Transcript ALAC ExCom 18 January 2010

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: – action items. Should I even mention the word white paper in this group? I think we, in fact, have all the necessary lists fully--
Alan Greenberg: Have we confirmed that messages were actually received on the various lists that we wanted them sent to?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The external ones?
Alan Greenberg: Well, external and internal.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The internal ones confirmed inasmuch as I'm on them all, and, to my knowledge, they were received.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sebastien, I know you had an issue with getting it onto the ISOC list. But I assume that was fixed. I can't (inaudible)--
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah, just I see that, on the list of the mail issue arrive at this list, I see it. And I hope that the people received it too. Yes. And I know for the GA and for--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I haven't seen it arrive onto the governance list, I must say.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. It went to the governance list here. I am sure. But, I guess, I can tell you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And the list that-- At least the list I have labeled as governance from IGS-- I must say all the traffic I've seen has been involved in their own statement-- the preparation of their own statement on the future of IGS. So it may simply be that it might need a resent or (inaudible) reminder. My apologies. It's one of those mornings.
Sebastien Bachollet: I am sure they're on what I call governance list. We have-- I get feedback from Janet (Inaudible), who has difficulty-- who writes something on the weekend, it appears, and I ask Matthias to help her.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, okay.
Sebastien Bachollet: I am sure that she was using the governance list to do that. And it's okay. I guess everybody received it-- every list. I sent to GA, to governance list, and to ISOC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I think, Alan, that says it's made a best effort, but we might need to send a reminder in a little while perhaps. Ah, yes, and Vanda's confirming. Thank you. Excellent.
Okay. I'm unsure what "a review of the selection process is to be added to the final milestone in the white paper" means. Alan, you can refresh my memory perhaps because I thought--
Alan Greenberg: Hold on. Sorry. I was looking at something else.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I thought we did everything we wanted to.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Where are-? You just read something coming- comes from which item?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The second line in the 4th of January action items.
Alan Greenberg: The 4th of January action-- Okay. Sorry.
Sebastien Bachollet: He has a link.
Alan Greenberg: No. I have it. I just have to click on it. I was looking at some e-mail that just came in that confused me, which we'll talk about in a moment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Again. He's been pre-prepared here.
Alan Greenberg: If I was prepared, I would have noticed it five minutes before the call. I don't have a clue.
Sebastien Bachollet: You know, my feeling on that is that we can-- now we have to deliver the milestone to the ABSGT and finalize that. And we don't need to make any changes right now because we have the main milestone on the document, and that's enough. I know that there are other topics that I would like to see introduced, but we don't need to do that now. It will not change the overall document.
Alan Greenberg: No. The ABS design team or whatever has some work to do to expand on the list.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Alan Greenberg: And that group may largely be us. But I don't think it's today's task.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No. I don't think we left anything out. And I assume that the white paper portal link went to the AFRALO workspace wiki. Matthias, can you--?
Matthias Langenegger: Yes. That's completed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I particularly ask why we're only picking on AFRALO for that?
Matthias Langenegger: I'm not quite sure because I wasn't on that call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Well, Matthias, we were, and none of us can-- unless someone can help me.
Matthias Langenegger: Oh, I think I know, because it was right before the AFRALO call. Maybe that's why.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah, maybe. However--
Matthias Langenegger: All the RALOs have been informed and know about the white paper. It's also added to all the regional teleconferences this month.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. So that's probably the main issue. All right. Just a little question mark on that. If anyone does remember why we were particularly focusing on AFRALO. It wasn't that they needed a call set up?
Matthias Langenegger: That's it. They wanted to have a call before--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, which isn't really what's said in that line. So that's a matter of not particularly effective wording to make sure that we do catch up on that. So, yeah. I left the ball back in your court anyway but perhaps just make an additional note there and set it still to be completed but will be.
Okay. Staff, back to you again. Have you had your meeting with Carlton and Dev yet?
Matthias Langenegger: No. We didn't.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Matthias Langenegger: (Inaudible) doodle request last week, but it hasn't had--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Haven't found the time yet? Okay. Well, that's on the to-do list. And perhaps Carlton will address that (inaudible)--
Alan Greenberg: Except most of the time slots have already passed by.
Matthias Langenegger: Yeah. I think that's just another new-do for some time slots in this week or beginning of next week.
Alan Greenberg: Well, I think you need to make sure Carlton exists first.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, yeah. He's on the call.
Carlton Samuels: I'm here.
Alan Greenberg: Carlton is on the call?
Carlton Samuels: Yes. I'm here.
Alan Greenberg: Ah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was going to say he's got this whole (inaudible)--
Alan Greenberg: Sorry. I missed that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Whatever that e-mail is that's come in, Alan, has really got your attention.
Dave, you're the next matter, working with James on the high-level for .CAT and, more specifically, how it's going to impact ICANN business models, et cetera. I was very distracted for several days. Did it go to the Excom list, because, if it did, I don't remember it.
Sebastien Bachollet: It went, and they made some comments.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go ahead, Dave, then Sebastien.
Dave Kissoondoyal: Yes. Basically, I contact-- I talked to James, but he mentioned to me that, okay, he was far behind with the document on the IBNs and that he won't be able to make it. So I drafted the initial document and then put it for comments.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So it's gone out to which lists for comments?
Dave Kissoondoyal: In fact, I sent it to the executive committee members. And then Sebastien sent his comment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Sebastien, back to you.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. My feeling is that, after reading the document, we are too late to discuss about the business model because it was-- This discussion was done one year ago. And it's-- My suggestion was to not send anything on the specific at .CAT. But I know that-- Specifically, I disagree with one part of the document-- of the comment saying that we want them to do like the business TLD, and they need to sell as much-- as high as a price of the domain names. But I think what is interesting in .CAT is that they could show us how it will work for linguistic control TLD and that they are not doing that for money. They are doing that for the good of the community. And my feeling was not to send any comments. But I know that Carlton say something that, yes, we need to send something saying that we support .CAT. But he may say by himself.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Sebastien Bachollet: (Inaudible).
Carlton Samuels: That's true, Sebastien. I agree totally with all the comments you made, except that I thought we could simply just endorse the .CAT comments.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry. Did .CAT make specific comments other than their proposal for the--?
Carlton Samuels: The proposal-- They just endorsed the proposal. There were elements of it that-- The most important elements, as I read them, (inaudible) with Sebastien and Dave, was that there was a basis for noncommercial exploitation for a certain eye level and the way they set it up. And I think we should just endorse the proposal--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right.
Carlton Samuels: – specifically for that context.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Only that context. Okay.
Carlton Samuels: Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: To be honest, that's not something that-- There's more effort involved in putting that through as a full statement in its own right than it would be to perhaps have it as part of the statement on new gTLDs. I'm just trying to make sure that message gets out but in a context which, you know--
Carlton Samuels: Absolutely. That's even a better idea.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah.
Carlton Samuels: That's even a better idea. I like that better. We simply-- Within that statement, we simply mention that proposal as (inaudible)--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: – as an example of--
Carlton Samuels: As a good example. Right. I like that better actually.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: All right.
Alan Greenberg: If I may interject, is there any strong opposition or has there been any strong opposition exposed-- expressed?
Carlton Samuels: No, not to my knowledge. I looked-- I was looking for that, and I didn't see any.
Alan Greenberg: Then our support is not vital to its process. So I support what you're saying now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So can I then ask that, Carlton, if you don't mind-- Are you on the new gTLD list? I think you are.
Carlton Samuels: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because that is expected to be closing off fairly soon, 21 Jan. If you send to the list, quite literally, in view of us wanting to-- In view of the belief amongst some of the ALAC that some form of supportive statement for community use, blah, blah, blah should be included in our DAG-3 comment, here is a draft statement for consideration for inclusion in the final coming out later this week or whenever it is.
Carlton Samuels: Okay. I could do that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just make sure, because even--
People: (Inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, to the new gTLD list. And make sure Evan picks that up. Evan, unfortunately, the last call wasn't able to make it, so different people are holding the pen on different things. And, unless that goes to the list, it may not get picked up by whoever's leading all those pieces together. That's all. I think it's important that it does.
Carlton Samuels: Well, I will-- I spoke to him this morning. So I'll just run it by him.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fantastic. Okay. We're talking less than 50 words here.
Carlton Samuels: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I didn't intend to use a lot of words.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And Vanda is agreeing as well. Fantastic. Okay. Thanks for that, Dave. And I think that's an important discussion. But I also don't want to see-- I don't want to see something underutilized, as well as overutilized. And we also want to be cautious that we don't set up an expectation that we will be commenting on absolutely everything. And I think it was our intention that we had-- To my mind, I thought we were going to try and integrate what we wanted to say about the high-level aspects on .CAT even in with the IDS to some extent, which is why we matched that with James. So I think this is highly appropriate to pop it into the new gTLD process.
Okay. Sebastien, you contacted Patrick, and we've all got the EOI draft out.
Sebastien Bachollet: And the second version also.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. Carlton, you obviously interacted with the EOI workgroup. I must say I'm sort of torn now between putting it out for a formal vote or just voting at the meeting. If it's a vote at the meeting, then we need to make sure we've got quorum. Are we all-?
Carlton Samuels: I am also (inaudible) a vote at the meeting, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So you've got-- Sorry. You're saying we do vote at the meeting?
Carlton Samuels: Yes. I think so.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. The only risk with that is, if we don't have quorum, then we don't have outcome.
Carlton Samuels: Yeah. Yes. But I think that's (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: January being an, often, a worrying month for getting a quorum. Okay.
Alan Greenberg: Can we have--? We should be encouraging regrets, which I'm not sure we're doing actively enough right now. But we should have some idea of who's expected at the call ahead of time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Indeed. We tend to send out a reminder, what, three-- two or three days in advance. Matthias?
Matthias Langenegger: Two days in advance.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Can we ensure that in that reminder a specific for any apologies to be tendered as soon as possible because votes will be being held at the meeting.
Matthias Langenegger: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: When you say two days in advance, two calendar days or business days?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It tends to be calendar days, which means it's--
Alan Greenberg: That puts it in the middle of a weekend, where people don't read mail.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (Inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: I would suggest no later than the start of business on Friday.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Which still puts it on a weekend for the Asia-Pacific, but that's all right.
Alan Greenberg: I didn't say where the start of business.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: True. They get a chance to have a look on their Monday.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah. There meeting isn't until Wednesday.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Tuesday. But anyway.
Alan Greenberg: Is it Tuesday for everyone? It must be bloody late Tuesday.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. It starts at midnight, or 2:00 a.m., depending on where you are.
Alan Greenberg: 2:00 a.m. is what I would have thought for you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No. Yeah. All very exciting. Okay.
Alan Greenberg: It is not 2:00 a.m. for you? Then I have the wrong time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, that would involve me looking in my diary, and I'm not.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Never mind then.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. It's certainly the other side of midnight. It's probably 1:00 a.m., I think.
Okay. So as long as that's done, then I'm feeling a little more comfortable. I was just a little nervous because I want that vote to happen. And I wondered whether or not we ought to start another vote - a big-pulse vote that if you're happy to run it at the actual meeting, then fine.
Okay. Good. I did not send a reminder-- Well, I did but ages ago, not since the 4th of January-- to the lists on the IGS agenda. And I have put together an affirmative statement. I was a little-- The reason I was hesitant to send it to the public list is the huge amount of conversation that's going on in the various IGS-type lists that I do subscribe to and many of you subscribe to, where they're dotting i's, crossing t's, and basically using huge amounts of everyone's bandwidth to have very interesting, philosophical discussions. But I feared opening that up in our list with the same people, while we should be doing things about our white paper.
So I was going to ask you, as it is nothing but a compilation of what has already been said at meetings and at fora, IGS and ICANN, whether if it's headed as-- titled, I should say, as exactly that - a compilation of various opinion and commentary by At-Large (capital-lettered), whether that was going to be inflammatory or not or whether we could just send it-- so there's no question in the mind of anyone reading it that it's a new statement, having been put to a formal process.
This is one of the downsides of, even when you've been absolutely proved justified in all you've done from a rigorous investigation, how it then affects how you-- in the future you work anyway. I'm quite deliberately expecting, unless this is well titled, that it's going to be more trouble than it's worth with yet another ombudsman investigation. So poor timing because we really had very little time and over a bad period to do it with. But what's your view on titling it very carefully as a compilation?
Was that Sebastien agreeing with that or the .CAT?
Is everyone muted? Am I the only one on the call?
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes. Sorry. I was muted. I was saying it was for .CAT, but I must say that I agree with you too.
Alan Greenberg: Let me be the devil's advocate here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. Either that or I (inaudible)--
Alan Greenberg: If this is a statement that has not received substantial discussion in our discussion lists or in our meetings--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, not in the ALAC meetings, no.
Alan Greenberg: Yes. That's what I'm talking-- We are ALAC At-Large. Well, we're At-Large.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Which is why I-- In the RALOs-- some of the RALOs, yes. Which is why I carefully use the words At-Large.
Alan Greenberg: I have no problem with us forwarding a statement on behalf of RALOs that they have come to a decision with. But if they have simply talked about it and we have listened in, but they have not agreed in any formal sense within each RALO or within any RALO that this is a statement of the RALO-- I know we want to make statements on important things. And this may be an important thing.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, (inaudible) is and I would think Europe as well.
Alan Greenberg: Are they prepared to provide us with a statement which we can consolidate in three RALOs that have made formal statements and forward them as statements of those RALOs, even to the extent of saying we have had no objection from the others?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No. We haven't asked them that question. And to ask them now, there wouldn't be time to make the IGS deadline. Therefore, we do nothing, which is fair enough.
Alan Greenberg: I just have a problem making these statements that if anyone wants to audit them, they don't see any substance behind them.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I had a problem. As I started to put it together, I thought - Oh, dear. Yes. I mean every single thing-- And many of them have been at public ICANN meetings. So I mean they are on the record.
Carlton Samuels: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But knowing-- And it's something that personally disappoints me greatly.
Alan Greenberg: Certainly, if we word it as a statement saying - This is not a statement of ALAC or of At-Large, but we feel it is useful to forward to you a compilation of statements that have been made within our community - then I have no problem with that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It's more a matter--
Alan Greenberg: We're acting as a secretary. If the wording-- It's not just the title; it's the-- If the introduction makes it really clear what we're doing, I have no problem whatsoever. And if you think that's a good thing, then I support it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I'm wondering what the net benefit of that is. I mean ICANN has made statements. Individuals have made statements at points either in ICANN meetings or in-- which formulated ICANN's views-- or in their opportunities when they've been at the last IGS meeting to do so.
Carlton Samuels: But can I say that-- If we just say it is a sense-- it is our sense that there are significant interests in the At-Large community. Can we just formulate the sentence that way?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. We certainly can.
Carlton Samuels: Yes. And then you put it forward. So we're not taking an official endorsement; we're just simply relaying what our sense of it is.
Alan Greenberg: Well, a sense of a group is something that may not be subject to a formal vote but has been subject to an informal but, nevertheless, demonstrable decision.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Carlton, it's a matter of how much trouble and time it's going to take if opportunity is made of this being seen as other than - Well, why on earth did you bother wasting your time and resources on doing this when it wasn't put through a full process? When something that traditionally has never been seen as other than the perfect right of an individual to make a statement on behalf or report took up many hundreds of hours of professional and other time.
It's one of those regrets I've had too few to mention. Well, this is one that-- I certainly am unsure whether or not we should risk it. But whether we should then use this as an example, either at our January meeting or in the face-to-face context of our Sunday workshop as to why getting well-established and agreed levels of input and what they mean and a trust model developed, where people who are put through a rigorous process and put in positions for purpose then have the support of the community to act in that purpose with, of course, proper transparency and accountability but not at risk of diligence than most humans would think is necessary.
Carlton Samuels: Well, you know, that's how I feel about it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But if we have that--
People: (Inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. So I'm happy to use this as an example, perhaps. If we let this one go through (inaudible), which personally disappoints me. But then have that is a very useful example as to why we need to have this level of formalized action about how things form, who forms them, who says what and how, and what level of categorization of authority do each of these things have might be well worthwhile.
Alan Greenberg: That all being said, I'll repeat what I said a few minutes ago-- that, if we can say that these are statements made by various members of our community, then I think that is something we can forward, if you believe it has value in the process.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think it's possibly less value-- It would for just be another statement. It's not that different to .CAT.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And I think there's a real risk, perceived or actual. So I think I'm going to withdraw on that because, I must say, just looking at the amount of argument, debate, and traffic by exactly the same characters that will be quite reasonably reactive to what people have said. Just reporting that could be opening not quite Pandora's Box but enough irritation to certainly make our lives a little more difficult.
Carlton Samuels: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So are you all comfortable for me to use this as a brutal example as to why we need these things established then?
Carlton Samuels: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, then damn well support me when I'm doing it.
Alan Greenberg: I think we need to make a statement very clearly--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hang on a sec, Alan. What I don't want to do is put this out here and the only thing that comes back from my fellow leaders is - Ah, yes, well, this is why we need to pick and choose what we spend unlimited resources on. Gee, thanks.
Alan Greenberg: We clearly do need to pick and choose. But I think each RALO needs to identify to what extent its members-- I don't even know how to phrase this-- to what extent each RALO-appointed ALAC member can speak without a formal ratifying vote on behalf of its RALO. In other words, they need to put it on record that our person must say nothing without a formal vote. Our person can say what they ever damn well please or something in between because, otherwise, we are subject to not going down to the grassroots. And it is not the ALAC's responsibility, as a group, to ensure grassroots support. It is the individual RALOs and their appointed leadership - the chair and their two ALAC members - who own the responsibility.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Carlton Samuels: I agree.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And this is one of the-- Carlton, sorry. What were you saying?
Carlton Samuels: No. go ahead, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No. I didn't want to cut across you because you agreed--
Carlton Samuels: I said I agree. And this is one of the things that I think we should get done once and for all because it's something I have been beating at for quite some time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It's one of the reasons I think, you know, the place for the policy development and discussion is not in a list that represents (inaudible). But then, you know, I'm a minority there. (Inaudible) at the system.
Alan Greenberg: I'll give a simple example. When we sent out the white paper, it shouldn't have been-- Pardon me?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry I thought you were talking at the SPI.
Alan Greenberg: No, no. The wrong words came out of my mouth. When we sent out the white paper, it should not have been necessary for us to make sure it went out to the RALO lists. Just like when the gNSO says we need to involve the constituencies and the stakeholder groups, they don't send mail to the stakeholder workgroups. They send mail to the council. And it's up to the councils-- the councilors representing those groups to forward it, stir up the discussion, get the results, and report it back.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Or not. And if they--
Alan Greenberg: Or not.
People: (Inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: Until we get a level of ownership like that, we are going to be continually subject to criticism that we have not gotten the grassroots involved. And it is not our collective job to get the grassroots involved.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Exactly. So establishment of this-- Okay. I see this is as a-- Let's take all the positives that we can out of this, use it as a brutal and effective example which may at least get on to the psyche of being seen as important by the majority of the regions.
Okay. Well, I find that personally very disappointing. But we'll just make the best of what we need to do because it's one of those where I really, really think, in the absence of clear understood, established, agreed guidelines, which we've been trying for since Los Angeles, I'll hasten to add, we've got to do more in Nairobi than just talk about it. We have to have agreements, either at Nairobi, or a method of agreement established to happen immediately after Nairobi. I'd like to see some clear, structural understanding no later than the end of March. Otherwise it's going to hamper us more and more into these next 12 months.
Okay. Five-day vote on 3DN, IDNs. I guess that's almost quorate by now. Is it, Matthias?
Matthias Langenegger: Yes. And consent to the public consultation and the boards early today.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fantastic. Thank you.
So it's actually gone as an official statement. I haven't looked at my e-mails yet. Forgive me. Did we get copied on that, guys? Sebastien? Alan? Did that go to the Excom as well?
Alan Greenberg: It went to ALAC announce.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. That's fine. I'm asking because I literally haven't looked at the e-mails.
Matthias Langenegger: It's one of the mails that went out an hour ago or couple or several hours ago.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fantastic. I just want to make sure it had. That's good because I do like the fact that they are going out. So it gives us a traceability. And we've heard back to Theresa about the strat planning will be a little bit later so that the APRALO meeting can have a close-off. I assume that was all fine. Was it?
Matthias Langenegger: Yeah. Heidi told me that she was in contact with Theresa. The thing is when Heidi told me that, I have already been in contact with Sebastien. And he prepared a draft statement on the strategic plan. And we sent it to the-- We set up a Wiki page, and we sent it to the announcers earlier today. And we then agreed that we will set a deadline for comments from the community for Wednesday night.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I'm glad you two sorted that out. And what is APRALO? When are they going to have their meeting opportunity, seeing they're the only ones who meet after Wednesday night?
Matthias Langenegger: Yeah. I just thought of that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, it's not like APRALO-- Cheryl's now taking off her chair hat, ladies and gentlemen. It's not like APRALO doesn't always meet on the same day as the ALAC meeting.
Sebastien Bachollet: But maybe we have public comments. And my suggestion is there is no problems at RALO formally having a meeting to discuss that. And if we have more time to put that to a document and to send it to ICANN, there is no problem. We can wait for that. My feeling is that it's more important to get deadline for the individual respondent for an organized call. And I have no problem with that. I will say that my concern was I sent it to the Excom as soon as I finished it. And I didn't get feedback. But I know that it could happen to me, as well, in other occasions. It's not a complaint; just that was a situation. And we tried to work out--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There's a vast difference between getting feedback from one member of the region and it going out for a closing of comment period. It's gone out to public on announce with a closing of Wednesday. Correct?
Sebastien Bachollet: That's correct.
Matthias Langenegger: But we can also-- We can just send another e-mail and say--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, Matthias. No, no, no, no, no. That's like driving a ship with four steering wheels, each on the corner. That's not going to work.
Alan Greenberg: Well, I'm not sure what we have right now is going to work - sending out something on the 18th saying - This is a public comment period. It closes on the 21st.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. The public comment period we always knew closed on the 21st, which is why back on the 4th of January we indicated that we would be telling Theresa it will be coming in at the end of the month as opposed to-- But, never mind.
Alan Greenberg: But I don't understand the reference to APRALO meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because-- Okay. In any given month, each RALO has a monthly meeting. Only one, that is APRALO, meets at the very end of the month. We meet on the last Tuesday of every month. When you have a close of comment period which is several days before the ALAC meeting, and, if anything has happened where there is only an ability to comment between the last meeting and the next meeting of the RALO, I think we should avoid. And it, nine times out of ten, affects APRALO more than anything else.
Alan Greenberg: I'm sorry. I understand that part. But, for instance, North American RALO met last Monday. This statement was not out for comment at that time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Another-- Yeah. Anyway, what's done is done.
Carlton Samuels: (Inaudible) general principle-- I think I understand the general principle. It's that we should at least give the RALOs an opportunity to comment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Carlton Samuels: And we should make that in the time of their regular meeting. I think that's what the general issue is.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. And right now we should also perhaps be looking-- I'd like to have a look at how-- the choice of dates that the public comments that ICANN puts out-- How that happens is also a little bit odd as well. They seem to - Oh, I'm sorry. There's too many closing at the end of the month, so I'll make this one a fortnight night earlier. There's not necessarily a whole lot of planning. I mean it's a minimum of a certain amount of days.
Carlton Samuels: If you look at the PAD that we try to generate, it is very stark.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. And, to be honest, let's switch across to that now because agenda in Nairobi meeting is later on in our agenda anyway. If we look at that link you've put in--
Carlton Samuels: Yeah. Just look at the link.
Alan Greenberg: This is the one that was put on Skype?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep. I'm looking at that now.
Sebastien Bachollet: Just on the document, I tried during my weekend to set up unique documents to be the ALAC comments, taking into account what I read in the (inaudible)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, yeah. I read that, Sebastien, yes.
Sebastien Bachollet: But in the same time, I think that it's important that each region-- each RALO who wants to make additional comments or other comments could send their own comment. And it's not to say-- I, obviously, not take any comments made in the different RALOs because it was too complicated to organize the document to be--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, as an ALAC one. Yes.
Sebastien Bachollet: Then this one could be-- We can decide two things - first, that RALO and APRALO could have its own statement, (inaudible) for the RALO is I didn't get anything written. I just get what it was saying during the meeting. I hope that I took everything that was said in the meeting. I'm not sure about that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Everything was. But what was very clear about our meeting-- I thought it was an excellent meeting, and we had representation from all of the regions. What I can guarantee, however, is when you hear people who are in control of your future saying - Thank you for that advice. Make sure you write it down and send it to us, that's-- The subtext of that language is - Yeah, yeah, yeah. We're here. We're kind of listening. But unless it's in a written response, we actually don't need to pay any attention to it. And when people, such as Asia-Pacific, have probably, particularly at this time of year-- because we're just starting into our break. We're not finishing. The rest of the world's finished their yuletide Christmas and Chanukahs. We're just getting into our major breaks in most of my At-Large structure countries.
What they would possibly believe is the representation they've made at an unearthly hour in the morning is somehow going to be taken as a proper contribution. The sad thing is it is not. ICANN will pay absolutely no attention to what was said to the meeting by individuals of the meeting at that meeting, unless it's written down. And it's not going to get written down in another form, other than the types of things you've put together and that the various regions have already done.
I'll also note that, of course, Asia Pacific is the only region, Matthias-- something you need to note-- that did not have Theresa-- to my knowledge is the only region. Perhaps there was another one. But I can assure you, Theresa did not present directly to the RALO. Every other RALO had either the opportunity or an actual briefing on the strategic plan. You know?
So, yet again, thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, linesmen. Thank you, ball boys. You wonder why China and the places in my part of the world think - Why do we bother? However--
Sebastien Bachollet: I am not sure that we will have tomorrow in our call. I don't know if she's coming to EURALO call tomorrow. But maybe what I can do is to try to take the--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, as an ALAC statement, it's a good statement. I think as an ALAC statement, it's a great statement. And ALAC hopefully will endorse it, and we'll be putting that in. But, Matthias, I would suggest you talk to the leadership of all your RALOs to make sure they are aware that individual comments are strongly encouraged. It goes back a little bit to our last conversation that we were having about how people put in what, where, and when.
Matthias Langenegger: I'm sorry. I don't quite recall this conversation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. We were just talking about the issue of not putting anything into IGF on the future of IGF because of the lack of a clear, transparent, direct system that says - this means this. And if these people put it in this way, it has this level of accountability and creation behind it versus-- Cheryl puts in a personal comment is vastly different to Cheryl puts in something on the PAD of the ALAC.
So the RALOs-- Some of the RALOs probably believe that what they have said at our public call meetings is sufficient input inasmuch as it was being heard by the people they want to get the message to. What I was saying is those people, Theresa in particular, kept saying that. But I'm not sure that our regional leaders heard it as clearly as I hear it. Thank you for that information; that's fascinating. But, no, I'm not going to take a note of it or take it into account unless it's written down in a formal comment. And unless the ALAC captures those comments, then the regions have to.
So what I'm suggesting to you, Matthias, is you make it really clear to the regional leaders and get them whatever assistance needs to happen to get regional comments in. And if one or more of those regions needs more work, so it is.
Matthias Langenegger: All right. I'll make a note.
Alan Greenberg: And, certainly, as was suggested with the IGF, the ALAC is empowered to transmit RALO statements on behalf of those RALOs, consolidating any that have them. So they can be transmitted with the attention-getting ability, to what extent we have that, of ALAC, even without a vote, if it is a formal statement of the RALO. Then we're just a conduit. We are not approving it; we are passing it on.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Which is the place many of us believe we should be getting to. But it's something that I believe is of great concern to those countries who believe ICANN doesn't give a damn about them anyway because we're not Anglo or of a similar political mind. And, there, the challenges that, certainly, in APRALO are festering just below the surface, But the way we operate, we're not making them clear in the same way as other regions might be making them, either in their meetings or on their lists. But don't believe that the tensions are not there because they're not being said. The tensions are there. And when you're getting things like - Why are all of these important meetings at absolutely unearthly and unreasonable times for our time zone? That is a signal that, you know, please be aware some of us are not happy. That's like which way have you crossed your feet, and how have you picked up your sandwich - with your left or your right hand? They're subtle cues, but they are cues that are out there.
Anyway, looking at the PAD, yes, it seems interesting that nothing happens in the first fortnight of any month. Doesn't it?
Carlton Samuels: I just wanted to know that you flagged it, Cheryl. I just want to bring it up. That creates a certain systemic problem.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It does.
Carlton Samuels: And I don't know how we are going to address it. But when you start doing the (inaudible) and debates, you realize how impossible it makes it for us to act.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It makes it extremely difficult, extremely difficult. Yes.
Carlton Samuels: Yes. So that's one thing that this thing-- It just jumps out at you.
Alan Greenberg: Well, just keep in mind, however, several of those dates were postponed from earlier dates when we, among others, complained about the tight timing in conjunction with the previous meeting and over Christmas. So this particular set of dates is not sitting on its own.
Carlton Samuels: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: Your statement may well be true in the general case when we go back and look at the history.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. It might be an interesting little analysis to do, I must say. The one that worries me most about this is the affirmation. It is essential that we put something in on the affirmation. And we have had a direct request from board members and various other people that, of all the groups, one of them that they are particularly keen to get a feedback from is the ALAC.
Carlton Samuels: Well, At-Large actually.
Alan Greenberg: Then we need to draft something really quick. Don't we?
Carlton Samuels: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So, you know, how's that going to happen?
Carlton Samuels: Well, you see the numbers there.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I do. It doesn't change my question.
Carlton Samuels: I know. I'm not sure how we are going to (inaudible) to catch up. We could put together a drafting team on a kind of hurry-up-and-do-something basis. And that might not produce the best work for this situation here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, it depends whether you are going to have a statement by the ALAC--
Carlton Samuels: ALAC. Well, this is what I'm saying.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --or a statement by At-Large.
Carlton Samuels: At-Large, right. Well, that's precisely the distinction I want to draw attention to.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I can assure you that ICANN is interested in what At-Large says. But, politically, what it needs is statements by the ALAC, which is, after all, the only organ it has to advise it on the matters of At-Large interests. And that goes back to when (inaudible)--
Carlton Samuels: (Inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. When I said at the last IGF meeting in the discussion on the affirmation of commitment-- the public conversation that was held at that meeting. And one of the questions I asked about the future reviews was where was, in their time course, the opportunity for more wide public input. In other words, At-Large capitalized and not capitalized. And the chairman of the board suggested - Isn't that what I was in the room for as chairman of the ALAC? It wasn't to be ALAC that was to give ICANN that information.
Alan Greenberg: I think that makes life easier for a lot of people. The RALOs delegate all their responsibility to their ALAC members. And the ALAC members all delegate it to you, and we're done.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. That's great. Okay.
Alan Greenberg: And that's perfect until we don't like what you say.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, exactly. What I'm saying is that was an actually publicly made statement that gives you an indicator that what they want to hear is something that is valid. And they want it to come, you know-- less fuss about where it comes from, but they certainly want it to come. In at least some board members' views, that is what the ALAC is for - to have filtered up, inquired in whatever way was relevant, and collated information to bring up to them.
Alan Greenberg: Well, and I can't argue with that. I can argue with it being Cheryl Langdon-Orr who is in the room to do that. I can't argue with it being ALAC is there to do that. Now if Cheryl Langdon-Orr is due to do that, I presume your airfare to Egypt was paid for by ICANN.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That would be a no.
Alan Greenberg: Well, exactly. And you may want to have that discussion privately with the chairman of the board. That, if indeed, At-Large input in IGF is important, then they should be doing that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'll hasten to add that this was an affirmation of commitment to meeting. It just happened to be at IGF.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah. I understand. But it was being held, and there was no one who paid for from our community to go to that meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah.
Alan Greenberg: My statement stands, I'm afraid.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, and you'll get no argument from me on that, I can assure you. It seems to me that regions aren't there as well.
Alan Greenberg: Unless we believe this timeframe needs to be changed and it was started on the 26th, the day after Christmas, which is not exactly the right time to get people's attention, I don't know if anyone else is asking for more time. We have several choices. Either we ask for more time and hope to hell they listen-- And I don't know what the timeline is after it which might allow them or not allow them to change this particular deadline.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I actually think if we head to the end of the-- You're talking--
Carlton Samuels: They couldn't change the comment period, you're saying, Alan?
Alan Greenberg: I said we have several options. And I got to the first one of saying request that the comment period be extended. And I don't know what the chances are of them accepting that because I don't know what the process is after that, which has perhaps a strict timeline on it.
Carlton Samuels: Well, I think they're interested in At-Large comments. It would be in their interest.
Alan Greenberg: Well, they're interested in At-Large comments, but they're not interested in screwing up the overall timetable.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah.
Alan Greenberg: And my understanding is there are decisions that probably need to be made in Nairobi. So I don't know. That's one option. The other option is quickly putting together a list of bullets and talking points-- I'm saying quickly in the next two or three days-- put them out for comment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And do something at the meeting.
Alan Greenberg: And do something at the meeting and have a document ready for the 31st.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Which is doable, as long as it's seen as an ALAC statement.
Alan Greenberg: It's doable as long as we get the talking points there. And then we can augment them and add frills onto them in a formal document. But we need to identify quickly what the issues are.
Carlton Samuels: Which would have to go back again for comments - the final document.
Alan Greenberg: Well, okay. We may disagree. I think it's an ALAC prerogative to approve. And I think it would be done. Now whether the ALAC members consult enough with their own constituencies or not, I hesitate to say--
Carlton Samuels: I am glad you agree with me on that, Alan, because (inaudible) position. I don't believe in this two-step process of going back to them because I make a few changes.
Alan Greenberg: It's a judgment call on what's a substantive change and what isn't. If you say a, b, c and then write x, y, z in the document, well that's different.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Then that's different.
Carlton Samuels: And that's always been case.
Alan Greenberg: We have been known to do that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. And this is an interesting case, where in at least the Asia Pacific regional representatives to the ALAC, we're given a position of trust. We will be told, as we ask questions, whether what we say is agreed with or not. And then we're given the authority to act in the region's best interest, which is why you'll hear particular language out of my mouth which probably sounds very odd from an Australian.
Whatever we say, we expect to be scrutinized. That must be in the region's best interest and representative of the views that have been expressed. But we do not (inaudible) with the mandate and the delegated authority to do what we have to do in the region's best interest. That's not, however, how all the RALOs work. But I'm happy to try and do a best effort. What we need to do now is make sure that we have drafters from each of the regions. And, Matthias, you're going to have to ask K.T. for who, not me, will be in that drafting team from Asia Pacific.
Matthias Langenegger: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So did you want to put a call out then into the working list, guys? Or how do you want to populate this drafting team?
Matthias Langenegger: Just one thought. I could also try to talk to Marcos tomorrow whether it was possible to extend the deadline, just as an additional option.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, if you have a quiet conversation along the lines of - If it is necessary. I don't want to make that public. I'd rather not say - We're asking for an extension, and now can you start work - because human nature being what it is. But if we have that (inaudible).
Matthias Langenegger: No. I would just call him and see what he thinks about it if it's just for some data.
Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, let me ask a candid question. Are there other people in Asia Pacific who are cognizant enough of the issues to participate in that drafting team in the next day or two?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Alan Greenberg: There's no time for study.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, there's people who certainly can be up to speed in enough time to do that, yes.
Alan Greenberg: Can I ask a question first? Sorry, this is an interjection. Has anyone been in contact with Beau in the last while, either on a conference call with him or something else?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Nope. Not at all.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Thank you. Sorry. The question just was raised - is he alive?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Popped into your head.
Alan Greenberg: Mail is bouncing apparently.
Matthias Langenegger: Have you been on RA calls, Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Matthias Langenegger: And he hasn't?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We haven't had a meeting-- We've only had one meeting, which was on the 17th of December.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Sorry. I thought there were meetings last week - Monday and Tuesday.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: They were canceled.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: RAIB called (inaudible) continuing. There's been only the one RAA call.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Sorry to interrupt.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, no, I think it's relevant because it comes to the matters of too much being carried by too few for whatever reasons. It doesn't matter what the reasons are. Well, it does. The people those reasons are affecting it matters to. But we do need to ensure that there is a sharing of the workload.
Alan Greenberg: Well, I will point out-- I don't know if it's valid. If it's important or relevant, the three of the five Excom members are not RALO appointed people.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's right. And I think it is valid and important. So how are we going to populate this drafting team? Globally balanced? Yes, please. I think we need at least one of us on it. Carlton, the problem your region has is, I guess, coming a little bit out from what Alan just said. And that is, traditionally, what we've had is more contribution to statement development by nominating committee people then we have by the RALO representatives.
Carlton Samuels: Yes. That is true.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Therefore, as something as important as the AOC I'm a little fearful about insisting that it becomes universally-- you can't be a member of the executive-- I think we need at least one member of the executive on the drafting team. And, yes, some of us will have an interest in it anyway. I would think we would all be probably (inaudible) on it. But I also don't want it to be seen to be just the executive doing another lump of drafting.
Carlton Samuels: I agree. But we still have the other hump to get over. How do we get people who have not demonstrated interest?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep, exactly.
Carlton Samuels: Interested in something that we consider important at this stage.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Is it reasonable for you to-- When this call goes out, can you specifically ask Silvia if she is interested in being part of the regional representation? She seems relatively keen to be engaged in activities but at the moment in focusing pretty much on the matters of language and, particularly, obviously, to the Portuguese language issues.
Carlton Samuels: Yes. I would be happy to ask her.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If that's possible, can I ask you then to also be involved in that drafting team in sort of a supervisory nurturing role?
Alan Greenberg: Are we going to try to put out a bullet list prior to the drafting team? Or is that the drafting team's job?
Carlton Samuels: This is what I was going to suggest: That probably, Alan, if you and I get together and put out a bulleted list to kind of (inaudible) the drafting team, would that be possible?
Alan Greenberg: I would like to have Cheryl involved in that process.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. I'm happy to be involved at that level of it, yeah.
People: (Inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: --particular focus is on the review teams, I must say.
Carlton Samuels: That's how I would want to list my involvement, Cheryl. But, simply, let us get together and foot the list - a bulleted list. And then we can suggest those as (inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: Can we schedule a meeting in the next 36 hours after all of us have reread the document, if we haven't read it before?
Carlton Samuels: I read it (inaudible), but I'll read it again.
Alan Greenberg: I phrased that carefully. I'm not asking for an admission of guilt.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, we can. Of course, we can. My particular-- Can I ask you to use a wave, please, as well? I'm really trying to wean us off Skype for a whole lot of reasons, not the least of which is Skype is so (inaudible), where at least the waves are either there when you see them or not. But that doesn't matter. We can use both.
I will be clear now. My particularly strong thoughts are all focused-- I like-- Nearly everything in the AOC I'm conceptually happy with, I'm committed to, I'm warm and fuzzy, I like where it's gone. Been like that since the beginning. My concerns and debate and discussion points are nearly all focused on the review team's structure, process, and purpose. So I'll declare now that's where my passions are and where my input will be coming towards.
Carlton Samuels: I suspect that you're going to find most of us in that area as well.
Alan Greenberg: You mean you're not happy with the fact that we have absolutely no say regarding who it is that's speaking on our behalf?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I just say I've already argued very strongly in some rarified atmosphere circles why this is not a good thing and blah, blah, blah. So I obviously have strong biases in this process.
Alan Greenberg: Let me tell-- Just let me interrupt for one moment and tell you a very short story.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please.
Alan Greenberg: Many years ago I had someone working for me. And we start-- for the first time went through the process of we had to write our own job descriptions to describe what we did. And that would be used as a basis for what salaries we got. We had a very talented person, who-- He happened to be a US draft dodger. This was during the Vietnam War. But he had prior to that-- been an English major at Yale, I believe. He wrote a fine job description. His job was basically to delete data files when they were too old or too large. He got the best evaluation of about 30 senior programmers because he knew how to write well. That's the situation we're in right now. He was a nice, bright guy, but his job did not compare anywhere. He was a clerk compared to the senior people who were doing real work. But that wasn't how the people who read his document viewed it. That's the danger we're in.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah.
Carlton Samuels: Um-hmm (affirmative). Yes, sir. I agree with you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And the other thing is--
Carlton Samuels: Now we know the risk.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I really fear we have one or two-- It's a little bit like only the verbally articulate get heard and followed when we're putting together these draft documents. It's so, so easy for people to just skim read something. And what makes us different - this little pancake group we've got here - to the bulk of lower case At-Large, and a fair number of upper case At-Large is that we don't just read over something and go - Oh, that sounds all very nice. We actually do an analysis on what it says. It's like looking at a contract versus reading a contract. And I think that's something else that we just need to make sure that we also bring into our future discussions that we're very, very careful of here.
Okay. All right. Bullet points meeting next 36.
Alan Greenberg: If everyone who's going to be in that meeting is on the call, can we just set a time now instead of going through a doodle process?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Whatever.
Carlton Samuels: I can do it at the same time tomorrow.
Alan Greenberg: Fine with me. Cheryl, is it too early for you?
Carlton Samuels: It's too early for you, Cheryl?
People: (Inaudible).
Carlton Samuels: That's 5:00am?
Alan Greenberg: Well, I don't mind doing it two hours later.
Carlton Samuels: Okay, two hours later. Can we do it at 2000 hours?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm just looking at-- Now, look, to be honest, this time tomorrow will be as good as it gets.
Sebastien Bachollet: If we can do half an hour later because I have the RALO call at 5 UTCs. And it will finish at half passed 6, I guess, UTCs. And if we can start at half passed 6 UTC--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Split the difference. Split the difference. Make it the hour later.
Carlton Samuels: Make it an hour later.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. So an hour later than this call?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Carlton Samuels: Yes. 1900, right?
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. UTC time, yes?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Carlton Samuels: 1900 UTC.
Alan Greenberg: Matthias, are you still on the call?
Matthias Langenegger: Yes, I am.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. So we can arrange with Adigo?
Matthias Langenegger: Yes. I will send out a reminder shortly after this call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks. And can I make that one-- If you can make sure it gets into my calendar, Matthias. But can we have an Adobe room so we can share documents, seeing as I'm obviously not going to encourage you all into wave. We might as well just use the Adigo--
Alan Greenberg: Wave is fine with me.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But if we've got an Adigo room, we can have that in there as well.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because I think it's going to be one of those put up the points and quite literally edit them as we do it.
Carlton Samuels: Right, right. I think that's the best way to do it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Carlton Samuels: Let's group them and start with the groupings. And then we work them through that way.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So if we-- now I think you said, Matthias, that you'd set up a doodle-- I'm sorry, an Adobe for this call. I'm not in that room. Is anyone in that room?
Alan Greenberg: No, I'm not.
Matthias Langenegger: No. I didn't send you the link finally because I (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Perhaps if you send it to us for the purposes of preparing ourselves for tomorrow's call and then I'll embed it into a wave.
Matthias Langenegger: Sure. Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And that way we can work (inaudible) directly into the room or through the wave into the room and do our rough drafting there, which means that it can literally be a white board. So all we'll need is a chat and notes space for now.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Just real quick, that's Sebastien, you, Carlton, and (inaudible). Right?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Dave and Vanda.
Alan Greenberg: So everybody? Okay.
Carlton Samuels: If they can make it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Now I've totally lost the agenda because my mouse is hovering over things that are suppose to change my screens and they're not changing. Help. We're still on the pad? Carlton?
Carlton Samuels: Yes, we're still on the pad.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Back to you while I try and work out what--
People: (Inaudible).
Carlton Samuels: If you look at the bottom and go to (inaudible), it will take you to the variables that we use to develop the automation. I just want-- This is not set in stone now; it's just my own intuit. I simply look at the time allotted and decided that there are certain periods we could use for certain things. And that's how it's allotted. It's not written in stone. That's what we would like coming from most.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. So that's how the dates are created?
Carlton Samuels: That's how the dates are created, yes.
Alan Greenberg: We could now override them and change them should we choose?
Carlton Samuels: Yes. If you override them-- If (inaudible) three and change that to five, the dates will change all along. It will just ripple down.
Alan Greenberg: No, no, no. Can we change the individual dates on sheet one?
Carlton Samuels: Yes, you can.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. And then they stay changed. They don't revert back?
Carlton Samuels: They don't revert back, no.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, fine.
Carlton Samuels: So the other issue was-- Remember (inaudible) the issue whether or not you could have an editing of the list, (inaudible)? Yes, you can. We came up with an idea that, probably, we should just skip some lines and put data to this. But I thought, no, it wouldn't be. So we are working on a way to read the line to see if there's anything in the line before we edit. That way if you happen to put something in mechanically, then it would not override it. You follow me?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, yes.
Carlton Samuels: Right. So we are going to take care of that to make sure that you can-- anyone of us, who are authorized, could go in and edit the list. Yeah?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hum (affirmative).
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Carlton Samuels: And it retains its--
Alan Greenberg: And when you add a new line the rest of the fields get populated based on those numbers on sheet three?
Carlton Samuels: Precisely.
Alan Greenberg: If you change the numbers in sheet 3, does it go back and correct the ones that are already there? I hope not.
Carlton Samuels: For that specific-- For that specific--
Alan Greenberg: No, no. If you go to sheet 3 and change one of the delays from 5 to 6.
Carlton Samuels: Then, on the front sheet-- On sheet 1, the new numbers-- the new dates pop up.
Alan Greenberg: Changing all of those that you may have already overwritten.
Carlton Samuels: That's right. It will change them.
Alan Greenberg: I would think you should only use these numbers for new entries.
Carlton Samuels: Hmm.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. I see what you mean, Alan. Okay.
Alan Greenberg: Sorry. We're now having the call we haven't had yet. We shouldn't be doing this on the Excom. Sorry. My apologies.
Carlton Samuels: Well, Alan, let me think about this for a minute because, you see, if-- To my mind, what you would change is an existing line. What-- If you make any changes, you would make any changes on sheet 1.
Alan Greenberg: Correct.
Carlton Samuels: The (inaudible) change would be on sheet 1.
Alan Greenberg: And my question is: If you change the--
Carlton Samuels: And the way to make the change on sheet 1 is to go to sheet 3 and change the date-- change the number.
Alan Greenberg: No, no. Okay. Let me try to be clear. On sheet 1, I will look at line 6, the affirmation, and I want to change the date of the 22nd of January to the 23rd of January.
Carlton Samuels: Right.
Alan Greenberg: I don't want to change all of them.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just that one.
Carlton Samuels: Oh. In that case, you simply go in and edit that sheet at that line.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. And now my question is-- If I later-- someone goes to sheet 3 and changes 25 to 22, does that repopulate that column on sheet 1 at that point?
Carlton Samuels: Ah. That's something we haven't (inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: And it should not.
Carlton Samuels: I don't know for sure.
Alan Greenberg: It should only-- Sheet 3 should only be used--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: – to propagate a new set of data, not to fix the old.
Carlton Samuels: The new set of numbers. Right.
Alan Greenberg: No. I mean, in subtle ways, it could highlight or shade the other ones to say they're not in conformance. But it must not change them if a human being has already changed them or even if not.
Carlton Samuels: Right. Didn't test that.
Sebastien Bachollet: But if it's working as I imagine, when you write something into a place, you put out the formula. And then, if you change inputs who are used by formula, it will not be used in this case because there is no anymore formula in the box.
Alan Greenberg: But, Sebastien, even if there's still a formula, it is a date that we perhaps have published all over the world. We can't change it because we want to change the rules in the future.
Carlton Samuels: Yeah. You see, these are global variables there. (Inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, but they should only be used--
Carlton Samuels: – for new edits.
Alan Greenberg: – for new ones. You know. As I said, other than if you want to get subtle and make a pink background if a date there is not in conformance with the formula, that would be delightful. So, if we edit it ourselves, it's not in conformance-- If the standards change, it's not in conformance. But you must never change the date of one that we've already--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hum (affirmative).
Carlton Samuels: Probably what we should do is-- The easy way to do it is put a lock on those that we have changed.
Alan Greenberg: We could.
Carlton Samuels: That's probably the easiest thing to do. Okay. I get it, Alan. We have not tested that. And so I will--
Alan Greenberg: As I said, this is what we should be discussing on the call that we haven't had.
Carlton Samuels: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Not to worry. I'll take it on advisement and (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But, also, this is something in the call that you're having with staff-- you and Dev are having with staff, because I'm sure Matthias, who's certainly worked more extensively with the PAD than, I think, any other staff member has-- There might be some other issues that he might see through his lens that need to be looked at as well. Matthias, do--?
Alan Greenberg: Matthias is on the call and, I think, Nick, also. Isn't he?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don't know. Matthias?
Matthias Langenegger: (Inaudible) on the call. And, also, George Kwief (ph), who is working on the member management systems.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah. Good.
Matthias Langenegger: So, Carlton, if you would be available towards the end of this week or early next week before we have the ALAC call--
Carlton Samuels: Yes. I will definitely try to see if I can get Dev in, and we'll do that Matthias.
Matthias Langenegger: Okay. I'll send you a new doodle for some dates later this week.
Carlton Samuels: Yeah. Would you add Dev to it because there's a youngster who's done most of-- I haven't fully done this-- in Trinidad, and we might want to have him there just in case.
Alan Greenberg: He was already on that list, I think.
Matthias Langenegger: I think he was on the list. Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, Dev should have been. Great. Dare I say--? Have we finished item two on our agenda?
Carlton Samuels: I think so.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah, that's genuinely scary, guys. Okay. Now, did you-- You've seen out of the agenda Marco's specific indicators of performance note. That goes very much to the reviews. And one thing that I've stood up in public and asked for on our mutual behalf is a set of measurable. I find it absolutely ridiculous to consider measuring any form of review unless you've got something to measure it against. So I'm assuming that we will be doing that in conversation tomorrow. But perhaps if some of us could think of some metrics, that could be very, very useful.
What type report-? Are we getting much-?
Sorry. Did you want to say something? Was that Carlton?
Carlton Samuels: Yeah. I was saying - Geez. If we don't what we're going to measure it against--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, you know, looking at-- The call is now out for expressions of interest to come in for members of the first review team on accountability and transparency.
Carlton Samuels: Um-hum (affirmative). I see it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And do you see any concept of what it is they're going to be asked to measure? The spelling of the words, perhaps. I don't know.
Carlton Samuels: I agree with you. I was going to say that we need to just get them right away and say - Hold on a minute here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. Well, I'm not suggesting we hold on the process, but it has to be the first step in the actual work. That's just scary. It really is. Oh, dear. Definitely.
Are we able to move to the ABS at the moment? The ABS white paper-- I've actually seen less comments than I expected. Now, is this a good thing, gentlemen? Did we simply get it so right that very few people have felt the rush of blood to the head to reply to it or what?
Alan Greenberg: I haven't looked in the last couple of days. I did respond to a few of the comments that were made earlier.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, but I mean, considering--
Alan Greenberg: Have there been many since then?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I'm just looking now. I did look over the weekend.
Sebastien Bachollet: No, but my feeling is that this document is quite long. And then it needs to be really benefits in three languages. And I know that I had some exchange with some people. But I guess it will be done at a RALO meeting level if it's done. And what I would like to be sure that we have also some supportive people and not just people against. But, at the same time, if you look to the comment generally made for ICANN documents, it's almost the same. And one, I guess, important point is that we will answer for a lot of questions is that we want to do that in a short time period. And it's not to say that it will be in the stone for the next ones, elections. I think we do a lot of work during our Christmastime or at the end of the year. And then it's quite normal that it's not too bad.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. My question was genuine. It may be that we actually hit most of the buttons with the discussion points. Yes, we've got a few extra-- Yeah. We do have a few extra comments, in one of which possibly needs to be looked at for action. Alan, nothing seems to have come in since you've responded on a couple of pieces. But that call for some form of graphic representation-- I'm assuming we're talking flow chart of the process?
Alan Greenberg: I wasn't sure if he meant flow chart of the process. I actually thought he meant flow chart of how at is organized. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I thought the comment was more towards understanding ICANN and At-Large than the process.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah. Okay.
Alan Greenberg: I don't have it in front of me, so I may be mis-remembering.
Sebastien Bachollet: I quite agree with you that it's Thomas from New York who made this comment. My feeling-- it wanted to have a view of how At-Large is working more than just the election process.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah, because I took it being under the election section. But I see. You're talking about their relationships and memberships clearer.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Matthias, don't we have-? I thought we had in one of the presentations that have been done in the not too early days- I'm thinking two or maybe three years ago; certainly, while you've been involved and perhaps just before you came on board. Nick might have some. There was some PowerPoints that were used in some of the later outreach and, I think, transition phase between the end of the old ALAC and the beginning of the new ALAC. So we're talking, yeah, about that two-year mark, I guess. There were a few PowerPoint presentations made out around the place that will actually have that type of graphic--
Matthias Langenegger: Oh, was that the one that Robert Garran prepared perhaps?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Robert may have done one. I know--
Matthias Langenegger: I haven't seen it, but I know (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Rajnesh did one. I know Nick had one he was using. So I'm just thinking, perhaps if we can find that somewhere in the archives and just put that up in response to that particular question by Thomas, it shows that we're interacting with the comments.
Matthias Langenegger: Okay. I will try to find that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I just don't want to create new work unnecessarily if there's a perfectly reasonable-- But, for example, I know Nick was using some graphic representation. I know I've used one. I just-- I'd have to start, you know, going through old hard drives to find--
Matthias Langenegger: That's all right. I'll ask Nick. I'm sure he remembers.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. But, certainly, Rajnesh had one, Robert probably had one, Balal even used one in Asia-Pacific. They were floating around. We may as well put that up there.
Okay, so I'm relatively happy with what's happening. Any other comments from anyone?
Alan Greenberg: Yeah. I have a question. I may have missed it. But, did Steve Crocker reply after I replied to him?
Sebastien Bachollet: No.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don' believe so.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Vanda-- Perhaps you could type to Vanda in the Skype, and she can-- in case she got a direct response.
Alan Greenberg: – because one of his comments really, really worries me-- that he said he favored voting the electorate B to C.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah.
Alan Greenberg: Whereas, because C gave too much control to the RALOs, but B gave all control to the RALOs.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah.
Alan Greenberg: And it made no sense at all. And I wonder at that point how much people are actually understanding what we're saying. I mean, I'm asking the general question more than why he said that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It may not be that he didn't understand. That may be very well what he believes, because there certainly was a belief not only in the At-Large review committee, because I've been privy to some of the early drafting through the process. So what came out in public was often toned down compared to what was being discussed in their early drafting. And, as a matter of courtesy, I was copied on a number of early drafts, which were not distinctly different but different enough from what was publicly related to us-- to know that there was a very serious keenness. And these were by members of the board. And they may not have been the only members of the board to believe this-- that the regions needed-- if not, the ALSs needed to have quite a strong power in this process.
Alan Greenberg: No, but his-- I'm trying to find it, and I can't right now. But his comment seemed to be at odds with that. He seemed to be implying that the ALSs should not have as much direct control. I just can't find his comment right now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, he probably does, then-- Vanda will check. He's in hospital having surgery today. So she'll get back to us. It might very well mean that he did in fact mean, you know, that regional level because that is who ICANN has a relationship with-- should be who is doing it.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Just let me read his particular comment. It includes-- It's C. It includes the possibility of having each RALO direct the vote of both its chair and its ALAC appointees, and, hence it does not indeed give the RALOs-- It does indeed give the RALOs substantial control.
I have slight qualm about this but not so strong as to object. I recommend treating this as a temporary decision to be revisited. My qualm is that this choice makes the choice of the ALAC board member highly political. As you know, board members are supposed to act in the best interest of the community and the organization and not just on behalf of the group that points them. I would say this particular choice is probably worse in this respect than A or B. Now, A is the ALAC voting alone.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Alan Greenberg: And B is the RALOs voting alone.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Alan Greenberg: So that doesn't sound right. I mean--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don't know. (Inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: But he says: The balance between the two is not good, but all one way is great or all the other way is great.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, maybe he simply pragmatically wants the electorate to be one of the levels of organizational structure that ICANN has a committed and established relationship with.
Alan Greenberg: Except he's also rejected all-- just the ALSs vote directly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: – because he thinks that's too political.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. I think he misunderstood, and that's my concern.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, okay.
Carlton Samuels: Can I have a question, kind of foolish? Where is-? I did not recall seeing that comment from- Where is it?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It's not on the public list. It's copied through to--
Alan Greenberg: Sorry. It was sent to a number-- Sorry. It was sent to a number of individuals. I don't know why, but it was.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There's a reply directly to Vanda, and Vanda copied the drafting team.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. That's why-- Well, perhaps now--
Carlton Samuels: I didn't see it. I didn't get it then.
Alan Greenberg: Perhaps not all of the drafting-- Maybe that's why I couldn't' find it when I was just looking for it.
Carlton Samuels: I didn't 'see it, because--
Alan Greenberg: It came to us from Vanda.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hum (affirmative). But Alan responded back to Steve.
Alan Greenberg: – and the other people copied.
Carlton Samuels: Okay. Might I hear the response?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm sure Alan can do that.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, as soon as I find the statement (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, no. Vanda's sending it to you right now.
Carlton Samuels: Vanda is sending it to me.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Fine.
Carlton Samuels: Vanda is sending it to me. Thank you, Vanda.
Alan Greenberg: She sent my response or Steve's note?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don't know. Anyway--
Sebastien Bachollet: May I take this discussion-- because one point is about when the board member will be seated. And I think there are very good insight in the mail of Steve Crocker. And I wanted to make this the flowing proposal-- before to write it, I wanted to have your feedback. If it is to happen that the board decides that ALAC board member is seated at the same time of the SO that's been at the middle of the year or if they decide that it's seated at the-- after the AGM, whatever decision-- I would like to suggest that the one who is not anymore elected from the board member or the liaison could be the other one will be invited during the next four, five, six months to allow speedier taking of the situation of the board because the liaison will have a good knowledge, and the new one will be absolutely a new one, board member, I imagine. And that could be one way to solve for the next six months some of the issue we are discussing. It's just a suggestion.
Alan Greenberg: Well, first of all, I don't know whether Vanda is running or not again. So we don't know if it's going to be a different person. I would suggest that the board review committee is looking at when should people be seated. And I think--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And Vanda's saying that they're trying to have everyone seated at the same time.
Alan Greenberg: And that may-- If that happens, it happens.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Alan Greenberg: If it doesn't, it doesn't. I would be rather surprised if we are seated at a different time than the SOs. I see some major logistics in doing that. But, if that's their decision, then they need to figure out the logistics. And I don't think it's really our call at this point. I don't think it's a major issue on our side. I mean, the board has a decision to make there, which way it will go. It almost-- It matters to us, but I don't think we're going to have major input into this process.
Sebastien Bachollet: No. It's not-- This process this year will be taken to be seated at what time on the other--
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, but what our white paper says is largely - whatever the board decides is fine with us.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah.
Alan Greenberg: In the general case.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep. So I don't see-- We've got-- We've put out a best-efforts outline in our milestones in our white paper, and it has us being treated like other SOs. And that's a fair assumption.
Alan Greenberg: But that's in the steady state. We're presuming that someone is going to be seated with due speed for the first case.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. If and when that changes, then it changes.
Alan Greenberg: That's right. So, in any case, it's a steady-state decision, which is not relevant to the current process.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. (Inaudible), are the regional agendas all having an item to discuss and get some feedback on the white paper?
Unidentified Participant: Yes. Actually, both the meetings this week have very extensive agendas on the white paper.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fantastic.
Unidentified Participant: I'll give you a link.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. What about the APRALO one for the 26th?
Unidentified Participant: I haven't been in contact with K.T. I plan to contact him tomorrow morning.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Yeah. You've got a few things to deal with K.T.
Alan Greenberg: And the North American one-- It came out that day. So we did have a bit of discussion, but I can't say it was substantive or particularly important.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. And I must say this is one of those examples where we really have to start thinking in our planning about allowing the regions. Now this might mean changing some of the days of the regional meetings. You know, APRALO might have to move back to the middle of the month. NARALO might have to move forward. I don't know. But, if we've got a pattern that's happening on calls and (unintelligible) of points in the PAD, we might have to adjust that. But that can happen after Nairobi, if need be.
Alan Greenberg: To be honest, other than the heavy load on staff, it makes it a lot more sense to do them all in one week or close to-- clustered around one week.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Maybe.
Alan Greenberg: I'm not sure which the right week is. But, at least, then things are moderately synchronized.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. Anyway, that's on the to-do list. We'll have to keep thinking of that as we move forward.
Okay. I'm relatively comfortable. Any other-- Actually, I'm only relatively comfortable about the ABF white paper. Any other issues--?
Alan Greenberg: Carlton, did you get my reply or only Steve's note?
Carlton Samuels: I'm checking it now just to see if I--
Alan Greenberg: Just let me know, and I'll forward my reply if necessary.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Nairobi.
Carlton Samuels: I haven't seen it, Alan. Please forward it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Nairobi.
Alan Greenberg: I hear it's an interesting place.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Are we all going?
Alan Greenberg: Who knows?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, Carlton and Alan, have you had any feedback?
Alan Greenberg: I've got no feedback.
Carlton Samuels: I have got no feedback.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: One could suggest to them that, due to the frailty of the e-mail systems these days, and they are somewhat frail, that they at least confirm the reception.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That would be nice. Okay. So you haven't even got a read receipt back.
Alan Greenberg: No.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Matthias, can you send a small note to Heidi saying - Can she please check with constituency travel that read receipts are - Thank you for your e-mail; it's been received-- some form of received receipt has been sent to all of the travelers who have sent their documents as requested?
Alan Greenberg: And those who haven't, you be notified perhaps?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Carlton Samuels: I received mine-- I didn't get it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If Alan and I can be told or if Heidi and I can be told, and then we'll let everyone know who hasn't responded. Now, the deadlines have finished. I need that for my planning.
People: (Inaudible).
Carlton Samuels: They tell me that I should be getting the travel-- the itinerary sometime this week.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So you have had a response.
Carlton Samuels: Yes. I have had a response.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Great. Fantastic.
Alan Greenberg: Recently?
Carlton Samuels: Recently, because I had not seen one. So I had sent and then, within the day, I got both responses.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. But the same questions still stands. We need to know-- I'll say I need to know for our planning who amongst our sponsored travelers have not responded or have indicated they will not be traveling.
Matthias Langenegger: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. We're not asking staff to be involved in it. But we still need to know.
Alan Greenberg: Do we know for sure if Desi is coming or not?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We have no (inaudible) confirmation. As far as I know, she's not.
Sebastien Bachollet: No, no. Desi is not coming. She is not coming. And Patrick is not coming. It's why we have Olivier coming and Rudy.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And Rudy.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. I was just trying to ask-- Does Olivier know he's coming?
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. Yeah. Olivier knows.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Fine.
Sebastien Bachollet: And he didn't get his trip yet, but he knows that he's coming and he answered on time.
Alan Greenberg: That's all I was asking. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But hang on, Alan. That bothers me just a tiny bit that he hasn't got his trip yet. This is why I need that information about who has responded matched with who has been offered.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. But we don't know when he sent his request in either.
Sebastien Bachollet: On time.
Alan Greenberg: Ah. Okay. Fine.
Sebastien Bachollet: I can tell you.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. In that case, it is problematic.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. We need that information. That's something that is more-- I think it's more appropriate for Heidi just to go straight up and ask Steve - e-mails internally.
Alan Greenberg: I understand.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Now, other matters of Nairobi. Assuming any or all of us get there, we have a couple of matters that we've got on agendas. Can I encourage people to put some more proposals into that agenda page between now and the ALAC meeting, so at the ALAC meeting we can have some wider input, particularly for the joint meetings. Obviously, the policy discussions we've got what we assume will be there. New gTLDs, STI. And we need to know-- Dave Kissoondoyal has again offered to do a briefing for us. He'll be doing it remotely. But we, I think, need to make sure that we have both informative and productive meetings. So, if you can just have a little look-- At the moment, for example, there's a few placeholders. We've got a meeting between ourselves and the SIC. Well, it makes sense in terms of improvement processes. The At-Large improvement program needs to be debated and discussed but more than just "Please, add your agenda suggestions below" needs to be there. And, again, also, the specific policies that we believe we'll be looking at.
Now, to some extent, Carlton, that might get populated out of the next lot of consultation-- calls for public consultation that come into the PAD.
Carlton Samuels: We'd have to put it in.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. We may do. But my guess is we will be having at least a new gTLD conversation.
Okay. Any more statements in direction or communications on the agenda for Nairobi?
Alan Greenberg: I've just sent you a link to a BVC article about five people being shot dead in downtown Nairobi.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Seems fair-- not that they've been shot but that you share the article.
Carlton Samuels: Yeah. Well, they had a little thing. There's a Jamaican Muslim cleric who has been going around making a lot of butter. And he was down there. They have sent him home, but nobody will allow him passage through any countries. So that's the brouhaha. And they-- Some Somali fellows had a little (unintelligible) about it, and it became a little boisterous. The Kenyan police shot them.
Alan Greenberg: I think the substantive issue is bullets were flying in downtown Nairobi.
Carlton Samuels: I think it's localized. Not to worry.
Alan Greenberg: We don't know how close it was to our hotel.
Carlton Samuels: By the time March comes around, they'll have that Muslim cleric out of there. We'll send a plane for him or something. Americans-- they're going to send a plane.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I would have categorized this particular group of people as high-risk and high-profile--
Carlton Samuels: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: – to say the least. Hopefully, none of us are in that category. Okay. Now, on the Sunday, we're still happy with the first third of the day to be looking at the ALAC review implementation, which makes me wonder how much time we're going to need later in the week for that meeting with the structural improvements committee. I'm hoping that we'll have already had a number of interchanges with the SIC by then. But that, of course, is yet to be seen. Marco certainly has indicated that he will get back to us as soon as he can on that. And the chairman of the SIC (unintelligible) has said - I'll get back to you on this, Cheryl. But it hasn't happened yet. Perhaps that will (unintelligible) this week.
Yes. Go ahead.
Sebastien Bachollet: It's Sebastien. Do you know if some people of the SIC will be on Sunday morning with us?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That hadn't been the plan. Do you think that's merited?
Sebastien Bachollet: No, no. It's not that. But as our meetings are open, they may feel interested. And then we may tell them that we will be discussing this part-- this implementation plan during our Sunday morning. And, if they want to be with us, I guess, they will be welcome.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, yeah. Yeah. As you know, we have our meetings open. So, yes. We certainly-- I think I'm happy to make a formal invitation as well. But we'll probably-- It's not being concerned yet that the project manager to assist us through the implementation program that was planned and discussed with us in the Seoul meeting-- He's been selected. His name is Seth. Second name, Matthias?
Matthias Langenegger: I'm not sure.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. His first name, to the best of my knowledge, is Seth. It's hoped that he will be at the Nairobi meeting. So that morning should actually be quite a working, working one and less of a fluffy, high-level one, because that's an opportunity for us to work directly with the person whose job it is to help us make it happen. And that will probably be the first opportunity for any of us to meet him. So I'm pretty keen to make sure that that morning is kept as clear as possible for that activity. And then the rest of the day is as we've been plotting and planning.
With the 15 to 20 minutes for the NomComm, that action item has changed. We don't want to-- I'm sorry. It does say - On a day other than Sunday, 7th of March. God, that's written for people who scan just to be confused. It's definitely midweek. So it's not interfering with that day.
And I don't know. Has Peter's staff got back to us at all on AOC and strategic plan discussion time? Matthias, do you know if Heidi's got anything back on that next part of the agenda?
Matthias Langenegger: No. It's not part of the notes. I don't see anything there.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So perhaps just a follow-up reminder to see what's happening with that. We want to speak to Peter and Janice about the review teams. I mean it needs to be in the early part of the week, not the later part of the week-- not the Sunday, though; probably the Tuesday, if that's possible.
Carlton Samuels: Can I just tell you I'm running into a time situation here. I have to get a call from the project office.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Not a problem.
Carlton Samuels: And we are on the line now. So I'm going to drop off for the minute. Okay?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. We'll keep going. So anything we've missed? Have we missed anything now, as far as we can, for Nairobi?
Sebastien Bachollet: I guess-- I don't know if I see it somewhere. But we need to have one time on the-- We have something on strategic planning. We will have finished by then.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Sebastien Bachollet: But then we will start the operating planning. And that's-- It's important that we start to discuss the operation plans for ICANN in general and as far as in particular.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But isn't that a natural consequence of what we're doing on the Sunday afternoon?
Sebastien Bachollet: I guess so, but maybe it's--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What I'm saying is, then, perhaps what we can do is make sure operation plan is in, say, the Thursday agenda, where we've got the wrap-up.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yep.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Sebastien Bachollet: And I don't know where they will be at the level of operating. Maybe they will not be ready to say something. But if they are ready as a team there, maybe we need to have one presentation on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure. Okay. Good. Perfect. Excellent. That makes great sense. So, Matthias, seeing as I'm not going to put comments on that page, if you could make a note that the agenda needs to now have-- For the Thursday ALAC and regional meeting, we'd like to see if we can have a briefing or introduction on the operational plan and that that goes on our agenda.
Matthias Langenegger: That will be with Kevin Wilson. Right?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Correct. Heidi needs to make that-- Also, I just realized, even though I'm logged in, I can't actually edit this page. So one of you will have to do it. We'll just have to put things in comment. So perhaps if we just distribute it, the magic will happen somehow.
Anything else, then, Sebastien, that you've spotted?
Sebastien Bachollet: Maybe I would like to suggest one item on the-- for the secretariat to discuss-- It's a discussion on the LACRALO about documenting in other language and the (unintelligible). My feeling is that the work was done at each RALO level, and that's good. Now we need maybe to have one single type of document that could be something in different language, even the one we don't use, just to let know people what is happening. But, for example, even Portuguese, it's not just Brazil; it's also Portugal. Then it could be interesting not to have that at the RALO level but at a language level. And I would like very much to have the secretariats working on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. We can make that as a proposal for At-Large secretariats to discuss and for us, then, to have as an agenda item on the Thursday meeting as well.
Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you.
Matthias Langenegger: I'm sorry. Sebastien, are you going to put it into the wiki page?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, no one can put it into the wiki page because none of us have the ability to edit the wiki page.
Matthias Langenegger: I think all of you should have (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, this little brown duck is signed in and unable to do other than comment.
Matthias Langenegger: I'll look into that.
People: (Inaudible).
Sebastien Bachollet: You see the comments made by Carlos about Nick coming to one part of the meeting?
People: (Inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep. Okay. Anything else? Alan, have you spotted anything?
Alan Greenberg: Not at the moment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Seeing as I am able to comment, I will now tell Carlos that that's been organized for Sunday. Okay. All right.
Moving right along then, the important deadlines. I don't think we've got any issues with any of these deadlines. We know our requirements for all this. Is there anything you need from us, Matthias, in terms of meeting confirmation and requirements due?
Matthias Langenegger: No. I don't think so.
Sebastien Bachollet: But don't we need--? There are a lot of (unintelligible) time to be determined. And, at least, we may decide the length of the meetings.
Matthias Langenegger: Sebastien, just one thing. One of the problems in Nairobi is that this is a separate meeting venue. And, from what I've heard, they will close it at 6:00 every evening.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes.
Matthias Langenegger: What we're trying to find out at the moment is what time they open it up and, specifically, at what times they will start with the shuttle services so that we have a better understanding of when we actually get to go to the meeting venue and then we get to leave.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's why they're TBD. We'll be running them the normal length of time based on our other meetings. But it's the start and finish time that you can't tell because of that. Is that what you're saying, Matthias?
Matthias Langenegger: Yes; exactly. We just need to make sure we know exactly when we get to start the meetings. Hopefully, we'll get the information in the next two weeks.
Sebastien Bachollet: I hope that we will be able to do that. But my feeling is that, if we want to have a useful discussion at ALAC meeting, we may say exactly that, but people will not go to the previous meeting organizations. If you can add between time and to be determined something like two hours, four hours, seven hours, all day, it will be good information to help us to figure out what type of discussion we want to have or subject or some.
Matthias Langenegger: Okay. Sure. Yeah. We can just-- I will just use the times from the meeting (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Excepting-- You need to also just have a little look about not just how long we advertise the previous meeting for-- how long they actually ran, because we've often had meetings that have gone on longer, particularly that Thursday meeting. The wrap-up meeting often goes on longer than is planned. And this time we won't have that luxury, so we need to move it to earlier in the day if needs be so that it does get finished.
Matthias Langenegger: Yeah. Okay.
Sebastien Bachollet: And do we have any intentions to try to have one specific ALAC dinner or whatever?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I mean, on the Sunday evening, if there is going to be the interaction, and I think it's a healthy, good, and necessary interaction with the fellows, and that would be whenever a regional showcase would be running-- The Sunday is going to be booked out. Because we're not at a hotel, as such-- as in we're not meeting at the hotel, it may be that whatever dinner facilities are available at the hotel that At-Large is staying at might be a natural opportunity just to sort of gather one evening. Do you know if there's anything going on with, for example, ISOC, Sebastien?
Sebastien Bachollet: For the first time, I didn't hear nothing. But I know that the staff will be there. But I didn't hear nothing about any meetings organized. I guess they are troubled also to know what is the schedule. But I can ask Ann in the next few days.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. As far as I know, there isn't any particular thing organized. I just wondered if you'd have heard of anything. So we're not going to have, perhaps, the same number of additional evening meetings. We also don't know when the formal-- Obviously, the gala event is going to be on either the Tuesday or the Wednesday. Matthias, do we have any feedback as to when that might be?
Sebastien Bachollet: You remember that we said it was Tuesday.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It is the Tuesday? Is it? Sorry. I can't say I'll dash back in to look at it with all that much--
Sebastien Bachollet: We said it was Tuesday.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Matthias Langenegger: It has been decided. Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So, if it's the Tuesday, when are you--? Are you suggesting that we have something formally organized on the Monday or the Thursday or the Wednesday or what?
Sebastien Bachollet: It was more a question than a affirmation. But I think it could be good if we can have-- But let's wait when we will know, because, for example, we may have the obligation to have a breakfast each morning before to leave to the place. And, if we-- It could be a good opportunity to have some exchange at the breakfast, like the fellows are doing. But, if not, we will be-- Let's wait for the schedule and then see if we can add something to-- for a dinner, for example, somewhere.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. My only response to that is-- What usually happens in terms of a formal-type dinner get-together at these meetings is that it tends to fall to one of the ALAC members who is from that region because of local knowledge and opportunity to organize that. So, Dave, I don't know whether you want to-- or Matthias-- want to mention at the next AFRALO meeting whether or not there is-- None of the leadership of AFRALO are from this country. We don't have anyone from Kenya in At-Large or the ALAC.
Sebastien Bachollet: No. It's one of my concerns is how we get one ALS prior to the Kenya meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, maybe not prior but, certainly, during. I know AFRALO is very keen to make that happen. But matched up with the security concerns that a number of people have-- Alan, for example, how would you feel about things being a little, just organized once we're there versus pre-organized? There's pluses or minuses either way.
Alan Greenberg: As long as they're organized by someone who knows what they're doing, I have no problem. Organized, saying let's wander down the street until we find a restaurant--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's not going to happen.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. Just for the record, the gNSO is having a community dinner on the Saturday, and Glenn (ph) has already said she has a lead on one good restaurant. So somebody in ICANN has some comprehension of how to do this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right. Okay. Well, can I--?
Alan Greenberg: I would think the chance of being able to do it reasonably well once we're there is not likely to be a lot better than ahead of time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So we'll leave it on our "we need to look at this list." But what we might do is ask Alice, perhaps, as--
Alan Greenberg: Or as Glenn where she got the information.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep. Okay.
Sebastien Bachollet: You know, I will be a little bit more-- I will ask Adam to do that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Adam?
Sebastien Bachollet: Yep.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fine. Now, remember, it has to involve transport to and fro.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. Yeah. I will tell him where the (unintelligible) tomorrow, and I will tell him about that, if he is able to help us.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And we're not spending a lot of time. I mean do not forget, if we're not spending a lot of time in the place that the accommodation is provided, there's often nothing wrong with having a dinner at that venue.
Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. Yeah. No problem, especially with bullets going in the center of the city.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, it's more than that. It's also--
Sebastien Bachollet: No, no. I know.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: – with people being able to sit around for however long they want having a conversation or a follow-up chatter if you're not trying to manage people back in taxis or whatever.
Alan Greenberg: And I point out, if you don't rent a bus or something, getting taxis going back is often problematic.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So, to me, let's ask Adam for some suggestions. Let's see-- Matthias, can you, actually-- for the purpose of planning of at least one formal meeting/dinner, can we ask meetings to perhaps indicate down to a short list of two or three hotels where they might all be staying, because I doubt that we're in the Intercontinental because that's one of the most expensive ones.
Matthias Langenegger: Yeah. I can ask them to give us (inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: Given that they know how many of us there are, I'm not sure I understand why it's so difficult to decide who goes where.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Anyway, I think that's something else we need to look at because it may very well be that, you know, we can simply say - Okay, on X night, we all gather at the accommodation/venue/hotel, and we go to this place, which looks very nice on the internet, and we'll all gather together. But that will probably need to be booked and booked fairly early because, remember, people-- We might have maybe 40, 50, or 60 people in one hotel, assuming that we and fellowship will be put together. If we and fellowship are put together, then that's only a part of the hotel's capacity. They could book that dining room out for a wedding or a 21st birthday.
Alan Greenberg: So you're advancing the concept of planning ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, I know.
Alan Greenberg: That's an interesting one. We should think about that sometime.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Devil that I am. Yes. Sorry. Can't help myself. Okay. Anything else on Nairobi?
Okay, Dave, you might want to raise some of those matters with the AFRALO leadership as well. Okay.
Is there any reason why we can't now move forward? The At-Large-- Sorry the AFRALO Nairobi outreach. Dave, can you brief the rest of the Excom what's happening? Perhaps you're muted, Dave. Star, seven to un-mute. Matthias, is Dave muted?
Matthias Langenegger: Somebody's muted, but it's-- I'm not sure if it's Dave. It doesn't say it.
Sebastien Bachollet: He's writing something on Skype.
Dave Kissoondoyal: Sorry. I was disconnected. I just reconnected.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Here we are going - Where's Dave? Dave? Dave? Okay. Now you're reconnected to us, I was asking whether you could update the rest of the Excom on where we are with the Nairobi outreach for AFRALO.
Dave Kissoondoyal: Sorry, Cheryl. Can you repeat, please?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can you update the Excom on where the AFRALO Nairobi outreach is up to?
Dave Kissoondoyal: Okay. The last meeting that we had, where you were present as well-- We had the outreach capacity building document, which is prepared by Tijani. It was updated. And then-- Just remind me if I'm-- remind me if I do not recall properly. We decided that, okay, the document will be sent to the various sponsors. The document will be sent to the various sponsors, asking for sponsorship. At the same time, mention was made that, okay, the different ALSs that were on the list-- they should start the process of doing their visa formalities-- starting the process of doing the visa formalities, just to-- because of the timeframe, bearing in mind that, okay, though they might be doing the visa formality, the participation to the Nairobi meeting will be subject to the availability of funds from sponsors.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hum (affirmative).
Dave Kissoondoyal: I think that these were the major decisions (unintelligible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks, Dave. Now, Fatimata has written to all of the At-Large structures and the AFRALO list, saying that there is a possibility of this outreach. And if they can do, as Dave said, indicate if they are available or willing or able to nominate one or two people who may be able to attend-- if they can identify any potential in-country sponsor for such travelers. This might be, for example, a regulator or a telco operator who can be written to with an ALAC-endorsed but regional letter outlining what the benefits to the local community would be to have someone who is involved in the world of naming and numbering attend an ICANN meeting and do some capacity-building work and come back to country to assist decision makers and policy development processes and that in the potential of this happening that visas should be applied for now so that, if such funding does come through and the program does in fact run, that there won't be those logistical hold-ups. And all of that is happening this week. So we'll have more to tell you at the ALAC meeting. And I would assume that either Mohammed or Dave is there present or Hawa, although Hawa hasn't been particularly involved in this workgroup. We'd be getting an update from either you or Mohammed at the meeting. Correct, Dave?
Dave Kissoondoyal: Yeah. Sure. I've got all the information, and then report on the meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. It doesn't have to be extensive; just a little bit of where we're up to and what feedback may have come back from the At-Large structures. So they're doing the best they can with what they've got. And, as long as we continue to encourage and support, at the very least, we will have a regional showcase. Fatimata has also asked for people to give them information and materials to put into that. So, the fallback position is that, at least, a regional showcase and joint activity for launching that showcase will go on, on the Sunday evening in the hotel where the fellows get together. If that's the case, then we would expect ALAC and At-Large who are attending the meeting en masse to go and be involved in that particular activity. So your Sunday evening social calendar is booked. And that's pretty much the state of play at this stage.
Which brings us to our agenda for the 26th. We've got AOC. We've got the call for applications for physicians to volunteer the review team. We've got the PAD. We've got more on Nairobi meeting agenda. We've got micro-strat planning for ourselves, which is a consequence of the-- two things-- not only the strategic plan, ICANN-wide. So, because we've had those conversations, we should be all ready to go on that but, also, part of our implementation and review process.
And we-- In terms of that additional item which has Sylvia (unintelligible) written there, that promotion ICANN through At-Large outreach activities-- that was a subset of the discussion that was going on in the strategic plan chat. And I believe that what will also come up there, Sebastien, is the matters of language and the use of UN languages versus languages of best fit for local communities and where and how such interpretation-- sorry-- such translations are done, because some of that will come into our own micro-strategic planning and then, certainly, the operational budget for both ALAC and for ICANN. I'm not quite sure why At-Large review improvements is a separate item outside micro-strategic planning, but perhaps that's me-- just the way I think. What's your opinion on that, Alan? Is there a reason for those things to be separated? Or, Sebastien?
Sebastien Bachollet: No. I don't (inaudible).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'd have thought the At-Large review improvements were the foundation of all our micro-strategic planning for the next 12 to 18 months.
Sebastien Bachollet: Except if it's something linked with election of board member. But I think it's better to put that as an item because my feeling is that we need also to have a call for SOI to be member of the ABS design team and, eventually, ABSC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So how about we replace At-Large review improvements-- whatever is in At-Large review improvements becomes part of micro-strategic planning. But a new agenda item, which is the ABS process goes in there.
Alan Greenberg: Can I interrupt. I seem to have been dropped a little while ago.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, sorry. You're okay back now, obviously.
Alan Greenberg: Well, yeah. It just went silent for a while. And I finally figured out you weren't there anymore.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah. Okay. Well, that explains why when I said something to you, Alan, nothing happened.
Alan Greenberg: That could explain it. What did you say to me - anything interesting?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I actually said to you - Are you in agreement that the term At-Large improvements doesn't need a separate agenda item for the 26th of January-- that that should become part of the micro-strategic planning. And then I think you came back in when I was proposing that we replace that particular agenda item with a specific ABS one.
Alan Greenberg: Sorry. I didn't hear the question. You weren't speaking loud enough apparently.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. And then, of course, we've got the ten minutes for Patrick. We also need the vote.
Alan Greenberg: We're talking about the ALAC meeting, I presume.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Correct.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. I do have an item for that, if you haven't asked yet.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I'll ask again now then.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. I would like to put on the agenda ALAC position description and performance criteria. I will have something out within the next, hopefully, 24 hours.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. How much time do you want allocated to that?
Alan Greenberg: I don't want to have a substantive discussion. I'm going to suggest we do that on our various electronic media and schedule a vote in February.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So introduction review for discussion?
Alan Greenberg: Introduction to what we are soliciting comments on.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So five minutes? Ten minutes? What are you talking about?
Alan Greenberg: Ten minutes should be fine. You may want to allow a little bit more if you're expecting any people to actually say anything, which they might on this particular issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed they might. Okay. So let's say 10 to 15 minutes on that then.
Alan Greenberg: With the ultimate goal of approving something before we come to Nairobi.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Matthias, have you captured that, because I haven't-- written it down, I mean.
Alan Greenberg: If not, I can send something.
Matthias Langenegger: I have written it down. Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, or I'll modify the wiki. Whatever.
Matthias Langenegger: But I wasn't quite sure on the ABS. What would you like this to be called - the agenda item on the ABS?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, we have to put out the calls for the membership. We have to review where the status of comments is on the white paper. I mean we're basically closing down comments on the white paper shortly after the At-Large meeting.
Matthias Langenegger: Okay. And you want to discuss it during the call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Matthias Langenegger: Sure. Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep. And that's going to be-- My guess would be 10 to 20 minutes.
Matthias Langenegger: 10 to 20 minutes. And this will be you or just the white paper drafting team in general?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just the DT in general. And that's a very full agenda, as far as I can see. Is there anything else that needs to go on? We've got the vote-- that's the EOI paper vote. Is there any other vote that needs to go on? I think Carlton might still be with his project manager. Carlton, are you back with us?
Alan Greenberg: Can I suggest-- It's probably too late for this agenda. But let us try for future agendas, be it ALAC or Excom, to set reasonable ending times. Like this particular meeting was scheduled for one hour. We never, ever finish in an hour. It makes it easier to arrange other things around things if we have a realistic time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Works for me. What time would you like to allocate - at least 90 minutes?
Alan Greenberg: For the Excom?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Um-hum (affirmative). To be honest, I've never seen us do it in under two hours, but that's just me.
Alan Greenberg: At this point, we're two and a half hours into this one.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I've never seen it less than two hours.
Alan Greenberg: Then we should do two hours.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: It's probably too late for the ALAC. But, in the future, if we can try to do that--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. And I'll try-- But I do try the ALAC meetings to run to the 90 minutes as a basic (unintelligible).
Alan Greenberg: Then perhaps we need to put minutes on each subject and act accordingly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We do.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We do put minutes on each subject.
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And, in fact, I'm happy, Alan, if you want-- Once the agenda is put together, seeing as I'll be-- It's a public holiday in Australia. The 26th of January is Australia Day. And, at that time, I will have probably driven some 400-odd kilometers from our long weekend away that we have every Australia Day. I'm actually very happy, Alan, to be a passive chair. And you can run that meeting and keep it to time, which would be perfect.
Alan Greenberg: I don't think it's possible to keep these to time. I just asked--
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, no, no.
Alan Greenberg: No, no, no.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm very happy for you to keep (inaudible).
Alan Greenberg: All I was asking is that we could attempt to put realistic times, not ones we know are wrong.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (Inaudible) actually was on my to-do list was saying, you know, if, indeed, I'm in-- and it can happen-- all traffic. You know, terrible things can happen. If by chance I am not actually on that call--
Alan Greenberg: – then we will take a reasonable action.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You just need to be prepared.
Alan Greenberg: You were on the last call I chaired. You don't want to have me chair a call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Like I said.
Alan Greenberg: That was got to be one of the worst calls I've ever chaired in my life-- with any of these I've ever done in my life.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Anyway, as long as both you and Sebastien know that, if the wheels fall off-- quite literally, that could happen driving those sorts of kilometers--
Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, that's why they make mobile phones with big batteries.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I will be-- I will make every attempt to be on the call. However, be prepared, gentlemen. Be prepared. And Vanda has dropped off the call. But she will, as she has done previously, I'm sure, bring to the At-Large meeting-- the ALAC meeting anything that is coming out of the board and information sharing.
So, Dave, how much earlier are you talking about, recognizing that I start these calls at my 5:00 a.m.?
Dave Kissoondoyal: 5:00 a.m.?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. That's when this call started for me - 5:00 a.m.
Dave Kissoondoyal: Oh, my god. It's half past midnight over here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. Well, I mean, do you want it an hour or a half hour? You tell me. I don't have a problem.
Dave Kissoondoyal: One hour earlier, if you don't mind.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fine. Does anyone else have a problem with one hour earlier for the Excom?
Alan Greenberg: I have a problem on your behalf. Is this when they're going to be held in the future?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. Why not?
Alan Greenberg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Is that all right for you, Sebastien? We'll need to check with Carlton. I think he's still with his project manager.
Sebastien Bachollet: I don't have any problem with that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Matthias, can you just make a note to Gisela that we'll make this time of the month the regular mid-month call and that it will be starting at-- what's that?
Sebastien Bachollet: 5:00 UTC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: 1700 UTC. Yep. And it will be scheduled for two hours.
Dave Kissoondoyal: Thank you very much, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, guys, all I can say is--
Alan Greenberg: Coffee will be delivered to all of us.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: All I can say is, Dave, I am more than happy to be as flexible as I can. But what that also means is that we need to watch what other workgroup calls happen at any particular week, because there are a number of other workgroups that run either in gNSO or ccNSO. And what happens to-- for starting at 4:00 a.m. when you've been running calls later-- and, in some cases, it means that at least once, if not twice, a month some of us are running in excess of 36 hours without rest because we have real work as well. So my sympathies for being up after midnight tend to dwindle fairly quickly when the majority of Asia-Pacific can't attend any of these workgroups or even the ALAC calls without starting at midnight. So, certainly, Adam has always realized he has to be up, because he lives in Japan, to make an ALAC call. It's, you know, very, very, very late at night. However, we all have to share our pain. And almost impossible to have a perfect time for everybody.
So we'll do these ones. That's not a problem. And, is there anything else? Any other business? Any other business? Going once, going twice.
Sebastien Bachollet: No. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. All right, gentlemen. Gee, we'll talk the same time, same place-- No. Later time, same place on the 'morrow. By for now.
People: Bye-bye. Thank you.