Avri Doria: Okay if the recording is going, why don’t I start with the agenda review and that will give people a few more minutes to get in but we will get started. In terms of the agenda review, then comes the roll call, then I put in an item for the vice chair discussion set selection. Unfortunately I haven’t noticed anybody either volunteering or being volunteered by anyone else. I'm not sure what happens there. Then there is a response to the Preliminary Support Implementation Program.
Having written an initial statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program, I got used to using the whole name, so I put one of those out yesterday. Hopefully some people have had a chance to read it. And then also just to talk about the Preliminary Support Implementation Program itself. Then what I did was switch around - it felt awkward to me doing the action item and status update, as it were, on other things at the beginning of the call, so I'm trying to move that to the end and see if it works better because a lot of the items get discussed during.
Then there is other business, Evan asked if we could sort of introduce his motion on delay of start on the new gTLD program that he put out on ALAC yesterday. And give Evan a chance to talk to that at the end of the meeting. Any comments or changes anyone would recommend to the agenda? Okay if not we will go with that agenda. I would like to ask if someone from staff can do the roll call now.
Natalie Peregrine: I will do the roll call for you. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, this is the New gTLD Work Group Meeting on December 19, 2011. On the call today we have Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Avri Doria, Rafik Dammak, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Evan Leibovitch and Sebastien Bachollet. We have apologies from Yaovi Atohoun, Cintra Sooknanan and Olivier Crepin-Leblond. From staff we have Heidi Ulrich, Silvia Vivanco, Seth Green, Gisella Gruber, and myself Natalie Peregrine. I would like to remind you all to please state your names before speaking for transcription purposes, thank you and over to you.
Avri Doria: Okay thank you Natalie. Now getting to Item 3, Vice Chair discussion and selection, at the end of the last meeting under Any Other Business, I mentioned that I felt that it would be really good to have a Vice Chair on this group. Not only is there every possibility that I will get sick or have something happen where I cannot make a meeting at some point, just there is a fair amount of work of doing this.
There are also several different threads to stay on top of, so I'm looking for someone who would like to share that task with me. There haven’t been any volunteers for it yet. There hasn’t been anybody volunteered by anybody else yet. I see Evan has volunteered Cintra but she is not on the call. Now that in an old and good tradition of volunteering absent people, there is nothing wrong with that.
Obviously she could reject that idea. Is there any discussion on that? Any other volunteers? Any hands, any discussion? I see no hands. I see no discussion. I gather correctly that there is support for Cintra as - okay Tijani you have raised your hand, thank you.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, thank you Avri. Since Evan has volunteered, I will support his - I support him.
Avri Doria: You support his volunteering of Cintra?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes.
Avri Doria: Evan is already the liaison of this group, so he is already in that role. I can't see him also being Vice Chair. He was a previous Chair. He was volunteering Cintra, he is not volunteering himself.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Oh okay, I understand.
Avri Doria: So he is recommending. Does anyone - do you wish to speak to that at all Evan or does anyone have another opinion? Evan I hope you don’t mind me saying you're not qualified for it by virtue of being liaison.
Evan Leibovitch: Among other things. Actually I am on Skype conversation with Cintra who can't be on the meeting, but is available on Skype and she seems amenable to my volunteering of her.
Avri Doria: Okay thank you. Any discussion or are people in favor of that choice? I see no green, I see no red. I see one green and Evan yes, I would expect that one. Do I see any red? I see Dev, okay thank you. Is anyone opposed to that? Does anyone feel they have been shut out of the opportunity to volunteer? In which case I say thank you for volunteering Cintra, thank Cintra for me remotely because I can't handle also doing Skype at the moment. And I will talk to her later about how we divvy up the work.
I will talk to her. Okay moving on, Dev you still have a green. Is there any other discussion on this before I move on? The next item is response of Preliminary Support Implementation Program. Now on the agenda I included the - all four of the notes, also as stated I did include an initial statement on it.
Now the initial statement came by because I was informed that if this group had any interest in having a statement put out quickly, in other words the program has not been put out for community review yet and if we wanted to recommend that the ALAC give or send a letter or note or whatever it is the ALAC does, then we need to make a recommendation on it and we would need to make that recommendation today if we wanted something to happen on this at the ALAC meeting tomorrow.
And even that, as I understand is pushing it, but I was told that if there was any desire to do that and if hope of that happening we would need a letter created to pass for that. I took it upon myself to produce a Chair’s draft even though I don’t know if we want a letter. If this group decides no, sending a letter is premature, we already forwarded Tijani's note, that is good enough. We don’t need to do more.
That’s perfectly fine with me, I just wanted to make sure that there was something to discuss if we wanted to do it because if we came into this meeting with no draft then the idea would be dead. So I did produce a draft and I did produce that draft based upon discussions I had seen on this list, I certainly borrowed from Tijani’s note, from some of the discussions I've had with people, from some of the comments I've seen on - and I can't remember for sure now whether I saw a comment on the ALAC list or one of the RALO lists or what have you.
But I basically put together this letter. First of all I am wondering whether or not we want to - okay I see note that Cintra is now aware of the appointment, fantastic. Okay Tijani, yes?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you Avri. I would like to ask a question about the feedback of the comments that you sent to the Preliminary Support Implementation Program group.
Avri Doria: I have no form - I mean from your comments?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes.
Avri Doria: I have no formal feedback yet.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: So because we had [inaudible 00:09:33] it will be this working group and [inaudible 00:09:38] our position to the implementation group and if the ALAC judged that it is good to send something to reinforce it, it will be good. I read your proposal and it is very, very good. I support it and I think that even if it is not [inaudible 00:09:59] by ALAC, I do prefer that you send it as chair of this working group, perhaps you can change it a little bit but the content is perfect. Thank you.
Avri Doria: Thank you. Okay now one thing, I need clarification, you would prefer that this group sent it, not that ALAC sent it?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: No I said that we - the group had [inaudible 00:10:25] to send this position. It is something that we need to do. But the ALAC statement would be a reinforcement of this position.
Avri Doria: Okay, I understand. In terms of sending it with this group, obviously if this group was sending I would have to remove the sentence or two I had put in each one about ALAC advises because obviously we could not [inaudible 00:10:46] right.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Exactly.
Avri Doria: Right and that’s what you meant? Okay, I see Evan said he likes the letter and it would be acceptable to its transmission. Now I'm not quite clear on whether we should pass the letter to ALAC and ask them to send it or whether I should edit it, change it, send it and ask ALAC to send something else. I'm confused at the moment. Okay. The issue is timing, would you like to speak Evan. You're typing a lot. It would -
Evan Leibovitch: Oh okay essentially I see this as a matter of timing. If it's necessary because of what we have in that letter that the implementation group is aware of these concerns sooner rather than later and it's necessary to put this in their hands as quickly as possible, then I'm certainly, myself acceptable to this working group to you, as its chair sending this letter and then sending it on to ALAC for endorsement and/or consideration as it wishes.
If you think that the letter can wait - do consideration for ALAC then so be it. But I think as a matter of timing if you think there are issues of expediency in this then it might be necessary to send it now and then send it to ALAC.
Avri Doria: Okay thank you. I see from Sebastien that it go to ALAC and if no success send it directly with a comment that the letter can wait 24 hours. One of the reasons I sent Tijani’s note on other than the fact her requested that it be sent on, was the fact that it contained a lot of these [points that the group was informed immediately that there were these issues and this letter just goes beyond it. Yes Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, thank you. I support what Evan said and what Sebastien said. We find that we need to make people informed before the public comment is published. Because [inaudible 00:13:18] now contained but we cannot change after, it is a timing problem, and second it is easier to [inaudible 00:13:29] the proposal - the text that would be commended by the public, then use our voice as a public comment.
Avri Doria: Thanks, I have the one comment from Sebastien, does that have a connection, basically saying that it can wait 24 hours. I'm getting the impression that there is a bit of timing. One approach I could take which is to send this on to ALAC and to send a preliminary copy on to the Chair of the Board Working Group saying this letter has been sent to ALAC for approval by the working group but I just wanted to give you advance information on what is being proposed. That might be a way of doing both, but I don’t know. Does that seem like a reasonable approach as opposed to having two letters and yes Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: I wanted to be clear for the implementation group and for the Board that we need the proposal that will be put for public comment be changed according to our comments. It is something that we have to do now and not later.
Avri Doria: Right but we as a working group, we can just suggest that. Whereas if the ALAC decides to take the letter and put the stamp of this is ALAC advising you to do that, it's a stronger statement. Yes Sebastien?
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes I wanted to say I understand your point of view in this situation but I am the [inaudible 00:15:30] the comments it's not already gone because it was suppose to go the 17th and now we are the 19th and before the end of the day in US it will be published. And I guess that it's already in the work done by staff to be published. And I'm not sure if it's a question to be changed before then it's not a letter you need to send. You need to send a clear message from the chair of ALAC that you don’t want a public [inaudible 00:16:04] the proposal to the [inaudible 00:16:06] but if you do so you have to understand and I am not talking on behalf of any leaders on this question but if you do so it may also stop the process somewhere.
Because as a question of timing the Board and staff wait for the 17th, one of the reasons was because the comment period was up to the 16th. And there is a lot to do before the 12 of January and there are two weeks of holidays for staff. And the offices are closed, then I am not sure that the best way is not to leave the publication as it is and to send as soon as possible all by this group, all by ALAC a comment - a first comment - sorry the idea was wrong with the number of weeks of holidays. I'm not sure that it's closed more time in US.
Anyhow, the question is that maybe it's better to leave the things running and you're ready to publish the first comment as soon as it's published all by this group or by ALAC because if you want to, as a document, change before it goes to comment I'm not sure where we are going. It's - I have no [inaudible 00:17:37] on what I say but it's my feeling, thank you.
Avri Doria: Okay thank you, well as I said that's one of the reasons why Tijani's note which was a very good statement of most of the problem, was already forwarded to the chair of the group and to Kurt. So that much was done, they know what the issues are. And that’s why I thought that this, which is a formal restating of them by the group and put through by ALAC as advice, yes it would have been nice if it had been able to happen before the publication but I think if it comes out immediately, at least it's there.
I personally think that it's stronger to have the ALAC imprimatur on it if we can get it. And given what he said we probably already missed the prepublication vote anyhow. But I see Cheryl agreeing with that Sebastien, you still have your hand up but I suspect that’s a remnant. Tijani, yes?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay thank you. I think that the letter from the ALAC is compulsory, it's very [inaudible 00:18:56] thing to happen. Perhaps as you said, you can send a preliminary letter saying that this is the kind of letter you will receive from ALAC to be submitted to ALAC for approval.
Avri Doria: Okay thanks yes that is certainly easier for me than writing two letters and I think it would serve the same purpose. So certainly right after this meeting, if the content of the letter is approved by this group, I can certainly do that. Should we look at the contents of the letter just to make sure that there is nothing that needs to be changed? I can't imagine that it's perfect as it stands. Yes Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: I've been thinking [inaudible 00:19:44] sometimes you have repetition like the word [inaudible 00:19:50] or something like this. Only very few things but the letter is good.
Avri Doria: Thank you. Should we take a couple of moments to look at the letter? Let me pull it up so I'm in editing mode. You can tell me where some of these mistakes are. The current version is referenced in the agenda. I did go through it this morning and fix some typos. But I didn’t notice repetition so I must've missed it. Those seem to be endemic to my writing and my cut and paste style of writing. Anything in the first paragraph in terms of it being fine?
Anything in the five bullets? Anything in the first paragraph of the application section? Anything in the second paragraph of the application section? Anything in the last paragraph of the application section? And let me know if I'm going too fast. Now I see nothing. Okay the next section , lack of specificity on the criteria, anything in that first paragraph? I see one, it should be gaming not gamin. Anything else in that first paragraph? Anything in the last sentence of that section about ALAC advices?
Okay nothing there. It's also valuable for me to have walked through this because I have greater confidence to say hey I am sending something that you're all fine with. The next one, the lack of action on creation of a foundation, anything in that paragraph? Okay nothing, anything in the paragraph on composition of the SARP?
Okay I see nothing. Anything on the first paragraph on outreach program? Okay anything in the last sentence of the letter? Okay, did I - Tijani did I fix the things you had seen without realizing it.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay now very quickly I have seen some small things, for example after the bullet points, the first paragraph, the last word is accommodation - double ‘M.’
Avri Doria: So the first sentence of application?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: The second line last word, accommodate.
Avri Doria: Okay thank you.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay you have a number eight and in paragraph the make of specifically on the criteria. There is twice [inaudible 00:24:35] the word [inaudible 00:24:37] is written twice. It's almost at the end of the first paragraph, almost.
Avri Doria: Oh yes thank you.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: And just up the paragraph after, the second line you have reality, here is an ‘I’ missing.
Avri Doria: You really are a fine proofreader.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: But it's just a quick rebuke. I will look at it very carefully -
Avri Doria: I will run the spellchecker again.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: [Inaudible 00:25:21].
Avri Doria: Okay. I can't find reality at the moment. Thank you very much. I will send notification over to Olivier who asked for it to be in a Wiki and let him know that it is in the Wiki that this group has agreed with presenting it to the ALAC with a recommendation that they send it on as advice. I will send a copy to Kurt and to Chris Disspain who is the chair of the board group saying that - just notifying them that the working group has proposed to ALAC sending this letter and to give them advanced notice of it.
Anything else on this topic before moving on? From people's readings of the applicant support implementation program documentation, any other comments that perhaps don’t come up to the level of needing to send advice at the moment but things we should be looking at further. I see no hands, that doesn’t mean that it's closed. Obviously once the comment period opens for this, this group can probably look further.
Hopefully there will be some changes in what they put out based upon the note I forwarded from Tijani that of course telegraphs in advance some of these issues. In that case should we move on from this topic at this point? Any objection to moving on from the topic of this point? Cheryl you still have a green dot. No objection to moving on to the next? Okay -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I literally cannot get rid of red or green.
Avri Doria: It's gone on my screen.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh well it's still on mine.
Avri Doria: But okay so moving on the next thing I had was a bucket of stuff called status updates on the other stuff this group is working on. The first was the objection process. I did not see when I last checked any changes from the last time we talked about it. And I haven’t looked at it in the last two days, I apologize, I was focusing on this. The blue-sky period was basically listed as sort of ending this week and I don’t know if other people have comments to get in, but at this point it seems that that process has run its course. I haven't seen new content, so I believe the next step is to take that information and try to build a coherent document that basically sort of states the requirements and the first shape of looking at this.
And we had talked about then sending this out to the RALOs to get their feedback on it before going too far. The only person we have who volunteered to hold the pen and I'm not sure he volunteered for this, but I'm hoping he did and I'm hoping there is some help was Dev on this one basically for taking what's there and producing a first draft of a document that once this group has discussed it can be sent on to the RALOs for further comment and whatever process they do to be able to say “Yes, this looks right to us. No you need to consider the following.” So an internal comment.
Dev said he could do a flowchart on this but I'm wondering if there is a volunteer since I'm not sure Dev is volunteering for the write up, someone that can actually take what was written and write a synthesis of it that is paragraph and such. Any volunteers for the write up too? Good thank you. Is there anyone that volunteers to work with him so that he is not alone in this activity? How do you feel being alone in this activity? Should we push for someone to work with you? Or are you fine in holding this pen alone for producing of the draft and flowchart.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Thanks Avri. It should not be a problem. I will do the flowchart and post it to the list and look to any further comments on the objection process.
Avri Doria: Okay thank you. We will do it that way. If anyone does volunteer to help you they should get in touch with you and let the rest of us know. But in the meantime we will count on you as far as I know - our next meeting - we do not meet next week because ICANN is rightfully taking a week off and I think the volunteer group can at least take a week off from the meeting. And so our next meeting would be the following week on the 2nd, I'm assuming the 2nd if okay.
Heidi Ulrich: ICANN staff does not return until the 3rd, that’s a Tuesday.
Avri Doria: Is there any issue with taking the two weeks off or should we have a meeting on the 2nd if we don’t have staff support or are people okay with basically coming back on the 9th with a flowchart and draft of this for discussion and doing further work on the list? Is there any objection to taking two weeks off from this meeting? I see no objection. Our next meeting will be the 9th instead of the 26th or 2nd which would have been the next two.
I think we've done a fair amount of good work in the first couple of weeks to get us over the have we started our work yet. And except for maybe Dev and others and certainly Dev if you want someone to take a preliminary look and you put it out on the list. I will be working through vacations as I'm sure many of us will so we can continue doing list work. Targeting a first draft of this as being on the schedule for discussion on the 9th, any objection to that and Dev are you okay with that as a schedule?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Sure.
Avri Doria: Okay thank you. On the third week we will discuss a draft that is probably almost an AI. It's certainly an agenda item. Then the next thing - anything else on the objection process at this point? On the continuous operations instrument issue, I've seen no further comment on it at this point. I figure we will just leave that on the agenda and come back to it later. I think at this point the next thing in that process is to wait and see what the ICANN staff comes out with when it comes out with its response to registry's proposal.
Any comments on this COI issue? Okay then there is the going back to the work, this is an action item, this is one I don’t know if staff has had a chance to create the Wiki space for it. I don’t think I have, I can't remember if I have but I don’t think I have, for recording the application implementation issues for future reference and process improvement. That was a task that I think Cheryl had volunteered to be instrumental in but we had to setup the Wiki space first and I know I have -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I haven’t seen it if it's been set up.
Avri Doria: Okay so that one remains a pending issue. And I said at the last meeting that I would make sure that it was setup by this week and then I got bogged down in preliminary support implementation program comments and did not live up to my promise. I will work on making sure it's done by our next meeting. It’s an action item [inaudible 00:36:38]. I don’t think there are any other action items that have not already been covered. Can someone from the staff, Heidi perhaps remind me if I'm forgetting anything?
Heidi Ulrich: If we could go back to recording of application and implementation issues, is that Wiki page to be setup by At-Large staff or is it staff of the Preliminary Support Implementation Program staff?
Avri Doria: No that is something for either At-Large staff or me to setup. It's part of the function of this group, it's not part of the process on applicant support.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay apologies for not having it ready then.
Avri Doria: I didn’t specifically ask and whether I was going to do it or you all were going to do it was left in the air. Really at this point no apology needed. It was ambiguity.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay and from the last meeting of the New gTLD Working Group on the 12th December, there were no action items.
Avri Doria: Okay thank you. Okay any other issues on the status update that anyone wants to bring in? Okay in which case that brings us to Any Other Business, in discussions with Evan, Evan mentioned an interest in wanting to present to this group the motion and the reasoning behind the motion that he was making to ALAC in regards to the new gTLD program. It's certainly something that is relevant to this group, although at the moment I don’t think there's any proposal that we do anything with his motion. But we will find out, Evan the floor is yours.
Evan Leibovitch: Avri you're absolutely right. My intention was not to get involved, in fact, in this TLD, in this Working Group about this, I simply wanted to bring it to the attention of everyone. Just to recap yesterday about 24 hours ago, I sent a message to the ALAC general mailing list, to the NARALO mailing list and I invited participation from RALOs in other regions into a motion that I was putting forward regarding the ALAC stance on the new TDLD program.
While I expected this to be somewhat controversial and engender a lot of debate, I personally believe the debate is necessary. I've been hearing a lot of rumblings. It's almost like the elephant in the room; nobody wants to talk about the last definitive message on the TDLD program was made at the Mexico City Summit. One way or the other that statement probably needs a refreshing. Also there has been a lot of new blood in At-Large and the issue needs to be considered.
So I'm hoping for some vigorous discussion. I won't even be personally taken aback if it fails. I simply want to make sure that At-Large is aware of the issues, aware of what's going on, aware of what's about to happen. I've already had some suggestions made to me by a number of people on wording that may make the motion more clear and perhaps more acceptable to more people. And so I will be in the process of putting up a Wiki page that will have the motion.
What has been sent out is a draft. It is certainly open to suggestions for modifications as I said. So if anybody has any ideas to change the wording that might make it more acceptable, they're absolutely welcome. This is a draft resolution. As of right now my intention as of this moment is not to have this debated at the January ALAC meeting because that is after the date of the roll out and the accepting of applications. I'm going to be working with ALAC on perhaps coming up with some kind of a better time table to accommodate that, thank you.
Avri Doria: Okay thanks, I have a question. Does everyone on this call follow NARALO and ALAC and know the contents of your message? Would anyone like to hear a quick recap and what is in it in the general argument?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think it would be appropriate, apart from anything else, so it's in the transcript record and recordings of this meeting. It’s not a particularly long or wordy motion so it's not going to take up too much time. But we do always need to remember that not everyone is subscribed to even the ordinary At-Large list. There is always people dropping off and bouncing and not being on there at all in the beginning anyway. So it's worthwhile reading it for the record, thank you.
Avri Doria: Okay thanks and I do see that Fouad has mentioned please do share the text. Would you be willing to read your motion as it currently stands even if you’ve changed any of the wording?
Evan Leibovitch: Okay I've just pasted it in; unfortunately Adobe Connect isn’t very good at formatting. It all went in in one blob, so I apologize for that. There was a brief preamble in the email, so I will read it out loud for the record. And Dev has put in a link to the mailing list message where I put it in. Do you still want me to read it out loud?
Avri Doria: Please because there may be people that aren’t on the -
Evan Leibovitch: Okay so the current wording of the draft resolution is this. By the time it goes onto the Wiki it will already have some changes into it. But here it is in the form it was presented 24 hours ago and first sent out. “Whereas end-users and governments have only be invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined. Whereas most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened.
Whereas numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient. Whereas the ICANN Board without explanation has refused cross-community endorsement of the JAS Working Group recommendations to reduce costs for new gTLDs in developing economies, independent of any fixed fund.
Whereas the absence of a staggered release schedule or fixed time table for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN’s ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round. And whereas ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new gTLDs result that the At-Large Advisory Committee conveyed to the ICANN Board and community that the satisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public interest modifications are implemented.”
As I said, that was put out as a draft. I have already received some changes. It's my intention to put this into a Wiki form. The link to that Wiki will be sent to this working group’s mailing list where it will be worked on, modified and then at a certain point either formally presented or if it turns out I find that there is preponderance of opinion within At-Large against it, I may withdraw it as well.
Avri Doria: Thank you. Anyone wish to discuss anything about this at the moment? We have 10 minutes left of this call. I'm fine with ending the call now, however if people would like to use the last 10 minutes either for this or if anyone else has any other business, yes Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, just a quick into for Evan which he might need to take on notice and get back to us. I think it's important for this group to understand. As a foreshadowed motion for the ALAC to resolve or not, modify or not, and agree to or not, you said you were looking at some sort of time line that would work because there is a January meeting, there is the - is it the intention to try and have some out of session meeting or an online vote on this or - I fear it's going to be confused between an At-Large view and what I thought you were doing which is asking the ALAC to vote -
Evan Leibovitch: Okay Cheryl just to go back, since it was proposed of course it was pointed out to me that if this is done for a vote at the ALAC meeting in January that will actually be after the roll out date. I've actually discussed with the chair the possibility of doing this as an online vote in advance of that date with the possibility of having a community conference call to discuss the issue if that’s deemed necessary, separate and apart from the general ALAC meetings, does that answer your question?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It does and it raises the follow up issue which is exactly how those regions which do not spend their life debating things on email lists. Some do and some don’t and some will have already had their monthly meeting in the between now and then times. Without a community call that was well represented by all regions, it would be a challenge for the ALAC representatives to be other than acting on their own reconnaissance on these things. But [inaudible 00:47:21] the ALAC on these things, that’s not my problem. It's the ALAC’s problem just as long as the community is aware of it, that’s all.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, understood, I mean like I said I was hoping to give a certain amount of time for this. There is already going to be one ALAC call in the interim, in fact, happening this week. So hopefully there will be at least enough introduction of the issue to give time for ALAC representatives to go back to their region. I've already started this activity within the North American region and I've asked and invited the other ALAC reps to go back to their regions and do the best they can to get the mood of and feelings of their own regions as we go forward.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well good luck on that. The other matter I wanted to raise Avri was -
Avri Doria: What [inaudible 00:48:23] -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: One of the earlier action items for clarification, I thought that a previous AI was a history of various ALAC statements and At-Large views on new gTLD programs. I thought that document was what was going to be contributed by me into a Wiki page yet to be put up. And yet when you mentioned earlier it seemed to be more specifically on - less on the history thereof and more on the objection process could you just make it clear?
Avri Doria: Yes, sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I just want to make sure I'm getting everything.
Avri Doria: I think that was either a mistake on my part, I would have to go back and listen, or was just a juxtaposition of two topics. It was a second status point and indeed while it didn’t use the words history, it was - and I called it recording of application implementation issues and I didn’t mean to support application there. What I meant - but it is the history and I should have worded it better.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s fine. It's just I'm an awfully large way into that document and if I've got to restart a new one, I would like to know why.
Avri Doria: No, it is that one. I think the end result of it is though the history of what was suggested, this is what was done and let's see what went wrong later.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well at the moment I'm doing the bibliography part of it and that’s a whole lot of fun.
Avri Doria: We've got to get the Wiki page up there so you can start putting it online.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I just have it in text form at the moment but at least there will be some stuff ready to go when it is [inaudible 00:50:13].
Avri Doria: Okay anyone else with any comments on anything we've talked about, especially the last item? No, in which case with six minutes to go on the hour, I assume Cheryl that hand is a remnant?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don’t have anything up on my screen.
Avri Doria: Okay I will assume it's a remnant. In which case if no one else has any points to make, I will follow through on the letter we discussed at the beginning and I wish you all a very happy two weeks of [inaudible 00:50:57] and all the other holidays that happen during this period and have a good one all.
-End of Recorded Material-
