Page History

ATLARGE FINANCE & BUDGET 2010-3-29 297164

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Starting the agenda with a very, very quick roll call, simply because it's good for the record to know who is here. Heidi, if you would care to say to the recording who is in attendance at the first meeting of 2010 of the At-Large Advisory Committee Budget and Finance Subcommittee.

Heidi Ullrich: Yes, we have Cheryl Langdon-Orr, who is the chair of this subcommittee. We have Dave Kissoondoyal, representing AFRALO. Gareth Shearman, representing NARALO. Sylvia Herlein Leite, representing LACRALO. And we have Lutz Donnerhacke, representing EURALO.

From staff, we have myself and Seth Green.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And just for the record of course, my RALOs chair also is inclusive as representive of APRALO. Okay, on to said agenda.

Committee history and purpose. Well, the history of this committee is found in the links – excuse me as I clear my throat. I do apologize. In the links put onto the agenda. And the first ones I'd like to take your attention to is the minutes of the budget. At that stage, budget subcommittee. And you will see there has been very few – very few meetings since it was convened on the 9th of June 2007.

The only good part, I suppose, is the fact that reasons known and perhaps better to those who know me well, but possibly as a function of my own insanity, I was there at the very beginning of this subcommittee, so you will see my name as a member of this very earliest of the subcommittees of the At-Large Advisory Committee. And Jacqueline Morris was functioning in the chair with her taking the role of the At-Large Advisory chair in that year over from Annette, who was also on the inaugural budget subcommittee, and who had previously been the At-Large Advisory Committee chair.

As you can see, and I'm not going to read through it, but I would encourage you to take the time to look at the Wiki and Lutz, if you don't mind just perhaps giving a synopsis to Adam as you hand over, that would be greatly appreciated.

We have been saying the same things, singing the same song, and asking for the same considerations and concerns to be recognized in the budgets of ICANN since well before that time, but it was a result of having a new then director of At-Large, being appointed, one Mr. Nick Ashton-Hart. And us now having a layer between the Vice President of Policy, Denise Michelle, who we had previously worked directly with, and ourselves. And also the development of the effective regional At-Large organizations, that we felt some sort of coordinated effort input mechanism, and I suppose accountability would be very, very useful in terms of budget and expenditure, with all things to do with ALAC.

So I would recommend that you take the time to have a read of that. But basically we reviewed budgets, we collected from regions a set of desires for regional outreach, and in some cases this had to do with the very important job of their formation. We arranged for meetings to occur with what was then becoming key staff, the Chief Operations Officer, and the Chief Financial Officer came into play later on, but we certainly tried to meet with Doug Brent and basically start a healthy, professional, and intelligent dialogue. We put up a Wiki and all of that actually happened. So we've been at this for some time.

We then, through 2008, brought back in the hardly earned and well thought of and highly considered information from the regions, which after all is where all of these things should be happening, not with the ALAC itself. We had been ensured that by mid-2008 or early-2008, we were a regionally balanced committee. In other words, we had switched from a couple – the chair of the ALAC and a couple of people foolish enough to think they should be involved, so it's actually the chair, the past chair, and me because I like to do these sorts of things, had moved to a formal five-region balanced committee. And we undertook what we thought was a perfectly reasonable agenda and brought a whole lot of proposals through to – via Nick to the Vice President of Policy and Development. Sorry, policy in ICANN.

Now we'll flip back now to the other URL, which has to do with the general information on the budget and finance subcommittee. And I will now draw your attention to previous correspondents relating to finance and budget matters. Without going through all the gory details, as you can see from those two letters from us in response to an email from Michelle and back again, we had a total and absolute disagreement with how things should be done and how any outlying regional or indeed At-Large Advisory Committee input into budget and finance matters should continue.

The changes however, that we have now are worthwhile opportunities and it's to that end that I think it's worthy of us reconvening. So thank you all very, very much for joining us. We have maintained the committee because we refused to believe that we should not have any informational sharing and regional input that was shared between the regions and with the ALAC. So we continued in the intervening 2009 and as a collection source feeding in the regional information to what was then Nick's budget and is now Heidi's budget.

And I will also let you know that when I use the terms Nick's budget and Heidi's budget, or what I should be saying is the director of At-Large's budget, I'm doing so using highly incorrect terms. Because in fact, Heidi doesn't have a budget. Nick's never had a budget. When Nick was in the job, Denise had a budget. Now Heidi's in the job, David has a budget. So we in fact have no direct relationship to budget and operational planning, other than in our capacity for putting in public comments in the normal public comment period, and putting in our requests and wish lists, which are duly incorporated into whatever Heidi puts in on behalf of the – what we would call the Department At-Large. And then it is up to the next layer within policy to divvy up what small cake is offered to them from ICANN itself.

Highly unsatisfactory? Absolutely. Should we put up with it? We don't have a choice. Should we however continue for change? Absolutely again because of if nothing else, what is said about modeling and cost modeling in the At-Large Advisory Committee review. We have a clear mandate to have greater interaction and control. By control, I don't mean fiduciary responsibility, but control in terms of the planning and development of what is put forward by staff.

Heidi, have I given an up-to-date where we are now? Would you now like to say anything about where we are from next steps? What little part of the cake we have?

Heidi Ullrich: Well again, in terms of next steps, we've heard from Kevin Wilson, the CFO, that on the – he's very much looking forward to input from the various ACs and SOs. And just has recently requested that those comments are – those statements are submitted by the April 1st deadline for – again, this is the framework operating plan and budget. And following the input from the ACs and SOs, there'll be another one drafted, and that will be posted on, I believe, the 17th of May.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And in fact what we also should recognize, and my apologies for not doing so, that during the life of the Budget and Finance Committee as a subcommittee of the At-Large Advisory Committee, we have seen a very, very major shift in how ICANN's budget and strategic planning is done. Underneath Doug's careful stewardship, we shifted to the model that is still under, I guess, development now, but it's the circular cycle model where we have a budget framework that's related to a strategic plan. And then we hang specific dollar amounts into a budget in the next steps, which as Heidi said is coming out during mid-May and will again be subject to public comment.

But we really, as I can see it, have two current roles. One is in the general finance and budget matters of the ALAC, AT-Large, and regional activities, which is the one we have maintained despite the fact that we were told we were unnecessary to the process. And indeed, would have no impact on it, but we did, through the good grace of working with people like Nick and Heidi, we still do. And also, the ICANN budget framework and strategic planning. In other words, that very macro budget cycles.

So if we can now look I guess to any questions that you all might have on the rather horrific history of the At-Large Advisory Committee attempting to have a mature and responsible part in the expenditure that is done in its name and where we are today, I'll open the floor for questions on that before we move to the next part of the agenda, which is getting down to business.

Lutz, because you're not in the room, is there any questions or matters you'd like to raise having heard all the bad news first? We've still got Lutz on the line? You might be muted. Star seven, to unmute.

Lutz Donnerhacke: Oh, that's fine. Sorry. I got (inaudible) phone call from Adam this morning so I had very little time to prepare. But I have a very distinctive feeling about the rule about this discussion. I do think that we are discussing a lot of things simply because there are some dollars, which need to be spent in some place. But we do not talk about the outcome.

The outcome for ICANN itself, we have very little impact in the comment period of the proposals as At-Large. We do not have very strong impact in discussions from my perspective. Might be wrong. So if it's possible for the budget discussion to use the dollars we have for we can erect to some direction. If we can influence the activities of our members in the direction that is good for ICANN, I would surely support such a proposal.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Lutz. And of course, everything we do should be for the benefit of ICANN, because (inaudible) is –

Lutz Donnerhacke: Of course, yes. But sometimes –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Have you muted yourself again? I think you might have muted mid sentence. You were saying sometimes?

Lutz Donnerhacke: Yes, sometimes it's a little bit – sometimes I've got the impression that At-Large is working for itself or – and not in the global scale at ICANN. It's my personal impression.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well I would actually perhaps not now, but very much value a little bit more background on that impression, because it's almost the antithesis of what the ALAC intends, so if that's the impression in one or more of the regions, I'd like two things to happen.

First of all, I think, Heidi, it's pretty important that this impression is discussed at the interregional level, so I'd like that on the agenda for the next regional secretariat meeting. And secondly, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss that and perhaps do a little outreach and see in the At-Large public list whether Lutz' personal impression is more wide scale held in the community, which are watching perhaps rather than being as involved as he is.

And because if that's the case, not only are we not marketing ourselves properly to ICANN, we're not marketing ourselves to ourselves. And that, I might suggest, is a somewhat horrifying thought and I hope Seth is having hysterics right now because if we can't even market what we do to ourselves, Seth, we're in deep doo-doo. Perhaps I'd like to ask you to react.

Seth Green: Well, let me just shut my mouth first. I have recently been talking about various marketing aspects of the At-Large community. Yes, what I'm hearing is just an example of things that in a way you were already afraid of I think to some extent, Cheryl.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There's not a lot that frightens me.

Seth Green: That's true. Maybe that's not the right word. But I don't think you're 100% surprised, I don't think. Or am I wrong?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I did indicate in one of our conversations that I think we need to do a real marketing, both internally and externally approach, yes. Okay. Lutz, thank you for that. And I would very much appreciate us chatting, if at all possible, and I guess it falls to Seth, perhaps some points in your interaction with the various workgroups. And Heidi, if you can make sure that this gets raised at the regional level, because that's clearly where the issues are. And if the regions believe they should take it out to the wider At-Large community, I'd encourage them to do so.

What I'd also like to, however, do – and I don't see any hands up in the room. So Dave, Gareth, or Sylvia, if you want to pop your hand up, please remember to wave at me so I can see that you want to say something on any particular point. I think we need to now focus on the fact that whilst what Lutz was saying also said the money we have should be spent for the purposes that benefit ICANN, the macro is any money ICANN spends should be for the benefit of the purposes that ICANN has had outlined to it by the community.

I'd like Heidi, perhaps in her role, to explain to us exactly how this system happens. You see just as preamble, because I don't want Heidi to have to jump in the deep end and I don't wish to throw her a rock when she jumps in the deep end. I'll throw her a life raft instead, is that throughout the whole of the At-Large Advisory Committee review process, we need to remember that at no point and to this day with the exception of our ability to now look at dashboards and see how much in general terms At-Large Advisory Committee activities cost in an RAA.

In other words, that breakdown cost that shows that we have about 7.3% of expenditure, just about the same. In fact, I think almost identical to the Government Advisory Committee in terms of generally spread expenses. We actually have and nor have we ever had access to real dollar figures. We have no idea how much it costs to run At-Large outside – and the ALAC – outside of what is reported in the specifics of the dashboards.

In other words, we now know exactly what is spent on us for travel, but that is something we actually had to fight for to have access to. And we know what is spent in general terms now in terms of allocations across the RAE. And one of the things I would like to encourage this committee to ask for in its responses to the advising what the ALAC should be saying in the operational plan for FY'11 is we need far greater details. We need more granularity and we need very, very specific levels of information. Because we don't even know what money is spent on us, Lutz, let alone how it's spent.

There you go, Heidi. That's a very small life raft.

Heidi Ullrich: Well. In terms of what you're looking for, Cheryl, my –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, if we send, as we're about to, all of the regional advice, put it into a bag, we give it to – we put it in as part of our general public comments, but in fact it has little meaning, because it's only then saying as a placeholder this is the types of activity that the At-Large Community wishes to undertake in its regions to meet its core objectives in the FY'11 budget. Please consider.

But the most important part is getting it to you for you to bring into the departmental budget's consideration. I think it's pretty important that people understand how and what sort of processes you need go through. Because Nick's taken these things forward for us before and then he has to come back and tell us what we do or don't get. And you're going to have exactly the same job.

Heidi Ullrich: Okay, from my understanding, and I will be working with policy staff. This is at my level, so I'm working with Rob Holgarth and David Olive, who is a new VP for policy, who then take it to further discussions to senior management, and that's Kevin Wilson in the finance department, and other members of the senior management. So from my perspective at this point, that is the level or this is the process that will be entailed.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. So what I mean is what's important for all of us in this subcommittee to get in our minds is a sort of flow chart. We can act as a collation, if not filtration, and annotation, if not advice point, for what the needs are of the regions, and of course of the At-Large Advisory Committee itself, into a set of usable documents and terms for Heidi to then put on the table as part of her larger departmental budget or sub-departmental budget, in the whole or larger policy budget, which is GNSO and everything else. And then that goes up one level and becomes part of the discussions, deliberations, and outcome for the actual FY'11 budget.

Now that's an awful lot of dilution and it's an awful lot of opportunities for choices to be made, which we may not be in a position to understand. And I think it's very important that we don't set up false expectations with this committee or with the regions as to what is or isn't possible.

So open the floor again. Deathly silence. You all want to pack up your bat and ball and go home. Gareth, go for it. You might be on mute. Star seven.

Gareth Shearman: I was on mute. I'm okay now. Yes, I have a question. We – in Nairobi we had a discussion regarding the outreach activities of the I guess newly constituted or department that was charged with the – how shall I say it – PR I guess is the best way to put it, regarding ICANN. And we had an extensive discussion with them and their plans. And Sylvia has something to – that she is putting forward to that group for future reference.

But what I'm wondering, Heidi, is there any ability to tap some of those funds for some of the minor regional things that we all seem to want to do? I'm not talking about a huge amount here, just bits and pieces of support that we could think might come from that particular resource?

Heidi Ullrich: Well again, Cheryl, correct me. Again you have vast experience in this. My understanding is that they – Kevin and others are really interested in finding out what exactly, and as Cheryl mentioned in great detail, what the activities that the regions or the ALAC would like to place in fiscal year '11. And then it's based on that and their views to determine whether those activities will be funded. So I don't think anything particularly is off the table, I think it just depends on the level of arguments in proposing these events.

Gareth Shearman: Okay. I've seen listing that the various regions have put up on the Wiki of what they want. But is this were we need to go?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, that's certainly where we've gone in the past and I would think that's the base point from which we could be going. Now I'm not privy to how Nick specifically passed on the previous year's regional requests. Okay? But I do think we have an opportunity to influence Heidi, as she's on this call and listening to us as to how we might be able to prepare documentation and put things forward in a way, which is going to best suit how she wishes to put forward her part of the budget requests.

And Seth here, of course, with the other very important hat on, and that is as manager of the project, which is our At-Large improvements, we asked, and we were assured that there would be contingency funding and planning to allow us to have the necessary budget to get our At-Large improvements on task, on time, and in the short and medium long-term planning, which doesn't go out further than much past the end of the FY'11 year.

So we certainly need to make sure that when we are making a set of proposals, that they tie in not only to the current strategic planning of ICANN, but also to our own At-Large improvements projects. Sorry, improvements process. And there is very little, if anything that I can imagine a region would want to do or an ALS would want to fund that didn't fit into that matrix and fit very well into that matrix.

Gareth Shearman: Okay, great.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, with Sylvia's work, and I do want to highlight that, Sylvia and Siva's work, we need to just be a little bit careful here, Gareth, because the person who we are asking, and Sylvia's giving (inaudible). She just wants to tidy up a few things, to pass on her and Siva's groundwork on marketing advertising to a community that needs to know more about ICANN and therefore to become more engaged in terms of public participation and activities within At-Large. We of course have Barbara coming on as of Thursday this week, the 1st of April. And her role – give me her actual title, please Heidi? Barbara's title is--?

Heidi Ullrich: I'm sorry. I was on mute. Sorry.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm used to it. (Inaudible)

Heidi Ullrich: She is the Vice President for Communication. And I'm just going to double check whether that has an extended name.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So Gareth, in terms of Vice President for Communication, the type of process that Sylvia and Siva were exploring belongs firmly in her group of interests. Right?

Gareth Shearman: Right.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What you were also referring to was the very important role that global partnerships have in terms of outreach to regional business, corporate community, government, and Internet governance, and general stakeholders in the Internet echo system. And that is where we had Mandy at the table in Nairobi and I think some of what you're referring to was clearly where there is a nexus between what global partnerships does and what we need to do. Because our purposes and aims are the same, but there may be an opportunity for some form of budget sharing or sharing of allocation of costs across some of those things. (Inaudible)

Gareth Shearman: I think that's right. That's correct, Cheryl. I mean I was listening to those presentations and that was what was in my mind. Well what they're charged with doing are some of the same kinds of things that we've been asking to have done for years. So yes, I would agree that that's – we need to follow up all these opportunities.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, and I'd like to think that what we might do as a budget and finance subcommittee is look at having a meeting with people in global partnerships as they're going through basically the same process as Heidi and we're going through. They're all doing their own budgets now, which means as their things become crystalized and they know what parameters they need to work within and what limitations they have to work within, and there are serious limitations for the FY'11 budget year. We know that, we've been told that, we're painfully aware of that. Right? There's a staff freeze, there's all sorts of things happening.

So when everyone is now sorting out their component parts of what they would like to bake the cake with, then it's a real good time to see is there an opportunity for us to share the bag of flour, get some buying leverage for a larger bag of flour. You know what I mean?

Gareth Shearman: Yes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Heidi, I can't give you a microphone because you're cohost and you can give yourself a microphone anytime you like. Go ahead.

Heidi Ullrich: Well, I was just there being polite. And again, you're the chair, Cheryl. Just a few things. I do want to stress again, you've just highlighted one issue, and that is that the – not only do we have a budget issue for the rest of fiscal year '10, but again, for the – for fiscal year '11 they are very much expecting flat – a very flat budget. So again, to manage expectations, we need to keep that in mind.

The other point is in addition to, again as Cheryl pointed out, the linkage to the strategic plan 2010-2013 it would also be useful to consider the affirmation of commitments and some of the activities that are incorporated into that. And I refer particularly to 9.1 of the affirmation that is the ensuring and accountability transparency in the interest of global Internet users that – again, that might be something that you could refer to as well as 9.3, which is promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice. So I wanted to highlight those issues.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Very important things to highlight, Heidi. Thank you very much for that. Sylvia, I think I heard your voice, but I'm not sure. I'm just stopping now. You didn't raise your hand, but was there – it looks to me like we've lost Sylvia from the Adobe room, which is something –

Sylvia Herlein Leite: Sorry, because I have no energy in my home, so I'm not in the Adobe room now.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's fine. I saw you disappear, so I just wanted to make sure that like Lutz, I got back to you verbally. So the floor is yours. Go ahead, Sylvia.

Sylvia Herlein Leite: I would like to say that I completely agree with you. I think the way we need to face that is maybe each region put on the paper what we want to do, what we want to do in our region and put exactly not only worth, but we would like to do that project or another one. And to put on the paper and to know how much it costs that project. Show to Kevin or first to Heidi, of course. But maybe in that way we can (inaudible) what we need to do that activity.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I couldn't agree with you more, but I'd like to hear from Dave, and Lutz, and Gareth on that as well. Dave, go ahead please.

Dave Kissoondoyal: Yes, Cheryl, I think that we have to (inaudible) this on our page because if the (inaudible) has – is a term that cannot (inaudible) very common in the ICANN process. So I think the budget allocation for our (inaudible) should be substantial. And for the AFRALO region, okay we have a project of capacity building, so we hope that okay this capacity building project will also be approved for – by Kevin. Thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thanks very much for that, Dave. Gareth from the NARALO perspective.

Gareth Shearman: Hey, there I am. Yes. Well, yes. I've just been reading Sylvia's statement that she put in before she lost her connectivity to the connect room. And that is – it's a huge issue. The meetings of – I mean we – I certainly, when we – NARALO was first formally admitted to – as a region to ICANN, we had an assembly at that time, this was – I'm talking about Puerto Rico here. And it was enormously successful and well worth doing. And we all understand that the kind of thing that happened in Mexico City is hugely expensive, but we – I think we need to get back to the point where when the meeting is in an area – I mean the African should have happened in Nairobi and the European one should happen over in Brussels. But there's no budget for that and I think it's a huge shame. That's one of the things we need to be working on very hard, I think.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It's not only a shame, it's something that we costed ourselves away from asking for when we got the At-Large summit. It was actually a deliberate part of the resolution that indicated that to get the At-Large summit, the General Assembly support was going to disappear.

Now that's something that I think we need to, and I believe we are, argue very strongly against because the measurables, the outcomes, and the productivity, let alone the outcomes of the At-Large (inaudible) have all said, and it's very clear, that we have a greater, not a lesser role to play. And that we have meaningful and important outcomes, which contribute not only to the health of the Internet echo system, but specifically to ICANN being able to declare itself a more internationalized and global interest representative body for assigned names and numbers in a post AoC world than we did back then.

So the whole paddock has changed. It's like we were in floodwater and now we're in green grass. And I think we need to try and not only remind people of the measureables of our performance, and we've been doing that with our reports. And Heidi, perhaps if you'd just share with the group the stats that you've been sharing in your T1, T2, T3 planning. Perhaps, actually take a moment or two just to explain to everybody what goes on in your world.

Heidi Ullrich: Well increasingly my world is taken up with administrative meetings, which are very useful and they – it's goal setting, not only internally, but with – working with Cheryl as well, and working with Seth now as well with the At-Large improvements. But in terms of the growth in policy statements, there was almost 200% increase between 2000 and – 2008 and 2009 in the numbers of policy statements submitted by ALAC and the At-Large community. And in fact, just between Seoul and – I'm just trying to think. Between Sydney and Seoul, and Seoul and Nairobi, there was a huge increase in the number of policy statements completed. I think the numbers were four between Sydney and Seoul and now compare that to 10 between Seoul and Nairobi.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Now, if anyone has the spare time, which unfortunately I don't think any of us do, but it would be absolutely fascinating, perhaps there's something that we might find just a member of the – one of the regional communities might be interested in doing this. But I would love to see a graph looking at the – just in public comments, the actual contributions made by the various ACs and SOs. Now remembering that it's the SOs' reason for being to do policy, I would do it in two very different sets of analysis. But it's my belief that we are currently one of the most active input mechanisms for public comment ICANN wide. But we're not marketed.

Heidi Ullrich: Cheryl, if I could, and I know he's not here to say yes or no, but Dave is very good at preparing those kinds of documents.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Dave?

Heidi Ullrich: Yes, Dev Anand.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, Dev. Right. I was going to say, poor Dave's probably having a fit going on. I've got enough to do. Don't do that to me, Heidi.

Heidi Ullrich: Yes, Dev Anand.

Sylvia Herlein Leite: Yes, you are right, Heidi.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Dev would be a perfect person to ask for this, if he in fact has the possibility to devote some of the time. Sylvia is that something that we could ask you to float with him without any pressure? That you quietly ask whether or not he would be in a position to do this analysis on behalf of this committee? We would greatly appreciate it. But if I ask him, he'll probably feel it harder to say no. But if you ask him, he can say, "Oh, no. I'm so very busy, Sylvia. I can't do it now."

Sylvia Herlein Leite: I can do it. Don't worry.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, dear. That would be greatly, greatly appreciated.

Sylvia Herlein Leite: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Each of us have got from our regions a set of things that our region would like to do. All right? It's linked off this agenda. Regional input. What I would like to task this subcommittee to do, and not right now, but in the next sort of day or so and so in a very short order if you agree, is to look at all of those regional requests and see where there are generalities, and similarities. And where we can then on the matter of, for example, general assemblies, there is a clear desire for all regions to hold general assemblies when there is an ICANN meeting in their region because it will be more cost effective, blah, blah, blah. And ensure that we will also have good remote participation in these things as well. And then go to sort of a next tier of requests.

There is a general feeling amongst all the regions that our involvement in these types of activities is, and lists them. And then as Sylvia was saying, we can then put some meaningful costings onto it. And the costings really are budget for travel, budget for accomodation, and budget for per diem. There is no other cost because the volunteers provide everything else.

Now why I'd like this job of this committee is we are going to have to make some prioritization choices. For example, whilst each region would like to have a general assembly each fiscal year. As Sylvia rightly points out, the cake just doesn't spread that far.

The best we've been able to do, this particular budget and finance committee in its unnoted and unminuted meeting, which I might just raise with Heidi, when the executive has had meetings on the matters of travel finance, et cetera, these should probably end up being linked off this meeting page as well. One of the things that we discussed with Kevin was to fund general assemblies. We could have the choice of using annual amounts of funds that are available for – sorry, that's mine. Reminders happening to me. Which are available for our meetings, our travel to ICANN meetings.

Now the ALAC, the 15-person ALAC is funded and has to go to the ICANN meetings. Regional leaders have been funded at the discretion of the ALAC, because we think, certainly under my stewardship, we think that this is hugely important to get that cross-regional interaction and have the interaction between the regional leads and the ALAC itself.

But there is an opportunity, for example, for a region or regions to annex out expenditure on their three trips a year and save it towards a general assembly. That was certainly what Kevin proposed and then we also proposed to the community, but the regional leads in community did not think that was appropriate at the time.

So what I'm saying is even in this current FY'10 year, we were able to try and get some sort of negotiation or opportunities for regions to build towards a general assembly. And it would probably have worked out a general assembly on that rate. It probably would have worked out a general assembly every 18 months to two years by the time you looked at saving travel costs for long haul into other regions.

So the other thing I want us to do is think outside the boxes. Look at what the regions want to do in terms of outreach and access to funds. And some of these funds may be, for example, in – at putting on my Asia Pacific hat, very, very general. We would like to be able to fund in terms of accomodation and travel one local representative to key meetings held in the region where ICANN and At-Large should be involved. So if we are a guest speaker, or if we are part of a panel, or if it's an Internet governance forum, a regional Internet governance forum, we would like to think that APRALO should be able to say to one of its members, "You're in the country where that's held. We will pick up your hotel cost." Or something similar. So it can be very general or it can be very specific. And I think Sylvia was heading towards very specific.

Lutz, from EURALO's perspective, you've obviously got the desire for general assembly. But you've also listed some very, very specific activities. Very similar to Asia Pacific, and indeed very similar to North America where there are a couple of meetings, which it would be very, very sensible for outreach and capacity building for EURALO to have a presence. Do you want to speak to some of that please?

Lutz Donnerhacke: Not very much as that I'm not Adam. So I'm not that prepared. Both send an email in preparation of this meeting here saying that he proposed some travel arrangements. I'm not really sure if it's the correct one, so I wouldn't comment it directly.

My current comments I'm putting on the Wiki page so it's easier to read them than to hear them from me. And the main point we have in Europe is that we have a lot of politicians learning what Internet is. I do not talk about people coming to the Internet government forums. I do talk about politicians learning that the computer exists. And it's a very strong problem. We have a lot of activities spinning around some political activities here. And it would be very fine and would be very helpful to connect these activities with ICANN or with ICANN organizations. In most cases, the same people working on a political level are the same people participating in the ALSs.

In Europe we have a different situation for the ICANN – from ICANN point of view. We are that the ICANN people from Europe are not the technical people. The technical people from Europe are going to the ISOC meetings. And they think that the ICANN is only a club of people like to discuss on having telephone conference, but do not make progress.

And if he can put some activities in outreach in the sense of telling what happened, which proposals are going on, not on a Wiki page of ICANN, because ICANN has a bad feeling here. Put these proposals in a brushed up version on other blogs, on other Wikis, I think it would be a much more better impact we can make in Europe here. But I put it on the Wiki page now.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you for that. I appreciate that particular input because it got me started thinking and I'd like to know from Sylvia, and Gareth, and Dave as well what may have started in their minds. When you're talking about the ongoing Internet education and the efforts that are going on in the Internet echo system in a particular region, I think there's both opportunity for us to do a better job in terms of outreach in those foray. But there's also opportunity for us to partner with key stakeholders already in the foray, if ICANN is not. And perhaps that's something that we might want to put not on our short-term FY'11 requirements, but in our medium-term FY'12 planning. Your thoughts on that, perhaps giving Sylvia time to think on it, I might go to Dave or Gareth first. Dave and then Gareth. Star seven, Dave.

Dave Kissoondoyal: Yes, sorry.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If only I had a control panel, I'd just mute and unmute you all at leisure.

Dave Kissoondoyal: I think, Cheryl, what I think that's okay. The budget allocation should go in line with the strategy planning of the ICANN. It has to go like if you see, like for in line with the four pillars that we have in the strategy plan. So we have to have these protocol locations in line with this because I think that, okay, Kevin Wilson would like to see that's okay. We are able to have this budget from our perspective aligned to do the strategy planning of the ICANN that we have.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Gareth?

Gareth Shearman: I think I'm still on – I don't think I'm muted, am I? You can hear me?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I can hear you perfectly, thank you, dear.

Gareth Shearman: Okay, right. Well, certainly from our perspective, we – and speaking directly from our ALS now, we work with a number of organizations who have that as part of their mandate to spread the word, shall we say, about the Internet and I understand the comment that Luke's just made about getting government officials to know about computers. We face some of the same kinds of things. And I think that we need – certainly need in our outreach and our planning for regional things, to take that into account.

And as you said, in the medium-term we – I think we need to develop some of these ideas and things that we can actually look forward to in spreading the word. Because people – I certainly see in my day-to-day work here that people just do not understand that there really is an organization like ICANN that has the mandate to do some of the things that they complain about. And that's something we really need to address.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely, yes. And that comes in to the world of not only just general ICANN and public participation within ICANN and everything that that AoC says about it, but specifically to what Barbara Clay's role is and I think the fact that ICANN has hired someone like Barbara is saying it is on their agenda. What we need to do is not say we want to do it and it needs to be budgeted to us to do it, but to aid, influence, and assist in what the people within ICANN, whose role it is and who will have a budget to do it, are doing.

Gareth Shearman: Absolutely. That was my point originally. We can work with some of these other sectors to make some of these things happen.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, absolutely. Okay. Sylvia. Thoughts from LACRALO.

Sylvia Herlein Leite: Okay. Of course I agree with that. I think that first we can think how can I – can we do outreach instead of think of money first? Maybe we can – for example in LACRALO in Argentina, we have seven AOs and in Brazil we have four. So maybe we can join with that organization with – which are in the same country and do maybe something big with a little money. So maybe we need to think the idea how to do the outreach. And after that ask for the money.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ladies and gentlemen, what I'm hearing is music to my ears. And it's music to my ears because it suits some of my clearly now in retrospect you might all know what I've been carrying on about with board breakfasts and board lunches recently where I've been trying very, very hard to make sure that from the top of ICANN there is at least an understanding of the huge resource that we are.

I think our next task, and what I’m hearing here is to not only continue helping the governance body of the organization to understand what a resource they have in At-Large and the ALAC, but also now help all the component parts of the structure that is ICANN, the corporation as well as ICANN the organization know exactly the same things. And it's always much easier to be rewarded once you've shown your worth.

So it doesn't look good for FY'11. It certainly hasn't been good for FY'10. But as the wheel turns and the cycle changes, let's use this opportunity to make sure we are well positioned for FY'12.

And to that end, I would like each of you to consider the role of being the regional representative of this subcommittee of the At-Large Advisory Committee. Now I know Lutz, you are simply place holding for Adam, so just pass this on to him and do let him know that there will be a transcript, so it doesn't have to be verbatim. He can look at the transcript.

But as regional representatives on this subcommittee, if we go back to what in 2007 and 2008 we proposed that we act as an aggregation and annotation point for the aspirations of our regions' activities, and marry it with the ALAC directions and strategic needs, and that of ICANN, we will be doing a very important job and hopefully, eventually making not only our lives easier and finding ways for our regions to meet the needs that they clearly have, but also doing what we all want to do. And that is helping the voice of individual Internet end users not only contribute to, but be recognized as worthy of the time, energy, and expenditure ICANN makes on it.

I'd like to wrap up at 9:04 my local time, an hour past the beginning of our meeting wherever you are in the world, and ask us to do a little bit of homework. And that is to look now in perhaps the next 24 hours or so at the regional input and see where there is mutualism, where there is prioritized possibilities, and then have that fed in to what will be the FY'11 operating plan and budget statement.

With your permission, I would like to invite you all to be editors or contributors to whatever drafting tool we use, probably a Google Docs or a Wave form. I don't know yet. That will be up to the ALAC ExCom when they meet later today. But they've undertaken to put in a – to begin in consideration of regional input to put a response to the proposed framework for FY'11.

We will highlight a few questions and concerns. One of them of course is our need for increased details and granularity in the budget reporting. The other is, for example there is some considerable increases, which I've given it very sort of macro or percentages. Some things are growing by 22%, 25%, 26%. Some things are growing by I think 70% or more percent.

Now all of these things are probably growing in expenditure for very good reasons. We're not arguing with the reasons, we would just like more detail on what those proposals actually mean. So if you don't mind leaving that sort of macro drafting to us, I would very much like to leave the micro drafting, in other words the prioritization and the rationalization of the regional requirements to this subcommittee.

Lutz Donnerhacke: Cheryl, I had –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, David.

Lutz Donnerhacke: – my email. And read a message from Wolf.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please. Thank you.

Lutz Donnerhacke: He urged me to remember that the general assembly at a Brussels meeting will not be founded by the current financial plan. So I had to mention it that we are going to find the solution without ICANN environment to make our general assembly or find some other way to get the budget for this.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, exactly the same as AFRALO recently had to face at the opportunity that they would like to have taken, which was to have not so much a regional assembly, although it would have acted as that as well, but a very important ALS wide capacity building exercise while we were in Nairobi. And they faced exactly the same circumstances. And it's something that while we have recognized is an issue for FY'10 and we know probably will be an issue for FY'11, we still need to have in our demands, as opposed to wish list for the FY'11 so that they know we're serious about the considerations that are needed for general assemblies to occur.

Any further words from Sylvia, or Gareth, or Dave?

Sylvia Herlein Leite: For me it's okay. It's a huge responsibility. I'm afraid – a little afraid about that, but I'm going to talk with the other leaders of the LACRALO region. I will do my best. But I'm –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, it's all we can do, Sylvia. It's all we can do. But what we are doing is empowering Heidi, who is the only one who can go forward to the next layer and make the requests on our behalf.

Sylvia Herlein Leite: I agree with that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: All right? We have to empower Heidi. If I could find another way of making her life easier I would, but this is the best I can do this morning.

Gareth, anything from you?

Gareth Shearman: Not at this point. I think we've – I certainly think we do need to have a look at those regional inputs and see what can be put together though.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, and then Dave, in closing anything from you?

Dave Kissoondoyal: Yes, for us what we – what is important is that's okay. We hope that the budget for the capacity building program for the AFALO region is approved because it – to be able to have much more African participation, we need absolute need the capacity building program. So we just hope that (inaudible) budget (inaudible).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hugely important. Hugely important. And but what we need to do is find a way to stop speaking to the converted and be heard by those who do not want to hear.

Dave Kissoondoyal: Absolutely.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And in those parting words, I think I will bring the meeting to a close, but ask with your permission would you like to convene another meeting in the next fortnight? Yes or no?

Sylvia Herlein Leite: Yes, (inaudible).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Dave?

Gareth Shearman: That would be okay if we could work out a time.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, I was going to leave to that the wonderful world of Gisela doodling.

Gareth Shearman: Okay.

Dave Kissoondoyal: Yes, that thing is fine.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, and we'll try – I'll get Gisela to approach Adam specifically and see what will be a humane and appropriate time for him. I don't know whether today's difficulty was a matter of time or a matter of day and time.

All right. Good morning, good evening, good night to you all. And thank you very, very much. I know there's an awful lot on that agenda and most of it is homework. But it's the sort of thing when we're resuscitating ourselves and taking our baby steps again, we need to be very aware of the history we're carrying with us as well as the current circumstances we're dealing with. And all I see is opportunity.

Thank you all.

Heidi, just before you go, I'm going to be out of office literally quite from three minutes time. And I'll be away all day, but I will be available on my mobile phone if you need me, which means I'll turn on Skype on my phone as well. So if you need me, you can Skype me there.

Heidi Ullrich: That's perfect. So again, I'm just looking at some of the action items. I can go ahead and send those to you. But I do note that Cheryl has put the homework in the next 24 hours.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, she did.

Heidi Ullrich: So again, if you could send that homework. Turn your homework in within the next 24 hours on the regional input. Looking for mutualisms and overlap.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And do it on the Wiki.

Sylvia Herlein Leite: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Do it on the Wiki, because that way we can all share easily.

Heidi Ullrich: So Cheryl, the Wiki – do you mean the regional input Wiki?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, I mean the budget and finance Wiki for the meeting.

Heidi Ullrich: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because it links to the regional input.

Heidi Ullrich: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I'd love to find a better way to manage these Wikis. This – it's so full of dead ends it just frustrates the living daylights out of me, but I can't manage that (inaudible).

Heidi Ullrich: We're getting there.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I've got too much to deal with today. All right. Thank you all.

Heidi Ullrich: Okay, thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Bye.

Sylvia Herlein Leite: Bye-bye.

Heidi Ullrich: Bye-bye.

Lutz Donnerhacke: Okay, bye-bye.

Heidi Ullrich: Bye.