Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay let’s do the attendance and get this show on the road. Thank you Gisella.
Gisella Gruber: Welcome to everyone on today’s task force call on Monday the 30th of April. On today’s call we have Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Darlene Thompson, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Yrjö Länispuro. From staff we have Heidi Ullrich, Matt Ashtiani, Silvia Vivanco and myself, Gisella Gruber. We have no apologies noted for today. And if I could also please remind everyone to state their names when speaking for transcript purposes, thank you. Over to you, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much Gisella. Now, I do notice that we’re not a full gathering yet, and I’m hoping a couple more may join us as we roll through the top part of the agenda. But regardless of that, we do have a bit of housekeeping to do and preparation work, even though it is the downhill section for this particular task force between now and Prague, and that’s very much the topics of what we’re needing to look at today.
But first of all we need to have a look at and action items that were rising out of the Costa Rica workspace – well actually it’s more the workshop we h ad as opposed to a workspace. But I thought the interaction that we had in Costa Rica first of all with the roughing-out of our mission statement and vision, I think went very, very well and I know we’ve got a subteam working on that and they might have something to say to keep us up to date at this meeting. But we also had a reasonable meeting, albeit with only part of the SIC, and I’d like to just follow on with any of the actions arriving out of that as well.
Matt, can you tell me have I missed any of the actions arising in the list, because I’m not going to switch across to look at the link.
Matt Ashtiani: No, but I have placed a link for everyone in the box for everyone to see.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s great for everyone else to do but if I do it...
Matt Ashtiani: I will place the AI’s into the chat as well, so that we can…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s terrific, fantastic. Okay let’s start first of all with the SIC meeting. A short form meeting was held; it was actually slightly longer than it was intended to be. And we were, I think, fairly well represented and fairly well reviewed by the Chairmen of the Structural Improvements Committee. I would suggest that what we would be aiming for, based on correspondence and I’ll ask Heidi to confirm on that for our final reporting, which is due by Prague, will be a very similar format to what we did for the ISC for our Costa Rica meeting. So we’re looking at a fairly lean, but nevertheless sufficiently detailed approach with a very simple and very graphically represented set of pieces in the report as well.
I think as a takeaway from the Structural Improvements Committee review of what we gave them as an update, was that whilst we’re actually tracking satisfactorily at this stage, there was I think a strong encouragement for us to have in place mechanisms which mean we can continually show that the ALAC is on task for anything that is an ongoing activity. And so what I would like to do, not at this meeting, but perhaps at the meeting following this one, which should be in about three weeks time, is ask you to put your thinking hats on between now and then as to utilizing the Wiki and other technologies that we have and Dev, you might want to get your technology task force to perhaps put their thinking hats on on this as well, as to how we can best manage almost an ongoing watch and maintain of project milestones, or something similar to that, to make sure that the ongoing activities, that we are having a final stop and report on date in June might be tracked.
For those of you who were at that meeting, is there anything else that we need to share to the task force now and for the record? Have I missed anything? And then Heidi I’d like you to also come in on anything that you might have gotten through the staff connection from Olof. So first of all, to the task force members, have I missed anything in terms of feedback from the Structural Improvements Committee? If you are putting your hands up I can’t see that in this system. I’m running a mobile system unfortunately because I’m downloading the upgraded app for the Adobe Connect room, so just jump in and start talking, but do identify yourself first.
No? I’m either talking to myself or no one has anything to say. In which case, Heidi if you’d like to give us any feedback from the staff side of things. Thank you Darlene, it’s good to know I’m not missing anything. Thank you Tijani.
Heidi Ullrich: Hi Cheryl, this is Heidi. Just a couple of things – Tijani and Darlene are saying, well Tijani is saying “you’re excellent Cheryl,” Darlene is saying “you didn’t miss anything Cheryl.” Regarding, I don’t think we’ve got anything either. I remember from the notes very clearly that Ray wanted the format for the final report to be very similar; very short and to the point as you mentioned, graphic in terms of just a simple table saying that everything was complete. If I may just bring one issue up?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hello darling, how are you? Our most important member.
Heidi Ullrich: I know, sorry everybody.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Nothing to be sorry about. I think she’s bringing up the most important matter about the future of At-Large.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes. As you see, recommendation is up on the Adobe Connect. Recommendation 12 is about the consumer document and Friday was the deadline for comment on the next beginners guide. And I was hoping that people from the task force, and the Registrant Rights Working Group would mention some documents and topic they would like for end users or consumer issues, but we didn’t hear from anyone in those two groups. And what we did hear were two people saying that actually that perhaps a guide for participating generally in ICANN would be more useful. Of course that would be a good way to go, but again there’s a concern as to whether this task force would actually complete recommendation 12. So that’s something that might need to be discussed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It may indeed. Anyone want to raise any issues? Olivier, do you have a proposal on how we should proceed with that?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl; this is Olivier for the transcript. Actually the reason why Heidi asked the question there, she also asked the question perfectly and I’m not quite sure yet, so I thought I’d leave it open to the group to discuss this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If we look at recommendation 12 it’s very much getting involved in, I mean the policy process specifically to the SOs. So we were trying for a bit of a cop-out, which would have been good, [or satisfactory I’ll hasten to add], with getting it in one of the consumer guides. There isn’t really going to be time for us to pull that off between now and Prague. So how to approach it?
Heidi Ullrich: Cheryl if I could just remind you that there is this consumer document that one of the work teams, I believe approved of, and that one was based on the consumer, the proposed Consumer Constituency document. But we could make that more general.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So you think a reworking of that might…Okay, if we’re going to do that, rework that, who is going to own that? Olivier is that something that your Registrants Rights Group would be distracted by, or – I mean they seem to have a very particular focus on their agenda and this would perhaps be a bit of a distraction. Or should we call for…
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Olivier here for the transcript. I think it would be interesting to look at it. I haven’t had a look at it for a while. The only concern I have is starting to mix things together. It might be a good basis for a start, but let me look at it beforehand.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. We do have a couple of ALSes that are particularly focused on consumer issues of course. I’m wondering whether – first of all, yes let’s look at it, which then brings us to the when and then what happens question. If Olivier you want to review it and perhaps we can get say two or three people from this group to interact, obviously I’ll hold the AP line if you like. Darlene, would you be in a position to have a refreshed look at the existing document and perhaps Tijani, if not you, you could suggest someone?
Darlene Thompson: I don’t really have the time right now. I’m afraid my-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s fine Darlene, that’s why I’m asking.
Darlene Thompson: I might – my work load right now is just crazy. It’s fiscal year end for me and I’m just going nuts. I can’t take on any more right now. I’m really sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No don’t be sorry. Make a suggestion as to who we can approach.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Cheryl, I am really sorry because already for the vision group I didn’t contribute and I think nobody worked on it. I am really busy and yet I will have two weeks in Geneva in the very future, very near future. So I cannot commit myself. But I will see if inside ARALO if there is someone who can help.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And that would be fine. And Darlene, the same thing – if there is – I was thinking of Gareth’s group. There might be someone in one of the ALSes who would be perfectly reasonable. So it’s certainly not something I think, I think it would probably be better to have fresh eyes on it in fact. And the same things Dev, if you’ve got someone in Latin American and Caribbean who has a particular, an ALS who has a particular focus on consumer issues, I certainly will be asking the Australia Communication and Consumer Action network to have a look at it for example. So I’m definitely going to pass it on and ask for a bit of quick feedback from a peak body in my country. So perhaps if we can do that – Olivier would that fit into your comfort zone slightly more then?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes Cheryl, thank you. It’s Olivier here for the transcripts. Absolutely. The document itself is not very long. Heidi has put a link to it on the Adobe Connect page. So yeah, we can follow this up by email.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Alright then the question is Heidi about deadlines – when can we still slip this into the system?
Heidi Ullrich: I would think that as long as it’s completed by, or at least a final draft version is ready by the June meeting and we could let the SIC know that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. You’re thinking rather more from the ICANN Communications and Outreach part of it.
Heidi Ullrich: Sorry Cheryl, are you saying that you would like the consumer document to be a separate document and then in the beginners guide to go ahead and focus on something more general; perhaps something like how to participate in ICANN?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well because you’ve already had the request that the At-Large information back to you is that it needs to be more general. So yes, we will need something separate for the consumer.
Heidi Ullrich: I’m sorry you would like something similar for the consumer as well?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, but it would need to be – based on the little discussion that you got back seemed to indicate that they should be separate correct?
Heidi Ullrich: Absolutely. In fact, all the comments we received said it shouldn’t be an end user/consumer document, and then the two recent comments we received said actually rather than focusing on consumers or end users it should be a much more general how to participate in ICANN, and even something that might be able to be used for eth Academy that is being proposed for Toronto.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And providing that beginners guide approach, which is a beginners guide to ICANN, is not a duplication of for example the webinar and things like that that’s already been done on that topic, and various other materials. I think that’s fine and the Academy will benefit. But that still leaves us high and dry unless we come up with something to encourage consumer input into policy processes. And to that end, individual consumers, let’s be honest, are not in the main going to be wanting to be directly involved in ICANN policy processes. Advocates; yes. Peak bodies; yes. Organizations who are focused on consumer issues and communications and telecommunications; yes.
So we probably need to try and do something that is pitched to them and that’s where we’re growing on for what we’ve put together for what was the proposed Consumer Constituency in the GNSO non-commercial consumer part of the monstrosity that they’ve built, might be the best way to go.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay. So if you’re looking for something similar to a beginners guide, but more of an outreach document then…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes I mean consumers specifically.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, for consumers. I would need to get back to Scott and Lynn and ask them about their timeline for that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. And what you need to say to Scott perhaps then is we will fill out that “who/how/why/where/when”; we’ll do that approach.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay. Including, what they really need is a table of contents in the document. So for example the AUDA document, I think it was a consumer document that they put together that has been mentioned repeatedly as a really good document. Okay, let me get in contact with them and I’ll report back at the list.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Bu as we’ve heard, the people who are on this task force are not the same people who should be doing the edit and build on this beyond getting it started, like a few of us are encouraging. We probably need to actually get people who are literally the consumer advocates that we have access to, to be involved.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Now Olivier, do you have an issue with that seeming to be in competition with your Registrants Rights; do you want to run it with your Registrant Rights or as a sub unit or unrelated or related – how do you want to manage that?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl. It’s Olivier here. I think what we might do is just to inform both Beau and Holly who are the original, who are mentioned at the bottom of the current document. And it might well be that they will be involved themselves, in which case I don’t see any problem with – it’s not even duplicating work I guess. It probably will be giving this one a little kick-start.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good. And I’d certainly be happy for Holly to try and take a bit of a lead in it. She’s certainly penned enough documents of similar ilk of the telecommunication industry here in Australia, so I’d be very happy if we could encourage that. But I think that should probably come down from you, rather than out from us, if we as a task force can ask you to do that in other words, I think that would be well worthwhile.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay any other…go ahead Tijani, go ahead.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Do you have Adobe Connect because I’ve had my hand up and…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And as I said, I’m using the mobile version of Adobe Connect and I do not see any hands, and I asked people just to jump in.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: I am sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No problem Tijani, go ahead.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: As I said, I will look inside AFRALO is there is someone to help. And Darlene will do the same, Dev also. The best is to make it more official and send the request for volunteer for all RALOs.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. That’s Olivier’s call.
Heidi Ullrich: Cheryl this is Heidi. Just a note from Dev, is that he said he could follow up if there is someone from LACRALO who is able to assist.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, I’m reading the chat.
Heidi Ullrich: Oh okay.
Darlene Thompson: Cheryl, Darlene here. Yeah maybe if we could have some kind of a note sent to the Secretariat’s list and then we could each forward to our RALOs and try and find support, that would be really, really helpful.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That would be perfect. So Olivier, are you happy to have that happen by Silvia?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes absolutely.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay good. Sounds like an excellent plan, as long as you know that your Registrants Rights Group needs to be properly integrated. Okay. Anything else then Heidi with any of the recommendations or was that the only big oops that you’ve found?
Heidi Ullrich: So far, yes, but I would like to go through them with you and Matt maybe in the next week, and then we can look again at that.
Silvia Vivanco: Cheryl, this is Silvia. I’m sorry. Can you please repeat the action items?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I can. I would suggest that the action item, which is of course depending on Olivier also mentioning it the Co-Chairs of the Registrants Rights Group which is Beau and Holly, I would suggest he would probably want to do it before the staff action item but that’s up to him, would be to a call via the Secretariat’s list for members of ALSes with a particular consumer focus to assist in a very short period of time on the early draft and editing of a consumer organizational and individual interest document to encourage participation in ICANN policy development. And you can refer to recommendation 12 if you’d like.
Silvia Vivanco: Great, thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And Heidi would also have some feedback for such an announcement that would be that AI depending on times and points where we can slot in where what Scott and his team are able to do. Alright, so we’ve got all those ducks in a line. Let’s see how we’ve gone with the only other action item out of the Costa Rica meeting, and that is, is there any movement on the Wiki space that I believe was set up, correct me if I’m wrong, to facilitate the drafting of the wonderful words of wisdom which will be our vision.
I do know that the small subcommittee certainly met immediately after our meeting, and probably have a few notes around. But I must admit I have been guilty of not going to the Wiki page that I also assume is set up for their use and for of course wider community input to see if anything has happened there or not. And if not, when can we look forward to it, in the next fortnight or three weeks perhaps. What’s the feedback on that? Who wants to take that? Just jump on in. Heidi I know you sent an email or two, did you get any feedback and was the Wiki space set up?
Heidi Ullrich: The Wiki page was set up and there was some discussion of that obviously in Costa Rica. But no, I have not received any replies to my-
Yrjo Lansipuro: Well this is Yrjo coming in, may I?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Certainly, go ahead Yrjo.
Yrjo Lansipuro: Yeah. I mean I think that we already did that in Costa Rica. And I sent – I mean we had the meetings of this small group and I sent to you and email basically, three lines of what I proposed the vision would be.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Did that go to Matt as well because that’s what I thought should go up on the Wiki page?
Yrjo Lansipuro: No, I just sent you the email.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so only to me, not to Matt. So then I asked Matt to put it up, that’s why he…
Yrjo Lansipuro: Perhaps the staff could put it on the Wiki page.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right, and that way we can get the public input onto it and that’s all we need then between now and – because it’s on a 14 day… That’s terrific because I knew I’d seen the work, I was just wondering what happened in terms of getting people to look at on the Wiki page. Yrjo, could I ask you just to forward that email again to staff please?
Yrjo Lansipuro: Yeah sure, I’ll do it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because I know you were all hot to trot literally. You were all sitting in the room and I thought they were going to lock up and leave you in there actually.
Yrjo Lansipuro: Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So I certainly saw the work. But we do need to get the rest of the At-Large community to have some input on it, that’s all. As soon as those words go up we can put a call out, if you don’t mind Heidi, and Olivier…
Yrjo Lansipuro: Okay, so I’ll email it to the staff, yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fantastic, thank you very much for that. Silvia what might need to happen them I assume is another little point that might need to go out to each of the regions, because that’s something that the ALSes and the edge community need to feel that they can comment on as well. Olivier I don’t know whether you wanted to bring that into your ALAC agenda or not, but it might be timely if you did. When is the date of the next meeting? We’ve got a month for that now, three weeks, four weeks for that. So if we ran a three week public comment process on the Wiki page, running all this week, next week and part of the week after, we should have final for you if you wanted to put it up for your next ALAC meeting. Would that work for you Olivier?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Indeed yes, Cheryl. It’s Olivier here. That’s noted and I’ll ask Heidi to have this included in the next agenda for the ALAC call, thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okie-dokie. Alright then that sounds like we’re all sorted. And that’s really taken us in through numbers two and three, because that was the primary activity of the workshop. So let’s move quickly now, unless I missed anyone frantically wanting to get my attention? No, okay. Just throw something at me in chat if I’m not listening to people by the way.
Let’s look at our discussion from the At-Large improvement activities and the next steps, planning and reporting. Now at the Prague meeting is our drop dead date for final reporting. But now also I would think, some sort of system which I’d like to spend more time on in our next meeting if you are happy to put your thinking caps on between now and then as to how we will run an ongoing – I don’t know whether it needs to be a dashboard or a Wiki page or a set of Wiki pages or reports or what, but we have to be able to show that there is those things we’ve passed on as ongoing activities either to ALAC or other parts of ICANN or subcommittees that they are not unattended between now and a next review.
So we can certainly, if need be, have a single purpose call for that, but that’s going to be an additional piece of work that we need to do for the Prague meeting. The other piece of work that we need to do for the Prague meeting is specifically the final reporting. Now, Heidi…
Heidi Ullrich: Can we kill whatever line that is? I’m not sure what that beeping is.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Joke to distract perhaps? It’s quite possible. We’ve got our existing report up on the page. It was linked to the agenda. We still have to get the table to 100% up and down. Is there anything else that we need to do in terms of editing and drafting? And if so, how shall we proceed? Shall we open that document up with “please put comments?” Do we just want to put 20 minutes, 30 minutes into it in our next meeting, which will then allow us to have it as a report for the ALAC to look at before they go to Prague, so it goes to the SIC as an ALAC endorsed document? What is going to be the best way from your logistics point of view? Olivier how would you like it managed.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: It’s coming down to me. Thank you Cheryl, it’s Olivier for the transcript. These are the questions – putting me on the spot like this. Let me think about it and I’ll come back to you in a moment. I have to think about this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Heidi is there anything we’ve got back from Olof that is particularly appropriate at this point as we’re trying to look at what is required for moving our interim report or our penultimate report to a final report now we know that needs to be lean and simple?
Heidi Ullrich: Cheryl this is Heidi. Basically it would need to first go to the SIC, they will meet on the Saturday prior to the ICANN meeting in Prague, and then they need to move it up to the Board. So in addition to this final report that staff will be working on with you and the task force, what will also be needed is the staff report, the Board report basically that helps, it’s an internal process. So staff will take care of that as well. So I’m hoping that this document will even be on the consent agenda, which means that the Board passes it with several other items without really discussing it on the recommendation of course of the SIC for acknowledgment by the Board. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think that would be the case as well. Okay, so it’s interesting that we’ve got the aspirational document up from the workshop, but what we probably should have up is, just to refresh our memory if you don’t mind Matt, is the document, although I think it’s a pdf which is the link to the report that we gave the SIC in Costa Rica.
Matt Ashtiani: Not a problem; I’ll have it uploaded in just a few seconds.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. We might as well have a quick look at that and see if there’s anything that we haven’t identified as yet that we need to. Do you believe Heidi and Olivier that we need to rework the text very much at all? Is it going to be appropriate for us to basically shift the pretty colored lines and move everything from 75% to 100% and leave it at that is my question?
Heidi Ullrich: Cheryl this is Heidi.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please go ahead.
Heidi Ullrich: Yeah I think that there should be some text in terms of what comes next, in terms of the criteria, the timeline for the next ALAC review, possible criteria and the way forward. So basically finishing this one and then identifying timelines and issues and criteria for the next review. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. How does the rest of the group feel about that? That was never part of our job description was it? Our job description was to implement the recommendations from the last review. I’m certainly comfortable in adding on this and end up with something which shows the implementation fields that our recommendations are ongoing. Please go ahead Olivier.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl, it’s Olivier for the transcript. Exactly as you mentioned the groups mandate was to produce the end set of recommendations and the status etc, and the implementation of these. I wonder whether it’s not for the ALAC itself to add to whatever report this working group comes up with, for the ALAC itself to add the paragraph on what are the next steps beyond that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed I think that would be quite reasonable. How does everyone feel about that? Does anyone violently disagree, put up a great big X, which I won’t see, but everyone else will see. And if you agree with Olivier there is a green tick option obviously. I assume you’re not being violently disagreed with Olivier. I’m just concerned about us as a task force taking on more than we were mandated to Heidi. I understand, and particularly it was clear from the discussion we had with Ray in Costa Rica, that there is a whole bunch of design aspirations for how future reviews should go. But what we need to come up, from the task force point of view I would have thought, is something that can be picked up and used as a benchmark to measure from for the next steps, not design the next steps.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes Cheryl, I’m in perfect agreement and with Olivier’s suggestion as well. As long as there’s some discussion, I think you’re absolutely correct that it’s not the task forces job. I just felt that it needed to be in there at some point.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well the other thing is of course, getting your staff reports. You may want to make some particular recommendations even if they’re from a logistics point of view, understanding now having gone through this once, what it will take to get it through in a timely manner and perhaps ever more efficiently a second time. And I think we would take a much more, using the royal “we” there of course Heidi, a much more project management based approach in a future role around. How does that work for you Olivier? Is that something that we might want to encourage the ALAC to suggest?
Okay, so if the text is okay – thank you for your agreement by the way Olivier. I’m very sorry that you can’t unmute because how am I going to put you on the spot and get you to fill in the potential dead air on these calls if you’re muted? This will not be good enough. I’ll have to pick on other people now. That’s terrible. It’s usually the Chairs role to be picked on.
The one that obviously we really need to watch is this one sitting down at the bottom, which we have discussed to some extent. But I am a little bit concerned that the policy advice mechanism is one that is going to be one of those ongoing ones. So I think we need to be very clear on where we are. We have to get it to 100% or as close to 100% as we can. The consumer will assist – the consumer documents that we talked about will assist on this, but also, we might want to Olivier, it might be additional text to add in how we’re currently on planning on directing with the ASO.
So we’ve picked up all of the SOs and also perhaps a few words on the good working relationship, both formally and informally between the Government Advisory Committee and the ALAC and of course the now current existence of the AC/SO Leadership list. Because I think if we mention those, apart from the fact that the previous Chairmen of the ALAC were instrumental in getting those started, and perhaps even talk about the reinstatement of the cross-community meeting opportunities during ICANN meetings, as well as the bilateral and not lateral ones. We might want to just say 100, 110 words tops into picking up that to try and fit under section 13. Does that work for you? And you’ll have to type it if you can’t…
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I can. It’s Olivier here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I even opened up my chat site so you could type at me.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: I’m able to speak now. Absolutely the way forward. I’m okay with that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Would the task force be happy if Olivier and I owned that responsibility to put together some words of wisdom and have you all look at it for the next meeting? If anyone violently disagrees make it known. So we’ve got the section e, which is the text to be determined. We’ve got the new text we’re going to move then colored graph to be all purple, which is a good thing. However, how do you want to manage the ones that are ongoing? Do you want to give them a 99.9% or a 90% or how do you want to handle that? And then I guess I also need to know how that’s going to be represented graphically, any suggestions?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Cheryl, it’s Olivier here. Actually I see Tijani’s hand has been up for a while on my screen.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well Tijani needs to jump in. Go ahead Tijani, if someone doesn’t tell me. You might be muted Tijani. Looks like you weren’t the only one muted.
Heidi Ullrich: Actually Tijani is on the Adobe Connect.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: He should be able to speak. Go ahead Tijani. No, we don’t hear you, sorry. Okay. Tijani is there any way that you can talk to the chat some of what you wanted to raise? And while we’re doing that I’ll just note Darlene’s point in chat, which was of course we can also have words in tee pretty colored lines too can’t we, to just indicate ongoing. What a creative woman you are. Of course we can. That’s what we’ll do. We might even have a little arrow at the end of them perhaps. Thank you.
Okay he also says he didn’t ask for the floor. Tijani, it might be that in the wonderful mysteries of the internet, there’s some sort of lag between you taking your hand down and us seeing it in the room, because Olivier did indicate that your hand had been up for some time. So perhaps it wasn’t just Olivier that was frozen, it might be part of your interaction as well. But as long as I wasn’t ignoring you, that was the main thing.
Okay, alright. I’m sure it is down. I’ve had it where I’ve taken my hand down Tijani and in fact the call manager had to clean it up, but never mind. Olivier, apparently your hand is up, go.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl. Yes, it’s Olivier for the transcript. In the same line as Darlene’s suggestion to have ongoing I was going to suggest putting an asterisk in those columns which are ongoing. And therefore having the word ongoing underneath by the asterisk.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, we’ve got lots of options. Let’s go for the pretties and most attractive one and the most simplest one that staff will point out to make it appear…
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Cheryl, I’m unhappy about putting it 99% or whatever because it would indicate that it is incomplete, whilst at the same time making it sound that it’s nearly complete. And if it’s an ongoing activity of course it’s not always nearly complete, it’s very far from nearly complete because it will have to be ongoing.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Which is the arrow ended or word ongoing might go on top of that, but yep, let’s have arrow endings, asterisks and the word ongoing. I also note on that page, and the graph isn’t going to get longer it’s just going to be more complete to the right hand side of the column. There is a little bit of space on that page. So what we might do is use that real estate on the page three, the lower third or the lower quarter on page three to make any notes which will relate to the ongoing things mentioned above. And that would be where we would link to whatever mechanism that we’re going to come up with to maintain ongoing things are actually undertaken.
And that might also be where, Heidi, we could put some of those aspirational next steps before we get to our next review – these are the types of things we suggest are looked at and are in place. Do you reckon we can do it in that space? I think we can. And yes, you’re exactly right Heidi, it is a matter of the recommendations being handed to handed to the relevant work group or group, but what the SIC pointed out to us in Costa Rica is handing it on is one thing, having a system that shows that it is happening is what’s important, and so that’s perhaps what we can try and do on that little bit of real estate there.
Okay well, we’ve certainly got page three done to death. Any other conversations on what we might need to do on this penultimate report now? if not, that would be a good half of the next agenda for us to look at what would be the near final drafting of that. Matt, I did wonder if this was able to be put into a, if not editable form on the Wiki, at least a commentable form on the Wiki so the task board members, and anyone else, can dot the I’s and cross the T’s and we have to do things like put in our mission statement etc, etc, and our vision. Is that okay or is it too hard?
Matt Ashtiani: I think in an editable form it would be too difficult to actually manage, but I can definitely put it on a page where anyone can make a comment and then after all the comments have been received we can go back and edit the document. Does that work for you?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay you might want to – yeah that will work for me, but you probably would need to carve it up into bits then. So we have comments on introductions, comments on background – and I doubt that there will be much that we need to do on those, because the intro gets tweaked but the background is the background other than adding in the Costa Rica report. But we probably would want to make sure we’ve got c, d, and obviously e, which has text to be determined – which I do hope we didn’t give that document to SIC with text to be determined written on it. And we can just make the note that we will do the draft up for the stages with the pretty colored lines on with the asterisks and the nomenclature that we’ve discussed in the ongoing and the arrow and all of that sort of thing, so people can go “yes I like it,” or “no” they don’t at the next meeting.
Okay, if that’s done – with internal comments on that one. Let now ask for – let me see. I think we’re up to any other business unless anyone wants to raise any more on how we’re going to go for Prague. Oh what we should do is Heidi I think we have tried to grab a little bit of time to meet with the task force in Prague. Have we got any opportunity to talk with the SIC formally yet or not?
Heidi Ullrich: Not yet. Right now we have a one-hour session tentatively planned for Monday 11 to 12. And the first 30 minutes would be just the task force itself and then the final 30 minutes would be final interchange with the SIC. But again, as this is members of the Board, we won’t know their schedule until very close to Prague.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure, sure, okay. So perhaps if the task force can note in their diaries and not double book themselves for that time? Is that time firm for us though? Okay. So we’ll all make sure that we’re available on the Monday 11 till 12. Terrific. Anything else as we go towards Prague? If not, then I’m going to call for any other business. Is there any other business, and please just jump in. Seeing none….seeing none…..I’ll then move to when our next meeting will be. Gisella? We’ve had Gisella doing what could only be described as scheduling gymnastics. She’s as usual come through in Olympic Gold Medal form. But I think she is now possibly the only person in the known universe who knows what work group is meeting when, so I’m going to ask her to tell us when we’re gathering in the name of the task force.
Gisella Gruber: Thank you Cheryl, Gisella here, just to say that the next task force meeting is scheduled for Monday the 21st of May, unless you need one prior to that date. And secondly, just confirming that this time is still suitable to everyone.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I wondered, and you know I’m such a problem person when it comes to time, I’m always complaining about the times the meetings are held and I’m never available. I wondered if the task force would min moving this just one hour later to my 5 am, rather than my 4 am for the 21st of May.
Gisella Gruber: Cheryl, Gisella here if I may. Then if I may suggest then for the 21st and then just double checking, if I can, I just need to look into early June before we reach Prague, that it doesn’t conflict with the next NORALO call, but otherwise it would work.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I would greatly appreciate it as I’m in the midst of my winter. I would very much appreciate it. Alright, well hopefully it will be an hour on, which will be my normal 5 am waking time and that I can live with. In which case, ladies and gentlemen thank you very much for your efforts today. It’s delightful to have you all back together again. I’m going to miss you all sorely when this task force wraps up in Prague, but perhaps we’ll be crossing paths in some of the other sub units. And in my view at least, it’s close enough to the top of the hour to call this meeting to a close and to thank each and every one of you for your contributions.
Please, however, between now and the 21st, we do have to work on the Wiki or the list. I don’t care which. If you put it to the list, we’ll copy it to the Wiki, but we do have to get some work done. So, thank you very much and Olivier and I have some drafting to do and we might need to just ask each of you to nurture the feedback from our consumer action groups, or consumer interest groups in your region so that we can get that good old recommendation 12 to the 100% mark.
Thank you each and every one of you, bye for now.
[End of Transcript]
