’s the Board secretary of the name, one calendar month, essentially one calendar month before the  commencement of the annual meeting, so has that been taken into consideration by the Board when they’re drafting the bylaws?  Because they will need to waive it, otherwise our person will not be able to be seated anyway.  That would be section 8 of the bylaws, terms of directors, section eight, sub section something or other.  But it’s something that has to be considered; otherwise we’re kind of screwed.

Interpreter:                              I’m sorry, this is the interpreter.  Could you repeat your question again please?  I couldn’t hear very well.

Adam Peake:                           Yes, it’s a matter of all of the directors being seated are required – there’s a requirement to inform the Board secretary of that person’s name one calendar month before the commencement of the meeting, so in our case that would be November 6^th, is that right?  November 5^th or 6^th.  If that was applied to the At-Large director, I’m hoping that the Board will be aware of this and they will give some waiver, or we’re creating one little more hurdle.  I just wanted to mention it so that somebody might be able to follow up on it, and just make sure nothing bad happens with that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Thank you Adam, and you did mention the particular part of the bylaws, which the action item will be for us to ask that specific question of Luke. I would assume, however, that the answer is probably going to be something along the lines of the December meeting sitting date has been well flagged for some time, and if it’s an initial, not an ongoing seating arrangement, so there’s obviously differences between an inaugural and a follow up issue.  So we will get ICANN legal to get back to us on that.

Adam Peake:                           If I could just go back to ICANN meeting eight Cartagena thing, or do you want to just move along and do the other stuff?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Well, I do actually want to – just to finish, go back to that because we’ve got one other thing that I thought that the ALAC would be fairly interested in, and that was to draw your attention to item ten, the ALAC officers election proposed schedule. Just to give you all a heads up on the dates that will be happening, it’s in keeping with our rules of procedure, but you can expect the election call to be sent out on or about the 12^th  of November.  It’ll be my 13^th and your 12^th, and that will mean that our electoral process for ALAC officers run in conformity with the rules of procedure.  So now, if we go back to the Cartagena item.

Adam Peake:                           It’s a simple request, really.  I’m the chair of the Nominating Committee and you’re talking about additional meetings for the Cartagena meeting, and I would like to request time with the ALAC, so I will have to jump out of the chair and then sit down again. Probably with some other Nominating Committee members so that we can take your opinions, thoughts and ideas on the type of experience and the challenges and all these things that ICANN faces and the candidate characteristics that are required for the year, both for the ALAC because there will be three vacancies, and for ICANN generally. 

That is one request, so I would like some time on the ALAC agenda, and I have to note that the Nominating Committee is not seated until the end of the AGM, so this will be an informal and information exchange meeting, not a formal meeting. And then the second request is that on Friday afternoon, after the Board has finished its meeting, or while it’s concluding it, the Nominating Committee, as a group, will begin its meeting and we would like to ask that the ALAC Excom and any observers who happen to be around, if you would join us and do a sort of reciprocal thing where you tell us, the whole committee, what the needs are and so on and so forth.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, the last part first.  What time, because the ALAC ExCom meet after the Board meeting as well.  So what time is your nom-com---

Adam Peake:                           That’s a good question, because we don’t really know. Because there will be quite a lot of people coming in once the Board finished.  So if you – well, we can talk about the details, but it will be after the Board meeting finishes. They’ll have quite a lot of work, because it’s the one where they thank everybody and everything.  There’s a lot of little resolutions to go through. But at some point, we’d like to invite you if it can be worked.  It would be very good.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, so when you know more about your Friday afternoon schedule, that would be useful, but one of the opportunities, obviously, depending on when your nomcom meeting is convened is that if we can’t find space early on in the meeting schedule, which is listed in the click here on the agenda, and is already a fairly full agenda, that if our ExCom, which is an open ExCom meeting – in previous meetings over the last three  or four meetings we’ve had excellent attendance by regional leadership and just rank and file ALS members, and locals. Perhaps nomcom could get together with us, depending on if we’ve started before you do, but until you know where your schedule is on Friday, I guess we’ll just leave that at ‘sounds like a damn good idea, let’s hope we can fit it in’. Would you look at the ICANN draft schedule, meeting schedule meeting, Adam, and indicate to us where you think the informal chat might fit in?

Adam Peake:                           I will do.  It’s probably going to be on the constituency day.  I should look to see what business is on the ALAC agenda now.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, fine.  Well, that leads nicely to Heidi getting anything out of the ALAC now that you need, as we finalize this draft agenda.  So if everyone will follow the click here button, and look at the meeting schedule. And over to you, Heidi.

Heidi Ullrich:                          Okay, just in the interest of time I’ll be very brief and I’ll just give an overview.  We have a very large number of meetings this time.  We have 19 meetings, and that includes the traditional At-Large, ALAC and regional leaders meetings, the one day workshop, two policy discussions on Tuesday, a meeting with the Board on Wednesday, a meeting with the registrars on, I believe Wednesday or Thursday in the afternoon.  I think it’s Wednesday.  A wrap up session on Thursday, and the ExCom on Friday.  And for the regions, we have four RALOs requesting meetings this time, in addition to a joint AFRALO and AFRIcann meeting, that will be on Tuesday immediately after the AFRALO meeting. We also have a secretariats meeting, which I believe is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday. Currently we have two At-Large Work Team meetings, that is one with Work Team B that is going to be an informal breakfast meeting, and then we also have a meeting for Work Team c, that will be with Kevin Wilson.  Currently, Kevin is not planning on actually being in Cartagena, but if he is not he will participate in that meeting remotely.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              And that is 10:00 Wednesday morning, from memory?

Heidi Ullrich:                          Yes, that would be 7:00 for him, so that would be fine for that.  And we have additional others, we have a meeting tentatively planned for the consumers, that was a followup from Brussels.  We’ll confirm that shortly. And I believe that is it.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, Adam, as you can see, the ExCom meeting which is also including budget development with Kevin darling and staff at  4:00 local time, on the Friday, so I guess once you’ve fleshed out your nomcom agendas a bit more, our agenda is here and available.  We might be able to see when nexus occurs, but if all else fails, we  can have an informal meeting if possible, but we certainly need to aim at a formal meeting on the Friday, as that’s going to work best.

Adam Peake:                           Yes, it would do.  I’ve also got to – we want the Board to come in and some others, so it’s a matter of juggling all those people who’ll be leaving. But we can certainly do it, and thank you for that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Well, you see our schedule.  Contact Heidi to see where we can wedge things in as soon as you’ve got a little bit more information. How much time would you want for the informal interaction?

Adam Peake:                           20 to 30 minutes, I would think,.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, and when will most of your new nomcom be on the ground in Cartagena?

Adam Peake:                           Oh, they won’t be until the Friday, because of the budget restrictions on the nomcom.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              20 to 30 minutes is only talking about you, then.

Adam Peake:                           20 to 30 minutes would be trying to listen to you quickly.  Do you think that would be enough, or do you think an hour?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              You’re talking the Friday formal then?

Adam Peake:                           No, sorry. I was talking the informal where we would be coming to the ALAC.  It would probably be myself, associate Chet, previous chair, and then anybody happens to be there, but it wouldn’t be that many. And it’s primarily to listen to what the At-Large and ALAC generally has to say about the needs in terms of candidate skills and so on.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, because my question would be is it possible to try and squeeze that in on the Thursday, or the Tuesday?  So if you have a look at those two alternatives, perhaps we might be able to --

Adam Peake:                           Tuesday is the day we would be touring around all the constituencies, I think as many as possible.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay.  Heidi, can you put us directly with Adam when we might be able to wedge something in?

Heidi Ullrich:                          Alan has his hand raised, and then I just want to come back with two additional meetings.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, Alan. Go ahead.

Alan Greenberg:                      I just want to say thank you to the incoming nomcom chair for what appears to be an unprecedented amount of consultation and discussion with the community.  If this initial thing is indicative of the rest of the year, then I like where things are going.  Thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Mutual admiration society apart, (laughter) I certainly am looking forward to having Adam in the steerage seat for Nominating Committee, not the least of which is with some of the things that the ATRT will be proposing as well.  I think it’s important to have someone who’s got a little bit of run on the board experience from all aspects, guarding and herding his cats. As you’ll have to in these next 12 months.  Back to you, Heidi.

Heidi Ullrich:                          Yeah, thank you. Just very quickly, two additional meetings on Thursday, one is the At-Large community Wiki review session.  We’re going to be having two people from IT in Cartagena with us to review where we are with At-Large confluence Wiki, that’s going to be taking place Thursday between 11:00 and 12:00, and it would be very useful, Cheryl, if you were there, as well as open comments from everyone on where that Wiki should be going in the future. Seth will allocate staff time from the IT department if we indicate that morning to be done.  The other meeting is the – what I’m calling tentatively the At-Large meeting at the chairs request, I scheduled currently for Thursday 1800 to 1900 and that event, the agenda will be determined shortly.  But following that we are planning an informal dinner for everyone in Cartagena.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Yep, so keep your calendar free for after 1900 hours on Thursday, and 9^th. Okay? One of the issues that I think is fairly important, Heidi, is that we know that these meetings are locked down fairly soon in terms of room allocations, etc.  It’s important for everyone on this call to understand that it’s going to be a little bit more difficult than it has in the past to have additional ad hoc meetings put together.  If you want to cover that?

Heidi Ullrich:                          That is correct.  Currently there is only one ad hoc room available. Unlike the previous meetings where there have been numerous, as well as pods, the meeting staff is hoping that once we know the schedule, which will be the 15^th, sorry, the 12^th, then any extra rooms we’ll be able to make them into ad hoc rooms, and they’re also looking into the possibility of having pods, as we had in Nairobi as well.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, so things may not be as difficult and tight as I was led to believe.  That’s a good thing.  Excellent. Okay, any discussions or contributions to the agenda from the ALAC now? Is that someone raising their hand?  No, it wasn’t.  All right then.  Going back to hopefully the last couple of minutes that we have on this call. We have got no any other business that I’ve heard of. I’ll just make another call now, before we go back to the Work Teams.  Is there any other business that I’ve not been made aware of? Hearing none, and no one pinging me desperately, it means that the remainder of the call can be devoted to the update At-Large improvement statuses of Work Teams. Go ahead, thank you, Seth.

Seth Greene:                            Thanks, Cheryl.  The Work Team A has been reviewing various bylaw sections to finding At-Large’s role in the ICANN bylaws, and are now in the process of editing a revision of the primary passage in article 11 regarding that. Work Team B on ALS participation has been comparing the different RALO bylaws and other instruments, looking for where they differ, where they are the same, and ways of suggesting some consistency that can improve ALS participation, going for the best practices that they’re using. That’s what they’re in the midst of doing now.

Work Team C is preparing for its meeting, as Heidi mentioned, with Kevin Wilson or remotely with Kevin Wilson in Cartagena, and has also reviewed some old proposals regarding the ways of doing budgets in the past and is now beginning to examine the time table for the new fiscal year 12 budget. And Work Team D on policy advice, has been creating a new flow chart of the ALAC and At-Large PAD to look for vulnerabilities and strengths and move on from there.  They’re all in full swing or at least are gearing up to be in full swing, and are preparing for the 30 minute joint update of progress during the ALAC and regional wrap up in Cartagena, and are all excited about participating in that.  That’s it, I think, Cheryl.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay.  That’s excellent.  Is there anything that we need to assist in? Are you getting the Work Team members are all turning up? Is there anything ALAC needs to do to make the process better?  Continue?

Seth Greene:                            Thanks, Cheryl.  I think that participation has actually been good, there’s perhaps one of the Work Teams where – well, actually let me say, as most of us know, there have been conflicts regarding the times and the Doodles, but that’s all straightened out now, thankfully, so some of them had slower starts than others, but actually one for example, A, is looking to have a make up meeting to get back on course with the others so I’m glad about that. I think participation has actually been very good.  I think there’s one in which participation is a little less than the other three, and I’m going to have a conversation with the two co-chairs about that. And they’re aware of that. I think that there’s – at this point there’s nothing I specifically need help with, unless you have suggestions.  Unless the group has suggestions about participation.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, well let’s quickly open the floor.  Is there any input or suggestions from the ALAC? Or any questions for Seth and any of the representatives that might be on this call? And again, not being in the AC room, if someone does wave at me, someone better ping at me.  I mean, I’m there, but it’s not really working. Okay, what was that one? No one?  Heidi, you just did that to get a Pavlovian response out of me, I’m sure.  Okay, in which case, thank you very much for that particular agenda item to be dealt with so promptly, and unless there is anything else that is needed to be covered off on this call of the ALAC, we have amazingly enough, with a late start, and (inaudible 1:46:36) quorum, got through our agenda. Thank you one and all. 

One of the things that does concern me, I suppose, is that we have such a huge amount to do in Cartagena, that we make sure as much preparatory work is done as possible, before we get there.  At this point, it might be useful to make sure that the regional meetings for the month of November might focus on the things that they need their leadership and their regional representative to the ALAC to come to Cartagena being prepared to discuss and bring their views on things forward.  Heidi, do we know when the more detailed agenda for Cartagena, the general work shops etc., is going to be published?  Again, those topics would be important to get out to the regional meetings over the next month.

Heidi Ullrich:                          Yes, I believe it’s the 12^th of November.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Is that not after the NORALO meeting?

Heidi Ullrich:                          Matthias, when is the NORALO meeting?

Matthias Langenegger:            It’s on the 8^th.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              I thought so.  Well, that’s very annoying. Okay, well I guess we can only do what we can do, but it does seem a little disappointing that we have a cycle of monthly meetings and an opportunity for regions to properly prepare the people who are being sent to represent them at the face to face meetings and we’re out of synch with ICANN publication of details.  But any details we can get before the regional meetings, even if they’re in the draft form would be greatly appreciated, Heidi. Okay, thank you one and all, thank you interpreters, and Tonya, I know many of you get dial out from Tonya and she manages our Adego calls expertly. A very quick round of Happy Birthday to you, Tonya.  Thank you one and all, Executive Committee let’s take a five minute bio break before we reconvene, and if someone would skype me the agenda link that would be really good.

End of Transcript