Cheryl: Let’s get to the nitty gritty and not a great deal to do but if we follow on our traditions, we do need to do them with all due diligence. So we’ve had our responses back from our (inaudible) policies we’ve done and there has been some discussions online from the comments from the legal department. I must say it’s my view that we go as far as we possibly can feel comfortable with so that when we back this back over the net to them they feel that we’ve considered and where we haven’t agreed with proposed changes to text we give them good reasons as to why we haven’t. Beyond that I don’t see a great deal more to tonight’s meeting.
What is the view of everyone else on the call?
Alan: I certainly agree with the belief that some of the things they said are really style.
Cheryl: Yeah and I see agreement from Olivia as well. Shall we run from the top or do you want to take it from the comments that we’ve had already exchanged on the email? I’m happy to work from either the Wiki space or the email section. Alan you put the closest to Pen Ultimate set of text to the list and that was like 7 hours ago. You noted comments from Christopher and Raj, I think we should for the record make sure ABSTD understands that the comments that Christopher and Raj raised really were in the purview of BCEC and asking things like whose job was it to react to these comments from legal.
So I’m happy to put up a partition and follow along with what we’ve all agreed to, which is we sort out the dotting of I’s and crossing of t’s, bat it back over to legal and when it’s finalized it goes to BCEC for use.
Alan: Okay I only raised the question because I didn’t know if there was substance there or it was procedural. That’s why I noted there may be something else.
Cheryl: Yeah there is certainly no substance. It was procedural and in some cases Christopher had put forward proposals which, for example, indicated he suggested for example a really wonderful and amazing concept of looking at the current Non-Com expressions of interest documentation.
Alan: It’s a good idea and too bad we didn’t do it.
Cheryl: Yeah I sort of dealt with that internally.
Alan: That’s humor for the recording.
Cheryl: I noted that you didn’t jump into that conversation and I thank you for your exercise in self control.
Alan: I do note that one of the legal suggestions was we should do an overall comparison to the Non-Com document after we finish this. I have not done that explicitly.
Cheryl: You did indicate that you thought that was worthwhile running through and both Olivia and Hong on this call I would like to entrust with them if we’re tripping over anything.
Alan: You captured my thought exactly. Olivia is not on the Non-Com this year though but he has been in the past.
Cheryl: Yes he is on the Non-Com.
Alan: You are? I thought you weren’t.
Olivia: I am on the Non-Com.
Alan: I’m sure I looked at a list and you weren’t there.
Cheryl: Okay so do you want to work through your most recent email then or how do you want to do this?
Alan: My most recent email captures unless I made a mistake but I don’t believe I did, captures everything legal said and tries to address it or says don’t address it.
Cheryl: Okay Mateo is it possible for you to grab that text and throw it into the Adobe room?
Mateo: Yeah I’ll put in the link to the actual email too.
Alan: Just cut and paste the text.
Cheryl: Right now I’m looking at the actual email but that doesn’t help know if anyone wants to speak in the Adobe room. And Olivia does, so go ahead.
Olivia: Thank you Cheryl and just prior to us starting with regards to Christopher, I will actually be seeing him in the next 3 days in Madrid, I’m actually staying in the same hotel as him. I believe we’re having dinner tomorrow evening so if you have any questions I’m sure he’ll probably fire them in my direction. I’ll try to answer them to my best ability.
Cheryl: Based on today’s call and also if it is possible just to make sure he’s up to speed with the background of what the ABSTD has gone through. He is bringing to the BCEC his prior experiences but I’m not totally convinced he’s reading into the detail, the amount of material that this particular work group has gone through and as such detail as we have.
Olivia: Okay I will convey this to him.
Cheryl: Well in the nicest possible way. Thanks Olivia. Alan you have the microphone now.
Alan: Two things, number one may I suggest for things where the wording I have proposed is acceptable that we not try to do the editing online, we will not get finished in 15 minutes if we do that.
Cheryl: I was rather hopeful that most of the wording will be acceptable. Let’s see how we go.
Alan: No I’m just saying that if we try to do the editing online in parallel we’re not likely to get it finished and we do have a hard stop.
Cheryl: Yes we certainly do have a hard stop.
Alan: And the other thing is, offline again can we get rid of the 7 levels of redirection to get to these documents? If you go to the base ABSTD work space and then try to follow things to the operating procedures and statement of interest, we’ve changed the name several times and every time we change the name we have a new level of direction. It is possible to go directly to the right one, can we get that fixed? I will be glad to fix it myself if there is a difficulty in anyone else doing it.
Cheryl: Well it sounds like it’s either you or Mateo that would be doing it.
Alan: Okay we can talk later.
Cheryl: Fight it out between the 2 of you.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: Toushani go ahead.
Toushani: Yes I think that we have to go through the mail of Alan. It is in general acceptable but we have to go through it.
Cheryl: Yeah so let’s start doing that right now, shall we? Have we got that in the space now? Mateo where do you have it?
Mateo: It’s under the discussion notes.
Cheryl: You have the Ultimate one which is to and fro about Evan’s comments. But it’s actually the one prior to that.
Alan: The one timed roughly 6 a.m. It’s the one with pure comments on it and not text.
Olivia: This is so confusing whoever came up with the idea to make the earth round.
Alan: The one with Changes Subject Suggested by Legal Review no res and no forwards.
Mateo: I see 2 of them.
Cheryl: Olivia I would like to say that we could sort that out but I’m not sure that’s within our purview.
Alan: It has a time stamp ending in 27 in it.
Cheryl: I’ve copied and I’m about to paste so there you go it’s done.
Mateo: I got it.
Cheryl: Too late I beat you. Okay emails sent to ABSTD list from Alan, BCEC operating principles. Can we shrink the agenda so we have 50% of the space devoted to the discussion notes? Thanks Mateo. One day you’ll have to teach me how to do that because I’m sure it’s within my capabilities.
Okay do you want to talk to that now Alan?
Alan: Yes. The issue there is the first sentence still has the term “code of ethics” and I’m suggesting to replace “the code of ethics applies” with “these operating procedures apply”.
Cheryl: And I actually thought we discussed that and it should have happened.
Alan: We did.
Cheryl: Toushani agrees, Olivia agrees, I certainly agrees, Hong agrees, sold, next.
Alan: The BCEC’s role, this is the one where the legal counsel is objecting to us saying there are no appeals.
Cheryl: Yes interesting, hmm.
Alan: There are a number of other places including the Non-Com and the most recent root DNS Sect TCR explicitly say there is no appeal. However, I have no interest in fighting on this one. In fact, the bylaws probably need to be changed to fix the Non-Com situation because as far as I can tell there is no exclusion and the Non-Com is subject to the ombudsman, although no one has ever done it, as is by the way the TCR and the accountability affirmation reviews. Even though they’re called for in a high level document and they say these are the selectors…
Cheryl: It could be challenged.
Alan: It could be challenged. But that’s a bylaw issue and whether ICANN chooses to ignore that it’s there problem. I would suggest we go with the more placid statement and leave it at that because it doesn’t really change the intent. If they object to this one then the world has to be fixed.
Cheryl: Yeah and I’m comfortable with that approach. Hong what is your view?
Hong: I fully agree. But I have a relevant concern of a Non-Com that the Non-Com is subject to the ombudsman review. That sounds a little scary to me but it’s not an issue for us.
Cheryl: But it is possibly something you and Olivia will need to take back to Non-Com.
Hong: Well yeah.
Alan: And indeed as pointed out there are other things that perhaps should be excluded.
Cheryl: Indeed and Olivia how are you feeling about that proposed text?
Olivia: I feel fine about it and certainly in agreement with that one.
Cheryl: Toushani?
Toushani: Yes I ticked that I am okay with the text.
Cheryl: Good that’s sorted. I’m perfectly happy with that. I think there are issues later that we might need to balk at but this isn’t one of them. Next Alan?
Alan: Okay they pointed out that we use the vague term “committee” again I think we…
Evan: Evan.
Alan: Hello Evan.
Evan: Hi.
Alan: We have just approved the first 2 items on my list, the replacing the term “code of ethics” and we’re changing the statement which implies not being subject to the ombudsman, noting the Non-Com probably has a real problem but it’s not ours.
Evan: Okay.
Alan: We’re on the replacement of the word committee with BCEC. They’re right it is potentially vague but I don’t think in the context how it could be vague but nevertheless easy enough to fix.
Cheryl: Yeah that’s an easy one to give as far as I’m concerned and I do think if in context it was read it wouldn’t be an issue. But a global replacement is easy to do. So I’m for that and I see a green tick from Toushani.
Alan: And noting there are 16 copies of it that have to be done. But it is not a global change of the word “committee” to BCEC. There are other occurrences of the word committee there with their own modifiers.
Cheryl: Okay so if we have time during this hour it would be good to go through the text and make sure we have Mateo change the correct ones.
Alan: They are the ones where the word “committee” is unmodified by something preceding it, like At Large Advisory or BCE. I found them and they can be found again but in any case I believe I have a definitive list but it may be wrong.
Cheryl: Well if you can own that cross checking that would be useful.
Alan: I would even be delighted to make these changes afterwards I don’t really care.
Cheryl: Okay. Go ahead Toushani.
Toushani: Yes I want to ask Alan where immediate appears because I don’t have the full text on the screen.
Alan: I don’t either but I can get to it with an infinite number of clicks.
Cheryl: Toushani this goes t Alan’s point that the primary document that we’re modifying is a number of layers and he would very much like that to be changed.
Alan: This is in confidentiality #1, okay. It says, all BCEC members and I’ll do the replacement we’re implying, all BCEC members will safeguard all internal BCEC communications concerning the applicant and treat them as private, confidential and for the use of immediate BCEC members and At Large staff only without exception.
Toushani: Yes okay.
Alan: I don’t know what the word immediate means there.
Toushani: Yeah okay. I am okay with this modification.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: Yeah that’s fine.
Alan: We’re not in the statement of interest if anyone wants to pull that up.
Cheryl: Now this is where we may need to respond as opposed to agree.
Alan: In the point about countries, where we ask for country of residence and country of citizenship there was a suggestion that we add percentage of time residence in the country of residence. I think this has absolutely nothing to do with us and we ignore it.
Evan: Can I make a suggestion as part of the response?
Alan: Sure.
Evan: The fact that the composition right now of the committee is going to be 2 people from every region, I think that they’re trying to address an issue of regional diversity. I think we’ve already got that one done through the process of in fact creating the committee. Do we even have to go into any kind of questions as to country or length of residence, since they’ve already had to satisfy something to be nominated?
Alan: My answer is it is quite conceivable in any given round, although not this one, that we may have to exclude certain countries because of the Board composition requirements.
Cheryl: The existing Board makeup.
Alan: In other words, if we’re ever in a position where we are uniquely identifying or adding a single person to the Board at a specific time, a given region could be at its limits.
Evan: I’m talking about the composition of the committee not the composition of the Board.
Alan: No, no the legal suggestion was asking about changing the statement of interest.
Cheryl: The percentage of time where someone domiciles not just where they are a passport holder or resident.
Evan: I was under the impression that we weren’t under the constraints of the regional diversity issues of the Board. That our mandates since we can only pick one is to pick the best one and if they happen to be from a region that dominates the Board that’s not our problem.
Alan: There is a regional diversity that we are subject to and it is one that if there are more than one person being picked at any given time it is probably impossible to implement. But we are subject to it technically and if we were the only one picking someone to be seated in August then we would be subject to it.
Evan: Then my suggestion to that would be…
Cheryl: You’re correct Evan in as much as we discussed this, we decided it did not need to be part of the SOI and certainly in the comments I made it was a matter of it would be all very interesting from information to pass on once our person has been appointed, selected and appointed, for the other balance considerations of the Board but it really isn’t a problem for us.
I’ve got Toushani and then Olivia.
Evan: When you say not a problem do you mean needing the countries or the percentages?
Cheryl: The percentages.
Evan: Okay.
Toushani: I think this remark from the legal ICANN staff I think it’s not a legal remark. Perhaps it’s an opinion, the opinion of the person who did it because for us it doesn’t matter, we don’t need to know. It is not important for us. So I do agree to ignore it.
Cheryl: I think we might respond as opposed to ignore but yes we won’t be rolling over and changing. Unless Olivia makes an enormously passioned and very, very persuasive argument to the opposite. Go ahead Olivia.
Olivia: Alas not, I’m actually in agreement with everyone. So it looks like we’re going to have to furnish a response to legal rather than make any modifications.
Alan: So noted on my notes.
Cheryl: Yeah I agree the answer is no and this is why. Next Alan.
Alan: Okay they suggested we add an introduction to the SOI saying what it is and what we would be using it for. This is a discussion we have to scroll ourselves, right?
Cheryl: Yeah we do.
Alan: Okay let me scroll to the right place. I suggested we add the following paragraph and I note in their discussion, in their recommendations, we say that it is used only for BCEC purposes and I agreed in my initial response. I do note, however, that since we are posting it publicly we have no control over its life once it’s posted. We can’t stop someone else from using it for some other nefarious purpose or classifying the person as a consultant if they said they were a consultant at the time or whatever.
So in light of that, I suggest the following wording: This statement of interest will be used by the At Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee to aid in its selection of candidates to stand for election as an ICANN Board member. I didn’t add the full title of the Board member here; it would have become too unwielding.
Note that on submission of your SOI your name, citizenship and resident country’s email address and Sections B & C of this SOI will be made public. I suggest that last part be made in bold. It’s covered in fine print at the bottom but I think it is important given that it’s different from the other SOI’s that they may have filled out that we highlight it.
I think that covers it as much as we’re going to cover what its use is.
Cheryl: I’m certainly comfortable with that, Toushani agrees, Hong your view?
Hong: Yes I agree with Alan if the SOI is going to be published there is no way for us to control future use. I doubt the feasibility to add the restrictions on this.
Cheryl: Yeah I think it’s easier to go that way as well. Evan your view? Olivia has a big green tick so he’s obviously in agreement.
Evan: I’m in agreement too.
Cheryl: Excellent, agreed. Next?
Evan: Can I ask for a little indulgence?
Cheryl: Yes.
Evan: My doctor’s appointment is in 4minutes so I just wanted to bump up the one issue I had a concern based on Alan’s email. That was the issue of lobbying.
Alan: Evan did you see my reply to your reply?
Evan: Yes and I didn’t totally understand it.
Alan: Your concern was if one Non-Com member is talking to another will that be considered lobbying?
Evan: Yes or even within the committee internally…
Alan: No, no but I mean within whether it’s in the presence of others or individually. If indeed some rule like this is put in place, I think we’re talking about someone from outside the BCEC approaching a BCEC member. Discussion among these BCEC members and one BCEC member saying passionately why someone is good or rotten, I think is exactly what we want them doing. They should not, that should not be classed as lobbying.
Evan: That’s why I didn’t understand, unless we clarify that to meaning from external sources then I…
Alan: No, no that was what my very shorthand reply to was saying. I was talking only about lobbying as I think legal’s position was.
Evan: Okay sorry. I thought of it in a more general term. So we might, if we’re going to do anything about it, I suggest we be explicit about lobbying as from the outside.
Alan: Yes.
Cheryl: I think putting a bracket or definition there is fair enough. I certainly would be encouraging the BCEC to have full discussions, whether some of them end up advocating or not for any of the candidates is exactly why they’re formed as a committee as they are with the regional diversities that they have.
Alan: Okay back to the original order. There was a question of and I’ll handle it out of order, there was a question of perhaps changing title from “References” to “Conflict of Interest and References”. That’s a little bit too ambiguous I would think. It was also later noted that the 2 points in question that is conflict of interest and commitments were replicated in Section D and E.
Cheryl: Yes.
Alan: The initial response was to take them out of D and put them into E. On rereading it, E is the consent and authorization. In other words, it’s a whole bunch of statements of this is what we do, this is what you do, do you agree?
Cheryl: So it should go the other way?
Alan: I think mixing it up with other questions is not good.
Cheryl: Okay so it should go back into D.
Alan: So I’m suggesting it stay in D and we changed the title to Conflict of Interest and References and leave it, not movement.
Cheryl: Okay I see Toushani in agreement; I’m certainly comfortable with that. Evan how are you feeling?
Evan: I’m quite okay with that as well as the rest of Alan’s comments. On that I have to leave you all. It’s been a short time but a good time.
Cheryl: Olivia’s in agreement. Hong are you happy with that?
Hong: Yes.
Cheryl: So we leave it in D and change the title.
Alan: The next one was not caught by legal but was implied in that we lost the confirmation that the person doesn’t have any conflict or a statement of what conflicts they might have with ICANN. I’ve lifted the statement verbatim out of the Non-Com, out of what I hope is the Non-Com statement of interest.
It turns out; by the way, for Non-Com people around you really need to have the statement of interest on the website for historical purposes. This year and last year it was only available as a web form which disappears once the period closes. So you really need to text it there if only for historical purposes.
I lifted this one out of one 2 years ago and I don’t think it has changed. And I have conflict of interest with ICANN; please indicate clearly if you have any areas of conflict of actual potential conflict of areas of actual potential conflict, I think it should be actual or potential. I’ll check that. Actual and potential conflicts of interest will not necessarily be disqualifying.
Cheryl: Yeah it’s probably actual and/or potential conflicts within.
Alan: I’ll check it.
Cheryl: Yeah the sentence would pass better if it was like that. Toushani has the microphone, he may have a question.
Toushani: Yes thank you. The conflict with ICANN is very broad. Can we find something to express the conflict of interest with the internet users?
Alan: We haven’t gotten to that one yet.
Toushani: Okay.
Alan: On this one the Non-Com has a note saying when we’re looking for people who are involved in this domain area we expect conflicts. So it certainly is not a bad thing but you must state them. I have omitted that full text that’s in the note here.
I would suggest that somewhere in this statement of interest we want to point them to the Non-Com documentation. It is relevant even though we haven’t copied everything verbatim. And if that sounds like a reasonable thing, I can propose some wording sometime.
Cheryl: Okay and I saw Hong and I believe Olivia with ticks there. I certainly think that referring to the Non-Com stuff is useful but I would be concerned that it draws down to the specific part and not just generally the Non-Com…
Alan: To the extent possible yeah. Sorry I didn’t mean just to the Non-Com I meant to the section delineating criteria and for other things.
Olivia: Having gone through more than 80 SOI’s over the past few days at Non-Com I can tell you that most people understand what conflict of interest is and I’m not sure we need to really hone in so much to what actual and potential conflicts of interests are. I think what Alan has written in his email is perfectly fine; going any further really starts redefining the wheel.
Cheryl: Okay Hong go ahead.
Hong: It seems there really is a problem here. To set aside the question of whether we adopt Alan’s draft, look at the D-1 first. Conflict of Interest with ICANN and At Large communities that’s not appropriate. It’s conflict of interest with ICANN not At Large community. I hope I’m reading it correctly.
Cheryl: I think you’re reading from the title Hong, correct?
Hong: I…
Alan: I can address it Cheryl if you want.
Cheryl: Yeah go ahead.
Alan: The original statement of interest up until today had a Section D-1 which simply said conflict to interest with At Large, wording like that. Legal’s suggestion was we need to be more definitive and I will do that in a moment but first we noticed along the way that we had lost the statement of conflict of interest with ICANN and we are now adding that as a new D-1.
Cheryl: It’s an additional one rather than…
Alan: In addition and now we’re renumbering the At Large one to D-2 with completely new wording. Once we pass the D-1 with ICANN we’ll go onto D-2.
Cheryl: Which is the At Large.
Alan: Are there any other problems with ICANN?
Hong: Right and I now understand the logical arrangement between the D-1 and a new added D-2. Of course, I’m crystal clear about conflict of interest with ICANN is going to be added but I now after second thought sort of confused by the conflict of interest with ICANN and At Large community.
If the general understanding of the conflict of interest is the financial interest, what kind of conflict of interest could there be with At Large for financial transaction?
Alan: It’s not necessarily a conflict of, well in the criteria for an At Large Director; we have a statement that says the independence from the ICANN stakeholder’s whose financial situation is significantly impacted by ICANN decisions. So we are looking for a Director who is not going to be affected financially.
The original wording is we don’t want a registrar or registry employee there. But of course there are other people who benefit financially so the words were broadened to simply say independence from stakeholders who have a financial stake in the decisions.
Hong: I prefer the present paraphrasing that is independent from the stakeholders. The present one is really confusing, what is conflict of interest with At Large?
Alan: And that’s why we’re changing it. Legal opinion said it was bad so I’m suggesting replacing it with and I quote now, “The At Large criteria for a Director includes ‘independence from ICANN stakeholders whose financial situation is significantly impacted by ICANN decisions.’ Do you meet these criteria?”
Cheryl: I think that’s crystal clear. I see Hong agreeing, Olivia agreeing, Toushani can you give us an indicator? Excellent and I certainly agree as well.
Alan: Okay next item, we may finish on time. The recommendation was that we remind applicants that they should get approval from their references before putting their names in. I’m suggesting that after the introduction section, Section 3, applicants must ensure that all references agree to act in this capacity prior to being included in this statement of interest. The BCEC and legal opinion went on to point out that there are some other criteria that the Non-Com uses.
So I went on to say the BCEC will not consult with references who are themselves applicants in this process. ICANN staff and current BCEC members cannot act as references for applicants. I noted that there is a general belief that sitting Board members cannot act as references. If there is such a rule, as far as I can tell, it is in a private document that only the Board is privy too and not in any public document that I can find.
Cheryl: Olivia has the mike and I must say I’m interested with that note as well.
Olivia: I think the first sentence, applicants must ensure that all references agree to act in this capacity to be included in this SOI is suitable. But I do have a question about the second which says, the BCEC will not consult with references who are themselves applicants in this process.
If someone is as dumb to supply a reference who also wants to apply for the same post as them, I guess it’s for them to work out between themselves, isn’t it?
Cheryl: Except legal says it was a Non-Com rule that you didn’t.
Alan: This is a Non-Com rule which I took verbatim. Now admittedly if someone asks me to be a reference for someone else applying to the ALAC and I am also planning to be an ALAC candidate, I would think I would say no or I plan on giving them a really bad reference of course.
However, one could imagine that I agree to be a reference for Olivia applying for the GNSO and then I think about it after a while and say hey maybe I want that spot and after the fact I put in an application. So one certainly could end up with situations where that could happen. They’re simply saying the Non-Com will not ask one applicant to testify against another one or for another one. I simply copied it verbatim. But in a completely orderly world it wouldn’t happen.
Toushani: Alan you said sitting Director cannot be a reference for an applicant. Why?
Alan: I said it is a general belief, certainly among Directors, that they cannot. Over the last number of years, I’ve talked to a number of Directors all of whom believe that if they are sitting on the Board they do not act as references.
The rationale is that the Board should not be participating in the process to select new Board members. That is a very strong culture in ICANN for a number of very valid reasons. But I couldn’t find a real rule that says that although it’s certainly been a convention.
In the past, I’ve had ex-Board members be references and they said well since I’m no longer on the Board I can do this. I’ve had other Board members say I can’t cause I’m on the Board. I’m just noting that I can’t find the rule. We can make up our own rule for our process.
Cheryl: Yeah I think the note is all very interesting for us but I don’t think we need to enshrine it in the documentation but I’m also open to that discussion.
Alan: It is one of those things I will note in my response but I don’t think we need to address it in our changes.
Cheryl: No I certainly wouldn’t think so. Olivia did you have a follow on?
Olivia: Certainly I agree with both of you and with Alan. I think having seen all the applications on Non-Com I’ve seen worse and I won’t go any further because I can’t tell you what I’ve seen but it’s done.
Hong: I want to follow up with Toushani’s question Alan is right and this is a general belief and there are no rules. Actually we see so many people who put the names of sitting Board members as references. So there are really no rules about that and I doubt whether we need to put this into rules.
Alan: I would be intrigued and I’m not asking you to give me any specifics but I would be intrigued if those references follow through and submit references. There does seem to be a culture in some Board members who believe very strongly it is a rule but that’s not my problem.
Cheryl: Yeah all very interesting, all very academic and I don’t think we need to deal with it now. But I would like to agree if we can on the text which reads, “Applicants must ensure that all references agree to act in this capacity prior to being included in this SOI. The BCEC will not consult with references who are the reference and who are themselves applicants in this process. ICANN staff and current BCEC members cannot act as references for applicants.”
Alan: I would suggest the BCEC wants to get an opinion from either legal or the Non-Com should they follow through and consult with references who are Board members just to be squeaky clean but it’s not our problem right now.
Cheryl: It’s not our problem and all I can do is suggest that the meeting notes from this meeting has an action item on the Chair of the BCEC to make sure that is observed.
Alan: I thought she might be listening in on this call.
Cheryl: She may be listening in on that.
Hong: Sorry this is an old question, I forgot to lower my hand.
Cheryl: So we’re agreeing with the text after the intro section, the applicant must ensure that all references…
Giesla: We only have 4 minutes left before the ALAC call.
Cheryl: Thanks very much. Olivia?
Olivia: Just to say the current BCEC members cannot act as references for applicants in the Non-Com, several Non-Com people are references for applicants. They’ve been listed there and told oh well you don’t need to and they still did it. I think it’s really up to the BCEC to provide reference or not if they’re asked.
Cheryl: I think we can make the rules and as ABSTD members I think we would be not encouraging and in fact actively discouraging BCEC members to act as a reference. I would have huge problems if you had a card carrying supporter of any applicant in the BCEC.
Alan: Olivia are you saying there are Non-Com people who are being listed as references in applications?
Olivia: Yes, I can tell you that my name has been listed.
Alan: It is explicitly against the rules in writing.
Cheryl: Okay we’re not trying to…
Alan: No, no I’m just pointing out that I didn’t fabricate this I just copied it.
Cheryl: I understand that.
Olivia: I understand the point is moot.
Cheryl: I’m happy for us to make the rule to stop that being an issue. So we’ve agreed to that. We have Section D consent and authorization to go. Can I ask that the Section E information is do we have any discussion on that or are we going to just go with the proposals?
Alan: I think here there is some discussion unfortunately.
Cheryl: Okay if there is discussion we will need to reconvene. Can I ask when it will suit us to reconvene? Can we do it online or do we need a teleconference?
Alan: We can do it online.
Olivia: Yes online.
Cheryl: Okay we’ll put it online but it won’t be longer because it’s going to be agree or disagree with the text as listed under Section E consent and authorization from the post email from Alan within the next 24 hours.
Alan: No, no Cheryl there are a few points in the remaining page that I did not propose wording on. I will send out a new one for Section E on with specific wording that could be agreed, disagreed or changed.
Cheryl: All right we’ll need to take that online.
Alan: I have meetings for the next 8 hours so it won’t be done until after that.
Cheryl: That’s fine; most of us will be doing meetings during that time anyway.
Alan: Okay I have to do that and Mateo do you want me to fix the Wiki or do you want to do it?
Mateo: I think it would be easier if you do it but I’m happy to help.
Alan: Done.
Cheryl: Okay excellent. Thank you all, we all need to disconnect so we can start the dial out.
