Page History

11:54:20 From Filina Natalia : Hi all! Nice to hear you-)
11:55:53 From Roberto : Hi all. I can only stay for 30 - 35 minutes
11:56:25 From Roberto : And am in a noisy environment, so I will mostly communicate via chat
11:56:46 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : Hi Roberto
11:57:02 From Roberto : Hi Maureen - and all
11:58:23 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : With so many people on a virtual conference, will the chat feature still be available?
11:59:06 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : I was wondering how that would happen.
11:59:55 From Roberto : Why should the chat not be working? Maybe the only issue would be too many messages
12:01:03 From Nadira Al Araj : hello all
12:01:17 From ali almeshal : Hi Nadira
12:01:47 From ali almeshal : Yahoooow
12:02:11 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : And super-protected by Maureen and Cheryl
12:02:20 From silvia.vivanco : Hello all
12:02:27 From Nadira Al Araj : Hi Ali
12:02:47 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : Hi all
12:03:55 From Amrita : Hi all
12:05:34 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Alan as usual I will need to leave a few minutes early to chair my next meeting
12:05:40 From Judith Hellerstein : I was not able to attend many of the calls as I was traveling but sent my apologies
12:06:03 From Roberto : No objections
12:06:21 From silvia.vivanco : Hello all
12:06:22 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : :-)
12:06:25 From Judith Hellerstein : can you send me the link to check on my attendance
12:06:26 From Nadira Al Araj : I did attend on Feb 24th
12:06:47 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : That is not what I said Alan... But ;-)
12:06:53 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : This looks good for use for all WGs
12:07:05 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : (the attendance record spreadsheet)
12:07:53 From Filina Natalia : +1 Dev
12:08:06 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : Agree Dev.
12:08:06 From Filina Natalia : For gathering metrics too
12:08:22 From Roberto : And for transparency as well
12:08:23 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : We did once try to instigate this as a system Dev... there was **HUGE** complaint by a few RALO leaders and it was withdrawn as a plan... *Delighted* to have it back up for Metrics SC to instigate
12:10:01 From Judith Hellerstein : I would say no
12:10:17 From Judith Hellerstein : but if must we could say numbers
12:10:21 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : I am a thumbs down for that
12:10:41 From David Mackey : +1 for Judith
12:10:46 From ali almeshal : I would not recommend.
12:12:36 From David Mackey : the wording looks good
12:12:37 From Judith Hellerstein : I would stick with 2
12:12:55 From Filina Natalia : 2
12:12:57 From ali almeshal : Agree for 2
12:13:22 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : What's the definition of general mailings vs mailing requiring action?
12:14:49 From David Mackey : There’s nothing wrong with encouraging engagement
12:15:02 From Nadira Al Araj : +1 Cheryl
12:15:24 From silvia.vivanco : I assume the ones by default
12:15:32 From Nadira Al Araj : RALO list and at-large announce
12:15:33 From silvia.vivanco : Usually yes At-Large worldwide
12:15:51 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Not Voting I would think as the Prime would be the one to cast any vote in a poll
12:15:59 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : Two to four reps for At-Large only?
12:16:00 From Heidi Ullrich : ALAC Announce and RALO lists are the main lists staff send key messages to
12:16:42 From Heidi Ullrich : We don’t send much to At-Large Worldwide
12:17:17 From silvia.vivanco : AI; Staff will get the list of mailing lists to which all members are subscribed by default
12:17:20 From Nadira Al Araj : @Cheryl it would be good to specify the primary contact is the voting member
12:18:12 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : but all should get Votong information re background and processes... BUT any Poll link only goes to the Prime
12:18:26 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : Our ALS has someone who votes for the GAC. We are a small ALS in a small population, so our lone IT group has members from these two sectors. Does that disqualify us that we have two members who vote in different sections of ICANN?
12:18:40 From Nadira Al Araj : It is good to ask them to sign automatically by choice after explaining what each mailing list address.
12:19:46 From David Mackey : This discussion highlights the importance sending out relevant summary info from At-LArge (page 2, item 2)
12:20:45 From Nadira Al Araj : Maybe with small number ALSes ask them to convert to individual members
12:21:08 From Judith Hellerstein : Can you post the link to last week’s meeting as I had trouble finding it
12:22:01 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : @David, everyone involved has different definitions of "relevant" - I think that a discussion that "blows" up on a RALO mailing list can overwhelm a casual observer like ALS rep
12:22:20 From silvia.vivanco : @ Judith see wiki please: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2020-02-24+ALS+Mobilization+Working+Party+Call
12:22:30 From David Mackey : @Dev agreed. It’s an ongoing question for the community
12:22:31 From silvia.vivanco : For last week’s call
12:22:53 From Judith Hellerstein : Can you post the transcript
12:22:58 From Judith Hellerstein : as the link does not have it
12:23:08 From Michelle DeSmyter : @Judith - the transcript is not ready yet
12:23:16 From Michelle DeSmyter : Should be there anytime
12:23:33 From Michelle DeSmyter : I will send you an email when available
12:23:41 From David Mackey : @Dev the work you’ve done in the past helping people understand At-Large is needed now and in the future … communicate, communicated, communicate :-)
12:23:54 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : @Nadira - I'd rather not be an individual member
12:24:29 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : @judith - the Zoom recording does have the Zoom transcript https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/ucEudu78rT43S9TBtgSDUKQoW43sJ_-shHNL-qZexBmzUSYHNFKmN-ZBM-uWiTOyu5cSiV4nyx0mXKX0?startTime=1582567548000
12:25:59 From Heidi Ullrich : @All, the current Email guide is located on the At-Large Governance workspace: https://community.icann.org/display/AG/At-Large+Governance+Home
12:28:03 From Ali AlMeshal : Agree with Alan
12:29:12 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : I would stick with last weeks option of not specifying
12:29:55 From Amrita : agree with CHERYL
12:30:10 From Yrjo Lansipuro : +1 CLO
12:31:39 From David Mackey : Agree with Alan with the caution that we need to monitor minimum number of ALSes in the future
12:31:51 From Heidi Ullrich : I believe that RALO General Assemblies still provide travel support to ALS reps - and some individuals…
12:32:02 From David Mackey : oops, minimum number of members per ALS
12:32:18 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : and then the working with the ALS can sort things our in a remedial action, Now no travel association with ALSes and EOI's for travel (where not linked to an office) so old history is not relevant now
12:32:26 From Roberto : I agree in principle not to have a number, but would monitor the situation and check whether there is going to be abuse - like cases that Alan mentions
12:32:35 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : EOIs are individually competative
12:32:39 From David Mackey : + Roberto
12:33:11 From Roberto : I think that Maureen’s case is clear, but we cn easily figure out if somebody is trying to cheat the system
12:34:00 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Nadira the other end of the spectrum also holds we have ALSes with literally THOUSANDS of actual Members yet only 1 or if lucky 2 are engaged with ICANN in anyway... The same judgement needs exercise there as well
12:35:30 From Roberto : I am sorry but I have to leave in a couple of minutes - will read the proceedings.
12:36:02 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : Bye Roberto :)
12:37:33 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : When the new registration form is completed, will we ask all our ALSEs to complete the form to update their membership information according to our new rules. This might help us identify the ones who want to remain with us.
12:38:06 From Eduardo Diaz - NARALO : @Alan: Can you give an example on which case this might happens?
12:38:24 From Judith Hellerstein : perhaps it is the issue Maureen mentioned
12:38:38 From Eduardo Diaz - NARALO : @Alan: Thanks fro th eexmaple
12:39:00 From David Mackey : agreed
12:39:23 From Nadira Al Araj : @Ed, for example some they are in ccNSO and rep of ALS
12:40:49 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : So if an ALS is a member of the NCSG ?
12:41:03 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : either NPOC or NCUC ?
12:41:11 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Yes if an ALS was an Org Member of NPOC this rule would apply
12:41:33 From Filina Natalia : what is individual in At-Large is member of org in NCUC?
12:41:38 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : s the ENTITY is in votong role in two so would only be able to VOTE in 1
12:41:53 From Nadira Al Araj : Hard to track
12:42:27 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Not realy Nadira
12:42:44 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : as long as At-Large has a Non-Voting status
12:43:06 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : and remember voting is not germaon to any reward (e.g. travel) now
12:43:17 From Nadira Al Araj : because there many organizational members in RALO and at the same time in NCUC
12:44:11 From Filina Natalia : @Nadira we have an open acces to the lists of members, can track
12:45:20 From Nadira Al Araj : Maybe we can track, but if we allow them to vote here how can we prohibit them from not voting in the other SO
12:45:54 From Filina Natalia : by new rules?
12:46:12 From Nadira Al Araj : It needs some logistic work
12:46:37 From Eduardo Diaz - NARALO : Non Voting ALS will look like an Individual member
12:47:15 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : Should there be some open disclosure in the registration of an ALS about what position a particular member of an ALS may already have within ICANN and the reason why these individuals may have a vote as individuals in their particular section of ICANN. The ALS however, would only vote in At-Large.
12:47:27 From DANIEL K. NANGHAKA : NPOC is different from At-Large
12:47:55 From Nadira Al Araj : So we control our ALSes
12:48:01 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : That is not the point @Daniel Capture is
12:48:52 From Filina Natalia : and we can assume that the representative of the ALS may not know about where individuals from this ALS still participate and vote?
12:49:06 From Filina Natalia : as individuals
12:49:35 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : At-Large strives to be open and inclusive so the active participation of a Non Voting ALS is well engagement
12:49:36 From Judith Hellerstein : I do not think there is a value of a non-voting ALS
12:49:53 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : APRALO RARELY votes on anything our ROPs call for consensus
12:50:01 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : There doesn't seem to be any value in non-voting ALS
12:50:10 From Nadira Al Araj : I agree with the non-voting ALS
12:50:13 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : @Cheryl - that's APRALO
12:50:21 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : Sadly NOT for LACRALO in the past
12:50:25 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Why is their vlue re;ated to voting @Dev???
12:50:50 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : our Rules need to cover the spectrum of RALOs
12:50:56 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : Long painful story in LACRALO
12:51:13 From Judith Hellerstein : I see that we should allow the als to vote in both areas as long as they only take a leadership role in one organization
12:51:24 From Judith Hellerstein : new hand
12:51:25 From silvia.vivanco : Some RALOs only vote for leadership positions once a year
12:51:39 From David Mackey : +1 Yrjo
12:51:43 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : SO don't make the rest of us suffer for your REgions history... these need to be forward looking and generally fairly applicable rules goinf from now on
12:53:19 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Yes concerns have been raised by ALAC Members in the past and Regional Leders as well
12:53:21 From Judith Hellerstein : I agree it is best to ignore it
12:53:42 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : it's an Actual concern of some people
12:55:14 From Filina Natalia : @Judith Don`t ignore, but maybe allow?
12:55:43 From Nadira Al Araj : When ICANN is a multi-stakehoder model is designed to have specialty
12:56:11 From Eduardo Diaz - NARALO : Silent
12:56:19 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : I think it needs to be more specific or give examples of situations - like an voting ALS cannot be a member of this particular AC/SO
12:56:49 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : A VOTING Member of another AC/SO
12:57:16 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Entities are NOT Leaders individuals are
12:57:36 From David Mackey : @Nadira raises a good question/point …”ICANN is a multi-stakehoder model is designed to have specialty”
12:57:41 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : I prefer that if an ALS wants to be an At-Large ALS this is where they vote. They can participate in another ICANN group but not vote.
12:57:47 From Eduardo Diaz - NARALO : I should say we should be silent on this. The ALS is just one vote in many
12:58:18 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : we have no control over what other AC/SO's do or allow
12:58:27 From David Mackey : does the multistakeholder model allow for ALS voting (or not voting) in multiple ICANN AC/SO
12:58:39 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Yes it does
12:58:43 From Eduardo Diaz - NARALO : Better is that we say that you can be a member of one group and period.
12:58:53 From Judith Hellerstein : I agree with eduardo
12:59:11 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : that is going to get more push back than the rule being proposed @Ed
12:59:19 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : agree, At least that's explicit - because its seems very confusing - what is a voting member of another AC/SO
12:59:55 From Eduardo Diaz - NARALO : Too convoluted
13:00:11 From Eduardo Diaz - NARALO : Lets keep silent on this
13:00:39 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : because this seems to say the case that ALS reps cant be GAC reps which we said earlier was ok
13:00:48 From Ali AlMeshal : +1 Ed
13:00:48 From David Mackey : Thanks Alan and everyone! Bye All
13:00:56 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Silent is abteer fall back than soe\m eoptions proposed toda IMO
13:00:59 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Bye
13:01:02 From Ali AlMeshal : thank you all
13:01:02 From Filina Natalia : Thanks Alan, all. Great meeting
13:01:03 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : Thanks Alan.
13:01:07 From Barrack Otieno : Thanks Alan Bye
13:01:10 From silvia.vivanco : Thank you all
13:01:11 From silvia.vivanco : bye
13:01:12 From Eduardo Diaz - NARALO : bye
13:01:15 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : bye all