Page History

ALAC Meeting
(Held June 10, 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.
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.
-ation If we believe that all we missed was the beginning of a word because the audio cuts out, we will just put the end of the word that we can hear. If we are very sure from context what the whole word is, we'll just put the whole word, to make it easier for the reader. However, if the word could be a variety of different things, then we will show only the part of the word we could hear or thought we heard.

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

Attendance
Adigo Operator, French Interpreter, Spanish Interpreter
ICANN Staff Nick Ashton-Hart
Matthias Langenegger
Asia-Pacific Cheryl Langston-Orr
Izumi Aizu
Hong Xue
Africa Mohammed El Bashir
North America
Latin America Vanda Scartezini
Jose Salguiero

Apologies
Beau Brendler, Fatimata Seye Sylla, Wendy Seltzer, Robert Guerra, Alan Greenberg

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

O: Adigo operator.
Adigo operator joined
Spanish Interpreter: Spanish Interpreter on English.
Spanish Interpreter on English joined
Hong: Hong Xue.
Hong Xue joined
Hong: Hello? Hello? Anybody there?
O: Yes, they’re dialling in, Hong. This is the operator.
Hong: Oh.
Beau: Beau Brendler.
Beau Brendler joined
Hong: Hello.
Beau: Hello.
Hong: Hello, this is Hong.
Beau: Hi.
Hong: Hi, hello. Good evening.
French Interpreter: French Interpreter on English.
French Interpreter on English joined
Hong: Oh, this system is quite interesting. I dialled in just now.
Cheryl: Cheryl.
Cheryl Langston-Orr joined
Hong: Oh, Cheryl. You’re finally here.
Cheryl: That’s all right. I’ve been disconnected several times. I kept dialling in before everyone else had dialled back out.
Hong: Me too.
O: Yeah, but Cheryl... Cheryl, this is the operator. What happens when you have a back to back call like that... People are hanging up as people are dialling in, and it’s keeping that first call open. That’s why we had to keep taking people out, so that we could make sure your call was a new recording.
Cheryl: That’s fine, Tanya, as long as we’re on a clear call now.
O: Yeah, everyone’s on the same call now, new recording, and we’re doing the dial-out.
Cheryl: Excellent. Thank you.
O: Okay, you’re welcome.
Cheryl: I seem to have two chats going at the moment.
Nick: Nick.
Nick Ashton-Hart joined
Beau: Is there anything going on on this call?
Nick: Hello. Hello?
Beau: Yes.
Nick: Hey.
Cheryl: Um, we’re just waiting for dial-outs at the moment. I think we have six or seven non-staff people. I’ve noted that Jacqueline and Vanda are still waiting for dial-outs.
Nick: Well, that would be the wrong meeting.
Cheryl: I really only need one June ALAC meeting chat. I really no longer care which one it is, as long as there’s just one.
Let’s see how many people we’ve got here at the moment? I heard Beau, didn’t I?
Hong: Couldn’t we have a roll call?
Cheryl: Yes, Hong. I just said, “I heard Beau,” and I’ve got you and who else?
Hong: Oh – there should be a lot of people here.
Cheryl: When I joined, there were seven. Now, assuming that Adigo is one, Frederick and Matthias and Nick are three.
Nick: We are here.
Cheryl: Which means I should have 5, 6, 7. No, we’ve only got Beau, myself, and you here at the moment, Hong.
Hong: So that’s five.
Izumi: Izumi.
Izumi Aizu joined
Cheryl: Izumi?
Izumi: Hi.
Cheryl: Hi Izumi.
Izumi: Hi, good evening.
Cheryl: Good evening.
Jacqueline: Jacqueline Morris.
Jacqueline Morris joined
Cheryl: Hi Jacqueline.
Jacqueline: Hi, hi.
Cheryl: You have a particularly noisy line, for some reason.
Okay. I gather they’re still dialling out to Vanda. And is Jose dialling back in? Matthias, do we know if Jose is dialling back in?
Vanda: Vanda.
Vanda Scartazini joined
Cheryl: Ah, okay. Hi Vanda. Hi Vanda.
Vanda: Hi. Who else is there?
Cheryl: At the moment, I have myself, Beau, Izumi and yourself. We have Jacqueline, and we have Hong.
Vanda: And we have Hong.
Nick: And there are a few others, because I show 11 people connected.
Cheryl: Okay, well.
Nick: But I don’t have names for everybody yet.
Cheryl: Some of them need to speak up then.
Okay, can I ask for a roll call, then?
Jacqueline: Jacqueline Morris is here.
Cheryl: Thank you Jacqueline.
Hong: Hong Xue is here.
Cheryl: Thank you, Hong.
Jacqueline: That’s it?
Cheryl: I don’t believe that’s it, because I heard both Izumi and Vanda arrive, and I doubt that they’ve left.
Nick: No, I show Vanda as connected.
Vanda: Yeah, I’m here.
Cheryl: Thank you, Vanda.
Nick: And I just heard her say, “I’m here,” but it’s very faint.
Cheryl: Nick, can you get Adigo to give you who is connected, please?
Nick: 18 I am looking, but they have unnamed participants, so it’s as if people connected up but did not record their names. Only a few people could be identified.
Cheryl: Okay. I see Wendy in Adigo. Is Wendy on the call? Sorry, I see Wendy in...
Nick: It looks like she’s got the not available flag up.
Cheryl: I just saw her in Adobe.
Nick: Oh, yes she is.
Beau: Apologies. I have to jump off and go to work.
Cheryl: Sorry, Beau. We can’t start with only five of us here, so thank you very much.
Beau: Yup.
Beau Brendler left
Hong: Oh, who was that?
Cheryl: That was Beau. Okay, I see it’s now at quarter past our meeting time, but we did have a delay with the back to back meeting for some five minutes or so. I will let this call run a further five minutes, and if we are not quorate then, we will be cancelling. Unless the unnamed people on the call can identify themselves.
Tanya: Cheryl, this is Tanya. We just got Nguyen Thu Hue on the line. She’ll be coming in. I was asked to call Mohammed back, so I’m going to call him back next. Ron Sherwood’s line, both lines were busy. And we’re going to get Jose in as well.
Cheryl: Okay, so I’m expecting Jose as well. Okay. That’s five. That still doesn’t make it quorate.
Nick: No apologies that I’m aware of, have been posted.
Cheryl: Well, we’ll now note Beau as an apology.
Nick: Yes 10
Nguyen: Nguyen Thu Hue from Vietnam.
Cheryl: Hello Hue.
Hong: Hi Hue.
Nguyen: Hello.
Cheryl: Hello, welcome. At the moment we’re just waiting for Jose to be dialled in, and then all we can do is have a...
Jose joined
Cheryl: Hello, who was that?
Hue: 44 Hello?
Cheryl: Hello, who is that?
Hue: Yes, this... from Vietnam.
Cheryl: Yes, Hue, we know you’re there. Someone else just joined.
Hue: Cheryl? Okay.
Jose: Okay, Jose Salguiero from Ecuador is right here.
Cheryl: Ah, excellent. Welcome, Jose. Welcome back. Can someone join Hue into the chat, please? Although I know she’s not showing up on Skype at the moment. Okay, how many people is it showing on the chat, and how many people do we have here?
Mohammed: Mohammed.
Mohammed joined
Nick: I show counts under his breath 12 people 04
Mohammed: Hello.
Nick: 12 connections, of which 1, 2, 3... 5 are unnamed, but 3 are staff. Fatimata is in the president of her country’s office, so I think that’s an apology.
Cheryl: Certainly. Okay, we’ve got Fatimata as an apology, Beau as an apology, though he was here for the first 15 minutes of the call.
Nick: I see Matthias noting an apology from Wendy.
Cheryl: Okay, so Wendy is apologizing, okay. Did we expect to have apologies from Alan?
Nick: I didn’t receive any.
Cheryl: We did receive apologies... we received apologies from Robert.
Nick: I don’t know of any apologies.
Cheryl: Well, no, I’m saying we received apologies from Robert. I saw that today some time. And I was aware that Alan was travelling at the moment. Is that not still the case? If we put Alan down as a potential apology, because I am aware that he was travelling right up until going to Paris, as far as I know.
So that means that we will have to have a short and informal meeting, because we have present myself, Izumi, Vanda, Hue, Jose. As a quorum, that doesn’t make 8. We also have Jacqueline and Hong.
Mohammed: It is Mohammed here. I have logged in a few minutes ago.
Nick: That’s Mohammed.
Cheryl: Ah.
Mohammed: Mohammed here.
Cheryl: Thank you Mohammed. Right, seven. Perilously close to a quorum, but not quite. So let’s begin, and let’s have an unfortunately informal meeting, but that simply means we can’t do resolutions.
The first matter for this evening will be... or this morning, wherever you are, will be the review of the minutes of last meeting. Does anyone wish to raise any points or make any edits to that?
Is anyone else hearing as much static on the line as I am?
Several: Yes.
Cheryl: Because I can’t tell if somebody is trying to un-mute themselves. Adigo, can we do anything about that?
O: We’ll do a check for you, Cheryl.
Cheryl: Thank you. It’s really quite loud 47 noise that’s coming through.
O: Okay, we’ll find out which line it is.
Cheryl: Thank you very much.
O: You’re welcome.
Cheryl: Extremely distracting.
Okay, are there any... any changes? If not, I’m assuming that we can move that the adoption of the meeting summary has gone ahead, and we move on to the action items number four in the agenda. The May action items are fairly short.
The matter regarding the ombudsman has occurred, and in fact he is in a holding pattern at the moment. He is not engaged on either side. And we can see what will happen in Paris or in the near future. The Board liaison... I haven’t seen a report, but we’ve got an apology tonight from Wendy, so she’s probably very busy in preparation for Paris, but we can make that an on-going matter, about the public comment period. But we should note it is a topic for an agenda discussion with several of the other constituencies in our Paris meeting.
The France at-large vote has been passed on to the applicants. I gather, Nick, that a link to the most current ALAC rules and procedure did go out as well? I’ll take silence as a yes. And that you redistributed the...
Nick: Sorry. Muted yes.
Cheryl: Thank you. Well, now stay on, because the next one is your redistribution of the final document on the ALS application mechanisms. That’s also been distributed, I assume? Again, I’ll assume that’s a yes unless you tell me otherwise, and you can ping us on the chat if you need to change.
The staff will ensure the discussions of ALAC statements 23 in forthcoming agendas. I’m actually not terribly clear what the hell that means, so I’ll ask for clarification there. And the flowchart cuts out creation statement seems to be a subset of the one before. I assume that was a pending document, or is that something that was actually superseded by cuts out produced in the last month? Nick?
Nick: I’m producing a flow chart diagram on how ALAC statements were produced the last time. It’s not finished now. It’s not finished for this meeting, but it will be finished for the discussion on that subject at the Paris meeting, and distributed in advance.
Cheryl: Okay, so that’s pending. The issue of list moderation 16 of polling, I suspect that I’d get the same answer on that.
Nick: Well, I’m... actually, I have a question. I’m not quite sure what is meant to be done on this, really.
Cheryl: Well, at the EX-CO meeting and at the main meeting, the suggestion was by those who were in attendance that a poll to the At-Large list should be set up to ask the wider number of participants, not just those of us involved in the ALAC or in the RALOs, as to whether or not current moderated 04 should be removed from the list. I’m actually happy...
Nick: Oh, okay.
Cheryl: I’m actually happy to discuss that further in our face to face meeting, seeing that we are so close now. But I would suggest that we need to take the burden of moderation off staff. I did send a note through saying that the suggestion from EX-CO was to simply unmoderate again, and that will at least give a basis to people to 39 their polling on.
Nick: We’re happy to do whatever, as long as it is not the status quo.
Cheryl: Well, can I ask the... that that is something that we now discuss at the meeting, but that we probably further it, because we’re not quorate tonight. At the Paris meeting, but be prepared to poll the list. I think there are several ways we could approach this. I thought the last meeting was moving towards the removal from the list. And the public comment period seems to be a repetition, and I’ve already mentioned this on agendas for other meetings that we’re having in Paris.
It would appear to me that the... before we move to the current status of ALS applications, if I can ask for any suggestions or feedback from those at tonight’s meeting, including the liaisons, as to their feelings on removal of people who are currently moderated from the public At-Large list? And we’ll have no more than...
Mohammed?: Excuse me! For those of us who are in the phone, could you tell us about what are the points you are talking about?
Cheryl: I’m just finished the May meeting action items, and the particular point was, “Staff will make sure the issue of list moderation will go to broader polling. The question will be whether the moderated mailing list subscriber...” – we only have one moderated subscriber – “...should be banned or not, and will be put to the list subscribers. The second last item on the May meeting action items. Vanda? I know we discussed this at the EX-CO meeting. Perhaps people who haven’t had their opinions already felt – Mohammed, Jacqueline, Hong...
Mohammed: Hi, Mohammed here. I think we need to proceed in that. We already have... we already discussed that in the mailing list earlier, and I agreed and 16 we just need to implement that.
Cheryl: Just to clarify, we never discussed banning anybody on the mailing list. We’ve discussed moderation, and that has been...
Mohammed: Exactly. I am talking about moderation.
Cheryl: Yeah. The question now is a move from some members at the last meeting was to ban. The suggestion was to poll whether banning should go ahead or not.
Jacqueline: Cheryl, this is Jacqueline. I have a filter on him already, so I don’t see his e-mails anymore, even the three per day. So it won’t make much difference to me personally, if he’s banned or not. So the only concern that I would have about banning is one that’s come up from both what’s his name and the other guy from France At-Large about censorship and ALAC, but I personally don’t think it’s a problem, banning him.
Cheryl: Mohammed?
Mohammed: Yeah, I think this is an issue, we should look at it. But bearing in mind that even the censorship, and we don’t want to look like we’re banning other views. I think if we have a moderation guideline, I think we should follow that, and that should be clear.
Cheryl: Okay. Hue, do you have any comment about the possibility of banning a currently moderated subscriber from public At-Large?
Nguyen: I am a little bit concerned, because I saw already very strong arguments on the list on this issue, and we have to decide if that’s better than moderation. 37 a very core value that ALAC is supposed to work on. It is indeed to think about it. It’s from the core values that we are supposed to be engaged. And we should move on to other things.
Cheryl: Okay. From that, I find a cuts out move of this meeting. Then cuts out the participants of our staff meeting. So we will move the matter of how we manage aberrant behaviour cuts out to our face to face Paris meeting. It may cuts out the staff that we then poll the whole public participation list. But my personal view, that we haven’t made clear until just now, is that we should do anything but ban people. I would prefer to go down the pathway of tightening up the existing rules and regulations to make the aberrant behaviour clearly less likely to occur. We take the current moderated individual off moderation now, and we deal with it in a discussion face to face in Paris.
We now need to move to the current status of ALS applications, and those of you who are online now need to look at the Google document. And Nick, is there anything you need to draw our attention to? Nick, you’ll need to come off mute.
Nick: Sorry about that. You’re asking me to show the Google documents on here?
Cheryl: No, I’ve just directed everybody to the Google documents. If you want to put it up on Adigo, that would be fine. I was actually asking for any comments, anything we need to be aware of.
Nick: The only thing I would say is we’re awaiting regional advice on a couple of applications, and it would be helpful to have those as soon as we can. The 27 application for the Asian region, it is believed, will be withdrawn, as that organization of ISPs is expected to instead apply for membership in the business constituency of the GNSO, for probably obvious reasons. However, we have them listed as an active application until they take it off, or we at some point ask them if they are going to continue.
Cheryl: Nick, can I ask, when do we ask them to remove themselves so that we are not 04 our guideline?
Nick: I had figured after the Paris meeting, that I would do so. I’m going to talk to 14 the regional liaison for the Middle East will be at the Paris meeting, and I can get an update from him on what is happening with that applicant, at that meeting.
Cheryl: So there’s nothing...
Male voice, inaudible
Go ahead.
Mohammed: Hi Cheryl, it’s Mohammed. I was just observing, we have an application from Africa, which needs to be removed. It is standing from 2006, so I think we need to...
Nick: We repeatedly asked them to complete their application – it wasn’t actually completed, and had never heard back.
Cheryl: Well, how do we move them off the list, Nick?
Nick: You say that they never replied. We’ll send them a note saying that we have deleted your application on the grounds that it is not complete, and that we haven’t heard from you in more than a year.
Cheryl: Mohammed, as you’re the only Africa representative here tonight, did you want to make an intervention before that letter is written, or do you just want that to go ahead?
Mohammed: No, it’s fine. If Nick could forward me the contacts, I can contact them and exactly ask what is the current status. Are they willing to move ahead, or are we just... we just drop them.
Cheryl: Thank you, Mohammed, that will be most helpful to get rid of that.
Okay, the liaison report... I note that only one has been... again, thank you, Hong... loaded up in the monthly report. I suspect, Hong, that you would like to speak to your report shortly, but I would like to ensure that it is a very brief speaking to your report.
Hong: Oh, thanks Cheryl. I guess Cheryl and I have been following the whole process in ccNSO very closely. The fast track IDNs and ccTLD is almost completing the final draft of the report. The report is going to be submitted to the Board in Paris, and now there are two most contentious issues in the report. One is the non-contentious... oh well. I think that the IDN and ccTLD evolved from very political and sensitive issues, that’s really not really suitable to be resolved within the 47 of ICANN or ccNSO. Such as nobody can resolve the dispute between Serbia and Kosovo, so it’s... the people of Kosovo need dot Kosovo in that language or script, and Serbia is likely to oppose to that. That is going to be contentious. So to my understanding, we should try to 13 all these contentious issues. This is not the last train that everybody must catch, so we’d like those non-contentious to go first, and then we think about PDT, to how to balance the interest of different parties. This is about non-contentiousness. The present is now in a standstill. One party is strongly suggesting to go ahead, to include all the ISOC 3166 territory in the fast track, or at least make them possibly to apply in the fast track. Another party is strongly against it.
Another issue that is being hotly debated in ccNSO is about objection procedure. That is, if one territory applies for one IDN ccTLD, there’s another territory could oppose to that. I’m not a big fan of this. I believe there’s two issues – non-contention and objection are related. If it’s really non-contentious, there is no need to object to that. If it’s objectable, then it’s not non-contentious. So that is the present status, and what I want to say as a last word is that nothing should prevent a speedy implementation of IDN ccTLD. This is taking tolls on users. Users are actually working, and they’re not able to make the policy ready. Thank you. Back to you, Cheryl.
Cheryl: Thank you, Hong. And we need to note that IDN and the fast track IDN for ccTLDs will have several workshops in Paris, and I would expect that ALAC and RALO people will be bringing up any particular points of view from their local regions at those meetings. But if one can also pass them through to the IDN liaison, it allows them to be integrated into a more holistic report, from the Paris meeting as well.
Item 7 and Item 8 for the standing agenda items are... item 7 is actually a 45 on the agenda for our decision making tonight. So I will hold that until we comment cuts out for the minutes on the ratification and cuts out of ALAC statements, part of what Nick is doing with the flow diagram to show the community how an ALAC statement is developed. It will be ready for us to discuss in Paris, and on the other side of Paris, we will have a clear and utterly unambiguous and absolutely well-recognized mechanism that the whole community can be, if necessary, painfully aware of, as to how an ALAC statement occurs, and how it is or is not ratified. So I think that simply needs to be noted for work in Paris.
This brings us to Item 7 on the agenda, issues to be raised at the ICANN Board Meeting... overtalking 00:40:00
Jacqueline: Cheryl? Can I... I just want to say one quick thing.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Jacqueline.
Jacqueline: You don’t have a ccNSO report because they haven’t done anything since the last teleconference, and their next teleconference is the 16th.
Cheryl: Sure. If you’d like to uplink the report when the ccNSO meets, it can be appended to... the June ccNSO report can go to the June meeting, even though [overtalking are out of sync.
Jacqueline. Okay, thank you.
Cheryl: That’s not a problem. Thank you for that.
The item two, under decisions to be made at this meeting... and I notice that we’re one under quorum, so we can’t actually make a decision, but we can certainly have healthy discussions... is the same as item seven on the standing items, which is issues to be raised in the ICANN Board Meeting. I would like to elicit from this group tonight what specific topics we should be proposing for discussion in the Board and ALAC meeting in Paris.
Izumi?
Izumi: Sorry?
Cheryl: Do you have any suggestions?
Izumi: Well, not really.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: Cheryl, if I may be so bold... I know that members of the business community met recently with Doug and Denise in Washington, and one of the biggest topics was the GNSO improvements, and in particular, the structural recommendations made by the user communities. And the point which was made to the businesses present there was that, with the Board making a decision on the GNSO structure in Paris, it would be important for the views of those communities who put that statement forward to be conveyed to the Board whenever possible. So you might wish to pick that up.
Cheryl: Certainly, and as we are discussing GNSO review in 27 of our meetings with other constituencies, that makes perfect sense. Something else that we’re discussing with several of our constituencies is the amount of time for input... given for input on public policy. So public consultation timing and mechanisms for input would be a second one to suggest. Do I have any other suggestions?
Hong: Oh, Cheryl, I’ve three suggestions.
Cheryl: Go ahead Hong.
Hong: The first one, I suggest we talk about IDN ccTLDs, the fast track. The issue could possibly concern the users. The second issue I suggest we talk about new gTLD, which is going to take off, finally, after Paris. We need at least a briefing from the Board. And thirdly, we may wish to briefly talk about ALAC’s review.
Cheryl: Okay, any other suggestions? I’m just making a list now. Mohammed, any suggestions?
Mohammed: I just support Hong’s suggestions. I think IDNC will be a very hot, burning issue, and the new gTLDs also could be included, yeah.
Cheryl: Okay. Jose, any suggestions? Any suggestions from Jose?
Mohammed: Is he there?
Cheryl: The translator was there earlier.
Spanish Translator: This is the translator. I am talking to Jose, and he doesn’t respond.
Cheryl: Thank you. Hue, any suggestions for any other issues to be looked at to make the agenda for a Board ALAC meeting in Paris?
Nguyen: I think the issue discussed already covered. I have none of my own.
Cheryl: Okay, I’m inclined to agree with you there, Hue. I think that the list that we have is more than adequate, remembering that we also tend to do a short report on our one day. Okay?
Nguyen: Okay.
Cheryl: So we will now modify the agenda to read as follows: Short report on one day activities, and that they are... whatever it says on the day, which will be policy and procedure work. Discussion on GNSO review, structural recommendations by user community. Discussion on new gTLDs, including IDNs and fast-track ccTLD IDNs. The ALAC review, and public consultation, timing and mechanisms for input. That will do very nicely, I think, for those agenda items.
Bringing us back to the final item that needs to be discussed tonight, which is out At-Large 45 ALAC meeting, to be held in the afternoon on the 24th of June.
Mohammed left
overtalking item that is currently on the agenda is that we review and tour of new navigation structure of the At-Large website. I am inclined to leave this agenda fairly open, and put some place holders in it, so that we can have finalization for matters that have been carried over from the one–day action items.
50 leads directly in to cuts out meeting, but that we will need to add to that agenda the matters of policy and cuts out ALAC cuts out development, which we discussed earlier. Overall, we would be looking at picking up on particular action items from the one day on the inaudible. Anyone else have any other suggestions or comments to make? Izumi?
Izumi: Not much.
Cheryl: Is Vanda back on the call?
Jacqueline: Cheryl?
Cheryl: Yes, go ahead.
Nguyen: How about one day ALAC meeting? Is it being conducted?
Cheryl: The noise on the line is bad. Can you just repeat, please?
Nguyen: About one day ALAC meeting, regarding ALAC development. So who will be taking care of that, when Veronica is no longer there?
Cheryl: Well, the agenda is already up. The draft agenda is up, and it’s 50 group activities, and we have a number of policy briefings, and the same is...
Nguyen: Okay.
Cheryl: Okay? Apparently, I need to repeat the last two suggestions. They were that the rest of the agenda will be developed from action items of the one day, and that we also ensure we cover off inaudible mechanism for development of ALAC statements. Now I find this meeting on the Tuesday afternoon an ideal time, if time does permit, for us to also begin formulation of what ALAC wishes to have reported in the public in the Board meeting on the Thursday. And that’s another place holder that we’ll be putting into that agenda.
Are there any other comments or questions? If we go towards our meetings in Paris...
Nick: Sorry, Cheryl. Did you answer me?
Cheryl: I didn’t hear you.
Nick: Sorry, I’m hearing a lot of noise, so I’m having trouble.
Cheryl: Oh, it’s almost deafening where I am. It’s very difficult to hear. Go on.
Nick: I’m sorry. You were asking me something.
Cheryl: No, I wasn’t.
Nick: Oh, I’m sorry.
Cheryl: I thought you were asking me something, Nick.
Nick: laughter No, sorry.
Cheryl: Okay, loud clicks in my ear. It’s almost painful. If there are no other comments for the agenda on our meeting on June 24, I will ask for any other business. One possible addition to the meeting on the 24th would be if the 02 review consultancy firm have not been able to give us any briefing during the one day on the Sunday, and they have not confirmed with me yet if they can or cannot be available, we would make some time during that meeting to meet with them. Is that agreeable to everybody?
Jacqueline: Yes, that’s fine, Cheryl.
Cheryl: Okay. I doubt that we’d fit much more into that meeting, anyway. So if that’s the case, if there is any other business from anybody, please bring it up now. In the absence of any other business...
Jose: Yes, this is Jose Luis. I have a question.
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Jose: Two things. One, I would like to have about the topics that we’re going to talk in Paris, and the other thing is in the event that we had a meeting after Paris to talk any urgent topic, if we had the pressure of time, perhaps we should be called upon to talk about that issue or that theme.
Cheryl: Um... Cheryl here. Is the suggestion that we have a post-Paris meeting?
Jose: No, in the event... if we had like an urgent topic after Paris, that we should be called to have another meeting to discuss that issue, in the event... if that were necessary.
Cheryl: Perhaps I’m just not understanding... If something comes up during...
Jose: Okay, there are two issues. One is if we... if at the end of this meeting, we could have a summary of the topics left for Paris. And the other one would be, after the meeting in Paris, if we could... if there was something that was not solved, if we could be called so that we could have a meeting and solve those issues that were not solved in Paris. In the event that there were some issues unsolved.
Cheryl: Okay, well the matters for discussion in Paris, all the agendas for all the Paris meetings are already up on the wiki, with the exception with the two agenda subsets that we’ve discussed tonight, which are the ALAC meeting on the 24th in the afternoon, and the ALAC and Board meeting. And what we have agreed tonight will be on those agendas, I would think very shortly. Certainly in the next day or so.
The follow-up from Paris... we already have a normal scheduled meeting that would run on the 8th of July. Is Jose suggesting that a seven day delay, or less than seven days, would be too long for any urgent matter?
Jose: Only in the event it was necessary, if there was an urgent matter. That’s what I meant.
Cheryl: Okay, well if it’s more urgent than a ten-day break to the 8th of July, I suspect we will find time to deal with it while we were in Paris. If there’s anything that came up that was that urgent, I think even if we were standing in a corridor or in the middle of the Champs-Elysee, we would find a way of getting a resolution worked out. Okay?
Jose: I totally agree.
Mohammed joined
Yeah, in terms of participation, I agree totally.
Cheryl: Thanks Jose. Mohammed, did you have any other business. I notice you dropped out...
Mohammed: Uh, no. Sorry, I was disconnected for some time, but I don’t have any other business. Thank you.
Cheryl: Okay. All right, well, that’s the last call for any other business. Remember that the agendas are on a wiki, and so you may make comments and suggestions to the list, having reviewed the agendas for Paris on the wiki. But I would encourage you not to make actual changes to agendas that are already linked to external information, such as the Paris conference agenda listings.
Nick, are we moving forward with finalizing some shared agendas? That was 51?
Nick: Yes, you all will find the agendas for the shared meetings are posted, with the exception... well, actually, Matthias, is the F Stack meeting agenda now posted?
Matthias: I didn’t hear back from F Stack, but every other meeting is confirmed, yeah.
Nick: Yeah, we’ve had some exchanges with them today. But yeah, you will find the current spate of agendas are all posted on the wiki pages.
Cheryl: Okay, well, the background noise on this call is, to say the least, awful. And it’s not a matter of people muting and unmuting. There has been a 47 and very awkward noise online for the whole of the call. I’d like Adigo to investigate this, and it would be essential to ensure that the phone bridge we use for remote participation for our many meetings in Paris are of absolutely the highest quality. It would be, to say the least, I think, impossible to conduct a meeting longer than the hour we have had here tonight with this much noise through headsets into all of our brains.
I thank you all for the time you’ve taken for tonight’s, this morning’s or this afternoon’s meeting. I look forward to meeting all or most of you face to face in Paris. And please feel free to make comments on the agendas that are now posted to the Wiki, or will be in the next 36 to 48 hours. Thank you all.
Nguyen: I wish you have a good meeting in Paris.
07 – lots of goodbyes all at once
Hong left
Izumi left
Cheryl left
Jacqueline left
Nguyen: This is Nguyen from Vietnam.
O: This is the Operator. The call is over. The call has ended. Hello Nguyen?
Nguyen left
O: Vanda? The call has ended.
Vanda left
French Interpreter left
Adigo operator left
Female: Operator?
Male: Hello?
Female: Operator? Hello, yes, operator?
Female: Okay, someone dialled out to the operator.
Spanish Interpreter left
end of audio