21 June 2008 GA Transcription

EURALO General Assembly
(Held June 21, 2008)

Legend
Name: First name of member of group
Male: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a male.
Female: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a female.
Name: 52 - 0.31.06 We will identify a foreign language in square brackets with a time code for the beginning and end, so that you can quickly identify those passages. At the top of the transcript, we will advise you of the name(s) of the foreign languages you'll need to search for. For example, some transcripts may contain German, so you'll have to search for "[German[ instead of |French" to find all the passages. The speaker identification is the same convention as all the others. i.e. If we know the speaker's name we'll include it, otherwise we'll put a question mark after it, or if we can't even guess, then Male, Female or SP.
********************************************************************************************************

Attendance.
C Wilkinson (ISOC Chapter of Wallonia),
D Pefeva (ISOC Bulgaria),
S Bachollet (ISOC France),
W Huelsmann (Deutsche Vereinigung fuer Datenschutz DVD e.V.),
O Passek (FoeBuD e.V.), L Donnerhacke (Foerderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft),
A Muehlberg (Netzwerk Neue Medien NNM),
P Vande Walle (ISOC Luxembourg A.S.B.L.),
A Danciu (Association for Technology and Internet APTI), A Olivia (ISOC – Catalan Chapter), W Ludwig Comunica.ch),
Samantha (Ynternet.org),
R Vansnick (Internet Society Belgium),
F Gerbosch (Internet Society Belgium),
W Drake (Komitee fuer eine demokratische UNO),
Jeanette Hofmann (Vice-Chair, Germany),
D Miloshevic (Board member, UK),
W Seltzer (ALAC Liaison),
C Langdon-Orr (ALAC Chair)
Apologies: Hong Xue, Izumi Aizu & Nirmol Agarwal
Minutes taken by: C Langdon-Orr

********************************************************************************************************

Chair: A second question is about IDN ccTLD’s, and I think it’s very welcome that these things are moving forward, but I’d like to understand better, and I must confess I have not read the report about the fast-track process. I’d like to understand better the delegation procedure, and particularly, will an IDN ccTLD be automatically delegated to the existing incumbent ccTLD operator, or do the governments, or ICANN have the opportunity to delegate to a different operator if that would be appropriate? Finally regarding geographical regions, it looks like a rather heavy process, is there anything wrong with just asking countries to self-select? Because, you could find that your different constituencies were coming up with alternative configurations for regional, for the regions, and the final situation might be even more complicated than what you’ve got today. Why don’t you just ask the countries to self-select? Thank you.
Denise: Thank you, and just briefly, let me see, WHOIS. So, the GSO got to the point it is today because in LA, at the LA ICANN meeting at the end of last year, the proposal for an operational point of contact, sort of a new way of addressing who is to replace the requirement in the registrar accreditation agreement, did not have consensus, and majority support within the GNSO, so they instead are pursuing this avenue of studies. Not, of course, closing the door on any future policy actions, on who is, but you’re point on national laws, the GNSO, you know a few years ago passed the WHOIS National Laws, guidelines that were sent to the Board, approved, and have subsequently been implemented and that’s a very specific process to resolve any conflicts that arise between the WHOIS requirements in the RAA, and National Laws, or the local laws of a Registrar so that issue has already been dealt with by the GNSO. What else?
IDN’s, I would encourage you to take a look at the issue brief, which is a lot shorter than the IDN Working Group Report, it actually explains some of the highlights of the fast-track process that’s being proposed. Again, they’re looking to process just a very small of number of IDN ccTLD’s that are non-contentious, and basically ready to go, and those will be the applications that include the support of both the country and ccTLD operator. And the longer term issue of ccTLD Operator’s role, and right to IDN ccTLD’s will be addressed by the ccNSO, and its policy development process.
And then finally on geographic regions, I would encourage you to offer your insight and input on this issue because the Board is actively requesting input from the At-Large Advisory Committee on how geographic regions should be addressed within ICANN. So your comments are timely.
Chair: Yes, a short please because time is running short, and we already behind our agenda. Please post supplement, do you still have something?
Male: I hate to sound iconoclastic, but is there any particular reason why WHOIS is in GNSO? Why don’t you move it into a different supporting organization?
Denise: So it’s in the GNSO because it relates directly and exclusively to the generic name space, and the registrars and registries that deal in the generic name space, so.
Male: It relates directly to individual registrants.
Denise: Right, and so the issue that’s being addressed, of course, within the GNSO relates to the generic top-level domains, the gTLD’s, it’s another issue for ccTLD’s, and is handled quite differently in that space. But, your point is well taken and it may be eventually that the Board will if the GNSO isn’t able to take any further action in this area; it may be that the Board will deem it appropriate to make it a Board issue.
Female: Hi, just a quick question, I don’t know how many people are aware, but in the current GNSO Report, there is a proposal that the Nom Com Members, the ICANN Nominating Committee Members, travel will no longer be funded. So, this is a new policy, and I’m currently the member, the EURALO Representative from the ICANN Nom Com, and while it’s not an issue for me this year, I think that it’s something that we should maybe discuss, and how future either other EURALO or other ALAC Members will participate in the work on the ICANN Nom Com.
Denise: So actually that’s not correct, the GNSO Improvement Report does not address travel funding specifically except to say, “That we need to review travel funding and support to make sure it aligns with the priorities and work of the GNSO.” What you’re referring to is the travel guidelines that were posted by the COO of ICANN to apply to the various organizations, and advisory committees. Those are guidelines that ICANN is proposing to apply in the next fiscal year, and that proposal doesn’t cut funding.
Female: inaudible 06.33
Denise: No, it does not delete funding for the Nom Com Appointees, it continues funding for the Nom Com Appointees, but it does on the same basis as the organization or committee on which the Nom Com Appointees serves. So whatever travel guidelines the At-Large Advisory Committee Members use, the Nom Com Appointees to the At-Large Advisory Committee would be governed by those same rules, that’s what’s in the guidelines. And, those are open for comment, or maybe the comment period’s closed, but if you have additional comments you want to make you could do it at the public forum.
Female: Thanks.
Chair: Okay, thanks for these clarifications Denise. I would like to close this agenda point now. I think that closing it down for now, but as tomorrow the context of the ALAC One Day Meeting plenty of opportunities to discuss concrete and different issues, and to readdress some problems and if you have anymore questions, which may come up after this meeting, you can immediately direct them to Denise.
Denise: And thanks for the opportunity, we’d be happy to answer any email questions, follow-up questions that you have, and again I would encourage you to be involved in the issues that you’re interested in through the At-Large Advisory Committee, they’ve been quite pivotal in many of these policy issues. Thank You.
Chair: Okay, you’re welcome Denise, thanks a lot. background noise – sounds like clapping 08.02 The next agenda point is Nick’s account, “Policy activities in ICANN – the possibility for the At-Large involvement in the GNSO.” And we ask Nick for a short presentation, if possible, it would be good just to give a kind of an overview. Because, I’ve said before, “We have tomorrow in the ALAC, and the following days plenty of opportunities to pick up this message again.” So I would like to ask you know for a short overview. You have the floor Nick.
Nick: Well Denise conveniently stole most of my thunder, and did it via a nice PowerPoint presentation so I can be easily very brief since she did such an overview. What I’ve put on the screen for you now is a page that may be reached off the main At-Large Community Agenda called, “Paris Documents.” And on this page, you will find links in one place to most of the topical issues that Denise referenced which are being discussed here, and we’ve also, you’ll see, “Language Identifiers,” at the end of a number of these things. As translations come in, translations of most of the documents that are being discussed here have been ordered, and are coming in, in sort of a continuous stream so you will see English, Spanish, French, and in some cases all five UN Language versions of many of the documents, and you can access them all from one page here.
There’s also a brief description of what each thing refers to for those who are new. In some cases, you’ll also find audio briefing that have been conducted in the last month, specifically for the At-Large Community, so you may review the posted PowerPoint’s that were used and listen to the presentation and the question and answers. There will be four or five briefings on topical issues of policy tomorrow as I mentioned earlier, specifically tailored to this community which will also be recorded in three languages and made available afterwards, French, Spanish, and English. So our hope when doing this is you’ll see here, you’ll have four versions of the issues report on Fast Flux hosting, is that you’ll have in sort of one place a one-stop shop to all the main information that you would need rather than having to go skipping about the various announcement on the ICANN homepage.
And, as you see there’s an enormous amount there for you to review. We have a page like this for every ICANN Meeting, so whether or not you attend an ICANN Meeting, you’ll always find in one place all the documents that are relevant to that meeting, and all the translations that exist. We hope that this is useful. As regards to, the GNSO improvements discussion, as you heard earlier, I will just briefly say on that particular point, of course, the At-Large Community sent in a statement that accompanied, a joint statement, with the business constituencies of the GNSO, and the non-commercial constituency of the GNSO, which would provide the At-Large community with voting power in the GNSO, and this is now sitting with the Board.
I’m sure you can expect that when Board Members meet with the community on Tuesday, with the At-Large Community on Tuesday from 10:30 to 12:30, I think it is. It’s on the full schedule. This will be a subject of discussion, and we will obviously perhaps hear the outcome of that at the Board Meeting at the end. But, this would be a pretty fundamental new opportunity for At-Large to participate with a vote directly in the GNSO, where at the present time, At-Large has a liaison without a vote on the GNSO council, but is not a direct participant in the work of the GNSO in any statutory capacity.
And for those of you who don’t know, you can pause 7 sec, the url at the top, “Paris Meeting,” will lead you to the full schedule of events in At-Large as well a selection of the meetings. I mean this is not; you know this is my idea of what I thought would interest you. So, I’m completely sure that there are other meetings that you’ll be interested in that I didn’t list up here, but I didn’t want to reproduce the entire main public schedule, so I just picked the things which seemed most interesting so that they would be conveniently available. You can also get to this page from the community home page, at atlarge.icann.org, there’s a link to the schedule there. background noise – sounds like man talking 14.00
Chair: Microphone please, Thomas.
Thomas: I’m of the, “Know what others are doing,” inaudible 14.11 I figure that… can you hear me now?
SP: Yeah.
Thomas: Okay, I figure that the 45 minutes section, the RPC will lay-out its demand for new gTLD applicants, might be an interesting one to poke a nose into. Under the, “What are other parties demanding,” in the areas heading, if I were you, I would send one or two people there to open the ears and eyes, and see if that is actually in the sense of the people here.
Female: When is that?
Thomas: You need to look at the agenda, I think it is Tuesday 14:00, but I’m not entirely sure.
Chair: Okay, thanks for this additional hints Thomas, and thanks to you Nick for this introduction and overview. background noise - participants speaking 14.58 Are there anymore direct questions to this agenda item, to this introduction, overview by Nick, otherwise, I would, “Yes, Wendy, please.”
Wendy: Just to note the opportunities for public participation into the record, there is an IRC back channel that ICANN at chat.icann.org, and the channel is ICANN-general-discussion, maybe we can stick that into the Wiki as well. This is a chat that is linked from the sides of the ICANN public participation pages, and particularly as people break-up into different meetings that may be a useful place to coordinate discussions.
Chair: Okay, thanks a lot Wendy for the other remark. I think you are following up, I see the hand of Evan.
Evan: It’s a very quick question, is it loud enough to be picked up by the microphone like this?
Chair: I don’t think so.
Male: Probably not.
Evan: Okay, sorry, I’m just referring to the webpage that you’re talking about, and it mentions that the end of consultation for the ALAC Review is the 27th of June, which is the end of this week. I just wanted to confirm that.
Nick: On that subject, the purpose of this, this is the first of multiple consultations on the Review. The purpose of this consultation is to point out any errors or omissions that you think. And I know that there are, I can see Wendy laughing over there, I know that there is a view that there are some omissions; I don’t know about errors, but definitely omissions. I have made the point that closing the consultation at the end of this meeting means that there probably won’t be too many things received because people are either at this meeting, or cannot answer that quickly. If At-Large wish to make a point to the reviewers tomorrow, the deadline was actually asked for by the reviewers, so there is nothing that would prevent you all from saying, “This is too short of time to actually respond to this,” and suggesting a different timeline.
Chair: Okay, can you bring this up again tomorrow at the one day ALAC meeting? Thanks a lot Evan. If there are no questions anymore, I would like to close our agenda item, or to come to the last now before the short break. It’s again a rather formal one. Some weeks ago, I sent around a first draft, of a Chair Report to the Board, and we discussed this draft in the morning at our Board Meeting, and made some slight, minor amendments to make it complete, and now this report exists in a Board version. This means it was approved by the Board now, and it was recopied for the information of the ALS’, I just want to give this Report to your information, and I just want the kind of a formal approval of this Board.
The Board submitted it so we can even discuss in an informal way whether it’s a good report, whether it’s a lousy report, whether you would like receive other reports in the future. But, this report which was approved by the Board already, I would now like to submit to the General Assembly for you’re approval. Are there any objections? If there is no objection, then I take this Report as, “Approved.” I would like to thank you for your approval and for your confidence, yes, okay, and as we are already inaudible 20.08 just right in time now with our agenda that I would like that we now have a short break of 10 minutes for coffee, and cigarettes and pot background noise – sounds like laughter 20.23, pot and then cigarettes please background noise – sounds like people talking 20.29.
Okay, after the break, 10 minutes maximum, please, try to be back right on time because we will have a short summary from Sébastien afterwards, and I really ask you not to miss it, and afterwards we have quite an essential point on the agenda, and I would like to dedicate a little bit more inaudible 21.04, and time to it, which is a version, it’s a draft of a working program for our RALO, and this is in my eyes is one of the most important parts of the second part of today’s agenda, and therefore, please be back right on time so that we can immediately can re-start the second part of the program. Thanks so far for your participation and your interest and contributions, and see you in a couple of minutes. background noise – sounds like clapping 21.37
20]
Chair: background noise – sounds like spoon clinking glass 44.20 Thank you, would you like to make an announcement on this? Welcome back for the second part of our program, Nick quickly wants to make a short announcement.
Nick: Just in case everyone has missed this, which I’m apologizing for saying, “I’ve also forgotten.” We do have an online remote participation interface using Adobe Connect, which is similar for those of you, who know it to Merratech, and it allows you, we’re going to start it up now, it allows you to chat with everyone who’s in the room as well as anyone who logs in remotely, and they can also see the documents that are being worked on at the same time. So for anyone, who connected up, and listened to the audio, they would be then able to see what was happening on the screen. And the link to this is on the Agenda page, the Wiki Agenda page for this meeting and every other At-Large Meeting during the whole Paris Meeting.
Chair: Before I continue with the program, I would like to welcome back to the panel.
Male: Thank you.
Chair: Who is here I think many of you know of Dr. Ohleritely?, the Doctor was one of the old hands in the pre-EURALO time. He also participated in our first preparatory meetings in Frankfurt, and in Berlin, and I’m please that you had some time to follow the second part of our First General Assembly.
Next agenda point is a summary on the preparations of the At-Large User Summit, ATLAS; this is a project which was brought up about a year ago at the San Juan Meeting, and that in several meetings in between, at ICANN International Meetings in between at ICANN International Meetings. This involves a working group, which start months ago and several of EURALO Members in the room, who are members of this Summit Working Group, and a lot of preparatory work was done in this working group. Sébastien was one of the first actively and permanently participating in the discussion. He was in charge of the first inaudible 47.49 drafts etcetera, and it’s Sébastien who gives a summary on the state of preparation. As you may remember, there was a survey circulated last week with questions to all ALS’, and besides the presentation, and the summary of Sébastien, there is a Crebcom 48.14 after the General Assemblies this evening. And there are many more meetings, Summit related over the next couple of days. So you are kindly invited to join and now Sébastien give you an introduction and a summary.
Sébastien: Thank you, I am quite upset with the paper you have on your table because it’s related to another discussion and I don’t think that it’s fair to have this distributed before my talk about the Summit. The Summit is a long story, it start in the Lisbon Meeting, we first discuss, and make this proposal to have a Summit because at the Lisbon Meeting, it was almost the last RALO created, and even if all was not yet signed, the MOU between ICANN, and EURALO, but it was the creation of the last RALO. And we saw it could be interesting to have not just discussion in each region with the people who are interested, but to have the possibility to exchange with other, from other regions at the highest level.
It’s why this idea came from, and it was discussed to have it in Los Angeles because Los Angeles was the headquarter of ICANN, but it was too short a time, and it was postponed to be eventually done in Paris, but it was not the right year for the fiscal, and accountability system, and it’s now eventually postponed to the Cairo Meeting. And it could be interesting because it will be the tenth anniversary of ICANN at this moment. And it could be a very good image for all around the world that for its tenth anniversary, a first summit of all ALS’ participating to the ICANN can come together, and discuss what they want for the next ten years.
Hopefully the next summit will not be ten years after, but earlier, but it would be a good image. We were in the media participation as analysis from Europe, in the EURALO process, but also for the summit. It couldn’t be a success if we are not able to have as much as possible, analysts 51.10 participating to this meeting. It will be hopefully a meeting where we will be able to give information to train people to give some knowledge to people, but also to exchange among us our experience, our needs, what we would like to do regarding the ICANN subject. Then really what I would like you to do is to answer the questionnaire, and to participate to the discussion, to be able to participate to the Summit hopefully in Cairo beginning of November.
I’m sure that there are plenty of things to say in addition, but as Chair already told you there is a specific just after this General Assembly of the EURALO and you will be welcome if you want to stay with us to discuss this issue. Thank you very much.
Chair: Merci Sébastien, are there any immediate, or direct questions to Sébastien at the moment? There’s also Evan in the room, which joined us in the meantime, Evan is also very active in the Summit Working Group since long time. And, we will spend I think a couple of hours, during this 32nd ICANN Meeting to prepare as much as possible, to make sure that the survey which was prepared by the staff in corroboration with the Working Group, will be filled in by as many, as Sébastien said already, as many ALS’ as possible because for the agenda setting of the summit. It would be very important to have a broad feedback from the ALS’, from the community, to assure that the agenda setting of the Summit will be more from the bottom-up approach, and will not be the top-down agenda setting as plenty of other meetings are. But, I think the Summit offers a unique chance for a different approach for a major ICANN Meeting. Yes, please.
Evan: I would also add that if you are representing an ALS in EURALO, and you have not filled out the Summit questionnaire that has been sent to you, please do it quickly because the summit is designed as Chair said to, “Be very interactive.” ALS’ that do not complete the survey are eligible to be denied subsidy to attend. SO it is urgent that if you are interested in participating, that you at very least send in that questionnaire.
Chair: Okay thank you very much for this additional information.
Sébastien: I don’t know if he present himself, but even if from the NARALO’s, the North American NARALO, is really one of the three people who are doing a lot of things about the summit. We have to thank him because if this project’s inaudible 54.51 it’s where it is today. It’s a lot because of he’s with us, or he’s doing his work on that, thank you very much, Evan.
Chair: Okay, thanks a lot, there was one more question from Christopher?
Christopher: I’m used to sounding thick in this area so I’m not going to apologize. I haven’t got this questionnaire, I don’t know where to find it, I’ve listened to what’s been said, I’m searching for it here.
Chair: It was posted on the mailing list on EURALO discuss last week, I think five or six days ago, I think it was a mailing by Matthias.
Christopher: That would be in the email, not on the website?
Chair: Yes, it’s a mailing list. I will discuss.
Christopher: Thanks.
Sébastien: Christopher, sorry, it was also sent to the authorized representative of each ALS’, and due to the fact that.
Chair: You don’t have it, that’s the answer for you. But, we can forward it to you.
Male: And although, I’m a Representative of an ALS, I don’t remember receiving this email.
Chair: Okay.
Male: Was it because it was sent last weekend?
Chair: Yes, yes, was an attachment. If there are no Summit related questions anymore, I would like to progress on our agenda. Another important of today’s agenda is the discussion and approval of the draft of the working program. Since the Board has been elected in May last year, we tried to do a kind of an informal survey among Board members to find out about the concerns, interests, working priorities, networks, they are in foras, they participate, etcetera. And we did a first rough listing of issues, and responsibilities, and we had this kind of draft paper, we discussed this morning in the Board Meeting. And we updated this listing and we didn’t have enough time to go into all the subjects and to make a kind of list of priorities.
And we simply decided, we’d give a rough structure to this program, to this listing, and then let the members discuss, and help us to decide, “What could be the priorities among the topics mentioned?” Priorities always have something to do with capacities, have always something to do with energy. People are prepared or able to invest and as you may see on this list, on the paper in front of you. There are plenty of topics and there are plenty of interesting points to be discussed or to deal with, but as a Board has limited capacities. We are all volunteers, we are engaged many other activities, and therefore we really have to consider, what out of this listing is possible, and what should be our priorities? And therefore, I would like now to ask you, whether you think anything is missing on this listing? Just to complete it, please, Nick?
Nick: I just wanted to note that the issues, you could say they fall in the primacy of the public interest I suppose. But, the work that is going on in the SSAC related to domain name front-running, which is also going on in the GNSO, obviously would be directly related to registrants and the ability to register a name, and not have it held for five days in case you come back or this kind of thing. Fast fluxed hosting is of course an issue that is controversial because it is used in large scale criminal activity, but there is also a view that it could be used for non-criminal activity. And in a similar vein, the work of SSAC that is related to DNS element of phishing, and pharming attacks would also be a sort of classic end-user of the internet issue.
So I don’t know if things like that, that are directly active in ICANN now, for instance, there is a working group in the GNSO that is looking at fast flux hosting that is interested in participation from At-Large directly. And there is not yet a person from At-Large who is going to be the focal point in that effort. This is just an example, so when considering this, hopefully you will also consider those activities that are presently going on, which do need someone from At-Large or someone’s, more than one, more is always fine.
Chair: Thanks for this information Nick; I think it’s going in the direction, what I was thinking about in between. I think it could be very helpful now linking up this list of issues. This existing ICANN activities, working group, mailing lists, or if there is already background information on it, this could be very helpful, and I would like, not for now, but as follow-up, this is a draft of a working program. Due to the lack of time today, we won’t be in a position to finalize this, to make this perfect. I see this rather more as the start of the working procedure, of organizing ourselves over the next week here in Paris.
I want to say it again, I take Paris as a starting point for another dynamic for the next EURALO year, and if we could accomplish this program with links, and references to existing documents, 32 already to us by ICANN, or even other links. It must not purely be, let’s say an ICANN link, it can also be a relevant 43 from the Council of Europe position paper, etcetera. That we perhaps find a moment to sit together when the meeting preparations now for Paris is a little bit gone, and to reflect how we can add some more value to this working program, or draft of a working program.
Does everybody agree so far? Because, afterwards it becomes more operational, and we can see and compare their discussions already going on, and they’re being marked our interest, and to find out whether somebody has among us has capacities to step in and to follow-up the mailing list, or to join the program. Annette?
Annette: I think it is very helpful if we actually do have a link to each of these issues, and see what’s going on in ICANN, who’s working on what, and so on. Where are the most important websites? That is actually something, what we all need in all the RALO’s actually, but now as we are here and as the EURALO, and these are important points to ask. I think we should try at least to say, “Someone raises as hand, who would like to work on what? Is there something that Lutz said in the Board Meeting this morning that he thinks at least there are two issues which should be priority issues for the whole EURALO, and maybe you also volunteered for one of these issues?” So, I would just like to go ahead, and say, “Yes, I raise my hand again for the issue of new gTLD’s especially with the regional focus.” So, that’s me, and I would ask other people, “Next.”
Chair: Please 04.
Male: For me, would be the topic privacy and WHOIS interesting, I would like to do that.
Chair: Just wait until Matthias, and 25. Can you repeat again?
Female: Group B, first point new gTLD’s with special emphasis of regional TLD’s.
Chair: Thanks it was privacy issue of 47. No, no, wait, wait.
Female: I will take the Group A, IDN, and IPV4 and IPV6.
Chair: Okay, thanks. Andrés?
Andrés: I will make a general comment before. The general comment is that I think that it is important that when we decide that we talk about the working program, that the least of people that is interested in each subject, it shouldn’t be limited to the 25 of us, or the representative. We should find assistant in order to open all our work to the different members of our Associations. And, also the people member themselves, so because every time that we try to find people for. We are a limited number of persons that are normally quite busy and have to profit off the energy of the people themselves of our members. And that’s my general comment, so maybe I’m not interested in particular things that members of my chapter, of the association are interested. That’s my suggestion, I could just name what I’m interested in, but that doesn’t mean that my association is interested in those subjects.
Chair: Right, okay, it’s also a question of transmission, that ALS’s can be the transmitter for people in the organizations, etcetera.
Male: We need to do that, and we should define how to do that.
Chair: Okay, great.
Annette: But still it would be helpful, “Yes, this is what I would like to do.” And then we look at the second level of structure, who can we work with?
Chair: You go it, Annette, it’s was just a slightly different approach. Patrick please…
Patrick: Privacy, and 07.
Male: One comment I would like to make, I see on this list, “DNS and freedom of expression.” Does that relate to the possible censorship of several top-level domain strings in the new TLD process? Just asking the question to top-level domains, or to second level domains, or to what?
Female: Top.
Chair: Top, and second. 48.
Male: Yeah, because if it’s the second level, it’s not relevant to ICANN.
Male: Yeah.
Male: And if it’s linked to the new TLD’s, then it should be maybe be merged with the new TLD’s.
Chair: I just would like to refer to the discussion we had around the triple-x issue, and there are several people’s clearly saying, “Not having, not allowing the triple-x is already a kind of a censorship.”
Male: Yes, I agree, but the point I was trying make is that, that has also been discussed in the framework of the 37 and so on. So the point I was trying to make is that maybe it should be merged with new TLD’s.
Annette: 45 but I think it is much more efficient if really say, “What we really would like to do,” because in the whole world of GNSO is endless, and if we let up a little bit, those activities within the GNSO, we will feel able to contribute. I’m very happy if we just pick a 08, and work on it, and we can make an input to ICANN on it, to other 14, to other RALO’s, and I think 17, I think if we have it more precise, it is more productive.
Chair: Okay, one more remark from Nick.
Nick: Maybe this will make it slightly easier, if there is somebody who is particularly interested in Freedom of Expression, and the DNS on a horizontal level, they might be a part of the new gTLD work related to the objections, related to morality and public order, or confusingly similar, those kinds of things. But there is much more to the gTLD program, than just the objections process, so someone else might be interested in other parts of the new gTLD program. Likewise, they might be interested in WHOIS from a privacy perspective, but there may be others who are interested in WHOIS from an accuracy perspective, because, we of course had this debate about the two different side of WHOIS earlier, so if you, if that was a particular interest you could participate in multiple areas where that was a consideration.
Patrick: Yes, but to answer your initial question, “What am I interested in?” Being a techie, I would take Group A.
Nick: Group A.
Chair: Thanks Patrick. Now, it’s Oliver.
Oliver: As I said before in the earlier meeting, I suggested some points which might be not in one of those groups, as I said I think that also that 03 are very important point for the community. And so maybe, I would like to find, some connection to our main points in which this topic can also be involved in. This would be in some of my interests. Yeah to really focus on because we have that, for example, that Taylor Communication Package, the new Directors of the European Union at the moment, and there are so many user related topics, even to kinds of spam, phishing, security questions, and also this question of net neutrality. I think it should also be in some way part of our activities.
Chair: There’s a direct remark from Patrick.
Patrick: Yes, I just wanted to know what, how do you see net neutrality and the European Telecoms Package, how it relates to the assignment of names and numbers, which is the mission of ICANN? So I wouldn’t want that we start working with limited resources in all directions including things that are parallel to what ICANN does, but who does not concentrate on the core of the ICANN business.
Chair: Lutz.
Lutz: Just a short remark to Patrick, I see a gap between the discussion this morning and now. What we are looking for, my personal opinion is, people who are interested in a special topic which can coordinate the activities in EURALO. Not doing the work, they have to do a lot of work, but doing the work in this way that collecting people, doing the report to the Board, getting information back, collecting them, getting people together, that’s the point. So, it’s not necessary to say, “We have to do every point on this list.” This list is a proposal, if you say, “I’m interested in another point, or I have the feeling that the At-Large community, or the internet community, or the users here has a completely different point of view, might not be related to ICANN, but it should be related to ICANN.” Otherwise, we are just another organization; we can go to 36. So, please consider this a question, “What’s the point, 52 get people to do the work?” And personally, I will take the point; I will do something on Wednesday on the slack meeting, so it would natural to do this here, too.
Chair: Thanks a lot. Can we continue with Oliver? Could you just express your priorities?
Oliver: Yes, I would take the priority of the question of new gTLD’s.
Chair: Okay, thanks a lot. Next one is Franz.
Franz: For me, more practical stuff, I prefer Group A, just like Patrick, and the WHOIS stuff 52.
Chair: Ok thanks Franz, now we are continuing with Christopher.
Christopher: JPA.
Chair: JPA, this was short and sweet. Adela.
Adela: Still in the Group C, Users Participation Models, and WHOIS. Sorry.
Female: What was the second?
Adela: WHOIS.
Chair: WHOIS, and Users Participation Models with an ICANN structure:
Adela: Yeah.
Chair: Okay, next one is Lutz.
Lutz: I will take the -SEC.
Chair: Wolfgang, welcome back. background noise – sounds like laughing
Wolfgang: DMS, and Freedom of Expression.
Chair: Yes, okay, great. Annette.
Jeannette: Personally, I’m interested in IPV4, and IPV6, but I hope that people will also pick up, Users and Registrants, the Registrants Registration Connection, I find very important, and somebody should cover it.
Male: I will take it.
Chair: Okay, so can you just 53
Male: Yeah, I will, take the Protection of Registrants in relation Registrars as I have been in the area already in previous workshop. That’s what you were looking for, Jeannette, and in Group C, Users Participation Models within ICANN Structure.
Chair: Okay, Jeanette, your points are mentioned?
Jeanette: Um, hum.
Chair: Okay, great, Suzanne.
Suzanne: Well, I would dare to Advance 37 of the public interest. But, it would need to be confirmed by Theo.
Chair: So, I think the last left over is 54.
Female: Group C, User Participation.
Chair: Bill and Sébastien, 24 you are covered by background noise sounds like laughter Bill.
Bill: This is just general point, Nick made a point before about Fast Flux, and saying there’s an GNSO Working Group, and we need people it and all. I wish I had a better sense in doing this conversation where the areas are that At-Large representation really is needed most pressingly right now, in terms of current policy discussions because, we’re sort of picking things based on our personal interest, and that’s fine. But, I’m kind of wondering in terms of the overall movement of the ICANN process, where are the holes where the users are not being engaged fully? If we could get that first, that would help me in deciding what I want to say next.
Chair: Nick first, and then Sébastien.
Nick: Yeah, I take your point, at this point, there’s such a heavy amount of issues, many of which have only recently come up. I mean the Fast Flux Report is six weeks old, the GNSO initiated a PDP three weeks ago, and the Working Group was asked for two weeks past, so a lot of this stuff has just come up. Tomorrow, you’ll hear much more about the things that are topically on the plate now. There is always a shortage, pretty much on every issue, honestly there is. Because ALAC tries very hard to make sure that there’s at least one person from each region dealing with any response that ALAC intends to make to any issue so that there really is sort of a bottom-up process to developing the policy advice that ALAC sends. There’s a shortage, trust me, you won’t be idle hands. Tell me if I’m wrong, Annette, but laughs there’s more than enough work to go around.
Annette: Yes, but I still understand what Bill is asking for, we should also think about if we really do have to have of every region, a person in a working group. I’m very happy to delegate something to Africa if they just have the experts, “Fine.” I think this is a good approach to just start saying, “Okay, here are our personal interests, and please let us know if there is something urgent pressing, and we don’t have the full time now to be able to go through, but we will have more time tomorrow, where actually certain policies will be presented and we can see because this is the whole world represented from the At-Large Advisory Committee, other RALO’s are there, so we can get a better feeling a better sense who is actually working on what.” So, I think that’s a first step, second step tomorrow, and…
Bill: Just as a general matter, I think that as you said, “We’re starting really fresh here.” Looking forward to each of the next meetings, there’s a cycle, people have to plan their activities, if we could have a better system for identifying, in a period, what are the most pressing things that need to be tackled where EURALO representatives would be useful, then it would be a hell of a lot easier for people to make coherent decisions about what they can actually commit too. We’re all indicating interest here, right now, there’s a general interest, but it isn’t necessarily the case, that those general interests will have something in the next three months that is super-pressing; whereas there’s other things that may be.
So, I’m just asking a kind of work procedure, process, “How do we make this work more effectively so that in each work period, we’re able to flexibly adapt the work program and get people allocated to the bits where coverage is really needed?” That said, since I’m supposed to indicate something, okay, I will tell you that, I personally am interested in the JPA, and would work on that, although, again exactly what, “Work on that,” actually means, I think needs more clarification. The CDUN, and tell them that they need to, I’m writing them about a bunch of things, so I will tell them to indicate to you guys soon, what they would like to participate in more.
Chair: Three more on the list, it’s Sébastien first, then it’s Robert, and then it’s Nick, Sébastien.
Sébastien: First, I understand the question of Bill, but in the same time, I think we need to, not just run after what is happening within ICANN today, but maybe to have 21 running after what we want to do. And that’s need for us to reverse the idea, and reverse the work. I know it’s not easy at all, and I know that today they are waiting for us, on some issue, but I really would like, if we can, and maybe the Summit will help to think about new subjects that we want as end-users to push on the agenda of ICANN. I can use this time to answer the question also, Mr. Chairman?
Chair: Huh?
Sébastien: I can answer the question where, I want to?
Chair: Yes, please.
Sébastien: IPV4, and V6, and the User Participation and GPA. Thank you.
Chair: The next one is Robert, please.
Robert: Hi, if some of you don’t know me, my name is Robert Guerra, I’m on the ALAC, and I represent NARALO on the ALAC. You know I have some comments, but in terms of the discussion that you’re having, I’m also the ALAC SSAC liaison, and regards to that, the one thing that I’ll say in some of the discussions that have happened is, issues come up, and issues come up sometimes that require attention that ALAC may be involved in. And so, what I’ll say is, it looks like you guys are really putting a lot on your plate, and I would say if you’re going to do one thing, is also allocate space for emerging issues somehow, because if something comes up, and everyone’s busy with something else, so try to find out, what all the issues are, but also allocated some time for that too. Because, you know people will be saturated, and they won’t be able to cover it, so really think of time allocation, and how you can best follow emerging issues because something on SSAC that we’ll hear about later this week, which is new, and that could be of interest to all the different RALO’s so you know, just make sure you plan for that.
Nick: I was sort of about to make that point, that I could run down the list of open subjects that Denise ran through, that need, you know At-Large does not have to respond to every issue that is topical. It may wish to only respond to some, or it may wish to devote more resources to some than others, and that would be, I think, that’s probably true of every community. But, Robert’s point is good, and the SSAC has something of a history now, I think it can be said of bringing up issues to the rest of ICANN, which are particularly end-user centric, I think it’s reasonable to make that statement. And as he said, I think I know what he’s talking about later this week, and I may have spilled the beans already, but…
Male: It’s the sub domain 10
Nick: Oh, the sub domain, yeah, well that’s another one, but so you know, if it’s, in a way this is great because even if there isn’t something that is particularly going on in one of these areas, there will be soon. You won’t be left idle.
Chair: Okay, Haike could you please try find a micro here, next to Bristol, and tell us your preferences and priorities, please.
Haike: I pick new gTLD’s, and possibly the Primacy of Public Interest.
Chair: Thanks. I think I’m the last left over. I would like to share some last remarks as it’s very difficult on several weddings at the same time, and therefore we are now in the process of. I don’t know whether you’re used to it Rudi, but normally have difficulties with it, but this is a starting point now. We are try to organize a better structurize our work to mark fields of interest, fields of also professional combinations. And, therefore, I would say as question in essence Freedom of Expression that’s closely related to my profession as a journalist, I’m in the subject. So, I’m following up the discussions, etcetera, this is nothing new for me; this would be the routine type of follow-up. The other question would be the Primacy of Public Interest. This can be combined with another project, I follow-up since a couple of years, the Public Domain. These are similar questions, and third would be the User Participation Models within ICANN Structure. If we have completed this list now, I think.
Female: No one is interested in Price Development.
Chair: Price Development and the Registrar Fee, yes, Desiree was first and then it’s Lutz. Both of you address now.
Male: Ladies first.
Chair: 54 – 01.29.58 Andrés.
Andrés: One question is, “What’s the difference between the Primacy of the Public Interest and the Users Participation Model?” If we can not merge those, it’s some important difference to keep them separated. And then insisting on the idea that I talked about before, the issue Users Participation Model within ICANN Structures, I think that we maybe we should make more clear, to work on the Users Participations Model within EURALO itself. We could specify this just a suggestion that I think is important.
Chair: Well EURALO is part of the ICANN structure, therefore, it’s somehow included there, but this is a, to me, is a clear question of whether there are deficits in the existing models, and the existing procedures. Whether our users are encouraged to participate, you can say, well do individual users, as we had repeated discussions already, are fully taken seriously. Are they forgotten on the listing? Are they forgotten in other concerns? Do they have the same participation rights in terms of funding for reimbursement of travel expenses, etcetera, etcetera? So and how is this existing models or potentials can be improved? This is under C) User Participation Models maybe the Summit will come up with new ideas, new approaches, etcetera, on this issue. The question of Primacy of the Public Interest is a completely different one. To be very short, whether the whole net will be sold out in a couple of years to the major international enterprises around the world, or whether the old traditional public 15 can survive.
Let’s take public broadcasting for example, is there something you don’t have in ten years time anymore or will this continue, whether public broadcasters like BBC have survived to extend their services. Internet, or the private lobby is always telling, well it’s none of your business, public broadcasting is the traditional radio and television, and you have nothing to do on the net. These kinds of essential issues, in my eyes, are very important to ask and follow-up. Desiree.
Desiree: Just one general remark and I don’t know where we could insert that, but just hearing there is some duplication between some of the themes, and we try to merge them. But, what seemed to be missing might be actually the general development of ICANN as an institution. What we’d like to see? So it’s not really the GPA per se, it’s not really the Participation Model of individual internet users, but it’s really in general, development of ICANN. And 2) just to what Andrés has just said, in the ICANN’s corporate charter, what it provides in terms of public interest, it says that, “The corporation shall pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the internet,” and so on. So you can interpret any of these issues as an issue of internet stability, and operations, whether it’s a gTLD, or IDN’s and so fort. So just to raise this flag and maybe we can continue.
Chair: Okay, thanks a lot Desiree. As we said before, “This is a working document.” This must not be complete tonight, if any body comes up with any emerging items that 16 necessity or whatsoever. This working document can always be improved, and updated. So it does not need to be completely perfect today, so if anything comes to anyone, please let us know, and we add it on this. We’ll also put it on the workspace, of course, and you are welcome to manifest yourselves on the workspace. One short final, because we are running out of…
Annette: Just a proposal for tomorrow, it might be useful if the Europeans at the end of meeting tomorrow come to find a little 10 minutes break there, and try to prioritize after that meeting, this list. Thanks.
Chair: What a great idea, Annette, thanks a lot. Yes, I forgot, it’s alright? We can postpone it, to this tomorrow, yeah, okay, go.
Male: I’d like to change the sentence after list to your final words, this is a proposal please, add issues if it’s necessary, if can do it better, if you can do it in 42 please do it. Instead of, “General Acceptance is set up.”
Chair: Okay, thanks a lot for this; I would like now to close this agenda item, because otherwise we are running short of time 57 – 01.35.00.
Male: Put it on the web space without the names.
Chair: Why without the names?
Male: Is the web space in the public domain? Otherwise, we’re just going to be lobbied.
Chair: Good question. It’s public yes.
Male: If it’s in the public domain, I withdraw my name, but I remain interested laughs.
Chair: Okay, yes.
Francois: My name is Francois, and I would like to know if there is, my name is Francois, and I would like to know if there is a seat somewhere for Intellectual Property.
Chair: Very good point, but I would, because if we know enter into intellectual property, we open a new round. I’m very much in favour of your motion, but do we include it now on the issues. We have a volunteer going for it.
Male: We do not need a volunteer, I would like to find the information from this discussion here, on Group C, we had future of ICANN, on Group B, we had Intellectual Property, just at the points and finished.
Chair: Okay, 27
Male: In Group B.
Chair: Okay.
Male: 30.
Male: Where exactly? 33
Male: Group B is only for 41.
Chair: Can you sort out these details afterwards with Matthias because I have to proceed now because otherwise we are in trouble. I think this was a very productive first round in a General Assembly working on the draft of a working process, program, which will be an on-going process. I think we can almost shorten the point A) which is approval of EURALO’s working budget 2008-9. It’s current now, it’s the beginning fiscal year, just for your information, we were asked, EURALO was asked in Delhi, please come up with a budget proposal as soon as possible.
I had to do it on my return from Delhi; I had to submit it at the end of April so I apologize. I didn’t have the time to start the on-going consultation procedure as we are normally used to in Switzerland, I just did it, and I sent it to the ALAC Budget Committee and this is just a matter of formal approval. So even if you would like to modify it, there is no way, and no chance anymore to do something, it was just to be right in time there, and some of the points were supported also by other RALO’s and this is in the pipeline. So I just a formal approval on the budget proposal, any objection? No.
Female: 34
Chair: This is just for the minutes then we have…
Annette: I’m happy that we approved this, but I want to add some, I want to make one remark, and this is that we do have to clarify the travel costs of people who are elected EURALO Board Members on an individual basis. And I think those people have to have the possibility to come to these meetings as Board Members even though they are not members of an ALS because this is one of the specialities of the EURALO. This has been decided last year, and I think it is ridiculous that we have to look after our, the person who got the most votes, of the EURALO is Jeannette, and she is here as our elected person. And it’s ridiculous that we have to fight for this. If Bill is elected or whoever, if this group of people, if those ALS’ decide they want to have a certain expert, and it’s there own Board Member, please this should be clarified that we don’t have to look for their travel costs on a separate basis.
Chair: Annette, can I ask you to make a short motion out of it?
Annette: Yes.
Chair: Because if you make a short motion out of it, we can have it in the minutes, and it will be precisely recorded afterwards, and I would like to hand it over to Matthias for the minutes. Due to the lack of time, let me now proceed to agenda item nine, which is called review of EURALO by-laws and need for revision regarding individual users’ participation and membership at EURALO. Here we are again, we discussed before the Board Meeting another scenario, the first idea was to come in with a draft of a resolution on this issue. Then there was some discussions going on over the last days, there was a strong from Vittorio. I’ve also seen one from Wolfgang here, and the idea was this is too fundamental.
This is too sensitive to deal with it in 15 minutes at a General Assembly. I think the idea; the interest is clear enough, what it means. From the pre-EURALO existence, it didn’t have any meeting without this issue was more or less a central point of the discussion. And it was already rather difficult to agree on it, and I think we won’t have a chance now, here today 53 in 15 minutes or the time left for discussion to solve this question. Therefore again, this is another point, where the ISOC make a sub-group preparing a paper, the other option we discussed this morning at the Board Meeting is taking benefit of the fact that other RALO representatives are here in Paris.
They have the same discussion in North America; they may have the same discussion in other parts of the world. To sit together with other RALO representatives and discuss what’s your opinion is about is, do you have any regulation, any model for this issue to sort out, first the options and to report back to the Board. And then post-pone consolidated proposal, present a consolidated proposal at the next General Assembly, but making sure that this still stays on the agenda for the Board for the next period. This would be my proposal because if we open up now this discussion we will sit here until 9:00 at least. Can you, Wolfgang please?
Wolfgang: Yeah, I’m still a little bit confused, I’m finally…
Chair: You’re not the only one.
Wolfgang: Finally I will agree what you have proposed now as the next steps, but there are two different things. Number one is there a need that each RALO has the same solution, or is it can each RALO have it’s individual solutions so if this is the case then let me ask just the question here into the room because we have discussed this. In Lisbon, we have discussed this on various lists; it’s such an old issue, so it looks like now in my eyes like we’re 26. We know what the issue is, but nobody is ready to make a decision, otherwise it’s far too simple. Let me ask into the room, who of the voting members of the EURALO have fundamental reservations against individual membership? Just to figure out…
Female: This is what we are discussing.
Chair: Yeah, yeah
Annette: We are discussing both issues. It is absolutely clear that we have individual members Wolfgang that is not the issue here. The issue is only about voting rights, and if there is a relation…
Chair: Level of contribution.
Annette: And how many, and I don’t know what, so there are lots of different proposals, how to deal with that. That we do have individual members is already a decision made.
Wolfgang: The question is how weight the voting, whether it’s 1% or 5%.
Chair: This is one aspect of it.
Wolfgang: Then create a working group that’s the best thing to do background noise – sounds like laughter and clapping
Chair: Well, but Wolfgang to be clear, this is not creating a working group to kill the subject. Often groups and committees are created exactly for that, when I was thinking about formulating a draft resolution for today, I was going through my files at home and I honestly speaking didn’t find a good piece of paper which could have been the basis of a resolution text. So everything is, everybody in this room knows more or less about the issue, but please we have to write down to make it precise, and we need a working document for consultation, and then we must make sure that this decision today is postponed, but I would like to have it on the General Assembly’s agenda next year. And, I also want to mention, to mark this in the minutes. If there is no objection, I would suggest we now make a working group. I volunteer for this working group, who else?
Male: One question.
Chair: Yes.
Male: So the User’s Participation in ICANN Structure is not included.
Chair: This is related.
Male: But it will not be talking in that group there.
Chair: No, I think we should figure it out for ourselves, because we have our own history already in this direction, and we have to go again through our files and find.
Male: Then you’re talking the suggestion I made before, creating a working group regarding Users Participation in EURALO.
Chair: In EURALO, 38 and this could be a paper which would be, after it’s handed over into the other Participation Models at ICANN Structures. Why not? It could be interrelated, Annette, short.
Annette: But, to be clear, we are talking about a left over of our by-laws, which it is a decision made last year, no, no.
Chair: For information.
Annette: Just for information, it is something we have to finalize, it is the part we already agreed on, “Yes, we want to have individual members,” but the only part we could not figure out yet was how to vote, how to weigh the voting rights. And this is something we have to do explicitly for finalizing the by-laws that’s all. But it makes sense to put it in the context of this, you know, that’s absolutely clear.
Chair: So once
Male: 29
Chair: Once again, EURALO we don’t have money, but have a heritage, background noise – sounds like laughter and the heritage of EURALO is exactly this question, and we have to come up with a good solution. Okay, we can agree so far, so we have to decide with Jeannette if anybody else, you are also joining the working group? Okay, so we make a small sub-committee and we are working on a draft, etcetera, and we report back the Board, and we report back to the List as soon as we have something concrete, we are asking you for comments.
The next agenda item is 10) the Board structure, work, and (re-)elections. As I said already before, “We had a Board Meeting,” three hours this morning, and we were quite productive. So we discussed already about, “Ways and means how to improve the work of the Board, the collaboration, etcetera.” So we are working on this, and I don’t to re-discuss this anymore. If there was an impression that the Board in last year was not always the most efficient, you imagined, so this is true, but we promised each and everything the coming year.
What is now still for discussion, and taking a decision on, there was a list circulated, I want to make it now clear again, this list is not exclusive, it was the state of knowledge of the Board Meetings this morning. There may be some names here which are not yet mentioned. Please now step up and let us know whether there is any other name that should be mentioned on this list. I made a lot of informal consultations over the last weeks. I said already, “There are several members on the old Board, on the previous Board.” So to say, which are not on this list anymore as an example, it was Karen Banks, who became NomCom in the meantime, who resigned. It was Christoph Bruch, who was on the Board last time, but for professional reasons, he resigned and he’s not going for another period anymore. So this is kind of a pre-consolidated list, if there’s anybody here in the room, who wants to go for a Board, or the ALAC nomination, please you are now welcome to let us know. Sébastien.
Sébastien: Yeah, I just want to explain why I was upset with this list, because during the Board Meeting, I asked specifically if one the candidates of the last round will not be a candidate once again. And I didn’t thought at all, that it would be in print, and distributed to everybody because if not, I will have what I will do now, I want to nominate Patrick Vande Walle for the ALAC nominees for EURALO. And, I like that he would have been on the paper and I will feel much more comfortable now for the discussion, thank you very much.
Chair: Okay, nice to now, but I think this would have been possible if we could have get this information a week ago.
Annette: 28
Chair: You are on the list now.
Male: Just to mention it because it’s important, it has been requested to the staff to do it.
Chair: Okay, there is now, under ALAC nominees from EURALO, there is Patrick.
Male: I nominated him, now you have to ask him, if he’s agree with this nomination.
Chair: As far as I sensed already, I took this for an approval, huh?
Patrick: Yes, I agree with the nomination, but I don’t recall, you just said Mr. Chairman “That maybe this could have been said earlier, in the earlier weeks,” but I don’t remember that there was any call for nominations in the earlier weeks.
Chair: I mentioned, I can afterward trace the mails, I told you there’s a list now, proposal of an agenda, and if you had any suggestions regarding the different agenda points, you are welcome to do so.
Patrick: Yes, but it was not stipulated that we should indeed at that stage state if we were willing to run for any position, but anyway.
Chair: Please at the moment when Veronica resigned, this was an open issue, and it was, there were several mail exchanges on the list, that there is position to be re-filled. And in this context, I think it would have been a perfect idea, it was obvious that we were looking for candidates.
Patrick: Yes, and I was waiting for the call for candidates, and I was for the elections to run so that we could fill the position before the Paris Meeting, anyway.
Chair: Okay, Lutz.
Lutz: To shorten this, we are still on, “Call for nominates.”
Chair: Yeah.
Lutz: This list was done tomorrow…
Chair: This morning…
Lutz: To get some names on a paper, I have an initial paper that this is the correct list, if we get the names now on the list we can vote, everything is fine.
Chair: Do you have Patrick already on the existing one? Yes, please. To be clear now, we have two agenda items, the first one is now re-election for the Board, and we have discussed the issues this morning in the Board Meeting already. In the meantime it was it was verified again, “Who of the Board members according to the results of the May election were elected for a two year term.” There’s a working document, this document was also circulated by the Board list so this information were sent before.
So, it’s exactly, it’s this one. Just to recall here, the names, and Annette, and Oliver, Irvana checked the results in between. These are the names we have so the current members, there is no need to be re-elected now, and for those who have not been involved in the previous time, Jeanette, and me. The Co-Chair, this was a separate procedure after the Board Elections we had in June, in June, yes. At the end of May the election from the Board, round were published and afterwards we had the discussion who should go for, date to go for the Chair, etcetera, and we by a pragmatic approach said, “Probably those who received most of the votes in the election procedure in the voting.” So now because the one-year term is over now, Board Members have to be re-elected, and we ask them in advance whether they are interested to go for a second term, and Rudi clearly answers, “Yes, I’m strongly interested, I would even be interested for a two years term.” Then, I asked Bill, and in principle, he said, “Yes.”
Bill: I said that, “I’m willing to serve on the Board, and I’m willing to put some work in,” on the assumption that Board Members who are individuals, who don’t represent ALS structures, are going to be treated in the same manner as all other Board Members when it comes to being supported to come to Meetings and so on.
Chair: Yeah.
Bill: I mean, otherwise you have second class citizens.
Chair: Yes.
Bill: It doesn’t make any sense to have Members elect Board Members, who cannot be funded to come to Board Meetings laughs. So, I’m willing to do this dependent on what we’re doing with regard to, you were going to introduce a…
Female: A motion.
Bill: A motion.
Chair: Okay, you link this up with the motion of Annette. Sébastien.
Sébastien: Yeah, I understand your point but I really feel not comfortable with the link to the two points. We were faced with eleven Board Members elected last year, and, I guess it’s better okay 08.
Female: Could you, I didn’t get the sense of this...
Sébastien: And, very few of them, make works, and I will be very happy the Board Member doing the works, they were elected for, and then if I have something to hope from the current member and the one who will be elected is that they commit to the community to do part of the work to help the EURALO to be done it’s general work. And, we have political issue, if we say, “If this thing is not done, I will not do it.” Or we can do that for a lot of reasons, I am not happy with different decision taken by ICANN and then if we link that, it’s very difficult because we need as a group, on an organization, a broad working Board, that’s why I’m not going to stop.
Chair: Yeah, do you allow me to; respond to 32. If you allow me personal remarks, Sébastien, I have much more difficulties with Board Members on this list who have been elected for a two year term. Who never responded, but we keep them on the list, that one, but as a matter of fact he is on the list, and we leave him on the list, and he is blocking more or less a Board mandate, and he has never, ever responded after having been elected. I have much more difficulties with this kind of factor, or circumstances than having individuals more actively participating over the last 12 months on the list, showing a commitment, and then clearly saying, “But, I don’t want to be treated as a second class Board Member.” I perfectly understand this kind of concern.
Sébastien: I am sorry, but what you say, I agree, but we are not speaking of the same thing, and we have difficulty to find, I agree with the fact if a Board Member is not working we may ask him to go and do something else, but we don’t do it, and he’s elected for two years. And if you, if the next Board have contact with him, and he want to withdraw, it’s okay. We can decide also something else. It’s not linked with my question about, why we put together the fact that elected if something is done. We hope that it will be done, if it’s not, but if it’s not, I hope that the work will be done by the Board also.
Bill: If I understand, and I’m not sure I do, I assume your responding to me. There’s absolutely no correlation between whether somebody’s an individual, or a representative of an ALS structure with regard to how much they have done, or are willing to do. There are individuals; there are a number of people who are elected onto the Board as individuals who’ve put time in, who’ve participated in the discussions, who’ve helped Wolf offline, and so on. I’m one of them, and there are others, Jeannette, Desiree, etcetera.
The fact that we are not from ALS, has nothing to do with who’s doing work or not doing work so that’s a separate issue, I think really. There are people from ALS’ as well as pointing out who have not participated at all. So, it’s not an issue of individuals work less, it’s not true. I’m only saying that for me, if we are going to have a Board where everybody’s committed to do work, then I’m willing to commit to do work, but if I don’t have the same treatment, and Jeannette doesn’t have the same treatment, and Desiree, and Karen, who’s left, doesn’t have the same treatment as everybody else, then it’s kind of odd to ask them to commit to do the same work. Everybody, who’s elected by the General Assembly, because they want them there as their elected representatives should be treated in the same manner with regard to, I don’t know any organization that operates differently.
Chair: The principle of equal footing is understood, yes, it’s Andrés, and it’s Christopher.
Andrés: I’m a little bit lost, what’s the prejudice with representatives of ALS’ in the Board, and those who are individual members? What’s the difference? If you say, “second class representatives.”
Chair: Well, there are several differences, just as an example, the Co-Chair; Jeannette who is here now, is here to the fact that we split the function of Chair and Secretariat. Bill could come to the meeting because he’s on ALS ticket, replacing Max Sengers, 43 on an ALS ticket here, but otherwise they wouldn’t have had the right and the possibility to come here.
Andrés: It’s a budget question, it doesn’t depend on us, it depends on ICANN, yeah.
Chair: More or less, Nick.
Nick: For historical reasons, with creating the RALO’s, travel support has been provided in the last two financial years, on the basis that if you’re, if the ALS Representatives of a region where an ICANN meeting is taking place, received travel funding to come to that meeting, originally to set-up the RALO and then to have the General Assembly. There was a question raised even before this question came up, or about the same time, as to whether or not regions could adopt different rules for travel support, for instance North America suggested that they might want wish to require a certain amount of work of ALS’, rather than just having people who, for example, were not active during the year, but wanted to come to the meetings and received travel support.
And so the position of ICANN was that regions were free to adopt differential travel rules provided that they were fair and equitable to the members of the region. Like, it wasn’t playing favourites with groups or cliques or whatever, and that it was fair across regions, but there was no barrier to adopting differential rules, and there still isn’t. So, I would say that this is all now somewhat changed by the fact that there is a consultation presently going on about volunteer travel across all ICANN communities which is being harmonized. So, in the future, the support that At-Large previously received, which was 35 people to attend each ICANN meeting between RALO members and ALAC members was up here, and all other communities in ICANN received basically no travel support to attend ICANN meetings.
There’s now some raising of support so that there is some level of support across communities, undoubtedly will not endlessly treat At-Large differently than it treats all the other communities. So, this may or may not be a mute point, in that vein, I would obviously encourage At-Large to respond to the travel consultation. There was an initial response by the At-Large Advisory Committee on the first discussion of this subject, and there is now an open consultation on it again. So you may or may not, it may or not be something of a moot point depending on the results of that consultation and the ultimate treatment equally of all volunteer communities. And, in any case, since this is for the community to consult on, you should.
Chair: Please, we are running short of time, make it very short.
Andrés: I need to close this issue, I think that we could all agree that the treatment of all the Board Members should be the same, and I think that we could also try to agree to make a motion to ask for the same treatment for all the members of EURALO’s Board.
Chair: The point is now to make it short and precise. Bill, we understand your concern, we understand the motion, I cannot guarantee right now to you, I can guarantee that we are working on this.
Annette: And, as Andrés just said, “We all support this motion now.” Or, are there any objections within the ALS here?
Male: Yeah.
Annette: If that is not the case, “Yes we do support that motion, and then we go on.” But, I think that Sébastien has a point, and we need a procedure in the long run to deal with people who don’t participate because there’s always this suspicion in the room that people just use ICANN Meetings to have a cheap trip somewhere, and that is somewhat unfair against those.
Male: In by-laws we have a removal procedure, and the Board can always decide which Member to expel, it’s already solved.
Chair: Sébastien, last remark.
Sébastien: Just to precision, I never have in my mind, maybe it’s my language was not right, and next time I will speak in French, to say that there are people because they are individuals, that they are doing less work than people belonging to ALS’, it was not my point. If anyone heard that it was a mistake from my side.
Chair: Okay, what was clear now, there must be equal footing of Board Members, and we have to assure this. The last motion from Jeannette was, we also have to look into the ALS participation who are active in the last minute to participate for meetings, etcetera, and how this is justified with other active ALS’ over the 24. Okay, yes Christopher.
Christopher: Completely different question, I just want to come back to this list. The list of candidates is eminently distinguished, I have no comments. How many vacancies are there?
Chair: One.
Christopher: Which?
Female: 46
Chair: 49
Christopher: No, who are the vacancies? What is the… 55
Chair: Please.
Male: These slots are open until people are re-elected.
Chair: At the moment, open, yes. Okay, open are five now, until the election. I now want since at least 15 minutes to have this background noise – sounds like tapping on table election happening here. Therefore, I was already talking about the period after taking a vote on it. So just let me repeat again, according to this list, we don’t vote about the first four. The current members are elected for a two years term; we are now in the mid-term of our term. To be elected now is, as I said before, it’s Rudi, it’s Bill, it’s Annette, and it’s Desiree.
Desiree, we checked this in the meantime, and we thought there was an error in the…so, and new on this list, is Annette, Annette serves since many years in the ALAC. Her term is going to expire by the end of the year, she said, “She’s said she’s not going for any prolongation on ALAC, but she would like to continue for the EURALO Board.” I’m very much in favour of such an idea because Annette has tremendous experience in the ALAC community, and she will be really added value to the Board. So, if you are, I welcome all of you, but I make a strong recommendation that also now that Annette is a new Board Member on this list. Can we now vote on the existing? Does anybody demand secret votes? Or, can we just make a consensus vote? Can we vote them in global? Yeah, please.
Nick: Per clause 11.18.1 of your by-laws, “All voting shall be electronic in nature and allow sufficient time for all members to record a vote on any matter. The mechanisms for votes shall ensure that to the maximum extent practicalable duplicate voting, or voting by unqualified voters shall be prevented.” Now this is somewhat confusing because 11.15 says, “The nature of voting required for any matter will be determined by the Chairperson of the General Assembly,” subject to the provisions I have just read you. So, while the above provision would seem to allow you to say, “We are going to decide this by consensus, the later provision actually requires an electronic vote,” in which all Members shall be entitled to participate.
Chair: But, this is a stupid contradiction 14.
Nick: I wouldn’t comment on the Chairman’s intervention on this.
Chair: laughs 24 Yeah, Lutz, but please.
Lutz: Make a practical solution, we do need an electronic vote, we have red lights here, we can do it electronically background noise – laughter, so we have no problem. But, I have a more serious question, according to the by-laws 9.2, we need five, at least five Board Members, they should come from different countries, should be of different member, and might be from different regions of Europe, so the question is now we have four candidates for one necessary seat, how many seats do we need, or do we want to fill in this meeting now? I do not understand, we do not have five additional seats, we have one 36, and we can have more. It would be practical to have four elections now because then we have a swap out from four to four, and we have eight in summary. Might be practical, but I do not understand at the moment what are we are working for.
Chair: We are now supposed voting for the four candidates whose term is over now, okay 13.
Male: Have to decide the number of positions because we have to decide if we are just going to elect just one person or the four of them? 27 We have to decide the number of the Board Members.
Chair: Yes, previously, we said, “The minimum size of the Board is five.” 39 We can have up to seven, we can have even if desired up to nine. This time we say, “Simply up to as many candidates as we have.” So we have one less than last year.
Male: I propose the same; I support his proposal of electing the four of them, and having an eight member Board.
Chair: Yeah, yeah, 07 exactly, so we are now vote for our existing one 16 Four are the renewable ones so we are totalling eight if I count right.
Nick: Five members must be regionally then, diverse in all of these ways. 32 I believe that you will, you will satisfy that because the current members come from four different countries, and any one of the other additional four, would then satisfy the diversity requirements of the five. And actually, rather help to satisfy the intent on gender diversity, which I remember was the cause championed by Haike when these clauses were drafted. So I don’t think there is a problem with the diversity requirement, it’s just the voting.
Chair: “Just the voting.”
Bill: The question is what is electronic?
Nick: Well it’s more than that, it’s both electronic, and it must allow all members the possibility of voting so that would include those who are not present.
Bill: You have to have an email 28.
Annette: Wait, wait, wait, wait, may I just recall 32 Excuse me.
Female: It’s getting very noisy 36
Annette: Yeah.
Chair: Yes, please, 39.
Annette: I would just like to recall the first principle of the EURALO was, and still is to reach consensus, and to do as much as possible in a consensus manner, and this is actually what we decided, and what is our principle. And, so that is, I think, a very official option of the by-laws.
Chair: Yes, Roberto, please.
Roberto: I have a suggestion, why doesn’t the Assembly now go to an informal vote by consensus, and then this would be sent to the mailing list, and saying, “This is the consensus of the Assembly, please ratify that within a week.” 32.
Chair: Exactly, thank you Roberto. Nick, would this?
Nick: On reflection, it says, “The nature of voting will be such and such, and must require, everyone must have the opportunity to vote, and it must be electronic. But, to the maximum extent possible the General Assembly shall decide matters before it, by consensus.” I believe that, now correct me if I’m wrong, because a number of you were present when this was drafted too, and my memory may not be perfect, but I believe that the intent was rather what Roberto has just said, “That if there is general agreement in the General Assembly a vote does not have to be called.” Because there is actually a provision here which says, “The vote must take place via ballot, if 1/3 of the present members request therefore.” So, if 1/3 of the members are not requesting a vote, and the Chair does not insist on having one, and there is consensus. It seems to be a reasonable of this, would be that an electronic vote is not required. But you may as a convenience wish to ask those ALS’ who are not present, if there is an objection.
Chair: Right, okay, let’s put it that way. I now ask the Assembly, we presented a list of candidates. Are there any objections against these candidates? If there is no objection, then we…Oliver.
Male: Just one sentence.
Chair: Yes.
Male: There’s no objections.
Male: The thing is we have one situation we are not confident with is that Paco deQuito, he is not really taking part, but there is a measure in the by-laws, which says that, “When a member becomes ineligible to continue so the Board can take measures.” Maybe we should give the Board a way to think about that afterward.
Chair: Yeah, okay.
Male: That’s the only thing I want to say.
Chair: No, I don’t re-open now the discussion; afterwards it’s another hour here. Sorry for my rudeness, but if I understood this right, we are now approved these candidates. We are now putting this to be on the safe side on the mailing list saying, “According to this suggestion, they were confirmed, if there are no objections in the next 48 hours…”
Male: The vote will be 07
Chair: Yeah, okay, so…
Male: Maybe a little longer than 48…
Chair: Fifty-five 20 then I think we can conclude agenda item 10; we have the last one which is 11. We have now four ALAC nominees from EURALO on our list, we cannot decide on them fortunately. So we communicate the four nominees to ALAC that these are…
Male: No, we have to vote on…
Annette: No to ALAC, to EURALO.
Chair: To, huh? Yes, ALAC, from EURALO
Annette: The EURALO is going to take the decision on those candidates. The EURALO is going to elect this. But, here we are just listing the nominees we have at this point.
Chair: Yeah, at this point.
Annette: At this point so there has to be a timeline announcing when this nomination is over, there has to be a timeline for the election which will take place in that case online because it is not part of this General Assembly here.
Chair: Thanks a lot for this clarification Annette, this means we are not going to vote on this.
Annette: No, it’s an information.
Chair: You want to review the by-laws again? 44 Yes.
Male: In 5.4, we have the responsibility to select two not four.
Annette: Yes, of course.
Chair: That’s what we are now nominating, and then we have to make a voting on it, afterwards, but not today, not today.
Annette: It’s late.
Chair: So, Sébastien.
Sébastien: Just to be sure, you know how to handle the fact that one will be elected for two years, and the other will finish the term of Veronica or whatever. It needs to be precise somewhere because I don’t think that this situation is really on the by-law itself because it will be at the same time. Already, we have two votes, or we have decide how to do it, or you have to decide how to do it.
Chair: But, this we have to clarify still in detail. And, I would like to ask the mandate from this Assembly that we figure this out afterwards because I would like if there is no, if there are no miscellaneous from this agenda. I would like to take them now to note them now and to discuss them afterwards because we have the following meeting from the Summit Working Groups. This is the reason why I’m almost forced to close down this meeting now, and are there any motions for miscellaneous. If this is not the case, there are plenty of open questions still to be discussed. So there will be, huh, what is this? Okay, so we are through our agenda with almost half an hour of…
Female: Extra time.
Chair: Thanks, I was looking for this word. And, I would like to thank all of you for active and constructive participation; it was a pleasure to me to chair this meeting. It was a pleasure for the host, hosting this meeting, and I’m looking forward to a new dynamic at EURALO. I’m looking forward to a full mail box day-by-day with a lot of proposals, suggestions, criticisms, whatsoever, but to a new dynamic. And, I think and I’m confident that this General Assembly was a starting point of something else. Okay, thanks a lot, and have a nice evening 38
45 – 02.31.00
End of Audio