Page History

...

                                                This is something that I think for the last two if not three cycles ALAC has been very good at doing, and the regions certainly in the last cycle and this current cycle have attended to quite well.  But I see Olivier.  Go ahead, Olivier.

Wiki MarkupOlivier Crépin-Leblond:          Thank you, Cheryl.  I had actually my hand up to ask that somebody stops moving the document around and unlinks it, or un-synchronizes it so that we can actually move around the document.  But I see that this has been done so that was just the reason for me putting my hand up.  But now I can’t find what you’re talking about because of course we were \[dropped immediately\].\\          Thank you, Cheryl.  I had actually my hand up to ask that somebody stops moving the document around and unlinks it, or un-synchronizes it so that we can actually move around the document.  But I see that this has been done so that was just the reason for me putting my hand up.  But now I can’t find what you’re talking about because of course we were [dropped immediately].

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, so if you got left any other place – if you go to the top of Page 7 of the document…

...

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Thank you, Cheryl, it’s Olivier.  You may call it whatever you wish to call it.  You might want to call it “dog’s breakfast” – I’m fine with it as long as it does what it’s supposed to do.

Wiki MarkupCheryl Langdon-Orr:              \[laughing\]  Okay, the action item out of that is the ongoing maintenance of this implementable into the Rules of Procedure Review Team to ensure that the processes are hardwired into the DNA of ALAC and At-Large.  Does that put it right then, Olivier?  Okay, I see a big check from Olivier so that’s good.  Well, if we’ve satisfied the Chair hopefully we can move               [laughing]  Okay, the action item out of that is the ongoing maintenance of this implementable into the Rules of Procedure Review Team to ensure that the processes are hardwired into the DNA of ALAC and At-Large.  Does that put it right then, Olivier?  Okay, I see a big check from Olivier so that’s good.  Well, if we’ve satisfied the Chair hopefully we can move on.

                                                And the next one is an already completed one, which is acknowledge and encourage continuation of the better collaboration between ALAC and ICANN Finance staff in the 2012 budget.  I think we’ve already mentioned that in the report we will be noting the improved nature of the collaborative process between the Finance and the Planning and the Strategic Planning departments in ICANN, and all of the ICANN stakeholders but in particular changes in our own interactions there.

                                                Moving to the following item, which is conduct periodic SWOT -- strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat -- analyses of the At-Large operational and financial planning process in conjunction with the RALOs as Work Team C did.  Can I encourage us to treat this in exactly the same way as we have treated the other SWOT analysis recommendations -- in other words, wrap the financial planning process aspects into the same stages and \[portal\] as we have the operational and strategic planning ones?  Does anyone object to that?  I see a big check from Olivier and no X’s or objections from anyone, so let’s put that to “substantially completed” if not complete and treat it in exactly the same way; and I see many more checks coming in there as well.

                                                This moves us to the next item on our listing from Work Team C Recommendation 5 which is formalize the process by which the ALAC collects operational demands from the RALOs and includes them in its operational plans.  This is another one which we can say is completed in two ways: first of all, we can report on the modification of the standing subcommittee of the ALAC from being an ALAC-only Budget and Finance Subcommittee to one with integrated Regional At-Large Organizational input as a standing committee; and the current process by which at least this year and last year we’ve had additional requests coming in directly from the Regional At-Large Organizations. 

Olivier, am I correct in presuming this is another one of those with the same AI on hardwiring it into the standard operational procedure needs to be noted?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Yes, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here and I agree with you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, in which case we can treat that as we have the item #2 above it so it gets wrapped in with the same AI for the Rules of Procedure Review Team and is now marked as complete.

                                                Now, here we have an interesting one: clearly estimate and document time required for the ALAC’s operational processes – for example, responding to a call for public comments – and use these estimates to formalize its operational processes.  Currently listed as “in progress”…  I would have loved to have been able to say this was complete but with the change of, for example, the public comment reply and response to reply phase this is something that’s almost taken a potential step backward. 

So we need to deal with the nature of change ICANN-wide on this, but a number of the processes, the operational processes, are captured in the rules of procedure and are indeed either being alluded to or well-documented in various flow charts that were developed by Dave in the Work Teams that he was involved with.  So I’d suggest that we’ve got the estimates for a number of the operational procedures and processes there; what we don’t have is a place where all of those are captured in a single space.  And perhaps that’s something else you might want to have punted over to the Rules Of Procedure Review Team.  Olivier?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Yes, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here.  I’m not quite sure – did you just ask a question there?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              I did.

\[crosstalk\]\\

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              …response with public comments but we’ve actually done the estimates so that has now actually been completed.  We know how long it will take us – longer than we’ve got.  What we don’t have is that same collection point that I would have thought the Rules of Procedure Team should be making sure they’re collected and hardwired into the DNA.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Yes, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here.  Yes, two things: of course they have to be hardwired into the DNA.  At the same time, I’m a little concerned about hardwiring exact timings immediately because we are yet to find out if the new timings that the public comments process which now provides only 21 days for initial comments and then another 21 days for all the responses to comments, which is a little bizarre but anyway…  These are currently being tested out so there is an ongoing process here and I’m not sure whether the current 21 plus 21 days will be kept by the public comments process or if that will change.  So if we decide to hardwire specific timings in our DNA we might have to amend this hardwiring again in the near future, possibly before this process is over.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Absolutely, and that’s why I did say at the beginning that where I would have normally said this should be in “completed” I think we should be saying it’s substantially completed but “in progress depending on current changes in ICANN processes.  But yes, it will always have to be responsive to changes in how ICANN does things, but that should only change the timing – not the process.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Correct, Cheryl, although the process that we have built so far, thanks to Dev’s great diagrams – the process looks at a single cycle.  It doesn’t look at this double cycle.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Mm-hmm.  But I think what we can then do is largely for our formal record of operational procedure, which is currently in a pre-reply/respond public comment world as captured in the flowcharts from Work Team C and as accepted as a good working model for operational activities by ALAC and At-Large, and then we say “However, with the current changes on public comments this needs to be reviewed.”  I don’t want to put pressure on changing that flowchart before our Costa Rica reporting because that would be impractical but what we can say is “Here as you know is what was pre-reply/respond cycle and we are now about to modify it to match when ICANN has responded to…”  I thought you were also writing to Filiz and seeing if we can tweak that anyway.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Yes, that’s correct, Cheryl.  I am planning to write to Filiz sometime this week, and it’s Olivier for the transcript.  I’m planning to write sometime this week because of the fact that 21 days is just very, very short for us – in fact, too short for us to be able to conduct proper feedback and a proper process.  So we will be sticking to our 30 days or 31 days so far, and I’m writing her to find out which way we can go forward and how to formalize this one way or another.  Thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              And just on that – Cheryl for the transcript record – I think it’s important for the community to note and for us recognize is that it may be appropriate, Olivier, for you to remind Filiz and the rest of the senior staff involved in this that this is an Affirmation of Commitments Review Team implementation ICANN-wide issue and at no point did we put small numbers of days associated with it.  The Affirmation of Commitments Review Team, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team actually made very clear what it wanted was a two-step process; not that that two-step process should be put into the existing timeline, so there is no impediment on it being something that is workable for the community because of what the Review Team put in their recommendation.  Go ahead, Olivier.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Thank you, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here.  The process actually currently specifies a minimum period of 21 days but it seems from looking at the various calls for comments that have been published ever since the beginning of the year that at every occasion staff uses that minimum timing.  So I can understand the eagerness to have those public comment periods filed through before the deadline of Costa Rica but at the same time I do find it disturbing to see that the minimum period is used at every opportunity possible – and this is what I shall convey to Filiz.

                                                That said, when the last testing was done about the public comments, and Filiz had put together a little working group for these things, we had several people from At-Large that were drafted in her Review Team.  And I’m just saying this from memory, I will try to find through my records who were those people and find out from them what was the reason for the 21 days to be chosen as such and perhaps they would have had some insights that they can share with us before I write to Filiz.  Thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Thank you.  Rudi was on that team; I know I was certainly on that team; Dev was on that team and Eduardo was on that team and all active, and I’m not sure – I think Tijani may or may not have been.  But I don’t think the team ever suggested 21 days.  Olivier, would you cede to Tijani since you’ve had the microphone an amount of time?  Go ahead, Tijani, then back over to you, Olivier.

                                                Moving to the following item, which is conduct periodic SWOT – strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat – analyses of the At-Large operational and financial planning process in conjunction with the RALOs as Work Team C did.  Can I encourage us to treat this in exactly the same way as we have treated the other SWOT analysis recommendations – in other words, wrap the financial planning process aspects into the same stages and [portal] as we have the operational and strategic planning ones?  Does anyone object to that?  I see a big check from Olivier and no X’s or objections from anyone, so let’s put that to “substantially completed” if not complete and treat it in exactly the same way; and I see many more checks coming in there as well.

                                                This moves us to the next item on our listing from Work Team C Recommendation 5 which is formalize the process by which the ALAC collects operational demands from the RALOs and includes them in its operational plans.  This is another one which we can say is completed in two ways: first of all, we can report on the modification of the standing subcommittee of the ALAC from being an ALAC-only Budget and Finance Subcommittee to one with integrated Regional At-Large Organizational input as a standing committee; and the current process by which at least this year and last year we’ve had additional requests coming in directly from the Regional At-Large Organizations. 

Olivier, am I correct in presuming this is another one of those with the same AI on hardwiring it into the standard operational procedure needs to be noted?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Yes, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here and I agree with you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, in which case we can treat that as we have the item #2 above it so it gets wrapped in with the same AI for the Rules of Procedure Review Team and is now marked as complete.

                                                Now, here we have an interesting one: clearly estimate and document time required for the ALAC’s operational processes – for example, responding to a call for public comments – and use these estimates to formalize its operational processes.  Currently listed as “in progress”…  I would have loved to have been able to say this was complete but with the change of, for example, the public comment reply and response to reply phase this is something that’s almost taken a potential step backward. 

So we need to deal with the nature of change ICANN-wide on this, but a number of the processes, the operational processes, are captured in the rules of procedure and are indeed either being alluded to or well-documented in various flow charts that were developed by Dave in the Work Teams that he was involved with.  So I’d suggest that we’ve got the estimates for a number of the operational procedures and processes there; what we don’t have is a place where all of those are captured in a single space.  And perhaps that’s something else you might want to have punted over to the Rules Of Procedure Review Team.  Olivier?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Yes, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here.  I’m not quite sure – did you just ask a question there?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              I did.

[crosstalk]

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              …response with public comments but we’ve actually done the estimates so that has now actually been completed.  We know how long it will take us – longer than we’ve got.  What we don’t have is that same collection point that I would have thought the Rules of Procedure Team should be making sure they’re collected and hardwired into the DNA.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Yes, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here.  Yes, two things: of course they have to be hardwired into the DNA.  At the same time, I’m a little concerned about hardwiring exact timings immediately because we are yet to find out if the new timings that the public comments process which now provides only 21 days for initial comments and then another 21 days for all the responses to comments, which is a little bizarre but anyway…  These are currently being tested out so there is an ongoing process here and I’m not sure whether the current 21 plus 21 days will be kept by the public comments process or if that will change.  So if we decide to hardwire specific timings in our DNA we might have to amend this hardwiring again in the near future, possibly before this process is over.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Absolutely, and that’s why I did say at the beginning that where I would have normally said this should be in “completed” I think we should be saying it’s substantially completed but “in progress depending on current changes in ICANN processes.  But yes, it will always have to be responsive to changes in how ICANN does things, but that should only change the timing – not the process.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Correct, Cheryl, although the process that we have built so far, thanks to Dev’s great diagrams – the process looks at a single cycle.  It doesn’t look at this double cycle.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Mm-hmm.  But I think what we can then do is largely for our formal record of operational procedure, which is currently in a pre-reply/respond public comment world as captured in the flowcharts from Work Team C and as accepted as a good working model for operational activities by ALAC and At-Large, and then we say “However, with the current changes on public comments this needs to be reviewed.”  I don’t want to put pressure on changing that flowchart before our Costa Rica reporting because that would be impractical but what we can say is “Here as you know is what was pre-reply/respond cycle and we are now about to modify it to match when ICANN has responded to…”  I thought you were also writing to Filiz and seeing if we can tweak that anyway.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Yes, that’s correct, Cheryl.  I am planning to write to Filiz sometime this week, and it’s Olivier for the transcript.  I’m planning to write sometime this week because of the fact that 21 days is just very, very short for us – in fact, too short for us to be able to conduct proper feedback and a proper process.  So we will be sticking to our 30 days or 31 days so far, and I’m writing her to find out which way we can go forward and how to formalize this one way or another.  Thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              And just on that – Cheryl for the transcript record – I think it’s important for the community to note and for us recognize is that it may be appropriate, Olivier, for you to remind Filiz and the rest of the senior staff involved in this that this is an Affirmation of Commitments Review Team implementation ICANN-wide issue and at no point did we put small numbers of days associated with it.  The Affirmation of Commitments Review Team, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team actually made very clear what it wanted was a two-step process; not that that two-step process should be put into the existing timeline, so there is no impediment on it being something that is workable for the community because of what the Review Team put in their recommendation.  Go ahead, Olivier.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Thank you, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here.  The process actually currently specifies a minimum period of 21 days but it seems from looking at the various calls for comments that have been published ever since the beginning of the year that at every occasion staff uses that minimum timing.  So I can understand the eagerness to have those public comment periods filed through before the deadline of Costa Rica but at the same time I do find it disturbing to see that the minimum period is used at every opportunity possible – and this is what I shall convey to Filiz.

                                                That said, when the last testing was done about the public comments, and Filiz had put together a little working group for these things, we had several people from At-Large that were drafted in her Review Team.  And I’m just saying this from memory, I will try to find through my records who were those people and find out from them what was the reason for the 21 days to be chosen as such and perhaps they would have had some insights that they can share with us before I write to Filiz.  Thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Thank you.  Rudi was on that team; I know I was certainly on that team; Dev was on that team and Eduardo was on that team and all active, and I’m not sure – I think Tijani may or may not have been.  But I don’t think the team ever suggested 21 days.  Olivier, would you cede to Tijani since you’ve had the microphone an amount of time?  Go ahead, Tijani, then back over to you, Olivier.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                    Yes, Olivier, the 21 days is a minimum.  This is not a close time.  I think it is perhaps a close time for the minimum because for example, for the New gTLD Support Program we sent the final results to the comment and then we wanted to shorten this period.  So the minimum of 21 days is okay, but the Tijani Ben Jemaa:                    Yes, Olivier, the 21 days is a minimum.  This is not a close time.  I think it is perhaps a close time for the minimum because for example, for the New gTLD Support Program we sent the final results to the comment and then we wanted to shorten this period.  So the minimum of 21 days is okay, but the problem is that the staff is using always the minimum period.  That’s the problem.

...

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Thank you, Cheryl.  In Australian it might be a “pathway”; in English it is a roadmap.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Roadmap, sorry dear – I knew it had something to do with tracking.  [laughing] Wiki MarkupCheryl Langdon-Orr:              Roadmap, sorry dear -- I knew it had something to do with tracking.  \[laughing\]\\

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          But in Australia as we all know you don’t have roads, you have paths.  So that’s the equivalent.
unmigrated-wiki-markup

\[laughter\]\\

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Ahh, very funny.  Go ahead, Tijani.

Wiki MarkupTijani Ben Jemaa:                    Yes, Cheryl, I don’t think it is completed because the requests are done but we still don’t have it approved.  So we continue \[working\].  We continue because we don’t have the final approval.\\Jemaa:                    Yes, Cheryl, I don’t think it is completed because the requests are done but we still don’t have it approved.  So we continue [working].  We continue because we don’t have the final approval.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              I hear what you’re saying, Tijani – we are continuing.  We have agreed in principle and in action to continue requesting the GAs.  I think if we refer to the roadmap document then the implementation from our side is in fact complete, remembering we have to accomplish all our implementables by June, pending a standing action item to continue to request until we get it.

...

I see no objections in which case we can give them both the same status and the same action item associated with them.  Good, and I’m looking rather excited about finishing Recommendation 5 off here with the final matter, which is “Continue to assist the RALOs in completing the annual ICANN requests for funding as needed in terms of writing, packaging and advocacy.” 

Wiki MarkupAgain, this is another one of those that I think we can probably weave it back up with the matter raised higher in the table and blend that one with the operationalizing of how we get the \ [exception\] or additional funding requests back from the RALOs; and note that with the standing Budget and Finance Subcommittee’s changes that the writing, packaging, and advocacy role is in fact now in a standing subcommittee of the ALAC and of all of the regions.    In which case we can call that one completed.

We then need to note for the report the items in Recommendation 5 not addressed, which is the Annual Support Agreement.  That was one that we recognized early on in 2010 that was no longer relevant due to the 2009-2010 Operational Plan being developed in a whole new way from the ones that were done while the ALAC was under review, which means that we have completed Recommendation 5 – yahoo!  Round of applause for you all.

And now Recommendation 6, which I also think we can probably get through relatively easily because a number of these things have exactly the same rider that we’ve seen with the changes of how strategic, financial, budget and operational planning is done. 

Wiki MarkupSo let’s now jump straight into Recommendation 6.    Now I see, Beau, on this item: “Is there anything that can be done to streamline the process of filling out the forms?    It’s a very labor intensive process and no sooner have you learned how to do it when \ [quickly\] the forms change.”  ”  Okay, well we know that the new CFO and COO are very keen to have the Finance Team make it easier for us but I suppose we can certainly…  It’s not actually an implementable from our review but we should perhaps make that a matter to be taken up by the Budget and Finance Subcommittee.  Olivier, would you be happy for that as a side issue -- an important issue, but a side issue for that to be an AI to be sent across for the BFS to attend to?  Just a green tick?  Okay, Beau, it looks like punting that across to the Subcommittee is the way to deal with your quite valid concern there.\\can certainly…  It’s not actually an implementable from our review but we should perhaps make that a matter to be taken up by the Budget and Finance Subcommittee.  Olivier, would you be happy for that as a side issue – an important issue, but a side issue for that to be an AI to be sent across for the BFS to attend to?  Just a green tick?  Okay, Beau, it looks like punting that across to the Subcommittee is the way to deal with your quite valid concern there.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          And Cheryl, as you were speaking I actually had also typed – and it’s Olivier here.  I had typed “I agree with Beau” and suggested that this could be something which the Budget and Finance Subcommittee could work on.
unmigrated-wiki-markup

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Terrific, excellent.  Alright, so with the rider that an awful lot has changed since these recommendations were done let’s move into Recommendation 6, the first one of which from Work Team C: “Work Team C proposes that the ALAC 1) encourage the same high level of input into ICANN’s annual financial planning from the ALSes and RALOs as was demonstrated in the planning in FY12.”  We are now into the next cycle and I think we haven’t seen a drop of the input.  In fact, if anything I think we have seen a more discussive and interactive process.  Do we think we can mark this as completed but obviously needs to be reactive to any future changes?  How do you want to do this?  What’s your view, Olivier, since I can pick on you while you’ve \[stepped out\]?  Go ahead, Tijani.  We’ll give Olivier a break.  Go ahead, Tijani.\\              Terrific, excellent.  Alright, so with the rider that an awful lot has changed since these recommendations were done let’s move into Recommendation 6, the first one of which from Work Team C: “Work Team C proposes that the ALAC 1) encourage the same high level of input into ICANN’s annual financial planning from the ALSes and RALOs as was demonstrated in the planning in FY12.”  We are now into the next cycle and I think we haven’t seen a drop of the input.  In fact, if anything I think we have seen a more discussive and interactive process.  Do we think we can mark this as completed but obviously needs to be reactive to any future changes?  How do you want to do this?  What’s your view, Olivier, since I can pick on you while you’ve [stepped out]?  Go ahead, Tijani.  We’ll give Olivier a break.  Go ahead, Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                    Thank you.  I think we can mark it as completed, but as the other items we should continue and try to be very firm that our effort towards this planning system is only at the (inaudible) level.

...

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Okay, Olivier here for the transcript, in which case perhaps should we set those AIs and then we can mark these as being complete?
unmigrated-wiki-markup

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Works for me, and if anyone objects I think that’s how we go forward.  I think we can make it so then, Olivier, well done.  I see Dev and a few other ticks coming up.  \[Something else\], Olivier?\\              Works for me, and if anyone objects I think that’s how we go forward.  I think we can make it so then, Olivier, well done.  I see Dev and a few other ticks coming up.  [Something else], Olivier?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Yes, Cheryl, it’s still Olivier.  You will have to detail that AI for Matt to record it please.

...

Is there any discussion on that?  Go ahead, Tijani.
unmigrated-wiki-markup

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                    The items list continues to (inaudible), so I cannot say it is completed especially after the \[Al’Madie\] Hotel.\\Jemaa:                    The items list continues to (inaudible), so I cannot say it is completed especially after the [Al’Madie] Hotel.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Well, excepting the action item says to “Continue to monitor,” and that’s exactly what we’re doing – continuing to monitor.

...

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:          Thank you, Cheryl, it’s Olivier.  It’s just the monitoring that we’re looking at, so obviously yes, the staff would be making the choice.  The monitoring is what we need to be doing ourselves.  I don’t see how the ALAC, without having any localized information about the accommodation itself would be able to actually see if Hotel A is of an equal or better standard than Hotel B short of going on specific services that you find on the internet that will provide such information. 

Wiki MarkupBut I felt that by suggesting that the RALO be involved, to actually continue to have much trust in our local hosts more than having trust in formalized processes that have been used so far judging from the saga that took place at the \ [Al’Madie\].    It was just a measure…  My mentioning of the RALO and the ALSes was a measure of trust of our own independent sources of information rather than resorting to second\- or third-hand information.  Thank you.\\a measure…  My mentioning of the RALO and the ALSes was a measure of trust of our own independent sources of information rather than resorting to second- or third-hand information.  Thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Okay, Cheryl for the transcript record.  Here’s a way forward then, gentlemen: if we leave it as simply an Executive Committee function and we recognize that the Executive Committee of the ALAC is regionally balanced, I think that solves the problem because then it becomes a function of whatever ExCom member is from that region to liaise with local information, local community, local ALSes, whatever.  But it leaves it in the ExCom.

                                                Titi, I understand that there was more than an adequate amount of double-X chromosome owning the importance, intelligence and space in this team, but there were only two gentlemen who were arguing over this point.  \[laughter\]  Does that solve your issue, Tijani and Olivier?\\

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                    Yes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Right.  So the AI there is it becomes an ExCom function and the AI on the Operational Procedures Review Team is to make sure it’s enshrined in ExCom responsibilities.  And I am going to ask you to bear with me for two minutes longer so we can finish off Recommendation 6 with the final matter, which is to “Continue to assist the RALOs in completing their annual ICANN…”  Sorry, is that one a repeat or is it just me?

                                                Recommendation 5.6 is a repeat.  It does not actually belong there. The reason that it is duplicated is that it also had an aspect of 6.1 which was the funding model, so we’ve actually already dealt with that in which case I am delighted to tell you that all of the recommendations from Work Team C have now been dealt with by the Implementation Review Team.

                                                And I am more than happy to bring this call to a close and inform you all that next week’s thrill-packed and exciting adventure will begin with the work of Work Team B and Recommendation 7, that the ALAC should be allowed to make its own choices of communication and other collaborative tools to best meet its needs.

                                                Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you, staff, not that you’re not ladies and gentlemen because indeed you are.  If there is any additional information that any of the staff need, action items, please just give me a ping and I will do my best to wrack through my memory banks and make sure you’ve got them \[best\] written down.  Thank you one and all, bye for now.\\ \\

                                                Titi, I understand that there was more than an adequate amount of double-X chromosome owning the importance, intelligence and space in this team, but there were only two gentlemen who were arguing over this point.  [laughter]  Does that solve your issue, Tijani and Olivier?

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                    Yes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:              Right.  So the AI there is it becomes an ExCom function and the AI on the Operational Procedures Review Team is to make sure it’s enshrined in ExCom responsibilities.  And I am going to ask you to bear with me for two minutes longer so we can finish off Recommendation 6 with the final matter, which is to “Continue to assist the RALOs in completing their annual ICANN…”  Sorry, is that one a repeat or is it just me?

                                                Recommendation 5.6 is a repeat.  It does not actually belong there. The reason that it is duplicated is that it also had an aspect of 6.1 which was the funding model, so we’ve actually already dealt with that in which case I am delighted to tell you that all of the recommendations from Work Team C have now been dealt with by the Implementation Review Team.

                                                And I am more than happy to bring this call to a close and inform you all that next week’s thrill-packed and exciting adventure will begin with the work of Work Team B and Recommendation 7, that the ALAC should be allowed to make its own choices of communication and other collaborative tools to best meet its needs.

                                                Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you, staff, not that you’re not ladies and gentlemen because indeed you are.  If there is any additional information that any of the staff need, action items, please just give me a ping and I will do my best to wrack through my memory banks and make sure you’ve got them [best] written down.  Thank you one and all, bye for now.

[End of Transcript] Wiki Markup\[End of Transcript\]\\