Gisella Gruber: I'd like to welcome everyone on today's ESADT call on Thursday 10 January at 19:00 UTC. On today's call we have Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Alan Greenberg, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Yaovi Atohoun, Roosevelt King, Jose Arce, Yrjo Länsipuro, Carlton Samuels, and Yaovi Atohoun -- sorry. I said his name twice. We have apologize today from Olivier Crépin-Leblond and from staff we have Silvia Vivanco, Heidi Ullrich, and myself, Gisella Gruber. If I could also please remind everyone to state their names when speaking for transcript purposes and also if you are in the phone bridge and the Adobe Connect, please do mute your computer speakers and microphone. Thank you. Over to you, Yrjo.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you very much and welcome, everybody from my side and also happy New Year which was a few days ago. The new year started. We have two items left in our work that is rule 27 which is the selection of the at-large Board member and then the item about recall. And I suggest that today we concentrate on rule 27 and then next time finalize that, talk about the recall, and try to get the whole package accepted by our group.
Perhaps we could first have a general discussion about the rule 27 as it is now and the experience that people had about the application of that rule for the first time it was used when Sebastian was appointed. And then we would go point by point if we feel this -- we could still keep the general disposition, the general structure of this paragraph. I'd like to open the discussion now on this sort of general discussion and especially valuable would be anything that those who were very much involved during the last selection of an at-large Board member, if they have anything from their experience to tell.
Yaovi Atohoun: Thank you. Yaovi speaking. Thank you for the interruption. I have a general comment first. It seems as we have a document in the Wiki posted by Martin. I didn't have time to go through it. Just to mention that. And I have a comment to the Board's approved the amendment for the alignment of the terms. I just changed 7.1. I just changed this and section eight. 1B to 1F. That is one comment I want to make because the revision in the ICANN bylaw. Because of the alignment of the terms.
And a general comment I want to make before we go through our new statements, I don't know if we really need now two committees because my feeling is it was the first time for our lot to select someone for the Board and there was a need for a committee to think about the whole process and then there was another committee that also worked on the evaluation of the candidate. One comment I have to think if you really need two committees at this point. And I think this is the general comment I wanted to make at least before we go through the document.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you very much for this suggestion. Tijani, please?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you very much, Yrjo.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Could you speak up? I can hardly hear you.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay. I will shout. Is it better?
Yrjo Länsipuro: Slightly better.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay. I think the remark of Yaovi is perhaps good but we still need -- I think that we still need a committee to oversee this whole process. It is important that the committee that is in charge of the selection will not be the one to oversee the whole process. I think it's still important to have both committees. Thank you.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you, Tijani. Your point is that we would still need two committees -- one to oversee and the other for the role of the BCEC? Alan, please?
Alan Greenberg: Thank you. I'll address Yaovi's comment and then a more general one. With regard to Yaovi, he's right in one sense, that we don't need as many committees as we did last time. But last time we had three. We had a committee designing the process, one which we don't need anymore. We had one overseeing the process once it was designed. And then we had a committee or a group that was doing the initial first selection of the candidates to go to the electorate. There were three committees last time. Two of them will stay although one has had their name changed along the way. So, he's right in that we don't need as many as last time but we did have three last time. That's why we still need two.
And in a more general sense, and this is a comment that Cheryl normally makes but I'll make it. We went through a very complex process to come up with this overall scheme of how to select the Board member and it required public comment, it required Board approval. And I think the general intent was this revamping of the rules, the intent was to fix problems with it not to change the overall scheme. That's my understanding of the ground rules. Cheryl can elaborate. But I think that's an important issue to remember as we go along. Thank you.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you, Alan. Cheryl, please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Cheryl for the record. Yes. I absolutely couldn't agree with Alan more. But none of you are surprised about that. We certainly do need to have both a process oversight committee and as required evaluation committee. And the rationale here is a very important one. It is all nigh impossible for error in experience or modification to something as fraught with -- how should we say it? Angst and energy as well as excitement if you don't have a separation of church and state. Any perceived requirement for a change of the rules should be handled by a committee that is formed to purely and simply look at it from a tweaking of a rules point of view. And at the end of the close of any of these rounds the process committee has the very important job of not only saying -- Yes, the process was in fact adhered to and everything is as the community should expect it to be but they also get to ask the questions what improvements or observations that are being suggested by the evaluation committee can we take note of. Notice I'm not saying necessarily act upon but they do need to be a receiving body to take note of. It's perfectly foreseeable that a particular evaluation committee because of the make up of the rebalanced people might end up being as crazy as a cat snake and have all sorts of bizarre and peculiar suggestions. It shouldn't be incumbent on the at-large community to say -- Thank you, BCEC of 20,032. Yes. We're going to turn everything on its head and do it in a different way. It's a very important filter and it's one that whilst we do meet this way, we meet as a very important safety valve. So, Yaovi, I've got to disagree with you totally. The work of the process committee should not be onerous. It's probably able to be a smaller and more high level committee. But it is extremely important. It really is the tool for accountability. It can't be a tool for transparency because the very nature of the evaluation committee's work takes it into territories which are very familiar to anyone who's worked in the nominating committee for ICANN and that is of course areas of great confidentiality. So, it's only through the trust chain of having an oversight committee that's built into this model that we could not have I think the fear, loathing, and concern that could happen when you have highly confidential and never will be seen information being dealt with in the way that we do in the evaluation committee as it does its selection for the slate. Thank you.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you, Cheryl. There have been fairly weighty arguments for preserving the two committees including this transparency argument. It keeps both church and state -- Yaovi? Would you like to answer this, please?
Yaovi Atohoun: Thank you. I think I was thinking that one of the processes in place we might not necessarily need the two committees. But most importantly we can keep them but we shall see the perceived role of the two committees are still the same or if something needs to be changed. So, this one we can work on when we go into the details. I don't have a problem keeping the two committees. Thank you.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you very much. Any more general point of view or should we go to the details paragraph by paragraph? Any more general remarks? If not, we could perhaps start going through this 27 paragraph by paragraph and start from the timing. 27.1. If I can start -- if I can say what I feel is that just for the sake of clarity, is this really necessary to mention all these reference points in ICANN bylaws? Or can we just start by actually defining the timing? Any comments?
Yaovi Atohoun: I think it's still very important to make reference to the ICANN bylaws. This is my personal comment. And this is why I say that. This section is the one -- if you make reference it should be noted so these people can check. Thank you.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you. Any more? Alan please?
Alan Greenberg: I think we have to reference the bylaws but I also believe we should replicate the specific information that's relevant to this thing. Whether the current five months after the conclusion of the annual meeting is correct or not, with the new change, there's a new change in when the director takes effect but I don't think there was a change but there may have been a small change of a month or so in terms of when we have to provide the notice. And I'm looking up in the bylaws as we speak.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Any more? Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That was my agreement with the reference to the bylaws.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Okay. So, we keep the references but we just correct as Yaovi said and Alan is looking up the ICANN bylaws for this.
Alan Greenberg: You go ahead. I'll interrupt when I find it or I'll put it in the chat room.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Alright. Otherwise 27.1? Any other points about that? Tijani, please? Tijani, your hand is up but I can't hear.
Gisella Gruber: Hi. It's Gisella. He is showing connecting and he's not muted on the bridge. So we will try and call him back.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Alright. Okay. So, if there are no other comments on 27.1, we could go to the next one, to the 27.2. Board selection process committee. Any comments, remarks? Should this be modified somehow?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So, there's rigorous debate on the name --
Yrjo Länsipuro: Yes. In other words we can keep 27.2 as it is. Nobody wants to change it.
Alan Greenberg: I don't think we've heard any comments on it. Tijani says he has a comment but we don't know what it is yet.
Yrjo Länsipuro: We'll come to Tijani if we can get the connection.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can he type it? Is it possible for him to type the comment?
Yrjo Länsipuro: I think Tijani's typing it right now, yes. He's waiting for the dial out. Well, --
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: One wonders what he could be saying about it.
Alan Greenberg: Yrjo, I have the quote. Instead of five months after the completion of the annual general meeting proceeding the new term, it is now six months before the date of the commencement which is the end of the annual meeting. So, it's six months before the end of the annual general meeting.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Six months before the end?
Alan Greenberg: Six months before the end of the annual general meeting which the position takes effect. We may need to refine the words. But it sounds like it's changed by a month.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Alright. Fine. Perhaps we go to Yaovi's comments to 27.2 when he's -- Tijani's reconnected and we can go to the other committee. The Board environment -- yes? Yaovi?
Yaovi Atohoun: Are we speaking to (inaudible) to ask if he can -- is still doing it, send this correct sentence on the -- or by email? Thank you.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Of course. Yes. Alright.
Alan Greenberg: I'll put it into the chat here.
Yrjo Länsipuro: So, on BCEC, as Cheryl remarked a while ago, this look very much like what we have with the nominating committee of ICANN. It's really a committee where confidentiality is a big factor. So, this is -- but any remarks? Any changes to this BCEC? Yes? Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: My comment on 27.2 is that the name of the committees refer to the Board? It seems they are committees of the Board when you say Board Selection Process Committee. That means it's a committee of the Board. That's not right.
Yrjo Länsipuro: You're right. It kind of looks like --
Tijani Ben Jemaa: And the same -- Board Candidate Evaluation Committee. It seems -- it looks like a Board committee. I prefer to remove Board and to call it Selection Process Committee of the selection of the Board member and Candidate Evaluation Committee of this process.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Okay. Yaovi, please, and then Cheryl.
Yaovi Atohoun: I understand what Tijani is saying but if you understand Board, we don't have a Board allay and then if we understand Board is the ICANN Board I think more important is the question do we understand what we do there. I agree with what he's concerned but I think it's not a big deal for me to keep it. Thank you.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you. Cheryl, please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Nice catch, Tijani. I realize when we changed -- and this is really the only substantive change other than just tidying up, it's a non-standard change. This is a new name for this oversight committee, Board Selection Process Committee. BSPC are the new letters for it in the current document. We've probably implicit in our minds that we knew we meant the board member selection process committee but it would work in my mind just as well to take the word Board out and just have the ILEC selection process committee. That would indicate the oversight role of that group I think quite effectively. I'm comfortable with that if it makes -- particularly as it gets translated and interpreted through other various languages. This is something we've never want to see a paragraph taken out of context. It's clear that the other committee is a Board candidate evaluation committee but this is really a selection process committee, selection process oversight committee. You could perhaps remove the word Board and pop in the word oversight so it's blindingly clear what this job is but I think it was a really good catch and if everyone agrees I'm happy to support that modification of Tijani's. Thank you.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you. Alan, please.
Alan Greenberg: I'd be happy to support a change but not that change. That loses the fact that we're talking about the Board member selection. ILEC selects a lot of other people through other processes. I think the name should not encourage confusion and I think we can sole Tijani's problem by making it the ILEC Board Selection Process Committee or the Board Member Selection Process Committee. I don't think we'd want to lose Board. I think that tells you the context of the selection we're talking about but there's a number of ways we can fix the problem that he identified.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I understand that, Alan, but I must say a small part of me in a dim, dark, distant corner actually though the oversight committee be used for more things at a later date. I'll keep my powder dry on that for another year or four.
Alan Greenberg: That would be a good time to change the name when we actually have another use for it.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Of course the Board member selection process committee -- it's long. It creates a five letter acronym. But that will be factually the most correct, Board member candidate evaluation committee. Would that be -- ?
Alan Greenberg: I don't think we need the member as much when we have the word candidate already in the other. That's my take. All of these are in context of a section entitled Board Member Selection.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Perhaps for the second name -- I agree, we can keep it as it is. But for the first one, it would be very long. Five letters.
Alan Greenberg: We don't use it very often.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It exists for such a short amount of time. Its function is so limited. We can live with the extra letter.
Alan Greenberg: I would suggest we need to make a decision but we don't need to agonize over it. This is one of the least important issues we're going to go over today.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Let me think on it and I'll come back to it. When I put this next version together I'll try to take into account this and find a name that will be acceptable.
Alan Greenberg: You're demonstrating what a good diplomat you are.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you. Then we should go to 27.3. On substance. Not talking about the name but on substance, is there anything that should be changed?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Now my computer is flying up. It's my turn this time, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: This is one of the sections that receives the most discussion and agonizing over. It's not the only one but it's one of the main ones. I would change it with some trepidation because it reopens the complete issue of how the member is selected and who has input into the process and who can veto and things like that. Other than to fix problems in the wording or fix particular problems that were experienced last year and I'm not aware of those, but there may be some, but I would be careful about this. If we change that it certainly has to go back to the Board if we change it in any substantive way.
Yaovi Atohoun: I just want to suggest that we have an action item to think about this BCEC also as we think about the BSPC. I don't know if in the future we will have another Board we are referring too. I'd also just suggest something to put in today but I'm thinking about putting I like ICANN Board too. An action item to also think about the name of this committee and then also the second remark is I didn't hear if it's still working. Sometimes wording, the context is changing. So, just to remind us of the action item to check the wording in the 27.3.
Alan Greenberg: It is definitely bad. So we do have to change it. I would strongly suggest we change that to a website, not a Wiki site.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It does need tweaking. Excuse me.
Alan Greenberg: Good catch, Yaovi.
Yrjo Länsipuro: So, this change, and of course a name. We'll put aside the name for the time being.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I really suggest -- I'm sorry, I'm trying to reload the Adobe room. I'm not in at the moment. If it looks like I'm in, I'm not. Can I suggest that having gone through what was a ridiculous amount of time getting agreement on the name Board Candidate Evaluation Committee that that is a pathway we probably don't need to go down now. It says exactly what it does. It evaluates the Board candidate and it puts a list together. End of story. If we didn't have ICANN having something called a Nominating Committee doing a selection process then we wouldn't have to have a selection process committee with such problems with names. But that's not what we have. ICANN have a NomCom and NomCom does selections in the world of ICANN. So, we have to be really, really careful about how we described what the now named BCEC does and it was quite an extensive process to come up with something that interpreted and translated well, was clearly understood, and was not open to confusion. It is a committee that evaluates the Board candidates. That's exactly what it says it does.
Yrjo Länsipuro: So, basically that would mean that there are no -- we would not change --
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Other than the Wiki part.
Yrjo Länsipuro: No substantive changes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The only thing, if I may -- I'm still trying to get back into the Adobe room. If it was in front of my I would be certain. I was fairly certain that we don't name the number of regions. We just say four regions. Representatives from each region of the ILEC. I think it's important that we don't say five regions of the ILEC because if that's a change we'd have to go back and change the rules. As long as that's caught.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Okay. Now the next step is what is called committee overlap. It basically says that members -- or past members of the current BCEC they cannot submit an SOI to BCEC. And a member of the BSPC who submitted a SOI must resign from BSPC prior to such SOI being submitted. Great acronym soup again. But I think this is what it is. There's no need to change this in a substantive way if we can formulate it in a clearer way. Maybe -- we have Alan?
Alan Greenberg: I'm actually still on 27.3 just in relation to Cheryl's comment. Although the current one doesn't say five, there are so many things embedded in the rules that do say five, if we ever change the number of regions we are going to have to do an overhaul of the rules. In this case it doesn't actually say it so we shouldn't add it in to confuse the issue. On 27.4 I have no comment.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you. I think that neither members of the BCEC or member of the BSPC need to submit an SOI. I don't see any need to have members of one of those committees to submit. If one intends to submit an SOI he doesn't have to be member of one of those committees. Both of those committees. I suggest to change as follows -- No person who is or was a member of the current BCEC or BSPC may submit a SOI to the BCEC and remove the remaining words. Thank you.
Alan Greenberg: I have a comment on those if you want to address that. I can live with that but the rationale why it was written the way it was is the presumption that the BSPC was going to be set up a long time before the election goes around to try to put in place the process and the timing of it. So, it could well be conceivable that someone who innocently enough gets involved in it decides to be a candidate as the clock ticks. That was the rationale for it. I could live with it either way because we expected that committee to have a life a long time before the actual election process.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: May I reply? Alan, I understand what you said but I see that is a conflict of interest between people who are in the committee who is designing and overseeing the process and being after that a candidate. I prefer not to have this conflict of interest and perhaps to be clear from the beginning, anyone who wants to be a candidate has to have not been on one of those committees.
Yaovi Atohoun: Tijani, I want to support that. But I'm wondering if it doesn't seem to stand on the first sentence because it's saying no person who was a member of the current BCEC -- do we really need the current BCEC? Do we need to reformulate that sentence? The idea is there. But I think this sentence needs to be reformulated. No person who is a member of the BCEC. I cannot understand why we can't keep who is or was a member. It's not clear for me.
Alan Greenberg: I can address that. The was is to allow for someone who is on the BCEC resigning and then submitting an application which clearly is a conflict since the BCEC may be setting the specific -- the questionnaire and what questions are asked and is privy to an analysis of how it's going to be evaluated to then resign and apply clearly is a conflict. But the fact that you were a member of a BCEC four years ago should not prohibit you from applying. That's why the is and was in combination with the current I think is important.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you for passing on your opinion, Alan. It just strikes me as I'm listening to all this without something in front of me that now might be a very good time to make one other hopefully very minor adjustment and it's one that annoyed me through the process last time but I have more weight behind my argument this time because of other things that the at-large advisory committee has done between now and then. I really did not like the term used for applicants who are being sought to put themselves forward to the BCEC to be an SOI. We have already got SOIs. They're statements of interest. I'd avoid the term SOI like the plague. I tried too get those to avoid it last time. Can we please call them expressions of interest? EOIs? Then we don't have this confusion between what an individual who is serving for the ILEC or in any other capacity in regional leadership has to lodge or someone who serves in GNSO workgroups or in the future ccNSO workgroups has to lodge and an expression of interest for being evaluated as a candidate. I'd very much like the term SOI in this section to be replaced by EOI. It's a trivial but important change in my mind. I should've raised it earlier but I was fighting with my computer.
Alan Greenberg: It goes back to the previous section. But I support that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I know. I'm sorry about that.
Yrjo Länsipuro: If nobody's against, I think we could change SOI to EOI. Another acronym here.
Alan Greenberg: Dev asked a question in the comment. Can someone be a member of both committees at the same time? I thought the answer was no but I don't actually see it there so we may need to fix that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. The only exception was an independent chair could serve on both. And to be honest there's something quite valuable there. An independent link between the two. But that would --
Alan Greenberg: Do you really want the group overseeing the process to be part of the process?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If they were an independent chair wrangling the ten individuals who are wringing their hands over the evaluation process, I don't have a problem with it. But I don't think a regional rep should serve on both.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Now the question on 27.4, whether we can simplify this saying as I think it was suggested that no person who is a member of BCEC or BSPC can submit an expression of interest. That simplifies the language. We now go to 27.5. Procedures. I think this is as it should be. Probably no changes needed. And then we come to this 27.6 which is the role of the RALOs in this process. Any comments or experiences from last time on this? No? Dev?
Dev Anand
Teelucksingh: My experience as being a Secretariat for LACRALO was the timing last time did not allow the RALOs to really evaluate any candidate and any candidate who wished to be added by a RALO to the list. So, what happened last time is when the list was released there was no time for the RALO to add anyone to the list because even though we received it, it was literally the space of two or three days. There was no way to get consensus or agreement or anything like that. I don't know if anything needs to be changed here, but that's one observation I wanted to point out.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you. The text of course doesn't say anything of the timing. Maybe that should somehow be added?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: My comment is on 27.5. In the first line, the BSPC and BCEC should adopt such operation procedure. We didn't speak about operation procedures. So, when we say such, that means that we're referring to something that we mentioned before. I prefer to replace such by in operation procedure. At the end of the paragraph we say that the ILEC shall be published and submitted to ILEC oversight and review. I prefer to say ILEC review and approval because oversight doesn't mean approval.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good point.
Alan Greenberg: I've got a comment on that and the previous point. I don't know if everybody's on the same topic or a different one.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Let's take this 27.5 first. Any comments to what Tijani said? I think --
Alan Greenberg: He was talking about 27.6.
Yrjo Länsipuro: No. Tijani was talking about 27.5.
Alan Greenberg: I agree the first section is probably not necessarily. I don't think we need any pronoun. It's just operating procedures as they see necessary. The reason we put oversight and review there as opposed to review and approval or something like that is those words were in fact stolen from a number of other documents where the Board has oversight. That is, the Board can chose to intervene but doesn't need to explicitly approve. That was done to essentially copy that. It certainly wouldn't hurt to put what Tijani is suggesting but I think that adds a step to the process that might not be necessary since what is there says essentially the ILEC can veto it but doesn't need to approve it. It's just a style of doing things that seemed to be used other places in ICANN. We can certainly continue with what's there though.
Yrjo Länsipuro: I think we can make these little changes, that is to say, shall adopt operating procedures, no need, as Alan said, to say such, as they deem necessary. What about keeping the oversight and review because that comes from other documents that is accepted language in a way? Would you, Tijani, would you agree to that?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: No, Yrjo. We're speaking here about procedure. Procedure of the BCEC. We're speaking about the procedure of the BCEC and this is a very important thing. If this language is acceptable in other places I think here we need an explicit mention to the approval of the ILEC.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Approval and review? Or rather review and approval? Anybody strongly against that formulation? To say approval?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm not going to die in a ditch over it.
Yrjo Länsipuro: So we can change that to approval. Then we go back to 27.6. The RALO role in this process and as Dev said, last time there was the problem that the time was not really enough. Is there a need to put something about the time in here?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I would like -- having straddled most of the committees -- in fact, all three of the committees last time around. We made it really clear that it was a very undesirable thing, this shortness of time. I think it would be a reasonable thing to have some sort of insufficient -- with sufficient time or actual number of days. I think we need to give the RALOs enough time. There is no good reason why it should be done in such short order ever again. Therefore, why not build into it something that makes it very, very clear and sets expectations on all sides.
Alan Greenberg: The only counterargument is there were a whole bunch of process issues we decided last time not to put into the rules of procedure but we should be documenting in what we're now calling an adjunct document and the timing may fit better there than in the specific rule. I have no strong feelings. Certainly Cheryl's right, the rush timing last time -- and it hurt us in a number of other steps later on in the process as well, was simply because of the need to select it by a certain date if we wanted to have the person seated at the right time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Something as simple as with sufficient time for regional review. It's not -- the adjunct document can pick up the nuts and bolts to make expectations that the regions are going to have enough time.
Alan Greenberg: I certainly have no problem with that. That was the intent.
Yrjo Länsipuro: I think that's reasonable. Anybody against that?
Avri Doria: I've had my name standing in the queue. I don't know if I'm allowed to -- No one calls on me.
Yrjo Länsipuro: If we are fine, we are finished with 27.6, then I'd like to talk to Avri.
Avri Doria: I was trying to speak but I couldn't get in. I wasn't being called on. I'm glad you all got to put time in as this one should comment on making -- and thank you for allowing me to speak in your meeting. I think it's very important. I think beyond going -- that the RALO should have a chance to review, I think you might also want to indicate to allow these candidates that are being put up by one RALO to have a chance to make an outreach to the other RALOs. I know some RALOs did not wish to seek candidates last time but I think it would be good if it was recommend in the proceedings that the outreach of the candidates and review of the RALO. To allow the candidates to make outreach. Because this happened, as one that was put up by a RALO, it was put up and then the vote, and as Dev said, no one had time to think about it let alone did those candidates have a chance to talk to anybody. It was really the bum's rush. That was really -- from a candidate's perspective it was unfortunate.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed. I don't have any problem with Avri's proposal of getting some words in there that set up not only permission but expectation for outreach. It's not compulsory of course but it does -- I think it's perfectly reasonable. If anyone believes to the contrary, it would be a very rare situation where candidates do not have the opportunity to make outreach to the potential electorate. So why not have it be more of an expectation that those that are put forward by regions would have an opportunity to talk to more regions. You might want to go do the husking and do all seven -- if there are ever seven regions. Why the hell you would be the best thing.
Alan Greenberg: That's not only for the RALO named candidates but for all the candidates.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Is it necessary actually to have it here specifically that all candidates have the right to do it?
Avri Doria: I didn't want it to be a right. I'm just suggesting that the time is sufficient for that activity. Not that it's an expectation or a right but that it's allowed. It's not disallowed.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Exactly. That all comes to this question of timing and how much time there is for the RALOs and for the candidates for this process.
Yaovi Atohoun: I think this 27.6 is very important. I have something in my mind, I have to be honest, I just want to raise it again so we think about it. Because given the opportunity for the RALO to bring back some candidates, I'm thinking if I was on one of the committees, but it was a long time, so I can't recall everything. I don't know if the candidates were required when submitting the application to initiate the RALO they have support from. Why, because if --
Alan Greenberg: Did Yaovi disappear? Yes. Disconnected.
Heidi Ullrich: I'll get him back.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Alright. Meanwhile, we could go on. The next paragraph or next section in this text is 27.7 but that is to my mind of course no changes needed because the electorate for the final election shall be the 15 ILEC members plus the five RALO charges.
Avri Doria: I'd like to speak to that. I actually think this is something that needs to be changed. I think one of the things that was very much a view after the last election is that the democratic process did not go deep enough. In this case, I'm not making my remarks as an ex-candidate because I was already out of it by this point. I'm making my comments as a director of one of the ALSs that is a member of NARALO. I'm not the representative of that ALS but I am on the Board. I'm making the comment from that perspective. Now in the best of all possible worlds we would be electing, in my view, we would be electing the at-large representative or the at-large seat on the Board from the at-large as opposed to from the ILEC or the ALEC with a one vote from each of the RALOs. I have had many discussions with people and I understand that my ability to convince people that it is possible to democratize this process is not going to succeed at this point in time so I'm actually suggesting a middle road that I'm hoping you'll consider. That's what least -- this is a campaign I'm having in many areas. At least bring the ALSs into the vote. When you just have the RALO vote, you're basically just getting the majority opinion of a RALO. You're getting however they do it. Is it a majority win? Is it not? One of the problems we have though is that the ALSs really aren't participating at all in this. The RALOs reach out to the ALSs in a very differential way and we do not have a consistent interface to ALSs. I think at least in the election of the at-large Board seats, not the ILEC Board seat but the at-large Board seat that the ALSs in the person of the representative to those ALSs to the RALOs should be the one with the vote. Please consider democratizing this at least a little bit more.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you, Avri, for this suggestion. Any comments?
Alan Greenberg: A couple of comments. One of the issues that came up when we discussed this last time is the immediate question coming from Board members among others to what extent do we know that the ALSs are all real, active, and not just one person casting a vote. We were not in a position to do much about that last time. I'm not sure we're in a position to do anything about it this time either. I do have a related suggestion that I've raised on the comments in the Wiki. I can raise it now or I can raise it later when I was going to, to go partway towards that democratization. Formally giving the vote to the ALSs I think is very problematic now and it may be very problematic for a long time because we know we have inactive ALSs. We know we have ALSs where essentially the spokesperson is the ALS. I think that would be problematic, certainly convincing a lot of people that this was a fair representation. I do have one potential way to go part way.
One of the issues is several of the RALOs took the concept of directed votes and applied it either to their chair vote and in some cases applied it to either the two RALO members selected by the two ILEC members directed by the RALO and in some cases the NomCom appointee decided to go along with it as well. I find that quite problematic that if a RALO decides to direct several of its votes they can end up with an ALS group that is evenly split but it's a winner take all situation where all the RALO votes or all the directed votes which may be as many as four end up going for one candidate even though the ALSs may have been radically split. I think we might want to consider if not a rule then an encouragement of the RALOs to the extent possible if they have more than one directed vote to not make it a winner take all.
Yrjo Länsipuro: We have lots of hands up. This is something that -- Yaovi?
Yaovi Atohoun: Thank you. I'm up to 27.6. Just a comment. If you remember, when people were submitting the application they have the support from some RALOs, if not I think it's very important because this rule was from the beginning was to go back to RALOs and ask for their support. I just want to make sure it's a request when somebody has submitted an application to indicate the support from the RALO. That is a comment on 27.6. Thank you.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Tijani?
Alan Greenberg: I have an answer to that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So do I.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Alan answers to this.
Alan Greenberg: Cheryl she had it first. If Tijani's hand is in relation to Yaovi's statement, then let's go ahead with him.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: No. It's for Avri.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Then, Cheryl, go ahead. And I'll follow you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, go ahead, Alan. It's okay.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. The decision to submit an application is a heart-rending one. It's very much a personal decision. I would not want to see that you have to go to your RALO or other RALOs and get approval before you can submit for a position. I think that puts a candidate in an awkward position to demand that a RALO support them. Conceivably a RALO could have more than one person coming as a candidate from the same group. The BCEC's role is to winnow that down if people are not reasonable candidates. I would not want to see that in the open application process that you need approval from a RALO to submit an application.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Here, here. It's a fact that the absolute majority by a huge amount of the expressions of interest that the last time BCEC received were from people who were not related to RALOs and in some cases not even related to ICANN in any way, shape, or form. You might find it would be wise for a BCEC to ask the question -- How are you related to a RALO? And a BCEC may chose to do that or not but you need to be aware that most people who put their hat in the ring last time had nothing to with RALO leadership at a level that would've got them anywhere near approval and many of them didn't even know how to spell ICANN. I'd be very wary of going down that path, Yaovi. It biases it to only being those who are well-known, established, and have the political connections within their regions to get up. I thought that was the opposite to what the at-large community was asking for.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Anybody in favor of supporting this idea that you should get the consent of the RALO for your application?
Yaovi Atohoun: To clarify, I completely agree. I'm not saying that we should -- the BCEC should request people to ask -- the BCEC may see somebody who has nothing to do with the RALO. But what I want to see maybe is somebody who in the initial application is not accepted could go back to the RALO and ask for the RALO to support him. That's what I wanted to say. I'm not totally clear. People don't necessarily need at the beginning to have the support from the RALO but somebody who was not selected could not go back to the RALO to ask for support. That's my idea. Thank you very much.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you, Yrjo. You know, Avri, I'm very in favor of more democracy in the process. But it must be democracy. It must be for more democracy. Because if we ask every ALS to vote, we will have some ALSs who are in the group who are working or interested or attending the calls, et cetera, know people and may make the good choice. Others will make a random choice or they will vote for the one who will lobby them the best. It will not be, I think, in the interest of the at-large at all. That's why I think the directed vote that we applied last time was done democratically. We did it in the RALO on the call first and then on the list. Even those who weren't on the call were aware and knows about the question and people answered the question and that's how the election of the vote was decided. This is a way to make the interested ALSs, those who participating very often to impact the choice. But if we look for people who are never interested, I don't think it will be of value to democracy and this process. Thank you.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Carlton, you have been waiting for a long time.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you, Yrjo. I would like to address the issues raised about widening democratic participation. I am in favor, as always, of democratic action, but I wish to make this suggestion. You will not relieve yourself of the inner tension of the ALSs by going to the ALSs directly. That is a fact now and it will be a fact always. What you would've done is to widen the capacity for them to begin by somebody who can talk a good talk. It therefore makes sense for us to have some kind of breaker that will take away the possibility of too much scheming at the very edge. The BCEC process was intended for that. The fact that you had directed votes by some RALOs tended to undermine that process. I can live with that.
There is one other issue I'd like to point out. It's not perfect but I can't make the perfect enemy of the good here. You mentioned that if a candidate put themselves in the ring and was not previously endorsed by the RALO then that candidate should -- and maybe I'm misunderstanding, but what I gathered is there's a hindsight requirement for the candidates to get endorsement from the RALO for consideration. If that is what the posture is, I'm opposed. I don't believe that any candidate need to be endorsed by the RALO. The RALO may chose to endorse a candidate but for a candidate to be required to have endorsement by the RALO is a little bit much.
Yaovi Atohoun: I'm sorry. I don't mean that.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Avri, please?
Carlton Samuels: Can I finish?
Avri Doria: Of course.
Carlton Samuels: I want to tie in the real endorsement to the idea of the participate with democracy that Avri talks about. The RALO who oppose candidates by a voting process actually engage those that are listening in that process and they ended up with an outcome that might not be in favor to some of us but to the extent that the candidate is RALO endorsed then if you have to go along with the extension of the idea that the RALO has some process in place where it solicited and invited the attention of its ALSs, constituent ALSs, I'm not sure you would see more participation by the directed vote from the RALO and ALSs.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you. Avri?
Avri Doria: Thank you very much for letting me speak again. I've heard several things. First of all, I think part of the problem with ALSs is that nobody ever includes them in anything. You wonder why they're not paying attention? Nobody ever sends them notices? Very few of them are actually brought into what's going on. The way you get responsible voters is to get them to work with them. We always hear, no matter what population we're talking about voting, yes, I'd be in favor of them voting if only they didn't get convinced by propaganda. If only they were sufficiently informed. If only they were smart enough. We always hear that. I think those running an election, an at-large organization, are responsible for making sure that's the case, that they're informed and brought in. I agree with one of the things Carlton said. Just because you send ballots doesn't mean they'll chose to vote. Then I think actually you'll start to have a very good indicator of who your actives are and who your non-actives are. We're talking about a several week period. Yes, some people may do some propaganda. Some people may do some campaigning. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Because that's when people find out what candidates are thinking. Even if they missed the one phone call where they were talked to. The perfect and good cliché now is mentioned all the time when someone wants to improve something. All you're really trying to do is make it worse. I shudder every time I hear it. This is a compromise. It really should be the at-large voting. However, I agree, we haven't figured out how to get them involved. At the very least, we have to offer the ALSs the opportunity to cast a vote as opposed to the RALO chair being directed based upon what was average and everywhere in ICANN since I've been here I've heard is that what we must do is outreach, outreach, outreach all the time, that we just can't cater to the people that are inside, that we just can't cater to the people who come on the calls, but it's our responsibility to reach out, reach out, reach out. Which is what I thought was the whole point of at-large. For us to say the most important task at-large gets every three years is picking somebody to sit on the Board to basically have the interest of the at-large at mind and then we don't include them, we don't even include their organization is undercutting the whole foundation of at-large. Thank you.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Thank you, Avri. We're running over time now. Quite a lot actually. We have to wind up. But I think that we went through most -- because then the 27.8 is already voting process and that's more of a process. I think -- I see Alan's hand up and then we have to wind up. Meanwhile, for the next call, I try to make changes as I understood they were proposed and accepted at this conference and I also will try to find some sort of compromise for this question we were discussing this last. And now, Alan, please.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you. My hand was up on the current 27.7, not to change it radically which is something I don't think we'll likely be able to do at this point. The current 27.7 generates a very unequal playing field in terms of candidates who can run and candidates who can vote and I have a comment in the chat, in the comment period, the common place, the sandbox, making a suggestion -- and I won't go into details here. You can read it. If a candidate is one of the electorate, under some conditions right now, that candidate can vote for themselves. Other cases, that candidate cannot vote for themselves. In some cases the RALO can replace them. In other cases the RALO can't replace them. I'm suggesting that we modify 27.7 to address the case of a candidate, of someone on the electorate who is running as a candidate and treat them all uniformly as a level playing field. I would strongly advocate for that. It could be in a number of other places in the bylaws. We've suggested it to be changed in the bylaws and ICANN legal counsel has come back and said it applies to ccNSO and the other SOs as well and we're not going to change it all now. So, we're not going to fix it. I think we have the ability to fix it in our own rules and I think we should strongly consider it. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan has my support on that one but I can't get on to say Yes on the Wiki board.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Tijani as well. I'll take a look at that and try to incorporate that in the next version I am writing. Now, as I said, we're 21 minutes over time. I think it's time to stop. Thank you very much.
Heidi Ullrich: Yrjo, this is Heidi, if I could speak one second. I'm just chatting with Samantha Eisner from legal. And if this group were to approve any changes to the voting, she's saying that actually the Board would not need to reapprove any changes to the ROP on the voting for the at-large selection to the Board.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: She is?
Alan Greenberg: That isn't what Board members have said.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. I think Samantha may have to have a good think about that one.
Heidi Ullrich: She is saying that, no, the Board does not have to approve the voting structure.
Yrjo Länsipuro: So, we can make changes which don't need to be approved by the Board? Is that what you're saying?
Heidi Ullrich: Let me double check with Samantha and get back to you. Cheryl and Alan, if you could let me know --
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Tell her she should be very careful what she's wishing for.
Yrjo Länsipuro: Okay. I'd like to wind up now. Wrap up now again. Our next meeting is the 15th at 20:30 UTC. Thank you, all.
Gisella Gruber: Thank you, everyone. The meeting has been adjourned and you will now be disconnected.
