Page History
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay well let them keep trying but I think we need to get going at five past the hour. All right, gee it only seems like such a short time since we were all gathered together. We have Heidi and Seth on the call. We also have Gisella on the call but she’s on mute and in the room you can also see that Heidi and Seth, who?
Seth Greene who I don’t know why he’s turned into a client of himself, but as long as he's there, that’s fine, Alan (inaudible 00:00:35), again we've got apologies from both Dave and Vanda. And a little later when we ping him apparently at our beck and call, Kevin Wilson will be able to join us, so let's get on to the business of the day. And I guess before we jump too far into our draft agenda we should find out if there are any additions to the agenda.
Alan Greenberg: I would like to quickly discuss that email from Eric (inaudible 0:01:06) Williams.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. All right. Could we do that under any other business then?
Alan Greenberg: I would think that’s where it fits.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Sebastian, you had a piece?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes, I think we will discuss before we have carrying on board (inaudible 0:01:27) and Tijani, because it is giving me some questions I guess. The second point is about (inaudible 0:01:35) and from the legal because we need to elect people from the Nominating Committee to ALAC and the dates we can organize this type of selection or addition. But it could be done on the any other business also.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. We’ll pop that into any other business, but we see what you raised as per the message to Tijani, he’s indicated he wants to do that before Kevin joined us. Why before, and not when?
Sebastian Bachollet:: Because I guess if any finance we agree with I would like to be sure that we point on what we need to point him on, it’s written on the budget and what is written in the email, and that’s not for me –
Alan Greenberg: Maybe we should have that discussion before, because as Cheryl knows anyway, I did speak to Kevin and I now understand what the budget issue was.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right. I would hope that was the purpose of him joining the call, to understand it.
Sebastian Bachollet: Up to you, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, I mean I’m asking for a very important reason. I’m happy to have things go both ways, but Alan, do you think it would be an exercise in duplication, or is there material information that we need to discuss—
Alan Greenberg: Well, I can discuss very quickly what I think he is going to say, based on –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But does that need to happen, or do we just bring the man on and we all interact?
Alan Greenberg: Fine. That’s fine with me.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, well if there wasn’t anything – you weren’t concerned that something had to be said without him being in the room, I’m all for the just get in there and do it, because I suspect we all have similar questions and apparent inability to read and understand things. Okay, let’s then move on with both agenda items added to our action items, which are not too many.
Heidi sent the bulk mail to Glen, putting the Excom on the GNSO mailing list on the terrorism issue. Can I suggest that that is a very poor – I know it was done, but it’s a very poor sentence, because it’s not a true and accurate record?
It’s specifically the AC/SO GNSO mailing list on MAPO, it’s certainly not just on the terrorism issue, and I think it’s a little bit misleading to have that written that way, I would like that sentence to be changed, so that we have a better record.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, I noticed that.
Alan Greenberg: That is not the terrorism issue, that’s morality and public order.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Exactly. The fact that how one defines terrorism may come into public order is sort of a connection, but it’s not the –
Alan Greenberg: It’s not the terrorism connection that we were raising the issue on.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That we need to, as well. It’s sort of two things. The mailing list is the MAPO mailing list, and I would just say the MAP mailing list, not specify GNSO there, yes it happens to live under the GNSO, but the intention was apparently for it to be a joint AC/SO one, and when the GAC advice comes in, and I have not checked my emails yet this morning.
I don’t know if it has come in or not, someone may tell us, but yes, the action has been done but we need to tidy up the words there. And Alan, would you like to cleave off an action item on the terrorism issue? There’s been some more traffic on it, generally. Or should we revisit that as a consequence of that action item?
Alan Greenberg: There may have been traffic, but I haven’t focused on it. That was supposed to be coming under the work that Carlton was trying to initiate with Evan, I thought.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s right. Which that can be –
Alan Greenberg: Yes, I have not focused on that. So I can’t be –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, well let’s just make sure we don’t drop it then, off the action items, just to be a better reflection of what Heidi was asked to do and what she did. Basically we’ve got the (duty) done because we’re here, and Gisella has indeed organized the next meeting on the MOPO on the ninth, but at this stage, neither Chuck nor Heather and I agree with them still that we need to have our teams with us simply because GAC isn’t that far yet.
So if you don’t mind getting your lives back at 2100 UTC on the 9th of August, if you leave that call out of your diaries, gentlemen, just at this stage. That following fortnight we assume that the GAC advice will be out and will be ready to be into more full AC/SO mode.
So the call has been organized, but Chuck and Heather and I agree that we probably just need the three of us to touch base at this point, say hello and what’s happening and when will the dates be coming. What dates does Heather expect things to be happening. And then I’ll let you all know.
I don’t think I’ve done any work with either Heidi or Gisella around the times for forwarding planning and standing meetings, other than my plea for them to be standardized. Have I been in fugue state, Heidi, or is this still to be done?
Heidi Ulrich: You had mentioned some dates, sometimes, but I need to sort that out with you as well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so it’s not that I’ve been in a fugue state, and have been functioning and not knowing that I’ve been functioning. We haven’t done that, so that still continues on, terrific, not a problem. And the matter of the Noncom appointing time of applications has (inaudible 0:08:03) for the response.
And Sebastian has asked that to be revisited in any other business, although because it was an action item arising, I am happy to bring it forward now. If, Sebastian, you want to discuss it at this point in the agenda.
Sebastian Bachollet: Well, it’s really up to you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I’m happy to bring it forward now. Let’s do that now, shall we?
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay. My point is that we received the announcement from legal saying that we can’t organize an appointment for somebody member of the Noncom before the end of his term, and even not for six months after. Everything must be organized after. It’s – my understanding of this, even when we asked legal, my understanding is it’s just for the seats under the responsibility of the Noncom, and not for the other.
And we know that they can’t be seated at the same time in two different things, the Noncom and in one elected place. Then I doubt this answer. Anyhow, I guess we, Olivier and myself discuss that yesterday, we will stick with that decision, but I want to raise that to be sure that if we disagree as a group, not as a single region or as a person, if we disagree as a group it’s time to say that we disagree and to have that revisited. Not just because Olivier is outside of the nominating committee at the end of the AGM, the next GM, but more generally speaking.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Alan, you – I often look to Alan as the repository of nuances and understanding of many of the by-laws, so please go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: My understanding, I just read the legal opinion very quickly, but I think it says someone who is on the current nominating committee, the one that is in the process of selecting people, cannot – is not eligible for selection, for example, as an ALAC representative until after the 2010 AGM. Is that what they said?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s pretty much as we’re understanding it, yes.
Alan Greenberg: I see absolutely no way of interpreting the by-law any differently than that. The unfortunate thing is the title of the by-law section says Ineligibility for Selection by Nominating Committee. That’s not what the words in the by-law say; they say no person who serves on the nominating committee in any capacity shall be eligible for selection by any means to any position on the Board or any other ICANN body, having one or more positions the Nominating Committee is responsible for filling.
So because the Noncom is selecting ALAC members, you cannot have someone – essentially what that translates to is you don’t want to be accused of giving a favor to the current Noncom person for selecting someone. So while he is a member, he cannot be a candidate for selection. So I don’t see any other way of interpreting it, other than the advice we got from legal counsel. You may say that the by-law is stupid, but as it’s written, I don’t see any way around it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, and I think that what Sebastian was saying. He thinks the by-law is stupid, but we’re going to have to deal with it. Sebastian, is our hearing of what you said correct?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes, that’s correct.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Is EURALO wanting to take some further action on this?
Sebastian Bachollet: I don’t think so. We have other things to do than to take care of that to be clear. Is it recorded, what I would say?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It is, but we can have the recording – have it redacted if you wish.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes, because I would take names to show –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: One moment then, Sebastian. Heidi, do you want me just to put a hard stop so that we stop – we remove this section of the recording? Or do you want us to move this to the end and we can go in camera? I’m happy to take it from going camera at this point, later on. It would be easier to go in camera later on.
Okay. So we will hold on this point, and we will continue this discussion at the end, when we did have it in the end in other business, but I do think it is important for us to have a full and frank discussion on this. Okay, so this is a suspended item, and we will pick it up later in the meeting when it is appropriate for us to go in camera. Okay, thank you.
All right, back onto the 27th of July, I don’t believe then there is anything we haven’t done on that, let’s just have a quick run through. The action items from the ALAC meeting, how are they tracking? Let’s have a look. The 25th of May, JAS charter matters I think have been settled, but with Alan on the call let’s just confirm that. Heidi, are you aware that the –
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, I looked at the May ALAC meeting, and it looks like ALAC agreed to the four issues. That was the one that was GNSO, it was thought that GNSO approved.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, and I couldn’t find the reference, but I vaguely remember a call, but I believe the GNSO decided not to change it.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay. I can put the text – the text of what I just said is in the adobe connect text of the –
Alan Greenberg: No, no, I wasn’t questioning that, the point was did the GNSO go back and change it to add the fifth one, and I could not find any reference to that discussion.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In fact, what I’d like you to do Heidi, because I also remember something that was raised by (Ivory) and I think it was on the JAS list, at that time, and my memory of that – Sebastian, you were on that, you might be able to clarify this as well, my memory of that was that she believed the additional item was to be a part of the charter, and was done to take effect to the GNSO. And so –
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sebastian? Your memory and mine are in synch there?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So in that case, Heidi, we can’t close this off. You need to follow up with the staff and get whoever is working on the GNSO side on the JAS to contact the two co-chairs and we need to drag that out of the list and that has not been closed off on the GNSO side. It isn’t too much of a concern to me yet, other than we have this sort of floating item, because we did, I believe, and perhaps you want to double check for it.
You’ve already got your microphone Alan, you want to double check again, but I thought we said whatever the GNSO puts in, four, three, however many, five, we were going to in principle, support. So I think we’re covered, but the other part of the loop hasn’t been closed. Alan, go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. The intent was that there be five. No one is disputing that. For whatever reason, Olaf presented the wrong charter to the GNSO and they approved it. We then said we are approving what we believe the GNSO approved. So we have all approved four.
There was a discussion that was held, and I cannot find it, basically that said the fifth one is not going to be forgotten by the group, regardless of whether it is part of the charter or not. And I believe the GNSO formally or informally, and I cannot remember, I tried to find a reference in a GNSO meeting and I couldn’t.
But I believe there was a conscious or passive decision to just let it rest, and not bother going back and revising it. I can’t find the reference to that, but I’m very sure that’s what happened.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That information, because we’ve got this open thing on the actual JAS list, and as co-managers, all of us, it’s been raised into our meeting, we haven’t got that information back from the GNSO to put that to bed, and I think we need to do that.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay, Cheryl. Evan is on line. I’m going to ask him. Just for a quick –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Why, does he have some knowledge of the GNSOs activities that you and Alan don’t?
Heidi Ulrich: Okay, never mind.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. I’m not concerned at the JAS level, I’m concerned at the GNSO/ALAC level.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay. I understand.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So we’re right then, Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Well, yes. I believe there was a discussion, whether it was held at the GNSO level or the JAS level not to pursue it, I don’t remember, but my recollection is there was a discussion not to pursue it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The only one I’m aware of is the one that Sebastian and I remember, is take it to the GNSO and get them to add it in, and it seems to me you’ve heard the response to that request going back to the GNSO though it hasn’t been officially written somewhere – we just need to get that from them.
Alan Greenberg: Or I couldn’t find it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Which is okay, but let’s staff who should be able to put their hands on it, find it. Okay. So that is a continuing one. Sorry about that, Heidi. Binary Egypt and the logo – did we get anywhere with them? Has Behar not had time?
Heidi Ulrich: No, he’s had time, but unfortunately Behar is on vacation this week. I followed up with legal and they did say that the first step would be to send a cordial letter asking Binary Egypt to remove the ALAC logo, but again we will do that first thing next week when Behar is back.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, all right, and so let’s leave that letter, but I think it’s probably not the last time we’ll need the cordial letter, so perhaps if that could be drafted up and headed as a draft across the Excom list for us to look at, I think it’s probably one of those we need to have on file anyway.
Okay, ALAC statement on PIDNR, the cover note there – now the cover note there I think raised a little concern because there was too much – what actually came out in the end was fine, but it was one of those times when we were going to be far, far too specific with our dates and times, and the number of lists.
Alan, were you happy with the preparation for the cover note for the ALAC on the PIDNR working group?
Alan Greenberg: I was happy with the end result. I wasn’t happy with the process.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, yes. That process, I’ve had a short discussion with Heidi on. We need to revisit the purpose of what sort of pro forma things are happening and why they used to happen, why they started to happen, and if and why they need to continue to happen.
So let’s not close this off, because I think this is a larger discussion, and I think it probably needs to involve Heidi and I at a point where we’ve got a clearer amount of time, but I was concerned, as I wrote to Heidi, that if this hadn’t been caught by Alan, it would have given the wrong message when the intention of those cover notes is to give a very strengthening message.
So let’s – the action items closed, when a new action item needs to be raised, we need to look at standard operating procedures on mechanism and management of reports, statements, and public comment responses from the ALAC. Does that cover it, Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yes, I was just going to try to put something in place that basically if a transmission message, especially for the public comment forums, maybe to the Board there needs to be some other flourishing, but a transmission message should be doing just that, transmitting. And if there’s content that needs to be in the statement, then it should be in the statement that the ALAC approves.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, yes, I think that’s where I’d like a set of SOPs established, because it really, it’s very hard if we’re all on an airplane somewhere, and it falls to a staff member to maybe want to go oh, what am I supposed to do with this? Oh, this is a pc, this is a statement to the Board.
Alan Greenberg: And I was just giving my summary in case I’m on an airplane in the next week.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay good. Fine, that’s where we want to head, but I think we need to have a sort of single purpose exercise, and I – it’s up to Heidi, but she might want to involve more staff and have it sort of as a team exercise, getting a little SOP that lives on the staff side, but has the endorsement and understanding of the ALAC as to what happens and how.
There’s an awful lot of history that is just sitting in people’s heads, and we probably need to get it on paper or change it or justify its continued use as to how we do things. The matter of the GA, general assembly money, new or not, is on our agenda, and I suspect we won’t be happy with the reactions and responses we are getting there.
The LACRALO GA single purpose call, that’s being morphed more into a travel call, has it not Heidi, but it’s still to do with GA? Or has it not?
Heidi Ulrich: I’m sorry?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The action item I’ve got staff to organize a single purpose call on LACRALO GA numbers, etc.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes. They’ve been collapsed, basically. So that the approval that has gone out today indicated that it’s going to be first Kevin and Steve, and then secondly a discussion that the GAs. I’ve confirmed with both Sylvia and Dev, that they will be the LACRALO reps presenting the budget for the LACRALO issue. I’ve also, sorry Cheryl, confirmed with constituency travel that met will be developing draft budgets for the NORALO and APRALO GAs as well, for that call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. Okay. So what we need to do is beef up the action item as it’s currently listed on 27 July 2010 action items from the ALAC meeting, to properly reflect that additional work and topics. And then the final one is the Excom to discuss our study items, our sending items ALAC 27th of July to get back and I assume it means on time, not on line. I didn’t realize the ALAC had ever gone dark.
Alan Greenberg: Only the chair did.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was going to say I don’t think my lack of being connected for a couple of days means the whole of the ALAC wasn’t online. I think we probably, that’s a typo and it simply means on time.
Alan Greenberg: No, we may have all taken the opportunity to have a vacation too.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, the list traffic didn’t indicate that when I got back. Have we got Carlton on the call yet, or no?
Heidi Ulrich: No, they have tried to call him repeatedly, but no answer on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, gentlemen, how do you want us to look at the policy advice development calendar? There is only one newbie that appears to have snuck in on us, but they do come in at regular intervals though, don’t they, which is the aspects of single character IDNs, but let’s look at the comments that we’ve got in. We’ve had the – I saw the RAA one, but I thought the other ones came in as well. Weren’t there two that Carlton put forward to list?
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, in fact they’re on the agenda. Both of the ALAC comments, you’ll see – the first one is the RAA – sorry, I’m –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’d opened that one, but I hadn’t opened the (inaudible 0:26:32). Let me open that now.
Heidi Ulrich: And what I’m doing, you’ll see Cheryl, while you’re opening that, you’ll see that I’m – as these come in, and as we have time, I have had time, I’m developing these policy development work spaces for the various working group and then placing these comments on there.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good. Okay, that’s a good thing. Thank you. So is it our view that we can – this has come to us. We have it on our agenda now to basically – have we asked the community to add their comments?
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, we have.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But this went up on the 29th, and the comments have to be up within 24 hours.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, unfortunately that was the case, but you’ll see that there are still no comments.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, my question was did the proper announcements go out to get the community to this page and space to do that?
Heidi Ulrich: I need to double check on which list. I believe it was on the ALAC announcement. Let me take a look at that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It was while I was offline, and what we’re looking at is taking this to vote, but if the community didn’t even know about it clearly, it’s going to be an issue. Sebastian and Alan, your comments and reactions, should we put this just to vote, or what? Or do we just put them forward? Talk to me guys.
Alan Greenberg: I guess I need to know what the announcement said when they were sent to the list. I’m sorry, I don’t have it in front of me, so I don’t know.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, well Heidi, we’ll get back to that. Sebastian? You’re waiting for the same information, are you?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes, I am not sure that it went to any larger list than the two of us.
Alan Greenberg: It doesn’t have to go to anything larger than ALAC.
Heidi Ulrich: It went to ALAC announce on the 29th. It went to ALAC announce, I will put the message –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If it went to ALAC announce on the 29th, which yes, was unfortunate, and I think yes it’s short time, and yes, it’s summer holidays, but we are now then proposing that it go now for a vote, I think that’s fair enough because the ALAC gets the opportunity to be forced to read it again. They may bleat at us, but we knew at the time of the meeting that there wasn’t much we could do about the timing. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yes, I’m sorry. I’m just reading the note. One second. It says please add your comments by July 30th; I presume there were no comments added.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There are no comments, correct.
Alan Greenberg: So if there are no comments, then we put to a vote I think.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Sebastian?
Alan Greenberg: By the way, I submitted a personal comment to the RAA which may not be posted there, because they closed the posting before the end of the period, but it will be included.
Heidi Ulrich: Alan, what do you mean by that? Actually I was checking late on Friday, and it was still open.
Alan Greenberg: All I know is I submitted it at around 11 o’clock my time which was 8:00 Marina del Rey time, and the comment period had been closed by then. I’ve since had apologies and assurances it would be factored in by Margie and Liz, but it probably isn’t posted there yet. I meant to send a copy to the ALAC and I didn’t; I will though. I just forgot about that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, just on that lack of predictability, could you not sent a formal thing to the ATRT list as such, but in the group that we’ve got on the ALAC space, the At-Large space for the ATRT matters, because public comments are such an important part of what accountability and transparency team has been asked to look at, could you just pop that in as an observation?
Alan Greenberg: I would actually prefer not to. It was an honest mistake of someone who was going on vacation and jumped the gun.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s fine, but it’s also not good enough. Without accusation and blaming, if someone is going on vacation, then someone else should have the off switch.
Alan Greenberg: As I said, it was a mistake.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: All right. Okay.
Alan Greenberg: I’m reluctant –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m not going to push it. I may use that as an example, though.
Alan Greenberg: You certainly may, but give them – how do I put this genteelly? Given the tone that one sees in ICANN, I don’t feel comfortable about doing that right now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, that’s fine. I’m not looking for a vilification exercise.
Alan Greenberg: I know, but other people are.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I am concerned that if something can happen in the system, in all honesty, if it’s easy to fix we should fix the system. It’s not the fault of –
Alan Greenberg: Well, I had been told in another context that it’s automatic now, but apparently it isn’t. So, I will be asking for clarity on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, well perhaps you can share that with the rest of the Excom, because certainly some of us would find that information very interesting.
Alan Greenberg: The issue isn’t in past comment periods – well, you were on the PIDNR call when it was discussed. In past comment periods, they have been left open for a few days by mistake, we - Marica thought it was now automated, but clearly if it is automated it can also be assisted by people. I’m not quite sure, so we need to investigate it. In this particular case, it appears to have been an honest mistake by someone who works hard.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, and that’s why I’m trying to make sure it doesn’t get into a personal matter at all, because it’s a system issue. Okay, keep us posted on that Alan. Thank you. So we’ve got that set to run out on the RAA. If we now move on to the current draft comments which is the Applicant’s Guidebook Version 4, and explanatory memorandum, yes, this one has already ended, this is one of those that we will be playing our trump card with the we can say what we want, to whom we want, when we want.
How do you gentlemen want to deal with this? If you click the button and move toward the job statement from the ALAC, it talks about cross community working group, the consensus that the following positions of ICANN must embrace the prospect of providing for the support and further participation of marginalized communities, in other words, pick up on the JAS end; that type of work that’s going on, without stating it as such. I’m happy with that language.
The enforcement of institutional arrangements to protect minimized harms and I assume that the word compliance, while not written there, is strongly implied – oh, it does say the compliance framework – and enforcement and again I think that’s absolutely in keeping with what was said before, and it actually mentions the (inaudible 0:34:37) which I think is quite useful language. And the MOPO issue also gets a (gurnsey) there, and it’s our first visit to the midnight induction of the terrorism construct.
How, dear ExCom, should we deal with this because it’s no longer a public comment response, it really needs to be a statement to the Board, and if that’s the case, I’m particularly keen to make sure that all of the ALAC interacts and reacts to this? What announcement went out about this, Heidi, and to whom? Did it also go out on the 29th, or what?
Heidi Ulrich: Sorry, Cheryl. Can you just quickly repeat that please?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What announcement went out about the draft statement to the ALAC on the dag 4? On what dates, and to whom did that go?
Heidi Ulrich: I believe that was sent by Carlton. Let me double check when he sent that.
Sebastian Bachollet: It was sent the 30th of July, it was sent to submit address to staff list, and it was discussed just there for the moment. I guess it was not sent.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So we need to get that out to an announce, and we need to have it to the working group list, and the working list needs to be requested to bring in editorial comments and suggestions to the draft statement, over the next couple of days. Do you think a five or six day period is long enough at this time for Europeans, Sebastian? What amount of days should we attach to this?
Sebastian Bachollet: You know, if it’s one month or it’s a day it’s the same.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Alan, do you want to pick a magic number out of a hat? It is summer in America.
Alan Greenberg: Well, we have to get it to the Board – when is their retreat?
Heidi Ulrich: 24th, 25th, 26th or something like that in September. Let me get the exact date.
Alan Greenberg: No, no, but the critical thing is what is the cutoff for documents for them? Two weeks before?
Heidi Ulrich: Let me find out.
Sebastian Bachollet: 10th of September.
Alan Greenberg: Which means we really have to have a statement ready for approval by the 1st of September.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Correct.
Alan Greenberg: So we have a few weeks, but a few weeks including final drafting, not a few weeks to comment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Heidi, can you ask Gisella is that yet another conference call trying to dial me into the 7 o’clock meeting, which is almost twenty minutes away?
Heidi Ulrich: I’ll find out what’s going on.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, I’m just going to ignore this call – I just hope it’s not –
Heidi Ulrich: It’s not through us.
Gisella Gruber-White: Hey Cheryl, it’s not us.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m going to have to hang up and grab this call, because this could be an important matter, sorry. Sebastian, can you just take the control and I’ll be back in a minute. No, it stopped. If it comes in again, I’m going to have to stop and take the call.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, no problem.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: All right. Well, normally this is an odd time for this dial in number to be used by business, so probably it might be family. That’s why I was concerned. Okay. We do actually have other business under, that’s why. So let’s get this out to ALAC and ask them quite specifically to go over this with a fine tooth comb; this is going to be a very important piece of advice, formal advice to the Board –
Alan Greenberg: May I give my standard caveat? If this is advice to the Board, we have to keep it short and to the point, or it doesn’t get read.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And so far so good. If someone wants to quadruple its length, I think we argue against that. Go ahead, Sebastian.
Sebastian Bachollet: I think that too. To a point I think it must be short, at the same time if it’s advice to the Board we need to be sure we put all the information we want to put regarding the matter of the dag 4, because if we miss something, we will not –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, if you think, or if anyone else thinks we missed something, now it’s in the comment time for ALAC to pick that up and then discuss it. I just need to ask my husband to do something, so Sebastian, can you take the floor for a moment?
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay. We will discuss – maybe what do you say (inaudible 0:40:04) ALAC meeting in August?
Alan Greenberg: I’m sorry, Sebastian. You’re breaking up.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, back. Sorry about that.
Alan Greenberg: Sebastian took over, but his line was breaking up and I couldn’t hear what he was saying.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, okay. Sebastian, are you better now?
Sebastian Bachollet: I don’t know if it is better –
Heidi Ulrich: No. Should we dial out to you, Sebastian?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Sebastian, hang up and we’ll dial out to you, if you’ll type the number in the chat. Okay, he’s going to write. Okay. It’s just for the rest of the call I’m concerned, that’s all. So, Alan, did you hear any of what he was saying?
Alan Greenberg: No.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, okay. Well, the action item until Sebastian finishes – oh, okay. I think we will dial out to him. Do we have a number for that?
Heidi Ulrich: We have it now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Terrific. I just want to make sure that we give the full ALAC, let’s say a full seven days, seven days of review and if we need to five days of vote?
Alan Greenberg: Yep.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Heidi Ulrich: So five day comments?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, seven days of comments, so this page – because this page is what we’ll be linking to the working list and the announce. We just need to put a closing date of – she says, looking desperately for a calendar – it’s the 12th, let’s say the 12th or the 13th. Why not do Friday the 13th? Let’s be generous. Let’s give them more than seven days, because it’s summer. Let’s close the comments on this on Friday, the 13th.
Heidi Ulrich: We need to add this to the new GT?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Almost stroke of midnight on Friday the 13th. Sorry, I get little pleasures from funny things, and this is one of those.
Heidi Ulrich: Then set the vote on the –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: On the Monday then we can start the vote, because if we need to integrate any of the changes, we do have basically through the day on the Monday to do that. Because my Monday is before everyone else’s Monday.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good. All right, have we got Sebastian back in?
Heidi Ulrich: He should be joining. Can I just interject here a request from Kevin? Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, please.
Heidi Ulrich: He’s wondering when he can expect to come in to the call today.
Carlton Samuels: Hi.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: When I’m good and ready.
Heidi Ulrich: I will let him know that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And if you can put that tone in, it might help as well.
Heidi Ulrich: I think the words are enough.
Carlton Samuels: Hi.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hello.
Heidi Ulrich: Carlton, welcome.
Carlton Samuels: My apologies, work intervened here. I got caught up on the agenda.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Not a problem, Carlton. Glad you joined us. We’re just at the point of the draft segment from the ALAC on the dag 4, explanatory memorandum. We’re running the, we’re putting out the announce now, and getting to the working list that text on page – we’ll have a closing date for ALAC comments of Friday the 13th of August.
And then we can start an ALAC vote on the I think 16th of August, and that gives us plenty of time – yes, on the 16th of August, for five days and that will give us plenty of time to get it to the Board as a piece of formal work.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, great.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So that then leads us to the question ones on the CAD which is the initial report on VI, and the newbie, which is the interim paper on policy aspects regarding the introduction of single character IDN gTLDs.
Alan Greenberg: Right.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So, Alan. VI – we had a very good meeting, we have got, I thought, a number of useful pieces of information, questions, and concerns from the meeting, and Christopher Wilkinson has forwarded his draft of the comments that he will be sending in as well for some of our attention, and there are echoes of that which I’m sure others in ALAC and the regions would like to put in. How do you want to proceed, gentlemen? Carlton? We need draft text?
Carlton Samuels: Yes, to tell you the truth, on this one I would prefer – while I have some ideas, I would prefer that I did not totally (inaudible 0:45:56) on this one, because my position is so firm you know. I really would prefer, Cheryl, if probably someone else could take lead on it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Understood. Alan, you put your hand up? Go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, well I think most of us who have been participating have firm positions, and they are not all the same firm position.
Carlton Samuels: True.
Alan Greenberg: And I think a statement that we make, number one, has to reflect that, and number two, the other thing is there was some commonality that we were coming out towards, particularly on the chat in our meeting, and I think what it came down to is regardless of whether one follows the extreme at one end, which is the free trade zone, and everything will happen, and cross your fingers that nothing bad happens.
And even that one, if you look at the comments and see what’s added toward the end of the VI report going out, saying it would be important that the caveats are added, that we need to figure out what the harms are and what the remedies are before we go ahead with it.
But from that to the other extreme of rack plus, which says do as little as possible because we don’t quite understand the environment; however, those of us who support rack plus have said pretty strongly I think, at least I have and I think it’s been supported by Cheryl and Sebastian, that there are some exceptions that we believe we really need to see carved out.
And I think that latter part is the message that we need to send. That yes, we are divided on the mechanism, but whatever you pick, there must be some escape, we must make sure that essentially we don’t ensure the failure of cultural gTLDs, and IDN TLDs, so whatever it is has to have either a wide open world where they are not subject to specific controls, or there needs to be exceptions to make sure they are not in a catch 22 and they can’t – that their demise is almost assured.
And you know, from a user’s perspective, we’re looking at this from the perspective of the ones who have not been served by .com and .eu, and .se in Sweden, and that comes down to the developing world. And those are the ones that are going to be tenuous at best. It’s not clear what the business cases are going to be, but if someone is going to try it and get the funding to go forward with this sort of thing, we want to be sure that our own stupid rules don’t make them fail.
And so I would like to see a statement summarizing the wide range of beliefs on the long term way to address this, but regardless of what the Board picks, they should make sure that certain issues are addressed one way or the other.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks, Alan. I’m thinking about a way forward, but I’m wondering is Sebastian is back on the call yet. Is he back on the call?
Heidi Ulrich: They’re going out, he requested a second dial out, he had to switch phones, so I don’t know.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I don’t want to go past this particular discussion until Sebastian is back on the call.
Gisella Gruber-White: He’s on.
Sebastian Bachollet: I am online, but I was muted.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you Sebastian. I was concerned, as you might imagine.
Alan Greenberg: Did you hear what I said?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes, when we finish this I would like to come back to the previous item for just a second. I agree with you. I think also (inaudible 0:50:23) agree with what Christopher write, but I think it was quite interesting to see somebody from outside of the working group to highlight the whole spectrum of the work done.
And I think it is very, very interesting because it also came back to what we wanted to achieve for the first round. It is to help some of the gTLDs who might have trouble to find a registrar to help them, and not to find the full solution of integration registry/registrar and registrar/registry.
Alan Greenberg: Which is exactly the kind of thing I was alluding to and what I said. I will say, however, I think Christopher is approaching this from what he thinks the original question was, and I don’t agree with him. The issue of ownership was very much an issue that has been around from the beginning of the issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And also, Alan, the ultimate is that a work group has to work within a charter. Okay, well let’s look toward a way forward here. We have I think some really useful bits of information in the text, in the transcript, in the chat text and in the transcript from the briefing call meeting, in the words that both Sebastian and Alan and indeed, Carlton, have put into today’s call.
I would like to suggest that because virtually everyone on the – well, more than 50% of the executive committee are active in the vertical integration working group, that this is one of those times when we, as ExCom, probably need to pen the draft using the resources that we have from the call and from our own discussions.
Now, to that end I think we need to be careful that one of us doesn’t hold a terribly biased pen, because we have, as Alan and Carlton have pointed out, fairly diverse views. However, we do have a staff member who is a highly qualified and well paid policy development person.
Heidi, can you see a nice way forward for us, as a micro version of the community, to put together a relatively non-biased first draft for the community to consider, at least. Is there a mechanism that you’ve worked with before, this sort of it your bailiwick academically and in your prior life.
Heidi Ulrich: Well, I could take a look at that. I have to admit that I have not been following the issue in great detail.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Which is probably an advantage because I don’t want bias.
Alan Greenberg: Can I try to offer a way forward into that?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Certainly, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: I don’t mind doing a first draft for this group, and the group can decide to what extent it is biased and to what extent it needs to be worked from a different point of view. I think I understand the issues and I can try to put them on the table.
And from them, this group can take a communal stand or give it to Heidi or whatever. And I’m sure I’m going to miss some of the crucial one, but I think that’s more expedient than having Heidi try to go back and read the 14,000 messages on the group or whatever.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure.
Carlton Samuels: I agree, I think that is the issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was asking Heidi for a mechanism, not for –
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Sorry, but –
Carlton Samuels: Yes, I agree with Alan.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you for that, because I do think what she can do is while this initial drafting is coming out from your pen, Alan, is look at some mechanistic opportunities. This is one of many cases where I think we need an extraordinarily professional and carefully guided piece of internal policy development.
By carefully guided, it’s a matter of we have to make sure that we offer to the rest of the ALAC a proper listing of the issues. This is one of those omissions and additions can be equally powerful exercises, so I think this is one of those times we make sure that Heidi, as an experienced policy development person, acts clearly and with everyone’s knowledge, in a staff assist role.
Carlton Samuels: Do you mind if I add something to what you said there, Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please go ahead.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you. Did you all see Evan’s post from Tuesday afternoon? He was making a statement that the gTLD working group should probably take it up and widen it. How do you all feel about that, as a way to get involved in this?
Alan Greenberg: I think he’s addressing the fundamental long term questions, and I – to be honest, I don’t think that’s what this window is for.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, that’s not going to happen by the 12th of August.
Carlton Samuels: Right. I just wanted to make sure. The reason why I asked the question is I agree with – because of the extent of the situation, we need a statement, and I thought a way forward would be Alan drafting and then having a look. I think Alan would probably do a better job than me in being even handed. And so I just wanted to make sure that we see this one in the corner.
Alan Greenberg: Is this a comment in the comment period, or an advice to the Board?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well –
Carlton Samuels: An advice.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, quite the opposite. I think we have to get a comment in the comment period in, and then perhaps build on that to a piece of advice to the Board which would be looking at an end date probably closer to the end of August, so that we can do a little bit of addition and embellishment if need be, if the ALAC wishes.
To give a particular advice to the Board, and to some extent it could be a two part piece of advice, where the text by then we will have finalized and put together and duly processed through our system for the general dag, may have added to it a specific piece of opinion and advice from the ALAC regarding the VI issue.
But not necessarily limited to the response to the initial report as posted for public comment. That way we can bring in some of those future issues such as the importance of harms, etc., etc.
Alan Greenberg: So what we’re drafting is something for the comment period, which puts the timeline much tighter.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It does, but it acts as a first step to what then needs to happen in the seven to ten days after that.
Alan Greenberg: What’s the date today? It’s the 4th. That comment period closes in eight days.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. So we need something for a – I’m happy to drop a vote for this as low as three to four days.
Alan Greenberg: So we need a final draft coming out for this group within three days or something like that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Now, if that’s unachievable, it is not a problem, because we’ve done it before, to put the issue on the current vote, on the 12th.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, I think we need to do that. I don’t know whether this comment period is going to be extended or not.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m happy to do that. I think if we aim to put an if needs be under vote on the 12th, it means we should start our vote on the 12th, and in a perfect world every one might have voted by the time close of business comes around.
Alan Greenberg: They may have, or at least enough to catch the vote. You along the way said something about we need to present our community with, you didn’t use these words, but essentially a background document so they understand what it is we’re talking about.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, to that, I would be using transcript from the briefing call.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, so we’re not trying to write that at the same time?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No. No, no, no – way too hard, and the purpose of doing briefing calls is to have the briefings that are archivable and able to be used by the community in a wider context.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, all right. I think that one – sometimes you think that decisions are really, really good. I think that decision is really, really good. Congratulations one and all. That then leads us to the final part, which is, do we wish to put onto the pad, the interim paper on policy aspects regarding the introduction of single character IDN gTLDs ending on the 9th of September, and might I just say, I have not read it so I really don’t know.
Carlton Samuels: I looked at it, briefly, just scanned it, and from the perspective of IDNs and given the huge slot of internet users that this might impact, I think we would be remiss as ALAC in not saying something.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Bad history in IDNs indicates that we should.
Carlton Samuels: We should, right. So I’m glad we agree on that. So the way forward is the one that is exercising my mind. You know we tried using James as a lead on IDNs –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, he is our lead on IDNs and it’s perhaps time that (inaudible 1:01:18).
Carlton Samuels: Well, I wouldn’t say it quite that way, but –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, I care to be on the record for that. But that’s all right.
Carlton Samuels: Okay. Well, you got there before I did, in a way that is more direct than I would. Cheryl, you are something else. Anyway, it’s September, so I think if we work with the lead and see if we can get something else, and probably draft (inaudible 0:01:54) we might get something.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, I agree with you. Alan, what is your view on this? Then I’ll go to Sebastian.
Alan Greenberg: I really don’t have one. I just pulled the report up now, it’s not particularly long. It also is an interim report, I don’t think it seems to be actually be making recommendations, it’s just raising issues.
Carlton Samuels: Right, that’s what it does. But I think it’s important to weigh in now on the issues we think are important.
Alan Greenberg: What I’m saying is, if whoever reviews it says yes, it seems to be a comprehensive review of the issues, that may be all we need to say.
Carlton Samuels: Yes, sure.
Alan Greenberg: And I haven’t read it. I’m just glancing through it on the screen, but it doesn’t look like it’s specifically making recommendations.
Carlton Samuels: No, it doesn’t.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: To some extent, it’s actually reacting to previous inputs, some of which fits with comments we’ve put into previous IDN mechanisms. So I’m very happy to suggest James, we put this in the PAD, and Carlton if you can approach James to say hey guess what mate? This is yours and the ExCom would strongly recommend that you approach Hong and Vivec to aid you, in putting something together. And we look forward to seeing it in the next seven to ten days.
Carlton Samuels: All right. I will do that.
Heidi Ulrich: Carlton, thank you for that. Could you also add obviously ExCom, but also At-Large staff to that message?
Carlton Samuels: Of course, yes. I will.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And then once that message has gone out and the reaction or response has come back, Heidi just needs to make sure that Matthias gets that out, firmly, to the APRALO executives, because they need to start on that well before the meeting at the end of August.
So their meeting at the end of August is all too short a time. They need to be doing something in preparation to have as a draft at the August meeting. But that sort of is just something to send through to Matthias.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks.
Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, did you say you have a 7 o’clock call?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I did. But that’s all right. There’s one caller on the call. Seth and Heidi have a call with me, so Seth and Heidi know where I am.
Heidi Ulrich: We’re not letting you go.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. The discussions we have, and this is something I know Sebastian wanted to look at. We have got the review team applications in, we have three for three. It seems to me, Alan, we’re in a position where we had a flagged mechanism of approved process, I guess I’m asking you Alan, how fast track can we make that process, or can we do it on the working list, or how should we, in keeping with our advertised process, get this pro forma, it would appear to me, endorsement now, done in the proper manner?
Alan Greenberg: My recollection is we decided to use our, what is becoming time proven method of the ExCom plus five others, so I guess that group needs to be convened.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Do you need to go outside of the ALAC for that? I guess that’s one question.
Alan Greenberg: Well, we – it’s up to the RALOs whether they select their chair, or whatever, or select somebody else –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s up to the ALAC to offer the RALOs if we want to do it that way. Don’t you think?
Alan Greenberg: Well, I think we need to send a message to the ALAC working list saying we have the names; we need to decide whether we’re endorsing these three or what other action to take. We need the five regional people, can each RALO please within the next few days identify?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, excellent. That works for me.
Heidi Ulrich: Is that ALAC announce, or ALAC working?
Alan Greenberg: ALAC working. To the extent any RALO wants to disseminate it farther in their RALO, they have that possibility.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s fine.
Heidi Ulrich: Did you put a time that they needed to respond by?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Five days.
Heidi Ulrich: Thank you
Alan Greenberg: Heidi, if you want to pass –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I still need to get with Sebastian and Carlton on that, though, anything else Alan?
Alan Greenberg: I just want to say that whenever Heidi gets to it, if she wants to send me a draft, that’s fine.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, Sebastian then Carlton.
Sebastian Bachollet: I agree with the process we need to go through (inaudible 1:07:21) part of the trouble that it’s not literally –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, fine. Not a problem. Okay with you Carlton?
Carlton Samuels: Yes, (vido)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (Vido, vido) yes, right. I thought you said veto!
Carlton Samuels: No, no no, (vido)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m sorry. There’s a big difference between (vido) and veto.
Carlton Samuels: There sure is.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You had me very worried there for a second. Phew. Okay.
Alan Greenberg: In parallel with that process I think we need to look at the applications and decide to what extent any of these people are going to embarrass us and we don’t want to select them regardless of the fact we only have three.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed.
Carlton Samuels: Yes, I agree.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That really is – having that in preparation seeing that the whole of ExCom has that, can we have a – all of the Excom or all of the ALAC gets copied on these?
Heidi Ulrich: I believe it was just the Excom. I’ll double check.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. We just need to now perhaps put a place in space together for all those to be – because they are public – a link off one of our Wiki pages, and we can have that as a work space for this activity.
Alan Greenberg: Did the central review team people not post them?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. We just need a link.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But when we have the full manning of the approval team, or the endorsement team, that will need a space to work, so if we just get that page put together in this same five days, and link to those, and as soon as that’s up, then I think following what he’s just suggested, I think we should all go in there and make sure we’ve read them, and we can discuss in, at the moment, in the Excom Skype chat which is not public –
Alan Greenberg: Yes, I was going to find out. We might put them on a Wiki, but we can’t have the discussion on a Wiki.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Exactly.
Alan Greenberg: We don’t seem to be able to secure this Wiki all that well, even at best, so.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, indeed.
Heidi Ulrich: Just to let you know, Alan sent the message to the ExCom list, not the individual members of the ExCom.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s okay.
Alan Greenberg: That’s okay for this, but the discussion about these people cannot be in a public forum.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. So what we might do as soon as – at the moment we can start doing our Excom prep in the Excom chat, because it’s closed, once we’ve got the regional people’s names, we may set up a chat or a list for the purpose of this exercise.
My guess would be, unless people are not on Skype for whatever reason, that we do use the Skype system and then it’s a little bit more on the qt, or depending on who they are, we might be able to use a Google Wave) or something, but whatever method is used needs to be a little more privatized. Okay. Do we have any –
Sebastian Bachollet: This is Sebastian – just to tell you that you may know one or the other and I just need to tell you that I know all three of them.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: At least most of us would know two or three of them. I don’t think that’s a problem. Okay, right. Are there At-Large applications we need updating on?
Heidi Ulrich: No, that was the discussion.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. And Vanda has tendered her apologies for the meeting, which brings us to any other business, which includes the travel issue now. Is there any other any other business that is not something that we need to do in camera, that we need to do before I ask Kevin to join us? The improvement work team needs to be done.
When we went to the addition of any other business, we’ve taken the follow on from our earlier conversation. Carlton, I’ll fill you in when we get to that point, and there’s some in camera work to do after we talk to Kevin. But is there anything else we need to do other than this discussion to call for RALO members and on the improvements work team?
Sebastian Bachollet: Not that I can think of, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, Sebastian –
Alan Greenberg: I have a question after –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go ahead, Sebastian.
Sebastian Bachollet: No, that’s okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Did I send a message to this group on Vanda’s asking us to do a statement on the ASMs? I wasn’t sure if I followed up on that, so that one’s closed. Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Good, terrific. Seth, are you on the line? Nothing – okay. Call for RALO members on improvements work team? We’re all opening the PDF as you get ready to talk to us.
Seth Greene: Thank you. I gave the AFRALO a brief briefing on this just earlier today. I went over most of the information here on the statement that we would like to send out under the three languages to all of the RALO memberships tomorrow. I think the only thing that might have been a bit misleading in my presentation was the idea that we’re actually looking for a separate RALO member; a separate representative from each RALO, for each of the four work teams.
So I think once you have it opened you’ll see a bold sentence that begins with the ALAC is now looking for one representative; I just want to clarify that point and edit it to be the ALAC is not looking for one representative from each RALO to join each of the four work teams. Hopefully that will solve that problem, and beyond that I’m just wondering if there are any edits that the group would like me to incorporate.
Heidi Ulrich: Seth, can I just add just two things? Well, one quick point? I just wanted to raise everyone’s attention to the fact that Seth has come up with I think a very innovative idea of clustering several of the recommendations under four distinct work teams, I think this will be an excellent way to go forward quickly on this, so I congratulate you on that idea, Seth.
Seth Greene: Thanks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You’ll see applause from me in the adobe room.
Seth Greene: I apologize for not mentioning that. I wanted to know what we all thought about that as well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, any comments then? Sebastian?
Sebastian Bachollet: Just I would like very much to see how we will be able to have a forward thing with each one of our travel amendments to have really twelve team working in the same subject within (inaudible 1:15:14).
Alan Greenberg: Who else is going to be on each work team?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Seth, that’s to you I think.
Sebastian Bachollet: For now its open I guess.
Heidi Ulrich: Again, Seth do you want to go ahead? I know you’re taking notes as well, but go ahead.
Seth Greene: No, Heidi, if you would like to, please be my guest.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay. Basically the work teams as we agreed in Brussels, as was agreed in Brussels – sorry, two seconds. Seth, go ahead.
Seth Greene: The work teams would be a combination of – it was decided in Brussels – of interested Excom members and regional representatives. The specific members from the Excom have not been actually decided.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, do you mean Excom or ALAC?
Seth Greene: Actually, Excom I believe.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I wasn’t in the room at the time, that’s why I ask.
Seth Greene: And I don’t remember that discussion, but maybe it was there. I certainly now am thinking that I could be wrong, in light of that. In light of me being the only one in the room, apparently.
Alan Greenberg: You may have been the only one listening.
Seth Greene: So I will clearly check on that, but my memory is yes, it was Excom members and regional representatives.
Sebastian Bachollet: yes, but Seth, what you sent to the AFRALO list said something else.
Seth Greene: Oh, it does?
Sebastian Bachollet: It says existing of ALAC members and regional representatives, and yes I remember we discussed that and we said the way of working and for the purpose to have the Excom members, but my suggestion you leave the mail like it is and you send it to the other regions.
I don’t see any trouble if we looking for Excom members and ALAC members, we can mix and we will not end up without any Excom members in any of the working groups and I think that is good.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, I agree with you, Sebastian. Leave the mail as it went to AFRALO, and I think we’re all happy for it to get out there, and this is an excellent time to get going, Seth.
Seth Greene: Okay. If things – we may well have decided that in Brussels. If things default to Excom members, so be it, but I wouldn’t want it to be the only option. It would be nice to get some other people working on this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Anything else you’d like us to look at at this point, Seth?
Seth Greene: No, that’s it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, terrific. Thank you, Seth. Heidi, are you back with us?
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, sorry about that. That was an important call, I’m glad I took that. We’re going to get Kevin on the call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No surprise here, with that sort of fanfare it would have to be an important call. That was a hell of a ringtone. (laughter)
Heidi Ulrich: Could I ask Alan, would you be comfortable just giving us the major points of what you and Kevin talked about, or do you want me to just get Kevin on the call now?
Alan Greenberg: I can summarize what I think came out of it, but Kevin may have a different view.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, how about we get Kevin on the call now?
Heidi Ulrich: Okay, let me just – okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And then I’d like to hear, Alan, your summary. Sometimes it’s interesting for people to hear back what other people heard them say.
Heidi Ulrich: Give me just two seconds.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Not a problem. And then next we’re also going to cover the message to Tijani, right Sebastian?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good.
Alan Greenberg: And I see that as a different thing than the item in the larger framework.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In the sense of additional?
Alan Greenberg: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right. He brought that in as additional, but it will be married into this –
Alan Greenberg: No, I’m just saying I just see it as a third type of activity requiring travel.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, absolutely. Heavens above, I think we’re in well on that one. Okay, while Kevin is coming in, Alan can I give you control of the meeting while I take a much needed bio-break. When Kevin joins in, as mentioned I’m stepping away for a moment, but you can start your summary if you like, okay?
Heidi Ulrich: We’re getting voice mail from his mobile. Are we still on the call?
Alan Greenberg: We are. You said give me a moment, so we’re giving you a moment.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay. I’m just trying to track Kevin down.
Alan Greenberg: I could give my summary, but I would prefer that at least Heidi is on the call when I do that.
Heidi Ulrich: I’m here, but I’m just trying to get Kevin, so you don’t have my full attention.
Alan Greenberg: That was the point.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hello, I’m back.
Alan Greenberg: We haven’t done anything yet.
Heidi Ulrich: Sorry, Cheryl. We’re getting voice mail, and I’m calling everyone upstairs I can think of to go get him.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I just say that is probably sensible. Alan, would you like to start the summary then?
Alan Greenberg: But I’d like Heidi to be on the call, so if she’s finished giving people messages then we can start.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay, he’s on. Kevin?
Kevin Wilson: Yes.
Heidi Ulrich: Kevin?
Kevin Wilson: Yes.
Heidi Ulrich: I thought that was Alan’s voice. Sorry. Welcome.
Kevin Wilson: Thank you, Heidi. Thank you everyone.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, I was just about to ask Alan to give us a synopsis of his recent chat with you, Kevin. Is that all right with you?
Kevin Wilson: I’m not sure. I’ll find out what he says.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, actually, that’s the purpose of me asking. I was telling him sometimes it is interesting for people to hear what is said back.
Kevin Wilson: Right. Hi Alan, hi Cheryl, I assume Sebastian in on too?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Sebastian and Carlton, and Vanda has sent apologies, unfortunately.
Kevin Wilson: Okay, great.
Alan Greenberg: The summary going into the discussion I had with Kevin, but coming out of the last Excom meeting where I said the way I read the document, the budget document, specifically the section on page 61 that Sebastian had noticed, was it either says that ICANN is supporting the concept and the funding of General Assemblys under its policy development project, or it’s a rather duplicitous statement, which I didn’t think it was. Kevin, as the norm for conversation that I had with him, gave me a third interpretation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, great. And here I was coming down on the side of duplicitous.
Alan Greenberg: The wording that says for the ALAC during the period 2010-2013 support one general assembly for each of the five At-Large organizations held in conjunction with ... the intent of that was that this be a statement that the policy organization, David Olive’s organization, support these activities, that is provide logistics and any other emotional or physical support as necessary to have this happen.
But not including the movement and lodging and feeding of the delegates who go to these meetings, nor the physical infrastructure needed at them, or things like that. Solely providing the staff component of that, should they happen through some other miraculous means. Is that – Kevin, is that a rough –
Kevin Wilson: I got a little bit lost. I got a little bit lost in the miraculous and the spectacular words.
Alan Greenberg: The miraculous and the spectacular was where the funding comes from to actually move the people.
Kevin Wilson: Let me, and Cheryl, you know you submitted a request for something in one of the comments on the budget, and I just coincidentally we were following up on that because we need to post our official responses on that, but so I think the travel support – or sorry – I think the support is defined in three ways.
One is the policy department which is not so important for outside community members, but the way ICANNs accounting is organized is the policy department, which for your purposes is Heidi and Matthias, you know, the things – and David Olive’s department, so the first part of support is the secretariat and any other support that David’s team does for you.
Anything they do for ALAC or for At-Large would presumably be provided for general assembly, for example. The second level is just the ICANN meeting budget, which has conference rooms and interpretation and any technical audiovisual kind of support, and then the third on is the community travel budget, which is a separate category.
It follows, it should follow, to the T, exactly what is written in the travel guidelines, and that’s what I was trying to respond to this morning on Tijani’s thing. I think that does not support – this is maybe where I got a little lost Alan, in your description. My understanding is it doesn’t provide for support for General Assemblies unless it’s traded off with ALAC support.
Alan Greenberg: Thus, since I don’t think the concept of the ALAC not going to ICANN meetings is likely to happen in our lifetime, that’s why I assigned the term miraculous.
Kevin Wilson: Okay, I see what you mean. So that was sort of an empty tradeoff. I thought that was a really carefully negotiated tradeoff, but it sounds like it was an empty tradeoff, if that’s the case.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, no no no. Please remember that we talk at the moment in that (380) of the ALAC and the regional leads. Our discussions, and I still have fairly accurate recall, with you and Steve in the room, in I believe Sydney, where this tradeoff was discussed, was that the opportunity existed in previous budgets, which had already gone to bed.
Whereas meetings going to bed, for the community to look at trading off the travel support of their regional leads to create an opportunity for general assembly to benefit those same regions. And that was wholesale rejected by our community back at that time.
Alan Greenberg: But I’ll point out, even if it were to be accepted, there would not be enough funding in there to do one and two-thirds general assembly per year.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Which we did accept at the time that it would be a mechanism to save up for a general assembly, but in no way was that planned period (inaudible 1:30:22) what we saw in the budget. Because we knew then it could not – the ten extra people could not constitute a GA at the level that is outlined in the policy section on page 61.
I guess it’s those things that some of us working on the background and what we knew our community had and had not reacted to things back in the 2009-10 discussions, that we read on page 61 as new as opposed to what we now have had clarified.
Kevin Wilson: So you think in page 61, which Alan read it, but where is it –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’ve yet to meet someone on our community end of the spectrum as this is excellent, it would appear that a general assembly, when it is the most cost effective time to do so, in other words, probably when an ICANN meeting is in the region, should be planned in some form of round robin and that is a good thing.
Kevin Wilson: Yes. I don’t think anybody – that part is consistent. I think the part is controversial is how many travel slots are there?
Alan Greenberg: Well, more important, is your reading of it as it were, because once it’s cast in concrete it’s only the reading, the writing doesn’t count – is that the word support meant provide the staff support for, and our interpretation of the word support meant support one general assembly for each, without any qualification.
Kevin Wilson: You mean if 5000 people wanted to go –
Alan Greenberg: No, we’ve always talked within – we have on the average 25 or so ALSs per region, we’re talking one person per ALS, and with the knowledge that all of them don’t always attend.
Kevin Wilson: You think when we put support on page 61 of the budget, you really thought it meant 25 supported travelers in addition to what is in the travel guidelines? It says –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excepting that it’s not in addition to, because there’s an overlap.
Kevin Wilson: There is a little bit of an overlap, yes. That’s been –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There’s a whole lot of an overlap.
Alan Greenberg: Three people per region.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s one fifth.
Kevin Wilson: Yes. One fifth overlap.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, five. Sorry, you’re right. What can we say? Yes, that is pretty much the way we all read it.
Kevin Wilson: You read it that there were 22 extra people supported?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s how we read it and obviously – ((crosstalk))
Carlton Samuels: Problem, the entire community reads it that way. (laughter) And that’s what we see in ALAC because I can tell you; they’re getting all wound up about this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, yes.
Kevin Wilson: The entire community read page 61 –
Alan Greenberg: Now that it has been pointed out to them many of them have.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Now, the other thing is.
Kevin Wilson: Wait, wait. I’ve got to push back on this. You’ve got to be kidding me. Really? You thought –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, we’re not kidding you. That’s why we’re talking to you now, before the travel call, because –
Kevin Wilson: Thank you.
Carlton Samuels: It’s a real heads up.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Or did you want us to throw you in the deep end, Kevin? We’re being nice.
Kevin Wilson: I think this is buttering me up for the roasting.
Carlton Samuels: We are trying to give you a little protection, here.
Alan Greenberg: Kevin, in your country, lynching’s have been outlawed for a while, but not everywhere.
Kevin Wilson: Yes.
Carlton Samuels: That’s wicked, Alan. That’s wicked.
Alan Greenberg: But we are trying to avoid one.
Kevin Wilson: We have an ex Canadian Mounty on our staff, Alan. You better watch out.
Alan Greenberg: I said your country, not mine.
Carlton Samuels: Coming from Alan, that’s wicked.
Alan Greenberg: We’ve never had lynching’s in my country.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Quite seriously, this is going to have unbelievably large impact in the region.
Alan Greenberg: The problem, Kevin, is that LACRALO made the request, given that the next meeting is in their area, and is well situated for a general assembly, they made the standard request that we have been talking about for years now; most of us believed that the only possible answer is sorry, it’s not in the budget.
Then we found this item, which is included in something with a 6.5 million dollar budget or whatever the number is, and we said glory be to the gods, they have found religion in Marina del Rey, and they now understand the issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oops.
Alan Greenberg: Oops. This really was not a set up.
Kevin Wilson: I – sorry – I’m partially quiet because I’m just in total shock. But I’m also quiet because I’m reading all the prior drafts of these documents to see if it ever changed.
Alan Greenberg: It was in the framework published in March, or whenever it was. None of us noticed it there, so we didn’t – if we had noticed it then, we would have raised such a party for you in Brussels.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You wouldn’t have recovered now from that.
Kevin Wilson: You would have done what you’ve done on every other one. Thanks for the extra pages, I need a couple of hundred more.
Alan Greenberg: No. If any of us had parsed this then the way we are reading it now, trust me, you would have seen appreciation.
Kevin Wilson: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, it’s got this (inaudible 1:36:57) attitude, and now we’ve got to deal with the situation.
Kevin Wilson: All right. The other thing is the travel guidelines are pretty clear about that. I think I quoted from that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We understand the travel guidelines to ICANN meetings, absolutely. That’s not a problem.
Alan Greenberg: We can largely solve the problem, of course. We just get fellowship only ALAC people can be fellows.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m not sure that meets with their requirements, actually.
Sebastian Bachollet: May I – Kevin, you take a very interesting position because when we discussed this issue previous to your budget, nothing was written in this guidebook something about the general assembly. I was one amongst others first to read that part, and I really thought it was a big change from the last year’s budget, and it was the consequences of some discussion we have to the end that on this subject was not taking into account our proposal to have a project like at least one ALS in each country.
And it was not even in any specific planning comments we made, we also asked for two things. First was one general assembly in the days of three years, and then in the next period of three years to have assembly again, and I was really feeling that of course the consequences of all the discussion we have.
You come say that on this travel plan it’s not the same. It’s not the same, yes, because the budget was discussed after the travel plan, and we had this idea and I was hoping that we (inaudible 1:39:19) because it was now just Board decision that general assembly will be held during the next three years in each region once. That’s been all the regions except Europe; they have the choice between now and two years, and Europe just one meeting in middle of three years. That’s not the question.
But it was something we think it was new because we tried to have in Africa then in Europe to have general assembly face to face, but it was not in the budget and then all that we don’t do, and then now we see it is in the budget, and it’s a done deal.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: However, you can see where our expectations and our readings came from. We have now heard where they were meant to be, and we are now faced with the what do we do?
Kevin Wilson: Yes, and I’m – while you were talking I just want to understand one point that Sebastian said, but before I do that – Alan, I actually don’t see it in the framework. I do see it in the draft, but I don’t see it in the framework before Nairobi. And I’m looking –
Alan Greenberg: The one that was released for public comment prior to the Brussels, if it was April –
Kevin Wilson: Yes, May 17th. Okay, so that’s essentially the same document as the one that got approved.
Alan Greenberg: It’s something we should have read thoroughly and noticed prior to Brussels. I wasn’t trying to imply anything more than that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Even so, our reading is a different interpretation to its intent. And our reading, other than being more delighted to see Kevin in our room than we usually are, would not have changed. We would have, and Sebastian just outlined it, seen it as a most welcome reaction to our consistent approaches for the last few years.
Kevin Wilson: Okay, wait. Can I just address that for a second? And I wanted to address Sebastian’s point, but you’re echoing it. So, this is a pretty big shift. You’re saying that the Board approved it and the staff approved it and it was sort of welcome. I didn’t hear that message. That would have been a big message point I would think 61, that’s my concern. How do we take it from 61 to the Board has approved something major?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, that’s what Alan was saying. What I’m saying is our re-reading would not have been different, before or after the stroke of midnight at the end of Brussels meeting makes no difference to what our reading was.
Alan Greenberg: Well, the difference being, Cheryl, if we had attempted to hoist Kevin up on our shoulders and tell him what a great guy he was, he would have pointed out we read it wrong and the problem would have been addressed in a different way.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Then he could have been taken down from our shoulders and we go back to that lynching. Yes, I know.
Alan Greenberg: I didn’t say that, but it would have happened in Belgian jurisdiction and not now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, it’s just a matter of jurisdiction. But the conversation we’re having had to happen.
Kevin Wilson: You’re putting me up on your shoulders to put me up on a tree.
Alan Greenberg: That wasn’t what the intent was when I said it. Many things have multiple purposes.
Kevin Wilson: This is really interesting. So if we said there were three per meeting, and I forget the math how I go from 25 to – how many ALAC members?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There are three ALAC and two regional, so we are looking at one fifth of the people in a GA, one fifth of the people in a potential GA maxed out GA, are already traveling regardless, in our current world. And knowing that local travel is more cost effective than long distance travel –
Kevin Wilson: Right, got it. So that’s with the travel guidelines –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Exactly. So the unreachability of it not seem that unusual, particularly when we look at the estimates that have come in for the proposed general assembly plans that LACRALO had put together in support of their request.
Kevin Wilson: Right.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Which is a whole lot cheaper than even we would have predicted.
Kevin Wilson: Under $100,000. Right.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Heidi?
Heidi Ulrich: I think we could manage. Currently the LACRALO first draft is at 45, but again, that is one of the largest regions, so I would imagine that given other regions smaller numbers as well as, perhaps, particularly if it was say, Beijing, in June, the cost would be lower than that. So I think $100,000 as a rough ballpark, yes.
Alan Greenberg: What we’re looking at, what we had envisioned, we’re talking about one and two-thirds General Assemblies per year, averaging years. Since we’re looking at 35 or so extra travelers, approximately, maybe less depending on exactly what the uptake is, but yes, that is what we envisioned.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And of course, with better remote participation there’s going to be this balance, but your point is as earlier Kevin, if 5000 people get to come, we know exactly how many ALSs are, at any given time, in any given region, and we would only, under our own guidelines, be supporting involvement from active ALSs. So we have at any time, in any twelve month budget, a known maximum to do our planning on.
Kevin Wilson: With the assumption being there’s only one supported person per ALS.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: True.
Alan Greenberg: Oh, certainly. That’s a given. We know how many ALSs there are per region, we can document that. We can guess how many of them are active, and we can guess as a subset of that how many of them would likely come –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In face to face, and how many would do remote the summit when we had some 101 or 105 ALSs at the time, and the summit was probably the less demanding, because it was sort of baby steps type stuff, where this is really outcome driven General Assembly.
you know, it’s going to be producing documentation of particularly high standards, based on our experiences now. At the summit exercise, of course, what did we get? Either 69 or 70 of us? We came in about two thirds that could have been there took up the option. So we could be doing some reasonable estimates –
Kevin Wilson: Is there – I guess is there a way to do this where we took the total travel slots for the year, or for all three ICANN meetings, you know, pushed called more of them, be more efficient, local travel, shorter time period travel, you know, from a financial standpoint and really, really minimizing the risk, while not creating a revolt on this document and an agree and an FY12 to just be a lot clearer on the words.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Of course, there’s always work arounds on these things, that’s why we need to work on them.
Heidi Ulrich: I also wanted to stress that the $45,000 for the LACRALO one was based on five days, four nights of hotels, and five days of per diem.
Kevin Wilson: I thought the general assembly was like two days.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right, but what we’re telling you is the estimate at 45 was also making those ALS representatives on the ground involved in an ICANN meeting, and that’s (inaudible 1:48:27).
Alan Greenberg: But there’s no way we’re going to bring people to an ICANN meeting and say you can only go to two days of it. That’s what the Noncom does, and we’ve criticized that heavily.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What we’re saying is, when the toes have been dipped in the water – and Heidi, am I correct in assuming that those North American and Asian figures in real or more substantial estimates might be coming in too?
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, actually Matt (inaudible 1:49:02) is working on that now, and he actually said it might be finished end of today.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We’re trying to get a little bit of prep work done so we can work as a team to salvage what could be a really unattractive situation, into at least one where we’re all working with at least not guesstimates, but estimates, and proper planning and decisions can be made. So you can react based on fact, as opposed to I wonder if.
Kevin Wilson: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Do we have Kevin? Is Kevin still on the line? Is Kevin having a heart attack?
Kevin Wilson: No, no. I’m just trying to think of –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I actually took my hypertensive before you got on the call, so I’m okay Kevin. How are you?
Kevin Wilson: I’m okay too Cheryl. How are you? So I’m not sure what the next step is. I really don’t.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I think it’s important that we’ve shared this much information and interpretation. I for example, am delighted to hear there’s a third option as opposed to the duplicitous one, which is what I was coming down on.
Alan Greenberg: Kevin, this is what happens when you get Cheryl up early in the morning.
Kevin Wilson: I can tell.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We have this call coming up. We know that the requests are just going to keep on coming with this. It’s a core set of beliefs and values from the At-Large community and ALAC will have to keep bringing it forward, and we’re happy to keep bringing it forward, that there is a huge benefit and it fits with the strategic plan and it fits with a post acclimation commitment environment for things that involve the internet end user more effectively to happen – an ideal time – not the only, but an ideal time for that to happen is wrapped around an ICANN meeting and a general assembly is one of the top of the tool kit that ICANN should be looking at.
Kevin Wilson: Right.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Work group activities and everything else.
Kevin Wilson: Just to raise the question. I don’t think anybody is questioning the value of this, or to be honest, a host of other suggestions, the challenge is to figure out which ones don’t. Nothing crosses the desk, internal, Rod or (inaudible 1:51:57) me that says, gee, this is a spurious unnecessary funding. Everything is critical, so that’s – the trick is which one is more critical than another. That’s one –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We also, to just give you another reason why the interpretation took some of the minds in a direction that you find so astonishing, is you know, we also clearly see this is part of the At-Large improvements implementation. You know, we (inaudible 1:52:29) where you were juggling the buckets, you know, with the rattling coins in them, and from whence you were going to be partitioning it for this part of that part, we were just thinking wow, it’s being heard. And it fits with a whole lot of things. At-Large improvements, all sorts of stuff. It fits with – Seth, are you still on the line?
Seth Greene: Yes, hi Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hi. Because I have not had coffee since 5 a.m., correct me if I’m wrong. The activity with a general assembly is listed specifically in three if not four of our specific thirteen improvements we’re supposed to implement.
Seth Greene: At least four I can think of offhand.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you.
Kevin Wilson: Okay. I’ve got to get off the call soon.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. So – forewarned, forearmed.
Kevin Wilson: Well, one of the forewarned, forearmed is I would not want to be sitting in any of these seats if we hold a Latin American general assembly, then say no more for any other regions. That would not be pretty. That I think is truth number one. Truth number two is I don’t know what the drop dead date is for the general assembly in Cartagena, but I know if we don’t start planning it; firmly, very soon, it probably will not happen. Now, that may be a good thing to delay it, but nevertheless I think we have to keep that in mind.
Sebastian Bachollet: We have to keep it in mind and still have to answer the question.
Kevin Wilson: If, I believe that this one might be able to be done for $45,000 or something like that. I find it hard to believe that in the general case it will be able to be done for that kind of price. Especially if ICANN starts adding in the marginal cost of the extra room and the audiovisual and the translation issues for those regions that need translation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, we need to look at how these cakes get carved.
Heidi Ulrich: It actually was travel, per diem, and hotel.
Alan Greenberg:: I don’t know what the chances are of actually finding the money. We though, miraculously, that the finance committee and the staff and whatever had found it, and we worked on a question of how you took it away from. If it’s not there now, the chances of finding it, in this year and for the next three years, is not –
Kevin Wilson: I also think it would be a little irresponsible if I didn’t tell you what else is happening, so let me give you an update on that, if I could. If there’s time, like two minutes?
Alan Greenberg: Go for it.
Kevin Wilson: Okay. As you know, you probably know, the Board passed the budget in Brussels, but there was a whereas provision that basically said based on community discussion during the Brussels meeting, we’d like to have further discussions and consider where appropriate an adjustment to the budget. And so we’ve been focusing on (inaudible 1:55:59) and (Marilyn Kayes) and (Aubreys) vocal concern with the word constituency support, which is tacked to one of the organizational activities. $1.2million I think it was, and trying to describe that, that it’s not contracted parties, which is sort of the assumption going in to that public forum.
And so we’re primarily doing a budget communication exercise but there will be open discussion, open mike, I guess on a conference call later this month on which all of the SO and AC and other community leaders will be invited. We’re trying to work out the details on how that’s organized. I think it would have three parts.
One part would be clarification of what those line items are, because there’s a lot of misunderstanding from the way it was written. I guess this might be thrown into that as well, Heidi, we should talk about that, if this would be a good one to clarify along with that and this issue on page 61.
And then the second part is open mike on does anybody think we need any adjustments on you know, meaning support or you know, consulting services, or telephonic support or whatever other support, be it – or I guess travel support could be considered in that as well. Those groups aren’t particularly asking for that right now.
And then the third one is to queue up the FY12 budget development efforts, operating planning budget development efforts, so that’s there’s earlier input and more active input from the SOs and ACs and community leaders.
Alan Greenberg: Well, the other option, other thing to consider Kevin, and I don’t think there’s been any movement on this, is in the community travel support, there are some groups that have regularly underused their allocation, I believe.
Kevin Wilson: Say that again?
Alan Greenberg: There are some groups that have not used what has been allocated to them in the budget. I think that’s a statement of fact, but I don’t have the numbers in front of me, so I can’t verify it.
Kevin Wilson: Both times you cut out on my phone when you said the key words, so there’s something missing. Say it again, I’m sorry Alan.
Alan Greenberg: I believe that several of the groups that you fund with the volunteer travel support do not come close to using their full allocation.
Kevin Wilson: Oh, I see what you’re saying. Yes, obviously. Like, for example the SO –
Alan Greenberg: Certainly the SO, but my recollection is GNSO, that’s the case also.
Kevin Wilson: GNSO is maybe one or two occasionally, and the ccNSO is the one that struggles with trying to get support. You all are the winners on that.
Alan Greenberg: Well, what I’m saying is there – you may have some flexibility to adjust the numbers based on what people actually use as opposed to what is budgeted.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In any particular year.
Alan Greenberg: In any particular year, or carried forward into the next year, if your budget process allows that, or whatever. That’s something that has never been discussed before, we always strictly interpret the swath, and a swath that is unused in the budget year, unless there’s a particular allowance to carry it over, is lost and swaths where the actual dollars spent is under the budget is also not –
Kevin Wilson: We increasingly getting requests for multi-year things, and Sebastian is the most articulate on that.
Alan Greenberg: I’m just pointing out ICANN shouldn’t have windfall profits because not all the travel support allocation is used. There may be opportunity to juggle that. I’m trying to give you some flexibility.
Kevin Wilson: I understand that. And then the other issue – this might be out of my sweet spot, but if you had a shorter general assembly associated with another internet meeting, IGF or whatever, for two days associated with that meeting –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s always been on our proposals as we put them forward. That it should be where ever is most cost effective and official. It may in fact be another point of meeting for – community, but that said, there are a whole number of things that benefit ICANN if this happens at an ICANN meeting.
For example, if you can imagine the benefit of some of the more contentious policy development working group processes which are going to get, in some cases, more complex, not less complex with the new GNSO approach to open work groups, to have a greater opportunity for face to face interaction and consensus building.
The widest possible regional input could fast track some similarly extensive and costly things, you know, I’m tempted to pull VI out of the hat, here. You know, there are some across the board opportunities specifically to policy development, which is after all, the role – it’s there that the regions and the At-Large structures are needing to be involved.
Sometimes that may be more benefit to be at an ICANN meeting. But again, there’s a predictability here that we can look at. We can look at a full cast of what is on in Asia in the three year period, that the budget is saying you know, that the policy development support should be there, and you can say look, it’s going to be there (inaudible 2:01:56).
Kevin Wilson: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And then that’s okay. You do your planning associated with that.
Kevin Wilson: Yes, that makes sense.
Alan Greenberg: And to be quite candid, if you say there is money for two days, but not for five days, that may force the issue, if there is an opportunity in any given region.
Sebastian Bachollet: opportunity to have meeting in other region is always possible, but I think, sorry, contradictory to what is reading in the affirmation of commitments –
Carlton Samuels: Can I just say this, because I have to run.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go ahead, Carlton.
Carlton Samuels: However we resolve this, there are two things we have to bear in mind. The LACRALO people are loaded for bear, and whatever you decide for LACRALO, be assured is going to be the minimum for every other region. That needs to be thought through very carefully, what the response is going to be. I have to run now, unfortunately.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I appreciate that. We do have a couple of things that are going to be left over on this agenda. If you’ll give me a moment Kevin, while Carlton is still on the call, we’re going to have to have an interchange in the Skype chat, we do have a few things we need to cover, so watch that space, would you Carlton?
Carlton Samuels: I will.
Kevin Wilson: should I sign off?
Carlton Samuels: I’ll see you guys.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Carlton has to go, that’s all. Kevin, where too from now, I think it’s kind of a communications thing with everyone being aware of who is reading what in what ways, pretty important. We’ve got a travel call being planned. Have you been consulted on opportunities and times for you and/or Steve to be available.
Kevin Wilson: I saw a doodle poll and responded to it, so yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, great. Because there’s probably – I can’t see this not being the main focus of a lot of that conversation, and Heidi tells us that GA costings for the three regions in the next three years would be in advance of that call. Without trying to push people to give us any form of responses and reactions, you need to be prepared with some sort of, if not answers, proposals of next steps and how we can or cannot go forward in a three year cycle.
And remember what Sebastian said. With all the regions, with the exception of Europe, there are two opportunities for GAs. Cartagena is the first for LACRALO, in this current budget. But there are future budgets. Now, I can’t throw you a more obviously gilded lily than that. What you do with it, I can’t be responsible for.
Kevin Wilson: Yes. Okay. I hear you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much.
Kevin Wilson: I don’t know when it’s margarita time, but I think it is.
Alan Greenberg: Before Kevin goes, I have one more thing.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: Kevin, since the travel proposal I sent in did have the stamp of the ALAC on it, it would be nice if we could get at least a formal acknowledgement thing. Thank you, we’ll file this in the circular file, or –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, but no thanks. Any thanks will do.
Alan Greenberg: And if you’re going to post it in the ICANN correspondence, I don’t know whether you plan to or not, a heads up would be useful.
Kevin Wilson: We will. Either way we will. It’s on our – Steve and I were talking about who gets the joy of drafting the response. We’ll do that.
Alan Greenberg: Responses can come much later. Just the acknowledgement of receipt is all we’re looking for.
Kevin Wilson: Okay, I’ll do that right now.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you.
Kevin Wilson: Thank you. Bye-bye.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, all right. We really need to wrap up now. There is some business that we needed to do, and that business actually needs to be in camera, so can we go to the Skype chat and figure out how we are going to deal with those particular issues?
Alan Greenberg: If it’s only going to take five or ten minutes, can we just stop the recording and do it?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That was my plan, but I didn’t know who else was going to be able to –
Alan Greenberg: Well, I can stay for another ten minutes. I don’t know about you and Sebastian.
Sebastian Bachollet: No problem.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No problem? Okay. All right, well let’s – Heidi can we stop the recording please?
-End of Recorded Material-