21 June 2008 Transcription

EURALO Board Meeting (at Paris ICANN Meeting)
(Held June 21, 2008)

Legend
Name: First name of member of group
Name?: If we think we might know who's speaking but aren't 100% sure.
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.[cuts out. Audio cuts out for less than 2 seconds. We may have missed something. We do not put this if it's just natural silence where no-one is speaking. We only put this if we can hear that there was briefly a technical problem with the phone line and/or the recording which resulted in temporary loss of sound.
-ation If we believe that all we missed was the beginning of a word because the audio cuts out, we will just put the end of the word that we can hear. If we are very sure from context what the whole word is, we'll just put the whole word, to make it easier for the reader. However, if the word could be a variety of different things, then we will show only the part of the word we could hear or thought we heard.

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

Attendance:
Wolf Ludwig (EURALO Chair)
Sébastien Bachollet (visiting ALAC member)
Annette Muehlberg (visiting ALAC member)
Jeanette Hofmann (EURALO Vice Chair)
Rudi Vansnick (Internet Society Belgium)
Andrés Oliva (observer)
Christopher Wilkinson (observer)
Werner Huelsmann (observer)
Oliver Passek (observer)
Lutz Donnerhacke (observer)
Dessi Pefeva (observer)
Adela Danciu
Frans Gerbosch (observer)
Desiree Miloshevic
Apologies: Christoph Bruch, Karen Banks, Vittorio Bertola & Bill Drake
Staff: Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger & Frederic Teboul
Minutes taken by: Staff

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

Wolf: …I would like to welcome you, and I’m pleased to have the opportunity today to have our first face-to-face board meeting because since this board was elected in May last 00.19 year, some of us had the opportunity to inaudible and…
Female: inaudible
Wolf: Huh?
Female: inaudible
Wolf: inaudible… The next opportunity was in I think inaudible 00.39. The second one was Los Angeles and the third one inaudible conference in February this year in New Delhi.
To begin this, because many of us have never met each other before, I would like to inaudible 01.03 and combine names and faces. And I hope this way afterwards inaudible. These 01.20 people who are present inaudible, and I will say some words afterwards about people who are not here and who we know that they won’t be here today inaudible and inaudible 01.43 according to the rival inaudible rival inaudible working space, there could be some people, or inaudible.
So I’ll start it myself if you don’t mind. My name is Wolf Ludwig. You probably heard about inaudible 02.11. I’m at the moment assuming the position of Chair of EURALO. Sébastien?
And I’m a member inaudible one of the certified ALSes, Comunica-ch, which is a Swiss inaudible 02.37.
Sébastien: Sébastien Bachollet. I am the local inaudible. I wanted to welcome you all to Paris. I hope that you are enjoying the meeting. I hope also you will enjoy the city and that you inaudible 02.59 time with that. We will try and support you with that inaudible. And I’m very pleased to the first real board meeting here in Paris. I see inaudible.
I’m Sébastien Bachollet and inaudible 03.24 ISOC France as an ALS in the EURALO. And I was lately inaudible as the inaudible. I am not a member of the inaudible, I am inaudible. I am inaudible 03.45.
Female: inaudible
Sébastien: And I was inaudible two weeks ago inaudible – missed about two sentences 03.54. Thank you very much.
Annette: Alright. My name is Annette Muehlberg. I’m representing the At-Large Structure Network New Media 04.23 from Germany, Berlin. I’m a member of the At-Large Advisory Committee. I was a former chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee inaudible started.
And I’m also very pleased that inaudible after we got 04.45 the election inaudible, so we are actually able to meet the board members. I think this is really amazing, it is fantastic, and I’m very happy that we have our first board meeting and I think it would be great if we could have sort of more continuous meetings than this type 05.08. So as I said, people were actually bumping into each other without knowing that they were board members… inaudible members of the EURALO board because they just didn’t know each other. And so they by chance exchanged their names and said, “Oh, that’s you.” And I don’t think that this is a very productive way of working then 05.32, so I’m really happy that we do have our board meeting now and we can actually get started in EURALO.
Andrés: Well, my name is Andrés Oliva. I’m inaudible ISOC… overtalking
Female: Press star.
Annette?: I didn’t understand. 05.48 Who are you?
Andrés: Andrés Oliva. I’m from Barcelona… overtalking
Female: This is a quick start conference. Please say…
Male: Okay, we have a microphone.
Female: inaudible
Male: inaudible
Andrés: Well, I repeat, my name is Andrés Oliva. I come from Barcelona, and I’m representing the ISOC Catalan chapter. I’m not the usual member. Actually, I’m in substitution of Paco de Quinto – he’s the official representative. And well, I’m just really happy to be here. I will adopt an observer position because I’m not really a… I don’t have the 06.31 updated information about what’s really going on, so but I will try to help in the way I can for to advance the inaudible.
Christopher: Christopher Wilkinson, Internet Society of Belgium – Wallonia. Actually, I’m here by mistake. I came to the General Assembly but the chairman says that this is an open meeting and I can remain as an observer. But if any of you have any objection to that, I’m quite happy to go and disappear.
Lutz: My name is Lutz Donnerhacke from FITUG Germany. I am just a visitor here hoping to get a registration at the booth 07.25.
Jeanette: My name is Jeanette Hofmann. I am probably the only person who is presenting only herself – I am not a member of an ALS. And since the whole ALAC thing started, I always fighted for exactly that – that individual users of the internet, which still form the majority on the internet, actually get a representation in ICANN.
Nick: Hello, I’m Nick Ashton-Hart, the Director for At-Large for the ICANN staff, and I think I’ve met all of you before. I think.
Rudi: Hello, I’m Rudi Vansnick representing ISOC Belgium. And I was elected in Lisbon one of the board members, so I’m not observing, I’m trying to work with the board on the issues we have to handle.
Matthias: Good morning. My name is Matthias Langenegger. I work with Nick and Frederic in the At-Large team and I help to coordinate the meetings.
Annette: I would like to make one correction if I may, because Jeanette, you are representing yourself as an individual but also the EURALO as you got elected actually on the first place of the EURALO board. So please, don’t put your light under the… 18. laughter
48
Frederic: Hello. Bonjour. My name is Frederic Teboul. I work also with Nick Ashton-Hart and Matthias on the At-Large, and I had the opportunity to communicate with all of you recently and now it’s a pleasure to meet face-to-face. Thank you, and good luck for the meeting.
Werner: My name is Werner. I am from the German Association for Data Protection and Privacy – Deutsche Vereinigung für Datenschutz – and I am a guest.
Wolf: Okay, oh… cuts out …please.
Oliver: Yes. I’m Oliver Passek and I’m representing German NGO 10.40 inaudible. cuts out
27
Wolf: She will be here I think Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, so we may have the chance to meet to cross 12.38 her, but she won’t be here for the board meeting and the subsequent General Assembly.
Furthermore, on the board is Vittorio Bertola – he responded over the last days to some of the mails. I am still not sure whether he will come to the board meeting. I don’t expect it. I was still hoping he will be at the General Assembly, but I’m not sure about that. There are two more persons from ISOC Italy nominated for the General Assembly, so I at least hope that one of them – Laura 13.26 or the other person – will be at the General Assembly in the afternoon.
Then on the board is Paco. Paco is not coming to Paris? You are representing him more or less.
Andrés?: inaudible 13.45
Wolf: And the last one is Desiree Miloshevic. She was supposed to be here yesterday afternoon already. I haven’t met her, I haven’t crossed her, I didn’t bump into her so far, so maybe she will join us in the next couple of hours or she will be at the General Assembly in the afternoon.
After this listing, I’m realizing that we are here five members present. I’m not wrong?
Sébastien?: You have three voting members and two non-voting members.
Wolf: Three voting members and two non-voting members, exactly. The voting members is Jeanette, the voting member is Rudi, and the voting member is me. And Annette and Sébastien, you are the adopted members, board members without voting rights. Oh, I forgot one, it’s Wolfgang who is also adopted board member, and he will come for the General Assembly. He was ill 15.07 the last weeks and… What?
Female: inaudible
Wolf: Yeah, but he was always on our list.
Female: inaudible
Wolf: Okay. So he was informal board member.
Female: laughter As everyone knew.
Wolf: And Wolfgang will join us for the General Assembly.
This means we are three voting. This now could lead us to the question whether we have a quorum for taking decisions. I realize we have no quorum for taking any decisions, so we can take recommendations. For me, it’s not a problem because I don’t see anything on our drafted agenda which would be as important that there is a need of a formal vote. By the way, I prefer as far as possible rather more the 16.13 consensus procedure than opposite or dispute decisions.
The next point, I would like to suggest is there is a draft of an agenda. You see it here, you got some print-outs. Does anybody wish to have any other points amended to this agenda? If this is not the case, I drafted this agenda because I thought one of the main objectives of this meeting today would be to prepare the following General Assembly. According to the bylaws, we are told to have one general assembly per year. The Paris meeting was the best opportunity for that because we had to the chance that all ALSes – and we have 25 ALSes… 35 ALSes – could have the chance to come to Paris. The majority of the ALSes took the opportunity. And this agenda, as I said, is mainly to pre-discuss the points we have to treat afterwards in the General Assembly.
I would like to suggest to have a short break in between… if nobody objects. I think we…
Female: Sure 18.20… overtalking
Wolf: …we can manage this agenda even having a short break in between for coffee, for something to drink, or for the hard-core smokers.
Then I would like to start this topic 3, “Discussion and approval of the draft agenda for the General Assembly.” I think you have received the copies by mailings on the list. It was on the EURALO workspace. Frederic and the staff cared for 19.10 some more hard copies here to be submitted to this meeting and afterward to the General Assembly.
The structure of this draft agenda is the same – welcome, opening, etc. – then we have to seize 19.33 attendance and the quorum of the General Assembly. I hope that all the 17 representatives will be present right in time. There is one we know already who won’t be in time – it’s Stefan Hügel from Germany. I don’t know why he made his travel arrangements the way that he arrives in the afternoon at 6 o’clock in Paris and we told him in the meantime that the General Assembly is starting at 2 o’clock and it could be a good idea to arrive in Paris earlier. I urged him to make modifications and he told me afterwards his ticket is unchangeable, untransferable…
Male: Yes.
Wolf: …whatever. So he was told for an 20.45 extra charge in case he changes the ticket and suddenly he said, “Okay, if it costs €340 for changing the ticket, it probably makes no sense.” So Stefan is the only one I know at the moment who is registered for the General Assembly but who will not…
Female: Be in time.
Wolf: …be in time.
The same is Bill. He’s coming from inaudible 21.13, but he’s supposed to be here at least around the short break which is foreseen after agenda item 5 at 3:30 this afternoon.
All the rest of the ALSes except five we had 21.42. This are… This is Christoph, Humanistische Union, as I said already, it’s ISOC Finland, it’s ISOC Netherlands, it’s KEPKA, it’s IIAV, and it’s CLUSIT from Italy. CLUSIT was among the ALSes certified at the beginning of this year – it was APTI the 22.21 last and CLUSIT was the one before. These six… and the Slovenian Consumers, yes, are not preregistered for the General Assembly, but nevertheless we have the quorum I hope at least in the afternoon to take formal decisions.
Yes, Annette.
Annette: Are you done, or…?
Wolf: Well, please, if you have any question or any comments, feel free to interrupt me.
Annette: I didn’t plan to interrupt you, not at all. I was just wondering we are discussing now the agenda…
Wolf: Yeah. Yeah. This is a draft agenda, yes.
Annette: …and… Well, thank you very much for preparing all these papers and agenda. I would suggest that as one of the main issues I guess is actually our working program. So what… how are we going to organize ourselves in the next year and maybe further on so we can also foresee a little bit the next years maybe? So I think it would be helpful if we have two longer briefings by staff – one by Denise and one by Nick… Nick?
Matthias?: Nick is coming back.
Annette: Nick. Okay. And it would be helpful to get an outline of ICANN activities – not only just the current as it is said here but “What is sort of the long-time program? Are there any sorts of events, certain topics where there are deadlines?” – something like this. So I think this sort of outline to be a little bit… just tell them to be a little bit more precise on these activities and deadlines. That’s one thing.
And then maybe we could… I think the order is perfect, you know, to have first the policy, then this, and then the summit. So this is fine, but we should be a little bit more flexible about the time so that we have more time for discussion. So I would rather say… unfortunately Nick is not here now, because I don’t want to limit his speech, but I would like to sort of concentrate a little bit more so that we have more time for discussing what we are actually going to do in the next period of time. That’s the one issue.
The second issue I would like to understand, point 10, is “Board structure, work, and elections.” So just for the formal procedure, I’d like to be clear – so we would have actually elections right here today for the board…
Male: Yes.
Annette: …in the afternoon and we are going to have nominations for the At-Large Advisory Committee later on. So I just want to make that clear because I’m not sure about the formal procedure, why there is a split of nomination period for the At-Large Advisory Committee and a direct election for the board, so… Hmm?
Male: inaudible 26.02
Annette: No, no. I…
Male: inaudible
Annette: I just wanted to make sure that that’s the way it is and so fine.
Wolf: Well, that’s the way I understood it, that of course according to the bylaws we now have to re-elect some of the board members because we had this two-years period and the one-year period. And we principally adopted last year in May that those board members with most votes are in for two years and with less votes for one year. They made a list of last year’s voting which we submitted to you two-three weeks ago, it was prepared by the staff. In case you don’t have the hard copy, I think we can supply…
Frederic?: There is a hard copy… overtalking 27.20
Wolf: There are hard copies over there. From this point… But I suggest we deal with the board and other nomination things under agenda item 10 and 11 at this meeting. So we go on. It’s just to confirm, “Yes we have to replace some of the board members,” and then we can also talk about nominations.
What I think will be… Coming back to our topic 3 now, “Discussion and approval of draft agenda for General Assembly,” I think we should have a formal approval of this agenda in the afternoon as well. These are formalities 28.13 but I think in General Assembly, formalities have some justification. And then we pre-decided already in advance, said Matthias will do the minutes of the General Assembly, which I appreciate a lot because this is always one of the most… the lousiest jobs of any assembly.
Male: inaudible 28.43. laughter
Wolf: And I suggested…
Annette: overtalking …in two languages at the same time. laughter
Wolf: Great. I suggested, if you want to discuss this, I simply suggested we are not doing a word-by-word…
Female: Oh my God, no.
Wolf: …minutes, we are just doing decision minutes with probably motions, the wording 29.13 of motions for decision. I think anything else is not justified, nobody will read them except historians probably, but…
Okay. So the second agenda item was as usual there are messages from the ALAC Chair. This will be Cheryl. Then there will be a message or again an introduction by Frederic as the new Regional Affairs Manager and who was already in charge of us over the last couple of weeks, Frederic, and I… he’s 30.01 spent quite some time preparing the meetings and I think as many of your know him already via the mailing list, it’s a good opportunity for you, Frederic, to reintroduce yourself and it’s then an opportunity that people can combine a face with your name.
Then I ask, from the ICANN Executive/Board, Wendy Seltzer who is an actual liaison, ALAC Board Liaison person, and Wendy confirmed two days ago that she will come and give a short message/introduction of up to five minutes.
After this part, we may have, under agenda item 3, “Briefing on current ICANN policy by ICANN Vice President Policy” by Denise Michel. This is a content-oriented part because besides talking about ourself, I think it’s quite relevant to get briefing by an ICANN professional about its 31.32 current issues.
Then foreseen under agenda item 4 is “Presentation and acceptance of the EURALO Board’s report.” What you have in your hands now is a draft, and it’s more or less so far my opinion. I made the draft, I put it on the list for comments. Except Bill, I have not seen any comment on it.
Female: We’re all happy with inaudible 32.07.
Wolf: Oh, well… Yes. Do you allow us inaudible to treat it under the Board approval to this report? At the moment we have just gone through the agenda.
Sébastien: Yeah, I wanted ask something for that.
Wolf: Okay.
Sébastien: I just would like, if it’s possible, to be added as to give a message as the local host…
Wolf: Oh!
Sébastien: …if you don’t mind.
Wolf: No, I don’t mind at all. I don’t mind at all. You want after Cheryl?
Sébastien: That’s okay. That will be great.
Wolf: Okay.
Female: Before our host?
Wolf: Or even… Yes.
Female: inaudible 32.53
Wolf: Yes.
Female: …Cheryl.
Frederic?: There’s a message for…
Wolf: No. inaudible Even… The hosting person is always the opener person, and therefore according to this logic, probably he starts and then it’s Cheryl…
Frederic?: …the host and then…
Sébastien?: Thank you.
Wolf: Okay. C’est plutôt une bonee idée. Merci. pause
Well, and then we have to see… this is at least the last opportunity here now during the board meeting to make amendments to the Board’s report. If anybody agrees, then we can call it “Board’s report.” So far it’s a “Chair report.” I dared to include into it, Jeanette, yes? And… So and we discussed, we pre-discussed in case there would be dissents on this report and they would not approve on this report, I wouldn’t mind to present it to the General Assembly as the Chair report and then invite for discussion. I think the best thing would be, the easiest thing would be if we agree on a Board’s report if it expresses already a kind of consensus or unanimity on it. And this makes it easier for the afternoon, because in the afternoon we have quite a dense program. I hope that we can manage to go through it in time. We don’t have the possibility to exceed the time schedule because there is another meeting in the evening which is the first part of the inaudible 35.14 for the summit, and at least the members of the summit working group present here – this is Sébastien, it’s Annette, it’s me, and Rudi – we are supposed to be at that meeting after, after the General Assembly.
Okay, but we… on the content of the Board’s report, we talk later, and then we have agenda item 5 – it’s “Current policy activities in ICANN,” it’s a possibility for the At-Large involvement in the GNSO. I think, Jeanette… Annette, this is the item which is very related to action and where our response as RALOs is asked 36.13.
And Nick is now in the room. Annette was asking in the meantime whether we could pinpoint this agenda item, very practical, what is EURALO, what are the ALSes supposed to do? In which way they can collaborate, in which way they can participate? Annette.
Annette: My proposal for the agenda was to sort of… putting together all the policy items and, as it is here already, “Briefing on current ICANN policy and activities concerning GNSO,” so that we get rather an outline on “What are the next this year activities? Are there deadlines? What are next year activities? Is there some special event or is there some deadline for a certain policy?” Something like this so that it is easier for planning our activities and to put this together a little bit more concerning the time so that we do have some more time for the discussion of these issues, as we only have 15 minutes of discussion here and for the working program. And so I think it would be great if you and Denise could sort of get these things together a little bit more under the perspective of an outline of “Where are the deadlines? Where are the policy issues?” Something like this and leave us a little bit more time for discussion of these issues for the working program.
Nick: Just briefly, of course we’re happy to do that. In a way unfortunately, in a way not unfortunately, on Sunday… the Sunday ALAC meeting has become almost a perpetual policy briefing, which wasn’t exactly how it started. laughter It started as a couple of briefings on Sunday and it became… there are several very good briefings which were specifically designed for the At-Large perspective on new gTLDs, focussing on the objections procedures, which I know are particularly controversial, morality and public order and all that; geographic regions, which of course affects At-Large, the enormous size of the AP region and Malta being in the African region even though it’s an EU member state and various things like that; also IDNs in depth, including the IDNC fast track. So there will be a considerable amount of very end-user tailored policy briefings on Sunday which are also going to be recorded in three languages and then posted for people who are not here to use as a reference point along with their PowerPoints.
So perhaps… I mean, I can certainly go for an outline for what consultations are open, and Denise I think is going to cover what is happening in the policy area more generally with the restructuring of the GNSO and the hiring of new staff and the capacity to support the communities of 39.40 ICANN and all that, though you may wish to simply say, “Well, let us simply decide who is going to represent EURALO on the various working groups that ALAC is going to establish related to the policy areas that are under discussion.” I can outline “Here are the areas which are going to be consulted on or which are consulted on now,” and then if there are known people, especially from the RALOs, who wish to work on one or another issue… Like the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has a meeting with ALAC on Thursday and one of the things they are working on is they are closely working with the AntiPhishing Working Group on some measures that as far as the DNS relates to phishing attacks, which are an obvious concern to end users. So it may be that there is a continuing interaction between the SSAC specifically related to, like, fast flux hosting and, you know, true misuses of the DNS for criminal purposes. And those are particularly end-user interesting issues, unlike some of the other things we do around here which are less interesting to end-users.
So perhaps that might be a way, as you don’t have to decide what you think about a given issue, but maybe find people who are willing to work on issues that they are already interested in which will be subject of work over the next six months to a year. President’s Strategy Committee, for example, has initial documents out about how the structure of ICANN would go forward after the JPA review, so some of the members who are more interested in internet governance related questions, those discussion might be more interesting to them.
I think there’ll be something for everyone, really. laughter It’s a little… Yeah, I mean, there’s a pretty broad range of issues of varying kinds going on at the moment unlike at times in the past there were only a few narrow things happening, so…
Wolf: Thank you, Nick. May I suggest to bring the two points together. I think that there is no need to make an in-depth presentation in the afternoon. I would suggest if you do a kind of teaser presentation…
Male: Make it sexy.
Wolf: Make it sexy for the audience, that the majority of them is strongly encouraged to go to the different briefing meetings.
Nick: The briefing will be actually in the At-Large meeting…
Wolf?: Yes, tomorrow.
Nick: …so you won’t even have to go anywhere. You can just sort of come and it will just happen.
Wolf: Okay. Fine.
Frederic: Yes, just to add something here. We are going also to make available some pretty new, brand new policy briefs on each ICANN issues, and really self-explanatory with a concentrated number of words that everyone will be able to understand. So this will be available to you in the afternoon session. Thank you.
Wolf: Ok- 43.07 cuts out. Great. Ah…
Frederic: inaudible
Wolf: Yes?
Frederic: Just one more thing. So I’m just currently updating the GA, okay, to have a clear picture of what we are deciding here. So can we just set up here for the time allocated to Denise Michel and Nick concerning the inaudible 43.29 version, taking it to the point of Annette here, of giving more time for discussion because currently we have 15 minutes for discussion and approval. So Nick, you have 30 minutes. Would you be able to make it shorter?
Nick: Easily.
Frederic: Okay.
Wolf: Okay.
Frederic: How long can you propose us?
Nick: I mean, I can go through all the subjects which are under discussion at the moment in sort of 15 minutes easily.
Wolf: Okay. Okay, great.
Frederic: So in that case, we will add 15 minutes to the discussion and approval.
Wolf: Uh, just wait a minute. Bah-bah-bah-bah. inaudible – mumbling 44.16. Discussi-… Yeah, okay. Right.
Frederic: Do you agree to keep 20 minutes for Denise Michel or would you like maybe to have even more time on your discussion and we can ask Denise to make it shorter?
Annette: 15, 15.
Wolf: Uh…
Annette: So 5 minutes from Denise, 15 from Nick, and they are able to participate in the discussion and they have 44.38 inaudible so they can add if there is something missing, they can just jump in and go ahead. So 15 minutes for Denise, 15 minutes for Nick, and then 35 minutes for all of us.
Frederic: Okay.
Wolf: Yeah. But the reason why we said here’s the block of Denise is – just a moment – 20 minutes to give some possibility for discussion, because I think there may be a lot of questions afterwards to Denise’s contribution. What I can guess, I don’t know, but there should be the possibility… You don’t think so?
Rudi: I think it’s venturous 45.26 to give them space for discussion just afterward as we have planned some discussion later on, so why else? inaudible there instead of having discussions between each presentation, we’ll never end up in time.
Wolf: Well, this is more… Rudi, I thought this is more policy-related, the presentation of Denise, and there may be immediate questions to Denise, and then we of course should give the 46.03 space if there are questions. Maybe there are no questions, I don’t know.
Nick: She might… She’ll probably have to leave after.
Male: Yeah.
Wolf: I know that she has to leave the meeting at 3:45. No…
Frederic?: 2:45.
Wolf: 2:45, exactly. She has to be in another m-…
Jeanette: She’ll definitely need to do a short presentation so that we can have the chance to ask questions. If she fills all the time by giving a presentation, what’s the point? I mean, that makes it even more crucial that she’s succinct.
Wolf: Yeah.
Annette: I totally agree with Jeanette. Shall 46.38 we just… Don’t let us be too bureaucratic. I think the idea is on the table. She should give an input. If she has to run off after this, of course we have the possibility for a short discussion or at least questions and clarifying things, and then just the intention that we do have some more time for discussion. If we do it right away or later on, who cares? But we just need some more time and that’s the idea, and to have a little bit more strategic approach to say, “Okay, where are the deadlines? Where is this? Where is that?”
And Nick, I’m interested in… I think that would be helpful to have it right here as we are actually proposing a working program today. We of course are able to add on this, it would be a sort of basic outline today, and tomorrow we could add something and say, “Okay, after attending the ALAC full-day meeting, we would suggest the following: Blah-blah-blah,” something like this. But it would be interesting to know what are actually also the working groups which are going to be… which are already there but are also going to be set up, maybe. And I don’t think that there is always a need that Regional At-Large Organizations are, you know, delegating people to… – you know, this all becomes very bureaucratic. So I think it is more important to get an idea of what is going on so that everyone knows there is a possibility to join that but also to find out more what could be the focus of the EURALO, the European Region.
So I think for us, the most important actually is to concentrate on the specific regional activity, what would be interesting for the Europeans? Is there some special issue we would like to, you know, focus on? And I think that is something we should try to work out today.
Wolf: Okay. Nick, would it be possible that, according what the Board now discussed, that you talk again with Denise in the meantime, lunch break, or just before that, to give her a final, last update with 49.17 inaudible expectations.
Nick: Yeah, but what is the start time of her… We know when… Her start time is still the same time?
Wolf: Yes. Just this must be the same because…
Nick: Okay. That’s fine.
Wolf: …in the original version, this was slightly different and we had to…
Frederic?: Amend it.
Wolf: …amend it and put it at this time because Cheryl and Denise are supposed to leave the meeting a quarter to three o’clock.
Nick: Okay.
Wolf: Would it… 49.49
Rudi: We have to keep the eye on the clock… overtalking
Frederic: Yes, yes. Okay.
Rudi: …we shuffled in Sébastien on the previous point.
Wolf: Yeah.
Frederic: So…
Rudi: And there’s only 50 minutes.
Frederic: Yes. So what I put here, instead of having from 14:10-14:25, 3 to 5 minutes each, I just put 3 minutes each. Okay? Then we will have the briefing from Denise still from 14:25 to 14:45, then we will have the presentation from Wolf from 14:45 to 15, then we’ll have Nick’s presentation.
Wolf: May I just interrupt you in this point?
Frederic: Sure.
Wolf: I count already a kind of 50.34 reserve under this agenda item, because according to my experience, the reaction to the Board’s report may be… we read it and we more or less agree that nobody wants a discussion on it, and then we are through it in 5 to 10 minutes. So this may also provide some space of maneouver for the following points. So I’m not afraid that we are overdoing it 51.11.
Frederic: Okay. But I think that we can move on. The point here made by Jeanette is taken into account and we will have Nick’s presented his “Current policy activities in ICANN” in 15 minutes, so the actual participant will have at least 30 minutes in order to engage hopefully for a full discussion. Thank you.
Wolf: O-… Yeah.
Annette: Sorry to continuously raise my hand, but it just came up to me that we do have our own… the board member, which is Roberto, and the liaison, which is Wendy, so actually it would be very rude if we gave them only 3 minutes and staff a full half an hour. I think they are able to give some really useful inputs, so I would at least say they should get their 5 minutes there and welcome them extremely to give inputs in the discussion after. I don’t want to change this whole agenda stuff now, but I think we should, you know, invite them to strongly give inputs in the discussion for our working program as they are… as they know best what’s going on as board members. Thanks. 52.43
Wolf: Annette, be sure I won’t interrupt somebody, if it’s a timeslot of 3 minutes, taking 1-2 minutes. I would probably make a little sign afterward. So, of course, this is possible and I’m quite optimistic that we can cut down on the agenda item 4 if we overdo a little bit before. So I of course by moderating the Assembly, I will cut down later on. Rudi?
Rudi: Yeah, I’m afraid that this will not help us as we know that Denise Michel has to leave at 14:45. Whatever 53.29 we try to change will not help us, so we should eventually shuffle the presentation from Wendy and Roberto after the presentation of Denise Michel…
Wolf: No.
Rudi: …give them time over there.
Wolf: They have to leave, that’s the problem.
Jeanette?: Or they also have to go.
Rudi: overtalking
Wolf: They also have to leave.
Rudi: Oh.
Jeanette?: Yeah.
Wolf: Yeah.
Rudi: Oh… overtalking
Nick: inaudible 53.50 to an IDNC meeting.
Wolf: So this…
Rudi: The problem is solved.
Wolf: Yeah.
laughter
Wolf: Yeah, yeah. Exactly.
Rudi: inaudible
Wolf: Okay. I first now want to give the opportunity to introduce our new arrival.
Dessi: Good morning. Good morning, everybody. I’m Dessi Pefeva from Internet Society Bulgaria, and I’m representing the Bulgaria ALS 54.20.
Rudi: And she’s a board member?
Wolf: No. Dessi? No.
Dessi: No… overtalking
Frederic?: No, no.
Wolf: No. Not yet?
Frederic?: laughter
Wolf: No. Desiree Miloshevic is a board member.
Rudi: inaudible
Wolf: Now I understand.
Annette: See this is why we’re meeting today the first time. laughter It helps to get… overtalking 54.45
Wolf: Okay. Let’s try to get through the draft of our agenda for the General Assembly. Then as agenda item 5, we suggested to have a short summary… No, now it’s… 5 is Nick inaudible 55.08 we said already. Afterwards, there is a short break foreseen, which may be useful. Yeah.
Frederic: Sorry. Just to make sure everyone understands here. So Nick will have his presentation from 15 until 15:15. Then we have a short break from 15:15 to 15:25. Thank you.
Wolf: Yeah.
Jeanette?: inaudible 55.36 after we’re allowed discussion? inaudible?
Male: inaudible
Sébastien: I guess it’s better if you can put that on the screen.
Annette: Yeah. Could you repeat that because I didn’t…?
Frederic?: Yeah.
Sébastien: Because I don’t get that on the internet, you better use that.
Wolf: Okay.
Nick?: inaudible 56.00
Frederic?: Yeah. inaudible?
Wolf: Yes.
Male: Did you bring those? Did you bring it?
Male: inaudible put it on wiki inaudible?
Frederic?: Maybe.
Male: Can you put it on wiki?
Frederic?: No. I’m just going to…
Nick: No, I have one. If you bring yours, I have one 56.21.
Male: Thank you.
Male: inaudible – whispering
Male: inaudible 56.45
Wolf: inaudible
Male: inaudible – whispering
Wolf: So… pause
Frederic: Okay. pause So would you like to have your discussion right after the point number 5 from Nick?
Annette: I would like to know how long do the people have time to stay – that seems to be crucial. What is the next time for Wendy and Roberto?
Wolf: Three o’clock they are booked in another meeting.
Annette: Three o’clock?
Wolf: Yeah. So they have to leave before… they have to leave I was told the very latest 10 minutes… 14:50 is the last chance for them to leave.
Annette?: Uh…
Rudi: Then 58.24 there is no space.
Annette?: And there is no…
Rudi?: Yeah.
Male: No.
Annette: May I suggest, Wolf, is there a possibility that we have your presentation of the Board’s report and we give a little bit more time, we just get a short input by Denise and we get a longer… I mean, we get an input by Wendy, by Roberto, and Denise and we get an idea of… you know, at least we try to grab some ideas and proposals and then we go on with our agenda…
Wolf: Yeah.
Annette: …so that we just, you know, take the time there as they are going to leave? So I just would like to, you know, find out what they think is crucial and get some ideas, and then say, “Okay, thank you very much,” and then we just continue with the normal agenda.
Wolf: If I understood you right, what you are suggesting is just to shift point 4 and 5, to…
Annette: Right.
Wolf: …to make 5 to 4, that Nick is immediately after Denise, and then to take 4 on the 5, “Presentation and acceptance” would be the last part…
Annette: Exactly.
Wolf: …of the 59.51 inaudible.
Annette: And…
Frederic: Yes, but I think, Annette, what you would like to do, we are talking now about numbers, okay? So we will have 1, 2, then we will have 3, we will have 5, then we will have…
Annette: 4.
Male: 4?
Wolf: Just shift 4 and 5.
Annette: Yeah.
Male: 17
Frederic: Okay.
Wolf: Just revise them.
Annette: 1, 2, 3, 5, 4.
Frederic: 3, 5, 4. Okay.
Annette: But my proposal is, to just make clear in the very first one, just when our chair is introducing, just give the idea, “Our host will be making a quick introduction” and then just say, “Okay, here there are several people who have to leave at a certain time so we want to, you know, get those people to say something and give their inputs and give those… discuss especially those inputs because they are going to leave,” and then we just continue with whatever in our list.
Frederic?: Yeah.
Wolf: So everybody agrees the way it’s now? I think it makes sense to have this block together and then, as we said, the more formal point which was previously 4, which is now 5. This may invite for discussion or may not. And this just before the coffee break… 45
Matthias: So we make this half an hour. So the discussion and presentation will be from 3 to 3:30.
Wolf: Yeah, right. pause Then under agenda item 6, we have “Report on the preparation…” or it will be a summary kind of report because the discussion in the summit working group is now going on since a couple of months already. There was a lot of work done. I think we don’t have to go too much to the details because there is a proposal on the table which is quite consistent, which was submitted to the members already, and there will be a 46 following our General Assembly in the evening. Therefore all the people who really want to get more involved in this discussion may have chance to do so in the evening over the next couple of days. So it’s Sébastien who is giving us a summary on the summit preparations. Sébastien?
Sébastien: I agree. I will take five minutes, maybe seven minutes, then if we need to discuss during that time, then it’s okay to have 20 minutes. If not, I think we can use this time for other purposes. As you say, we have another meeting just after to talk just about this topic and if people really want to tell something on that subject, they must join us about the summit meeting just after.
Wolf: Right. Okay. This would give us some more space if Sébastien cutting down a little bit if there are not too many questions referring to the summit preparations. This gives us a little bit more space under what Annette suggested is one of the main items of our General… or should be one of the main items of our General Assembly, “Discussion and approval the EURALO working programme and projects 2008-09.” This I think should be considered as something quite serious and if we have some more time for this discussion, this would be very helpful.
Then the next one is “Approval of EURALO’s working budget.” This budget is… you got a draft. This is not something we can rework because there was a deadline for that at the end of April. So I simply had to submit something and I assumed what could be more or less the most essential points for that and I submitted this to the budget committee. So this is something we can discuss but we cannot really modify it anymore.
I suggested agenda item 9, we have this point “Review of EURALO bylaws and need for revision (as noted in Lisbon) regarding individual users’ participation.” This is probably one of the more touchy points and we discussed at length with Frederic and Nick and how we can deal with such a point. In the given length of the General Assembly, there is plenty of other points. We have quite a short timeslot now here on the agenda which doesn’t give us space for in-depth discussion. Therefore the one option would be we can deal with something like this in 15 minutes if it’s on the basis of a draft resolution.
Then there was an objection by Vittorio the last days on the list by saying this is not appropriate to make a decision on this issue at this General Assembly only 56 15 minutes of time on the ground of a draft resolution, etc. Therefore I didn’t prepare a draft resolution for today because this reasoning by Vittorio to me sounds quite founded, therefore I now suggest we make a short introduction to this issue in the afternoon explaining to the newcomers why this issue is brought on the agenda again – because it was an issue before the creation of EURALO and we clearly said we want to sort this question out and we would like to give more space to individual users’ participation – but on the follow-up level, we make an introduction in the afternoon, we encourage to continue this discussion, we may offer to organize a meeting with other RALOs – what would be my preference – over the next days. I would take the responsibility to organize a meeting with AFRALO, with NARALO, LACRALO, and the colleagues from Asia…
Nick?: APRALO.
Wolf: …to make a kind of a committee working group and invite all people who are interested in this issue to join in and to discuss this with colleagues from other regions. What are their ideas about it, because I know that there is a similar discussion going on in North America? pause
Jeanette?: I think it does make sense to discuss this also across the RALOs, but I would not make our own decisions dependable on what the others do. We should form our own opinions but of course share what people think across the RALOs – that’s probably my idea about it.
Wolf: Before I give the 24 to Annette, this is what I thought as a consultation process, not that we make the decision together with them – of course we have to decide one ourselves what we finally will do, but to have a kind of consultation procedure in between which may enrich, enlarge our perspective probably simply to know what are their concerns, what are their discussions. Maybe they have models or ideas of how this could be done in a practical way.
Annette: Umm, this is a difficult procedure and we are all new in creating this, and this is why it took us a while to find… write wording and we worked a long time on it already before the Lisbon meeting, and we came up with one decision that is absolutely clear – that we do want to have individual members. This decision is already made. The only issue we are talking about is how do we give voting rights to individual members. What is the proportion? How do we deal with the fact of having organizational members, having individual members? And I think to get some ideas by others, we should rather focus on those who actually also made that decision, and the only RALO I see right now who gave actually voting rights was the North Americans who found a solution for that.
But it is a difficult issue and I think we should rather focus on how we can come to a conclusion on that. So get some input is always good, share ideas, but then we should sort of say, “Okay, here is the framework. This is what our intention is and this is what we have to look for,” and then we should sort of set a timeline or something and say, “Within the next three months or so, we really should come up with two or three proposals and then just decide,” I think that’s… to get this done. And it is a little unfortunate that this is our first meeting now a year later, so there was this interruption on discussion actually on our bylaws. So we should not speed it up too much, but we should, you know, get it done. And so I think a whole gathering of all RALOs is not as sufficient as rather getting some input by those who already made the same basic decision as we did.
Jeanette?: 47
Wolf: Huh?
Jeanette?: I would think it’s probably not possible to set up any other meeting anymore right now. The schedule is so tight, it wouldn’t work out anyway.
Frederic: Yes, indeed. It’s impossible. However, just listening what you are all saying about individual users, just would like to mention that on the 24th, this coming Tuesday, we will have the RALO Secretariat meeting where you will have both Jeanette and Wolf participating in this meeting, and I’m sure that they will be able to provide maybe some inputs from our current discussion. Thank you.
Wolf: I want to make one point clear again. If we are not taking a decision today, then it’s next General Assembly who can take a decision on it, and the time in between is discussion of…
Female: 51
Wolf: Yes. So we are not in hurry. We could take under the condition that the user summit will happen in Cairo. We would have another chance to discuss this issue as one of the main topics in Cairo – this would be a scenario, since it would give us enough time to come down to a clear decision. In the following months, my aim would be to have at the next General Assembly to have a concrete draft how EURALO wishes to deal with individual users and how to assure…
Female: 39
Wolf: Huh? Okay. So I think we can cut this down… cuts out
43 to 1.18.17
Wolf: …just to say, “Yes, I’m ready.” And so I never… I wrote him a mail asking him whether he’s still interested and he never responds. I don’t know whether I have the wrong e-mail address. I don’t know.
Rudi: I know him and I’ve seen him, and he’s real. And I guess…
laughter
Male: 45
Rudi: And it surprised me, and maybe there was some problem with his address, I have no idea what has happened. Of course I will talk to him about this and decisions will be taken to solve this situation for sure.
Wolf: Okay.
Male: And now have 08.
Wolf?: inaudible?
Male: We now have proxy access inaudible so…
Wolf: Oh, okay. Great. Good to know.
Nick: I was about to say, Mr. Chairman, I can confirm he is a real person as well as I have also met him, but…
Wolf: cuts out …the point is we have to assess this, we have to find out who is still on the board, who has to be renewed, replaced, etc. We have one nomination more so far from Annette, who expressed her interest joining the board in the next period. You are at the end of your ALAC period. Annette is not going for ALAC anymore but she wants to be on the EURALO Board. I’ll just g-… cuts out
00 to 1.20.30
Sébastien: Frankly the first question, it’s how many people we want to the board, because we can nominate some people or new people, but first we will have to convince them that it’s a place to be, that the job will be useful for us, interesting for them, and then if we just to have five people running for one seat, it’s not very useful. We don’t run election because we need elections, we run elections when we are obliged to run elections. If we can be agreed on some people to be on the board, it’s much better than an election. We are not just… We don’t want to fight with each other just for a place. And that’s a problem that we faced this year – that we decide at the end to have everybody, but everybody don’t show up, everybody don’t make the 32, and we have to find another way to do that.
Frederic: I’m sorry to interrupt you. Just for the sake of keeping the time, okay, for three hours, this discussion on the call for nomination, okay, is on item number of 11 this agenda board meeting. We are currently trying to finish the adoption of the agenda for this afternoon. Thank you.
Rudi: 58, be careful. The point you… The nominations you are talking about are other nominations. The nominations we are talking about is about the board…
Male: Is a board…
Rudi: …of EURALO itself, not of the representation of EURALO at the ALAC.
Wolf: I…
Annette?: Yeah.
Rudi: It’s a confusion of nominations.
Wolf: I think I understood what Frederic was trying to tell us, that we are over already. But the problem is…
Male: 23
Wolf: …we were… on talking on the agenda, we’re partly already discussing the content of it.
Male: overtalking
Wolf: Yeah? So I’m aware of this and be sure we will manage afterwards, after the break. I will now suggest to finalize the discussion on the draft agenda.
I think there are two points. I don’t think it makes a lot of sense, Sébastien, to talk about the 56 of the size of the board. As long as this time, I have only five-six people who are on… who declared being prepared to go for a second term, so I don’t have to talk about the theory, whether it would be 18 to have seven or nine people on the board. As a matter of fact, for the next year, we have only six people if I’m counting right. Yeah?
Annette: I think Sébastien wanted to find out what we should talk about, what we are actually going to do and then we try to find a consensus on it, and I think that’s very positive 45 that’s the whole idea we were trying for, trying to not do this voting stuff if there is a possibility to agree and find a consensus. So I would just add in point 10, after “(re-)elections,” I would make a dash “Consensus decision if possible.” And so that…
Wolf: On board…
Annette: On the board members, so that we could just try to find a solution, agree, and full stop. So that’s it.
Wolf: You don’t want a formal election? You, uh…
Annette: Discuss the structure and the actual… You know, he also pointed out that actually work should get…
Male: Be done.
Annette: Be done? Oh God, my English, and I’m too tired, and I need a break. And I think we are through this now, from the… Just put the consensus-oriented thing in point 10 and I think the basic structure is through and then we could have a break and discuss the real stuff here afterwards.
Wolf: Okay. The last agenda item suggested is “Call for nomination and introduction of EURALO ALAC candidates.” It’s a necessity because Veronica resigned in the middle of her term – she was elected for two years. For professional reasons, she had to resign, so we have a vacancy for one position. Sébastien was elected for one year, so it will be the second vacancy. Annette is 40. Your term is still valid but will expire in the near future.
Sébastien: At the same time that my…
Wolf: inaudible
Annette: Yeah… overtalking
Sébastien: We are finishing…
Wolf: Okay.
Sébastien: Currently we are finishing at the same time…
Wolf: So…
Sébastien: …for the General Assembly at the end of this year.
Wolf: So we have to talk about this. I would like to do this in the second part of this meeting. There are two nominations to my knowledge at the moment and we have to talk. I prefer to go into the General Assembly with a suggestion from the board already. 22 And maybe this will be a point of discussion when we come in with a clear suggestion, or there will be no discussion – we will see. But we should sort this out in the board meeting in the morning already.
Male: inaudible
Wolf: Huh? Okay. Lutz.
Lutz: How many people should be on the election list for ALAC candidates? How many people do you expect for the nomination list on 53?
Wolf: Well, there are three positions and we have two candidates so far.
Sébastien: There are two positions.
Annette?: No, no, no, no.
Sébastien: We have two… We have just two positions. The third one, it’s…
Annette?: 02.
Sébastien: NomCom. She’s coming from NomCom.
Wolf: Okay. inaudible, okay.
Sébastien: There are… We elect two…
Male: inaudible
Wolf: In total there are three people. That’s…
Annette: Yes. Yes, in total there are three. The issue is that we should… The issue is that we should try to have some continuity here, and the fact is that three people might leave the At-Large Advisory Committee at the end of the year. But my place will be replaced by the Nominating Committee, so there is no decision-making here in this group at all. We’re out. But it’s just clear, I’m gone because I did not run anymore. So it’s sure it won’t be me again. And so there is Sébastien who… his term is running out but he would like to be on it again, and then there is a second place free because Veronica is not running again and she resigned. So that’s the case right now. So there are actually two places we have to replace as EURALO, and the list open, so there can be 100 candidates. If you come up with 100 candidates, they are all on.
Lutz: My basic question is how do we expect to do it this afternoon? Will there be a call, public call for nominations?
Female: Exactly.
Lutz: Yeah. So there is no proposal from the board?
Wolf: Yes, there are proposals from the board. We will discuss this now after the short coffee break.
Lutz: Okay. Okay, okay.
Wolf: And then there will be a proposal from the board and then there will be a public call if there are some…
Lutz: Do you expect that some…
Wolf: Exactly.
Lutz: …candidates show up?
Wolf: Uh…
Annette?: 00
Lutz?: laughter
Rudi?: inaudible the call today inaudible on the call, yes?
Lutz: Yeah. I’d to go inaudible candidate too, yeah.
Wolf: Okay. So you can… overtalking
Lutz: I will do it on the meeting.
Wolf: Ah.
Female: Ah.
Wolf: Well, we can discuss this now after the coffee break.
Lutz: It’s okay, it’s okay. No problem. No problem.
Male: 24
Lutz: It’s only for understanding the procedure.
30 to 1.37.32
Male: Hello? Hello, hello, hello?
35 to 1.37.52
Male: So he was taking a break and we start at 11?
Male: Yeah.
Male: Hello?
07 to 1.47.26
Male: Hello?
28 to 1.50.49
Wolf: Welcome for the second part of the meeting. We are a little bit behind the same schedule, therefore I’m reassessing draft agenda for this board meeting now.
Nick?: 23 Hello? Hello?
Wolf: The next agenda item is point 4, “Discussion and approval of the Chair’s draft of the Board report.” I suggest we make some small amendments now we discussed already in the break. pause
I haven’t heard any concerns about 19 content parts. There is one chapter in the draft, it’s the second paragraph, and we will come up with a slight amendment. And I would like to ask all of you, if there are no further objections to the draft, then we approve this draft and we then call it a Board report and we bring it to the General Assembly as the Board report, which would be my preference than having a Chair’s report simply.
The subsequent point is the summary on the preparation. This we discussed already. This we can drop. There is no need now to go into the summary on the preparation of the User Summit. We discussed this with Sébastien already. This point is done.
Point 6 is “Review of the EURALO bylaws.” This was discussed already. There is no need to go into this one again.
Point 7, “Board members’ involvement in 16…” This was dis-… This is part of the working program. This we have to reconsider, and 7 and 8 are the main points we have to discuss until the end of this board meeting. “Working budget” we don’t have to re-discuss. “Board structure, work, and (re-)election,” I suggest we should come in with a list of board members. This we have to reconsider now again. And the “Call for nomination.” This means we have four points we now have to discuss and decide in the 18 45 minutes.
Alright?
Frederic?: Yes.
Wolf: So the next agenda according to this… Yes?
Frederic: Just before, I would like to welcome 34 Adela Danciu from Romania. She just joined us now.
Wolf: Oh, excuse me. Yes.
Frederic: And maybe she can just make a small presentation.
Adela: Hello… cuts out Ah, sorry. The room is small enough so I’m sure you can hear me, but anyway. I’m the representative of the new approved At-Large Structure, the Association for Technology and Internet from Romania. Me personally, I’m a lawyer 10 background and I’m happy to be here. I don’t know if it was a structured presentation or a formal one, it’s just a few words about myself, but feel free to ask me any questions now or outside in the break.
Wolf: Okay. 29
Adela: Yeah, sure. Thank you.
Wolf: Okay. Thanks a lot, Adela, and… cuts out …ask you for a short introduction as well.
Frans: Okay. My name is Frans Gerbosch. I’m from Belgium. I’m running a housing/hosting provider and I’m Vice President of ISOC Belgium. I’m also a member of the 57 Advisory Council… PR. So that’s what I’m busy with.
Annette?: I didn’t hear you, sorry.
Frans: Okay.
Wolf: Could you speak up a little bit?
Frans: Yeah, no problem. I’m Frans Gerbosch from Belgium. I’m running an ISP, mostly housing and hosting services, domain registrations. And I’m Vice President of ISOC Belgium, and I’m Advisory Council member of the 25 .org organization.
Wolf: Okay. Thanks a lot. cuts out
35 to 1.57.43
Annette: Well, as this is rather the formal side, I’m wondering, we were not allowed to have co-chairs then, finally in the end, so it was a little bit… a struggle here, and we ended up having sort of… We wanted to have co-chairs. And I think it’s a little… I don’t know if we have to mention it here that for formal reasons we sort of made an arrangement that there is this sort of thing, that there is a chair and a vice-chair, but I don’t know how to make that as a sentence or not, or if we just leave it the way that we had elections for co-chairs, full stop, over.
That’s one thing. The second is there is a slight little mistake in the third paragraph. In the middle, the sentence starts “From the EURALO Board, Annette, Desiree…” Which meeting was that? Los Angeles. Yes, she was there. We can take away the brackets. “…Desiree, Sébastien…” Veronica participated and Wolfgang as an ALS member because he’s not a board member. So just take off the brackets for Desiree because yes, she was there, and Wolfgang add as an ALS member, just as if…
Wolf: “…as an ALS…”
Annette: EURALO. EU ALS member.
And under point 2, it is the first sentence, “Annette organized…” blah-blah-blah “…with Wendy Seltzer (ICANN Board Liaison),” not “member.” She’s our liaison to the board. Liaison to the ICANN Board. So… And…
Wolf: “Liaison to the ICANN Board.”
Annette: ALAC. “ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board.”
Male: 48 updated.
Annette: That is good to know. laughter
Female: inaudible
Annette: It sometimes happens.
And finally, I would just say something that we adopt the Chair’s report as a Board report because otherwise we would have to sort of change the language in the end and I don’t think we should go through that trouble to make it a “we” when there is an “I” or something like this under point 5. I think just we agree with the message and the report and this is why we should just say, “Yes, we adopt it.”
Wolf: Jeanette.
Jeanette: 34
Wolf: Okay. But you suggested a sentence during the coffee break. You want it to be added after “conducted.”
Annette: I don’t mind. If we can just leave it, we elected co-chairs and full stop, and…
Jeanette: I’m not sure… Oh yeah, perhaps I should.
Wolf: Yeah.
Jeanette: I’m not sure that everybody thought that is a good idea. I remember that there was some opposition to the very idea on the list, so I’m not sure that everybody liked that.
Wolf: No.
Jeanette: The “we” is probably not quite correct when you…
Male: There was no objections.
Wolf: There was no objections.
Jeanette: 11
Wolf: There were no… May I just shortly recall the discussion? There was no objection in principle nor in general. It was a practical objection afterwards. We were elected as co-, we run for the co- and we were elected as co-, and afterwards it was Nick saying, “Sorry. According to the bylaws, there is not such a construct as a co-chair foreseen, so you have to be pragmatic. One has to go for the chair, the other for the vice.” So this was a…
Annette?: 47
Wolf: Huh?
Annette: For the secretariat, actually.
Wolf: For the secretariat, actually. But the principle idea, and I would like to keep the principle idea of the option, having a co-chair.
Jeanette: And should we ever get to sort of change our bylaws, that would be candidate number one – to allow for… formally allow for co-chairs.
Wolf: Yeah, yeah. For the option.
Jeanette: Yeah.
Wolf: Yeah. Right. So we leave it 18 addition. I think it’s Frederic who should make this short modifications in the text…
Frederic: Yes.
Wolf: …and then submit a slightly revised version to the General Assembly. By… From the revised revision, we make some more copies.
Frederic?: 44
Wolf: Okay. So these are the points, the three points we mentioned, and I consider this report now as approved and it’s now the Board report. And we can put off it’s a draft on the top.
Annette: Just for formal… It’s… We have to find a way to express that point 5, there is an “I” in here. So we have to…
Wolf: “We”?
Annette: Yeah. So either we change it to “we”…
Wolf: 18 This is under inaudible.
Male: Yeah.
Annette: 5.
Wolf: There is an “I”.
Rudi?: Second paragraph at the end.
Jeanette?: “I walked away…”
Rudi?: The last sentence.
Annette: And…
Rudi?: “I walked away…” overtalking
Annette: “And personnel talks to me…” So I would just say we…
Frederic: Could you please repeat inaudible?
Rudi?: It’s the last…
Annette: No. No, no.
Rudi?: Is it the second paragraph?
Frederic?: Yes.
Annette: Different proposal. Different proposal. I would just change point 5, just change the header, saying, “Some observations and conclusions from the chair agreed by the EURALO Board” – full stop – and then you don’t have to change the text.
Wolf: Okay.
Frederic?: “By the EURALO Board.”
Wolf: Okay. Thanks a lot for this pragmatic approach.
Then I would… As I said before, we dealt with 5, 6 already. We… For the last thing, almost 40 minutes, the main issue is now the working program. This is a combination of “Board members’ involvement in current policy activities in ICANN – options for improvements and optimizing supports collaboration” and “Discussion and approval of the working program.”
For this agenda item, I have some notes what we had so far. Maybe some of you may remember that in August of last year after the chair was elected, I made a kind of inquiry via the list – “Who among the board members wants to go 17 ICANN working group?” And we had according to the ICANN website, we had for the IDN Working Group, and it was Jeanette who responded – you will follow up the discussion on this. We had on Registrant/Registrar Relations working group, it was Rudi. We had on IDNs and IPv4 to IPv6 Migration as well as Security, GNSO, and ICANN Board Liaison, we had Desiree. We had Christoph for WHOIS. We had Wolf for follow-up ICANN-related discussions, Council of Europe.
Jeanette?: We don’t have that online, do we? Because this is very difficult to remember.
Rudi?: Yes.
Jeanette?: 27 …see it online. Should it not be online? I mean, should there not be a file of that?
Frederic: Unfortunately, Wolf, you didn’t send it to me.
Wolf: I think… I fear you are right. But we have it here on my computer if you don’t mind.
laughter
Frederic: If you want, just throw it on my USB and I’m going to… 52
Female: overtalking
Wolf: I throw…
Frederic: …your comments, yes.
Wolf: Yeah. I throw it on your stick.
Frederic?: Yeah. inaudible
Wolf: I hope that I’m… Huh?
Frederic?: inaudible – whispering
Wolf: Yeah. But this you should have.
Frederic?: inaudible – whispering
Wolf: inaudible?
Frederic?: inaudible – whispering
Wolf: I’m getting old. So come on. So probably in the meantime while we are sorting out this, I suggest let’s take the following point, re-elections – “Board’s…” “TOP 10.”
There was a suggestion we should go into the General Assembly with a list naming the candidates.
Rudi?: Absolutely.
Wolf: This is the most pragmatic approach to do it, therefore probably somebody in between can just recall the names.
Annette: We’re talking about number… 04
Wolf: Now in between while I’m doing this…
Male: overtalking …number 10, yes.
Wolf: Number 10. Just to be sure that we don’t forget any name… But now I…
Annette: inaudible, you have the list of the current members, the terms.
Wolf: Now I… Just wait. Now I’m in… I need two minutes to concentrate now to find this immediately.
Female: 33
Wolf: This was…
Matthias?: inaudible, do you have the list of the board members now?
Frederic?: Yes.
Female: inaudible
Rudi?: I have the list also of…
Frederic?: 00 list. You have it here.
Rudi?: Yeah.
Male: On screen.
Wolf: Yeah. pause Okay. This is the first one. 25 under “Untitled.” This is you, huh?
Male: inaudible
Wolf: You’re “Untitled.” So the second one is “Draft of working program.”
Rudi?: Perhaps it’s good to mention that we have the two- and the one-year seats. 53 having the two-years or the one-year seat. For instance, Wolf was for the two-years, Jeanette Hofmann was on the two-years seat, Bill Drake was on the one-year seat.
Nick?: Two, not three.
Male: No, no.
Rudi?: laughter We extend them. Karen Banks was a one-year seat. Sorry. Bill Drake is one-year, Banks one-year, Vittorio is a two-year seat. pause There’s a two-year seat, yes? Desiree, two-year.
Nick: Speak of the Devil.
Female: 48
Male: No.
Rudi?: laughter
Female: inaudible
Rudi?: Rudi, one-year. And Paco, two-year.
Nick: Well, that’s if the board decided this.
Rudi?: This was decided, yes? No?
Nick: No, it was never conclusively decided they would adopt this method.
Male: And 08 one-year, yeah?
Nick: I should just draw your attention to the fact that I noted at the time of the election that since there were not an even number of board members, the formula of simply having the top half in terms of vote-getters receive the two-year terms and the bottom half one year didn’t precisely work because it left a part person. So the board would have to decide where the two-year terms ended and where the one-year terms began. So…
Rudi?: But I thought we…
Nick: It was never formally accepted, this… the formula that’s in the staff notes on the election. So you would have to actually decide whether Desiree falls into the two-year group or the one-year group since we can’t split her in two.
Female: 06
Wolf: Wait. No, no.
Nick: inaudible every other meeting.
laughter
Frederic?: inaudible
Female: inaudible
Wolf: It’s okay. I got it.
Frederic: So just in the meantime, we have the pleasure to have Desiree now with us. So welcome, Desiree. If maybe you would like to say just a few words to introduce yourself since maybe some people here do not know who you are. Thank you.
Male: We know 53.
Frederic: Okay.
Desiree: Thank you. So I’m a newly elected EURALO board member, to be decided yet for the term. I’ve been involved in the internet for quite a few years – maybe from 1993. Worked for the first internet service provider in England, and mainly worked in industry but also associated with many not-for-profit organizations. I’m also board member of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Internet Society. And I thought that it was quite a pleasure to be nominated for EURALO to try and do some work. And I hope… I feel like we’ve had many, many beginnings over the last year and haven’t done enough work. So I feel that this first face-to-face board meeting would finally try and put some real agenda and achievements and deliverables for us over the next couple of years or year. Thank you.
Wolf: Okay. Thanks, Desiree, for this short introductions. We are now already through part of the agenda of the board meeting. The 35 points is TOP 7 and 8, now discussing about a working program. There are two drafts on the table which will be now presented by Frederic.
Here is the first one. These are drafts or notes I took over the last year. I didn’t dare to make a program for the board out of it because it should be done I thought by the Board itself and it should be presented to the General Assembly as a collaborative work of all. I hope we can agree on this. This is more or less a listing, a listing of issues we talked about over the last months.
Female: 44 so it makes it easier to…
Male: inaudible
Female: inaudible
Wolf: inaudible
Female: inaudible
Male: inaudible
Rudi?: inaudible
Frederic: But here it’s okay. pause
Annette?: This doesn’t 12?
Wolf: No.
Annette?: No? Okay.
Wolf: After the introduction, it says, “The main focus of our EURALO work should be: to broaden our bases and to involve more organizations all over Europe.” I think this…
Annette?: “…more organizations and individuals…”
Wolf: “…and individuals,” okay.
Female: 40
Wolf: Oh, by the way, Annette, this was already sent on the list…
Annette?: This is inaudible.
Frederic: So would you like me just to read it for you for some people that cannot really read from far? So “After the EURALO board election, it’s time now to leave procedural debates and to start with working on substance. 16 statement this morning was a very constructive invitation, etc.”
Wolf: Can we drop this…
Female: Yeah.
Wolf: …this line?
Frederic: Yes. pause
“The main focus of our EURALO work should be: To broaden our basis and to involve more organizations and individuals all over Europe.” Are we okay with this sentence?
Wolf: Can we include after “Europe,” in brackets “47 outreach.” Huh? This is what I understand. We need more outreach. We are based in the more or less central part of Europe. There is Scandinavia, there is Southern European countries, there is Eastern European countries where we are still not present.
Jeanette?
Jeanette: Well, I do see that outreach is an important issue, I wouldn’t say that it should be our main focus. That would mean that we sort of spend time and time again on procedural issues. We would actually like, I thought, to reach a point where we do more substantial work. So it can be sort of the first item, but it shouldn’t be the main focus.
Female: 34
Wolf: exhales Please.
Annette: Let’s just go through the text and then we might change the order a little bit.
Wolf: Yeah.
Frederic: So second point…
Annette: And also… Excuse me. And also I just do not know if it is necessary or not. It is the EURALO working program, but it would be somehow nice to have the internet end-user right at the beginning so that we know that we are not just talking about organizations as such but those serving individual users’ interest. And what was special about the European Regional At-Large Organization, that we actually, you know, focussed also on consumer rights, on… We had a whole list on issues here – I’m just trying to find the right wording 34 not civil liberties in connection to ICANN issues – things like this so that people get an idea on what this is about. It might be a nice add-on. It’s not necessary, I guess, because it’s already described in EURALO.
Frederic: Okay. So then we have the second point, “To obtain and transmit the end user perspective on the main issues that we are working on such as: Protection of registrants in relation to registrars; IPv6; IDNs; DNSSEC; gTLD process; ICANN geographic region.” Any comments here?
Female: WHOIS.
Male: 30
Male: inaudible
Frederic: Yeah. So it’s just erase this. “Privacy and WHOIS; price development in the registration sphere; DNS and freedom of expression.”
Annette?: Very good.
Frederic: Okay. Then Wolf…
Male: 53?
Frederic: Sorry?
Male: inaudible?
Wolf: No.
Frederic: No.
Male: Okay.
Female: No, you can’t just suggest it inaudible.
Wolf: Yeah.
Frederic: Yeah. Then Wolf suggests to add “The 04 of public concern.”
Annette?: That should be… inaudible
Nick?: What does that mean?
Rudi?: What does that mean?
Annette: If…
Wolf: Oh! Excuse me. I was already… The primate of public… or we can say “the public interest” should be an issue as we discussed yesterday afternoon on the panel. An important point in the reflection, whether internet policy serves merely business interests or there is still, as we had in traditional society, a public sphere, whether decisions take this into consideration. Perhaps it’s not the best wording here, but I…
Nick: I think you’re looking for “primacy…”
Wolf: Huh?
Nick: Or…
Wolf: Pri-… Yeah.
Nick: “…of the public interest” – something like that.
Wolf: “Primacy of the public interest.”
Female: 25
Frederic: Okay. So do we all agree? Yes, Oliver.
Oliver: Yes. I don’t know if this goes beyond, but maybe just to bring some more points in, like questions of filtering measures. You talked a lot about data protection, these phishing things, and of course the question of net neutrality. I mean, they are all user-related, so we should decide if they should appear here or not.
Wolf: Any objection?
Lutz?: Yeah. The list seems a little bit too complete. It looks like we’re doing everything and all points because we do not know what we are doing.
Female: Yes.
Lutz?: So I would shorten this list very dramatically and say that it’s our main interests, and because we are coming from the user participation, we should concentrate…
Wolf: 26
Lutz?: …on user issues.
Wolf Yeah, yeah. Thanks a lot. I’m very grateful for this remark. We can keep it as a listing, but making clear afterwards that the listing makes no sense as long as we do not have select priorities and we do not find people following up these points. Rudi?
Rudi: Yeah, but perhaps we can ask the General Assembly to give priorities to this list, because then we have everyone involved and having their voices also.
Jeanette: I remember that we tried to do that on the list and we never got any feedback.
Wolf: That’s a problem.
Jeanette: I think perhaps what would work better, if the board could make suggestions and could sort of say, “According to our opinions, we should focus on this and that,” and perhaps that would then evoke a response.
Wolf: Thanks. Nick?
Nick: Do you want…
Annette?: No, go ahead. I’m 28.
Nick: All I wanted to note is that a number of these areas are horizontal. They cross any number of specific activities or policy areas that might be responded to at a given time. And I just wonder if there is room in here for at some point to say, “And, you know, EURALO will participate in specific policy responses being developed by the community as they may arise from time to time during the year,” because otherwise you will just extend the list tomorrow by adding, you know, the future of ICANN and the President’s Strategy Committee, and fast flux hosting, and phishing and anti-phishing, and you would end up with really an enormous list and some of them are specific things you can actually say a specific things about and other things are like, you know, price development and registrations could be impacted by any number of things, and freedom of expression certainly goes across every single issue, and so you might have an apples-and-oranges list if you’re not careful.
Wolf: Right. Thanks, Nick. Annette?
Annette: I think it’s always good to have a long list and then put priorities. And… No, I think it is good to have a long list too because… to just show what the area might be and it’s possible to do, but that we should come up with priorities and set those priorities as a proposal and put it to the General Assembly and ask them if they agree or if they have other priorities and so on. So I would just go through the whole list again, add what Oli was saying, and then just have a look at the list, say, “And now what are our priorities? What do we think? Is there someone who volunteers?” and so on, and then we go on and present that to the General Assembly.
Wolf: And probably specify what are, out of 41, the crosscutting themes. Huh? So we make it clear we have the listing at the beginning which is rather complete or…
Annette: No, the other… Excuse me. Excuse me. I would really say that we… put the priorities first…
Wolf: I’m not…
Annette: …and the listing after.
Wolf: Hmm. Well, I would…
Annette: So that we came to the conclusion…
Wolf: No, no.
Annette: No?
Wolf: Sorry. I don’t find this very 07 – sorry to say it, Annette. I would make the listing, the broad listing before, then I would suggest priorities selected by the board, or suggested by the board, and then I would mention the cross-cutting themes – in this order I think makes probably more sense. Lutz?
Lutz: I would prefer to see on the General Assembly a list of three points here and then afterwards the list of additional points, and ask the General Assembly if they agree with this or if they want to make changes. Currently, nobody will respond to this. It’s 54. From the point of EURALO, we are a user-concentrated organization. And we are from Europe. We have three, for me, main interests – that’s privacy in WHOIS, that’s DNS and freedom of expression. We do not need an IDN because we are from our historical background…
Male: 33
Lutz: Oh, oh. From our historical background…
Female: inaudible
Lutz: From our historical background in Europe, we mostly can work with the current situation. We are not in Asia.
Jeanette?: And what about Greece? What about Russia?
Male: inaudible
Lutz: Yes, of course. I know.
Rudi?: And France?
Female: laughter No, no. Come on.
Lutz: laughter
Rudi?: Why not France?
Lutz: Because they do not need an International organization Top Level hierarchy.
Rudi: I’m very sorry. 06 It is not up to us to decide that this is really the three issues. I think that is something where we ask the General Assembly… overtalking
Lutz: That’s correct. Correct. I only make a suggestion for three points.
Female: Yeah.
Wolf: Yeah. Yeah, okay. Okay.
Lutz: Yeah. So…
Wolf: overtalking
Lutz: …for my personal, I do not… I want to include the geographic regions too because we are a geographic region already – we should not put it on the list because we do not want to extend it, we do not want to change it. I don’t know what the third point is. Only to think about what recommend to make the discussion 58 for everybody here to think about, and then come up with a proposal for three points and other points what’s possible, and ask the General Assembly what to include and what not to include.
Wolf: I’ve two more speakers – first Sébastien and then Nick.
Sébastien: Yeah. I think if we start to have this discussion, we need time, because if we have to select three points, we will not select the same three points and we 31 discuss that endless. My question, it’s yeah, we can have a long list, but I still think that there are some things missing. It’s we can’t avoid to have the discussion on what I will call, even if it’s not the right word, the organization of ICANN and the relationship… the organization inside and our role as 56 and the relationship between ICANN and the DoC, because at the end of the day we will have also our word to say on that and I hope that the European end-users will say something on that. Then I would like more then we will find a way to write large titles with a lot of the ideas inside 21 have a too long list.
And the last point, it’s we are discussing a lot about the IPv6, but the discussion within the group and with Izumi particularly, and he’s fighting for that and I agree with him, it’s IPv4 and IPv6, and not just IPv6. We need… If not, it’s not understandable by the end-user. Even it’s not understandable like that, but if we…
laughter
Sébastien: …if we are not speaking of what they use today and what they will perhaps use tomorrow, we are outside of the scope I guess. Thank you.
Wolf: Thanks a lot. The next one is Nick.
Nick: I just wanted to say briefly that you’ve stolen my thunder, Sébastien. The only other thing I would add is, on a point of information, there are… we are in a geographic region but there are actually EU member states in Africa, in the ICANN geographic region, and there are European states which are in Asia at the moment. And so there are actually real problems. There are also French islands which are possessions of France that are not part of the Latin American region, which want to be, and it has in the past been a disincentive to them participating because they don’t feel a connection to Europe. So, I mean, these may not be large issues, but there are people who are affected negatively by them because they wish to be a part of EURALO and they would actually not be.
But the other point I would make is that when you make your list of priorities up, to be effective in ICANN you would actually want to make sure that you respond to the issues that are undertaken by the greater ICANN community which you care about. Obviously you don’t have to respond to everything, you don’t have to respond to anything, but to be effective you can either respond to an issue that has been brought up in some other part of ICANN that the whole organization then responds to, or At-Large can ask for a policy development process to start by asking for an issues report in the GNSO. So you can initiate action on something specific that you care about, but if you make statements which are simply general but do not actually correspond to any particular area of work, the likelihood is is that it will fall between the cracks because there really isn’t a hook for any other part of ICANN to grab hold of. And maybe that itself is a discussion about how are issues generated between constituencies when one constituency cares, but I just wouldn’t want people to get frustrated by beginning to discuss something in depth that they care about without making sure that it actually was raised in other parts of the organizations and not simply lost, is all.
Wolf: Before I give Annette and Jeanette, please, we are running short of time and I ask you short statements and…
Annette: This is actually…
Wolf: …35 compromise.
Annette: This is actually why I put my hand up, to find a quick way to deal with that. I would just make a little explanation as Nick said so that people know what we are talking about. So geographic region, just put in the meaning that this is “Who is EURALO responsible for?” Just that. So countries, you know, so that we understand what we are talking about.
I would just propose that we just rush through the rest of the text so that we can cut it out, what is not needed anymore in this text because I think we want to make this as a printout – right? – at the end. So let’s just run through it and then come to a conclusion on what… if we do have a proposal, what we think are priorities. So that’s all I’m saying. We already have two proposals by Lutz and we should ask for more proposals and just, you know, make a round and check if there is… Maybe there is one project which is a clear issue we really would like to focus on, and so we should just find out.
Wolf: Jeanette.
Jeanette: I wanted to support Sébastien’s statement – both issues actually. A suggestion I found very helpful is to just shorten the list by making the headers more broad. For example, we could just have as one item, “DNS-related issues.” That would sort of shorten the list considerably.
I think a second point that should stay out is protection of registrars. This is a genuine user-related issue and we know that registrants are not well protected by the current provisions. So I think when we can sort of really… I mean, where we can really contribute, it’s this area. So this I think deserves to be a specific item.
And the third one 40 agree with Sébastien is the ICANN structure, the sort of ongoing reform of ICANN structure.
Annette: This would be added? I don’t see it.
Jeanette: That is not there yet. These are the three things I would suggest. The thing that sort of would drop is IPv4 and IPv6 – I’m not sure whether that’s too controversial or not. But just when I think from user perspective, these are the three items I find most important.
And then another additional 12, of course it doesn’t make sense to suggest topics if we don’t have people who are really willing to cover them and have the competence to feed into these areas, so we need people who commit themselves to such areas. That’s it.
Wolf: overtalking
Frederic: Okay. Just to add here a point, we are going to have the presentation of Denise and Nick this afternoon, meaning that everyone is going to be much more aware about all these issues, and this is why I think that we should just let the General Assembly decide – as we put it here, they “will set up and/or delete or add the priorities of the mentioned list” – and I think that we should move on from here.
Annette?: Could you say that one more time?
Frederic: Yes. Here we have the list of priorities, okay? And before…
Female: This is just a list. It’s not priorities. We don’t have a list of priorities.
Wolf: It’s a list. So far it’s a listing, and I 17 beginning of a discussion, an interesting discussion here among several people. This is exactly what I would like to encourage, therefore it wouldn’t be my aim to come out with a complete, perfect working program. If we make a listing of important issues, even if we are not in a position to decide on our priorities… I just want to remind you there was a questionnaire on the mailing list the last couple of days. We are now in the process, in the context of the user summit in Cairo, of making a survey on the main concerns, priorities, issues. For me, this goes together. This is an ongoing process, therefore it’s not my aim to have any perfect paper in the hand at the end of the day. I would like to have a working paper on the table, a working paper which can be added, revised, etc. in the coming year. What I want is a discussion on it. What I want is a process to be started, a process starting here in Paris going to Cairo, going 38 user summit to the next General Assembly. We can not solve all the problems here and now today, therefore what we need is a working paper in our hand – a working program considered as a working paper, not final, not inclusive, not 59. So if we cannot agree on priorities, let’s work with a listing of the issues and then go with this to the General Assembly – maybe they have some more ideas, we have more inputs – and then we make a working paper out of it. But the working program, then we have a EURALO working paper. Okay, what’s wrong with it? As long as we cannot find 24 over priorities, I think it would need a couple of more hours.
Frederic: Okay. So I think we should just continue here. So we have another paragraph as the chair and board cannot follow up and cover, so let’s just read and see what we should erase.
Annette: Our aim is to create working groups, task forces on the different topics, you know? And we’ll just 00 inaudible in there and just say, “Our aim is to create…”
Wolf: Can we probably… Sorry. Can you probably make just a short reference now, because this is a draft from a year ago, to this survey which is now conducted which is related in the opinion and 38 building amongst the ALAC community and the RALOs? Any objection against this reference? pause Yes, Andrés.
Andrés: Just I’ll make a suggestion, because considering we will just have 15 minutes to discuss this in the General Assembly… we will just have 15 minutes to discuss…
Female: 12 …we have more now.
Wolf: No, uh…
Andrés: We have more. Okay.
Wolf: Yes. We decided this to cut down on other issues…
Andrés: Okay, perfect.
Wolf: …to give more space for this discussion in the General Assembly this afternoon.
Andrés: Anyway, the suggestion I will make if it’s possible also to talk about how we’re going to obtain the opinion of the users and how we’re going to do all these things. No? We are talking about what we are going to discuss but I think that taking the second point, 45… or the objective or the goal was to obtain the opinion of the users, we could maybe talk about how we’re going to do that. That’s just a suggestion also to include in the working program if we planned to establish some concrete systems to obtain the opinion of the users. Just a suggestion.
Wolf: Desiree?
Desiree: Yeah, I support what Andrés has said. I think what he’s said would be useful, is to describe some kind of a mechanism. If you have briefing papers, how many briefing papers will we have, how long the communication would last between ALSes on the mailing list, and if it’s a one-month, three months, or 28 depending on the issue that is being discussed, like GNSO review where we actually have to follow somebody else’s timeline and we cannot have this pre-described mechanism in advance. So I think the wording should be that we are working on this mechanism and we have to dedicate some time to see how we can address all these current issues in the timeframe that we find is compatible 54 what we have in terms of resources and secretariat and those that match the policy issues that are being discussed in other fora of ICANN constituency.
Wolf: Okay, thanks. Any other suggestions? pause This means we are going into the… Yeah, Annette?
Annette: I just 32, what inaudible…
Wolf: Yeah.
Annette: …inaudible blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. And then inaudible.
Wolf: Okay. So this is a draft. This is a basis for discussion. We can make additions, collect further inputs by the General Assembly.
Annette: Could we just go through the list 10… I just want to know if every proposal is integrated now which has been made. I’m not sure that… Sébastien, where is the inaudible?
Female: inaudible
Annette: It’s not on yet.
Wolf: It’s not on.
Annette: So there’s one missing, and 32 inaudible is missing.
Frederic: So “ICANN structure”?
Annette: Well, Sébastien, you can propose inaudible.
Wolf: How you call it?
Annette: Integration of the inaudible.
Sébastien: Yeah, but it’s 52 inaudible, “Integration of the…” “Users’ place within the ICANN structure.”
Annette: Users’ participation?
Sébastien: Users’ participation.
Wolf: “Users’ participation in ICANN structures”?
Sébastien: Yeah. Because we have to discuss about the GNSO, where we… if we feel to be somewhere, if… and so on. Then I don’t want to enter that. But I think this one and GPA or relationship between ICANN and DoC or whatever you want. It’s better to talk about GPA. As the list say, like that, just add “GPA.” It’s 39, “GPA.”
Wolf: Okay.
Frederic?: J-…
Sébastien?: JPA?
Frederic?: JPA.
Wolf: JPA.
Frederic?: 45
Wolf: Desiree?
Desiree: Just two quick points. One is can you just change IPv4 and IPv6, because IPv4 is being run in parallel with IPv6, so it’s not a replacement.
Wolf: Okay.
Desiree: Second one is maybe what Sébastien has said, “User participation models within ICANN structure.”
Wolf: You agree?
Sébastien: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
Wolf: Okay, great.
Sébastien: Always agree with Desiree. No problem.
Wolf: Lutz?
Lutz: 16 going back to Annette’s proposal to group them, group the items a little bit to broaden more subjects. So maybe we can conclude on some terms like “Infrastructure,” “Privacy,” “User participation,” and… Because now we have a broad and a very specific point, they are freely mixed, so if we can say we have a privacy part, we can 02 as a special issue on this and that could be much more clearly without any order, without any… We can do it afterwards, it’s not problem, but we should do it.
Wolf: Yeah. I agree with you, to go for the 22, but the wishful we won’t have in the next 10 minutes here during this meeting anymore. Therefore I suggest if there are volunteers to do this in the lunch break…
Male: Yeah, I will do it.
Wolf: …you are welcome. Then we have a more structured draft to be submitted to the General Assembly. Are there any objections against 56? This is a draft of a working program. It will remain a draft. We submit a draft to the General Assembly, and then we discuss in the General Assembly. Maybe we find consensus, maybe we find a disapproval. If we cannot disapprove, we always call it working pro-… working project, working program, so this will not be finalized today. Annette?
Annette: I think it’s 27 inaudible.
Male: We will do it afterwards… overtalking
Wolf: We… If you think it’s…
Annette: Let’s just change the order a little bit but not put headers. This will be again confusing… overtalking
Frederic: Okay.
Annette: And just one sentence I would like to say, I think “gTLD process” is also a little bit… very vague. People are not really interested that much in the process but also in actually… Maybe there should be something like “New gTLDs,” something like that, because there might be a stronger 59 interest on special gTLDs, so in that case it would be… We don’t want to discuss the whole procedure stuff always inaudible like to reinforce the certain introductions of new gTLDs.
Frederic: Okay. Beside Lutz and myself, who would like to participate to this lunch working session on redrafting and combining these ICANN issues?
Annette?: It’s a two-minutes meeting?
Frederic: It’s going to be a 10-minutes maximum meeting.
Wolf: Are you sure?
Frederic: 32 So we have Rudi…
Wolf: Who adds…?
Frederic: …we have Annette…
Wolf: Rudi, Lutz, Annette?
Female: inaudible
Frederic: Great. Thank you.
Wolf: Okay.
Frederic: And Adela. Thank you.
Wolf: And you come up with a little bit more clearer structure project draft for the General Assembly. Okay. Then we have something to present. We have the draft to be presented to the General Assembly.
Frederic: 03
Wolf: This can be photocopied then in between to be ready for the opening of the General Assembly.
The last two points I have here on the agenda we discussed already in the morning, at the first part of this meeting – this is “Board structure, work, and (re-)election” and TOP 11, “Call for nominations.” And we said the best would be to go into the Assembly with a list of names. And I prepared this list of names with board candidates 2008-2009 – I just drafted it, I’ll give it to you afterwards. So I’m just naming: Jeanette Hofmann, and I put in brackets, “elected in May 07 for 2 years” so there is no formal need for re-election. I have Wolf Ludwig, in brackets, “elected in May 07 for 2 years.” As far I see it, there’s no need. Then I have Rudi who is existing board member but needs to be re-elected and he is on the list for being re-elected and put in “candidate for a 2-years term.” Huh?
Then I have Bill Drake. I have a kind of confirmation. It’s not the final confirmation, but I hope he will arrive in time to confirm or say no.
Rudi?: Well, what are you writing?
Female: 52
Wolf: No, no, this… No, no.
Frederic: No, no, no, no.
Wolf: No, no.
Sébastien?: It’s candidates.
Frederic: No, no. I know, I know, I know. Don’t worry, don’t worry.
Sébastien?: I know, but we are worried. You are not worried, but we are.
Frederic: Okay.
Sébastien?: And please do something for us, not just for you. If not, you’ll put not on the screen. Thank you.
Wolf: No. I have a new list here. 13 this document to you. Then I have Desiree on the list. I didn’t have a chance so far to talk with Desiree. Desiree, you are going for another term?
Female: And the halfs inaudible person is just for the one-year term.
Desiree: inaudible if I would like to run for another term? laughter
Wolf: Yeah.
Desiree: Yes.
Wolf: Yeah, okay. And I have Annette Muehlberg on my list who was adopted member, non-voting board member so far, but as her elect term is expiring, she said she’s not going for any other, she would like to go for the EURALO board. And she’s on the list.
This means I have at the moment – 03 – I have six names on my list. Did I oversee anybody? I’m now talking about board. And then the next agenda item, “Call for nominations and introduction of EURALO ALAC candidates.”
Sébastien: Just to be sure, the other current board members, maybe we can say what’s 29… if they told you that they don’t want to run for some… You say “for some” but not for all, I guess.
Wolf: Yes. No, Sébastien. I was… I said this already before. I…
Sébastien: Okay. You are sure about Vittorio, that he’s not willing to run again?
Wolf: I don’t know. I have no reconfirmation. We can also list Vittorio and make a question mark. I know from Christoph, he clearly said no. I know from Karen, who clearly said, “Thanks, not any more.” Bill is on the list. Vittorio, we add him with a question mark because I have no reliable information. And Paco…
Male: 17
Wolf: …is the same.
Female: He’s a ghost.
Wolf: No, he’s not a ghost anymore. He’s real as we confirmed.
laughter
Female: We confirmed inaudible.
Male: I just met him inaudible elected for two years.
Rudi: He even has a second name.
Wolf: Huh?
laughter
Male: The persons who are elected for two years are not part of the discussion now.
Annette: Right, exactly.
Wolf: Right, exactly. 46
Annette: This is… May I just make a proposal to make things easy? I think we should have the board list as it has been elected… had been elected the last year. And there we have a clear “2 years election” in brackets, “1 year election,” then we have the statement of Wolf where we know that people are not going to run again or resigned or whatever. And so we say, “Okay, these people are not going to run,” and then we just ask for nominations – who wants to – and we still have the possi-… we do need to have five people just for the rule. We do need to have five board members, that’s an absolutely necessity. And we could add, if we want to, if we don’t have nine candidates today, but we could still decide to… and someone comes up, we could still decide to elect someone later on.
And I want to make another point. It is also possible that those people who run as At-Large Advisory Committee candidates, they could also run for the board now because the election of the At-Large Advisory Committee will be later, but the board will be now. So those people have the possibility to resign from the board and go to the At-Large Advisory Committee if they get elected to the At-Large Advisory Committee. I think we should just make the formal procedures clear and then go ahead.
Wolf: Yeah, Nick.
Nick: You could make things slightly simpler, since it is for the board to decide whether or not Desiree holds a two-year seat or not. So that would actually make your life very slightly simpler.
Female: Yeah.
Wolf: Yeah. Uh…
Jeanette?: 49 she runs again anyway?
Wolf: Thanks. I just verified in between and I saw Desiree, you are elected for two years. Yeah.
Annette?: Congratulations!
Wolf: Yeah.
laughter
Wolf: And we have Paco who is elected, whether he participates or not, for two years. He is on. We don’t discuss it. And then we have Rudi for one year but now going for a two-years term. And then we have Bill, Annette, and Vittorio with a question mark. These are the names. We don’t have to decide here. We have to vote on them in the General Assembly, so this is a list of people we are going in with.
And then we have ALAC nominees from EURALO, it’s Sébastien, it’s Adela, and it’s Lutz. pause Adela, can you just recall your family name again? I have a black out at the moment.
Adela: Danciu.
Wolf: Danciu. D-N-C-U.
Adela: D-A-N-C-Y-U.
Frederic: C-Y-U. pause 19 inaudible.
Wolf: Ah yeah. So this means we have the three names here now and this is the list we submit to the General Assembly. They have to vote on the board candidates which are due to be re-elected and… Yes?
Sébastien: Just did you have any conversation with the other At-Large Structures? Did they know that… Because, just to take one example, I didn’t discuss with 10, but he ran last time and last year. Maybe he’s willing to run once again. And…
Annette?: No, no. That is not…
Sébastien: Yeah, but if it’s a board… I am not a board member, then I can’t, but if it’s a board decision, a board proposal…
Annette?: No… overtalking
Rudi?: No, no. No, no. No, no.
Sébastien?: Okay.
Wolf: We are just doing an inventory of names we have so far. If he comes up and says in the General Assembly, “I would like to go to 42” then we add him on the list. We cannot decide on these people because they will be elected by NomCom and ALAC, and we just name them and hand them over. Desiree.
Desiree: So do we have a small election committee or is secretariat going to post this to the General Assembly? And can we assign also for how many years is each board member running for – one-year terms, two-year terms – and what are the options?
Wolf: Good question. I don’t recall now the bylaw prescription in detail. This is… I think this is possible and this shouldn’t be a difficult procedural question, but I will have a look to the bylaws in the lunch break.
Annette: So the two of you could take care of that 48?
Lutz?: Yes, if Desiree wants.
Desiree: I think they should be given an option if they want to run for one year or two year, and they know in advance.
Wolf: Pardon?
Desiree: I…
Sébastien: Sorry. I understand what you said, but for the first year, for the first election, we had split the board in one-year term and two-year term, and now we are just electing people for two-year terms. If not, we will have a mess each year. Now we have half of the board out, they can be candidates, and everybody is running for two-year terms.
Female: You’re right.
Wolf: I agree to this pragmatic approach. The only point, Sébastien, will now be if there is any objection prescribed in the bylaws to go the pragmatic way. I think it would be the best, the easiest, not to have to 46 every year again with this kind of re-election. If… When I’m not completely wrong, we are…
Male: There is no point in the…
Wolf: Yes, Nick.
Nick: Interestingly, it says, “Up to two years.”
Wolf: “Up to two years.” Okay, great. So we do not even have… Thanks a lot for… No?
Nick: Sorry. Section 9.5.2, “The first election after adoption of these Bylaws shall elect one-half of the members of the Board for one year, and the other half for two years.”
Wolf: “The first election”…
Rudi: “The first election” but this is the second one.
Wolf: …but 23 the second election now. So this means from the second election onwards, we are somehow free to decide by ourselves.
Nick: Well, yes. But if you elect… You have board members who are in the middle of their two-year terms. If you elect directors now for a two-year term, you’re in fact electing a staggered board, which what was intended in the first place, if you see what I mean.
Wolf: Huh.
Nick: So then every year you have half the board being re-elected.
Rudi: Except if we accept that the re-election re-elects those who are just in the middle for a two-year term, and then the problem is solved.
Wolf: Oh, this makes our life much more complicated.
laughter
Wolf: Uh…
Rudi: 13 …stay on for two years.
Wolf: I think it must comply with the bylaws.
Nick: Well, I mean, otherwise you could technically have the entire board change from one moment to the next, which was what you were trying to prevent with a staggered election.
laughter
Wolf: So let’s clarify this point really finally in the lunch break, 45 come up with an opinion in the General Assembly.
So we are through the agenda items for the board meeting. We have now all the remaining documents we submit to the General Assembly: It’s an amended version of the Board report, right?
Male: Umm-hmm.
Wolf: It’s a draft of a working program. It’s a draft, it’s a list we just… and which will be now slightly revised, structured in the meantime. And then we have the list of the candidates. These are the three 40 documents we prepare now in the lunch break to be photocopied and to be ready to the opening of the General Assembly.
And at the beginning of the General Assembly, we have to have the list of attendees, of participants. I would like to ask you to sign into this list, especially voting members to sign in because we need this afterwards to know exactly about the number of people authorized to participate in the voting procedure.
Female: Where is the list?
Wolf: This list will…
Male: 26
Wolf: …will be submitted at the entrance of the room and we will ask all the people, “Please fill and sign you in.” That from a procedural, formal point of view after the opening, I can say, “Well, there are 15… 17 people here. Out of the 17, 15 have voting rights.” And you will receive some 52…
Frederic?: Tags, yes.
Wolf: Yes. So…
Jeanette?: What time is that, Wolf?
Wolf: This will be at 2 o’clock the General Assembly is starting.
Male: overtalking …this room.
Wolf: In this room. Sorry, this was communicated since a couple of days I think. Yesterday evening we put it on the list that the General Assembly is starting today at 2 o’clock.
Female: It’s in the program… 19
Rudi: It’s in the program for several days.
Frederic?: inaudible
Wolf: Okay.
Annette?: That was the joke.
Wolf: That was a joke. That’s what it was meant to be, a joke, and it was a bad joke, I agree. So…
Male: inaudible laughter
Wolf: I’m closing down now the board meeting.
applause
Wolf: Uh, I would like to thank all of you for your inputs, for your constructive contributions, etc., and I think we are now at the state where we have a well-prepared General Assembly and I think we are now in a good position to manage the General Assembly in the afternoon.
And I hope that after the General Assembly that we may have plenty of opportunities to site together and to continue our discussion. For me, Paris is the starting point of a new period. I want more discussions. If necessary, even conflicts. But I want something happen on our list and I hope that the next period to the next General Assembly as far as the board collaboration is concerned will be more fruitful, constructive, dynamic, etc. This is my personal wish for Christmas. I submit it already here at the end of this board meeting and I hope we can reaffirm it in the General Assembly. Thanks so far and I wish all of you a good lunch.
Frederic?: Thank you.
applause
Annette: Where is the food?
Rudi: Well, we have to meet.
Male: Yes.
Annette: I know. But I want to know where to go afterwards.
Wolf: There are doggy packs outside, so please serve yourself.
Annette: Ah, they are probably full of cheese and 20 and I don’t know what…
Wolf: Oh yes.
Annette: …and I can’t eat those… overtalking
Wolf: There is a shop quite close to here. I can show you outside.
Annette: Yeah, okay. Well, I will run off and get something over there.
Wolf: So…
Female: Good luck.
Frederic: Rudi.
Rudi?: Yes.
Frederic: We stay here, we will remain here for the ones that are going to work.
Jeanette?: 41
Wolf: Do you need any pens?
Male: Yes, thank you. I make a collection.
Nick: overtalking …do you happen to remember what month ALAC voted to ask for – or Sébastien – to ask for an 02 inaudible? When was it? Was it like May of last year or…?
Annette: Issues report… overtalking
Nick: Do you remember when ALAC asked… you said let’s ask the staff for an issues report on domain tasting?
Annette: That was the year before. That was in 2006 we already asked for it.
Nick: No, it couldn’t be. It couldn’t be because I didn’t start till September and I remember taking the minutes for that meeting.
Annette: And we did it a second time because it did not work out, and then we did it a second time in 2007.
Nick: Do you remember what month it was? I think it was like around May.
Annette?: 39 But we did it twice.
Nick: Yeah, because you asked for… Yeah, you asked for the staff to produce a report about it, but it wasn’t like a GNSO issues report type report. I think people thought it was, but it wasn’t…
Annette: Yeah.
Nick: Yeah… inaudible
Annette: inaudible
Nick: I’ll find it. I’ll find it. Somebody’s asking me 00.
00 to end
End of Audio