Participants: Cheryl Langdon Orr (CLO), Hong Xue (HX), Yaovi Atohoun (YA), Christopher Wilkinson, (CW), James Corbin (JC)
Apologies: Jacqueline Morris (JM), Annalisa Roger (AR)
Absent: Rajnesh B. Singh (RB)
Staff: Heidi Ullrich (HU), Marilyn Vernon (MV), Seth Greene (SG)
Agenda adopted.
SUMMARY MINUTES OF 28 JULY MEETING
(CLO)Confidentiality regarding potential candidates must be reconsidered. In addition, with these recorded calls, we must be careful about confidentiality re names of applicants.
Heidi’s report:
- At least one topic on which Heidi reported was lost when the AC Room windows blinked out; this is the ongoing AC Room problem.
- Editing rights to members of BCEC who didn’t have it have been given it.
- Marilyn did prepare test case posted to BigPulse.
- Adobe Connect Room problems are currently being worked on.
- Press release being worked on by Barbara Clay – she is aware that it is needed asap.
- Tool kit for BCEC members: Must discuss (today) what that will include.
- Text for public site (process can move ahead before bylaw changes passed): Has been requested; is a pending AI.
- According to Legal, there is no need for text.
RECEIVED APPLICATIONS
(CLO) There has been one withdrawal of an SOI from someone deciding his/her experience was not yet enough. The heading “Comment” on the SOI form, when being read, can be a bit confusing. It basically means “Content.”
CONFIDENTIALITY OF CANDIDATES
(CLO) In these recorded calls (with a public record), we must be careful about confidentiality regarding names of applicants. We must set up procedures for staff, and mistakes cannot be made. How should we handle this?
Possibilities suggested:
- Perhaps consider not recording the calls.
- Perhaps encode the identities of the candidates as A, B, C, and so on for the discussions.
- Can have Adigo record calls (for the record) but not post them.
- Comfort of being able to listen to discussions if need to, but still not have them publicly available.
Encoding passed.
(CLO) Okay. Good. Now you’ll notice my particular encouragement to avoid naming and nomenclature as we discuss the signing and the review of applications. My reason for doing this, of course, is that these calls are recorded and as a matter of course, up until and including this meeting, we have had the recording of these calls, mp3s, listed as part of the record of our regular meetings.
(CLO) From this meeting on, how do you wish to have things in terms of records and recordings managed?
(JC) suggests that since the meetings are recorded, for confidentiality, if the candidates, if we can call them as A, B, C, D, E, F or One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, so when we talk about candidate A and Candidate B, and Candidate C, etc., rather than calling names, but they would be listed on the SOI where we have the summary of all the candidates, so we just code them as A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, or whatever. And that gets around calling names.
Christopher Wilkinson: Yes, I agree with the encoding idea – I like using the numbers, if there are only six of them. I still have a problem with recording. I guess I’ll explain that later.
(CLO) I think we do have a strong argument for encoding, in which case a column for encoding will need to be put on the BigPulse page that we have, where the SOIs are.
(CLO) record or not to record? Aware that we have only slightly less than 50% of our members in one region represented at all here today.
(CLO) with the permission of CW, CLO would like to poll that question to the full list, the full committee?
(CW) Yes, by all means.
(CLO) Inquired whether everyone understands what the current Nomcom practice is, and encourage anyone to make use of the comment section on that, and we’ll put that out to a poll. Now, since that ends then, I think what we do need to have formally noted in the minutes and on the page for today’s meeting is the very clear statement that it is publicly accessible that all discussion of statements of interest and review of applications will be in camera, and records privately held by the committee, and not available to the public.
BCEC Operations and Processes
(CLO) would prefer to have a page somewhere that would allow BCEC to make comments or notes, as they are going through for example, candidate SOI number three, and if someone felt that something candidate number three was a particular shining example or merit, make note of that.
- Possible tools for sharing notes with other members of the committee:
- Committee objects the us of a public tool such as Google docs.
- (HX) suggested the example and use of The NomCom online voting/polling system. Candidate data would not be publicly accessible and maintained by internal staff only.
- The need to have an early mechanism for us to check the quality of an SOI against the criteria that’s already been established
(HX) Based on my experience in Nomcom, we do have the online system, is a voting and a polling system, but have no recording system, or the meeting writers, application writers, candidate’s information. Candidate information is also stored in the online polling system for the advocacy, for the debate, actually recorded in the staff’s filing system. But what is very clear is that we never use this public application software, such as Google or Wiki.
(CW) Noted that a tool would be useful, especially if we get lots and lots and lots of candidates. If we have a small number of candidates maybe that all will be a bit superfluous and we can do most things out of poll.
(JC) Mad note of the fact that although the more candidates you have, the collaboration tends to become confusing at times, because everybody might have a different opinion, you may not get too far. My experience in dealing with a group of people, where you have a group of candidates, is basically to ask everybody to select their top three, you put them in a pool, and you select three out of that, and then you discuss those three. You very quickly get to a decision.
(JC) Or you very quickly get to the top three. Otherwise if you have too many candidates we might spend a lot of time in this tool moving forward and backward and forward, and not make a lot of progress.
(CLO) Concerned about what features of the tool will allow: for example- Where one could prioritize from say one to nine or one to three? Each person could sort of prioritize against an identified statement of interest, whether they think it’s the top, middle, or not very high preferences?
(YA) Asks whether the tool is useful for a limited number of candidates? But what would be good would be to see how we can apply this.
(CLO) That’s very good advice, Yaovi, because we don’t have unlimited resources, staff or otherwise, but it may be that we end up having to cherry pick the very best of what we would like for a tool, and just create something that works for us in our limited circumstances. Let’s explore this and let’s have some feedback, that’s probably the most significant action item from today’s meeting, then.
Next Steps and Timeline
(CLO) Now, in terms of your next steps and timeline, do you want to start making any sort of prioritization and reviewing, sharing if we get this tool between now and the next meeting? Or do you want to devote your next meeting, which I believe will be before or after – it will be just before the close of the period.
(CLO) Our next meeting can be devoted to a full review of all of the applications that have been received, and you can start to do this prioritization, so any tool, collaborative tool would need to be available for this committee to be using at the meeting on the 25th. If that’s the case, then the whole of the meeting on the 25th will be in camera. In other words, there will be no mp3 launched up to an agenda site, etc.
(CLO) The agenda would simply reflect review of SOIs received. Nothing else would be public, just that fact that on that date we are reviewing, which would be no different than knowing the nomcom met at a particular meeting.
(JC) Agreed that applications that are incomplete or not filled out properly should be discarded.
(CW) Suggested asking staff to do the basic culling including a sort of reminder letter to the candidate saying we have found that your application is very incomplete, do you wish to resubmit with a complete application?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Can I come back to Heidi then, Christopher mentioned an outreach to applicants who had not fully completed, and I guess there is the margin of error where it’s a new and unfamiliar tool, not realizing that they had to confirm before they moved to the next section, or whatever may have been the case. I thought that in fact there had been some outreach to those who were incomplete. Am I wrong in that?
(HU) Confirmed follow-up with several applicants who have either not filled in their SOIs completely, or one completed their SOI in another language, in which they were contacted and asked to resubmit their apps in EN.
(CLO) Acknowledged that staff has been proactive in the outreach to give people the opportunity to make sure that their SOIs are completed to the best of their ability and with the greatest accuracy and will continue to do that until the close of SOI acceptance period?
- Bylaw Review
(CW) I just wanted to update. I have no points to make, my points have already been made in Brussels and in the public comments, but I’ve noticed unless this is resolved quickly, we may get into a muddle at the end of the procedure, because we can’t make formal decisions at the end of this procedure if the by-laws issue has not been resolved, and legally stabilized.
(CLO) Asked staff if there are any comments you’d like to make under this point in time? Remembering that it’s of interest to BCEC, but BCECs business can continue on to completion of its slate preparation. We’ve had that established.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes. I don’t think I have anything to add. I know that legal will be sending the text very shortly stating that.
(CLO) Expressed that until all public comments come in, and indeed, until they are reacted to by ICANN, and then until the Board makes a decision, other than being aware, I’m not sure what we can action on that.
- ALAC Regional Representation on the BCEC
(CLO) It was pointed out at the – correct me if I’m wrong, Heidi---executive committee meeting following the ALAC meeting that was before our last BCEC meeting, by Sebastian Bachollet that the BCEC was designed, in his view, by agreement with the ALAC to specifically avoid having any person who was in the electorate for the voting on the slate of candidates being involved in the selection of the slate of candidates. And he pointed out to the executive, and I undertook to bring it to this committee, that with your position being changed to become the caretaker interim or current chair of APRALO, that you would be casting a vote as part of the electorate, and he was concerned that that caused some problem where you were acting in a capacity of culling and getting to the slate as well as then later casting a vote.
(HX) Noted that her term will expire before the BCEC process, but it’s saying that because of the delay of the by-law revision, it’s not going to happen that way. In that case I would take this opportunity formally and put it in the record to ask the BCEC to think about replace me and appoint another one from my region. I’m quite happy to retreat from this group and fortunately you haven’t touched any extremely confidential issue at the moment.
(CW) Regarding the eventual conflict of interest, I think it’s basically between Hong and her region. If she’s offering to be replaced, then as the future Chair she probably knows the people well enough to find a replacement. It’s not too late to integrate a replacement. Actually it’s not too late for some of our so called members to start appearing and do some work.
I would respect and welcome a replacement if that’s what Hong and her committee wishes to do, but that’s a very preliminary reaction.
(YA) Noted that there are two options. She can be in the committee and then she cannot vote with her region, she can have a replacement. So we have two options. My personal opinion is that she can continue BCEC, and being the president, but she cannot vote later. That’s one option. The other option is we have a replacement from her region to the BCEC from now. We have two options there.
(JC) understandS the issue and the conflict of interest, but if Hong is going to continue, then I think she should vote. If she is going to continue and put into discussions and don’t have a vote at the end, I don’t know if that is a lot of – you’re adding value on one side, but you’re not really getting the value.
(CLO) Would like Heidi to ask Annalisa to give her view on this in some way, if at all possible, because I do think it’s something that each region needs to be aware of. It is, in my view, APRALO’s business, because if APRALO choose to direct the vote from the region, they can choose to direct that vote through whatever person they want.
(HX) Will go back to the AP region and solve this issue within the region as soon as possible. I want to make it clear that Asia Pacific is important and big region, its function capacity in this committee should not be restricted for any reason. It is my personal situation here, it should be eliminated immediately.
(CLO) I think it’s very valuable to assert some of the regional opinions, and I think what we might do, Hong, is seek out North America’s opinion on this as well so that you take all of that information back to our region. Thank you one and all, thank you Heidi.
- Next call: 25 August 2010
- Next meeting there will be a public agenda page, and that page will say at point 3, review of received SOIs and that will be in camera and there will not be a public transcript or recorded material made public of this meeting.
