Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Good morning, good afternoon and good evening everyone. This is the ALAC ExCom Conference Call on Monday 9 January 2012. The time is 1509 UTC and so first we will start with a quick roll call please.
Gisella Gruber: On today's call we have Olivier Crepin-LeBlond, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Evan Leibovitch, Alan Greenberg, Carlton Samuels, Yaovi Atohoun, apology today from Tijani Ben Jemaa; from staff we have Heidi Ulrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Nathalie Peregrine, and myself Gisella Gruber. Could I please also remind everyone to state their names when speaking for transcript purposes, thank you over to you Olivier.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you very much Gisella, have we missed anyone who is on the call still? You're very welcome. I hear no one shout out so let's move on to agenda Item 2 which is the review of action items from the ExCom meeting of last year’s 20 December meeting and also the ExCom call on the 22 December. And I guess one is the ALAC meeting and one is the ExCom, not both. Anyway, first thing by the way, Happy New Year to all of you, since I just noticed this was last year a while ago.
And so what we will go through is the first one, the 20 December 2012, just quickly looking at the open action items and I understand a number of them are starting to be - to move forward, so we will fly quickly through them. The first one, staff to update the list of Cross Constituency Working Group on the ALAC Wiki page, still in progress, I'm not going to ask for an update on this. I think we know it's going on. The next one, Cheryl to manage winding up and archiving the Working Groups to be closed, Matt to schedule time to work with Cheryl on this, that’s all still in progress as well.
The next one, Beau to chair and repopulate the At-Large Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Working Group, I understand some of this is in progress. And there has actually been movement from Beau; anyone has feedback or something to add to this?
Evan Leibovitch: Olivier I was charged with making the contact originally. I did that the day of the last meeting, and so we've spoken about it and I believe Beau has started to do that.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Okay perfect so we will keep that in progress for the time being so then we will have an update next time. Next one, Gisella to synchronize At-Large’s calendar of events with global partnerships calendar, that is also in progress. Number 5, ALAC to try to develop specific long term strategic plan for outreach with the aim of getting funded, the metrics, etc, all of that is still in progress. And in fact, we have also decided I think to put this over in the long term action item rather than the standard open action items. Perhaps we can move this over to long term for the next call.
The next one, At-Large staff to conduct a vote on the SOI and COI question. The question is, do you agree that ALAC members, ExCom members, regional leadership and liaisons should have a statement of interest published on the ICANN website. Do we have an update on this please? Heidi, Gisella, Matt, please and Silvia don’t all speak at once. And you might all be muted.
Matt Ashtiani: Hi, I think I will just take it. As far as I can remember we did set it up, I don’t know if the poll was actually sent out. In either case, I'm going to actually just make sure this gets done today.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Okay thank you and while we are speaking to you Matt, how are we doing on the SOI front because I know you’ve been building this up and there have been a few recalcitrant individuals not wishing to provide further information about themselves.
Matt Ashtiani: Correct, the last time I did the count, I think I'm short about five files.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Okay are you going to publish the others ones soon or what's the plan on that?
Matt Ashtiani: If you want me to, it's really up to you all. But if you want to move forward with what we have now, we can move forward with what we have. There will just be holes in the space because we don’t have all the information.
Alan Greenberg: Matt, as one of the [recalsorts] of people, putting up the stuff with a blank in my space is one of the strongest incentives I would have to contribute. I suggest we go ahead and not wait for everyone.
Matt Ashtiani: Thanks for being honest Alan.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Alan that is a very good point. I'm so pleased, yes let's go ahead with it Matt.
Matt Ashtiani: Okay.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you. So next, newly assigned action items, staff to set up a call on the new gTLD statement proposed by Evan. A Doodle is to be sent out after the first of January with intent of having the call the second week of January. So that’s something we will be speaking about a little bit later on in our call today. And then Matt to conduct a vote on the GIG/WIG motion by the 27 December, that’s been done. And the statement was sent out as well. And in fact, it has caused quite a bit of discussion on the Board and we are yet to receive a reply because it involves the input from the ccNSO and the GNSO on the matter.
I have been asked whether we wanted an immediate reply and I said it's better that we have a fuller reply rather than have a “Thank you very much for the advice, we will think about it.” Let's see what we get when the process matures.
Alan Greenberg: I'm not in front of Adobe Connect right now, it's rare that we hear that anything we say is actually discussed by the Board. I'm curious why this one, you say, has received a lot of discussions.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Because this one was one we did outside the usual PC discussion periods. And the previous one that we wrote outside the usual PC discussion period was received by the previous ICANN chair and basically stored on the side of saying this is not something we’re speaking about right now. We will put it on the side and when we open the subject we will see if we read it again. There is a difference, I think, in the attitude in which advice has been received.
Alan Greenberg: Okay it's not the content of this one, it's the process.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: The process and the content I guess as well, Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. I was actually going to speak to the content and yes Olivier you're absolutely right the process is different and I believe we are working with a very different Board under the current leadership which is a good thing. But the content is also an issue and my understanding which is strongly biased from what I hear in the ccNSO ranks, is because it is a lot more complicated when it comes to implantation.
For example, if we were to have an act of the God's and goddesses and go “Thank you so much, yes we support what you're saying.” GNSO, ccNSO, etc, may or may not support it, possibly more doubtful on the ccNSO actually than the GNSO and out letter is already there. We've - certainly APRALO has always thought it of it very much from a brush script from the CKG languages point of view. But of course it opens up a potential for Pandora's Box on the surics and other scripts which look like Latin and that puts the fear of all sorts of horrible things happening.
And that’s something the Board discussed because that was raised. We started our [inaudible 00:09:12] coming out of them [inaudible 00:09:13] meaningful, the only way we will probably get the [inaudible 00:09:18] happening from what I'm hearing out of the ccNSO ranks anyway, I can't see it happening the first round, so that’s probably oh well never mind. But we probably should do a full PDP and ALAC [inaudible 00:09:32] if ALAC wished to, to be specific that it is restricted to single characters for the brush script where they're pictograms. And we might need to pick that up probably after the first round goes through. But it should perhaps be put on your to do and to think about list, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you very much Cheryl and as she is someone who is on the GIG lists, aren’t you?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, I'm not.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: You're not? Because I was wondering to have the latest news, has the GNSO actually approved the original GIG lesser and the ccNSO has not because of specific issues that it had with it. And this question is to both Alan and to you Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You're correct from a ccNSO point of view.
Alan Greenberg: I'm not sure of the status on the GNSO.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Okay, alright well let's move on.
Heidi Ulrich: My understanding is that the GNSO did approve it.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: It did, okay. Thank you okay well and Gisella has kindly also written on the Confluence chat the Adobe Connect chat that there is a GIG call tomorrow. Perhaps we will learn a little more about this as time goes. Let's move on then to the next set of ExCom action items, the 22 December ExCom meeting and again here, we will find some of the action items that seem to be very similar to the ones on the ALAC call, simply because they both run in parallel. I notice here that the RALO and ALAC and ExCom Specific Long Term Strategic Plan for Outreach has been moved to long term goals.
Our open action items are a lot shorter than they are elsewhere. The first one, staff to update list of Cross Constituency Working Group, we've already said, yes in progress. The winding up and archiving of working groups to be closed, in progress as well. After the New Year, staff to work with Cheryl Langdon-Orr in preparation of the Rules of Procedure Working Group, there is to be a call for membership, could I have an update on this please because I think this is well in progress?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well no we haven’t done the call for membership yet.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Ah, okay well then I stand corrected.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because it's - to be honest I haven’t spoken to staff in the New Year. This is the first time I've spoken to staff.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Lucky for them, lucky you. Okay so effectively that’s still in progress then?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Okay, thank you Cheryl. We will move the next one Olivier to write to Steve Crocker, chair of the ICANN Board starting discussions for templates for statements and chair reports. Oh dear that’s still something which I haven’t done yet. I've dropped the ball on this. Let's put this in progress. I guess we've had plenty of other things to deal with in the meantime. Olivier help by At-Large staff to email new ALAC members and ask they repopulate their working groups, a standing requirement of new members that appears to be something also in progress although I will write something later on this week.
I know that staff has sent a note out. Next Olivier to write to the chair of the new gTLD At-Large Working Group regarding Kurt's request for a JAS implementation follow-up, that has been done and I gather there has been movement on this as well. A statement was sent out. And we will actually discuss the possibility of having an additional statement sent out afterwards. Unfortunately I missed the new gTLD Working Group call. I'm sure someone here will be able to update us on this.
Number 7, Olivier to follow-up with the ASO chair Louis Lee on further cross constituency work, that I have not done either, goodness. Next, improvement task force members to create the glossary of commonly used nomenclature. Louis Lee to be consulted and that is in progress as well. Alan Greenberg to lead us -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry?
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Yes?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Why does Louis Lee need to be consulted there?
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: On the improvement task force glossary of commonly used nomenclature, yes, that’s an interesting thought.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm happy to talk to Louis at any time; I'm just unsure why he needs to be involved in that.
Alan Greenberg: That was a comment on some other point, I don’t remember which one.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: This looks like a cut and paste that ended up there.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry I couldn’t help myself, the peasant came out in me all of a sudden.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah it was the previous item. I think it was another way of wording that last sentence.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: It was yes. Thank you so next one, Alan to lead a small group including the whole ExCom to produce response to the JAS implementation proposal.
Alan Greenberg: I don’t recall that being assigned to me and I certainly didn’t do it, but ALAC did submit this comment, so I am somewhat confused.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: That is correct, that action item needs to be removed because it actually didn’t work this way. The next one, Olivier to write to Beau Brendler and ask him to follow-up on the issue of registrant rights, and that has been done. And he is now moving forward as we've heard a few minutes ago. And Item 11 At-Large staff to conduct a vote on the SOINCIO question and we've just heard about this and that will be done very soon.
Finally at the bottom of the page, the newly assigned action items, staff to set up a call in the new gTLD statement proposed by Evan Leibovitch. The Doodle is to be sent out after the 1 January and this is what we will be speaking about very soon, any comments or anything to add on the action items? And I note there is something ringing but there is no one at the end of the call, so we will move on the next items for discussion and decision.
We will look at the open policy issues. We have 20 minutes for this but I think we can fly through those a little faster than that. The first thing, of course, I invite you to look at the relevant page and several of those policy issues have already been adopted. The At-Large Geographic Regions Review Draft Final Report that is something that has been adopted. The At-Large preliminary issue report on ‘thick’ WHOIS that has been done as well.
The new gTLD applicant support program financial assistance, now that is one where Avri has sent a statement that we have sent over to Kurt and to the Board but now that the PC is open for this, she has also sent it to the PC. Now does anyone have an update on whether anything was said or discussed in the new gTLD call earlier to have any additional information sent to the PC period?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Evan does.
Evan Leibovitch: Oh hi.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Cheryl and I am happy to hear from Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay it was mentioned on the call that although Avri is submitting this as something coming from the Working Group, I had raised the question of whether or not there was something that could be brought in as an official like ALAC endorsement of the statement to be sent and at very least put in the list of correspondents that the Board lists. This is something that so far has been lacking in that some of the previous ALAC statements and letters on this haven’t even shown up in the Boards correspondence pages. They've shown up in ours but they haven’t shown up in the Boards area of received correspondence. Avri suggested and I totally concur that at the very least as ALAC as a whole should be endorsing what its Working Group is doing.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you very much Evan, any other comments?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I may?
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Yes please Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks, I think just to expand slightly on Avri’s particular point of view which I certainly agree with, the statement that has been put together and has been modified during the Working Group call just before this ExCom call and indeed will be open to some minor editing over the next 24 hours before it goes in, tweaking, nothing too dramatic, is very much a working group putting into the PC. Avri was particularly keen to the ALAC to consider what she and I believe at least the majority of the work group also agreed with, was the benefit of the ALAC making it a piece of advice as opposed to having it linked to the PC as such.
Because it's when they're linked to the PCs that they seem to never get seen. She was also particularly about requesting that it is, as Evan said, one of those that are listed in the correspondence as a piece of received advice or information or endorsement letter or whatever it is that ALAC wants to do, so. But that’s not obviously critical within the next 36 hours, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Okay thank you, any other comments? In fact in the any other business part of this call there will a short discussion on establishing procedures for the posting of ALAC statements and letters to the Board correspondence page. And I will use the word ‘problem’, it is not a problem. But the issue is that last year we released more than 35 statements and as you will notice if we actually sent each one of our statements over to the Board and asked for it to be on the Board correspondence page there would be an enormous amount of ALAC correspondence on that specific page.
But let me just push this over to the end of this call. It's an issue which traditionally we had not had any of our statements on the Board correspondence page. The correspondence page is usually for letters that we send to the Board and in fact a few letters have come up both from Cheryl and from myself in the past. There are several ways to go around the problem. First one is to wait until the new ICANN website gets opened up to the public and that will actually have links directly to the ALAC and at that point we can have our correspondence featuring very prominently.
The other way is to ask for the new ICANN website redesign to include correspondence from ACs. So advice from ACs directly linked to the first page and the same way as correspondence to the Board. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yes, thank you will repeat an off statement I've made many times before; I really don’t care whether we segregate advice from the ALAC into a separate page or as correspondence. I think those things need to be few and far between and once we are truly giving advice to the Board and not every comment that we make on a comment period.
On occasion a comment period one is advice to the Board in parallel but I think if it's going to show up there as communications with the Board it's got to be carefully limited to things that we are truly saying to the board that we want them to be discussing and responding to, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Alan. And so with regards to the actual thing at hand, the 3D new gTLD applicant support program financial assistance, I will be looking forward to hearing from the Working Group in the next few hours and have a final copy that we can send out. Next, preliminary GNSO issue report on the registrar accreditation agreements and amendments workspace, does anyone have an update on this, Carlton perhaps?
Carlton Samuels: [Inaudible 00:23:58] we have [inaudible 00:24:05] from [inaudible 00:24:07].
Alan Greenberg: You're not coming through well Carlton.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Carlton your handset seems to be a little faulty.
Carlton Samuels: Can you hear me better now?
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Yes.
Carlton Samuels: Okay, I was saying we did [inaudible 00:24:21] a response and we circulated it with [inaudible 00:24:24] and [inaudible 00:24:22]. We put together what I consider to be a reasonable statement. It is up on the Wiki space for comment. I have not seen any so far.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Okay thank you very much Carlton. Next we will move on to the next which is F- IDN variant issues project draft integrated issues report, that has been sent over to Edmond Chung to lead our IDN liaison. And I understand that he is working on this, so we will soon - hopefully will soon have a draft statement ready.
I think that the IDN Working Group has also been carbon copied on this, so if any of you are on the IDN Working Group it would be very helpful if you kept the subject alive so as to make sure we've got a statement that is going to be a draft statement that will be ready with plenty of time for people to comment. Alright so let's move on to the next thing in our agenda, FY’13 budget requests and ALAC Budget and Finance Subcommittee.
As you know the budget demands this year are a lot earlier than in previous years. There is actually going to be a call right after this call that will tackle specifically the FY’13 community requests template. There is a new template. And also some of the back and forth discussion as to how to have better feedback from the outset about our project, projects that the RALOs are sending over. There is nothing worse than having people work very carefully on putting together a long project description and then being told later on that it is not possible, having to do over again and again.
I think we will be trying to engage two-way discussion earlier than we were supposed to go. I just wondered whether there was anything we should discuss now or maybe we could discuss it in the future after the original - the discussion will we have right after this call? The deadline for the RALO requests, and thank you very much Heidi for this, the deadline for the RALO requests to be submitted to the Budget and Finance Subcommittee is tomorrow the 10 January and then the subcommittee will have several days to be able to put these together and to actually filter some of those requests so as to either bring them together with requests from other RALOs when they are similar to the other RALO.
Or to actually make sure that each one of those requests fits very closely with the actual ICANN strategy and strategic objectives. And also to the actual ICANN calendar when it is involved with the holding of meetings during ICANN meetings. Let me just open the floor first and then I might have a few things to add, Evan?
Evan Leibovitch: Hi one of the things that occurred to me is that there are some limitations in this process. On one hand, yes things need to come up from the regions and in fact, I've created one that will be coming through NARALO. But there are a couple of projects that have occurred to me that don’t associate themselves with a particular region that actually could be considered to have global affect as an At-Large proposal. Is there a mechanism within our abilities to be able to do that to create a budget proposal that is actually considered a single, global project as opposed to something that is associated with the region?
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Evan, yes there is indeed. But the RALOs obviously have to work with each other to bring that project in common or maybe the discussion of the Budget and Finance Subcommittee is the right location for the representatives from each one of the regions to speak about projects that could be a global project rather than just a local project.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, back in the dim dark distant days when the ALAC Budget and Finance Subcommittee proposed to the then single staff person involved with the At-Large community, that sort of thing should happen, it certainly was envisaged that one of the advantages of collecting good ideas from the RALOs and putting them through a sift, sort and discuss process was that we could identify things that were of greater benefit than to just one RALO and global projects were always envisaged as something that could be put forward in the ALAC’s purview.
Whether or not they were expanded from regional good ideas or ALS good ideas or whether they came from the ALAC, we weren’t quite so fussed. The history is certainly there in principle and I would suggest that [inaudible 00:30:24] new modus operandi is far more appropriate for that and we've ever seen before.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Cheryl. I just wanted to add one more thing actually in regards to the regional requests. When a RALO makes a request and the ALAC makes a request to ICANN finance, I think it really means that the ALAC as a whole absolutely supports that project. And I will make sure that this year that the information that is sent over to ICANN finance explicitly says that there are projects which have the full support of all of the ALAC rather than being treated as a small, regional, local project as staff sometimes has the tendency to do. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yes thank you Olivier. The implication of what you said however is that the ALAC and the ALAC Budget and Finance Subcommittee must actually make decisions. To use last year’s example, three regions asking for a regional assembly in one year, was not reasonable given that we had previously said many times that we expect five regional assemblies over three years. A balance of two, two and one would’ve made more sense. If we’re going to do that the ALAC Finance Committee must actually make sure that their proposal comes that is put through into ICANN is one that meets our overall values, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Alan and in fact, you're absolutely right. And what I will propose to the Budget and Finance Subcommittee is that we put together a calendar of our proposed dates for general assemblies for regional general assemblies and also a calendar that will also look at our proposal for the dates for a summit. We have, looking back at our archives; we have been discussing this on conference calls on several occasions.
But to this date, there is no single document that actually lays out a roadmap as to when those general assemblies would be. If one looks at all regions have a general assembly, face to face general assembly funded by ICANN in a five year period, when would we say that those general assemblies should take place so as to be able to basically show when costs would come up. It appears that ICANN Finance is now going to look at a multiyear system which is something that we haven't had in the past.
And we haven’t had the chance to have in the past, so if they do look at a multiyear system we can actually provide them with a full calendar of what we would hope, and in fact, I think we can even use the word expect now, where we would expect to happen in the next few years.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, just as a follow up it, I think last year a reasonable statement from ALAC would’ve been that we note the three RALOs have stated their interest in holding a regional assembly. ALAC considers it reasonable that ICANN fund either one or two of them with the understanding that we fund five over three years, every three years. I think we don’t necessarily have to eliminate one of the three if you use last year’s example. But we must give some guidance to the people making financial decisions.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Alan, I think there is consensus on this. We all agree. The problem that we were faced with last year is having finance looking at the numbers and thinking well if we have X amount of money and three applicants we will just divide it among those three applicants.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, and we can fault them with not vetting that with us before making it formal. But we didn’t do our job either.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Well that’s correct yes, Alan. In fact -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It was a job we didn’t have.
Alan Greenberg: Well.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: On one side it was a job we didn’t have. On the other side though we did get asked at some point in a nondirect way we were asked “So which region would you say would need to have a general assembly or which region would you favor?” I don’t think it was the right question to ask us because we’re not in the business of favoring regions.
But the question was asked in an unhappy way, if you want, in a bad way and the answer that we provided was we’re not going to favor any region specifically, which is the reason why we ended up with the money being divided among three regions and then asking for the regions to pool their resources together. But the choice was then really given to the regions. Okay maybe we can then move to the next thing. No doubt the Budget and Finance Subcommittee will be discussing this in further detail.
At the same time I invite all of you who are not members of the Budget and Finance Subcommittee if you wish to spend another hour after this call you may very well join. I think it's 3535 is the Adigo line number. Right let's move then to the next thing and the next item on the agenda is the updated ALAC advice on the new gTLDs next steps. As you all know, a number of drafts were written by Evan on the new gTLD process. Evan could you just take through the - what's going on now, the latest update on what's going on? And now we really have to think where we go next.
Evan Leibovitch: Well there is not a whole lot of an update. Since the last ExCom meeting it's been up for public comment. There have been some public comments and there have been a couple of extra - some revisions to the draft. I've heard from some people especially in EURALO who had difficulties with the first drafts and are now very comfortable with the latest one. It exists. It's ready to be put forward. There has not been a lot of additional comment put in the last little while. It's over the holidays.
And so like I said the motion in its draft form currently exists. I now would leave it to the discretion of others whether to not the motion will actually serve a valid purpose and to be put forward. I feel strongly that this ought to be said. I think an update of the gTLD statement made at the summit ought to be made and refreshed. At the same time, if there is a belief that this is going to cause harm to what we’re trying to do, I don’t want to be the cause of that, thanks.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Evan and now I open the floor for discussion. And I see everyone so eager to speak about the subject. Evan okay then I guess I will take the lead on this. The feedback I've had so far about - that I've read so far on this seems to be quite mixed.
There was some support and there was also some - well people were opposing the statement as well. one specific thing that I've read and that did concern me was that at least the earlier statements were interpreted as ALAC being against the new gTLD process and asking for it to be stopped or delayed or deferred one way or the other and that has created a number of waves where I've had to play fireman in a way and answer and explain that this was not a statement that was already ratified.
This was a draft statement and the jumping to conclusions that the ALAC is against new gTLDs is completely wrong. In fact, we have been supporting the process from the start and have been involved in defining which way things were going from the start. We were involved in PDPs etc. So I'm a little concerned about the use of this statement and perhaps I know that it has been watered down but it still appears to be quite negative in several locations.
I'm concerned about the use of this statement by let's say opponents of the ICANN process as it currently is at the moment. Perhaps external organizations that wish to see the whole new gTLD launch fail one way or the other or be blocked by outside interference, and be basically used as a tool, a weapon against ICANN itself, saying “Look even the people within ICANN oppose the process altogether.”
If this statement was to be sent and ratified then - or going for a vote then I would urge that it gets redrafted in a much more positive way and certainly taking great care of not making it look as though we are against the new gTLD process.
Evan Leibovitch: Olivier have you seen the latest draft?
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: I have indeed, yes, Evan. I have seen the latest draft and I do see that it is a lot more positive than the previous drafts. But I still see that there is - there are thumbs down there are people that are within our ranks that do not support it and that are probably concerned that it might harm the both ICANN itself and also our own stance within ICANN because of the fact that it looks as though we are now turning against the process.
Yes, I understand there is frustration that some of our advice is not being heeded and in fact we are seeing that some external parties and bodies are making comments which we have been making for a very long time and suddenly it's coming right in the face of ICANN. But I guess this is the way that life is one way or the other.
Evan Leibovitch: Olivier there is part of me that wants to ask the question, on one hand we are asked to operate openly and to have open discussions even when things are in very raw and draft form. And yet when we try and toss something out that is in very raw and rough draft form, and it gets worked on and in this case as we've seen, significant redesign and probably ongoing redesign and yet you say people’s noses are already out of joint before anything has been put forward.
What does this say about the openness of our process and the fact that everything we do is under a microscope. What does that do about our abilities of having a reasoned conversation about this? When we’re in the fishbowl, how do we draft anything of any value and perhaps any contention when the first moment that a draft comes out that we have external parties coming in and having us over the rails for it and having you and your efforts of diplomacy being taken to task for things that have never come out of draft form?
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: I hear you Evan and I understand you and certainly you raise a very valid point. But we have to understand this is a highly politically charged environment that we are now evolving in. And we have to tread very carefully indeed. I see Carlton has had his hand up for a while so I will let Carlton speak, Carlton please?
Carlton Samuels: Thank you Olivier. I wanted to go along with what Evan is saying. As you probably know, I worked - was quite concerned [inaudible 00:44:09] all the insistence to make the statements that we have made in the past. [Inaudible 00:44:18] - [inaudible 00:44:20] because as you rightly know most of what the ALAC has said about the program in the past are now being echoed by other groups.
And [inaudible 00:44:32] because I too was concerned that the statement might send the wrong report that the ALAC was against the new gTLD program. Like you discussed I work extensively with Evan to change the draft and make it more positive. And the reason I wanted to work with Evan on it was because I thought given that other [inaudible 00:45:08] institutions were echoing some of the same sentiments that we had here before it would make sense for us not to just reiterate them but to reiterate them in a more positive way.
And so we [inaudible 00:45:27] the draft by actually [inaudible 00:45:29] the record that we support the new gTLD program. And in cataloging the issues that others - we have been saying [inaudible 00:45:39] when we asked what could be done, we need a positive statement by insisting that what we’re [inaudible 00:45:48] model and community consensus. Even as we recommend that the Board look at certain things again, we do that in context of [inaudible 00:46:12] consensus.
And we are really harping back to the number of institutions that have come out and said some of the things you have said. For me, if I look at the draft, I think it addresses some of the major issues that you and I agreed [inaudible 00:46:44] were concerned about that we do not - it cannot be seen as a negative of the ALAC or the At-Large, the new gTLD program and even the things that we already talked about that we were unhappy with.
If we simply point to them by simply stating that we are not doing it because of ALAC, we’re doing it because of a principle, the principle being community consensus. Now I prefer for us to be on record at least at this point again to say some of these things and yes if there is something we can do to even make it more positive, then I share your concern that we want to send a positive statement.
Then it would be very useful for us to find what those things are that we could make the statement more positive. But all together no, I'm at the point where I think a statement from us in this regard might be useful. That’s what I'm thinking.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Okay thank you very much Carlton. And yes when you mentioned improving the statements so as to make it positive, I will quote just one single sentence on there which I find to be problematic in a way, the history of ICANN’s compliance regime gives serious doubt regarding it's capacity to protect the interests of internet end users as it's scales to cope with the massive expansion in the name space. It really seems to be pointing here that ICANN is not ready. And I don’t think that this is something - we know that there is a lot of work being done in this.
We know that it is ongoing work. And I know that this kind of statement would be immediately taken out of its context effectively and used as a weapon against a whole new gTLD process. This is the sort of sentence that I think should be refined one way or the other. I know we are running out of time already on this call. I see Alan has his hand up, if I can just ask Alan to comment please and then what I would recommend is that perhaps we have a separate call that will deal specifically with this statement, as we've actually decided earlier having - scheduling a separate call for this. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yes thank you, one very quick comment about the sentence you just raised. I think that statement is incorrect. I think history has shown that ICANN is unwilling and uninterested, not necessarily incapable, and there is a big difference between the two.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Alan [inaudible 00:49:44] that was the discussion between Evan and I.
Alan Greenberg: I want to make a quick statement on the general concept that Evan raised of how can we work in an environment where we want to be open but people are going to take draftings as indicative of what ALAC is saying. And I think that’s simply the reality of the world we’re working in. And that’s why so many groups do not put out a statement until it's actually blessed. And I think in reality we need to walk a tightrope between those two.
If we are going to be doing something very radical and clearly what Evan was proposing the first time was, there has to be some work done in the back room first to see whether there is going to be agreement or - you know there is no point in raising a flag just to have us criticized for it, if it's not going to pass muster at all. I think it's a difficult world we’re living in and we have to acknowledge the reality of it and act accordingly and sometimes that means back room work and sometimes it means public, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you very much Alan. And I realize we just have one minute until the end of the hour. I was going to add something to what you’ve just said but I think you said it pretty well, so let's just say I see Cheryl still having her hand up, Cheryl do you still want to say a few words but then I have to move on?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just briefly, the point you raised on compliance is one of the classic issues that I certainly have issues with because it makes no attempt to recognize the considerable changes that are not only already enacted but are also being planned under the new leadership in that compliance. So yes, that’s all I need to say.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Okay so what I suggest is that we actually ask staff to send a Doodle out as was in the action items to schedule a call with all of the At-Large and so that we can actually discuss this matter and discuss this statement and perhaps even do some wordsmithing at the time so as to smooth those points which some do not find palatable within our ranks. And ultimately that might actually help with regards to the actual vote and ratification of this statement, if it reaches that point. Evan is that okay with you?
Evan Leibovitch: Well I envisioned as you know, Olivier, that we would probably have to have a single purpose call on this anyway.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Okay excellent so let's do this as an action item then and in fact confirm the action item that was.
Evan Leibovitch: I would also note one thing though that has bothered me and that has been the lack of participation in the debate by pretty well all of ALAC outside of a very small number of people, many of whom are on this call.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Evan.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes but I wouldn’t worry about that. just let me say this if I may Olivier, I [inaudible 00:52:58] and I think Cheryl's note on it that we do agree but until there is a draft and we started from a position to [inaudible 00:53:10] initially saying that ICANN did not think in favor of doing its compliance work to where we said there is a history that suggests there have been favors. I think we can rewrite [inaudible 00:53:27] I suspect that we have something that we can work with, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you very much Carlton, and in fact you were dropping out for some of what you’ve said.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm sorry about that I'm still having phone problems.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Okay, right so -
Matt Ashtiani: Sorry this is Matt, can you please state the AI as you would like it recorded?
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: Yes, Matt, in fact what I've done is send it over to you - staff to set up a call on new -
Matt Ashtiani: I got it.
Olivier Crepin-LeBlond: gTLD statement proposed by Evan Leibovitch, a Doodle is to be sent out after 1 January 2012, so in fact immediately with the intent of having the fall the second week of January - well maybe second or third week looking at the way things are moving at the moment. And I realize we are running out of time. It's 3 minutes past the hour and there is a call, we've gone over. What I suggest we do there is to close this call. The San José Costa Rica initial meeting scheduling can be done online.
And also the agenda development for the 24 January ALAC meeting can also be done online. And as far as any other business is concerned, I have addressed this topic earlier. Thanks to all of you for attending this call and the next meeting is starting now I guess for those in the Budget and Finance Subcommittee. Thank you all.
