Page History

ALAC Teleconference
(Held April 8, 2008)

Legend
Name: First name of member of group
Name?: If we think we might know who's speaking but aren't 100% sure.
Male: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a male.
Female: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a female.
O: Operator.
XX joined If the phone system has announced that a particular person has just joined the group it will be shown in square brackets at the left margin. Similar notation is used for when a person’s leaving the group is announced.
Translator: If translator actually translates French or German for a participant we will note it as "Translator". It will normally be evident from the dialogue who the translator is translating for. If not, we will include a note in square brackets with respect to who they are translating for.
cuts out: Audio cuts out for less than 2 seconds. We may have missed something. We do not put this if it's just natural silence where no-one is speaking. We only put this if we can hear that there was briefly a technical problem with the phone line and/or the recording which resulted in temporary loss of sound.

********************************************************************************************************

Attendance:
Participants: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (Chair), Robert Guerra, Veronica Cretu, Sébastien Bachollet, Izumi Aizu, Fatimata Seye Sylla, Carlos Aguirre, Vanda Scartezini, José Ovidio Salgueiro, Annette Muehlberg
Liaisons: Hong Xue, Wendy Seltzer
Observers: Wolf Ludwig, Danny Younger
Apologies: Beau Brendler
Absent: Mohamed El Bashir, Alan Greenberg
Staff: Frederic Teboul, Matthias Langenegger, Nick Ashton-Hart

********************************************************************************************************

30
Adigo operator joined
Nick: One sec. Hello.
O: Hello. This is the operator. Who am I speaking to?
Nick: Hey Tanya 10.46, it’s Nick here. I just… overtalking
O: Hi, Nick! laughter How are you?
Nick: We’ll start calling people here shortly, anyways, so…
O: Yes, I am, getting ready to do that right now.
Nick: Okay.
O: Okay. overtalking
Nick: I’m on mute, but I’m here.
O: Okay.
01 to 14.50
unknown joined
Nick: Good morning.
59 to 0.15.59
unknown joined
01 to 0.17.54
Nick: Good morning. Or evening, whatever it is.
59 to 0.18.25
Sébastien Bachollet joined
28 to 0.20.36
Vanda Scartezini joined
Vanda: Hi.
Female: 50
Nick: Morning!
Vanda: Morning, Nick?
Nick: Indeed.
Vanda: Yeah. How are you?
Translator: Hello. Hi. Hawa?
Vanda: Vanda, Vanda.
Translator: Oh, okay. C’est Vanda. Okay. Just… This is the interpreter. Let me mute my phone.
Vanda: Okay. Thank you.
08 to 0.22.02
Cheryl Langdon-Orr joined
Vanda: Hi, Cheryl. Vanda.
Cheryl: Hi, Vanda.
Vanda: How are you?
Nick: Hello, Cheryl.
Cheryl: Very good. Hi there.
Vanda: 12 Yesterday nobody called me in the mobile. I was not in the office.
Cheryl: Oh, okay. That was the summit meeting, Vanda.
Vanda: Yeah. Yeah.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, we need to note your apologies then.
Vanda: Okay. I’ll send it.
32 to 0.22.55
Wendy Seltzer joined
Wendy: Good morning. It’s Wendy. I’m going to be in and out because I have other meetings scheduled. I apologize.
Vanda?: 04
Cheryl: No problem, Wendy. Glad you could join us. pause That makes you I think the eighth caller, but that probably…
Wendy: That’s what I heard.
Cheryl: Yeah. Well, unfortunately that doesn’t mean we have a quorum yet. laughter But we live in hope.
Nick: But you’ve got a few… 29
Wendy?: Is there any… overtalking
Nick: …out of that number too, so you don’t have anything close to that inaudible.
Cheryl: Oh, bloody hell. Never mind. laughter
Wendy: Well we have…
unknown joined
Wendy: We have…
Cheryl: Who is that who… overtalking?
Male: Hi, everybody.
Cheryl: Hi there. pause 47 someone who is going to say something, then? pause Okay. Deathly silence.
Robert Guerra joined
Cheryl: Hi, Robert. Welcome.
Robert: Hello.
Cheryl: How’s things going with you? Are you improving on the health front?
Robert: Uh, yeah, slowly. I can’t sit a lot, but… It’s a slow recovery, but it’s not as bad as it was in January-February.
Cheryl: Well, that is good news indeed.
Vanda?: 33
Robert: I just wanted to say one thing, I just want your advice on, is that there is a SSAC conference call in half an hour.
Cheryl: Right.
Robert: So I’ll defer to your…
Hong Xue joined
Robert: …advice as to how long you want me to be on this call.
Cheryl: Well, Robert, we’ll… as soon as we reach quorum, we’ll start, but I think your role as liaison into the SSAC is pretty vital, so I’d be suggesting that you move into that meeting.
Robert: I just wanted to raise that, so thank you.
Cheryl: Not a problem.
Vanda: Robert?
Robert: Hello.
Vanda: I’m glad you’re back.
Robert: Yeah.
Vanda: It’s Vanda.
Robert: Nice… Nice to be back. Sorry for the absence. I just… It took a while to catch up on a lot of things.
Vanda: Yeah, I imagine.
Cheryl: Well, we’re glad to hear you.
Robert: Thank you.
Hong: Hi. Hello, everybody. This is Hong.
Cheryl: Hi, Hong.
Vanda: Hi.
Hong: Hi. 47
Cheryl: Okay. So that to my reckoning makes 10 online, but we’ve got two liaisons and is it three staff or two staff, Nick?
Wendy?: laughter
Nick: Should be three.
Cheryl: That makes us only 5. That’s three short of a quorum. We wait with baited breath then. laughter
Nick: By the way, José has laryngitis, so he’s going to be listening, but if he has anything to say, he’s going to type it into chat to Carlos.
Cheryl: Oh! Alright then. Will that be on Skype or Jabber, because I haven’t even thought about loading up a Jabber room on this new hard drive yet?
Nick: I believe he’s doing it on MSN.
Cheryl: Oh God. Well, somebody else is going to have to look after that, I think.
Nick: Yeah. Well, that’s okay. I mean, I’ve got a window that combines Skype and all the other things, so…
Cheryl: Right-o, then. Okay. Well, as long as someone can watch that, because that way we can at least count him as quorum and he won’t be able to ping us via Skype, but Carlos is usually on Skype.
Nick: I’m waiting for Carlos to come on 01.
Cheryl: Okay. We’ve got a few dial-outs tonight. Are they all happening?
Nick: They are.
Cheryl: I’m just signing into Skype.
Nick: And I’ve already set up the chat for you, Cheryl.
Wendy: Can you remind us how to get… where the Jabber chat is, please?
Nick: I will send a… I’ll resend the note around. I don’t actually have the Jabber room logged in myself, but I will now take anyone else 27.31 inaudible.
Hong: Hi, Cheryl, are you there?
Cheryl: Yes. Yes, I am. Go ahead, Hong.
Hong: Alright. Since we’re waiting, can we use just one minute to talk about the funding issues that’s been raised in the list. This is so, well, confusing, and especially remember in our APRALO monthly conference call, we talked about IGF and APNG Camp funding and we put up two pages, and now it’s being 23 on the list. I don’t know what’s wrong with this.
Cheryl: overtalking
Hong: I know nothing about our new chair’s presentation in Dubai, but there are two wiki pages… Oh yeah.
Cheryl: Hong, I don’t know about anything being chopped from any lists, but Bilal did say he would send us copy… 49
Hong: But he didn’t.
Cheryl: …the meeting, which he did do. But you’re suggesting that some of the RALO, the APRALO applications for next year budget funding has been chopped – is that what you’re saying?
Hong: No. Actually, in Bilal’s presentation in Dubai, and he said that “Please sign on as an At-Large Structure. You can get 16 from ICANN.” overtalking
Cheryl: Well, he wasn’t meaning to be sustaining funding or activities that are outside of RALO or ICANN-specific agendas.
Nick: Is it useful for me to explain where he got this… 35?
Cheryl: I think that would be enormously useful, Nick, even though I…
Hong?: Absolutely.
Cheryl: …did say on my conference call this morning at only 6 AM that you really had to have nothing else to do in your life to bother, but go ahead now.
Nick: This is… The phrases that he did were copied from very long-standing sort of boilerplate about At-Large that goes back to long before I was around and is still available on web pages. And in the “modern,” quote-unquote, context – you know, the context of today – I think what that phrase really applies to would be that there is a process now established since September 2006 whereby members of the community and RALOs may propose projects for funding from, you know, At-Large funds, as you know. And it’s theoretically possible that an ALS could say, “I would like to get funding for X and Y,” but as you know, the way that that process works is he would have to… he or she…
Izumi Aizu joined
Nick: …would have to get their region to actually support this request, so, you know, and then it would be seen by the whole community. So it’s not really… I don’t think that… I think it reads in one way but it’s not actually any different than the situation that we’ve all known for some time.
Cheryl: I think it’s a matter – Nick, if I may – of taking a few sentences out of what is probably five minutes’ worth of talking from a presentation and making interpretations from it. There is nothing new about what Bilal said and no funding occurs other than for ICANN-centric activities.
Hong: And… 33
Cheryl: overtalking …APNG Camp is fitting perfectly into there, but if something is missed from list, I am very keen to know about it. Yes, go ahead, Hong.
Hong: And…
Carlos?: Hello.
Hong: Well, I don’t believe it’s really fair to blame the APRALO for putting up the two budgetary requests on IGF and APNG Camp.
Cheryl: Absolutely not.
Hong: 01 Right, yes. The dialogue is not happening on the list. Someone is referring to our wiki pages on these budget discussions. It seems to me so unfair, this is… I’m totally confused.
Cheryl: Well, I’m less confused and certainly not overly concerned. I think you’ll find there’s one or two voices, but if there’s any implied criticism to APRALO or anything else, they can raise it to the Finance and Budget Subcommittee.
Hong: Okay. 40
Cheryl: No problem. Nick, did you want to follow with anything?
Nick: Umm, nothing comes to mind, unless you have something in mind.
Cheryl: Okay. I’m… I’ve heard a couple of other people join. I’d like to perhaps do a roll call. Wendy’s on Skype and asking if we’re in group chat. If whoever’s organizing 05 chat’s – knowing that I’m only getting my hard drive reorganized, so bookmarks now have to… you know, I have to invited back into them – if they could add Wendy to that chat, I would be grateful for that.
Nick: Happy to do that. I just need Wendy’s Skype address. I don’t see her in Skype.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: Wendy, if you’re there…
Cheryl: Yeah, she is. She is.
Male: 27
Wendy?: overtalking
Cheryl: Oh, hi, Wendy. I’m just trying to get you into the group chat. I haven’t had time to hit the return here to say I’ll get you in. laughter
Robert: This is Robert.
Wendy?: Thanks.
Robert: I’ve just added Wendy.
Frederic Teboul joined
Wendy: Thanks a lot.
Cheryl: Thanks a lot. I’m glad we’re all on the one space, which does make life much easier. Okay, can we do a quick roll call then?
Vanda?: Yeah.
Cheryl: Oh, excellent. Another person.
Frederic?: Yes.
Cheryl: Okay. Whoever was in last can say who they are. Who do we have?
Robert: This is Robert from Toronto. Hi, all.
Cheryl: Hi, Robert.
Hong?: Hi, Robert.
Robert: Hey.
Cheryl: Okay, I’ve got…
Frederic: Yes, hello. This is Frederic from France, but I was supposed to be on the French channel, but unfortunately Adigo did not direct me to them.
Cheryl: sighs Can I just 19 a great big pie?
Nick: overtalking …can call you back.
Cheryl: Yes. Well, it would be most useful if you were on the French channel, Frederic, I must say.
Frederic: Yeah. I know.
Cheryl: Have we dialed out to Hawa yet?
Nick: I’m asking. But… 44
Cheryl: Okay. Back to the roll call. I have obviously myself. I have Robert. Who else do I have?
Vanda: Vanda.
Cheryl: Okay, Vanda.
Veronica: Veronica.
Cheryl: Veronica. Welcome, Veronica.
Wolf: Wolf from Switzerland.
Cheryl: Say again?
Wolf: Wolf from Switzerland.
Cheryl: Ah, thank you, Wolf. Okay, thank you. Sébastien, are you there?
Sébastien: Yeah, I am.
Cheryl: Thank you, Sébastien.
Male: 18
Cheryl: I’ve just sent an e-mail from Annette that she needs to be called. Okay, we’re waiting for Annette. Do we have Carlos and do we have José? pause
Izumi: Okay, hi. This is Izumi from Tokyo.
Cheryl: Hi, Izumi. Welcome. I’m after two more ALAC members. At the moment I have myself, Robert, Vanda, Veronica, Sébastien, Izumi. We have dial-outs, but I’m asking for anyone else who is on this call at the moment. pause
Okay. Well, at the moment, we’re not quorate. From the ALAC perspective, we have dial-outs to enough people to make ourselves quorate. Wendy’s just pinged me to say that the number for Germany is not working for Annette. Nick? Frederic?
Nick: They are calling her.
Cheryl: Okay, I’ll let her know.
Frederic: I sent an e-mail to Mr. Smith from Adigo in order to give me a ring, but since 1:30, I’m still waiting for the ring.
Cheryl: That’s you, Frederic? 57
Nick: Frederic, you need to use the IM address for Adigo and get into chat with the operator.
Frederic: Okay.
Matthias Langenegger joined
Fatimata Seye Sylla joined
Cheryl: Ah, 28. Welcome, Fatimata. Are you on the French channel, my dear?
Fatimata: That’s what’s on the website, that I’m inaudible with Hawa.
Cheryl: Okay, Fatimata. Excellent. Who was that who’s just joined?
Carlos: Carlos here.
Cheryl: Hi, Carlos. Thank you for j-… cuts out.
Carlos: Hi!
Cheryl: Hi, Carlos. We are now quorate. We can start the meeting. I am very pleased. A mere 13 minutes after our normal starting time. Gee, we’re getting better.
Female: Yes.
Cheryl: laughter
Carlos: Sorry.
Cheryl: No, no, no, my dear. It’s not you. We have call-outs that are still coming in. The fact that the call-outs are supposed to start 10 or 15 minutes ahead should mean that we don’t have this issue, but we have Hawa, Annette, and a number of people who are still being called out to, so…
Nick: Apparently Hawa asked to be called out to somewhat later.
Cheryl: Ah, okay. Well, if… that’s her choice, that’s something that I wasn’t aware of.
Okay. Let’s look at the beginning of our standing agenda items, which is the adoption of the agenda. I will draw your attention to the matters that we’ve had online for in excess of seven days now and ask if there was any additions to the agenda that need to be raised now, noting that under normal circumstances additional items to the agenda should be presented to the wiki in the three days after the agenda is posted. So I’ll give a couple of moments for anybody to raise any additional items onto tonight’s agenda.
Wendy: I took my liaison report as a request to add items to the agenda for report to the board or to put on the board’s agenda, and I’d ask that that be made a standing agenda item.
Cheryl: Okay.
Wendy: 38 cuts out for the board’s agenda.
Cheryl: Right. So what you’re suggesting is not your report so much but the discussion of items for the board agenda?
Wendy: That’s right.
Cheryl: Okay. Alright.
Wendy: Thank you.
Cheryl: Well, we’ll put that in as new business. Nick, if you can do the… or Frederic can do the modifications on the wiki, that would be good.
Nick: Yes. What exactly is the title for this? Sorry, I… 06
Cheryl: “Discussion of matters to raise with the ICANN board…”
Female: Alright.
Cheryl: “…monthly meeting.” Is that… overtalking
Frederic: Sorry, everybody. I have to disconnect myself because Adigo is going to call me on this number, so sorry for that.
Cheryl: Okay, Frederic. We’ll have you back. No problem…
Frederic: Thank you, bye bye.
Cheryl: …we’ll be here when you get back.
Frederic: Thank you.
Cheryl: Any other items wishing to be added to the… agenda items… 33?
Male: inaudible I don’t know if it’s…
Fatimata: Can we inaudible our name anytime we talk? This is Fatimata.
Cheryl: Okay, Fatimata. If you don’t get used to my dulcet tones, I’d be very surprised, but I’ll do my bit to inaudible name… overtalking
Fatimata: I know you. laughter I know, but for example… 50 …who just said that he was going to change the number – I mean, I don’t know who… overtalking
Cheryl: That was Frederic. laughter That was Frederic.
Fatimata: Was he?
Cheryl: I will do my best to either name people or I will ask that you do name yourself before you’re making any statement that is at least minuteable.
Fatimata?: Thank you.
Cheryl: Thank you, Fatimata. Any other agenda items for tonight’s meeting?
Hong: Cheryl, I’m not sure whether we’re going to talk about Paris meeting planning. I can’t see such an item on the agenda.
Cheryl: Well, Paris meeting has a working group working on that.
Hong: Oh.
Cheryl: So that should come down to working group reports. I would suggest however that at the close of tonight’s – or this morning’s or today’s – meeting that those members of the ALAC who are on the Paris planning, which includes the executive as a whole and Sébastien and Veronica, should stay on the call along with staff for a short amount of time. Okay?
Hong: Okay. I made a comment on the page, if you could have a look. Thank you very much.
Cheryl: On the…?
Hong: On the Paris meeting…
Cheryl: On the meeting page?
Hong: …planning page, yes.
Cheryl: Oh! Well, no, I don’t have the planning page open because I’m at an ALAC meeting, not a planning meeting. Would you care to share with us, Hong?
Hong: 21
Cheryl: Share with us, Hong, what is the comment you made on the planning page?
Hong: About the IDN roundtable.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, I’m sure an IDN roundtable would be an excellent thing to have, but if it’s on the Paris meeting planning page then the Paris meeting working group will take that into account.
Hong: Okay, thanks.
Cheryl: Okay. Okay then, having gone more than our minute to organize the agenda items for tonight, I’ll ask for any apologies and suggest that… Nick, do you have a full roll call or do you need us to repeat?
Nick: I think I do, but let me repeat it and if I’m missing anyone, can you tell me?
Cheryl: Certainly.
Nick: I have Cheryl, Robert, Veronica, Sébastien, Izumi, Fatimata, and Carlos from ALAC.
Cheryl: Vanda.
Vanda: Yeah.
Cheryl: Vanda.
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: Vanda, you’re there. I’m telling Nick that Vanda is here. laughter
Vanda: Yes, I am.
Nick: The liaisons I have are Hong and Wendy. And observers, I have Wolf Ludwig from EURALO, and apologies, Beau Brendler who is on a train from Washington back to New York after last night’s meeting. And for staff, I have Frederic, Matthias, and myself.
Cheryl: Excellent. And Annette’s still waiting to be called. She’s given a work dial-in number. Can… And I think what she’s done is she’s opened up ALAC summit conversation for some reason – I’ll copy it across to the other one now. Okay.
Nick: She’s given us a new number to call?
Cheryl: It could be, Nick. I don’t know. I don’t remember people’s numbers. I’ll…
Nick: No, I thought you said Annette had given a different number.
Cheryl: 30
Carlos: Sorry, Cheryl. Sorry, Cheryl. Carlos.
Cheryl: Go ahead. Yes, Carlos.
Carlos: José told me yesterday apologize because he’s ill now.
Cheryl: Ah, okay.
Carlos: Thank you.
Cheryl: We will note his apologies.
Carlos: Yeah.
Cheryl: Thank you. Any other apologies? pause
sound of children in background
Cheryl: Can I remind people that star-6 mutes their phone handsets and star-7 unmutes their handsets. I will give plenty of time between items for people to unmute, and if I call on you to speak and you don’t unmute, I’ll even give you extra time.
And Fatimata is noting that we have a problem with the translation. If Frederic joins us on the call in the French channel, perhaps he can follow up on that.
Okay. In that case, I’m moving on to the adoption of the minutes of the last meeting, 11th of March, and I’ll ask for any comments, discussions, or items anyone wishes to raise under that topic.
01 to 0.46.26
Cheryl: 26 I just started a video. Fatimata… I do apologize, Fatimata, if you’re listening to me. And there’s nothing I can really do about the translation at the moment, but I trust that staff will be looking at that, or if the Adigo people are on the line, that they will be looking at that as we should be having simultaneous translation – or I wouldn’t be speaking this slowly.
Okay. Nobody has made any comments on the meeting minutes from the 11th of March, so in the absence of any comments… Do I have a comment coming in? Go ahead. pause
Okay. No, perhaps I didn’t have a comment coming in. I would like to move that those minutes are accepted as a true and accurate record of our last meeting and move on to the action items, which when I opened it says, “Replace this text with your own.” I’m sure we had more action items than that. Nick, would you care to comment?
Nick: Hold on. I’m… Sorry, I’m trying to do a whole lot at one time and…
Cheryl: Mmm, that’s alright. pause Okay. Whilst we’re waiting for Nick to gather his resources and respond, Fatimata, if you can hear me – and I’ll speak nice and slowly so hopefully translation will not be a problem – Matthias is asking you…
unknown joined
Cheryl: …to outline the problem that is going on in the French simultaneous translation.
And I gather we finally get to welcome Annette. Welcome, Annette.
Nick: I see a complete list of action items when I click on that link.
Cheryl: Okay. I don’t, so perhaps someone who can could read them out. Nick?
Nick: “Discussion about ICANN’s strategic goals in the context of its new budget will be carried over to the new conference.”
“The ALAC liaison to the board will announce at the Board Meeting that the NARALO statement was accepted unanimously,” which is done.
“ALAC members are asked to make comments on the Accountability Framework by 11th April” – you’ll see a note at the bottom of the agenda related to that with a link.
Annette Muehlberg joined
Nick: “Representatives of each RALO are asked to come up with a statement from their region on domain tasting by the 28th of March” – Alan I believe has taken care of that, though Alan is not on the call today I don’t think.
Cheryl: Is Alan apology then?
Nick: I have not received an apology that I can recall, so…
Cheryl: Okay.
Annette: Hello, everybody. Annette here. Finally made it.
Nick: Hello, Annette.
Vanda: Hi, Annette.
Cheryl: Hi, Annette.
Nick: “Veronica will provide a one page executive summary of the OneDay…”
Veronica?: Hello, Annette.
Nick: “…and 03 that the ALAC liaison can put forward to the board.”
“The chair to put forward the executive summary of the OneDay report to the other constituencies.”
“A Greenberg is to draft a short statement in support of the motion on domain tasting” – which I know that’s been done.
“Alan will ask the NARALO to wait for the ALAC endorsement until next week of the” – and this is for the statement that was sent to the board, that was done.
Cheryl: Also done.
Nick: “Alan will contact the RALOs to identify the representatives of each RALO who will participate in the planning committee for the Paris meeting.”
“Mohamed El Bashir will announce a candidate for the ad-hoc drafting group on GNSO improvements” – and that was him.
Cheryl: That was him. Umm-hmm.
Nick: “Staff will send out the draft statement on GNSO improvements to the regional lists for review” – that was done and comments received and the final draft is on the agenda for this meeting.
Cheryl: Umm-hmm.
Translator: 03
Nick: “Staff will send Danny Younger’s statement…”
Translator: …and they don’t seem to hear me. Can you hear me in English?
Nick: Yes.
Translator: Okay.
Cheryl: We can in English. Yes… overtalking
Translator: Hi. I’m have… Okay, let me explain. My name is Daniel. I’m an interpreter going from English into French. I have one phone in one ear and the other one in the other ear. It’s a little bit difficult for me but we can do this. Could you go just a little bit slower, and if you see that you are touching on an issue that needs a little bit extra explanation, just go ahead, it will help me to translate.
Cheryl: Daniel, first of all, welcome.
Translator: Hi.
Cheryl: And secondly, is the speed that I am speaking at suitable for you, because everyone else can pace to my 49 speed?
Translator: That is wonderful. The speed you’re using is perfect and if other people can remember and do it at the same speed we’ll have a more effective conference.
Cheryl: Well… cuts out
Nick: Sorry, I’m going much too fast.
Cheryl: Daniel, Daniel…
Translator: Yeah, because, well, those are issues I am not familiar with, so please 05 a little bit for me.
Cheryl: No problem, Daniel. It’s just… People think it’s just because I don’t sleep, it’s just that I’m working in translation a lot in real life. laughter
Translator: laughter I got to translate this into French, okay.
Cheryl: Okay. Nick, back to you slightly slower.
Carlos: Carlos supports Daniel’s motion.
Cheryl: laughter Of course, Carlos. Of course.
Carlos: Thank you.
Nick: “Staff to send Danny Younger’s statement to the internal list for ALAC endorsement. Comments to be made by 17th March” – that of course was all done.
“Staff to approach Fatima after the last meeting to join the Budget Subcommittee” – which was done.
“Staff to remind participants of action items and upcoming deadlines” – I think we pretty much did that. At least I hope we did – there were so many of them.
“Staff to update the Google spreadsheet on ALS applications” – we did do that.
Cheryl: Nick, slow down.
Nick: We also sent out to each regional secretariat reminders and due diligence packages to help them with the ALS applications in the current pipeline.
Cheryl: Excellent.
Nick: “Staff to send out an email with the meeting agenda documents in plain text and in PDF in the future” – we missed that one, right?
Cheryl: laughter
Nick: Sorry. Very sorry about that, but we didn’t actually manage that one.
Cheryl: It will happen.
Nick: Though I do note we did post a great deal… we posted everything that was available seven days before the meeting in good time, so hopefully that was some improvement.
“Staff will put Alan Greenberg on the mailing list for the planning committee for the Paris meeting” – that was done.
“Staff will inform the At-Large lists of the resignation of ALAC’s Co-Vice Chair and open calls for the election” – that whole process was done.
“Staff to remind members in their meeting reminds to dial into the conference five to ten minutes in advance” – well, we got partway down that road this time.
Cheryl: laughter
Nick: “Staff to have a word with the conference provider about the technical difficulties last time, the last meeting, and ask them to dial out to members 15 minutes before the start of the meeting” – we did start early, but as you see, it didn’t still get us off on time. We will have to discuss that… 01
Cheryl: Get better. We will get better.
Nick: And that is all of the very extensive list of action items.
Cheryl: Okay. Coming back to one of those items earlier on – and this is purely from my personal preference and requirements – Veronica, may I ask you to resend your one-page or short synopsis from the OneDay workshop. It is amongst the files that I have lost on the hard drive that they tell me I will get my data off eventually but have not yet.
Veronica: Okay. Yes, Cheryl. No problem. Probably a little bit later because I have it on my computer at home. I’m at the office now and… 51
Cheryl: No problem. If that can just be done as a to-do, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Veronica.
Veronica: Yeah, three-four hours maximum you’ll get it.
Cheryl: Ah, thank you.
Veronica: Okay.
Cheryl: And are there any matters or items raised from the action items that need to be discussed, excused, or explained?
Sébastien: It’s Sébastien. I have just one question. We discussed also last time about the document was written about the domain name and so on. I don’t see it anywhere. I don’t think we would need to discuss it today but we need to decide what we’ll do with this document after the exchange we have on the mailing list.
Cheryl: Sorry, can you help me by identifying which document you mean? Domain tasting, or…?
Sébastien: Yes. Sorry. No, no, it was a document written two months ago by… and we were trying to have 58 helping us to reshape it and so on.
Cheryl: Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. Yes, okay. I did think that had been… would be part of tonight’s agenda. I’m surprised that it is not but we will put that under actions arising and therefore discuss that now. Nick, I know that there was some correspondence between John and those who were identified as the group to work on that. Would you care to speak to that matter, please?
Nick: Yes, I did, as the committee requested, transmit the guide to those who had said they wished to work on it and copied, and John, asking him if he would be willing to contribute to editing it, and he declined on the basis that since someone else had been paid to draft it, he was not inclined to work pro bono – which is fair enough. No other comments were forthcoming from the other individuals who asked to be a part of the revision process.
Cheryl: Okay. Can I ask then, Nick, where does that put the status of that document/project now?
Nick: The drafter… You and I had a brief conversation about this. The comments that I had received obviously should be incorporated, and I had it in mind to send that off to the writer to have those revisions added including the graphics that had been proposed and to come back with a publication-ready draft.
Cheryl: Okay. So we’re looking at getting a draft into desktop publishing…
Nick: Indeed.
Cheryl: …now? And then that will…
Nick: With the addition that the guide to, you know, the top 10 considerations for domain name registrants to consider when picking a registrar, that had been a joint collaboration of Beau Brendler of Consumer Reports and Dave Piscitello, should be incorporated into the text.
Cheryl: And they’ve given permission for that?
Nick: He’s happy for that to happen.
Cheryl: Excellent. Okay. Sébastien, does that answer your question?
Sébastien: It’s answer for the process, yeah. I’m not sure 57 John is not willing to do some work will help to have a better document, but I understand why he answered like he answered and I am sympathy with this… his answer. But at the end of the day, I don’t think we will get the document really we need to have, but we have to cope with that.
Cheryl: Hmm. Yes, I agree. We can only do what we can do.
That desktop published version, Nick, will be coming back to the ALAC for a final review, yes?
Nick: Umm, yes, as soon as we get to that point.
Cheryl: And what is the time there? 10-14 days?
Nick: I’m not quite sure. I have to… I’m not sure who in ICANN actually does that sort of work or if we send it out, so…
Cheryl: Okay. Alright. Well… 58
Nick: I’ll send notes and keep people up to date.
Cheryl: And can perhaps either you or Frederic or Matthias make a note that that needs to be an agenda item for the next executive meeting, okay?
Nick: Certainly.
Cheryl: Thank you very much.
Carlos: Sorry Nick, could you read your Skype. I send a message to you.
Nick: Yes, it’s, umm… I, uh…
Cheryl: laughter 32
Nick: I’ll be happy to call him, but may I please remind everyone, please, please, if you’re going to need a dial-out, please send them to us in advance. It’s very hard for us to manage all of the technical aspects of these calls and also minute them if we have to dial-outs on the fly. Please.
Carlos: Thank you.
Cheryl: Okay. Can I ask, mainly for my curiosity’s sake, who are we dialing out to?
Nick: José.
Cheryl: Oh, excellent if he can join us. That is good.
Nick: I don’t know which number to use for him – his home number, his work number. José, do you… Or Carlos, do you know?
Cheryl: Carlos. Carlos, can you clarify, please, which number to call?
Carlos: Sorry, I can’t hear.
Cheryl: Carlos, can you… 22?
Carlos: Yes, I can hear you.
Cheryl: Can you clarify which number José wishes to be called on?
Carlos: Ah, okay. Okay. Wait a minute, please.
Nick: Work, home, whatever.
Cheryl: Okay. Any other discussion on action items from the 11th of March meeting? pause
In which case, we will now move to item 5 of the standing agenda items, being the current status of ALS applications.
unknown joined
Cheryl: Has everyone 20? Hello? Who’s joined?
Danny: This is Danny.
Female: Who?
Cheryl: Oh, hi, Danny. Welcome aboard.
Danny: Thank you.
Cheryl: We’re just up to item 5 of the standing agenda items, and that is the current status of ALS applications. I would remind you as a new participant observer that we are live or synchronous translation into other languages, so we need to speak clearly and slowly so that people can have their English to French and French to English, and vice versa.
Okay. Has the meeting opened the page “current status of ALS applications”? Wendy, who is not with us right now – she has a number of other pressing matters that will take her to and fro our meeting, she has just absented herself for a few moments – raised the point on the At-Large list that several ALS applications seem to be staying in the puddle. Most of those as far as I can tell were in fact waiting for some form of due diligence, and I know that the Latin American ones have recently finalized that step. So I would like to open that to discussion and perhaps ask Nick to go through the specifics of each.
Nick: One moment.
Cheryl: It is a Google application document, so if anybody on this call is having a problem opening that link, it will mean that you are not logged on as a Google Apps user, but you were warned.
Nick: Here is the status that was sent around to the various regional leaders. The application ADIAR from Latin America, Carlton had asked a question of the regional ISOC coordinator – Sebastian Bellagamba, I believe it is – and he had the answer to that question, so I believe there are no remaining outstanding questions there. And I note that Matthias has reminded Carlton of the need to finish providing regional advice on that application.
Again, with Latin America, ACUI, the application that they submitted was missing a number of pieces of information. As a result of that, the staff asked a series of questions, including in Spanish, and they said that they would get back to us with the answers to those questions but the application is not complete enough to consider until those questions are answered.
In North America, PCNA, the advice from the Secretariat, Darlene Thompson, to the region was that she knew personally this applicant and the due diligence information was very complete and reflected her understanding of the organization and recommended them for assent. I haven’t seen any comments from the region so far.
APTI, the European application, the deadline for regional advice is the 7th of April. We have not yet heard anything from the region on this application but we will be…
Wolf: Nick.
Nick: Yes?
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Wolf: May I just make a comment?
Nick: Sure.
Wolf: I went through both applications the last days and I’m in favour of APTI but I still have problems to clarify this france@large.
Nick: Umm, yes, but…
Wolf: So I sent the mail of confirmation to Matthias.
Nick: Yes, I saw that. I was going to say that the next application from Europe is france@large, and we did receive some comments about APTI in e-mails related to the france@large application. That application, we did a very great… we had to do much more investigation of that application than we normally do because there is no sign of individual internet users being members.
José Ovidio Salgueiro joined
Veronica: Nick, 08?
Nick: Yeah.
Veronica: This is Veronica speaking. I did actually send yesterday morning before the deadline my position and recommendation on the APTI from Romania. Matthias did receive an e-mail from me yesterday morning. He can confirm that. And I strongly support this organization because they have been wonderful partners in a regional project that I coordinated, and the are no concerns or any problems or issues regarding this organization. I do strongly support APTI and I actually provided my recommendation by the deadline.
Nick: Sorry. I’m… Sorry about that. I’m probably a little behind on my e-mail. laughter
Veronica: 56 It was sent to Matthias.
Nick: Yes. Okay. Well, that’s good.
Veronica: Okay.
Cheryl: Sorry. Thank you, Veronica, and thank you, Wolf. The reason I’m saying that is we do have a number of observers on the call, and whilst we’re all used to each other’s voices, it would be nice for everybody to know who everyone knows. Please identify yourself, unless you’re me because you all know me. Go ahead, Nick.
Nick: So yes. So there is still a discussion in the region about france@large, and I expect though that there will be some kind of consensus view emerging very shortly about that application.
Annette: Nick, may I ask a question?
Nick: Of course.
Annette: 40 “We did much more research inaudible for the due diligence for france@large.” Is that the due diligence you sent out?
Nick: Yes.
Annette: Ah, because after reading this due diligence, I had so many questions, and so that’s interesting to hear that you already put a lot of more energy into it and this is what came out.
Nick: Yes. The problem is is that we had to do a great deal to find any information. We had to look quite closely, even to the point of looking up the WHOIS records for all of the organizations that the applicant professed to be a member of. There is no evidence of activity of any kind related to france@large – no members have posted to its mailing list and all the organizations that it claims to be a member of appear to have been registered by the same person or entity as registered one of the two domains of france@large itself. So…
Annette: Okay. I think that’s very helpful because then I think we should rather put out the question, “Is there any argument for it?” because I don’t… I wouldn’t support it the way 59 the due diligence.
Nick: Yeah. There’s… I mean, I…
Annette: overtalking …if that is already the result of a lot of research… overtalking
Nick: Yes. We couldn’t find any evidence that it was anything more than a single person and that any of the organizations that it was related to were anything other than probably – and I emphasize that point – probably the same person.
Cheryl: 24
Carlos?: inaudible
Nick: So there is the issue of the fact that it appears not to have any members and there is also the appearance that the application is in certain respects perhaps not accurate.
Carlos: So just a comment – Carlos here – José’s connected now. He can’t hear but can… Sorry. He can’t talk but he can hear.
Nick: Welcome, José.
Cheryl: laughter 52 …José, but we should point out for everyone who is curious, it is because of your laryngitis that you cannot talk. laughter But please, type at us in instant messaging or IRC or Skype. We will hear you. I’m sure we will manage to get your voice heard even if you can’t make it an auditory noise.
Nick, may I ask, can we extend the due diligence date for france@large from the RALO, or do we take this back to staff due diligence and ask for proof of concept, so to speak, from the applicant?
Nick: The region… If the region feels there are certain additional questions that they would like answered, we are happy to the extent possible to try and find them – that’s not a problem. My impression is – and I haven’t read all of my e-mails from yesterday and this morning, and my apologies but I was planning for and having the consumer recruiting dinner here in Washington yesterday…
Cheryl: Forgiven.
Nick: So from what I have seen, it appears that soon the European region will be in a position to have a consensus view on what to say to the applicant.
Cheryl: Okay… 28
Nick: I could be wrong, Wolf, perhaps.
Wolf: No, I agree with Nick. We should do some further research and then we come back for a definite decision.
Cheryl: Thank you for that, Wolf. I certainly would look forward to that and I think we do need to be very cautious about creation of critical mass when it does not exist.
Nick: On the final two applicants, CDNU, the due diligence form has just fallen due and we have asked Save Vocea, the Oceania regional global partnerships person, for it.
And MACSIS has regional advice due on the 2nd of May, so there is some time yet. So they have been provided with full due diligence for that application.
This is I would say the busiest that we have been with ALS applications at one time in quite some time.
Cheryl: Okay. Thank you for that, Nick. Any questions to any of those pieces of information?
Female: No.
Carlos: Sorry, Nick. Carlos here. I want to know what is the problem of ACUI and ADIAR, the ALSes in Latin American region.
Cheryl: Nick, I can answer that question. There isn’t a problem and we have the regional due diligence now in, but only in e-mail form today, not in the report form.
Carlos: Okay, thank you.
Cheryl: Alright. Any other matters to raise? pause Okay. In the absence of any other matters to raise, we will move onto the next agenda item. And as soon as my computer opens the next agenda item. laughter
Annette: Report of liaison.
Cheryl: Ah, perfect. Liaison report. Go ahead. Hong.
Hong: Oh, right. It’s been posted on the wiki page. Would you like me to read it?
Cheryl: Rather than read it, I would have thought the additional information for all of our people here tonight about the public comment period now being opened on the most recent fast-track document would have been useful.
Hong: Well, yes. CDNC… Well, ccNSO IDNC has been talking about the fast-track implementation of IDN ccTLDs. They drafted the proposed methodology. The document has not been finalized but it will soon be published for public consultation. This is the second 57 public consultation. And at the moment there are two critical policy discussions. One is about objection procedure – I raised this in last month’s conference call. IDN ccTLD… ccTLD, so basically it should be an issue within a ccTLD territory, but it seems that quite a few of 32, especially those from GNSO raised that there may be some global concerns. So an application filed from a ccTLD territory should be evaluated, observed at a global level. So there will be objection procedure. But it’s still not very clear who will have the right to object to an 59 ccTLD territory.
Another issue on… it seems to be more critical, that is about evaluation power. Who has the power to evaluate an IDN ccTLD application? It’s been proposed to form two small-scale committees, one on language, another on technology, to evaluate these applications, but a lot of people raised a concern that the formation, the composition of the committee could be very decisive to the successful implementation of these IDN ccTLDs.
Cheryl: Hong, if I may, just to 49 point of clarification, the concern was not with the ability of a technical committee to rule but of a language committee to be effective. Is that not the case?
Hong: Well, that’s exactly the case. Even though ICANN and the technical committee… technical community have always been very cautious 20 using the term “language” and maintain that IDN is primarily a scripts issue. But when in the real implementation, there will be really some language issues. Say, well, the simple example could be United States of America – which term could be picked up? If it is in IDN 47, which one, which part should be picked up as an IDN ccTLD – “United States” or “America”? So there’s a language issue.
Cheryl: Yeah. Okay. Yeah, can I ask for any questions of Hong in the presentation of her report? pause In the absence of anyone coming off mute to ask questions, I would like to suggest that what is most important from what Hong is saying to you as our liaison in IDN seems to me to be that the RALOs need to start to address these questions and issues as a matter of great importance. We now have the public, the second round public comment period open for the fast-track, your Regional At-Large Organization must address these questions. We need that community input. Is that fair to say, Hong?
Hong: That… 07, we can send out the public call. I can draft that. Put it in the action list. laughter
Cheryl: But that it is done… It is all very good for subcommittees and working groups to discuss these things. What we need is community input, and the RALOs are the nexus to that. I…
Hong: Uh, sure, of course. Oh, sorry. Please go ahead.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Hong. Go ahead.
Hong: Oh, I just want to know the clear procedure. Well, you mean that we should first of all discuss within the IDN working group and then send out the public call to the RALOs, 53 for their inputs – this is the procedure?
Cheryl: Uh, yes. Although I would suggest that the RALOs and the representatives of the RALOs at this meeting need to start working on this issue in advance of that. They need to happen in tandem.
Hong: Okay. 21 good.
Cheryl: Otherwise we won’t get regional input by the due date.
Hong: Oh. Alright. So why don’t I create a new page just for people to send me their comments 40?
Cheryl: Excellent.
Hong: Okay.
Cheryl: Okay. Alright. I would ask… Is Wendy back on the call now?
Annette?: Looks like.
Wendy: I am, thank you.
Cheryl: Ah, excellent. Wendy, your liaison report went to the At-Large lists but is not posted to the wiki. Would you care to speak on matters arising from the last ICANN board meeting?
Wendy: It is in fact posted to the wiki.
Cheryl: Oh, mine isn’t. Sorry. Perhaps I need to refresh. Under item 6, liaison report.
Wendy: I posted as a page, “Board liaison report. March meeting, April retreat.”
Cheryl: Ah. Okay.
Wendy: 34 “What’s new.” I would kindly request the assistance of our wonderful staff in making the proper links since at previous times when I’ve added links to agendas, I’ve been told no, that’s not what I should be doing – I should be commenting or speaking elsewhere. And so I e-mailed my liaison report into the wiki and there it is.
Cheryl: Okay. So you’ve e-mailed it in, it’s just not visible at the moment. Umm…
Wendy: If you click the “What’s new,” you will see it listed among the pages that are recently added to the wiki.
Cheryl: Okay. But possibly not hierarchically linked to tonight’s agenda page – is that the case?
Wendy: Everybody who cared saw it on the mailing list I would venture… 27
Cheryl: Okay. I wouldn’t necessarily go so far as to say that, but would you care to speak to any of the items? Or indeed does anyone have any questions for Wendy on her liaison report which was posted to the At-Large public mailing list?
Wendy: Umm, in lieu of questions – if anyone has questions, I would welcome them – in lieu of question I will briefly recap that the board met March 27th, discussed at reasonable length a request for emergency action on domain reservation, and while they didn’t resolve to take that action now but to send it to the GNSO Council for discussion, it was a useful discussion of the issue and I would strongly recommend that we use the procedure and look for similar procedures to bring matters to the attention of the board, because, acting in bottom-up fashion, they wait for others to bring issues to them and then begin the discussion of them.
And I know that… So yeah, in that vein, I ask again, are there other issues we would like to discuss at April’s board meeting or April’s board retreat which will precede the board meeting? I’d placed issues including the Registrar Accreditation Agreement amendments of which we are waiting to hear 25 registrars’ negotiations amongst themselves and… with ICANN staff before that comes back to the board and to the community, and I have been assured that there will be a real opportunity for community comment on that process.
Carlos?: inaudible
Wendy: Uh, and…
Cheryl: Wendy, can I… can I ask…
Wendy: Yeah.
Cheryl: …53 what would you be raising? What is it that you wish to raise? You seem like you’re answering the question you’re asking. They’ve said there will be opportunity. We need the time courses, we need firm commitments as to when and how long we will have to make our comments and what 13, what inaudible?
Wendy: I’m sorry, was that a question?
Cheryl: It was… Well, you sounded like you were asking us about raising the issue and saying you’ve already had answers. What would be most useful? What are we trying to find out? And while we have Danny on this call, it could be useful to have any issues raised from observers as well, so I’ll open it to observers to ask questions.
Wendy: Right. So I was reporting that, 49 questions from Danny and others, I have asked when will the public get to comment on this Registrar Accreditation Agreement process and I’m told that when it comes back from the registrars’ negotiations, then there will be opportunity for real public comment. I hope that at that point At-Large will be prepared examine it to see how well it meets the interests of registrants.
Cheryl: Umm-hmm. Okay.
Wendy: And if there are issues that are coming up, be it among small communities or the entire public, these are places where we can bring them to the board.
Cheryl: Do any of the ALAC here tonight have issues to bring through from their RALOs or from working groups that they are involved with for the next board meeting?
Hong: Cheryl, this is Hong.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Hong.
Hong: I do have a question for Wendy. I heard from someone that the board is really to greenlight the new gTLD application in October 2008, and I want to know is this the officially released timeline? We’ve always been asking this question. Is there a time-…
Wendy: I, I…
Hong: laughter
Wendy: laughter I’m cutting you off only because there is no official timeline. I too wish that there were one. But I have 51…
Hong: laughter So what do we have issue for when there’s not even a timeline?
Wendy: No, there is no timeline.
Hong: Okay. If you don’t mind, please ask.
Wendy: Yes, I shall. Thank you.
Hong?: overtalking
Wendy: Continue to ask.
Cheryl: I would suggest that timelines is probably the topic of many of the questions we wish to ask, particularly when we need time to put our response mechanisms into play. Many RALOs are only just starting to meet monthly, and to get out to the ALSes and back to this process, even if it isn’t in a formal working group, is something I think the board needs to recognize takes time… 41
Wendy: Well, on… So on that front, I should note that what the board is considering is still the GNSO recommendations on new gTLDs, the set of 19 policy recommendations and procedural steps that applicants would have to go through, and while the board is looking at whether those are implementable and then whether those are advisable, the community and RALOs and ALS members can also be looking at those and making comments on those. So it’s not going to be a surprise. It may be a surprise if the board manages to “Not some of those” or to deem some of them unimplementable. But they are unlikely to add to the list.
Cheryl: laughter It can only get better, but we need to know. Yes. 45 any other questions or issues to raise with Wendy’s liaison report?
Annette: Annette here. I wanted to know, Wendy, is there a special discussion going on on “.web”?
Cheryl: Say again.
Wendy: Uh, the question I heard was “Is there any special discussion on ‘.web’?” If you’re referring to the application from previous rounds and its 19 or non-pendency, I have raised the question in light of the application from “.pro” to change the terms of their gTLD registration. Whether it is fair to have staff look in and future applicants to allow current applicants to change their approved business without giving new applicants the chance to participate in the competition, and… but we have not heard back from… The questions that they have raised are still pending…
Annette: Okay.
Wendy: …including the question of whether their application is still pending or dead.
Annette: Okay.
Cheryl: Is Robert still on the call? pause Okay. We should note that Robert did indicate he would need to leave to attend the SSAC meeting, so perhaps we can ask that we get an SSAC liaison report posted to the wiki and noted online to fill in the blanks on that liaison report. And the same, I think Matthias, if you could… Or is it Frederic’s job? I’m not sure whose job it is. Can staff ask each of the liaisons to post something to the wiki and/or online so that we are aware of their activities?
Any other issues to raise under item 6 of standing agenda items? pause If not, we will move to new business.
Item 1 under new business, and you will note that reference links to these agenda items are at the top of the page. And as you’ve had a week to review these, I’m going to assume that most of you have had the time to look at them in some detail.
Wendy: I wish that were a reasonable assumption.
Cheryl: Ah, 56.
Wendy: laughter
Cheryl: I think it is a living hope and dying despair, but we have just under 20 minutes of our proposed meeting time left and I’m rather keen to plow through as much as we can, and most of these items have indeed been discussed in the online environment as well.
Nick: Pardon me, Cheryl, but you’re very faint.
Cheryl: Oh, very unlikely.
Annette?: Again.
Nick: Sorry.
Cheryl: Okay. Is that any better?
Annette: Much better.
Cheryl: Okay.
Annette: But you were… There was a second where you really nice, loud voice, you know? And…
Cheryl: Well, Annette, all I can say is I don’t think it’s me that’s fading, I suspect it is the telecommunications. laughter The equipment I’m using isn’t changing, but I shall yell a little louder and recognize that the whole of my household at quarter to 1 in the morning are now hearing our meeting. But that’s okay. And interestingly enough, Wendy’s noted she can hear me very clearly, so go figure. laughter
Okay. The first item on the new business is the Draft Statement to the ICANN Board on Operational Plan Framework, and as my voice is apparently not as easy to hear, I will ask that you open up that revision 2 – and I note it’s only in English at the moment, Nick, you might wish to speak to that as well – document and open that for any comments from the ALAC and then comments from any observers, in that order.
Nick: May I note that there is also a comment, general comment period running on this text until the 16th of April.
Annette: Umm…
Cheryl: Yes, go ahead. pause Annette?
Annette: I was… Yeah, I’m still here. Are we talking now about the text we discussed in the budget committee last week?
Nick: Yes.
Annette: Yes. And now there are changes made as a result of the meeting last week, right?
Nick: Yes.
Annette: And this is… Yeah, okay. I’d like to say I took part in the budget committee meeting last week. We made several changes. I don’t know if all of you read the first draft. We did something, I can’t exactly remember, maybe the chair can help me with the global outreach text. But what was more interesting to me was – and that relates to the discussion before about the deadlines of new gTLDs – we took out a paragraph saying that we should rather be slow with the introduction of new TLDs because there are so many things not clear yet and that there should not be a budget plan for those in regards to the operational plan. So we took that part and I’m very happy that we reached a consensus on taking that. And Nick, I have a question about the WHOIS part because I actually asked… I thought that this is a little strange to have the WHOIS 02 more accuracy without really stating clearly that in general we do have a problem with the WHOIS as it is against the law in many countries and that we have a privacy issue with that. And I don’t think it’s in here, or maybe my English… I didn’t see it. Maybe you can help me.
Nick: Well, what I understood, I remember the conversation quite clearly, that a number of points that… Pretty much all of you mentioned that there were many sides to the WHOIS issue, including the ones you have just mentioned, and it was then noted that WHOIS in the context of the operating plan framework, the paragraph that this is in reply to really relates to compliance, activities of the compliance department related to WHOIS as it currently exists.
unknown joined
Nick: And as a result of that, you know, the view of you all was “Okay. Well, let’s just make clear in a sentence that we’re only speaking… you know, because the consultation is about, you know, compliance activities for the existing WHOIS system, we simply want to make sure the board understands that our views on other aspects of WHOIS remain our views…”
Cheryl?: 36 That’s right.
Nick: “…but that we’re talking simply about the compliance activities that are proposed for the existing WHOIS.”
Wendy: May I jump in?
Cheryl: inaudible which is why it’s under “compliance activities” and not a topic in its own right. And yes, go ahead, please.
Wendy: It’s Wendy. I just wanted to suggest that we’re taking our scope far too narrowly if we are simply commenting on items that are proposed. The idea of getting this document at an earlier stage was so that we could say, “Does it have the 17 in it or should we have others?” And so I think it’s entirely appropriate to say it’s wrong to focus on WHOIS accuracy compliance without focussing equal or more attention on the other issues that individual internet users have around WHOIS. And I think it would bias the debate, that is a live debate, if we include this statement about compliance without asking for a strong focus on other areas in which members have concerns 55.
Annette: May I add, again, we had that discussion in the budget committee and I really think for an understanding, even if you discuss something within a certain paragraph about compliance activities, you still have to make clear what your real position is and then you can go for a smaller issue and then say, “Okay, at least stick something in here” or “At least you should stick something in here concerning this.” But there couldn’t be a line, something like “Fixing this should be a headline compliance activity in the operation plan” when you in the whole have a problem with the WHOIS. So there has to be a clarification, what your position is, and it has been clear that the At-Large has many problems with WHOIS, and in respect to this you have to make that clear before and then you can talk about something and say, “And even within the issue of the existing WHOIS policy, you should fix something.”
Nick: An idea has struck me that might make it easier to accommodate sort of both perspectives. There have been a number of comments made on the list about this paragraph, and a number of people have said, “Well, actually we would like WHOIS to be accurate, you know, aside from the other issues.” But if all of you think that there are other activities related to WHOIS which should also be priorities in the budget for the coming year, you could simply say, “Okay. Well, in compliance, fine, we want WHOIS to be accurate, but we also propose these activities for the operating plan for the coming year related to WHOIS,” if that is what you’re in fact saying. But there is of course nothing that would prevent you from saying, “There should be other activities being done in the coming year, not just the ones listed.” Is that… Does that take you closer to where you wish to go, perhaps?
Cheryl: Annette? Wendy?
Annette: Well, I feel strange about this because we had years of discussion and statements about privacy and just to have a sentence in there saying, “ICANN is not living up to its obligation with respect to WHOIS,” and then followed by the sentence, “Fixing the accuracy problem is one of the biggest problems,” and this is a little strange to me and we should at least not just say our previous statements on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid because, you know, it doesn’t say anything what it is about. So it should be just the other way around, saying that our previous statement, our concern about privacy is the problem we really want to address and that there is also another problem – in that order, I would say it makes sense.
Cheryl: Wendy?
Wendy: Yeah.
Cheryl: Comments on 22 proposal?
Wendy: Uh, no. I think Annette has it right, that from my perspective and that of several others that I hear speaking on the list, the privacy is the key concern of individuals. I understand and I’m… that others have a valid interest in accuracy, but I don’t think that this 54 captures that. So if we are… If we are going to comment on WHOIS, I think we must capture all of the viewpoint. Since we have no way of scientifically determining their prevalence, just lay them out as divergent but reported viewpoints of members of the At-Large community.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, I’m sure that sentence can be drafted, and I guess noting that the comment period is open until the 16th of this month, anybody who feels they can wordsmith appropriate sentences should put them at the bottom of this page so that the drafting committee can consider that. And I think…
Nick: Needless…
Cheryl: …what we nee-… Go ahead.
Nick: Needless to say, we are keeping track of all the comments we are seeing on the list and in preparation for the meeting, the next meeting of the finance and budget committee where this document will… where the committee will try and synthesize the comments received…
Cheryl: 13
Nick: …the staff will provide a complete package of all the views that we have seen expressed for… well, so that everyone can see that in one place, but also so that the subcommittee can also use that to help decide how to make changes to the text.
Cheryl: And I feel we should note that of course we do still have a WHOIS working group, and I would make a very specific plea for a very specific comment to come from that working group to contribute to this process and this part of this document between now and the 16th of this month.
I’ll call for any comments or discussions now on this document from either the ALAC, the liaisons, or the observers at this meeting, and I will limit the conversation here to only two to three minutes because we do have a number of other agenda items to go through.
Annette: Okay, Annette here. I just want to make sure that I understand right. We had 26 the operational plan talking about the new gTLDs. I asked for where does the discussion comes from because I never heard it was in the ALAC that we are actually asking for postponing the introduction of new gTLDs. We were always asking for hurrying up with the introduction of new gTLDs, and this is what I understand was what Hong was also asking for. So I just want to understand if there is something that I missed or if we agree on that and that we can make sure that this does not somehow, you know, mix in our papers. Thanks.
Cheryl: Well, new gTLDs has been raised of course by Wendy as well as now the people on the Skype as well, so…
Wendy: Yes, I would just once again call on us to use this as an opportunity to raise issues that we think ICANN should have more focus on from the interests of, say, internet user perspective. And I mentioned a few, and I won’t repeat them in my comments, but take some… think big. What is it that within ICANN’s scope we think ICANN should be doing? And if it’s nothing, fine, but this is our chance to put that in.
Cheryl: And I assume that will become part of the synthesis of comments that the subcommittee will work on at their meeting after the 16th of April. coughs Pardon me, excuse me. coughs
Any other final comments on item 1 of new business? pause
In the absence of any other comments, we will move to item 2, which is related to item 1… sorry, it’s a subset of item 1 – I’m obviously way too tired, anybody’d think I’d been in meetings since half past 5 this morning – and that was the “Community Priorities with Budget Impact.” I will assume that you all can open the list of community priorities with budget impact. This is a synthesis of items put forward from RALOs, from individuals, and from ALAC, and I’d open that item up for a short discussion. pause
Okay, obviously Veronica’s having great difficulty hearing me. Umm…
Annette: Oh, Robert came back.
Cheryl: 26 Do we have any discussion on the “Community Priorities with Budget Impact” list? pause If we have no questions and no issues to raise, then the finance and budget subcommittee will assume that you are all satisfied with that list and that you 54 wish to make no additions or alterations to it.
Wendy: Or that we’ve only just seen the list and intend to engage in some discussion online.
Cheryl: Okay. Sorry, Robert has just Skyped something talking about 22. Whilst he’s back and we have a very short amount of time left to tonight’s meeting without and extension, I’m assuming this has something to do with the meeting you’ve just been at with the SSAC, Robert? Do you care to speak to that?
Nick: I don’t believe he’s on the call. He’s on their call.
Cheryl: Ah. Okay.
Annette: 50, okay. So he’s… overtalking
Cheryl: I can’t make head or tail of that, so if someone else can translate that to me, fine. If not, I’ll remind you that same 16th of April deadline is associated with the Community Priorities document and also draw your attention to the resolution associated with that.
Have we all had a chance to look at the next item on new business, which is the travel policy for volunteers? pause I’ll open the…
Annette: I did not.
Cheryl: …conversation up for that. You have not?
Annette: No, I said I did not 44 through the whole details as I really would like to do my own travel stuff before.
Cheryl: Sorry. You’re asking for an extension beyond the 16th for comments, Annette?
Annette: No, no, that’s fine.
Cheryl: Okay. Is there any comments, discussions, or clarifications on the current draft…?
Wendy: Only that it seems…
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Wendy: Just to remind us that all of ICANN’s budget ultimately comes out of the pocket of registrants and all of our requests are enlarging the budget. We may or may not be contributing a significant part to that budget, but we should be aware of the cost of some of these things.
Cheryl: Yes, we should all wear t-shirts saying, “Source of registrant derived funds” to the next meeting.
Wendy: I think that’s an excellent idea and I would support putting a line item into the ALAC budget calling for that kind of reminder.
Cheryl: laughter 02
Annette: What was your idea? I didn’t hear it.
Cheryl: I just said, “Perhaps we should all wear t-shirts saying, ‘Source of registrant derived funds.’”
Annette: laughter
Cheryl: Maybe we can approach North American RALO and get some of the badges printed, if not t-shirts, that Evan got printed for our last meeting – that could be quite useful, but I’ll leave that to North America.
We now need to move to the very important aspects of the election of the vice chair of the committee, and I note that the only nominee who has accepted is Sébastien. And I will take this opportunity to formally welcome…
Annette: I nominated Fatimata today.
Cheryl: Well, the period had closed if you nominated her today. I didn’t see it and 01 after the call. pause Are you suggesting…
Annette: I’m sorry. I had a little problem to keep track as we are still in this “warning strike” stuff, so I have to apologize for the whole last weeks because work has been amazing time-consuming. So I’m sorry if I missed that.
Cheryl: Well, I must say that we all need to recognize that we are all just volunteers and that our full-time work is not dealing with the matters of At-Large and ALAC and we must forgive real world interfering with these activities from time to time. But unfortunately, the nomination for Fatimata was not in the appropriate time and that means that unless someone wishes to call for a recount – which is perfectly valid if they wish to do so – that the only viable applicant nominated and accepted for the position between now and our next annual general meeting is Sébastien Bachollet. pause To that end, I would like this meeting to note not only my thanks, and I think that of the rest of the executive, to Sébastien for accepting this re-nomination, but welcome him to what is not a free ride but a very active and demanding role of vice chair in the new ALAC, and would like us all to make a vote of confidence and congratulations in his position.
Sébastien: Thank you very much. I will try to do what I can with you 08.
Vanda?: Welcome, Sébastien.
Female: inaudible
Nick: Here’s to the… overtalking
Male: Work hard.
Cheryl: Okay. Congratulations, or should I say “commiserations” – sanity is obviously not one of the prerequisites for these roles, otherwise none of us would be here. laughter But no, we are looking forward to working with you, Sébastien, and we will organize an additional executive meeting to bring you up to speed on the executive activities. Normally we meet as an executive in the alternate fortnight to the monthly ALAC meetings. But congratulations, welcome on board, and I’m sure you will hit the ground running.
This brings us to item 4, the proposed modifications to the rules of the ALAC relating to interim officers and other elections. This is something that tidies only some of the errata and omissions of our rules of procedure. I would like to also before the next annual general meeting consider another round of review, but these modification were put in place to allow the issue of interim officer positions and elections being processed, and I trust that there are no overwhelming objections from the ALAC to any of these changes. If so, you can please make those points 56 very clear on both the ALAC internal list and the At-Large list.
inaudible, I will move that by exception and move immediately to the important matter in the final… Now I’m going to take the next four minutes because we started late, and it’s my privilege to do so, to look at the planning for the Paris meeting, and ask, as I did mention at the beginning of tonight’s meeting, that any of us in this meeting tonight who can stay on the call to continue discussion of some of the agenda items and specifics for the Paris meeting should do so. I’ll open that for a very short discussion for anyone who cannot stay on the call. pause
In the absence of that, I’d like to move to item 6 of the new business which is the ALAC statement on GNSO improvements and note that we have had a number of comments online on this. And I’m afraid, Nick, I’m going to have to leave the computer for a moment or two, so Vanda, if you could chair for the next perhaps three to five minutes until I return…
Vanda: Umm-hmm.
Cheryl: …and please ensure that we move through these items as promptly as we can. But if Nick would like to perhaps do an introduction, I’ll be back in just a moment.
Nick: Vanda?
Vanda: Yes. It is hard to 54 sometimes Cheryl.
Wendy?: Yeah.
Vanda: She’s leaving? Nick?
Nick: She will be back in a few minutes she said.
Vanda: Okay.
Nick: So she’s asking you to take over for agenda item 6.
Vanda: Let’s continue then. I’ll open my…
Male: 19
Vanda: Yeah? pause We go now to the travel policy?
Nick: We’re on the GNSO improvements statement.
Vanda: From before…
Nick: Agenda item 6.
Vanda: Well, we have a lot of, you know, complaints about our 49 version, but maybe someone wants to comment that? pause Anyone have 09 comments from Danny Younger on the inaudible and wants to make some comments? My personal comment is just that the same one that 31 ALAC as a part of this GNSO community or leave that for those other registrant community – that for me is not well-defined anyway. But there is someone who want to comment this?
Nick: Is it useful to state, for those who were not on the last call, some of the context for why very specific recommendations about what structure or voting system would be… was recommended, why that became less concrete? I mean, I know, Vanda, you were there for that.
Vanda: Yeah, yeah. Some other…
Nick: Because I see comments from people saying, “Why didn’t you ask for something specific?” and of course, there is a reasons for you all decided not to do that. So it might be helpful for people to understand that.
Vanda: 42
Cheryl: Hi, I’m back. And the answer to your question is yes, Nick, I think that would be very useful, but as no one can hear me unless I yell, if you could do a synopsis that would be very…
Nick: Well, you sound good now, Cheryl, to me.
Cheryl: laughter Well…
Nick: I can hear you now. laughter
Cheryl: Put it this way, Nick: I’m much relieved now I’m back.
Nick: Annette, can you hear alright as well now.
Annette: I can hear you perfectly well.
Vanda: Yeah, now you came in really strong. 11
Annette?: laughter
Nick: Just drink some coffee, Cheryl.
Cheryl: I think that would… overtalking
Vanda: Yeah, we need to have some, you know, coffee breaks during this. You know, people awake and, you know, come back with more interest in that.
Cheryl?: overtalking
Nick: Well, I’m happy to do the summary if you want, Cheryl, but it sounds like you can be heard, so you’d do a better job, I’m sure.
Cheryl: Yes, please. I may fade. You never know.
Vanda: Okay, Nick, you can do that.
Nick: Are you going to do it, Cheryl, or do you want me to?
Cheryl: Nick, go ahead.
Nick: Oh right. Okay. Well, obviously correct me if… for those who are direct participants, please correct me if I miss anything, but there was in the original version – for those of you who read the original version – there was a specific proposal and during the discussions about the text, Cheryl outlined that she was having discussions with the NCUC and with Philip Sheppard of the business constituency to try and come up with a position that all three bodies could ultimately support. And in fact I believe it’s close to the point – Cheryl, this would be a true statement, I hope – it’s close to the point where each of the three constituencies will bring a statement back for each of their communities to review in this regard.
Vanda?: Yeah.
Cheryl: Yes, that aim is by I think the 14th, Monday of this week… 55
Nick: So the reason why a specific plan was not put into this report, and instead Cheryl said, “I think we should have a call for an equitable participation by the end-user community,” is so that there would be no conflict between the statement to the board and the ultimate compromise… or, you know, I wouldn’t say “compromise position,” but consolidated position of the three different groups which the board received, so… because I have seen some questions on the list of people asking, “Well, are we asking for too little?” and I believe that the point was not to ask for too little but simply to have a statement which did not raise conflict between…
Vanda: The community.
Nick: …between the proposal for how… you know, for a concrete proposal from the three communities and the statement of At-Large for consultation window, because the consultation window closes on the 24th and it may take somewhat longer for the position of the three communities to be solidified.
Vanda: Do we have 20 the statement of the others?
Nick: Cheryl?
Vanda: Cheryl?
Cheryl: Uh, ye-… We do and we don’t. We have a draft which currently the NCUC wishes to have significant changes to, but which business, intellectual property, and whatever the other community is amongst those lot, and ALAC is less concerned over. This has a lot to do with changes to an absolute equity model compared to what exists now. That’s something that we all need to work on between now and the 14th. After that time, we will either be able to agree or agree where we disagree, and those models, or more likely perhaps model options, will go out to each of our communities for review. But at the moment, it is an absolute equitable triangular model – contracted, commercial, non-commercial, including internet users. And that is specifically not an ALAC involvement in GNSO but an At-Large involvement in GNSO, and I think we need to make that point very clear.
Vanda: Okay. pause We have some comments 12?
Cheryl: Ah, well, if this is nothing to comment on, I think it’s really a matter of being open and ready for a fairly rapid turnaround. We will only have a fairly short amount of time to consolidate a view between the interested parties and communities of interest, but we will need RALO and ALS input, so it needs to come to that being prepared and being ready to discuss model and potentials models for what we hope will an equitable outcome for At-Large input into a GNSO policy development, or at least a potential for it.
Vanda: Okay.
Cheryl: If we have a watching brief on that, I would suggest that 17 if we get our information back to Philip on the 14th, I would expect we should be seeing something out on our list somewhere around the 16th or 17th of this month.
Vanda: Umm-hmm. Okay.
Danny: Cheryl, we haven’t seen Philip’s proposal yet, have we?
Cheryl: No, we 36.
Danny: It hasn’t been posted?
Cheryl: No, you haven’t, and in fact at the moment, everything I’m getting is clearly marked “confidential and private,” because there’s a lot of to-ing and fro-ing. As you can imagine, this is a major paradigm shift… laughter
Danny: And…
Cheryl: …and there are some of us who are more open to change and some of us who are less open to change.
Danny: Alright, maybe I don’t understand. What is going to be the ALAC position on At-Large participation within the GNSO? How will it happen?
Cheryl: Essential part of the non-commercial interest group and, if we get our way, absolutely equitable with everybody else.
Danny: You’re talking about a constituency?
Cheryl: I’m talking about a triangular model.
Danny: Yeah, but, Cheryl, non-commercial side, we’ve got, what, the NCUC being the 43 constituency occupant of that portion of the model?
Cheryl: No.
Danny: Then what are we looking at?
Cheryl: You’ll find out when the model comes out on the… any time after the 14th. Again, I don’t take the term “confidential” lightly, but what I… overtalking
Danny: Okay. Well, I guess irrespective of what Philip wants to propose, what do the members of this committee think is the appropriate way forward?
Cheryl: 08
Danny: Do they support the notion of a constituency for the At-Large or are they looking at other mechanisms?
Cheryl: Well, the working group so far has supported an equity model on the draft of us being part of non-commercial. But that is not the only model under consideration. So At-Large would be… It’s really hard to answer without you looking at the diagram I guess is what I’m saying.
Danny: Okay. Is there some place where this correspondence is written down?
Cheryl: It will be posted once each of the parties has agreed or agreed what they can disagree on, and that will on or about the 15th or 16th of this month.
Danny: Okay. So there’s 11 no basis in supporting an ALAC statement prior to the release of public discussions, correct?
Cheryl: The only ALAC statement that can be supported or otherwise is the generic one which specifically avoids the organizational model for the reasons we’ve just discussed, so we don’t compromise our ability to negotiate. pause Okay? pause
Now I’m aware that we have run some 6 minutes over our time, starting 15 minutes late. I would suggest that we are perilously close to the end of at least our new business section but that there are a number of people who have other pressing engagements.
Matters in terms of the statement on new gTLDs, we have had some discussion on that. Nick, what’s our time course?
Nick: Sorry, I just have one question. On the statement for GNSO improvements, is there are objective to have that statement voted on or finalized, and if so, how, other than voting at this meeting, because the public comment window for that consultation closes on the 24th?
Cheryl: Correct. And there is no reason why that statement needs to wait for that length of time.
Nick: So are you 06 calling a vote or are you calling on no objections on forwarding the statement, or…?
Cheryl: I would like to allow the community to discuss the model, which will be on or about the 16th. I think the community would feel unsatisfied if they were asked to vote or endorse by their RALOs and their ALAC representatives something that they feel is a slightly weakened document simply because they don’t know about an associated document.
Nick: Okay.
Cheryl: I don’t think that’s fair or reasonable.
Nick: Okay, good. Now I know how to minute this discussion now.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: Thank you. laughter
Cheryl: No problem.
Nick: On the… The statement on new gTLDs is a pretty simple statement which hopefully you all will find favour with. Basically it’s asking that the work of the new gTLD working group be accelerated so that a definitive statement by the At-Large community can be developed in advance of the Paris meeting. And I can read the statement if you want, Cheryl. I mean, the…
Cheryl: Yes, that would be useful.
Nick: …the resolution.
Cheryl: Seeing as I’m obviously fading, that would be good.
Nick: “The At-Large Advisory Committee notes that:
“• The Board of Directors of ICANN should receive a statement from the At-Large community in relation to the GNSO’s work on developing a policy framework for the inclusion of new generic Top-Level-Domains in the root zone;
“• The community has yet to come to a single consensus view on the GNSO's proposals.
“Therefore…”
Annette: Excuse me. What was that?
Nick: Sorry?
Annette: I didn’t hear the last sentence.
Cheryl?: 03
Nick: “The community has yet to come to a single consensus view on the GNSO’s proposals.
“Therefore the ALAC resolves that:
“(1) The work of the New GTLD Policy Working Group should be encouraged and accelerated so as to conclude work on a statement that the community can review;
“(2) The drafting and review process should be completed in good time to allow a statement to be provided to the Board of Directors on this subject in advance of, or at, the Paris Meeting.
“To this end, the ALAC requests that the ALAC Executive Committee and the At-Large Staff should provide all necessary assistance to the work of the committee so that a review of the progress may be taken by the ALAC in its May 2008 meeting.”
Danny: Nick, who’s on the committee and what have they done?
Nick: The committee members are… Hold on. My mouse just went wild. The current committee members are Gurumurthy Kasinathan from Asia Pacific, Erick Ahon from LAC, Sebastian Riccardi from LAC, Veronica Cretu from EURALO, and Beau Brendler from North America.
Danny: Can you summarize their activities over the last quarter?
Nick: They looked… There was some brief discussion of the draft that you had prepared, and that’s it really. They…
Cheryl: Oh, I can. I can. It’s called “Not good enough.” laughter Summarize their activities in the last quarter – “Not good enough.” That’s this resolution.
Nick: I note that the group is still looking for an African representative.
Cheryl: And the lead, the ALAC lead – remember we said we would have an ALAC representative lead 22 – is that…
Nick: And that’s Beau.
Cheryl: Beau, right.
Danny: Okay. Do we know who from the ALAC will be in attendance at the April 10th to 11th new gTLD sessions in LA?
Cheryl: Alan will dial in for a couple of hours, I will dial in for as much time as possible, and I’m rather hoping that some of the other working group members will do the same. But in physical attendance, neither Beau or Bret can make it.
Danny: Alright. Has everybody seen the agenda posted on the GNSO list that gives the time schedule for each of the discussions? If not, perhaps Nick could send that out to the 24 committee members. It is an all-day affair.
Cheryl: Yes, I’m painfully aware it’s an all-day affair. laughter And I’m unsure exactly what couple of hours Alan will be able to dial in from JFK, but he will be dialing in for I think an hour or two hours, perhaps two and a half.
Danny: Thank him.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: You going to put that resolution to a vote, Cheryl?
Cheryl: I certainly am. pause 06 anybody here inaudible… I have no problem with this vote coming through now. Do I have anyone requesting that the votes goes to an online vote, or can we deal with this issue now before the close of this meeting? pause Alright. I will call therefore for any objections to the published resolution. pause I will call for any abstaining vote to the published resolution. pause And in the absence of that, I will declare the resolution carried.
We will need to postpone any other business, which I am greatly disappointed at because I personally would like to have seen and discussed the latest improvements to the new At-Large ICANN website. I would ask that we perhaps discuss a single-purpose meeting at a time that suits most of us online, even if it’s in a couple of groups, to review this new and very important change in how we communicate.
And I’m also most concerned that our time will not permit us to discuss the subjects to be raised at the ICANN board meeting in as much detail as I’m sure Wendy and most of us would like. In the absence of that, I would suggest that online discussion is essentially on that matter – any other business item too.
And I would also draw your attention to the ALAC’s commitment during April and when the due-by date comments are, and you might also note that periods of public comment and working group activities are now being noted on the Google Calendar on each of the wiki pages that have a Google Calendar, and if you subscribe to Google Calendars, that will coordinate with your own iCal systems in your own laptops and PC.
I’ll make a 30-second call for any other business or comment, and in the absence of any of those…
Izumi: Just one thing.
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Izumi: This is Izumi. We have been organizing the OneDay workshop and we didn’t have much time today to discuss about anything for Paris, but we would like to start the planning soon, mostly mainly by Veronica, myself, and Cheryl, but we may solicit your comments and inputs and stuff like that shortly. 13 anything to add?
Cheryl: Only, Izumi, that anyone who is involved in Paris planning needs to, if they can, stay on the call. Any other comments?
Danny: This is Danny.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Danny.
Danny: Yeah, Wendy asked a question, “What issues would we like to bring to the board at their upcoming session in Riga?” The one question that’s been on my mind is I’d like to have the board make a decision as to whether trademark rights exist at the top level of the domain name system.
Cheryl: 47 a very interesting one. Okay. “Trademark rights.” I’m just typing it into the teleconference Skype so it’s recorded for posterity’s sake, so to speak. inaudible question, uh…
Danny: And just so you know, Cheryl, the background on that is that we have prior ICANN counsel Louis Touton at one point write a letter to The Bank for International Settlements arguing that they weren’t in a position to object to the introduction of “.biz” even though it’s a protected acronym under the Paris Convention because ICANN did not recognize the validity of trademarks at the top level. What I’m seeing in the GNSO improvements policy recommendations however is a change in policy. So what I’d like to get out of all of this is a clarification – where does ICANN formally stand on the issue of trademarks at the top level?
Cheryl: Yes. Now Danny, is there a possibility of… I’m sure you will just give that very simple synopsis/briefing to the list.
Danny: Uh, Cheryl, that synopsis was sent through in the prior working group paperwork that the committee didn’t do anything with, so it’s still there.
Cheryl: That’s fine, but I’m interested in… 12
Danny: I’ll send you another copy.
Cheryl: Well, I want it in encapsulated in tonight’s minutes, is why I asked that.
Danny: Okay. Alright.
Cheryl: Okay? So it’s for inclusion in tonight’s minutes. Okay?
Danny: Will do.
Cheryl: So we make sure that it is followed through.
Okay. At that, I will close the normal business meeting for tonight. Thank you all very much for you patience and attention through what was a late start and 41, I’m afraid, late finish for many of us, and ask anyone who’s involved in Paris planning to stay on the call for, if nothing else, the discussion of when we’re going to have our next meeting. pause
Okay. So tha-… Sorry. coughs Thank you very much.
Izumi, are you able to stay on the call for a few minutes?
Izumi: Yeah.
Cheryl: Sébastien? Thank you. Veronica? pause
Veronica: I just had to unmute myself.
Cheryl: laughter I gather that’s a yes, you are able to stay on for a few minutes.
Veronica: Okay. So yes, I’m staying.
Izumi: Is Sébastien still there? I think he had to go.
Veronica: Sorry?
Izumi: Sébastien.
Nick: He had to go.
Izumi: He had to go, yes.
Cheryl: Sébastien has… Okay.
Nick: Just… 46
Veronica: And Annette is not here as well. I think she left.
Izumi: Yes.
Cheryl: Okay.
Izumi: She did.
Cheryl: Well, if…
Wolf: It’s Wolf speaking. Do you want me to stay in?
Cheryl: Certainly do, Wolf. Heavens above, yes.
Nick: You’re the host, man.
Cheryl: laughter
Wolf: laughter Okay.
Nick: Didn’t you know? Didn’t you get the memo? You’re hosting.
Wolf: I thought it was Sébastien who was hosting, but…
Cheryl: Well, look, we can have more than one host, I’m sure.
Wolf: Okay.
Cheryl: But believe me, we definitely want you on this call. I think what is important is that we perhaps set up a Doodle page to look at some diary dates where we can have a teleconference meeting complemented by online discussion, getting the agendas and the specific areas that we need to flesh out to make sure Paris planning – and there’s a lot now to happen – happens properly.
To brief some of you on things that are going on, ALAC has worked rather hard in the last couple of meetings to develop strong relationships that…
Nick Ashton-Hart left
Cheryl: …had been absent before. And that is that, as you will notice, we had our cocktail and get together in New Delhi with both the ccNSO and the GNSO. That was very much a getting-to-know-you exercise. We have approached and I have had positive responses to now formal meetings between ourselves and the GNSO Council, ourselves and the GAC, and we are expecting also ourselves and the ccNSO Council. Because the schedule is, as we’re all going to very painfully aware soon, very cramped…
Nick Ashton-Hart joined
Cheryl: …and we are 05… and we are – I knew you wouldn’t stay away for long, Nick – and we are one day short with the meeting finishing on the Thursday now instead of the usual Friday.
We will be… We have a couple of non-negotiable markers in our schedule now. The first one to note – and both of these will affect our normal OneDay planning, but I believe Izumi and Veronica will agree with me that it is both important and complimentary to our activities to have these events – and that is that our GNSO Council meeting will be a breakfast meeting on the Sunday and we will then spend one hour with them. So we will join each other for breakfast and then move into formal meeting mode. And again on the Sunday, the GAC has allowed us a slot in their schedule, which will mean we are meeting just before lunch and carrying from 12 o’clock till 1, with… and he suggested perhaps a 15-minute extension into lunch, and I suggested back to 30 that we would perhaps be able to find a way of sharing a few sandwiches with each other and perhaps discussing things a little longer than the 15 minutes.
These are, I think you’ll agree, landmark changes as to how ALAC and At-Large is being treated as a serious part of the ICANN policy development process, but what it does do for Paris is seriously impinge not only on our normal schedule but specifically on our OneDay schedule, particularly when we need to find time for summit meetings and many other things. I’d like to get your responses and reactions to that information.
Izumi: Cheryl, I think having these meetings on Sunday within OneDay framework is not a bad idea. In a way, we can sort of modify our design of the OneDay workshop. So far we have been focussing on more of the internal matters, 36 as we did last time that we discussed about the policies and stuff like that. So, you know, having meetings with GNSO or GAC on Sunday is… if we think ourselves that it’s part of the inaudible workshop, that’s fine with me.
Cheryl: Hmm. Well, I did think it fitted in with some of the outcomes anyway where we wanted to include these other constituencies, and I figured we’re meeting our objectives this way too. Veronica, your thoughts on… 05
Veronica: Oh, yes. Because I was listening to both of you, and also thinking back to the feedback that we received as a result of the OneDay in New Delhi and back to the LA meeting, I tend to agree with Izumi that actually this is a very good idea, to have the OneDay in Paris linked to – how would you call that? – something like, you know, communication and more communication with the different stakeholders at ICANN. Because during the previous two OneDay workshops, we did focus on internal matters, 50, and ALAC members who participated in the New Delhi meeting highlighted the fact that there is a need for more communication with other stakeholders. There was some suggestions about having a dinner prior to the OneDay, a dinner to which we might want to invite several representatives of different stakeholder groups at ICANN, different constituency groups, and we can follow up on that. And during the OneDay workshop, I don’t know, we should 28 we should have a very clear vision of what do we want as a result of that OneDay workshop in Paris, and at the moment I’m just… I have several ideas in my mind. We should have a separate meeting on that or at least just come up with a draft with one, two, three possible scenarios and try to decide what would be the best for, you know, taking into account the current development and comments and all these outcomes that we have at the moment. But definitely, those meetings with the GNSO and GAC would be fantastic.
Cheryl: Now if we’re having breakfast with GNSO, lunch with GAC, will I aim for dinner with the ccNSO and we’ve got it all covered?
Veronica: laughter
Wolf: laughter
Cheryl: laughter
Nick?: My goodness.
Cheryl: Well… 26
Veronica: Quite diverse and unique, but I’m pretty sure this will give a special flavour to the OneDay.
Nick: Umm…
Cheryl: laughter Umm… Yes, go ahead.
Nick: I was just going to ask a question. With respect to the other communities – you know, we had two cocktail receptions at the last meeting which were very successful, one with the GNSO led to the beginning of formal meetings with the GNSO, which we’re talking about – could we… would you like to have two more…
Izumi?: Yeah.
Nick: …at the next meeting? And Cheryl and I talked briefly about who that might be, and one suggestion was the board, another was SSAC since so many of SSAC’s… the issues that SSAC has raised are becoming topics of, you know, work in ICANN…
Cheryl: I’m very keen on SSAC. I’d like to perhaps not pursue the board so aggressively just yet if we’ve got a better offer from a – oh, gee, how can I say this politely when it’s being recorded? – more meaningful in terms of policy development constituency.
Nick: Well, you could have the ccNSO again, if you want. I mean… Or you… you know, if there’s somebody new entirely.
Cheryl: Well, we did meet with the registrars very, very informally last time, with Beau, and I wondered whether we might perhaps do SSAC in a slightly more formal – as in, you know, actually invite them laughter to a more meaningful discussion.
Nick: Sure.
Cheryl: I think building on that would be far more important than luring board members who, if we’re lucky, we’ll only get one or two anyway. What do the others think of that?
Izumi: What are…
Wolf: Sounds good to me.
Izumi: What are the specific topics you have in mind with SSAC?
Cheryl: There’s, you know… SSAC’s involved in the fast-track IDN and IDN PDP process. Obviously there’s the 02. There’s a few consumer interest issues. Each of these meetings won’t be repeating the same topics but rather so far I have suggested that the chairs of each constituency bring a set of suggestions and we create a joint agenda of mutual interest. So SSAC would also perhaps have a couple of items they wish to raise 31.
Nick: They’re also doing quite a lot of work on WHOIS at the moment, SSAC.
Cheryl: Yeah, actually WHOIS makes sense too, yes. Umm-hmm. As much as I hate the word “WHOIS” at the moment, I suppose we should look at it. laughter
Izumi: It’s worth a try.
Cheryl: Mmm. Okay. Well, how are we going to proceed with proper planning? We’ve got the placeholder page set. We’re already getting some people such as Hong – not that I’ve had time to look at it yet – putting in suggestions. I think we should call to the public list as well as the RALOs for specific input. What else do we need to do, other than a lot? And when can we meet next?
Wolf: I support your suggestion to make a Doodle enquiry as soon as possible and to find a date for a separate phone conference.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: You all did get your invitations to the meeting plan working group mailing list, I hope?
Wolf: Pardon?
Cheryl: Umm, no?
Wolf: No, not yet.
Cheryl: Maybe that would be good too.
Nick: Okay, I’ll fix that.
Cheryl: Okay. So we need the mailing list properly activated, the working group mailing list properly activated, and the Doodle page set up. I’d really like to see this meeting sometime perhaps late next week, somewhere around 17-18, if not, 21-22. Now I know some of those dates are not good for some of us, but if we put four or five dates down, surely we can find one or two dates that suit the majority.
The next most important issue is what time of day UTC suits most of us.
Veronica: Cheryl, excuse me. This is Veronica. So you’re suggesting to meet next week on the 17th or 18th, right?
Cheryl: Yeah, either 17-18 or 21-22. I think if we put those dates up on Doodle and see what suits various people’s diaries.
Veronica: Uh-huh, okay.
Cheryl: Unless none of those… Do any of those not suit you, Veronica?
Veronica: Because I can hear you very, very badly, could you repeat please the last…?
Cheryl: Do any of those dates not suit you?
Veronica: No, this is fine. I mean, April is fine with me and I agree to work on this planning in April because in May, I will be travelling to Africa, to Liberia, for conducting a training program, so I’ll be very busy in May. That’s why I would rather focus on this in April. And by then, I might be able to put a draft of the agenda for the OneDay workshop.
Cheryl: Excellent, okay.
Wolf: 17-18 is fine for Wolf as well.
Cheryl: 58
Veronica: Yeah, so 17-18 is good for me as well.
Izumi: It doesn’t work for me. laughter But you can go ahead.
Cheryl: Okay. What does work for you, Izumi?
Izumi: Depends on the time of day. If… This time is fine on Monday-Tuesday, 21st-22nd. If it’s earlier, it doesn’t work.
Wolf: As far as I’ve 26, today there is a Doodle enquiry for the next summit working group phone conference on 22nd.
Cheryl: Mmm.
Veronica: Okay.
Izumi: Or… Well, let’s do it on the Google Calendar and see.
Cheryl: Ah, yes. Doodle.
Veronica: Yes, that’s right.
Izumi: Doodle, yeah.
Cheryl: Okay. Alright. Well, we’ll do that Doodle-ing, laughter which always makes me feel like I should pick up a pen and get a piece of paper. We need to establish what time of day… You’re saying this time of day now or when we started our meeting, Izumi, suits you?
Izumi: Yeah, that’s what I mean – when we started, or slightly earlier, but not that much earlier.
Cheryl: So you’re talking around 1300-1400 UTC?
Izumi: Right.
Cheryl: Does that work for everybody else?
Wolf: Yes.
Veronica: Yes, that’s fine with me. I mean, if it’s earlier, then it’s even better.
Cheryl: How early can you go, Izumi?
Izumi: Umm… Well, again, depending on the date, but let’s see… 12 UTC still works.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, we’ll get a Doodle set up for 1200, 1300, and 1400 UTC on a variety of dates, we will get the list, the working group list properly inviting us all, and I would suggest we may even do our first meeting on the 17 and 18 and a follow up meeting on the 22nd if we need to. What do people think of that? We have a very large amount of work to get started.
Wolf: Yeah.
Cheryl: Okay. So let’s go first 17 or 18, then second 21 or 22. Okay?
Wolf: Okay.
Cheryl: Alright then. Well, thank you very much for all your efforts and all the efforts that are about to happen. laughter
Wolf: Okay, thank you.
Veronica: Thank you, Cheryl.
Izumi: 48 Cheryl.
Cheryl: Thank you, Wolf. Thank you, Izumi. Thank you, Veronica. Nick, are you still there?
Nick: I am indeed.
Cheryl: Okay.
Wolf: Okay.
Cheryl: No, no. Oh, sorry, good morning, good afternoon, bye.
Wolf: Okay, bye bye.
Veronica: Bye bye.
Cheryl: How did the… 06 How did the consumer dialogue go? Nick? pause Oh dear.
O: Cheryl, this is the operator. I think he hung up. Do you need him to dial back in?
Cheryl: Ah, no. I’ll just give up. Thank you, Operator.
O: laughter
Cheryl: I mean, it’s only five minutes to two in the morning for me. I don’t know what’s wrong with all that lot… overtalking They just don’t make them like they used to. laughter Good night, operator.
O: laughter Okay, good night.
Cheryl: I think we can stop recording the call now.
O: Okay. Bye-bye.
End of Audio