Participants: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Avri Doria, Rafik Dammak, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Evan Leibovitch, Sebastien Bachollet, Cintra Sooknanan, Fouad Bajwa
Apologies:Yaovi Atohoun, Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Staff: Heidi Ulrich, Silvia Vivanco, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine
1. Review of Agenda
2. Roll call
3. Vice-Chair Discussion/Selection
EL: Recommended Cintra Sooknanan. By Skype Chat, Cintra has indicated she is available for this position.
Cheryl, Dev and Evan approved of this recommendation.
AD: Thanks and will speak to Cintra later re dividing work.
4. Response to Preliminary Support Implementation program
AD: If WG wishes to recommend to the ALAC that a letter be sent, the WG would need to inform the ALAC today to place the item on tomorrow's ALAC agenda. AD prepared a Chair's Draft. Does the WG wish to recommend to the ALAC to submit such a letter?
TBJ: Feedback?
AD: No formal feedback yet.
TBJ: Good proposal. Very good. I support sending it. If ALAC does not agree to send it, I would like you to send it on behalf of this WG.
Evan Leibovitch: I like the letter and would be acceptable to its transmission.
EL: If speed is important, then I support this WG sending it and then sending it to the ALAC for consideration. If the sending can wait, then I recommend first sending it to ALAC
SB: The letter can wait 24 hours.
AD: Can send to ALAC and send a preliminary copy to the Chair of the Board.
Sebastien Bachollet: I'm not sure if the comments are not already gone. The comments were to be sent by the 17th. It is not a letter you need to send, but a clear message from the Chair of ALAC that you don't want...It may stop the process somewhere. The question of timing, the Board/Staff waited until the 17th. There is a lot of things to do.
AD: That is why Tijani's note was already forwarded to the Group and to Kurt. They know what the issues are and our views. Yes, it would have been nice to have the letter submitted by the 17th, but I think we should still submit it.
TBJ: I think the letter from the ALAC is compulsory. Perhaps as you said, you can send a preliminary letter now and then an ALAC-endoresed version later.
AD: So, right after the meeting, I can send it if we approve the content.
TBJ: Only a few things need to be changed. The letter is perfect.
WG reviewed draft letter.
There were no comments on the draft letter.
TBJ: Discussed a few grammatical issues.
AD: Will send notification to OCL that the WG agreed with presenting to the ALAC that they send it on to the Board as ALAC advice. AD will send it to Kurt Pritz, Steve Crocker and Chris Disspain that that the ALAC will be sending the final version.
Any other comments that perhaps don't come up to the level of sending of advice but we need to look at further. Obviously, once there is a PC open for this, there will be more to look at.
5. Status update
a. Objection process
AD: I did not see when I last checked any changes from the last time we discussed this. We had discussed sending this out to the RALOs. Dev Anand had volunteered to take what is there and produce a first document which, once discussed by this WG, to send it on to the RALOs.
DAT: Could also do a flowchart on this and do the write-up as well.
AD: Does anyone volunteer to assist DAT?
DAT: Should not be a problem working on the flowchart/draft on his own.
AD: If anyone does volunteer, please get in touch with Dev. So, next meeting will be 9 January 2012.
DAT: Is ok with that schedule.
b. COI Issue
AD: No revisions here. To discuss.
c. Recording of Application Implementation issues for future reference and process improvement
6. Any other Business
EL: Proposal to ALAC stance on the new gTLD program. The last definitive statement was made at the At-Large Summit in March 2009, so probably time to develop an update on the ALAC position. I've had some suggestons made for wording. I will create a wiki page that will have the motion posted. It is open for modification. It is a draft motion at the moment. I'll be working with the ALAC to get a final version agreed to prior to the January 12 roll-out.
CLO: Would recommend that the draft motion be read for the record.
EL: Read text (available at: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2011-December/005430.html)
CLO: Timeline issue. Is there an effort for an out-of-sesssion meeting?
EL: Since it was proposed, if we wait for the Jan 2012 ALAC meeting, it will miss the roll-out date, I've discussed with OCL that we have an on-line vote and/or a community call.
CLO: Re regions who do not use their regional mailing list, or that the ALAC vote is held before the regional meetings, would this be an ALAC statement or At-Large statement?
EL: There would be one ALAC call in the interim. There will hopefully be time for ALAC reps to go back to their regions. I've asked regional leaders to go back to their regions and get the mood of their regions.
CLO: RE AI...I thought that a previous AI was that CLO was to create a wiki page on past new gTLD statements or the Objection process?
AD: Both. Implementation application issues. It is the history.
