Wolf Ludwig: And as I have stated to Gisella already, I received apologies from Annette, who is at a conference at the French Embassy in Berlin on a high level discussion on Internet Governance. So she has related occupation and I had a long phone call with her and she reconfirmed her participation for Belgrade. And I was asked to forward my greetings from her to everybody on today’s call.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Super.
Wolf Ludwig: So let me suggest to start with our today’s agenda. Roll call and apologies, attendees I have noted so far and what is on the Adobe Connect is Christopher, it’s Olivier, it’s Yrjo, it’s Siranush – not confirmed, to join shortly, and it’s Lutz. I think that’s all I know at the moment.
Avri Doria: This is Avri; I joined in to listen to the call if it’s okay.
Wolf Ludwig: Avri?
Avri Doria: Yes, if it’s okay.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes of course. Welcome Avri. It’s quite a surprise and of course you are welcome at our call; anytime. And maybe some more will join us in some minutes. Review of action items point two – Wolf Ludwig will post link to recent upcoming EURALO regional meetings to the mailing list – this was done immediately after the last meeting. Will contact Vlada with regards to logistics – this we will have later, this was done as well and about this we will talk, under agenda item six I guess. Wolf bylaw modifications online voting tool to be set up two to three weeks of the EURALO GA – this was circulated today as you may have realized. Staff to upload Wolf on EURALO brochures available – yes I received the message from At-Large staff that the brochures will be sent this day and I guess I will have them, Olivier and I we both asked having half of them and we will get them prior to the Belgrade meeting because this is urgently needed for any outreach activities there.
Are there any questions or comments regarding the review of the action items from our last call in April? If this is not the case…
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Wolf? Olivier here.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes Olivier, go ahead.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Wolf. Olivier, for the record. I just wondered, you said half of the brochures would be sent to you and half of them to me, is that correct?
Wolf Ludwig: That’s what I at least suggested in the mail exchange we recently had on this. I don’t know whether Gisella can confirm.
Gisella Gruber-White: Olivier an Wolf, you’ve both been sent an email just to confirm how many you would like exactly sent to you because we’ve got a quite large supply in Marina del Ray.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, so this we have to do to confirm after the call.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, thanks very much.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay. Thanks a lot Gisella for this clarification. Let me go to standing issues, agenda item three – open public consultation. It’s Olivier as elect chair, you have the floor.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much Wolf. Let me just quickly look at the web page that we have here. Right, we’ve had plenty of public consultations to provide input into, judging from the list, we had one recent one that was on the RAA and it wasn’t actually a response to a public consultation but it was an ALAC statement which was triggered by some concerns by some members of the community. Recently we also had Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group proposed final report comments to make and those were made as well and the comments and statement was sent to the people that were in charge of that.
And more recently, in fact today, proposal for the renewal of the .net registry agreement was also sent, comment was sent about that to the Board. We were very kindly allowed to have a few more days to send that comment. What’s happened is a number of members in the North American region, NARALO, were very concerned about the fact that, well a number of points of the renewal and they told their leadership who said that they were happy with filing comments. So the bottom up process came to the point of having a page that was put on the ALAC wiki. Posed on the 11th, it was a very short time until now to collect further input, but the second process of feedback went through in a few days. So today it was sent over.
Another comment and statement, which was made, actually it was a statement that was made by the ALAC was on the Joint Applicant Support work. The ALAC has received a report from the Joint Applicant Support Working Group and as it had been decided that this would be passed on to the Board with corrections, with any corrections if required, and also with an ALAC statement.
This was drafted and because the Board is going to, on the 21th and the 21st of this month, of May, there was very little time to collect a lot of input from the regions, etc. So, although announcements were sent out we got some feedback, maybe not as much as we would have hoped to have. But all of the feedback that was received was put into a statement and sent over to the Board along with the final copy of the second report of the JAS Working Group. That’s pretty much it – I’ve taken a little bit more time than I expected to, but…
Now we have a number of other issues coming up which might be, we might wish to look at, but I think we might discuss these a little bit later. There’s one issue on the nominating committee. Unfortunately the policy advice document is not totally up to date for the public comment, let’s have a look. There is a proposed permanent charter of GNSO NON Commercial Stakeholder Group; there is a proposed ICANN process for handling request for removal of cross ownership restrictions for existing gTLDs. I hope I’m getting this right, I hope this is up to date; given the source.
There is ICANN financial year 12 Security & Stability Framework - that comment period is extended until the 7th of June. There is an academia representation on nom com, which ends on the 30th of May and there might be some interest in EURALO for this. And there’s also a proposed .mobi contract amendment for .mobi to have one and two character domains.
Now obviously some of these comments, comment periods might not be directly important for the ALAC, of course we have to look at that. As far as I’m concerned I have to look at each one of these as being very important, but I’d be very glad to hear if there is interest or certainly if there is importance coming from the regions with regards to specific comments to be filed on these open comments. Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: I have seen the hand of Christopher raised – Christopher, you have the floor.
Christopher Wilkinson: Thank you. I just wanted to mark an interest in two of the points that Olivier has just described to us. The first concerns the academic seat in the nominating committee and the second is the implementation of the decisions concerning removal of the cross ownership. In the first case I think that there should be a substitute to the proposal. I do not agree with the deletion of this seat. In the second case, it’s rather more personal, last year I made very detailed comments on the cross ownership issue which have been largely ignored by the Board and I’m not sure whether it’s appropriate for me to repeat my comments at this stage.
But concerning the academic seat, I am concerned from my experience, before and after being a member of the nominating committee, about the effect of the balance of opinion in the nominating committee on the type of appointments that are made. And I think it’s important that the not for profit, commercial, non commercial and public interest voice in the nominating committee be maintained.
And consequently, I would be in favor of making a proposal for an alternative way of representing this seat if the Board feels that they cannot find an appropriate academic representative, which frankly surprises me. But that’s the gist of my points. I think I raised this on the list a week or two ago and I would like the advice and opinion of EURALO.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes, thanks a lot Christopher for the explanations. Are there any questions or remarks to Olivier or to Christopher from the call? Otherwise I can confirm and I can say I have seen this repeatedly on the list. I also realized that there was no discussion about your suggestions and according to my experience I partly take this as approval to the to the point you raised Christopher.
Christopher Wilkinson: Thank you but in that case how do we proceed because I can file a personal opinion to the public consultation but on the other hand given our collective interest it would be more effective perhaps if EURALO or even At-Large as a whole would take this matter up.
Wolf Ludwig: May I suggest, Christopher, that you formulate what you call, your private or personal in a way that this may reflect the EURALO position, you pos this on the EURALO list and if at the end there is no objection raised in two days, this will be approved as a EURALO point of view?
Christopher Wilkinson: Okay, that’s not difficult because I think I have a draft.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes I think this is the most pragmatic way to proceed because I react in a similar way, I respond mostly immediately when I see a point what is not really in my interest and then I object. Then if I do not react this can be mostly seen as confirmation as approval. I see Olivier’s hand raised.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Wolf. I wanted to explain the bottom up process that took place in the NARALO just a couple of weeks ago. A similar point was raised by a member of NARALO, the leadership; NARALO leadership said they do agree with it. So I think we’re also looking at it in the same way in EURALO. And then what’s happened is it was picked up by the ALAC and put as a proposed draft statement on one of the ALAC wiki pages.
Then the call came out to the ALAC for comments to be filed. From that point onwards the statement was built through the input of the other regions as well. That actually turned an individual’s point of view into a wider ALAC statement that ended up being sent to the Board or to the requested parties.
If we do it early enough, and I understand that the deadline is the 30th of May, if Christopher you send this email today, let’s say, give it a couple of days for feedback. If there is support for it in EURALO that would be immediately transmitted to the ALAC pages and that gives as much time as possible for wider comments in ALAC. I’m stressing this because I’m a bit concerned about the timing, the whole bit and leaving too little time for people to comment sometimes might be seen as not giving a chance for the actual bottom up to work.
Christopher Wilkinson: I understand that and I’ll do that quickly for the information of those of you on the call, the line I will take will be that this post should be assigned to ALAC who would fill it with an appropriate representative of the academic community. Some of whom, by the way, are well represented among the ALS. And then geographical diversity would be assured by rotation. It’s not perfect, but at least it puts down the marker that you do not want this post to disappear.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay. Thank you very much Christopher. Are there any further suggestions or comments from the participants? Lutz, please.
Lutz Donnerhacke: Unfortunately I have another thing to do in a few minutes. I have to leave the call now. I am sorry. I will read through the minutes.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, thank you for having us joined and I wish you a nice evening Lutz. And hope to hear soon again. Anybody else…
Christopher Wilkinson: Well I still have the mic so I will butt in – I will send you again a full memoire for the personal comments I made on cross ownership and just I intend to repost these as a comment on the ICANN procedure. I don’t expect to be listened to any more than I was last year.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, let’s wait and see Christopher. If there are no further comments raised to point three – standing items – I would like to start wit point four – EURALO ALS applications. If you have seen on the list and as we have announced at our last call, we received two new applications from the European Media Platform, from Oksana’s organization, and from the Ukrainian Internet Association.
In the time between, there was some due diligence procedures provided by Veni and the result of the due diligence was sent to the EURALO list and I asked for comments or questions. And I clearly noted if no responses or no objections are raised until, I think we said a period of at least two to three weeks, then no objections will be regarded as approval from the EURALO side. And this would mean I now give the last opportunity for comments.
If you have no questions and if you have no objections then I will write a message to Seth this evening to formally approve the regional advice from EURALO on the application to be dealt with at the next ALAC call, what will be I think next Tuesday, will be the advice will be positive to approve these two applications. Are there any comments or questions from your side?
If this is not the case, I will continue as mentioned before to write the confirmation to Seth this evening. And probably if approved by ALAC we might have the chance to welcome the two member organizations at our next General Assembly in Belgrade. Any questions? If not, let me continue with the proposed agenda items for today…
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Wolf? Sorry, it’s Olivier. I’m writing at the same time. Just one thing – there was a question on whether those two organizations would be able to take part in the EURALO elections; whether they could vote already. And I just wanted to put it on the record that the answer was no because they have not yet been certified. So there is no possibility of them to vote so far.
Wolf Ludwig: Right Olivier, and thanks for raising this point. I had a closer look to our bylaws today on this issue, and I even realized that there is a bylaw regulation that even after being certified there is a kind of a grace period of four weeks after certification before new members can vote on General Assemblies.
So we will have the chance to, I hope we will have the chance to welcome them in Belgrade, but according to our bylaws they won’t have the chance to actively participate with voting rights. This is a strange regulation and I was thinking about how this was introduced – to my memory and to my interpretation just another of these strange abuse, potential abuse rules or options, but it’s in the bylaws. And we have to discuss this further in Belgrade. Are there any further questions or comments?
If this is not the case, let me continue with point five – update on current policy issues. Olivier, you have the floor again. do you want to add something under this action or did we discuss it under point three already?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Wolf. I think we have discussed most of this under point three. All of what I’ve mentioned is really what was going on. I would urge the regions to take a bit more time to read what’s going on and perhaps bring more input to the table.
One thing which I have noticed recently is a core set of people doing a lot of the work and certainly getting involved with some of the policy issues, even maybe be part of one of the drafting teams or providing some feedback really helps the ALAC and certainly the ALAC Executive Committee who have had to do a lot of the work. So I would hope that there is a renewed interest in the regions for policies that really are affecting everyone. Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Thanks Olivier. I can respond and I must admit from my side that I probably have not been very active in this direction and this is simply due to the work inclined in the preparation of the EuroDIG. And a considerable part of my attention at the very moment was absorbed by preparing the EURALO General Assembly, the voting procedure that’s ongoing, voting procedure for the bylaws, and the final preparation of the EuroDIG. And I promise after that I will be more active in ALAC issues again. And further questions or any further comments?
Christopher Wilkinson: Well…it’s Christopher again. Just to comment on your exchange there with Olivier – I think Olivier’s point is we need to work on getting more people to participate in the policy development process. I don’t think the chair needs to apologize. The chair has enough to do and that’s why a lot of us don’t volunteer to be the chair, but we should contribute to the policy development process in support of EURALO and ALAC. If the chair feels an obligation to do everything as well as being a chair then I think it goes in the wrong direction. Apologies for intervening, but I wanted to make that point.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, thanks for your understanding Christopher and I of course support your motion that we have to still try to improve our inreach because this is a typical inreach issue to get more of our members involved in this ongoing policy processes and consultations. What I know from Germany, (inaudible) said that a lot of our members, Annette for example, who had to apologize for today’s call. She is extremely absorbed by the (inaudible) Commission of the German [Bundestag], which means an incredible amount of work and other members are involved in national foras, and this might be an explanation at least for the low profile we have on ALAC policy consultation processes. I see Olivier’s hand is raised again.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Wolf. I was just going to add that in ALAC what differentiates it from a top down organization is that we’re a total bottom up organization. So the voice of the At-Large structures is the most important thing. And unless we receive the voice from the At-Large structures then the higher strata of At-Large, meaning the At-Large Advisory Committee, is really unable to function fully without getting all this interest.
So it’s both a collective and an individual thing. If you’re going to want to take part, just providing input is really important and it certainly is something that’s needed. So as for ALAC not only to share its workload among many people, but at the same time for us to be able to have a voice in what’s going on at ICANN; and for the individual internet user to be able to have a voice. If we don’t do that then we really are failing our members. And I’m saying “we” the ALAC, me as the chair, and the ALSes as far as their members are concerned. Thanks.
Wolf Ludwig: Thanks Olivier. And as you can imagine I totally agree with everything you have just said and it’s a continuing concern for my part as well how can we improve the involvement and participation of our members in the regular policy work. I’ve dedicated, as some of you may have seen in the draft of the Board Report submitted to the General Assembly, I’ve dedicated a paragraph reflecting this point.
Let me just have a look, I think it was point five – outreach and inreach. And it would be probably a good idea to raise this point at the upcoming General Assembly again and to add an additional agenda item on inreach. I don’t know if you agree. If there is approval to this idea to put this on our Belgrade agenda again, so I will add this point afterwards. I see approval from Olivier and Rudi on Adobe Connect and I guess there is more approval among the participants; Yrjo as well.
This brings us to the next agenda item of today’s call, what is point six – final preparations for the EURALO General Assembly. The first point is an update on logistical planning. As you may recall I have sent a mailing to Vlada raising some of the final logistical points. Vlada responded to me in between by confirming the exact timing for our General Assembly on Sunday – late afternoon, early evening – 6:00 to 8:00 in the Sava Center. It’s a venue where the EuroDIG will happen on Monday and Tuesday.
We could not finally sort out the question of remote participation; whether we can count on a WebEx tool. I am still in talks with Bernard, who is in charge for EuroDIG. Maybe they can arrange for a respective room to provide us this optimum of remote participation, what will be the part of WebEx tool.
The last point regarding logistical planning is the hotel question. This was an issue which was raised some time ago with the suggestion of Annette; whether we can group all of the EURALO members in the same hotel. I made, after the reply of Vlada I made a circular mail to the list suggesting to the members going to Belgrade to book their hotel room in the Palace Hotel.
And I’m booked there myself, but I got a response yesterday from Annette who tried yesterday at a very late stage that the Palace Hotel is booked by now. I’ve seen now on this first point – logistical planning – I see three hands raised on Adobe Connect. The first one is Sandra, after her it is Christopher and Yrjo. Sandra, you have the floor.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you Wolf. Hello all. Wolf, I just want to make sure that you got the message that Patrik Faltstrom did approve that WebEx can be used for EURALO and the side events as well. He told us this on the last conference call. Did you send that message to Bernard already?
Wolf Ludwig: Not yet. Not yet.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, so one of us has to do this.
Wolf Ludwig: Well I’m just taking a note for following up – reply to Bernard to confirm…
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, because this is don my to do list as well, one of us has to do this it’s not a problem…
Wolf Ludwig: Sandra I can do this in the later evening. I will pick out this reply from this confirmation from Patrik, I’ve seen this, I have to find this mail again and just forward it to Bernard reconfirming that we can also use it not only for EuroDIG itself, but also for the side events in the eve of EuroDIG; this means for our General Assembly. And I will ask Bernard to prepare it necessary to have this ready for our General Assembly.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. And perfect, thanks. And my second point is about the hotel – the Palace is not available anymore because I remember it was the cheapest one.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes, that’s why I suggested it.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes. I think we should then go for the Continental because it is very close; it’s actually within the Sava Center. And for some people, for instance for Wolf (inaudible), he said okay, if I don’t have a long way to walk or to drive within Belgrade ten it’s easier for me to participate on the EURALO General Assembly then if I would stay somewhere in the city center. So, maybe we should then recommend on a second stage the Continental, which is 72 if I remember right.
Wolf Ludwig: I think 85 as far as I can remember.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yeah I booked for 85 as well, but that was before Vlada negotiated the special EuroDIG amount.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, great. So I would just like to ask all participants here at this call who are going to Belgrade to arrange their hotel reservations and bookings as soon as possible. Thanks Sandra for your information.
Sandra Hoferichter: You’re welcome.
Wolf Ludwig: The next one who has the floor is Christopher.
Christopher Wilkinson: Hi, thank you again. Very quickly – first of all, as you know I have to apologize for my absence from the General Assembly in Belgrade – the ISOC Vilonia ALS will be represented by Eric Thompson, who is a longstanding member and is familiar with the subject matter. And in any case he is also participating in the EuroDIG Work Group on internet rights from the point of view of multilingual aspects.
However my other point, which I hope is not relevant, is that I happened to look into the cost of travelling to Belgrade from certain places, including Yerevan in Armenia, and I can assure you the costs are enormous. Some of us have good flights into Belgrade, but some of the people who we would like to see there, frankly have a high threshold to cross. But I don’t know Wolf, if you’ve ever met Eric Thompson, but he will introduce himself to you as soon as you meet him in Belgrade.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, thanks Christopher. I didn’t have the pleasure so far to meet Eric personally; I had him on the call last Friday for the session organizers call for EuroDIG and I’m looking forward to meet him as a representative of ISOC Vilonia in Belgrade at our General Assembly.
And you raised a good point Christopher; I have to agree there are certain connections from Europe to Belgrade which are rather reasonable and there are others who are extremely expensive and we are trying to…and from Council of Europe and from other travel subsidies we receive we were trying to help participants, particularly from Eastern Europe countries, to insure their participation in Belgrade. But I agree Christopher, this was a difficult point and I fear we couldn’t find a satisfying solution for anybody, but this is party to a surprising systems from different directions from Europe.
Next on my speakers list is Yrjo; Yrjo you have the floor.
Yrjo Lansipuro: Yeah, thank you. Just to tell you that I took your advice and I managed to book myself in the Hotel Palace. So that’s where I’m going to be. Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, so Yrjo and I will be together in the center of Belgrade in the Palace Hotel. Thanks for this information Yrjo. The next on my list is Olivier; Olivier you have the floor.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much Wolf. I was just going to ask, with regards to remote participation tools, I understand that WebEx is going to be available, but would it have been possible to use the Adobe Connect that we’re making use of? I know that we never make use of the site that deals with the voice and all that but I wanted to ask the staff, Seth or Gisella, whether they know if in case we were not able to have WebEx – and I understand this time around we will, but for future reference, might we be able to use Adobe Connect?
Gisella Gruber-White: Gisella here. With regards to the Adobe Connect we need to do a trial with our tech staff prior to any meeting. And what we’ve done so far with the webinars is that you’re able to hear the conference through the Adobe Connect and not participate. It’s something that we can definitely look into but we need dial in numbers and we need the remote participation set up on the other side and then we can probably get it sorted through.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, so it’s not set up yet basically?
Gisella Gruber-White: No, we did it, if you were on the last GNSO webinar we did do the sounds through the Adobe Connect, it’s just something we do have to set up before.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Alright thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: May I ask you, Gisella, to put this under the agenda under the action items to be sorted out bilaterally between me and you and Seth whether we can use this option for Belgrade as well.
Gisella Gruber-White: Would that be with the current EURALO Adobe Connect room?
Wolf Ludwig: Right. If you could just use it like at our regular calls because from my point of view and from my experience Adobe Connect is a very useful tool what helps enormously is sharing of the meeting etc. And I agree with Olivier that it would be desirable to have this as another remote participation option.
Gisella Gruber-White: I’ll do that.
Wolf Ludwig: But we will discuss this again directly among Seth, you, Olivier and me. Okay, thanks a lot. Are there any further questions regarding logistics for Belgrade?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, I have one comment Wolf; it’s Sandra.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes please, go ahead Sandra.
Sandra Hoferichter: If we use Adobe Connect, which I think is more familiar with ICANN or EURALO people, then we should make sure with Bernard that he’s able to deal with Adobe Connect onsite. Because it’s not like – like the phone call and the WebEx Room you have to bring the voice in the room and there might be some technical differences between WebEx and Adobe Connect. But this is just an idea to insure that this will work out. Because I know Bernard is trained on WebEx, I don’t know how good he is on Adobe Connect.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, so this means we will include you and Bernard in this further clarification. Okay, this is noted. I see Siranush has raised her hand; Siranush you have the floor.
Siranush Vardanyan: Yes, I just would like to let you know that I’m familiar with WebEx and I was one of the remote moderators in that space. And if during GA you will be given the chance to use WebEx I can be a remote operator for the group.
Wolf Ludwig: Oh, this is an excellent idea and offer Siranush. And this brings me to some points to include you in the clarification as well. it would be good offer to Bernard that we have one other participant that has experience with remote moderation, etc, and utilization of WebEx. Thank you very much Siranush.
Siranush Vardanyan: Yes. And the next training for WebEx for EuroDIG will be tomorrow at 11:00 GMT and I will be a part of it again, but just for you to know that I used to use that page already and I can help with that. Just include me in the list.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, thank you very much for this. I see Oksana’s hand raised. Please, you have the floor.
Oksana Prykhodko: Hi, thank you very much. At last I am here. (inaudible) the Ukrainian Association of (inaudible) in General Assembly. They will have Ukrainian conference at the same time. So they cannot be present in Belgrade. And they would like to know maybe about a video presentation or video messages. And so over the course they will have conference in (inaudible) with problems with (inaudible). So distance participation might be difficult for them. But they can’t prepare anything in advance.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay Oksana, can we talk this out separately again, because the line is extremely bad and I only got part of your message.
Oksana Prykhodko: Okay.
Wolf Ludwig: That you cannot participate due to a date and time event…
Oksana Prykhodko: No, no – I will participate. I will. But Ukrainian Internet Association will not participate.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, but let me suggest Oksana to follow this up bilaterally after this. Okay?
Oksana Prykhodko: Okay.
Wolf Ludwig: Next on my list – Olivier, you have the floor again.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Wolf. I was just going to mention quickly actually if we have remote participation, like WebEx that will sort it out; it will be working this way. And also the WebEx has a possibility of having video as well and it’s very simple and straightforward so if they want to, on their side, add their video so we can see them remotely, that’s fine. It usually works. But really, it depends on the bandwidth that we’ll have. Anyway, it’s just a little – I don’t think it’s a problem. Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, we will follow this up in the remaining time to make anything which is technically a possible to make it happen at the General Assembly. We are running short of time; let me, if there are no further questions regarding logistics in Belgrade I would like to continue with the next point, which is the review of the draft for the proposed agenda. You have received this before. There is only one comment on the draft I’ve received from Sebastien. And I realize this is not updated on the draft posted for the call.
We have a new updated point – just a minute, I have to – we have a new updated point 13 after election of EURALO Board what is free election prolongation of the ALAC mandate of Olivier as the current elect chair. It was thanks to Sebastien who pinpointed me on the necessity of this point because Olivier was taking over the remaining mandate from Patrick in and from Cartagena and we have to re-elect, reconfirm Olivier for his ALAC mandate.
Pardon? I cannot understand who is speaking and what exactly is speaking.
Gisella Gruber-White: I just think that we’ve got some background noise there.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay, so I think this extension of the proposed agenda items is okay for everybody. I simply forgot it in my first draft, but I added it immediately after Sebastien made me aware about this. And as mentioned before, I think we should hear something on the proposed agenda item regarding inreach; improvement of inreach. And I suggest to put this as a new agenda item 14 – what will bring the following points in another numeric order. Are there any further questions regarding the proposed draft agenda for the General Assembly? If this is not the case, I have to go back to our agenda again, if this is not the case – next point is bylaw voting tool and mobilization of members of the electorate.
As you have seen today, the voting tool was sent on the EURALO list. And all member organizations and representatives received their voting credentials. And I now would like to ask all of you at the call to vote as soon as possible and to help me with some outreach to contact other members who are not on the call today and to encourage them to participate in this voting over the next days.
I will be in Geneva next two days, from tomorrow till Thursday evening and I will dedicate again, part of my time on Friday and Saturday especially to contact member organizations in Germany. And Annette, she offered already her support to mobilize as much, as many members as possible, because to have a positive result on this bylaw modification we need two thirds of our membership. This means we need at least 19 members expressing their support on this. And to make this happen we need, in my eyes, even a higher quorum of participation.
Please if you have direct contact with other members, contact them directly and encourage them to participate for this important voting procedure as soon as possible. Are there any questions regarding this point? I think everything should be clear by now and we have to do this in the remaining dates. And the deadline for this online voting will be Tuesday next week at midnight.
I think we should try our best to make this happen. The last sub point under agenda item six is discussion on the draft of the Board report. I have sent this draft only this afternoon, so most of you might not have had the time to have a closer look on it. Let me suggest that if there is no immediate discussion desired now, that you have a quite look at this draft and send me your comments via the list in the next days. I would like to have this accomplished by the beginning of next week, let’s say on Tuesday when the deadline ends for the voting because it will be good to circulate the Board report some days prior to the General Assembly. And Wednesday next week would be inappropriate timing for submitting this Board report. Any comments or questions? I have tried my best to consider all the relevant aspects for this reporting period. And I think I may have covered the most important items of aspects, but if you have any further suggestions please let me know.
The next point on the agenda is point seven – recent and upcoming activities on ALAC and EURALO members. The sub points are the ICANN Studienkreis in Budapest in Hungary the 28th and the 29th of April. Actually it was Avri, it was Bill, it was Yrjo and me who participated from our side at this ICANN Studienkreis meeting what was a very interesting meeting again. We didn’t have the high number of participants as we had the year before in Barcelona, but in my opinion discussions in Budapest were very interesting. We had some very exciting panels and it was a very good meeting. I don’t know whether Yrjo or Avri would like to add something on this. I see Yrjo’s hand raised; Yrjo you have the floor.
Yrjo Lansipuro: Yeah thank you. I agree with you that it was a good meeting, but unfortunately there were very few, after the initial sessions – or initial session actually – there were very few Hungarian participants. Actually there were three Hungarian participants who stayed until the very end and I think that that’s a pity because basically, all the others, we are the usual suspects who are discussing these items, these issues all the time. Thanks.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay. And Avri, just communicated on Adobe Connect that she has nothing to add. I would just like to make one more comment on it and Avri made a remarkable presentation in Budapest regarding – you can just add this by yourself Avri? She’s probably muted. I will try to pick this presentation out from the Budapest minutes and I think it would be worthwhile to forward the link to the EURALO list because there are several aspects of civil society engagements and options of improved engagement. Like in the direction rights in principle that are raised. Unfortunately we don’t have the time at the moment to go into further discussions. Are there any questions or comments regarding ICANN Studienkreis, the last ICANN Studienkreis meeting? If this is not the case, I give the floor to Olivier to give us a brief summary on the Russian Internet Governance Forum last week in Moscow. Olivier you have the floor.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much Wolf. We had a fantastic conference last week at the Russian Internet Governance Forum. Oksana, who is on this call, was also present. Unfortunately we had no other At-Large structures that were represented. Or should I say, Oksana’s potential At-Large structure. But we had no At-Large structures that were located there.
We don’t have an actual At-Large Structure in Russia as far as I know and I have tried to make some outreach to see if we were able to do so. So far, it doesn’t look that great. I have spoken to Veni Markovski about the matter – Veni as you will all know is the representative of ICANN for that region. And he has told me that it is a challenge to find, specifically civil society organizations or organizations that are nongovernmental in nature and that deal with the internet.
That said, the meeting itself was very interesting. There was a large part of it devoted to the discussion on internet governance and who should be in charge of internet governance; whether it should be the government; whether it should be companies, organizations, or whether governance should really be in the hands of the users. And I’m glad to be able to announce to you that in an opinion poll, which was done at the end of the one day conference, using a very clever little box with several buttons that you could press on then, which they gave to all of the audience, 60% of the audience members said that the user should have the final say in what they want to watch, what they want to do, how they use the internet and then internet governance.
So, it’s pretty interesting to see how a country which might have been traditionally been quite closed to the outside world has actually opened so much that the internet is actually frankly unhindered; it’s not filtered over there. And the view of the people who were there is that users should have a greater say than any other organization – whether governmental or industry – in the future of the internet. Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay. Thanks Olivier for your compliments on this point. Are there any questions regarding point – updates of point seven. If this is not the case, the last point on today’s agenda is eight – any other business. Any suggestions for this point. If this is not the case, we will have the pleasure to meet some of you in less than two weeks in Belgrade.
I am looking forward to meet you at our General Assembly and having the opportunity to be together with you at the subsequent two days at European Dialogue on Internet Governance, what will be a promising event and opportunity again. And I hope we will have a lot of opportunities to talk and discuss during the General Assembly and at any side opportunity before our next call, what will be then in June. Before the June call I think we will have the ICANN meeting in Singapore and we will keep you informed about the arrangements and timing for our next monthly call in June. Any further questions from your side; comments? If this is not the case, let me thank all of you for your active and constructive participation. And I wish you all a very pleasant evening. Thank you and see you soon in Belgrade.
[End of Transcript]
