ALAC Meeting
(Held August 12, 2008)
Legend
Name: First name of member of group
Male: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a male.
Female: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a female.
XX joined If the phone system has announced that a particular person has just joined, it will be shown in square brackets at the left margin.
unknown joined If the phone system indicates someone has just joined, but doesn't announce their name.
XX left If the phone system has announced that a particular person has just left, it will be shown in square brackets at the left margin.
unknown left If the phone system indicates someone has just left, but doesn't announce their name.
********************************************************************************************************
List of Participants
Important Note: Please note that this should not be considered to be an "official" list of the attendees. This is just a list of the participants that we were able to identify during the transcription. There may have been others present that didn't speak and some people may have participated that were not on the official list of attendees published on the internet.
Alan Greenberg
Annette Muehlberg
Beau Brendler
Carlos Aguirre
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Darlene Female, last name not known
Frederick Male, last name not known
Hawa Diakite
Hong Xue
Jacqueline Morris
Matthias Langenegger
Nick Ashton-Hart
Robert Male, last name not known
Ron Sherwood
Sebastien Bachollet
Vanda Scartezini
Wendy Seltzer
********************************************************************************************************
unknown joined
09
Female: Hello?
unknown joined
Alan: Alan.
Female: Hello?
unknown joined
unknown joined
Alan: Good morning, it's Alan, am I on the right conference?
Female: 45.
Alan: Hello?
Female: Hello?
Female: Who are they?
Alan: Alan.
unknown left
Alan: Alan.
unknown joined
Male: Hello?
Female: Hello, Alan?
Alan: Yes.
Female: Yes, 59 speaking.
Female: 59.
Male: Ah, good.
Unknown joined
Female: You there?
Alan: Hello Vanda it's Alan.
Female: Hi, Matthias?
Male: He doesn't seem to be here.
Female: Alan.
Male: Yeah, Alan is here.
unknown joined
Nick: Nick.
Nick joined
Nick: Hello everyone.
Alan: Hello.
Nick: Is Jacqueline on?
Male: I haven't heard her.
Nick: I just got an IM from her saying, waiting for operator.
Male: There is no operator on our link.
Nick: There is, you just aren't hearing her.
Male: Well, I mean, not a calling out one, at least I don't get one.
Nick: Well, you don't get a call out because you have a toll free number.
Male: Sorry, when I call in I ask for a number, yes, correct.
Male: We seem to have some Japanese people on our list, on our mail… on our call.
Male: 29 our Spanish interpreter on English.
unknown joined
Male: French interpreter on English channel.
unknown joined
Cheryl: Cheryl.
Cheryl joined
Male: Hello Cheryl.
Cheryl: Hi there.
Male: Hello.
unknown joined
Male: Cheryl, did you happen to see my Skype message?
Cheryl: Yeah, and I'm looking…
Male: I know where it went, you deleted it, so I'm trying to figure out, should I put it back or not?
Jacqueline: Jacqueline Morris.
Jacqueline joined
Jacqueline: Good morning everyone, it's Jacqueline.
Nick: Hello darling.
Male: Cheryl, it was admittedly in the wrong section, maybe that's what you were trying to fix.
Cheryl: Yes, that would have been it, but yeah, I mean, put it back in the right section.
Male: Okay, I'll do that. So long as no one else is editing the wiki at the same time. All I have to do is find it again.
Female: Bonjour.
Hong joined
Female: This is Hong.
Cheryl: Hi Hong.
Hong: Oh, hi, hello Cheryl.
Nick: Hello Hong.
Hong: Oh, hi hello. Good evening or good morning or good afternoon.
Cheryl: Pretty well covers it, doesn't it?
Annette joined
Female: Oh, Annette hi.
unknown joined
Annette: Hello.
Female: Oh, hello, good afternoon.
Annette: Good afternoon, thank you.
Nick: Morning, afternoon I mean. Sorry, I forget what part of the world I'm in.
Cheryl: Well, I think we've got all parts of the day covered in this call so, bound to be somebody's morning.
Alan: It's my morning.
Female: Oh, there's Alan.
Cheryl: Well, when I entered, it said there was nine and I've heard two more join, so we better do… oh, several more than two actually. We better do a roll call. So far I've heard Allan, Vanda, Robert, Sebastian and Annette. Who else do we have from the ALAC? Nobody? I heard Jacqueline and Hong as liaisons, any other liaisons? And I've got inaudible, over talking.
Ron joined
Female: Darlene 46 a call back inaudible.
Cheryl: Who joined, sorry? Oh, is that Vanda?
Ron: Ron Sherwood.
Cheryl: Hi Ron.
Female: Hi Ron.
Male: I don't think he's here till it says joined.
Cheryl: Wendy just joined as well.
Female: Hi Wendy.
Male: Hi Wendy.
Cheryl: We keep saying hi to Ron and he hadn't stopped to join.
unknown joined
Cheryl: He wasn't hearing us.
Male: If you don't hit the "pound" sign, it thinks your name is very long.
Cheryl: Who just joined us?
Ron: This is Ron.
Female: Hi Ron.
Cheryl: Okay, so I have, in terms of liaisons, I've got Jacqueline, Hong, Ron and Wendy, is there any other liaison here? Okay, I've got Nick, Matthias and Frederick, I've got apologies from Jose and so far I have myself, Alan and Robert, Sebastian and Annette, is there any other ALAC person here?
Female: 03 . Cheryl. I beg your pardon? Female. (10 here.
Cheryl: I can't hear that person, can anybody help me?
Male: I can't figure out what it's saying either.
Female: No, I can't.
Female: 20 ALAC.
Cheryl: Oh, Hawa.
Hawa: Yes, hi.
Cheryl: Hi.
Hawa: Sorry, my voice not so good, so I just 29.
Cheryl: Okay thank you, welcome. Now I've got you counted. That gives us seven, we need one more ALAC member to be quorate. Are all the dial out's done?
Male: Hawa is present.
Cheryl: Hawa is here, thank you. Excellent. Is anyone else on any of the other language channels?
Male: Yes, we have two in the Spanish channel. We have Matthias and Carlos.
Cheryl: Ah, Carlos, excellent. Carlos, okay, in Spanish, thank you. Okay, that's enough for us to start with. In fact, I might think that that's almost a record, we're only five minutes after the hour, we're quorate and we can begin. I feel rather excited and it's good that we're having a relatively prompt start, because in one hour's time, some of the RALO people are joining us for a discussion with their part.
Okay, the first matter of the standing agenda items is the adoption of the agenda. Does anyone have any additional agenda items that they wish to put onto any other business or raise any matter in any section for discussion or decision?
Male: The only matter I have is whether we want to talk about the issue of travel funding.
Cheryl: Okay…
Robert: I would second that, this is Robert.
Cheryl: Okay, has the travel policy been released yet Nick?
Nick: No, it's… I just checked the website before, like, maybe five minutes ago and it is not public. So I have no news I'm afraid.
unknown joined
Nick: Mohammed is not reachable on either number, Tanya is telling me.
Cheryl: Okay, so Mohammed looks like a no show then. Okay then. Okay, so if time permits, we'll look at the travel funding or travel policy and any other business as item two. But obviously we'll need to be willing and able to promptly respond to the…
Ron: Ron Sherwood.
Cheryl: Promptly respond to whatever is going to 26 document becomes public.
unknown left
Male: Well, that's one of the reasons I'm suggesting it.
Cheryl: Okay, I'm sure Ron will come back to us as well. Are there any other items from anyone?
Male: I have now fixed the item which was deleted accidentally last night.
Cheryl: Okay, so if everybody who is looking at the agenda could refresh, there's been a link that's been fixed, thank you very much. Okay, in the absence of any other business, we have travel funding added as an item too, if time permits and we shall move on to the next item. Which is, of course, our roll call, I don't think anyone else has joined us, at the moment we're quorate. We've Beau, Carlos, Hawa, Huhu, Annette, Sebastien, Robert, Vanda, Alan and myself. We have apologies from Jose, Mohammed was not able to reached, for some reason and we have Jacqueline, Hong and Wendy, Ron was on the call and he may dial back in. If anyone else is on the call and they've not made themselves known to me, now do so, if not, type your name into Skype chat and we'll pick you up there.
Darlene: Darlene.
Cheryl: Hi Darlene, you can be a…
Darlene: You didn't call for secretariats and stuff, but I understood that we were welcome to this meeting, so I've just been lurking.
Cheryl: You are indeed and we'll be getting to the bits that involve you guys, you're welcome at any meeting, but particularly invited to join in a discussion that we'd like to have with you, and everyone else, I trust. Okay, Fetamartir is on Skype, she has… technically she's getting on to the phone, but she's got no fixed line 16.
Darlene: If someone wants to, maybe you could invite me to that Skype chat, or unless it's closed to ALAC, which is fine.
Cheryl: No, there's no reason why it should be closed. I am sure someone can do that Darlene. Okay and we'll need to make sure that someone types 35 into Skype chat so Fetamartir can be included that way.
Ron: Ron Sherwood.
Cheryl: HI Ron, welcome back.
Ron joined
Cheryl: That brings us to the adoption of the summary minutes for the 22nd of July. If you've all opened the link to the summary minutes, I'd like to know if anybody has any particular points or a rata that they'd like to change. Okay, if I have someone move that the minutes of the 22nd of July are adopted? Don't all rush at once.
Alan: So moved.
Cheryl: Thank you Alan. Oh, I think I heard you second that, thank you for that and… I know you're at the meeting, so perhaps you'd like to second that. In the absence of any changes to the minutes, they've been moved and definitely seconded. If there is any objection to the minutes being adopted, make your objections known now. If there's any abstention, make it known now. If not, they're moved and carried.
The review of the action items of the 22nd of July is a blank page. Nick, I've mentioned that to you at our conversation earlier. Was there a rough list of action items that you could cover off for us? Or will we actually read through the high points of the minutes.
Alan: Before Nick does that, I just realized, we do not have on our agenda anywhere, the ALAC review report. Perhaps we need a few minutes somewhere to discuss what we're going to do. Sorry for the out of order comment.
Cheryl: No problem with out of order comments when they're that valuable. I suppose I wonder why we've waited a month and two meetings, since we said we needed to formulate ALAC review to bring it to the agenda. But then I wonder about many things in this world, that's just another of them.
Alan: We're in denial.
Cheryl: Apparently so.
Alan: And we will be for the next meeting.
Nick: May I just note on that subject, that we are imminently awaiting the posting in other languages of the ALAC review final report and the staff have been apprised that, like the situation with the RAA review, the community will be working on the ALAC review. But those members of the community who are not primarily English speakers, will quite naturally be waiting to read it in French and Spanish and several other languages. So I… this is the same situation with the RAA review, you'll have seen the briefing note. So I'm, for what it's worth, it doesn't shock me that people are waiting until everyone can participate equally.
Alan: Nick, I hope staff understands that if the ALAC is to formulate a position, we cannot do it until everyone has access. So it's not just the other language comments that are due… that are accepted… may be accepted late, I hope.
Nick: It was made clear on the RAA review and on the ALAC review report, that since part of ALAC needs languages other than English, ALAC as a whole will review the documents when everyone has the ability to read them at the same time.
Male: Thank you.
Nick: And no one expects that comments will come at other times, with respect to the RAA review, ALAC's views were asked for. in particular by the board and everyone is aware that those will be coming, but they will not come during the public review period. Indeed, ALAC does not have to, since they're an advisory committee, as you know.
Male: That being said, we need to put process in place to actively generate some comments when we can read them.
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Annette: I was told… may I? Annette here.
Cheryl: Yes, Annette, go ahead.
Annette: I was told that I would be called, but no one called yet, of the committee who is responsible now for the review. I don't know, what was the lady's name who is…
Nick: Trisha Drakes?
Annette: Yeah, right. Maybe it makes sense that I get her email address or something.
Nick: We could perhaps delve too far of this sort… into this topic, because it's not right at this point in the agenda, but Trisha is sending the secretariat's individual invitations, to set up a time where each RALO may speak to the ALAC review working group individually via teleconference.
Cheryl: I think Annette's point was that she had organized to have a call, it hasn't happened.
Annette: Right. They told me that they would call me.
Nick: Okay, I'll speak to… I'll arrange a call for you.
Annette: Great.
Female: And thank you for the secretariats, we haven't heard from her either.
Nick: Yes, it's… they've been provided with your email addresses and I'm… it's in their hands.
Male: Can we go back to the agenda? I'm sorry for causing the disruption.
Cheryl: Well, actually I'm thinking I should basically just ask how much more do we need to talk about this and finish it off now. Because the ALAC as a whole, will have to respond.
Male: I would like to see a discussion, a good half hour or something. Which means everyone has to have read at least the executive summary before we do that. Before trying to formulate an answer, right, we need to discuss it. We need to talk about what we think is good, what we think is stupid and whatever. The translation…
Cheryl: 21 a dedicated teleconference and the use of, say the Adobe room, for a single topic discussion. It certainly has my support and I believe is in keeping with what Fetamartir and some of the other African representatives were asking for, because it allows us greater ease with the different language requirements as well. So if we can ask staff to set that up sometime in, perhaps either the last week of August or the first week of September, would that suit everybody?
Male: Nick, will we have the translations of the executive summaries by then?
Nick: You'll have the translations of the full report… well, they are due from the translators on the 12th, so they should be posted by the 13th or 14th of August, this month.
Male: That means… okay.
Cheryl: That means that we could definitely do something in, say the last week of August or the first week in September.
Female: Hello, 24?
Cheryl: Yes?
Male: Fine with me.
Cheryl: Okay, well, can we set up a doodle and work that out please and at the same time, Nick, if you can ensure that a little follow up happens with Trisha and the committee too, it would be nice if the timing of the calls out to the RALOs was somewhat in sync with this activity of ours.
Nick: We'll work with them to coordinate that.
Cheryl: Is that to everybody's satisfaction?
Male: I would think the calls with the RALOs, coming after our discussion, might be more appropriate. If we have any unified position, it can then be presented independently as well.
Hawa: Hawa agrees.
Cheryl: Okay, thank you Hawa.
Male: Or if they disagree, they can say so.
Cheryl: Yeah. Nick can we do our best to make sure there's some synchronicity then?
Nick: Indeed.
Cheryl: Thank you. Okay, back onto the agenda, slipped one in there. I wonder if you got anything else up your sleeve or…
Male: Not that I thought of yet.
Cheryl: Okay, fine thanks. Perhaps you could Skype at me…
Male: Sorry about that. laughs
Cheryl: You may eventually be forgiven. You may have to pick a night that we are short on time and wanting to fit in a very important conversation with an extended audience. However, we will battle on. The next point which I was labouring over, and Nick, hopefully you've got the answer to this now, were you able to put together a short list of action items from the 22nd of July? From memory, all of them are covered, but if there's any outstanding ones, have you found them for me?
Nick: I'm just looking at them since Matthias is on the Spanish line and I was expecting he was going to pipe forward with these, but I don't see any that are not done. Excepting that Alan, you were going to send slight changes to the motion on the wording on what ALAC would do related to the working group on GNSO improvements.
Alan: Which is moot now, because it was included, but I will follow through and get words just so our minutes are complete.
Nick: Yes, that's really all there was and I note that Sebastien was to speak with Hawa immediately after the last call to go through…
Cheryl: Oh, that happened 18.
Nick: And that went through, it's all done and I see no other unfinished business. All the mailing lists and stuff is done so…
Cheryl: Okay, right, we now need to move on to the current status of ALS applications. Those of you who have a Google Docs account, will be able to view the spreadsheet. Nick, can you do a [56 on how we are, the last ones that we had approved? If they've moved on in the 04.
Nick: Just opening it now. We are waiting imminently for the ARISPA application to be withdrawn, as they are joining the business constituency, but they are still technically there. ISOC New York has been approved. The North American Application Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities, was approved. The remaining application then is from Internaute Chile, the Chilean branch of Internaute. We have received this application on the 23rd of August, it has been… of July, it has been acknowledged, of course. We are getting the application translated, at which point a due diligence form will be forthcoming.
Cheryl: Okay, so we're tracking well on all of those?
Nick: Happily.
Cheryl: Okay, and there's no things we need to be concerned about at this stage? I assume not. Okay, I note then the liaison report from the both the ccNSO, thank you Jacqueline and the IDN reports are up. I'll encourage the other liaisons to do the same, but because Wendy's on the call, I'll give her the opportunity to give some very important feedback from the board liaison please. Wendy?
Wendy: So I've sent my report to the mailing list. I hope it was the correct mailing list after all our work shuffling, but it is there.
Cheryl: Wendy, I for one, need a gun at the back of my head to go and read the mailing list in my busy day. So if I'm going to dealing it… with something at a meeting, I'd really like to see it linked like the rest of the reports to the meeting, or copies…
Wendy: Well, then I once again request… ask the staff, please link from the mailing list to the wiki, because I require a gun to my head to visit things on the web that I could easily read in a mailbox.
Cheryl: Well, once again we find ourselves at an impasse yet again Wendy. Thank you, if there's anything that anybody wishes to raise in terms of questions to Wendy, from the report that she's put on the list, and I trust that the rest of you have had the time, the energy and the inclination, to read the mailing list today and get the report, please raise it now.
Nick: For what it is worth, I can say that Wendy's list went to the ALAC's public working list.
Cheryl: That the one I'm talking about I need a gun at the back of my head to go and look at in a busy day.
Beau: I have a question on Wendy's statement, this is Beau.
Cheryl: Go ahead Beau, thank you.
Beau: Wendy makes a really important point in the last paragraph, about the registrar accreditation agreement. I know that the RAA is probably on the agenda for later in the call, but it does sort of urge us, it says, "When even the US Department of Commerce is concerned about ICANN's lack of contractual enforcement of the RAA, shouldn't the ALAC make another plug for third party beneficiary status for the affected public?" I would agree with that and suggest that, you know, we really use the opportunity of the extension that's been given to us for the translation, to make a strong statement. Not only about that, but about lack of contractual enforcement in general. So that's my two cents.
Wendy: Thanks Beau, I think that might be important because the registrants and individual users, are basic to ICANN's enforcement. Whether these contracts have any meaning at all and putting a clear third party beneficiary status in, essentially says, the public is affected by these contracts. The public should, in the appropriate circumstances, be able to enforce them or take other actions to enforce them on the public. 33 individual members of the public or a class of the affected public, rather than waiting for ICANN to determine that, on balance, it will do something to enforce its contractual rights. Since the web of contracts is set up without governmental authority above, would be the way for the public to assert its right as quasi citizens in the web here.
Male: Are we having a discussion on this right now or this is just your report? If we're having a discussion, then I think we need to allow some significant time for it and I'm not sure if that's on our agenda today, Cheryl?
Cheryl: It's not on the agenda, but it needs to be on an agenda or a time as inaudible over talking.
Male: Oh, I agree, I'm just asking, do we continue on this right now, because I also have some opinions. But I don't want to get waylaid.
Female: Alan, if you have a criticism on that, I would like to know, because I thought otherwise we could agree on this, you know, so I think it would be helpful if you said something.
Female: And then we can decide if we need a further, longer discussion.
Alan: There's a train somewhere in my background.
Female: Is that the place you live at?
Alan: No, no, it's on the phone I mean. Okay, I'm not at all sure third party is something we want to look at right now. That adds yet another expensive lawsuit that individuals are not going to be able to avail themselves on of… just like the current dispute mechanisms. I really think we need to push hard for policies that are going to benefit the small user and for ICANN to enforce those policies. I think putting our efforts in the other direction is, to some extent, a waste of our effort and doesn't serve the commu… the larger community that we're trying to serve. Whether it's good in an ideal world is a different issue. I don't… it's not something that I would want to put our efforts and our name behind.
Cheryl: Okay, well, then it sounds like we're going to have a clear view on this matter and we need to pursue a time to discuss this further and come up with an ALAC view. How do you to proceed on that? Annette?
Annette: Well, is there a possibility that the two of you could figure out what the problem is? I mean, Wendy and Alan, so that…
Alan: We're likely to keep on disagreeing on this.
Annette: No, no, so it's clear for all of us, what are the different… the differences.
Alan: I’m sure either of us could write a short statement saying what the words mean.
Cheryl: Well, he put up a page or place where a 46…
Annette: Whose train is that now?
Cheryl: That is an awful background noise.
Male: Cheryl, I can't hear what you're saying.
Cheryl: I can't hear what I'm saying. Okay, somebody has a very noisy background. Okay, star six, it's in mute. We need to obviously discuss this further. I understand Annette, it would be nice to have a consensus developed by two people and the rest of us accept it. Alan suggested that it's very unlikely that he and Wendy will see eye to eye on this particular matter, but what's important is that the ALAC come up with some form of response or statement, which may, in fact, take into consideration even a diversity of views. How are we going to do that if having a broader discussion from participants such as Beau and Wendy and Alan, in some sort of format will assist us in that, how will we do it?
Nick: I have a thought which may help you.
Cheryl: Go ahead Nick.
Nick: There is a link to the RAA briefing page on this agenda. May I suggest that as in our invitation, we have asked that those who have questions or comments or statements to make, if they could use a comment button on that page to make them, it will make it easier to prepare materials for that briefing.
Cheryl: That sounds like an excellent plan. Does that work for you Beau? You're pretty much in charge of that area.
Annette: Why don't you just put it on the ALAC list? I mean, I'm just wondering, to me it makes perfect sense to have a third party beneficiary status, but if Alan says there's a problem with it, I would like to understand and if you could just put it on the ALAC list and say what is the problem here and Wendy could…
Cheryl: Is there a problem on it showing on the RAA page?
Beau: I was just un-muting this as though… to answer Cheryl's question, Nick's suggestion sounds fine with… sounds great to me.
Cheryl: Annette, it's no more difficult to read the page comments than it is read a list comment, is there a reason that you'd prefer it only on the list?
Annette: Yes, sure because it makes the discussion transparent and easy for everyone to see and understand.
Nick: The reason why I suggested the comment button, is because there are going to be people attending the briefing who are not from this community, but who are, for example, from the business communities and if they see comments that are similar to their own views, it may be helpful in cross community work on this subject.
Male: I have no problem adding comments to the briefing page in respect to this briefing, but if we're to try to have a real dialogue as to what's going on, I far prefer mailing lists, because they're pushed to me. If I have to go look at 150 different pages and I know I get notices knowing they've changed, but I don't have time to go look at how they've changed. I just will not… I'll not be part of the real conversation if there's any active discussion going on.
Cheryl: Well, of course we realize that there'll be equal and opposite views, absolutely, probably in equal numbers to that as well. So what we need to ensure is that an active participation and discussion goes on, on the list and that it is, in some way, by someone, transcribed across to the comments as well. Does that satisfy everybody's needs?
Nick: Which we will certainly do.
Male: Okay.
Cheryl: Fine, well, I look forward to seeing the flurry of conversation and debate on this matter. Okay…
Wendy: Wendy Seltzer.
Wendy left
Cheryl: Immediately, I do hope Wendy comes back, because the next item are the issues to be raised at the ICANN board meeting. We may as well pass over on that, unless anyone here has got some inner knowledge on matters that may be on the next board meeting agenda, that we need to discuss.
Wendy: Wendy.
Wendy joined
Male: The next board meeting's going to be making a decision on GNSO.
Cheryl: Thank you, that's also an item we have clearly listed in the agenda. With the exception of the GNSO, are there any other matters that we'd like to ensure Wendy raises at the next ICANN board meeting? Anything from the various regional representatives or RALO representatives? Anything that's been raised in your teleconferences?
Robert: Cheryl, this is Robert. One of the comments that's come up, and I think we'll hit it later in the agenda, is the whole issue of the travel policy and so I'll reserve my comments till later. But in summary, it's just, I'm curious as to what the status is and if that could be raised at the board conversation, it would be useful to get direction from Wendy on that.
Cheryl: Wendy, do you have any comments at all on the travel funding and travel policy, at this stage?
Wendy: As I understand it, the policy was to be circulated to chairs today. It's, at this point, not something formally up for board approval, but as an advisory committee, if we have comments or concerns about it, we should most certainly make those heard by the board.
Male: I'd like to ask a question related to that.
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Male: Wendy, can you explain a little bit of the history of how the, let's cut the ALAC budget half case, was tied to this… to the summit? I mean, the motion was read by you. From what I recall, you said that the night before, it hadn't been… or the day before or whatever, it hadn't been there. Can you comment at all on what happened?
Wendy: There has been no discussion about that at the board level and I will initiate that discussion to try to figure out whether people are, in fact, in agreement with that or whether they want to change the resolution.
Male: It's certainly convenient to leave it there now that it's already been made. I’m just talking about the mechanics of, you know, were you just given a piece of paper that suddenly had those extra words in it that you weren't expecting or what?
Wendy: There was no discussion of those words and yes, they appeared in one of the drafts. Nobody noticed them or said anything about them and that was the resolution that was made. There was a complaint about the Paris schedule was, that there was very little time for discussion of a whole lot of items from 13.
Male: Okay, I mean, I understand the awkward position you are in, talking against the motion that you had made, but it certainly was a very awkward position.
Wendy: 25 I don't get to make motions, I merely was presented a piece of paper and asked, "Won't you read this, because it relates to ALAC." So that doesn't either reflect a particular role.
Cheryl: It might be useful though to draw on that information when we respond to whatever we see, when we eventually see it. Now Jacqueline, you had a question that was specifically for Wendy?
Jacqueline: Yeah, it's about the same resolution, but more specifically, rather than going to the whole travel policy that we don't as yet have, we could just request explanation of that particular resolution that talks about the maturation of At-Large and linking the summit to the… which they already said in their previous resolution was a one time event. Linking that to more self funding for At-Large travel in the fiscal 20… 10 year plan.
Wendy: Sorry, I missed… I'm on a bad connection and I missed the question.
Jacqueline: Well, what I was suggesting, is that rather than wait and discuss the… wait to see a travel policy and estimate the travel policy that we haven't yet officially seen. That we should request more information about the actual resolution that came up, which doesn't have actual numbers in it, but does say that there should be more self funding in 2010. That the resolution 2008, 06 26 70…
Male: Well, it does say, apply the same rules as for other organizations which is 50%.
Jacqueline: It says, consistent with the travel policies of other constituencies.
Male: That's right.
Jacqueline: If you'd like to request more information on this or on how the board sees that resolution being implemented, yes, I will certainly ask, so that we can get some more information without just, you know, thinking about what it could mean. We ask them specifically what do they mean when they do that and why.
unknown left
Cheryl: Yeah, so I think… go ahead Wendy.
Wendy: I would love to be able to make that request coupled with some specific policy input, because I can see how, from other people's perspectives, it might appear that the thing that gets ALAC most exercise, is discussion of its funding and it would be wonderful to be able to counter that immediately with a, "no hero" way that the ALAC is specifically working in issues and therefore that the funding is benefiting the ICANN community, not just ALAC.
Female: I'd agree with that.
Wendy: So if we could be forwarding these things in parallel, that would be excellent.
Nick: Wendy, perhaps you could use the three ALAC statements that were sent through in May, if those have yet to be debated.
Male: Can you help us know what those are?
Wendy: ALAC statements that were sent in May?
Nick: In May.
Cheryl: To the board, yes, including the one on travel policy.
Nick: In detail.
Wendy: Good, okay, funding.
Nick: Not just funding, there's quite a lot more in there than that.
Male: I tend to agree with Wendy, it's going to be abbreviated by others as travel funding.
Nick: There's three statements there, only one of them relates to travel.
Female: And the other two?
Cheryl: Well, currently what I'm hearing is, we're not productive enough to be worthy of the funding, without… at our current state, in most of the… well, some of the board view. So we have two choices. We become a great deal more productive and argue strongly to 38 be funded, or we don't.
unknown joined
Wendy: And there are definitely people on the board who make a cost benefit analysis and suggest that ALAC doesn't justify its cost. The more we can do to show work in policy areas, the better arguments I have to say, sure, we're maturing and that's why it's critical that we keep funding, rather than cut it out from under the group just as it's becoming productive.
Cheryl: I certainly would have thought that you'd have to be willingly blind, to not see the productivity that's been coming out of the ALAC in the last little while and that includes, not just those three, but a number of other working group activities. The briefings and the outreach for the community. However, I'm sure the ALAC can, if not the whole of the ALAC, the executive, can come up with a set of words to give you to 55.
Wendy left
Cheryl: To be able to see them written for you. Okay, let's move on to our ratification on the last item which is the ratification and status of ALAC statements. The only one we already have listed for tonight is, in the items for decision below and that has to do with the ALAC… the proposed ALAC statement on GNSO council structure and working group report.
So if we move on to items for decision at this meeting, yes, Robert, go ahead.
Robert: Yeah, I just want to relay, because I think that if Wendy's on the phone, she might not be on Skype. So Fetamartir was just mentioning that you really make sense. I just wanted to rely that she has posted on Skype that you might have not been able to read.
Annette: I think Wendy just left.
unknown joined
Male: Thank you inaudible.
Nick: 52.
Female: Wendy, are you on again?
Cheryl: No, she's not on Skype, you're right, but…
Robert: So just on the transcript, as long as the transcript reflects it and just as long as we cover the fact that not everyone is on the call, but there is a conversation also on Skype about it. So that's all.
Male: Vanda made the same comment.
Audio cuts out 3 sec
Cheryl: 19 and star six inaudible.
Male: I don't know what you just said.
Cheryl: I was complaining about the noisy background 33, star six. Okay, items for decision at this meeting. The first item is the At-Large mailing list moderation. We've had a little bit of list discussion and we need to take the view of the ALAC, but I will also take the view of anyone else on this call, including liaisons any of RALO people who've joined us. And I suppose I'll even listen to staff, seeing as they've had to do the moderation to date, which they tell me has been quite onerous. In terms of the mailing list moderation questions, you will have noted that…
Ron: Ron Sherwood.
Ron joined
Cheryl: I have suspended one particular person on the mailing list, Mr. Williams. That suspension was attached with the rata that the duration for the suspension will be decided by the ALAC and this meeting. I'd like the ALAC to have a 45 fairly short because most of you will be fairly certain how you want this to have an outcome. The… it's not so much a review of the decision, thanks Robert, it's actually a duration of the suspension discussion and the decision sits with the chair.
The reason the chair has resisted suspending anybody, regardless of how worthy or otherwise people think comments from them are, is that I personally find it almost impossible to believe a level of censorship in a public list that includes suspension, rather than exercising moderation and control, should ever be exercised. I am, however, one person, not the whole of the ALAC and it would appear to me that not only a majority in the ALAC, but a majority on the list, feel differently on that matter than I do. And so if we are to have this suspension for a significant length of time or indeed to be permanent, I would like to be assured that those actions are the will of the wider community. Because they are certainly not the will of me.
I open the floor for a five or six minute discussion on the matter.
Alan: It's Alan, can I be on the list, or am I on the list?
Cheryl: 24 something Alan, nobody else has pinged me, it's all yours.
Alan: I have a question to ask, prior to my answer. It's one I asked on the list regard… when I asked a day or two ago about cross posting and related things. The At-Large list, are ALAC members or RALO members required to be on it, to read it and to respond if appropriate?
Cheryl: Not to my knowledge. Nick, is there any mandate for ALAC and RALO members to have anything to do with the public list?
Nick: They are not. When a new ALS joins, their authorized representative is added to the regional list, to the At-Large public list, read, write public list and to the ALAC announced list.
Alan: When you say internal list, which list do you mean?
Nick: Regional, not internal.
Alan: Regional, okay sorry.
Cheryl: And we get people, because I get the adding on all those lists, we get people constantly being suspended, simply because their mails are bouncing or it hasn't been picked up and many of those people have been… are names I recognize, who, you know, never…
Alan: Okay, the reason I was asking is…
Cheryl: Re-subscribe.
Alan: Sorry?
Cheryl: They never re-subscribe.
Alan: The reason I was asking is, on the GA list, which is all… sort of the compliment of At-Large, or the corresponding list on At-Large for the GNSO, there a number of GNSO counsellors who read it, there are certainly some who occasionally post. It is explicitly stated that they are not obliged to. In other words, this is not the definitive conduit by which At-Large can get hold of its counsellors or its RALO executive. If that is the policy that we have, and I think we should state it clearly, then all of us are free to filter out mail from people we don't want to read and just leave it at that.
Beau: I have… this is Beau, I have a motion… a comment to make.
Cheryl: Yeah, go ahead Beau, because we know you definitely voted for permanent sanction.
Beau: When I made a post to the public list about making a motion to suspend Jeff Williams indefinitely, Jeff Williams in turn, wrote a threatening letter to my company, saying that he was going to call law enforcement, because consumer reports and consumer's unions, domain names, there's some problem with the way that their DNS server is configured or some other nonsense. So it took up two days of my time having to meet with people in my own company to, like, address this situation and, you know, I don't think this is a matter of censorship. On every working group list that I've participated on, and I've participated on a lot, there are certain rules for conduct and, you know, engaging in threatening behaviour like that is not acceptable. And so the person, you know, doing something like that, should lose his privilege to be able to participate in the list.
Cheryl: And I must say Beau, your experience is not exclusive and over, I think, what must be almost a… certainly an eight, if not a ten year history with Mr. Williams. I've seen him do that any number of times, with any number of people in organizations in the past. So I can indeed sympathize, so I hear what you're saying and I well and truly understand it is quite untenable. Anybody else to comment?
Robert: This is Robert. I think, in terms of, kind of the first two questions. I mean, if we have some basic rules of conduct, that would be what we would… should be using to guide us. If we don't, that should be done, I mean, hearing comments, both from Beau and from others, I think that repeated threats, repeated comments to him that, you know, please be on track, but also going to offline and threatening behaviour, is not compatible with a civil discussion about the complex issues that we need to talk about. His efforts only take away the very little available time that we have and I think it makes us less productive.
And so, you know, indefinite suspension is not something that I would agree with, but something that is a suspension that then gets revisited would be… I would say, you know, suspending him for a significant period of time and revisiting that suspension, would be useful and let me suggest a six month suspension and then revisiting that in five months.
Annette: I'm fine with that, but it should be published on the list.
Robert: Indeed it should be open.
Annette: No, no, I mean, you have to publish a reason on the list, why you suspend someone.
unknown left
Robert: Agreed.
Annette: For transparency reasons. That this is not just something anonymously done, but to say, okay, here is someone who offended and threatened several people and this is why, in half a year, he has the chance to come back.
Male: Why should he have the chance to come back?
Robert: I would… let me just maybe explain further, so in six months, we will re-evaluate it and we will either extend it or not. But I mean, it's not that he will be given another chance 16.
Hawa: I have a comment from Hawa.
Cheryl: One moment then. Yeah, okay, I understand Robert and I think Annette, you need to realize that whenever he has been either moderated or suspended, the reason has gone to the list and that's certainly what happened this time. So it's not that it should happen, it does happen. Go ahead Hawa.
Hawa: What I would propose is that the person in charge of deciding the rules in regards to the suspension, depending of the degree of fault and depending of the seriousness of fault, they should decide the time period of suspension depending, for example, one month, two months, six months instead of just deciding a whole time period or something. Do you understand what I mean?
Cheryl: Back to Hawa, Cheryl here. Yes, we understand what she means. That's what the rules of procedure say. That is certainly something that the chair has the right to do, indeed has the responsibility to do. The chair however, wished to have something as serious as permanent suspension, discussed by the ALAC as a whole and that's why we're having this conversation now.
Hawa: Very well.
Cheryl: Thank you. Go ahead Beau.
Beau: Just another quick comment, I mean…
Female: When you talk about permanent suspension, you mean remove the person permanently from the list? Is that it?
Cheryl: Correct, that would be permanent suspension. Robert suggested a period of six months and now Beau has another comment. Go ahead Beau.
Male: Excuse me, Cheryl, correction. We're not talking about removing him from a list, we're removing his posting rights, I believe. Is that correct?
Cheryl: That is actually… yes, he can still read, just not post.
Female: But does this mean that the person would no longer be a member of ALAC as well? Or not be allowed to be a member of ALAC later? Or how is that related to that?
Male: They are still… they will still be a member of the mailing list, which is all we're discussing. They are not a member of the committee, but they will not be able to post to the mailing list, they will only be able to read.
Cheryl: Go ahead Beau.
Beau: My comment is simply, there are many, many things for us to do. We have a lot of work to do and, you know, having to take my time offline to deal with this person who has made a threat, I just don't have the time and if we can't come to some sort of agreement that this is not a bad thing and, you know, we've talked about giving him chances over and over again and…
Cheryl: Well, we have given him chances over and over again. He's failed to self moderate, so that's why he's suspended.
Male: Let's make a decision then.
Cheryl: Well, we have… what I see is two options on the table. One, for a six month suspension and review, and one for permanent suspension at this time. Beau you’re…
Male: Ron Sherwood.
Cheryl: Beau, your motion 49 I think more than generously seconded and supported in the list, for permanent suspension. Do you wish to have the six month suspension motion looked at first? Or do you want to run with your original? In other words, will you accept looking at the six month option ahead of yours?
Annette: Cheryl, may I? Annette here.
Cheryl: Yes Annette.
Annette: I understood the six month retention is something that you give someone a new chance, not that we review it, because there is nothing to review. After six months, if he had been off, you know, he had been off, I don't understand what Robert… maybe he can answer, what was his purpose his proposal there. I… normally I understand, it's just like you give a certain period of time and it may be six months, it may be a year, I don't care 52.
Robert: Annette, this is like a parole review. That is, you're in jail and this board meets to decide whether we let you out or not.
Annette: Exactly and this is exactly what I thought, you know, there is nothing to review, you just automatically give him a new chance. Because there is nothing to review except he is doing something on other list.
Robert: Are you advocating that we do that or just questioning?
Annette: I'm saying I would advocate if it was a different proposal, instead of reviewing after, say… I don't want to deal with that issue in six months. I just say, we make a decision now, either we just kick him out and forever, which I don't think is a good thing. Or we just give a timeline and then he has a second chance and we let him know. Either then he behaves or not and then he gets kicked out again.
Robert: But remember, we also have evidence of what he's doing on other lists at the same time. Right now he is very vocal on the North American list, which has not stopped his posting rights. So it's not… we do have evidence, even 58.
Ron: This is Ron, may I make a comment?
Cheryl: Ron, please go ahead, yes.
Ron: This man has a history. I suffered with him over the years. We tried everything to persuade him to behave, nothing has ever worked. This is… we're being very polite and very nice here and while we're trying to come up with politically correct solutions, the fact is, the man is a troll. He is damaging our system of operating and the only way to deal with him is to suspend him and we can be nice and say, "You're only suspended for three months and we will let you back, but if you misbehave again, you're gone forever." I think that's the only way to go and I think the decision should be made now.
Male: Hear, hear.
Cheryl: That comes back to two points on the table. A six month suspension, then back in and any deviation from the rules results in permanent suspension. Or permanent suspension now. Which of those two items do you want to deal with first?
Male: I support the former.
Beau: I support permanent suspension.
Female: Yeah, I support too.
Ron: I support permanent suspension, but if we want to protect ourselves from criticism, I think that the six months suspension, if he does come back, he will misbehave and he could be suspended permanently.
Female: Exactly, I agree with that.
Female: I agree with Beau's solution.
unknown joined
Male: I would agree that the six month's suspension and then the clear notification that there's any problems again, that he would be banned permanently and that we made very publicly.
Cheryl: Vanda, you had 38.
Hawa: This is Hawa, me as well, six months first and then if it happens again, then it goes permanent.
Cheryl: Okay, thank you, Vanda?
Vanda: Yeah, I, for me, Beau's solutions are acceptable. So whatever is the majority, I am with.
Jacqueline: It's Jacqueline. I have one quick question.
Carlos: Carlos Aguirre would like to make a comment.
Cheryl: Carlos first and then Jacqueline, go ahead.
Carlos: I think that what this man is looking for is to be suspended permanently. So that to generate, like, cause and look like a martyr. I think that we should show that we use all the… our resources, before the permanent suspension. I think that it'll be good to give him a period of… a proof… a period of suspension, perhaps for one month, two months and up to six months and if he continues, then permanently. But to show that we are following the mechanisms, organized in such a manner that… so that he shouldn't be seen as a person who was expelled without any trials or discriminated against.
Cheryl: Thank you Carlos, Jacqueline?
Jacqueline: I agree that with regard to how we look to other people, it would be good to give the suspension with the clear notice that says, yes, if you mess up again, then you're out permanently. But I do have one concern, which is, he does have everyone's contact information from posting on the list and so forth. What would you do if he does online harassment of individuals or groups or just a whole list of us? With… even while his posting to the list as a whole, is suspended. Would that trigger additional, you know, additional sanctions on him? Because in six months, he can write loads of letters to Beau's office. He can write… he can send emails upon emails to individuals. He could flood your mailbox, he can do all sorts of really horrible things that are not on the list.
Ron: Yes, this is Ron. May I comment on Jacqueline's comment please?
Cheryl: Yes, please, go ahead and then we need to finish, I've let this run three minutes longer.
Ron: I agree that that is a possibility, but I don't agree that we need to discuss it at this point, because it hasn't happened. I think that we should deal with the suspension and any other issue should be treated as a different issue.
Cheryl: Thank you for that Ron. Now I totted up, from the ALAC voices I heard, with the number of ALAC…
Sebastien: Sorry I… sorry, Sebastien, I wanted to…
Cheryl: Yes, go ahead Sebastien.
Sebastien: Yeah, I am… I disagree with that was just said, because he is already doing that. When he's cut off from the list or when the mail are not going to the list, he is sending to some people on this list, the same mail and I am one among those and I think we need to say that at six month's period, if he is using any mail that come from that list, it will be a case for not having him letting back in six months.
Cheryl: All right. Having totted up, I see one, two, three, four, five, six and one… a dollar each way from Vanda, supporting a six month's suspension with a review. I hear the quite reasonable suggestion that any misbehaviour or basis for complaint from anyone, should be direct to those who will be reviewing it. Those who will be reviewing it is me, so any complaints and I will note yours, thank you Beau, from tonight that any further issues from this gentleman, if you can privately send them on to me, we will accumulate a portfolio. We will review a six month's suspension, any digression after six months will result in permanent suspension and any justified complaints from any individual who is harassed in between now and the end of that six months, will result in the same permanent suspension. Is there anyone who wishes to have their name listed as an abstention to that? All right, okay…
Ron: I don't suffer from that problem because I blocked his mails a long time ago.
Cheryl: Well, I had my 06 blocking of his mails, very happily, everything that he ever sent, went to the garbage bin for many, many years and when I became the Chair of ALAC, unfortunately I had to reverse that. So believe me, I empathise.
Right, moving on now, we will be five minutes into the time I've asked the RALO representatives to join us. Can I ask Nick or anyone who knows who's joining the call, other than… well, who have we got? We've got North America on, have we got anyone else? How many other… how many RALO reps are in the call?
Male: Point of order Cheryl. You asked if anyone abstained. I don't think you asked if anyone voted no.
Cheryl: Well, I'll now ask, who wants to vote no?
Male: Then it's unanimous.
Cheryl: So with the RALO reps, who do we have here?
Ron: Cheryl, please excuse, I have to leave the meeting, thank you.
Cheryl: Oh, thank you and thank you for sharing so much time with us so far and you've certainly made a contribution Ron, thank you very much.
Ron: Thank you, bye now.
Sebastien: Cheryl, it's Sebastien. I am supposed to be for my first call in ESTP PDP conference call. Maybe I can left now and need to use 46 or you need me to stay?
Cheryl: If you need to leave now, we have the non-com appointees recommendations from the RALO decision and the ALAC statement on the council structure, our GNSO council structure, which you've been intimately involved with anyway.
Sebastien: Then I will stay, okay thank you.
Cheryl: Okay, thank you. So who do we have from RALO? I’m seeing people who aren’t here listed that… is there anyone…
Hawa: This is Hawa, I do have to go as well.
Cheryl: Okay, Hawa. We might remind all the ALAC people at this time, that our meetings are traditionally scheduled now for 90 minutes, not for one hour. So those of you who are leaving now, perhaps could reorganize their lives a little bit more conducively to carrying out their full ALAC requirements in the future.
Male: It would be useful if the draft agenda says that though.
Cheryl: The agenda used to say it. If it doesn't now, then that, I can assure you, will be fixed, because it's been 90 minutes since I've been chair and that is how…
Male: Just pointing it out.
Cheryl: That is how we set the agenda up to fit that time. Okay. Now, Darlene, as far as I know, is the only person here from the RALO, is that correct?
Hawa: And I do apologize, it's for family reasons, so I do have to go at this time.
Cheryl: Not a problem, thank you Hawa. Is Darlene even still on the call?
Darlene: Oh, yeah, I'm here.
Cheryl: Darlene, un-mute, un-mute! laughs
Darlene: I've been madly Skyping. laughs
Cheryl: Okay, see it wasn't coming up on my Skype, so I apologize for not seeing you. No, I wasn't getting anything from you on my Skype. Okay, so Darlene, it escapes me how we can have a fruitful conversation with all the RALOs, about how to get a best practice model in getting the statements pro-actively or in a good time, prepared from the ALSs and the RALOs, so that they fit into the public comment periods. Obviously the ALAC has the luxury of being able to put in comments outside of public comment periods. But what I'd like to do is perhaps break for a short period of time and hear from you, with the awesome responsibility as the sole representative of all RALOs here. How would you see some sort of better working mechanism? How can we make it easier?
Darlene: Oh, great. laughs Okay, well, we just had our North American RALO conference call yesterday and we were kind of chatting about some of this stuff. It just seems… so speaking from the North American point of view only, I can't speak on everybody's behalf, but things that we should be commenting on, oftentimes we don't even know that we should be, because we aren't sure of the comment periods. Also, we're not even sure which is taking to precedent within ALAC to get feedback from the RALOs and ALSs.
So if we know that ALAC is working on policy X, and needs feed… you know, input, then we would do it, or would try at least. We'd, you know, try to rally the troops. If, however, we don't know what ALAC is working on or what policies are priority, then we just do our own thing. For example, coming out of the Paris meeting, if we hadn't had some certain outspoken non-com members in our, you know, group and such, we wouldn't have even known about the changes in the travel policy and stuff like that.
So it's critical things like that, that if it's not picked up on and shunted through somehow, then we don't know to comment on it and I don't… Jacqueline, you can speak more on this, but I don't think LAC RALO even realized about the travel policy changes until I started putting out a document and talking about it and getting it out there. So we definitely do need better communication back and forth, both ways. I'm not sure how to achieve that though.
Cheryl: Okay, Jacqueline, if you'd like to respond, if you've got a response?
Jacqueline: Yeah, well, with regard… as Darlene said, I saw what she was doing on the North American list and forwarded it to the LAC list, which then got all excited and started working on their own statement and so on. But there's a lot of… there's not that much information that comes from the ALAC to the… I don't know why, but the lists don't get those postings that say, hey, this is what's going on. This is what we need to do, this is the deadline, this is the document, in Spanish or in French and I've noticed that as well on the African list. Because I'm still a member of all kinds of lists and there hasn't been that much activity with regard to… I'm seeing things that come out from ALAC, but I'm not seeing it going down to those regions. I don't know if staff can make a point of forwarding or if… to the secretariats and have them, you know, 42 I mean, Darlene, I don't know what you think about that.
Darlene: I totally agree with you Jacqueline and yes, use the secretariats to get this information out. Or else we're sitting here going, ah, I know there's a bunch of important things coming up, but we have no idea what we're supposed to be doing about it.
Cheryl: Can I ask, and Nick, then you're next. Did the secretariat…
unknown left
Cheryl: Well, at least… whoever it was that just left, had the noisy background. Do the secretariats subscribe to the PushMail that comes out from the policy people on what’s on and when, because if they don't, they should.
Darlene: I don't know what you're referring to as PushMail.
Cheryl: There's a mail out that…
Male: The alert, ICANN News Alert.
Darlene: No, we're not 37.
Cheryl: It’s the news alert, okay, perhaps that might need to be addressed, because if… that in itself would make a big difference to several of those points, I think.
Nick: Well, one thing I can say, Nick speaking, is now that we have an announced list, which has all ALSs in it, we can of course send out announcements of new public consultation periods when they are posted to that list, to inform people. Now knowing that something is being… that something is being consulted on, is a different thing from deciding that you want to have a statement on it and how you're going to go about having one.
Darlene: That's exactly our point, yeah. Yes, I mean, having that in the announcements come out would be a big help, but if we don't know if, are we supposed to be taking a, you know, do we want to make a statement on it? Is ALAC making a statement on it? Should we be making a statement with them? Should we be sharing stuff? You know, all that kind of stuff.
Nick: Darlene, would it help, just as a suggestion, if the secretariats could have even a half an hour a month or at least every other month, just to coordinate between themselves? Because say we had five different policy advice development activities going on in a given month or something, that might help to coordinate what was happening when anyway.
Darlene: Yes, but we would also need ALAC input into what ALAC is doing as well. Not just what each region is doing.
Cheryl: Well, I think it possibly needs to be almost turned into a two-way street. The policy development, the statements should be being developed with ALS input at the RALO level, because that's where your ALS interests and your regional interests are going to be best represented. So anything that interests you that comes out for public comment, ALSs should be encouraged to comment on and RALOs should decide whether or not they wish to put a RALO wide comment in and certainly do so. That would then equip your RALO representatives on the ALAC, with a baseline set of views and information to seed into ALAC wide views.
Darlene: That's an excellent suggestion.
Cheryl: Because we, of course have the luxury of being able to put in things not just at public comment periods. And so I was rather hopeful that if we can get as many people as possible, at least into the alert list and is that… if the alert list can be… mail out can perhaps be replicated now onto the announced list, that might go a long way to that. But I also would like to think that, you know, a little cross RALO work might also be inspirational, as Nick just suggested.
We're not going to solve this right now and we're certainly not going to solve it with just one secretariat being here from North America and just a representation from regional representatives elsewhere. I would like, Nick, if possible, to enact what we can from what we've got here listed as the need for the ALAC, what we're working on, to be clear that's something we can fix. I think the new website has all the current working parts listed up. Perhaps the RALOs and the ALSs need to be encouraged to start 41 some of the ALAC members, I suspect, to use the new website, where what we're working on is more clearly defined. That will start going a long way towards that and with a better focus on what's coming up, I think that's something that we're just going to have to work on in terms of the language issue.
Nick: I can say Cheryl, for what it's worth, that the monthly policy summary of what is happening in policy terms which comes out, you can subscribe to an English, Spanish or French version of that and from next month forward, you will see, at the front, a listing with some brief explanation of what public comment periods are coming soon. So we are trying to be a bit more proactive in letting the community know when a consultation is coming, so that people can think about what they want to say, before it just arrives on the website.
Cheryl: So some of what we've been crying for, has actually been heard, that's good news indeed.
Nick: It's all the paddling under the water that goes on when you see my placid self above.
Cheryl: So I understand and…
Female: Is that from Denise Mitchell that comes out every month?
Nick: Denise Mitchell indeed.
Darlene: Yeah, that is really… tell her that is very useful. I really like that and I read it every month.
Nick: She'll be glad to hear it.
Jacqueline: Quick question. Is there any way that you can subscribe the LAC list to the Spanish version of the policy brief?
Nick: I am afraid to, because when I tried to be clever and subscribe every RALO list to the alert service, all it produced was a large number of emails from the alert service telling people they were subscribed to it and everyone got mad at me. So I'm a little worried.
Male: One should be able to suppress that for any given subscription, if you're managing the list.
Nick: Unsurprisingly, I did ask that it be silently subscribed, but you… that didn't quite work.
Male: Cheryl, can I get on the list for speaking on the original subject?
Cheryl: Yes, go ahead.
Male: You said that as an advisory committee, we have the luxury of not… of commenting outside of the advise period. That's true for things… for statements to the board, but even in that case, it might come after their decision. If we're commenting on other policy issues regarding PDPs or things like that, we don't have any special rules, if we don't make the cut-off, we don't make the cut-off.
Cheryl: And we're making far too great an effort in far too short a time, with far too many of them. So I think with some of what the policy group is doing and Darlene, what you get from Denise is… all the ALAC gets as well. So… in fact it's not the ALAC that gets it, it's just individual members who subscribe to it. So you get the information then with that, at exactly the same time as we do. There's no other…
Nick: We could send out a note in French, Spanish and English, reminding people that they can subscribe to the service and "click here."
Cheryl: That could be handy, it could make it easier.
Nick: Maybe to the announced list.
Jacqueline: Or Darlene, would the secretariat… since you get it anyway, if the secretariat subscribes, then they can just forward it 33?
Alan: Can I propose something?
Cheryl: Go ahead Alan.
Alan: We have mechanisms for talking about the details which we don't need to be talking about in this kind of meeting, of getting the overviews out to the secretariats, perhaps out to the ALSs. They also go to the… go or can go, to the ALAC. I think what we need to do is quickly be in the position to say yes, this is something we're interested in and it goes onto the list of active projects. If a RALO decides, one way or another, they're going to say something, then their representatives on the ALAC should tell the ALAC that yes, the African RALO is going to be commenting on something. If the ALAC decides or a single… even a single ALAC member says, "This is of strong interest to me, I would like to pursue this on behalf of the ALAC." Then that message needs to go out to the RALOs. We need the quick comments in both directions, saying there is some interest and we want to pursue this.
And then the appropriate people who are interested in it, can get together in some private chats or whatever and get it. But we can't wait a month to have a formal meeting to discuss something, when we're talking about a 30 day comment period.
Cheryl: Absolutely right.
Alan: So we need things in both directions. If people are not paying attention…
unknown joined
Alan: If people are not paying attention, then they're not paying attention and we can't fix it and it's going to be too late for them to do anything about it. So we need people in all the areas to pay attention, to comment and filter to the other groups, that there is some interest in this. Otherwise we're never going to be in a position to make statements on a timely manner.
Cheryl: Okay, thanks for that Alan. I think we need to revisit just again with respect, it needs to be revisited after everyone who needs to be subscribed, is subscribed. And after there's been a short trial of the secretariats perhaps getting together and for a short meeting, then ideally once a month and I will flag that we need to spend probably, I guess, 40 minutes or so in our next face to face meeting with the RALOs trying to get any of the details that we might need to finalize to make it work a little bit smoother. Darlene, is there anything else you'd like to raise on this matter?
Darlene: No, and I think those suggestions are excellent.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, thank you very much for joining us. I'm disappointed mainly that you weren't joined by many others.
Carlos: Carlos Aguirre would like to say something.
Cheryl: Please go ahead.
Carlos: I think it's important to take into account that when we talk about this topic of communication with RALO, the topic of reviewing the mechanism of it, of ALS, whether the ALS has the capacity or not. If we're going to work with ALS, we should work with… for ALS 55, yes, if we are going to work with… if we are going to work at a uni-personal level or with ALS, this is only a comment. So that we take into account the opportunity to discuss this when we should.
Cheryl: Thank you. One of the other things I suppose is that some ALSs may be far more active than others in their own comments forward and as the planning goes towards the summit, perhaps there might be some workshop time available for best practice models amongst the ALSs and indeed the RALOs, to be perhaps furthered and developed there. I'd like to think we had a well working model by then and we only have to finally polish it a little bit 59.
Hong: Sorry Cheryl, this is Hong. Can I have two comments? Thanks. All right, the first comment is that I think that our translation has so far been limited to three languages, English, French and Spanish and think about the people who are speaking other languages. Especially the largest internet population in the world, has not enjoyed any translation service so far and especially in Asia, this issue is very critical. And because people cannot understand the three languages and the wording and the wording of documents in these three languages, they cannot effectively reflect the will in the commentary period. And so we should really strategically expand our translation services, this one issue.
And then the second one is that sometimes and it could be possible to form, an ALAC 57 through the reflection, through the hierarchy of ALS, RALO and ALAC, it's sometimes possible. But sometimes it's not possible but it's because the people in different regions, have very different wills. The proposition, for instance, made by people from North America, could be very different from the people's will in Asia. So it could be helpful to summit the statement from different RALOs and the RALOs are independent organizations. It is not necessary to be submit to ALAC. So I guess we should really encourage the statement made by RALO or even an independent ALAC structure 45 thanks.
Cheryl: I tell you what Hong, we're reading from the same prayer book as far as I'm concerned. That is absolutely ideal.
Male: I'll point out, there is nothing prohibiting right now, in public comment periods, RALOs, ALSs or individuals from making comments.
Cheryl: No, we know it's not prohibited, it's just they seem to think it's the ALAC's only job and in fact, we really need to get more ALS and more RALO input to show any diversity and also to fit in to a more global ALAC view. Robert, go ahead.
Robert: Yeah, I just wanted to quickly support Hong's statement and was wondering if there's anything that we could do, as ALAC, to either start a small group or a committee to help make this happen, because I think that Hong's right. That the largest set of internet users, the next million or the next billion that comes online, should also be involved in, you know, though North America is very active right now, there are differences of opinion and different ways of engagement. And getting back to kind of the comment that we were talking about, that if we can show that we're also engaging internet users in other parts of the world, it adds to our value. And so any type of structures, small working groups that we might be able to create, I would be very supportive of.
Cheryl: Though I'm sure APRALO feels that's very much a part of their main focus. But yes, that's the whole purpose of us discussing it, both in Paris, in Delhi and here, is to try and facilitate a best practice model and that would include translation. We've also had discussions at APRALO where we can perhaps look at making available, with enough time, at least the executive summaries of things into local languages, because the ALS themselves have clear skill sets and enough technical experience to do that.
Of course what is missing from that equation, is getting the materials out in a timely manner. Things are coming out and there is only 30 days to respond and translation regardless of whether it's going to the internal ICANN process or whether an ALS, probably even more so, in a volunteer world, to be translated. Even if it's just an executive summary, it still takes time. So we need to work at it from both ends and that would include the policy development. I'd like to think that sometimes, as a result of some deliberations in Cairo, we might be able to come out with a white paper that the policy department in ICANN might consider, to be perhaps mechanisms that they could look at to make all of this work a lot better.
Anyway, Darlene, thank you very much. Please, if you can be bothered to continue to stay on the call, please do so. Pass on the thrill packed, exciting and entertaining experience that you've had to all the other secretariats that you converse with and tell them that they are more welcome, as is anybody, to join into our meetings. And I'd hope that many more of them join us next time they're invited to a specific topic, which I suspect could be similar to this topic in the future as well.
Right, moving on now to the very important matter of the non-com appointee recommendations from the RALOs. Nick, do we have the dates and things for all of that available? If not, I will continue on while hopefully someone gets me those dates. The non-com appointees, 12 months coming up, there are no appointees that were put to the nominating committee last year that are unable to serve a second term. So all current nom-com appointees could, should the ALAC so desire and the RALOs so recommend, be re-appointed for a second year.
We need to call and I hope we have called, to the RALOs to have how they feel this should go, whether or not the current incumbents are appropriate to be re-appointed or whether they have new suggestions for the ALAC to make their selections from. And hopefully Nick is now going to answer whether that’s happened and what the final date is for the ALAC decision.
Nick: I’m sorry, I was on mute and could not find… couldn’t get off.
Cheryl: Not a problem, I filibusted, hoping you would come back to us, so thank you.
Nick: Yeah, the… does everyone know who the appointees are at the present time?
Cheryl: It’d be worthwhile reading them out for the record, thanks.
Nick: For Africa, we have Khalad Koubaa. For AP, we have Kiritiana Tiru. For LAC, we have Matthias Altimira Gegina. For Europe we have Desiree Milosevic and for North America, we have Ross Raider.
Male: What is the mandated last date that we have to name these people?
Nick: The non-com would like…
unknown left
Nick: The non-com would like the new non-com reps or all non-com reps, whatever, by the first of September. So I believe there is some slight amount of flexibility there.
Male: So you mean they want the new reps before they say who was appointed… who they are appointing to the committees?
Darlene left
Nick: Indeed.
Male: Which puts us in a very difficult position of course.
Nick: They have noted that to me.
Male: Is it appropriate Cheryl, to ask the chair of the non-com for an evaluation of the people we named last time? I find this a very blind way of saying, we’re going to re-appoint someone and we have not a clue if they even attended the meetings, if they were a good discussant, if they were useful to the non-communication.
Nick: A conversation I had with Patrick Jones.
Male: And?
Cheryl: Hand on, there is not only a way on having the call on Thursday.
Male: And are you going to be free to pass this on to the RALOs confidentially or otherwise?
Cheryl: That’s one of the questions I’ll ask, but at least it will be able to influence the ALAC’s decision. I’d like to think I can pass it on to the RALOs, because it’s the RALOs who made the initial appoint recommendations. We’ve made the appointments, but they’ve made the recommendations.
Robert: Hi, this is Robert, can you hear me?
Cheryl: Yes, Robert, go ahead.
Robert: You know, I think that if the appointments are suggested by the RALOs and given to ALAC, I think that we should definitely update the RALOs, that whether they wish to confirm the existing names or whether they suggest new ones. That should be done as soon as possible, because names would have to be confirmed within the next two weeks. So, you know, I mean, I think that’s… we’re discussing the larger things, that’s fine. But I think that if the suggestions come from the regions, that the regions should be so notified and they should come up with their process.
Cheryl: That also is exactly what I asked to have happen.
Nick: It would be easy, for instance, to imagine that a notice would go out now and say, if the regions wish to propose names other than the incumbent, they could do so up until, say the 23rd of this month and ALAC would then have the week of, from the 24th to the 31st to consider that list and provide a final list of five.
Alan: I have to say that I think the timing is untenable. We have people who may be good non-com appointees, but may want to submit their names and until we have the results of this go around, then people are not in a position to do that. I find it totally unacceptable.
Cheryl: And Alan, all I can do is raise those points among several other complaints when I talk to Hagen. We’re stuck with this, this time.
Nick: But in the meantime, what would you like to do?
Cheryl: Well, I certainly would ask the RALOs make a statement as I did just then. Every one of their recommendations who were appointed, are able to serve a second year. They need to let us know if they are happy with this person serving a second year, or if they have alternate recommendations, by a date, the 23rd is good enough, that’s fine by me. But we still need to have some mechanism of finding out, as Alan said, any feedback on how effective or useful the ones we’ve already sent were.
Nick: Well, presumably Cheryl, you’ll have some further idea after you speak to Hagen on Thursday.
Cheryl: Yeah, but I think Alan’s point was, that gives the RALOs nothing, especially if Hagen says it’s got to be confidential.
Sebastien: May I?
Male: You have to be able to share it with the RALO executive.
Cheryl: Okay, I’ll argue that point. Yes, go ahead.
Male: Well… I’m sorry, you need to be able to share it at least with the RALO executive and the ALAC members from that region.
Cheryl: Okay, I will fight for that. I’ll let you know how I go. Who is that wishing to speak?
Sebastien: Sebastien.
Cheryl: Go ahead Sebastien, sorry.
Sebastien: I wanted to know first if… do we have the answer from the current member, from the non-com if they wish to come for a second year? That’s the first point, and the second, I think it’s very important that you have a talk with Hagen, 49 of course, but it could be also interesting to have a discussion with a member of the non-com, who were elected by ALAC. Not to know what they can tell us, but maybe they can tell us things, how it’s working and if they feel well and so on, on the duty.
Cheryl: Well, I mean, I don’t know what EURALO had done, but Katiana is an integral part of APRALO. So APRALO has a close and if not monthly, bi-monthly relationship with our non-com appointee. So we are quite comfortable with what we know about him and the work he’s done.
Male: Some of us… some of those other RALOs need to follow your example.
Robert: I don’t want to get into a discuss now, I mean, but there, you know, I mean, if… I second your proposal Cheryl, to get the note out to the RALOs and have them come up with a… their comments to you as soon as possible.
Cheryl: Yeah, I mean, the ALAC has to make its recommendations, hopefully on the first of September, let’s see what we can get out of the non-com chair between now and then and I would like to suggest that those RALO reps who are on this call tonight, might actually take the suggestion of how APRALO has done it by integrating our non-com rep as part of our working committee. As a very useful way of getting a feel for what they’re doing and what other roles they are taking.
Okay, so Nick, is there anything else you need in terms of dates and outlines for what we need to do on that one?
Nick: I don’t actually have a date of when you would like what to be done.
Cheryl: Well, you suggested the 23rd, I don’t have a problem with the 23rd, other than the fact that it’s a Saturday, but, you know, 25th will probably be more reasonable.
Nick: And then ALAC would have the 26th to the 31st.
Cheryl: Right.
Nick: Okay.
Cheryl: Okay, so we’ll deal with that and I’ll have a very interesting conversation on Thursday evening.
Nick: And with the greatest regret, I’m afraid I must go, because I have to go pick my car up from the garage.
Cheryl: Okay, well, if someone’s taking notes, that’s fine.
Nick: Matthias is.
Male: Do we still have quorum, by the way?
Cheryl: Well, I have lost power and I had one, two--
Male: I think Annette dropped off.
Cheryl: With Annette it means we’re eight, no, nine 38 still on.
Alan: Is there quorum from the start of the meeting or do we lose it as people drop off?
Male: The latter.
Cheryl: And at the moment we still have quorum. Discussion and decision on the ALAC statement on GNS, so council structure reports. Alan, would you care to speak to that and I would ask everybody to note that the actual statement that the working, that went in as an appendix to DNSO council structure working group, has been available to you all for… is it a fortnight now? Certainly something around that time. So the only part of this statement that we are asking for you to review and we hope, endorse, is the forward, the introductory piece. Alan?
Alan: Okay, as Cheryl said, the original statement that was appended to the report that went to the board, the one that was ratified by the small consultation group that I had advisingly, which included Cheryl, Vanda and Sebastiana Zumee, has been there for… out for two weeks something, I have not seen a single comment on it from anyone At-Large and certainly not from the ALAC. Other than one or two saying, good work or something like that.
What we’re doing now is asking for the ALAC to ratify that statement and to include with it, as a prefix to it, some other comments. The other comments come in two flavours. One is a comment that is entitled “mutual respect.” Which essentially says we were rather disappointed to find some of the other constituencies, particularly the business and non business, the user constituencies, made some derogatory statements about both me personally, without naming my name. But listing me as the ALAC representative and similarly for non-com, essentially saying that we didn’t play nice, because everyone else agreed and we didn’t. I think those statements were patently false and were disagreed with by a number of other statements and I think we need to comment on it. That it wasn’t… we didn’t think it was appropriate or true, I can comment more on it.
The other and larger comment that we’re adding to the statement is regarding the process of GNSO restructuring. As some of you may know, the non-commercial user’s constituency feels very strongly that when it becomes a stakeholder’s group, that any other non-commercial entities simply join that single stakeholder group. Essentially an enlarged NCUC and not form other constituencies representing perhaps other views.
We feel… some of us feel very strongly that if we’re going to attract people to start participating in the GNSO, it’s got to be with a guarantee that their views actually be heard. Not that they be unique voices in the NCUC, which may or may not be reflected in statements the re-named NCUC makes. It’s a large commitment to start participating in the GNSO and it’s got to be done with the assurance that these people maintain their own identity. I think if we don’t do that, then we have a problem and an example is consumer advocates. If a consumer advocate… a group of consumer advocates is going to participate, they’re going to have to be rest assured that they are going to actually be able to participate and not be outvoted by people who disagree with them, within the non-commercial world.
And one of the comments of the NCUC is, if we start having constituencies within the stakeholder’s group, it’s too much administration. It’s too much commitment to administrivia within ICANN and not on substance and we agree that this is an issue that has to be addressed. We are talking about very thin layers, but never the less, constituencies that have the right that other constituencies have. And the bulk of the statement just addresses that particular issue.
So what we’re looking for is ratification of the original statement saying that it comes from the ALAC and not just the advisory group and adding the comments, which counter some of the comments made in the appendix to the working group report. Questions, comments?
Cheryl: Hello? Is there anybody who wishes to comment? No questions, no comments?
Carlos: Carlos Aguirre would like to say something.
Cheryl: Go ahead Carlos.
Carlos: I would like to ask Alan if he knows about the motivation of 06 about the mail that I sent to this. Why he says that he hasn’t had this report of ALAC in this reform of GNSO?
Alan: He has had the support of ALAC in the reform, not in his view of the structure of the new stakeholder’s group. In the structure of the stakeholder’s group, he believes that there should be only one constituency and, for instance, if a group of consumer advocates join, then it is their responsibility to convince the other people in the stakeholder’s group, that their position has merit and then it would get reflected on the council and in the constituency statements and things like that. And I feel if we… if anything a new group of At-Large users has to do, has to be filtered by the constituency, that they’re not going to be interested in joining. I understand the implications of extra management involved, but the ALAC supported the consensus group of the working group. We didn’t necessarily agree with everything that the existing NCUC said, but we supported that, otherwise we would have vetoed it and there would have been no report to the board.
The working group required 100% consensus on major issues and they received that.
Cheryl: Is that clear Carlos?
Carlos: Yes, thank you very much.
Beau: This is Beau, I have a question about the nos. I’m just concerned about the description and again, it’s second or third hand or whatever, but the characterization that we were more concerned or that the ALAC representative, which I guess is you Alan, was more concerned about maintaining the non-com status. I mean, can you elaborate on what Milton is talking about there and…
Alan: Yes, certainly. One of the major issues for the… my advisory group and for me, is that if you look at the new proposal for the GNSO with a large voting cadre, a large voting group for non-commercial users, the question is, is there a need for non-com? The proposals that have non-com on the committee… on the GNSO rather, there were a number. One of them, which some people were saying were the main ones, is that they were tie-breaking votes. That is if you look at a battle between the contracted parties and the non-contracted parties, the non-com were tie-breakers. Rarely did they actually play in that role and I don’t think that’s a major one.
If you look at the voting patterns, the business constituencies tend to almost always vote with each other. The registrars and registrees did not necessarily vote with each other, it depends on the details.
unknown left
Alan: The non-com appointees tended to look at what the issues were and vote on one side or the other. So they weren’t representing any specific area, but the people were picked by the non-com and in most cases, reasonably good people were picked. If there is a really large representative of users in the group and diverse users, not just looking at one particular interest in the user world, the question is, do we really need non-coms to represent what the words of the public interest? If you go back and look at the nominating committee mandate, it is to reinforce… what’s the expression? The ICANN… Cheryl, can you help me? The principle number four, which says to make sure there is diverse input from around the world and representing a lot of types of users into each of the committees.
When and if the non commercial one has matured and there are new constituencies and there’s a wide diversity of opinion regarding users from that, perhaps we don’t need non-com members. That’s sometime in the future. It’s not likely to happen within the next two or three years in any large extent and by then there’s another review coming up. So my point was strongly that the public interest must be served and until we have viable constituencies, that can represent the diverse interests within the user needs, the non-com people serve that role.
Beau: Okay, thank you.
Cheryl: Any other questions? Okay, Alan, is it your wish to put the motion forward that the document as is, appended to the wiki page the agenda tonight, be endorsed as a whole?
Alan: I would indeed like to move that.
Cheryl: Okay, do I have a seconder to that motion? Do I have anybody on the call?
Female: Yes, you do.
Cheryl: Still here.
Alan: You can second the motion and not agree with it. I mean, this is a procedural issue.
Female: No, I can second, agreeing with you.
Cheryl: I suddenly thought we’d gone from quorum to nobody. laughs
Alan: I just put everyone to sleep.
Cheryl: I think they’re awake now Alan. Okay, is there any final discussion or comments that anybody wishes to raise? Including on any of the language 35?
Carlos: What is the motion, the concrete motion?
Alan: The motion is to approve… for the ALAC to approve the motion that is attached to this week’s… this meeting’s agenda, as a statement of the ALAC to be forwarded to the board.
Cheryl: Endorsed as an ALAC statement. To endorse as an ALAC statement, the document, what’s the document’s title, she says scrambling for her PDF copy. The title is ALAC Statement on GNSO, Final Draft, it’s a PDF on the wiki. The ALAC draft statement to the board of ICANN on the structure of the GNSO council. Is that clear? It is in two parts, the second part… okay, the second part, just to make it clear for everybody, is exactly what was appended to the report of the working group. The first three pages consists of a cover page, page two, which is the At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to convey to the board of directors its views below regarding the program of improvement. Due to the tight time constraints, the ALAC’s statement appended to the report…
Carlos: Excuse me, could you repeat that third part?
Cheryl: Well, I’m not going to read the whole document. It’s basically an introduction to the statement. It outlines the points on mutual respect, which Alan discussed earlier and the points on the GNSO evolution after re-structuring, particularly including what Carlos discussed earlier, which was the matter Milton had raised and which Alan responded to.
Alan: I should make one further comment on that. If anyone’s interested in the process, the ten or twelve hours of conference calls and the five hundred or so email messages are all public record right now. You can certainly go through them. The comment that Beau asked us of… that we did not support them, was in certain specific NCUC… was in certain specific areas and that’s correct, but we disagreed with them on some issues.
They didn’t comment on all the things that we did agree with and supported both the business and the non-commercial in certain areas. But again, you’re free to go through the transcripts yourself.
Cheryl: We have a motion on the table that this become an ALAC endorsed document and an ALAC endorsed statement, I will then transmit to the board.
Vanda: Okay, I can 54 this?
Cheryl: Okay Vanda, you’re… Alan’s moved it and it’s being seconded, which is great, thank you Vanda. So does anybody wish to vote against that motion? Nothing on Skype. Does anybody wish to abstain from that motion? Nothing on Skype. That sounds like it’s a unanimous support and thank you very much. I’d like it also noted in the record if we may, for this meeting, the heroic effort that went into the working group activity. Alan alluded to, in just a few moments ago, the hours and hours that he and the others spent.
It really was, I think, quite an astonishing effort for, in less than 30 days, to bring absolute opposing views to a majority consensus, brand new, mechanism to be recommended to the board for consideration. And I’d like our thanks supported for Alan and I must say also for the working group. Not just because I was on it, but the working group, Vanda and Sebastien and Izumi did an enormous amount of work behind the scenes and in between each of his weekly, if not twice weekly, conference calls. And Alan, I just must say, if only there was a candid camera with me standing in the middle of Red Square, talking to you one day and gesticulating, I’m sure it would have been a fantastic…
Alan: I’m sure there are cameras recording in… laughs
Cheryl: Yes, well, I have no idea what the Russians think of me, but it was that time I was getting rather hot under the collar and I realized I was gesticulating about, looking like an utter mad woman, in the middle of Red Square. Thank you very much Alan and I think what we now need to realize is the next part of work begins, assuming the board makes some sort of an outcome which heads in the direction that this report suggests. Then we need to get our ALS structures and other small A, small L, At-Large organizations and internet using groups, ready to be involved in what Alan said is a considerable commitment, to be involved in a GNSO stakeholder group. So there’s a hell of a lot of work to continue and I trust that…
Alan: Cheryl, I need to point out that one of the things we just approved is, the ALAC says, we will work with the other groups in ICANN, both ICANN staff and NCUC, to try to make this happen and this is not going to be easy. We’re really talking about building a separate representation for lower case At-Large and as you know, we’re having enough trouble with our own. So this is going to be interesting, but if it’s going to… it’s the only way it’s going to succeed, is if we do the ground work to get people who have an interest in domain issues to participate in this.
Cheryl: To be involved and again, I would like to suggest that this is another possible area that we might… that we might like to look at, to be discussed as a content opportunity for the summit when we have as many of the ALSs as possible together. We might find that there’s revitalization, some of them may be interested in this.
Alan: We have fought hard to get users represented on the council, we probably will have done that by the end of this… we’re going to have… we will have to deliver.
Cheryl: We will, we will indeed and I would like the RALO representatives to take back to the RALOs and get the RALOs to pass on to the ALSs, that the ALAC really has fought tooth and nail to get their right to representation on the GNSO and if the board approves it, we do indeed, as Alan said, have to deliver.
Well, I think that’s quite a landmark and I am now aware that we have gone 30 minutes over our allocated 90 minutes time and I have neglected to ask for an extension. We have a couple of items that were related… or sorry, one item that was related and I would like to suggest that that becomes an online discussion. But I desire a strong commitment from the ALAC and indeed the RALOs as well, regarding a set of specific questions which you will see under item four, for items for discussion only. We have had a set of questions relating to the GNSO re-structuring from the board. We need to respond to those, that’s an allied but separate matter. I’m going to move that we take that online and that we close that discussion off, let me look, how about we close that off on the 25th as well? Would that suit everybody, 25th of this month?
Alan; As long as I can make a very short statement first.
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Alan: The board has asked some questions reflecting their perception and their real… their reasonable perception, that what is being proposed by the working group, is going to be difficult to do and has some major implications on ICANN’s policy. What came out of the working group was something that all parties agreed to, going in with diametrically opposed views. As you would expect, it’s not a very simplistic elegant structure, but has a lot of intricacies in it. Those intricacies may hurt the development… policy development process and the board is reasonably asking for advice on some of these.
So they’re not asking necessarily to say, scrap the whole thing. We’ve already agreed to it, but they want some thoughtful comments on some of the implications of this recommendation and I think, as one of the participants, we owe them that. So I would like to see good discussion. I will try to frame the discussion as easily as possible.
Cheryl: Okay, well, I’m going to move that it goes as an online discussion and that we close that discussion off on the 25th. Does anybody have a change of dates they’d like to suggest? Okay, I’m just typing that into Skype now and I’ve also put the URL for the documents that Alan put up, there’s a background document today which outlines the question.
Alan: And I will flesh them out a little bit more. As some of you know, I had a major mail meltdown this weekend and it took all the time away from what I should have been putting into prep for this meeting.
Cheryl: And it isn’t very pleasant re-building your mail is it?
Alan: Nope.
Cheryl: Okay, thanks for that. The other item… other two items that are pressing us, are the rights and response… the discussion on the rights and responsibility document which was based on recent 40 traffic. I would very much like, as a closing item, to get a response from the ALAC as to whether or not we should undertake this matter or undertake it in partnership, to do some drafting on a rights and responsibilities document. As proposed, I believe by Danny and some discussion occurred in the last week or ten days.
The final item that we haven’t got to, the ALAC member reporting and recording of activity. There has been some interest and working group commitment. I’m happy to move to the next meeting and what I will instruct staff to do between now and then, is to send out to everybody, the current record of who has turned up when, to what. Who is currently working on whatever working group they have committed to and who have particular areas of interest, so that you can correct or modify the record. Which was what we were going to do tonight. So we’ll put that to both an online discussion and a finalization at next meeting.
The rights and responsibilities document I would very much like to get a feel for now and before I do that, I do want to take the announcements and ensure that everybody knows the draft amendments are a briefing, is now concerned to be on the 20th of August at 14:00 UTC and we will be, I assume, making use of both the Adobe Connect, which I had opened tonight and many of us were in there. But I never got around to typing anything in there. We might try and do better next time. I need a bigger screen and also the registrar impersonation… in phishing attacks, what a horrible type of briefing, anyway, is running on Tuesday the 26th of August at 13:00 UTC. So if the RALO reps can take that back to the RALOs and encourage as many of the ALSs and interested parties to join in those, that would be excellent.
Coming back to the final matter for tonight, before closing then, do we, as an ALAC, wish to undertake a drafting on the rights and responsibilities document that was proposed, and if we do, do we wish to undertake it in isolation or as a partner?
Alan: Could you add to that, the rights and responsibilities of whom, regarding what? I know what it is, but it doesn’t say in the document.
Cheryl: So Alan, you word it and Matthias will write it.
Alan: I think what we’re talking about is a registrant bill of rights, to be appended or included in the RA in some future version of an RAA. Am I correct or am I off base?
Cheryl: Well, I don’t think you’re off base.
Alan: Okay, I just want to make sure we’re talking about the right subject.
Cheryl: I’m just looking back exactly what Danny said.
Beau: Yeah, this is Beau, I know what he’s talking about. Alan is characterizing it correctly.
Cheryl: Yeah, I thought so, but I was just going to quote, if you think he’s quoting Danny correctly, then… I just feel wary of misquoting Danny.
Alan: The RAA, as being discussed, talks about a registrant bill of rights. I’m not sure that’s exactly the right words, but something like that. The question is, now that all parties are going to agree and contractually be bound by it, someone has to write it. Do we want to try to take a lead or a participant position in that, or stand back and let someone else do it, is the question.
Beau: I think we should do it. I’ll volunteer to help do it.
Alan: I mean, I think it’s got to be done with other parties, but I think we should be visible and take a lead role in this and participate, which means actual work.
Beau: Yeah, like, come up with a preliminary list of 58 or something and circulate it, yeah, sure.
Cheryl: Okay, well, I think taking a lead role is essential and let’s put a time course on that. Can we look towards having, say a 14 pinpoint for us to have a look at, at the September meeting Beau?
Beau: I think that is no problem.
Alan: I would suggest we want to contact the registrar’s constituency and volunteer to take on this role or work with them. There’s no point in having competing efforts going on.
Beau: All right, well, I’ll take responsibility for contacting them.
Alan: And if they’re smart, they will participate in this, as opposed to having it imposed on them.
Beau: Yeah, okay, I’ll talk to 46.
Cheryl: I’m delighted with that outcome and I think it is a very, very important thing, if we can get that done and be a main player in it. That’s another one of the things that the board liaison can take to the board, to attempt to convince, that we are worthy of extent.
Thank you all very much for the now 40 minutes extension overtime. I think we’ve got through a great deal tonight and I would like to particularly thank you all for being so prompt accepting your dial outs and not saying, call me back in 15 minutes and actually starting what was a very lengthy meeting agenda, within 5 minutes of our start time. Let’s see if we can keep that up and let’s keep up the work online as well. Any final comments from anybody?
Male: No, I guess.
Cheryl: Thank you all, good morning, good day, good evening and good night, see you online.
Female: Okay bye, bye.
Male: Bye, bye.
Alan left
Cheryl left
Beau left
Jacqueline left
Sebastien left
unknown left
unknown left
End of Audio
