Cheryl: All right, looking then to the action items of the meeting of 25th of August, we have the first action item, which was a carryover item. Carlos did post the document, which was recently drafted in Molegralo (ph), and Adam and I am sure that you've had access to that document other than in English or what happened with it but I am aware that Miss Ayers (ph) is looking at getting its translations out of Spanish, so I assume until it's out of Spanish you won't be able to look at it and we can't put it out for general comment, which I believe is what we would be doing next. Is that the case?
Adam: I haven't seen it. I would have struggled with Google translate or whatever to, you know, begin looking at it as that insensible but would be as—yes, I mean, I haven't seen it basically. Carry on.
Cheryl: Certainly Carlos has put it forward. Thank you very much, Carlos. I believe it is being translated at the moment. Is that correct, Matteas (ph)?
Matteas: Sorry I was on mute. Yes it will be sent out later today.
Cheryl: Fantastic.
Adam: My memory is failing. Can someone give a three word description of what the document is about?
Cheryl: What it means to be an ALAC member.
Adam: Thank you.
Cheryl: So we'll put that out. Adam, if you'd like to have a first go at it and if we do that then as I put it out for comment, that would be most helpful and then we will decide exactly where and how we'll use this document in the future. The Seoul meeting agenda is on our tonight's agenda so we can deal with that then. The staff has verified the AP RALO meeting and it will be running as listed in the conflate of 1400 to 1500 Seoul time. Staff to contact NCUC with respect to the joint session on the Tuesday. That was done and to my knowledge staff, you can confirm there is no joint session planned between ALAC and NCUC. Is that the case, Nick?
Nick: That is correct. It has been dedicated to policy issue discussion.
Cheryl: Okay thank you very much. Staff to find time for secretariats to meet. I gather that has been done.
Heidi: This is Heidi. Yes it is. It will be on Wednesday between 12:30 and 1400.
Cheryl: Okay so we'll note that whilst the preference was for Tuesday it's now on the schedule for the Wednesday. Staff to move the content of the planning session schedule from Monday to the end of the day on Sunday, I gather that has also been done. I'll answer myself and say yes. And we have a number of items that are still likely to come into the ordinary general schedule for Monday, so it's very useful that we have a few slots available on the Monday. For example, I am aware at the moment that whilst the ACSO topics for which we'll now be running on the Monday that to the best of my knowledge has been concerned.
There is the chosen topic will be a discussion on IDNs, as part of the JTLDs. It's important, as many people have pointed out, to spend time early in the week including any session including the IFCO session on the Monday to contemplate and discuss matters that are a policy decision and discussion for the following week, so it is going to be IDN. But I am also aware that the GAC may be putting together a session on the Monday, which the ALAC would no doubt be interested in and that has to do with a policing perspective of malicious abuses of the DNS.
They're very keen to see if they can get some law enforcement people to give and do a presentation so we'll wait with baited breath to see what happens on the Monday but it certainly means that we'll be free to have as many of our people in those activities as possible. I did contact Yannes (ph) to see whether or not we would have a luncheon get together with the ALAC on the seventh, Sunday. He will get back to me then. They think they're next GAC meeting is on the first of October so we will get a definitive response after that time.
And to if staff checked whether it would be possible to reserve a rally meeting room for the entirety of the conference and to verify F RALO. Staff, what happened with that?
Heidi: On the issue of F RALO yes it will be Monday, the 26th of October, between 1800 and 1900 prior to the secretariats' meeting.
Cheryl: Okay thank you and I know Nick put to the room, the Adobe room, that you're waiting to hear about the former, so there is still an action item carried over re a RALO room for the entirety of the meeting. That could be very, very useful for the regional leaders I am sure. Patrick and me to draft—well, I certainly didn't help you, Patrick, to draft a short statement supporting their secretary for ratification and staff to add it to the PAD. I believe that that certainly was our intention. Did that happen, staff? Patrick?
Patrick: Well, I placed it right now in the Adobe room.
Cheryl: Fantastic. Okay, so if it hasn't been added to the PAD it is about to be added, as we speak, to the PAD. Fantastic, thank you very much. The vote on the public consultation and the pieces, having to pull her screen across because it's gone to skinny. The meeting dates, the geographic rotation etcetera, that's been done and that was put forward to the Board as an advisory. We did have rating on the geographic regions report and I would like to thank all those who attended that session and we will need to do more work on the GEO regions coming up in Seoul and in the intervening time shortly after that.
The letter to regarding--
Alan: Cheryl (ph), on the previous one, when is the next volume two of the report coming out?
Cheryl: I'll let you know when I know.
Alan: Okay and the schedule is not as planned.
Cheryl: It—I was going to say it was supposed to be. I know when it's supposed to be. I think there's a small slippage there.
Alan: Okay thank you.
Cheryl: Which is why I said quite politely at Seoul rather than coming up to Seoul.
Alan: So it's not meeting the deadline for discussion formally at Seoul.
Cheryl: It's at this stage not that I can see but we haven't hit the deadlines of last--
Alan: Okay thank you.
Cheryl: --of these to put out documents yet. There is some additional item to be discussed regarding the NCUC statement on the top ten miss so we'll take that as part of the agenda and start to have a public consertation (ph) on draft implementation plan for at large review that I believe has begun. Is that not the case, we've all started to look at that document?
Alan: Yes but with a fair level of dissatisfaction among some of us.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, the whole idea of having it out there is to make those--
Alan: A dissatisfaction in the format, not in the content.
Cheryl: Okay well, that—is that something you need to discuss at tonight's meeting or is it something that will go on in the--
Alan: It needs to be discussed.
Cheryl: Okay, all right. Well, would you like to bring that forward now, Alan (ph)? Go ahead.
Alan: Yes. (inaudible) to a huge document like that, which is unreadable by its very format just because of the screen with the inability to make notes on it or to print it is not acceptable.
Nick: Alan, if I can ask a question?
Alan: Sure.
Nick: There are PDF versions of this in each language available on the page that you can retrieve and print.
Alan: Are they in a font—are they in a font someone my age can read? The only version I saw that was in a PDF was not. Maybe this one is. I had not found those.
Nick: They're on each page in the language version of that page. So if they—if there's any problem with them please let us know but I mean, I looked at them and it looked readable to me but if anyone has a problem I am--
Alan: I'm not sure what you mean by on each page.
Nick: On each page.
Alan: Each page of the Google docs?
Nick: No literally connected to the Wiki pages.
Male: No it's not. Nick, I have the same problem as Alan and this is something we've mentioned before with Google docs that because you can't manipulate them and can't save them that, you know, we're stuck. It's you can only actually get at them when we're on line and that's one issue. And secondly, so I would always like Google docs to be available in PDF or Excel or whatever the appropriate format would be. That's one issue. But on this particular case it's an extremely large document and only really scans out to page three anyway, but I do not see a PDF link anywhere and that's, you know, searching for PDF and all kinds of things like that.
Alan: Nick, you apparently know about a PDF, a Wiki page we don't because the post the URL.
Nick: I—when we announced the French/English and Spanish versions we always—we send people to a Wiki page to make those comments.
Alan: Okay but that Wiki is not on the--
Nick: The Google document was much earlier in the process.
Alan: Okay but the link on the agenda today is the Google docs link.
Male: Yeah, it just says for discussion. There's no, you know, it just direct to Google docs.
Nick: Okay well, I mean, we can change that link but I am—that's obviously the source of the confusion but that's not actually--
Cheryl: Okay well, we certainly need to get that fixed and we certainly have heard some of these issues before and they don't need to be continually propagated. We need to make them better. Go ahead, Sebastian.
Sebastian: Just to say that I get those documents but first, I have to retrieve the mail you send to other link and then it's really on the far, far right of the page. Then if you don't go to all this end of this page you don't find this PDF and it's not very easy to work on. Thank you.
Cheryl: Okay so we need to look at that. Perhaps I can ask staff to ascertain one or more members to work directly with Sebastian, Adam and Alan for a way forward to making this system better and more usable. They're probably going to have an answer.
Nick: The link has now been updated. My apologies. I don't really know why we would give you a link to an out-of-date version but in any case if you refresh the page you'll now find these links. They are also available as an announcement in three languages on the front page of atlarge.ICANN.org and were distributed, as I said, to the mailing list.
Alan: Thank you, Nick.
Cheryl: Fantastic, Nick, but I think that point that Sebastian raised to be maybe a simple change that will make finding some of these things a little bit easier, so if possibly not now until after Seoul or even at Seoul. That may not be attended to formally but we do need to put it on our to do list to get that system slightly more usable. Is there any comments coming from the Spanish channel and anyone in the French channel who wishes to raise any points on those matters?
Maya: Tisha (ph), I don't believe there is anybody on the French channel.
Cheryl: Thank you very much, Maya (ph). Okay looking now at my item four, review of outstanding ALS applications, the vote on the latest F RALO ALS I think must be correct by now if someone would like to just look at that link and tell me? The interim back results?
Sebastian: It was correct one hour ago. Then I guess it's still.
Cheryl: Okay I'll look at—I'll ask if there's any new windows. It's I've got so many things opened on my computer I'm beginning to lose disk space. Session time out, sign in again. All right, someone who wants to go through the thrill packed an exciting world of signing in to big health, preferably staff, can tell me if we in fact have a correct result for F RALO. I believe we would do by now and we should note the new application by next D from LACRALO.
Sebastian: Eleven yes.
Male: I voted yes. I voted yesterday and there were ten at that point.
Sebastian: And now it's eleven and they are all yes.
Cheryl: Excellent so in fact what we can do for the record and at this meeting is note that we actually have a correct vote and ask staff to do the usual notifications and welcome to our latest ALS AFAC Al Kenya (ph) from F RALO and I do hope I said that at all appropriately. I barely manage the English language as we all know. Any other discussions or points to be raised on outstanding ALS applications? Comments from staff? Comments from ALAC members or anyone else on this call? If not, we'll move on to the reports.
Now, you'll note notes here about the chair formalizing a request during this meeting. We put these reports and the links to these reports up as a piece of pro forma information that sit in each monthly agenda. It makes finding materials and cross linking materials and the work that I know is going on in most of these places so much easier if these reports are able to be linked to these pages. It seems to be something that a great deal of attention is not being paid to.
I am going to ask this meeting to affirm with me that we do, in fact, value reports from our liaisons, reports from the various working groups and reports on these working group activities and indeed the RALOs are not only welcome, we won't make them mandatory but I would like to see them appear on these changes with—I'm sorry—these pages with greater frequency and if we all agree perhaps that can give more power to staff to request during the regional meetings or with their outreach to the liaisons to ask these reports, even if they're short form reports or links to other Wiki pages where activities are already recorded, can be refreshed and put up.
Yes, Sebastian, go ahead.
Sebastian: I know we must have done that a few days ago or a few hours ago but I see in the mail sent by Rudy that he put a report today on CCNSO and I do put some new information on the future structure—no—yeah, and governance of ICANN on the Wiki, main Wiki page, and it's not a report, it's a work in progress.
Cheryl: But then a work in progress this is also a perfect place and time for that, for the attention of this meeting's attendees for that to focus. Perhaps if I refresh my page I will see those reports and I am sure our staff is more than happy to assist anyone who needs help to link those reports to this page. We really should make good use of it.
Yes go ahead, Alan.
Alan: As someone who has put a huge amount of time into these reports in the past and hasn't done one recently, I must say that when I have done them I have never received a comment. If I have not done them I have never received a comment. The only time I have every received a comment is when I asked should I do them and everyone says, yes, yes they're very useful. It would be nice if there was some evidence people were actually looking at them.
Cheryl: Couldn't agree more but we don't have time to go through them one by one.
Alan: No I--
Cheryl: In a meeting. What we do, however, I believe have established is they are useful to have and to have linked to our meeting agendas and I'm asking if the rest of the ALAC agree with me and that we are affirming the facts that these are useful things and we would like them attached to our agendas. Does anyone believe we should give up on this?
Adam: It's Adam. No I don't think we should give up. Alan, I do tend to read your reports if you send them and I don't comment if you don't send them because I consider it to be a volunteer kind of think so why should I give you a hard time for not doing something that you didn't do, so--
Alan: Then I thank you and I will resume.
Adam: Yeah no, thanks. It's most useful.
Cheryl: Excellent. I really think this is important. It's obviously time that we affirm, particularly when we are about to have an appointments process, an election process for liaisons for the next twelve months, I think it's useful if the liaisons who are either continuing in their role or will be appointed to their roles in a new capacity are aware that this is one of the tools and one of the expectations that we have of them and I certainly would like to make sure that someone because really as an apology for this meeting tonight someone—perhaps Heidi might be happy to attach the report that he has sent to the list to the page. It really, however, should be something that the people involved in these reports either need to be taught how to do or should be doing themselves.
Adam: Can I just interrupt, Cheryl. Sorry, it's Adam. Rudy is updating this report. What he didn't do was update the agenda so actually if you followed the link. If you follow the links you end up with his report. It's just that he didn't up—so he's done it and--
Cheryl: Okay.
Adam: Yeah it's fine.
Cheryl: That's even better so what we need to do is perhaps formalize the fact that someone in staff needs to be told I have linked my report so if they, the liaison, feels they can't change the agenda that staff know that the agenda needs to be changed. Okay, so we are affirming and I would like to make that a formal affirmation that these are very useful tools. We will expect and encourage this activity to continue and indeed make sure that our future liaisons or our continuing liaisons understand the practice and the mechanisms.
Moving now—and, of course, the regional reports ask Heidi if you could make this a formal request from the ALAC to each of the RALO meetings in the following months, that would be very, very useful I believe.
Heidi: Yes I will. Thank you.
Cheryl: No problem. Moving on to new business, the new business or matters for review, decision and discussion, first of all we have the elections and appointments for 2009 and I am sure many of you, half of you on the call, were involved in the recent community call for the liaison to the Board candidates and I would like to record my thanks for what I think is one of the better meetings I've had the privilege of sharing and certainly one of the most interactive and intelligent conversations I've had on things that the ALAC and ALAC members for quite some time.
It was a pleasure to chair that I do trust that everyone who is going to be making their vote and their preferences when remembering that you do have to, as ALAC member, give your preferences one to five in your voting. We'll review what I think is a very, very important and useful body of work created on that Wiki page. It is under item six for discussion. Do you wish to have a breakout discussion on that now or wait till item six? Anyone who doesn't want to wait to item six raise their hand in the room or make a squeaky noise to me now. Don't see any hands waving, don't hear any noises, so we will go into that in greater detail under items for discussion.
We now move to the all important items for decision, finalization of the at large Seoul schedule and agenda. Who amongst staff is going to take this one? All rush for your un-mute.
Nick: Yes, yes we're all un-muting. The good news is that most meetings do have agendas. The bad news is that three do not.
Cheryl: Right.
Nick: So we have two policy discussions scheduled for Tuesday, one from 9 to 11 in the morning and one from 4 to 5:30 and for those what we would simply need to know is what subject ALAC would like to address in those meetings. If you were to say that you were going to spend an hour on each subject that would give you three and a half subjects.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: For example, and then we could easily—you could easily tell us whether or not a briefing tailored to your concerns is needed. I am quite sure you could find far more than three or four topics though. You may wish to have less time for each but--
Cheryl: Thank you very much, Nick. Sebastian, go ahead.
Sebastian: Yes my—I think, as we will be after the end of the GPA we need to have really some time to discuss in depth the situation where we will be at the moment and maybe if we can meet it with the improving and internal confidence it could be a good topic for even one and a half hour.
Cheryl: Thank you, Sebastian. Adam?
Adam: Yeah, I certainly agree with JPA comment and something just to raise about that and it might be cutting into something Vanda will mention later, is as the JPA outcome will be announced very soon, could we book a briefing call with whoever it is that will be briefing on the JPA outcome so that we can get a briefing before Seoul? I am sure they would be willing to do it. It's been heavily negotiated etcetera. Anyway, so that was one thing, if we could have a briefing call on the output to JPA but for the actual subject to the Seoul meeting another thing that's just come up is the scaling of the route study, which I have not read in detail because it's far too long and complicated and all that but it seems to be suggesting a rather steady approach so I think a briefing on that followed by discussion of what its implications are for IDNs, for gTLD rollout would be probably very helpful.
Cheryl: I couldn't agree with you more. I see, Alan, but I wondered if I could ask Patrick to respond to that second point from Adam. Patrick?
Patrick: Yes well certainly. I think it would be interesting to ask maybe Dave Pescetello (ph) if he could do this briefing, although he was not directly involved in the writing of the report but maybe I could try to find some of the writers of the report to see if we can set up a call with ALAC too so that they can detail what's in their—what's on their mind and what's in the report.
Male: That would be great.
Cheryl: Thank you. That would be most useful. Is there anything back from you, Adam, before I go to Alan?
Adam: Nope.
Cheryl: Okay go ahead, Alan.
Alan: Two items, which probably should be on the agenda is are the position, description and performance indicators for staff and if we could get a brief, and I put that in italics, a review of the changes in the draft applicant guidebook and gTLDs and some opportunity to decide how we go forward. There won't be time for a substantive discussion somehow some way this deciding where we go would be useful.
Cheryl: Couldn't agree more. Any other points wanting to come forward from any of the ALAC or anyone else on this call?
Alan: I suspect after I get some sleep I'll have more but right now not.
Cheryl: That sleep deprivation is part of the whole at large advisory experience. Okay staff it looks to me like we've already got pretty much a fleshed out agenda. Were those points captured? They certainly have my absolute support.
Male: You will find them I think captured under the notes in the AC session. My only question is do you—would you like a briefing? I think Alan said yes to this but would you like a briefing to highlight the changes from version two to version three of the DAG, specifically as they related to at larges comments or just in general?
Male: In general I think. We need to focus on what the changes are so we know what to change. Whether they listen to us or not is in my mind less important at this stage than knowing where we go forward.
Cheryl: Indeed. Now I heard called--
Male: But we can't afford a three-hour briefing, right?
Cheryl: No. I heard calls for briefings before Seoul and I also heard a possible need for a short form follow-up briefing at Seoul so I think we need to discuss that further or at least get staff to come back to us. Yes, Patrick, go ahead.
Patrick: Yes, well just to mention that I can remember that with the previous version of the draft that make against guidebook the staff had written a summary of the changes between both documents so I guess that will also be available for a version three, which gives us already a good basis to start studying the changes even before we have a briefing.
Cheryl: And I don't very—I think it's very important that when we ask for a briefing it's not let us start at the beginning of the book and work our way through. Most of us, in fact, particularly if we have access to documents in our language which is easy for us to read, are fairly capable and literate and I do get tired of sitting through so called formal workshops at some of these meetings where what the staff, senior staff, are doing is reading it through for me and I am happy to have that on the public record. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: Yes if we indeed have a good briefing with a teleconference having access to someone to address further on questions and of our own internal discussion may be sufficient without a briefing.
Cheryl: Okay.
Alan: If we have been properly briefed and the documents are sufficient ahead of time.
Cheryl: Fantastic and, of course, if we put in place holder for discussion/briefing at the Seoul agenda if we have had a pre Seoul briefing we can decide at that briefing point pre Seoul whether or not we need to have a follow-up in Seoul. Anything else from us on the Seoul agenda then, staff?
Male: Just that we will ultimately need some kind of agenda for the final meeting, which is in relation to the at large working group on name protection issues. I could follow up with Evan, if you like, on that subject.
Cheryl: Yes I think following up with Evan, Hong Olivier (ph) and the other people in that working group is what's appropriate unless someone else here in the call wishes to make another suggestion. Who is the formal lead from the ALAC into the working group? Perhaps I just have a failing memory but have we formalized an ALAC lead into that IRT rebooted working group?
Male: Not to my knowledge.
Male: Off hand I cannot remember one.
Cheryl: Well, perhaps we need to check our notes, check our history, check if we have and if we haven't and if Nick says not to my knowledge and neither Alan or I can remember it it makes me think we ought to make one.
Male: At the last meeting we were just discussing it rather vaguely so.
Cheryl: Okay well, if--
Male: I think we put a name but it was not participating. I guess we wanted to ask Patrick to do that because he was involved in the discussion but maybe I am wrong.
Cheryl: Well, in fact, I think now you've started my memory banks working and I see Patrick's hand up. Now, perhaps that's Patrick volunteering. Patrick, go ahead.
Patrick: Well, actually Evan tries to revive that group but apparently there are not many volunteers anymore willing to contribute enough time. It's especially Evan wanted to have something done before Seoul and I am afraid that won't be possible. So, especially if we want to interact with other constituencies, other groups, I think that it would be much easier to do once we are in Seoul and at that time we will also see what part of the IRT report is included in the draft applicant's guidebook so my suggestion right now is that yes maybe we could set up a group but we should I think proceed carefully until we see the next version of the applicant's guidebook.
Cheryl Thank you, Patrick and thank you for your offering to be the at large advisory committee lead, lead on that work there.
Patrick; I didn't say that.
Cheryl Of course you did. It's gone into the record and no it is most appropriate if you were to do so and, in fact, it's not a matter of creating the group during the on-line interchange it was a matter of saying that the existing working group that's already is A) ALAC working group can be resuscitated and I agree with you. It's very likely that the lion's share of the work will be done in Seoul so, Patrick, you're it. We have every faith in you. Please keep us posted.
Go ahead, Alan, and then Carlos via Maya.
Alan: As of about 18 hours ago like yesterday afternoon my time, a project, maybe not the project, is still very much alive. The rebooting the IRT has been essentially morphed into getting a group of people together to quickly review the draft applicant guidebook the moment it hits the street and come into Seoul with some understanding and position and that is very much alive whether we chartered it or it's Evan's and A RALO's work I am not sure formally but it is very much alive so something is alive to be done before Seoul.
Cheryl: Fantastic and I would now like Maya. Carlos has i.e. point to raise?
Maya: Yes I just wanted to invite all my ALAC colleagues to actually check my contribution to the IRT and this in virtue that I was very proud of you presenting that report and that contribution in regards to conflicts between domain names and trade and the solution of conflict for this right after I published this. Facebook actually applied it on the next few days for, you know, the conflict resolution for their own domain names. Unfortunately I was not able to charge them because it's an idea that I simply placed by the consideration of the people to read it and it was a voluntary contribution but Facebook took advantage of it and used it in order to resolve their all, you know, conflict issues with their domain names. So I invite all the ALAC members to go and take a look at this document, just as an informative document, in regards to the domain names conflict resolution.
Cheryl: Thank you very much, Carlos, and perhaps we should spend a small amount of our time on the Sunday for Carlos to do a small presentation and review on that for all of us so, Pat, I'd like to invite him to do that in our Sunday. Anyway, the main thing is I would like to see that the work being done has a clear nexus with ALAC and ALAC processes and whilst Patrick feels that I may have railroaded him into it, he is the perfect person for the job because of his work in the emergency IRT response that was done in Sydney and we do need to have I think a fair amount of pre Seoul and at Seoul work done. AP RALO, for example, has at its meeting earlier today noted that its agenda will include new gTLDs obviously inclusive of IDNs and whatever intellectual property aspects of the inclusion of IRT and the new DAG will be part of that.
Nick, you had some additional information for us. Would you care to share?
Nick: Well, just what I have just said, which is in the adobe connect window is that Evan has been working on forming this working group. There are a number of interested parties from throughout at large and other communities and they intend to have one or two teleconferences before Seoul and then the face-to-fact meeting at Seoul.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: And have actually—he has actually proposed a draft charter, if you will, for the effort so Patrick he should just make sure your--
Cheryl: Excellent well, if we can ensure that Patrick has access to all of that and that Evan is aware that the ALAC has quite literally appointed Patrick formally tonight as the ALAC lead in this work group that will make our life a lot easier because he can then keep us up to speed or raise any attention we need to put into this before Seoul or at Seoul in—with advance knowledge because we can't have things suddenly take us over. We do need to be proactive and that's an important part of doing that. Anything else on the Seoul agenda? If not, let us move on.
Item two for decision is at large policy at review, sorry, at large, policy advice development schedule, the PAD. We've got DAGs and PADs. It's important that everything in ICANN comes down to letters. It's the long held tradition and it confuses everybody, which I think we aim. The—there has been a couple of additions made to the policy advice development schedule, not the least of which will be the SAC (ph) information that was referred to earlier. Who among staff is taking us through that noting the following open consultations that aren't currently on there and we need to decide whether or not they should be. Heidi, is it you?
Heidi: I am happy to do that but, Nick, unless you would like to lead on that?
Cheryl: Oh, don't fight over it. Somebody just do it. Go ahead, Heidi.
Heidi: The current statements that are on open for public consultation include the Accel summary document where there is—it's an invitation to add comments and news, some use jive (ph).
Cheryl: That will be closing very soon.
Heidi: Yes. I believe that Sebastian has just posted the improving institutional in confidence. Is that correct, Sebastian?
Cheryl: Yes Sebastian has sent to the lists an update on improving institutional confidence. That's already on our PAD but we need to note that update. Sebastian, do you wish to speak to that point now? It is a matter of any other business. I am happy to bring it forward. Go ahead.
Sebastian: Okay thank you. It's just to say that I sent to the at large list this document with some update after they were done by the working groups and now it's open for any comments. I tried to publish in the Wiki. If staff could do a better job than me I would be very happy for the help. Thank you.
Cheryl: Thank you very much, Sebastian. Back to you, Heidi.
Heidi: Yes and I am looking at the other items that are currently on the PAD and they have all closed so if we could move on unless anyone has any other comments to the ones that are open but are not in the PAD.
Cheryl: Yep.
Heidi: And is the inter registrar transfer policy part B development process and the document patent operational policy.
Cheryl: Okay are we in the belief that we want to get those two things on our policy advice development schedule? Does anyone disagree with putting them on our policy advice development schedule?
Alan: It's Alan. I've just added another item, which I thought we were past the agenda on so the agenda is getting rather full.
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Alan: I just put something on the adobe scroll.
Cheryl: Ah yes, the vertical integrator, integration.
Alan: It's going to be a really hot topic and everyone is claiming that they are doing it on behalf of consumers.
Cheryl: So it sounds to me like we need to put ourselves into that hot topic environment. Is that what you're proposing, Alan?
Alan: It's this is the only time like in history that I have ever heard everyone saying they are defending consumers.
Cheryl: Well, it would be nice if the formal primary voice of Internet end users and registrants was part of that cacophony as well. Yes I think it's a good idea to add that.
Alan: Now back to what Heidi was saying.
Cheryl: Go back, Heidi, it's just a little bit extra to put into the PAD now.
Heidi: Okay, so we have three items. Is that correct?
Cheryl: That is how I see it. And for those of you who are seeing what should have been a private message to me from Gisela that the echo is from my line, would they like us—like to dial me, dial out to me. Well, they dialed out to me in the first place. I will be disconnecting in a moment while they dial back to me again to get rid of the echo and if I could ask Sebastian to take you through the matter of the draft statement on the—of the ALAC on the public consultation. There was a little bit extra from Vanda there but I am assuming that we would like to proceed with this statement but, while I hang up and they call me again, hopefully without an echo, Sebastian, if you can share and get the agreement or discussion from the ALAC on that going.
Okay hanging up now, Gisela. They need to call me.
Sebastian: Okay I am like a single bull here without any possibility to escape from this spot. We were—okay if somebody can say something on this subject.
Heidi: Actually, I wanted to just go back to the two items or three items that are now going to be on the PAD and--
Sebastian: Okay.
Heidi: And we need to set dates of an who is going to be drafting those statements, is that correct? And whether our briefing? I am just following through in the PAD to see items under the PAD.
Sebastian: Okay can you restate the three items that we had?
Heidi: The first one is the inter registrar transfer policy part B development process, which ends on the 5th of October.
Sebastian: I am—I have doubt about this one. I know that we want to do something on here AA but I am not sure that it's—I was on the part A and I think it was not just for that all for ALAC. I am not sure that part B is much more useful. We have some work done on that but I am not sure those were not the good ones but maybe Alan or other have another point of view on that.
Alan: I would—it's Alan. I would suggest that a few people who have some interest in the issue get together and make a recommendation on a statement that ALAC should make or that we make no statement. No statement, a recommendation for no statement I believe is a valid outcome.
Sebastian: Okay I am a little bit anxious at the amount of work we have. I am not sure that the one we have we'll put on the first page but if we can yes let's go okay.
Alan: And if it slips off the bottom you're making a statement.
Cheryl: Fair enough. Have we got deadlines? Did I miss deadlines while I was away? Can you tell me am I still echoing to you all?
Alan: You were never echoing. Nick, say something.
Sebastian: He has to un-mute.
Nick: I never heard an echo from her line.
Alan: Okay and you had a horrible echo and it's not there anymore so.
Cheryl: Well, maybe I was making Nick echo.
Alan: That is what we're guessing.
Cheryl: Okay so did you discuss deadlines and did you discuss as one of those things with the transfer policy part D, is that going to be a "we are making no comment" decision?
Alan: I suggested that someone, one or more people who have some interest in that area, make that recommendation. It's not me but I think that should be done but that needn't take a lot of time.
Cheryl: Okay, who is going to own that? I feel the urge to say Garreth (ph).
Garreth: Do you really?
Cheryl: I do. I do. The urge just came to me, Garreth. How do you feel about making a "no comment?"
Garreth: I know that shouldn't be too difficult.
Alan: It's Alan. I haven't looked at the part B documents very much but my recollection is it's not something of great interest to us but I don't know for sure because I haven't looked at them recently.
Garreth: Well, okay I can refresh my memory on this and then comment I suppose.
Cheryl: Guide us whether or not we need to comment or not, that would be excellent.
Garreth: Yes, yes okay.
Cheryl: Thank you very much, Garreth. Okay have we completed item two then, Sebastian, or not?
Heidi: Not quite. The second item is the document publication operational policy and the—it closes on the 8th of October.
Alan: My comment on that is it's admirable and I don't believe we are in a position to meet it.
Cheryl: It's a great thing to aim for.
Alan: I find it hard to believe we are going to make those kind of targets on a regular basis. I am not sure anyone else will also but I—for us, I think it's almost impossible.
Cheryl: Would the ALAC like the ex com to pin something along those lines that say we find the intentions of the draft publication operational policy admirable and certainly worth aiming for but remind them that what happens out here in the world of volunteers might be slightly in need of great flexibility from time to time. Yes, Nick, go ahead.
Nick: I just wanted to say that you could if you would like to sort of cheat, you could make the point about timing of what you have just said. There are comments in the document about making translations available and this kind of thing and you could simply refer them to your previous comments about translation and upon surveilability of documents and because you have been quite consistent in making those points over a period of years.
Cheryl: I think that that's a perfect plan. Is the ALAC happy for us to do that then? Yes, go ahead, Alan.
Alan: Yes, Nick, I support that we point to our previous documents but no one is going to go following hyperlinks six levels down. We need a short concise statement commenting on this one, which can then be backed up if anyone cares to follow them with our previous statements, in my humble opinion.
Cheryl: Okay agreed and we will have links as part of that for those who have an overwhelming urge to click through. I'm always one of those, of course. Sebastian, you're asking for a link.
Sebastian: Yes about the document publication operational policies, where we can find this document.
Alan: On the ICANN comment forum, off the ICANN home page.
Sebastian: Okay that's done. Thank you very much.
Cheryl: It's there. It's into the--
Alan: I hope it's there.
Cheryl: It's into the adobes. I see it, certainly was last time I looked. Okay and it is on the agenda page. Thank you, Sikor Siznig (ph).
Male: Are we now back on the geographic regions, which we tried starting a while ago?
Cheryl: I am asking that very same question. Are we?
Heidi: The last third item that Alan suggested to add to the PAD is the at large position on vertical integration, registries and registrars.
Alan: I think that's a discussion at Seoul.
Heidi: Oh I see. Okay thank you.
Cheryl: But then that needs to be added to the PAD and that date put in, fantastic.
Alan: On geographic issues I point out that the link, the Wiki link, points to an empty page.
Male: I was just about to type that and also--
Cheryl: I think I love working with patterns that's (inaudible).
Male: Well, he's just—you know, we like to talk about things that are there because it's more substantive. Haven't we voted on this already? I'm confused. I mean, I can't tell because of the page is blank but I thought we'd voted on that geographic thing or was it something else? I'm—yeah, whatever.
Male: Yes, sorry. Yes you have and the statement has been sent in.
Cheryl: It has, exactly.
Male: This is an unedited copy over from last month, which shouldn't really be there.
Cheryl: Thank you for clearing that up. I had thought that why I was blank you see. This is just test for us isn't it?
Alan: I do apologize by the way. I've been without a computer—largely without a computer, my regular computer, for several days and I have not done the preparation for this meeting I should have.
Cheryl: I think many of us are in situations where our ability to prepare for these meetings waxes and wanes with real life, work life and other things happening so we certainly understand. I can't imagine how you survive without a computer for several days though. That's really scary stuff.
Alan: I have a computer, not the computer.
Cheryl: Excuse me.
Alan: You've done that.
Cheryl: Okay somebody, excuse me while I try and catch breath, my apologies. Go again, I am still alive. Now, that, as far as I can see, takes us to the end of matters for decision at this meeting. Is that correct? There was nothing coming up under any other business that needed to be for decision, only for discussion? I believe that's the case. No that is not the case. For decision, if we come down to the point raised by Beau (ph) that specifically in a note to me as ALAC Chair from Evan as NA RALO Chair, there was a number of consensus points brought forward after the North American Regional at large organization meeting for September.
Would either Garreth or Alan like to speak to these matters and I do believe my question to Beau on the comments where he has written that the concern was with the NCSG, the NCSG being the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group whose charter was the Structural Improvement Committee/Staff Charter recently approved by the Board. As I read Evan's note I believed he was asking the ALAC to consider making a statement of supporting their statement that the non-commercial user constituency proposal for a 12-month moratorium on new constituency groups was what was being requested. So, Garreth or Alan, whomever gets the microphone first, could you clarify that on behalf of NA RALO?
Alan: I can take it. It's Alan.
Cheryl: Garreth got there almost at the same time. Garreth, I don't ever hear enough from you. Go ahead, Garreth.
Garreth: Okay. It is certainly the NARALO's intent that NCUC's proposal be that we think that the request for an additional year is—it should be rejected, that it's just an attempt to drag out a process which has already been completed.
Cheryl: Alan, did you want to top up on that?
Alan: No Garreth did a good job.
Cheryl: I'd like to before I recognize Adam mentioned on behalf of AP RALO Vizeck (ph) and I were bringing forward tonight the clear instructions from AP RALO that the Asia Pacific Regional at Large Organization is in absolute concert with North American Regional At Large Organization on this matter and we too are asking the ALAC to support these regional statements to not go along with the NCUC proposal for the moratorium. Now, Adam, go ahead.
Adam: This is the fun bit because the NCUC has not proposed a one-year moratorium.
Cheryl: Okay fine.
Adam: What it has done is said that they want—they've asked the Board to negotiate, to continue negotiating the situation of the non-commercial stakeholder group charters in Seoul and to begin those negotiations and until such time as there is satisfactory resolution not to recognize any new constituencies. So it's not a one-year moratorium, it's to—it's whenever there is resolution then there should be a hold on the creation of constituencies and the reasoning for that is not, as I think has probably been suggested because the NCUC wants to hold on to power. It recognizes that the Board is going to select three council seats and so on for the coming year so, you know, things are rolling forward.
The reason is that they're concerned with institutional lock-in. If constituencies are created under the current charter then the charter that was voted in by the Board at their last meeting then there will be no chance to actually review that charter because you'll have an organizational lock-in so what would happen in the one year, which is actually the Board's request to review? The Board will be reviewing the charter in one year. What would happen in one year's time is that you could make tweaks around the edges. You could make small changes but you couldn't make the fundamental changes that the NCUC and quite at the moment they will argue quite a number of supporters believe is necessary so the first thing is that it is not a one-year moratorium. It is to begin a negotiation over this very obvious disagreement that we know is going on and to hold the creation of new constituencies until that negotiation is complete.
Cheryl: Thank you, Adam. Alan, go ahead.
Alan: The wording of the one-year and moratorium notwithstanding, I think the intent of the NA RALO request was that there is an interest in forming a consumers' constituency. There are rules to form a constituency on the books right now and that we go ahead with it. Having a new constituency and a completely new group at the table may well help come to closure on the current disagreement on what the stakeholder group charter should be and, in fact, some of us—this is not a NA RALO view, but some of us believe it is mandatory to come to closure on that and if the Board chooses at the end to go along with something closer to the current NCUC proposal and all the constituencies agree then all the constituencies meld into a single NCUC—NCSG but, as I said, the word moratorium and one year notwithstanding, the intent is there was interest in the consumers group right now. If we put it on hold for a year those people will disappear and likely will not come back.
Cheryl: Alan, thank you very much. Adam, your hand is still up. Did you want to revamp on your reply?
Adam: Yeah it's deliberately this time because normally I forget. No, I think that's the point, Alan, that they see it the other way around, that it's sort of that if we—well, first of all, there's a concern that what happens to the consumer groups that are already a member and then non-commercial users constituency and have actually voted for this particular stakeholder group charter. So there are people like the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, which is quite a large American/European group that seems to be supporting the NCUC's position, so they are concerned that what happens to them? Are they going to be forced into this new consumers' constituency under a charter that they don't want. It's not being forced into the constituency so much, it's being forced into a charter situation that they don't particularly want and the idea is that it would not last a year. The point of the negotiations is that they've requested that they begin in Seoul and I'm not sure if the Board has actually replied to the NCUC on this.
Cheryl: Thank you, Adam. Alan, go ahead.
Alan: Yeah, one of the other things that was discussed at the NA RALO meeting was the issue that at least some of the support for the NCUC proposals may not be as strong as apparent in given that signatures on a statement were added by default with a 24-hour opportunity for the group to opt out of the happy little signature there, so it's not completely clear how much support there is for some of these statements and that was one of the issues that the NA RALO considered in making its recommendation.
Male: I would suggest that that is probably a legitimate concern but we could probably say that that's the case for every vote that takes place.
Cheryl: Okay thank you. I don't believe this conversation is now heading in a productive way because, in fact, it's not our role here in that large advisory committee meeting to go through the nuances, defend or otherwise what the NCUC does or does not do as an existing constituency in the GNSO and its restructuring. We have a request from the NA RALO with the note that the Board moratorium in 12 months can be removed or is moot. We have an in principal request from NA RALO for the At Large Advisory Committee to write to the board and to ask them to not do a delay but to move on. That is a point that we need to decide on or decide how we are going to decide on now.
AP RALO certainly has asked us to bring to this meeting its regional support for what NA RALO has requested and I am now going to ask Adam I would assume as a non com rep from EURALO you wouldn't be supporting that but can I ask someone else from EURALO to let us know if any discussion or any opinion is available from your region and also ask Latin America to prepare to do the same. So, Patrick or Sebastian?
Sebastian: It's Sebastian. We have our conference call where it's postponed to tomorrow, then we didn't discuss yet this subject even if we discussed some of the part of the unintelligible, theoretic meeting where some of us met but we have no EURALO position on that yet.
Cheryl: Okay.
Sebastian: It will be for tomorrow evening.
Cheryl: Then again, it might be something that we can decide to delay until we get feedback from EURALO. Maya, could you ask Jose or Carlos for an opinion from Latin America and the Caribbean?
Alan: While we're waiting is there--?
Maya: Latin America has not discussed this yet but we definitely, at least Jose and myself, do not agree with that one-year extension. We've already spoken to Carlton about this and we definitely agree with the situations. I think that a lot of the regions do agree in regards to that, no extensions.
Cheryl: Okay thank you. I am wondering if we can ask then if Patrick and Sebastian could bring to the ALAC working list and perhaps even on this Wiki page, whichever way they feel is most useful, the views of EURALO once they have this discussion and that we then look at a agreement to write in support of the NA RALO or however many RALO's views and obviously offer any individual ALAC member to have their name recorded against it in whatever process we think is most fair. You were going to say something, Alan.
Alan: Yeah I'm just asking when. Do we know when the next Board meeting is that will be discussing this issue?
Cheryl: Can staff get back to me on that?
Alan: Or simply when the next Board meeting is. Okay, Nick says no.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, I think it's something that with—we've got EURALO's meeting on the morrow, pardon me. We can look at a short turnaround. We've got two out of the five, probably three out of the five regions asking for a particular support. I think it's something we need to action and action properly so with your agreement we will wait for EURALO information and formal response. Carlos and Jose, if you could be so kind as to ask your Chair, Andreas, to drop a note to us and in the internal list or the working list, whichever works, and give us clear direction and then we'll discuss on line how we go forward.
Yes, Adam, go ahead.
Adam: Thanks. I tried to say on the adobe chat that my concern is that NA RALO statement is actually based on this misunderstanding that there's been a request for a one-year delay and if that were the case then I would agree that it's inappropriate but it is not one year. It's a request to, you know, cause a delay while negotiations continue. Anyway, that's just one thing. What I would like to ask is the NCUC has asked the Board to continue negotiations. Do we wish to be party to those negotiations or should we just allow that to continue with the NCUC and the Board, assuming the Board agrees or SIC agrees to that because we haven't really discussed in detail what we actually want out of this non-commercial stakeholders group and there's various statements around but so my question is do we wish to be party to negotiations or have we by some kind of default accepted that the Board's resolution to continue and adopt the SIC report is okay?
Cheryl: Nick has raised the point that with in the absence of the Board responding to the NCUC request there's no negotiation for us to be a part of.
Adam: But it's unusual for a constituency to request something and then just to get no reply. I mean this is--
Cheryl: But as it is in I am not in a position to answer, defend or otherwise that.
Adam: No I am not trying to defend, it's trying to say, you know, this is something that's been requested. It does seem to be a legitimate request that might even be the subject of ombudsman and other, you know, reconsideration requests so if negotiations happy—do happen, sorry, do we wish to be party to them?
Cheryl: If negotiations happen I would suggest if we're wishing to be party to them that the ALAC would need to have the welcoming of the NCUC. I think you're actually asking the wrong group that question but we've been very, very particular throughout the whole non-commercial stakeholder group and GNSO redevelopment to not be involved explicitly as Nick is just writing as such, in the development of the non-commercial stakeholder group but if it has anything to do with something and we have been involved, as you know, Adam. You've put in many of the meetings the same as Alan and myself and Sebastian and Vanda and, of course, we've had both Carlos and Jose being with the NCUC in the past. There has been quite a history of time for us to be excluded should such negotiations go on. I think it would be a cause for concern. I would have thought the default position is that if a negotiation on this matter begins we would expect to be included. Your hand is still up, Adam. Go ahead.
Adam: This time it's a mistake, apologies always to make. I have problems related to lowering my hand.
Cheryl: Okay so, Alan, you've been very close to all of this for a very long time and I'll also ask Garreth. I thought it was very clear that you were saying despite the use of moratorium or 12 months NA RALO's view was for delay. Adam was proposing that NA RALO was working on the misconception. Are you happy for us to--?
Alan: We will take this back to the NA RALO list quickly but I am moderately sure that the intent was regardless of the wording we would not like to see delays in approving constituencies while any further discussion goes on on revising the stakeholder group charter that was approved by the SIC.
Garreth: This is Garreth. I agree with Alan.
Cheryl: Thank you very much so, Sebastian and Patrick, if you can ensure that that information goes forward as ALAC reps to the meeting tomorrow I am quite sure Adam will at the RALO meeting make his points that he's made here, again, with your group and, of course, you've got Bill in as part of your Board so you do have probably the strongest input from an NCUC point of view for your consideration. I'll also ask, again, Carlos and Jose to get Andreas to get back to me and Viseck (ph) and I will ask for additional guidance should it be deemed necessary by AP RALO for them to modify their current view. We will do so in the next couple of days and, Heidi, if you could ask some of the African at large reps, who unfortunately aren't with us at all tonight, to do the same. When is the next F RALO meeting?
Heidi: It's on the 2nd of October.
Cheryl: Okay so we could look at if we were doing some drafting for consideration that being a motivator or a push for getting feedback in. Okay well, we'll continue this on the working list.
Adam: Just a point, Cheryl.
Cheryl: Adam, yes go ahead.
Alan: Point of information, the link that Adam posted has an extraneous right angle bracket on it if anyone is trying to follow it.
Adam: Yes it does, sorry about that. It's copied from an email. I just wanted to say I am, you know, I am not going to push this too hard with the European RALO. If there are three RALOs out of five that think that this should go forward then it's not up to my sort of individual position to try and argue one way or another. It's up the RALO.
The position generally I am interested what is actually happening with the creation of new constituencies? We— there's no way to see progress with this. I was looking for the not—for the consumer constituency information earlier today and it doesn't seem to be updated so perhaps we're talking about something that's moot, that there is no new constituency movement.
Nick: I can answer that.
Cheryl: Please go ahead. Thank you, Nick.
Nick: The last meeting where the Board addressed this I believe is the August meeting and I believe at that time they made clear that they were continuing the discussion on the existing new constituency proposals, which are still very much on the table until the Seoul meeting.
Alan: It's Alan. They are faced with a curious situation where the other two constituencies are—request constituency in formation—are requesting membership in stakeholder groups, which don't have constituencies so the Board is—has an interesting situation to resolve.
Cheryl: Indeed it does. Well, it looks like there's no clear and definitive answer to why you can't find things, Adam, but that yes there is still great interest.
Adam: Probably because it's not changed so I was looking at old information expecting new, no problem.
Cheryl: Fine. That brings us to the end of all things for decision unless I am advised otherwise and onto discussion but with a fairly small amount of time left before we would need to ask for an extension so can I ask you all now to turn your attention to those things listed for discussion and I think some of those are there very much as a matter of small or short advisories, so if we can go down from the top now and decide whether or not I've made this substantive discussion required or whether it's a short commentary and if they're substantive we will come back to them with an extension past the half hour for whatever amount of time is required.
The first matter for discussion for tonight as listed in the agenda is for draft implementation plan outline for our own ALAC final report reviews as it was adopted by the Board. Is there a matter for much discussion before the consultation closes at the end of this month with the final text and ALAC vote opening on the 7th of October, closing on the 12th?
Alan: I personally don't believe we're ready for that yet. It's Alan.
Cheryl: Thank you. Okay so we do have some substantive discussion. We'll put that then to the bottom of the list and we will come back to that. The second item is a development of process for at large community to select a voting Board member. This is a huge and absolutely essential task for not only the ALAC to facilitate but the regions and the at large structures, as well as the wider at large, to take great ownership and committal to the process. We certainly need to have some form of proposal in a condition to be transmitted to the Structural Improvements Committee in advance of our deadline for Seoul documents, which is the 9th of October, and we note that an at large work space for discussion has been prepared. I'd like to see a link to that at large Wiki workspace go up onto the agenda please. That would be most useful for people trying to track it.
Male: It is.
Cheryl: I know the NA RALO have had a brainstorming session and I'd like to know who from NA RALO—is it your wish to share with the ALAC what's happened there? If so, we'll make that a substantive discussion and put it to the bottom of the list. Garreth?
Garreth: I am not sure that we certainly did have a very useful discussion yesterday. I am not sure that other than putting forward the notes from that, which I believe is going to be done, that we need to spend time here today discussing it as it's still an ongoing issue. Alan?
Cheryl: Okay, all right. Well, what we might do is put it to the bottom of the list because I think we need to discuss how we're going to be proceeding and what sort of engagement with the community and what timings we're going to do.
Male: Cheryl, it would be worthwhile having at least a minute or two to state—to say where we are.
Cheryl: When you have the time.
Male: Okay.
Cheryl: Yeah, we need to have some time for that.
Male: Yeah.
Cheryl: Down to number three, RRA—RAA related activities, the joint GNS so ALAC RAA related work groups, a call for volunteers has gone out. I doubt that we need to have very much discussion on that and I will now toss to Alan or Janice, our liaison to bring to our attention and that of each of the regional reps why they should be encouraging their regional leadership and the ALSs within each of their regions to get involved. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: The reason is rather simple. It is very clear the registrars have a strong interest in this and will be participating heavily. If there is not similar heavy and informed participation on the side of users we're not going to get the items there that we want, either on the charter or on an NURAA revision. It is not acceptable this time to come in after the fact and say what was forgotten. The drafting team that is on the table for the RAA right now is the one that's going to identify the topics. If we don't identify them now, they are not there. If we don't participate they are not there. It's as simple as that.
Thanks, Alan, and I must say the advantages of having the AP RALO meeting in the same twelve-hour space as the ALAC meeting is that I was able to bring to the AP RALO meeting today this particular action item, or as an action item this particular topic, and we've asked the leadership of AP RALO to actively pursue at large structures to send reps and to get volunteers into this process. I would think if we do the same for each of the other regions that is one way forward but we really, really have to get pardon what I am saying—it may not translate well, "bums on the seat" for this because it's hugely important for internet end users and registrants.
Alan: But I must emphasize, it's going to be important that the people involved are focused on what this group can and cannot do and not just rant and rave about the sins of the past.
Cheryl: Indeed and, of course, the very first thing with the call is to fill out a doodle to get the initial drafting team put together. It's a single work group, which will probably work in two separate subgroups. I believe that's what the current GNSO Chair is thinking at least. We will have at that group, pardon me, co-liaisons from the ALAC or co organizers from the ALAC and the GNSO appointed so it really is very, very important that we do have people there. I would assume that it's going to be pro forma that Alan as our GNSO, so our rep has asked to be part of these activities and I'd also assume that it's pro forma that the Chair of the ALAC and the Deputy Chairs of the ALAC are also invited to be part of these general activities. Is there anyone else from the ALAC who wishes to put themselves forward right now to be part of the leadership from the ALAC into these activities?
Male: Yeah, Adam, I'll try and do something but I am just about to say somebody sent a doodle thing around again because I know I've seen it and I can't find it, as usual.
Male: Given that Beau is so heavily involved in the RA discussions in the previous round, it would be really nice if he was there also.
Cheryl: I couldn't agree more and I've also had a conversation with Danny, another person who has been very, very well known in these matters. He has made it clear to me that he is interested in only the part where looking at registrant amendments, sorry, amendments to the RAA, so he is willing to commit time but only to that part of the activities looking at RAA amendments. He believes the registered rights charter work group will be a waste of time.
Alan: We do need to identify a formal ALAC person responsible for being the interface.
Cheryl: Indeed we do. Should it be our GNSO liaison or someone else?
Alan: My preference from point of view of knowledgeability and perhaps other commitments is that it be Beau.
Cheryl: I think that's a fine idea.
Alan: If it is not I am willing to do it certainly on an interim basis.
Cheryl: Well, seeing as Beau is not with us on the call tonight, could I ask the agreement of the meeting for Alan to contact Beau immediately after or when the earliest possibility and say we'd like to invite him to be our lead in this and a very important part of it. If he can't take on the leadership role, then he and Alan can draw the short straw between each other?
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: No objections to that? Carlos and Jose, I would assume that the plethora legal minds in LAC RALO that we will be getting a few people from the Latin American and Caribbean involved in these work groups and I look forward to getting some names from that group and I'll ask Heidi to pass the same onto Africa and I am sure Patrick, Adam and Sebastian will get some additional names from Europe because, for example, Mack's at the At Large Summit. He was a key player in the registrant rights charter actions and I would be very surprised if he didn't have a few very important European names coming forward as well.
Okay so, I think that's (inaudible). What was that? Yes, Vanda, go ahead.
Vanda: No, no just Anthony, sorry.
Cheryl: That's okay my darling. Okay the next item, language issue in public consultations. There's no explanation for that. If someone would like to tell me exactly what that is other than the matter of we should have consult, public consultation, period starting from when the language translations come out. What do we need to discuss? That's—are we change—are we wishing to change our in principal support for that key piece of advice that we've given in the past and continue to do so in the future? I certainly wouldn't be recommending that we change our views on that.
Female: No.
Alan: Who added this to the agenda?
Heidi: This is Heidi. My understanding that this was something that Cheryl actually that we had discussed.
Cheryl: But it really is simply an affirmation that we need to write again and say, for example, with Ken's later documents coming out in some cases many, many, many weeks after the English language documents that we have to make it very clear to the public participation committee and everyone else, the Board and the new CEO, that public consultation has to start its clock after those language versions come out.
Alan: May I point out we have now stopped talking about whether we're going to talk about it and have gone into substantive issues?
Cheryl: Indeed so what's your way forward then, Alan? Do we want to discuss it, yes or no? If so, if not, if there's a change we need to discuss it. If it's--
Alan: I would say this is not one of our high priority items to simply reaffirm previous statements.
Cheryl: Well, that was the intention, fine. However, we can move then to education issues, which is something Patrick raised. You do wish to present on that, Patrick, so we'll need a little bit of time for that.
Patrick: Yes, well, yes very briefly. I am referring to an email I sent to the DNS security working group list. It was just an example. I don't want to pinpoint the specific case of the dot DR (ph) rich history but just wanted to mention that DNS SIC is no more something you do when you are bored on the rainy Sunday afternoon. It's something that should be done professionally and, of course, I do expect very sign, new stuff, affiliates etcetera to do the right job because the stakes are too high for them. They cannot afford to fail but I am more concerned about the smaller CTLDs and especially these CLDs you never meet in ICANN meetings who never attend the CCNSO meetings, who never attend the Center meetings, for example.
These people are on their own to do that and that could be a huge issue later on if they don't have the resources to do it right. This is why I suggested that ICANN should do a major education effort to direct the tie in to at TLD operators, especially as I've said, those who never ICANN meetings and who are not necessarily up to date with what needs to be done because with DNS SIC you cannot afford to do something wrong because if you do not sign your TLD right that means all the domains of your TLD won't be unreachable and that's a major issue and so I don't—up till now ICANN has not done a lot on the education side and I think the message that the ALAC should pass along to ICANN is please do something. It's not just signing the route. It's much more than just signing the route. It's also educating people so they can make a useful, make something useful with this assigned route.
Silva: Yeah I have a question for Patrick. This is Silva (ph).
Cheryl: Go ahead, Silva.
Silva: Patrick, if these are your contracts with CCTLDs with the introduction of IDN TLDs your confirms would be much larger. IDNs are initially to be in the domain of CCTL—I mean their countries that will manage them or CCTLD IDNs. What would be your concerns?
Patrick: Well, I think it's there's no direct relation with IDN TLDs. The only relation I see is that IDN TLDs should be signed too and at the CCTLD level the introduction of IDNs at the same time, more or less, as the introduction of DNS SIC will represent real challenge in terms of resources available and knowledge available. And, again, I think it's more a concern for the smaller TLDs, not really the big ones. That's the only link I see between IDNs and DNS SIC and actually we have the same issue with the signing of the route.
To briefly summarize what the route scaling study said is that all these things, DNS SIC, IDNs, IPV SICs, new gTLDs, all put extra fresher and request on all the people that have to do something in the process and if we want to do it right we have to plan ahead and maybe start slowly rather than looking for a big bang of the one where everything will be signed with 500 new gTLDs blah, blah, blah. What the route scaling study says is that one step at a time and wait until the system stabilizes until you pass to the next step. What that means is that in this case the route scaling study report says first find the route, then new gTLDs and including IDN CCTLDs. So but regarding resources available for TLDs themselves I think that the major issue will be one of lacking enough resources and knowledge to do DNS SIC and IDNs at the same time.
Cheryl: Okay thank you, Patrick, and of course, as Alan quite rightly pointed out we went into substantive discussion rather than decide whether we'd have it. However, we're having it now. Very briefly, Adam, go ahead.
Adam: I just wanted to just well, everything Patrick said, yes I think we should make a statement about this and, as he was saying, and the reason why was in particular the closing Patrick made about the re-scaling the route study, the timing of this and making sure that this is done properly and appropriately, well correctly, so that we can move on with gTLDs with the extremely beneficial notes, eh? Otherwise, we'll not to see details of these for a long time.
Cheryl: Sure and I think, Adam, building on that and what I was going to say in wrapping this particular part of the agenda up, is I would assume that this needs to be a matter of a substantive and healthy discussion and an outcomes document that I'd like to think we might be able to produce in Seoul so in our report to the ICANN Board we can make a call for very particular outcomes, such as the education issue need raised by Patrick, so can I ask for the rest of the ALAC's views on having a lump of time devoted to this cross issue matter, because it is to do with IDNs. It is to do with new Js. It is to do with security and stability and it is to do with a whole lot of usability and real outcomes affecting consumers and Internet end users for our Sunday session.
Alan: It's Alan. Unless I am misreading something sadly, we need a perhaps a ten minute briefing, slight expansion on what Patrick has done here, and then scheduling a vote for one of the policy sessions. I can't see many people disagreeing.
Cheryl: I—that's fine. It still needs to be put on the agenda.
Alan: Yeah no, no but I don't think it needs substantive discussion either Sunday or in a policy meeting but yes it should be there.
Cheryl: Yes okay are we happy with that way forward? Patrick, I see a big green tick from you. Does anybody object?
Sandy: No.
Cheryl: Excellent. Sandy, you're very, very faint, which brings us to item six.
Male: Yeah.
Cheryl: Alan, this is yours.
Alan: I need two minutes. Do you want me to do it now or later?
Cheryl: I am happy for you to have your two minutes now.
Alan: Oh okay. Although somewhat late because of my local problems, I have taken—there are three items linked off of the today's agenda. The first one is the original document with the comments as made. The second one is a copy of that document with the comments integrated into the body that is moved up in an identifiable way so that you can read any given section and see who said what about it. That was an aid to me to trying to integrate the comments to create the second version. There are a few comments, which I did not integrate, as explained in the notes. I did not integrate them if they were making a statement but that was not in reference to the position description and I did not integrate them in one case because no one signed it and without knowing who it is there is no basis for saying they support a position or not.
The third one is my attempt to then reword the various sections, or in a few cases add a new section, to factor in the comments. I included a rationale for how I've done that. I believe it follows the intent of most of the comments and in cases where they were diverse opinions I tried to weigh them and make the change to factor them in as well as I could. It is clear that we need to do a little bit of a clear read on this right now.
For instance, today we already had a reference that we want a requirement for liaisons to post reports. That should be added into it. So I suspect there will be some small and probably non-controversial changes. I would suggest that we review the final document over the next four or five days. Anyone has comments, preferably new comments of things we've omitted or errors in fact, we try to integrate them and unless it is clear that that is not possible that we start a vote in a week or so for approval of the position description. Thank you. I am sure that was more than two minutes but sorry.
Cheryl: Not a problem, Alan. Go ahead, Adam.
Adam: Comments at the bottom of the page as before, Alan?
Alan: Yes certainly.
Adam: Okay.
Cheryl: All right. That looks like a good way forward. Alan, I assume it would be appropriate if we put out a call to the ALAC working list just to remind everyone of what we've discussed here tonight with these links and get that started again.
Alan: That was there today. I put that out late last night. We can do it again.
Cheryl: Well, based on what we are deciding, which is this is how we're going to go ahead for the next few days--
Alan: Okay I will post something saying we have decided.
Cheryl: Yep that's just indicated on the top of people's email lists.
Alan: Fine I'll do that.
Cheryl: Thank you very much. Any other discussion on that? Adam, yes?
Adam: Sorry it's the hand thing. It's down.
Cheryl: Okay not a problem.
Alan: Just a point of order, in the NA RALO meeting yesterday hands seem to go down automatically. I don't know whether some staff person was lowering them or they timed out or something but it was acting differently than our adobe connect works. It may be worthwhile if we figured out why.
Cheryl: Well--
Male: I've got a particular problem today in that my wireless router has left me with about 12 kilobits per second and it's very slow at raising and lowering things and anyway I forget.
Alan: Yeah, but it was behaving differently yesterday. I don't know why we shouldn't spend time on it today.
Cheryl: Well, that's bizarre, don't understand and anyone who wants to tell me how it is appreciated but not right now. The last matter of the proposed ESEC (ph) work group on internationalized whooies (ph), which was part of the presentation covered up by Dave Skeller (ph) recently and the links are there. If indeed the proposal goes ahead it would be a joint working group or a working group that involves members of various ACs and FOs. Obviously we need to be prepared and regions need to be prepared to feed into this type of activity when it comes to pass.
Patrick, did you want to speak to this matter at all?
Patrick: Yes very briefly. Just drawing your attention to the fact that we are not discussing the whooies per se and the data that should be displayed or not displayed. We are—this is a technical working group that will try to find some pragmatic manner to somehow patch the whooie system so that data in Japanese characters, for example, is indeed displayed in Japanese and not—and the same for IDNs, should they be represented in their native form or in their plenicode (ph) form and so on. So it's purely technical. This is why I think the vote for resolution made it clear that it should be the Board requested GNSO and S SIC (ph) in consultation with staff to convene a working group comprised of individuals with knowledge and expertise and experience in these areas so unless there is someone within the at large community with expertise, experience and knowledge and in these technical matters I am not sure we can bring much input into the process.
Cheryl: Patrick, of course, it will involve representatives from the ALAC. Obviously as our liaison you would be a natural fit but we do, of course, have a large number of ALSs throughout our regions who have members with exactly this type of expertise and it's the request to the regions to give those people a heads up I think that's important.
Patrick: Okay yeah right.
Cheryl: Unless you want to carry it all yourself, which I think will be a little unfair.
Patrick: No I wouldn't. I wouldn't. I have no special knowledge with regard to the display of characters on ascii (ph) terminals somewhere in Korea or in Japan. It's not within my area of expertise.
Cheryl: We have ALSs who are actively working and have technical expertise in that area and it's reaching out in an advanced way to those people to get them prepped and ready to be involved when the time comes that I think we need to look at.
Alan: It's Alan. I'll point out we do have someone coming on to the ALAC at the end of this meeting with significant IDN experience. Whether he has the other components that are necessary for this or the interest I don't know.
Cheryl: Well, he did—he was part of the IATF work group on it so he would be able to access that I guess.
Male: He chaired it, yeah.
Alan: I am just—I'm not making commitments on behalf of someone. I am just commenting.
Cheryl: No exactly but we should have that expertise indeed, specific technical expertise. Okay, rolling back to the more substantive matters with the very limited amount of time, if I can go back to item one, the draft implementation for the at large review final reports, discussion is now open on that. Our consultation closes on the 30th of September. Final texts would then be incorporated and the ALAC vote is proposed to run from the 7th of October to till the 12th of October and then it goes to the SIC to review in Seoul immediately after. Does anyone wish to speak to that? Alan, yes go ahead.
Alan: I would suggest, based on the discussions that we've had on the inability for some of us to access the document very well that we are not ready to close before the next before we meet and to have this presented to the SIC in Seoul.
Cheryl: Okay thank you, Alan. Nick, you've--
Alan: I don't know if someone can tell us the impact of this.
Nick: I can.
Alan: I would appreciate knowing it.
Cheryl: Nick, go ahead.
Nick: The impact is simply that I have to make a report to the Board to Seoul on this subject so I don't think it would be great to say ALAC didn't finish looking at the report. I take your point, Alan, but this has been announced publicly in three languages on multiple occasions and posted in three languages on our website and people have commented on it on the page. I realize the link was wrong today but that doesn't counter the rest of the month and the time previous to that where this has been published for a long period of time. I am sorry about the link today but this is just an outline. This is simply have all the recommendations in the report been captured and are people happy with the general idea of how to go about designing a project plan that incorporates the recommendation.
It is not a detailed plan nor is it intended to be and it is also not the last time you all are going to get to look at issues related to this. Believe me it won't be the last time. There will have to be detailed plans made. Some of the recommendations are very extensive and, in fact, cross the entire ICANN community, so this is really all I have tried to do is to literally take every single element of work out of that plan, put it into different areas that are related to one another and propose an initial very high level way to proceed to plan for how to do the actual work. So you are not losing anything by continuing to work on this and the work, the work is not going to end for a long time. I mean, you know, there's stuff here that will play a lot for two years.
Cheryl: Thank you, Nick. Sebastian, go ahead.
Sebastian: Sorry.
Cheryl: You might need to un-mute.
Sebastian: No it's okay. Now yes, sorry thank you. Just to say that I think it's work in progress because I see change in the layout of the document—no, in how it's published on the Internet and that's quite complicated. There is not so much comments, sorry about that. I am—I think we need to be collectively to have more inputs in each document but for the moment I am the only one if I look well on what is published on the Internet who have made comments on that. I don't think that it's so difficult to have an other view of that and to decide that it's good step forward. It's not into too much detail, as Nick said, but it in the same time it's allowed us to make some work and a lot of work if we can about the subject. And I just discovered the Spanish version now and I will have a look. Thank you.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: Two comments, with respect to what Nick said I can support it. I do not think we should have a vote that we accept this document. I think we should have a consensus that it is a good way forward and that I can certainly live with in the time frame we're talking about. That's number one. Number two, based on Nick's recommendation earlier in this meeting, I did print out the PDF. It is not something that I can comfortably read. I again request an Excel spreadsheet, which I can then print over multiple pages or display with different font size on my screen, which I cannot do with the Google documents.
Male: You're on line.
Cheryl: I think that's all noted. Do we need then to change—I think the concept of a vote for text incorporating comments on the consultation document that is open for yet another eight days so that we can show that a given number of ALAC members have read and are aware of and agree with the text means that it's something we're involved with the crafting of rather than just a staff report. Is that how you want to proceed?
Alan: Are you asking me in particular?
Cheryl: You'll do you think--
Alan: I find I'm happy with that. I would suggest that the vote use words like we support this process and think it's a good start as opposed to we approve the wording.
Cheryl: Okay, well we've been hoping for--
Alan: I don't think there is a substantive difference from the point of view of the SIC.
Cheryl: Okay well I think that was the intention so can continue—can we agree to continue on the time course so that there is a clear relationship between what is put towards the Board in Seoul and us having had some interaction with it. And obviously yes, Nick is saying it's not meant to be that kind of document. It isn't. It's a high level plan rather than dotted i's crossed t's cast in stone documentation.
Alan: Then I withdraw my original recommendation—objection and suggest we go forward.
Cheryl: Okay well we'll move on to that. We now have a very few and I do mean a very few moments for discussion on the development of processes for at large community selective voting Board member. I'll take it back to I assume Garreth. The NA RALO had their brain storming session. Perhaps other RALOs will as well and then I think, Heidi, there is a proposal to have a place for us all to work on this so Garreth and then Heidi. Garreth, you might be muted.
Alan: Is he still with us?
Cheryl: He's on the Adobe room. And just in case technologies--
Garreth: Sorry, I was muted. Sorry about that okay.
Cheryl: It happens.
Garreth: Oh yeah, okay. I don't think there's much more that I can say other than that we commend the notes that we developed yesterday to ALAC as a beginning. I don't think—there's going to be have to be an awful lot more discussion on this before we get anything substantive.
Cheryl: Yep.
Alan: I think it's worth highlighting that the main difference from any discussion we've had before is at this point the NA RALO is moving in a direction to having something equivalent to a nominating committee. Not the ICANN nominating, but a committee that will identify a number of good candidates in a variety ways for consideration of the RALOs and the ALAC. And that is something which has not been discussed in our context before and that is really at the core of what will be recommended or what is in the notes, which will—should be going up today I believe.
Male: Thanks, Alan.
Cheryl: Terrific. Heidi, a place and space for all regions, all ALAC members and all at large to interact with not only this beginning set of proposals but those that will undoubtedly follow and then Sebastian. Go ahead, Heidi.
Heidi: Yes on the agenda you'll see the link to the new work space that was just created for the procedures and ideas on the process for the selection of a voting Board Director. I have populated it already with the N EURALO process. Unfortunately it seems I have lost my Internet connection so can't walk through that, but that—the at large work space was also noted on yesterday's NARALO calls and NARALO—Garreth, correct me if I'm misstating this—NARALO said that if the ALAC decided to go ahead and use an at large workspace they would use that rather than having a NARALO work space, so that is something for you to decide.
Maya: This is I'm sorry from Spanish Carlos and Carlos has left and Mr. Jose has left as well.
Cheryl: Thank you, Maya, I did note that Jose had gone but now Carlos has left us as well. Thank you very much for all of your efforts here tonight.
Alan: Cheryl, I don't recall the NA RALO deciding that but I can't see any reason we would object to use an ALAC work space instead of a dedicated NA RALO one.
Cheryl: I think there is great benefit if we have one place it's best to play in.
Alan: I don't recall discussing it but it sounds reasonable.
Heidi: Alan, I'm sorry. This is Heidi. It may have been just a bilateral between Evan and myself so I apologize for that.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Sebastian.
Sebastian: Yeah, just to say that I participated this conference call yesterday and I think it was very useful discussion and I am willing to see the report of the discussion distributed to all the RALO to be one base of the discussion that they can have in each region. Thank you.
Cheryl: Okay, all right then.
Alan: I will point out it was perhaps the most productive one hour ICANN discussion I may every have sat in on.
Cheryl: Excellent. Fine, well that looks like we've got a final way forward for the beginning of these next steps. However, we probably do need to look at how we get something together by the ninth of October. Sebastian, your hand is still up?
Sebastian: No sorry I have to.
Alan: If indeed other RALOs are planning similar discussions I think that going into Seoul we will have something that we may be able to agree on; we may. I don't know if it's on the agenda at this point. It probably should be.
Cheryl: Yes most certainly, well, we're having a meeting with the Structural Improvements Committee in Seoul.
Alan: But do we need a meeting prior to that or is that part of the Sunday meeting to come to closure if we're that close?
Cheryl: I would like to commit some time on the Sunday to come to closure if we're close. Yes that would be very useful if you are all in agreement.
Alan: Whether we have a single idea or have some agreement, that's what we can report.
Cheryl: Yep. Fine, all right then. Now we have a piece of any other business that we have not attended to and that is the presentation on the post JPA proposal. Vanda, you were very faint when you spoke earlier. If you could make sure you yell at us or that we all can hear you clearly. It's over to you for a very short period of time. Sorry about the time constraint, go ahead, Vanda.
Vanda: It just—I'm quite quiet today because I just finished a long conversation, which it is hard so I'm a little tired this call. But anyway, back to the suggestion, I have been discuss it with some governs in Sydney and afterwards and talk with the contu—Rod and to Andrew in the White House because he asked at me. So the general idea is how to deal with the governors in this part DPA moment. What I see is that most of the councils are special developing ones are eager to have this movement to international malaise ICANN. So what I see, it's a lot of echo.
Cheryl: Yes it is.
Vanda: Yeah.
Tisha: Sorry this is Tisha. I'm having difficulty hearing because of the echo, Vanda.
Alan: It just started a minute ago.
Vanda: Yeah, it still echo?
Alan: No, well not much.
Cheryl: Yes it's a bad echo.
Vanda: Is a bad connection.
Cheryl: Vanda, you have a presentation that you might be able to share with us later? Vanda?
Vanda: All of you.
Cheryl: Can you hear me Vander?
Vanda: Yes.
Cheryl: Okay I think we can hear you without the echo now so please go ahead.
Vanda: Okay, okay. So my, my—make it quickly. My suggestion with ICANN that shall present—it's impossible. It's a lot of noise.
Cheryl: Can we mute every line excepting Vanda please and me cause I can't un-mute. Go ahead, Vanda.
Vanda: Yeah, much better now. Well, my suggestion was I can so present an open letter commit itself with the main goals about security and stability and there some other last important issue for some governments like accountability with this aside to be signed by any country in the world with ICANN. This will give to all countries a powerful instrument to show to their Congress or the people that they're updating some way in charge of one of the most important issues for the development that is the internet. This needs to be made in a very smart way to accomplish this mission.
But, once we get the significant amount of government sign it, this open letter, it will be possible to start the movement inside the United Nations to have ICANN recognized as an international entity. That is necessary because there is no international rules to not be approval under the United Nations. So we need to make—that's the idea, have talk with China, have talk with some Europeans, talk with many Latin Americans, some Africans and they agreed that there could be a smart move. I also talked with Marcos Cummer (ph) about the execution of this and IGF and he agreed that could be work very well. So that's my suggestion for the next step because we need to build a kind of wall for this special weak moment after the DGBA and I'm talking political environment with ICU and so what.
Cheryl: Thank you, Vanda, thank you very much. I'd like to propose that as we have the post JPA world as a key part of what we're going to be discussing on the Sunday and also on the agenda of our Sunday and also undoubtedly in our agendas for our policy development later on in the week at Seoul, I was wondering if, Vanda, if you could perhaps, as we've asked Patrick to lead a small work group session for a committee of the whole, which will be the regional leaders and anyone else who wishes to join us on that time, through some of the effects and root scalability and signing of the root issues whether or not we could also have a lump of time dedicated to this matter? And it also strikes me that if the GAC does come back and wishes to meet with us over lunch on the Sunday that this would be an ideal topic to explore further there.
Vanda: Explore with them, it could be very good.
Cheryl: We need Adam and then Alan. You might be muted. I muted everyone. You'll have to star seven, Adam.
Silva: Seven?
Cheryl: Silva, I didn't see you. Adam, Alan, then Silva.
Adam: Hello, am I back?
Cheryl: You are back, go ahead, Adam.
Adam: Two brief questions really. First, Vanda, thanks for that information. Do you have a document of some kind that you could send us, even a skeleton or a rough sort of outline of what you're proposing so that we could look at this before Seoul? That's the first question. And then second--
Vanda: Yes, I can do that.
Adam: That would be brilliant, wonderful and then second would be this general suggestion that again before Seoul after the whatever the outcome of the JPA is announced and I guess it will be done this week or early next week, could we request a briefing from Theresa or Nick Thorn (ph) or someone like that so that we're prepared before Seoul so that we can actually think about what we're—so we're not learning in Seoul but we have some ideas coming in? It would—I mentioned that it's Theresa and Nick who are dealing with this.
Vanda: Yeah, yeah that's the two of those that I spend the day the whole morning talk with Theresa today and certainly I can—I will talk next week and the next one because we are—I'm doing some talks in the Latin America regarding ITU.
Cheryl: Thank you very much, Vanda. I think what we might also do then is—I have an action item on staff to pursue the pre-Seoul briefing opportunities and also to invite Theresa and Nick to join us in the time on the Sunday where we are discussing this matter in a committee as a whole with the regional leaders as well. Is that a friendly amendment to your proposal, Adam?
Adam: I would—think it would be very helpful to have some kind of pre-briefing simply because--
Cheryl: That's what I'm saying.
Vanda: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Adam: Simply because--
Cheryl: That's what I'm saying.
Vanda: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Adam: I mean so I mean, you know, setting up a call if they would be willing to do that before Seoul and of course invite them in while we're there, but I'm thinking that, you know, there's going to be—as soon as this announcement comes out there's going to be all kinds of discussion, rumor, anxiety and all the rest of it and I think a factual briefing of how ICANN sees the outcome, how it's presenting the outcome, for us to understand so that we're not just left reading the press and mailing lists would be very helpful and of course all ALAC calls are recorded and transcribed so it would then become a rather useful global record as well. But for our original--
Cheryl: Which is why, Adam, I just asked staff to organize a pre-Seoul briefing.
Adam: Please yes please.
Cheryl: Thank you and that's what I said and is it a friendly amendment to that proposal of yours that we also invite them to whatever we do on the Sunday and I think you agree to that. Alan, Silva, then Sebastian. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: My initial comment was just to ask Vanda for a document ahead of time, which Adam did. My other comment is one of my expectations is what we're going to see at the end of September is a short-term extension of the current one ala all union contracts that are never renegotiated until after they expire. So we may not be in a controversial world by the time we get to Seoul.
Cheryl: Well we'll wait--
Alan: That remains to be seen.
Cheryl: Indeed. Sebastian? Oh sorry, Silva.
Vanda: I agree, Alan, yeah.
Cheryl: Okay, Silva then Sebastian. Silva, go ahead. You might be muted, star seven.
Silva: Yes, whether or not JPA has ended and a person on JPA would be very relevant and I'd like to join Vanda in the task of discussing JPA at arranging discussions for the JPA. That's something that I'm interested in.
Cheryl: Okay, you'll be with us in Seoul won't you, Silva?
Silva: Yes, yes I'll be there.
Cheryl: So you'll be part of the Sunday activities and the committee as a whole approach?
Silva: Yes.
Vanda: Thank you, Silva.
Cheryl: Good and obviously as part of the pre-briefing calls as well and I'm sure Shole Vant (ph) will reach out to you, particularly with any contacts you might have that she doesn't in Asia Pacific as well. Okay, Sebastian.
Sebastian: Thank you for all the discussion. I have not all the information but I am not sure that it's going in that way really, but I will not make—take my crystal ball we will see what's up in the general six months. But one thing I would like very much is that we have participants speaking to us elected people, not just staff. On this matter it's more important for my point of view to have people from the Board who participated in this negotiation than the staff itself. I will be happy to have staff also but not just the staff. Thank you very much.
Cheryl: Okay I guess we can ask our staff to find out which staff would be most appropriate for that role. I would have thought Nick was, sorry which elected person is most appropriate to the role. Would Nick Thorpe (ph) be in the position to know who from the—by elected people you mean Board members? Is that the case, Sebastian?
Sebastian: Yep, yeah Board member if there are other elected people. For example, if you should were part of the discussion I would be happy to have your input and not, not—I am sorry, not the staff but if it's Board member yes Board members.
Cheryl: Okay. Nick, can I ask you to ask Nick who on the Board may be available or pursue that line if possible? I think he's muted and I'll assume that yes he's going to do that internally. I do like a man who doesn't say no. Thank you very much.
Right, the final letter before we close our meeting is to note the comments from North America and regional at large, but specifically ten by Denny Younger (ph) regarding Whois and the ongoing problems and concerns with Whois inaccuracies. He request is for ALAC to investigate the issues associated with proxy registrations and to compile findings to arrive at an implementable recommendation, serve the needs of public interest. He then goes on to take his usual jab at about how we do or don't do project work within work groups. However, despite his call to arms that we accept our responsibilities and to, as a committee as a whole, look at this matter as it impacts on users and links it, of course, to measure of maturity and our at large director, SIC.
We have, in fact, done some I thought quite landmark work amongst the summit activity on Whois and it would be perfectly appropriate to build on that if this is a way forward that the ALAC, as a committee as a whole, wishes to take. I—we do not have the time for a substantial discussion on this tonight. I'm happy to make it carry-over business and for it to be on our next agenda, but we would also need to start working on it inter-sessionally. Yes, Sebastian, go ahead.
Sebastian: I just don't push my button back. I didn't hear my static, sorry.
Cheryl: No problem. I thought you might have something to guide us with. We can't I believe take any particular agreement on other than saying yes we should look at this and yes we will. We actually have a Whois working group. We have the opportunity with new people coming into the ALAC to resuscitate that and certainly to build on what I thought was fairly important work done in Mexico meeting in this area. How do you want us to continue with this work? Perhaps if Alan or Garreth, who are closest to the NA RALO concerns, could advise us and note that we really can do little other than accept this comment and say yes we will now need to do, take it on board and put a plan of action together. Go ahead, either Garreth or Alan.
Alan: It's Alan. I'll try to comment. Garreth can fill in whatever I don't say. The position taken by NA RALO was strong that we do something. I—my personal opinion is that, given the demands from the GAC, that some studies be done even if some people believe those studies are worthless and will not help us any. We will not see any significant motion in ICANN until we have a few of those studies under the belt. So I think to some extent we need to gage by talking to the leaders in the GNSO and the GAC whether they believe there is going to be progress before those studies are done and it's going to be a while at this point cause we're just looking at costing and stuff like that.
And not—essentially to say that this is important but if there's no chance that it's going to go anywhere, is this the time we want to put the energy into it? That's a personal opinion not a RALO statement. The RALOs say go ahead.
Cheryl: Thank you. Garreth, go ahead.
Garreth: Yes I just wanted to reiterate that NA RALO does feel very strongly about this and we do need to follow up on this and Danny's comments are, of course, toast in his usual rhetoric but it is important and I think we need to follow up on it. However, I'm quite prepared to realize that there may not be anything substantive we can do in the short term, but it's not something that NA RALO thinks ALAC should forget about. It really is important and needs to be followed up.
Cheryl: I'm sure you won't be the only RALO with that opinion, Garreth. All right well, as a way forward with this, I think we should take up the proposal from Alan and recognize two things; first of all that we have go a Whois working group. Despite what Danny says, it exists. There is no reason why it can't be made to work. It ought to be made to work. If it's not working it should be disbanded. So let's get that going based on conversations and discussions that we need to have with the leadership from the other ACs and the GNSO the opportunity to review and do that.
I guess there is also a point that we could look at on our Sunday agenda in Seoul and of course we do have the foundation of what was done on this topic for the at large summit in Mexico. In the absence of Beau being on today's call I wouldn't want to take it too much further because Beau obviously was an integral and very important part of what happened on this topic in the at large summit in Mexico and Jose is the current Chair and has been for a couple of years now of the Whois working group and Jose will not be continuing with us as an ALAC person. He now moves as ALAC RALO representative to the non-com. So we will need to restructure and resuscitate the working group anyway. So, with your permission, we will note the importance, agree with the importance, do some homework and see what is the best way forward to continue to look at and deal with this very important topic.
At that point unless there is any other any other business from anyone left on the call I'm going to wind this up and particularly note with thanks to our hard working Spanish and French channel people. Maya and Tisha do a wonderful job and it's not just a matter of them being there to interpret for people on those calls. Of course, having that line open means that we have transcript and recording in each of those languages for those who have not been able to join us or who wish to catch up on the record later. So, in the case of feeling that you've been there for several hours talking to nobody, believe me the record will show that everything that's been and done has been very valuable.
Thank you all.
Tisha: Thank you, Cheryl. This is Tisha.
Male: Cheryl, thank you on this.
Cheryl: Thank you all. We do actually have a brief in Com Call and there are several other calls scheduled for the next few hours so I think they go back to back. Thank you all. Good morning, good night and look forward to chatting with you on line.
Alan: Thank you.
Vanda: Okay. Bye, bye to you.
Male: Ed Com in five minutes.
Cheryl: Ed Com in five minutes. Thank you, all. Bye.
Male: Bye, bye.
