ICANN

 

Moderator: Gisella Gruber-White

December 12, 2014

8:00 am CT

 

 

Nathalie Peregrine: Excuse me everyone this is Nathalie from staff, (Grace) has just disconnected so we’re just going to wait for her to dial back in. Thank you and apologies for this.

 

Lise Fuhr: (Rambline) Nathalie (rambling).

 

Lise Fuhr: Okay so we just continue and we have (Grace) on staff, Bart Boswinkel, (Bernett Tukat) and Berry Cobb. So well this is our first RFP5 and actually I did a draft agenda.

 

Do anyone of you Avri or Cheryl do you have any other items you would like us to discuss or does staff have anything?

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: This is Cheryl, nothing from me other than I did mention in the chat while I was waiting to join that I do know that I at the very least need to already update the documentation and then maybe I could fix that - not unlike a number of the other communities that everyone is moving fairly fast on this.

 

So we’re going to have to keep this very much as a living document with fairly frequent updates.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes, I agree Cheryl but it’s a living document and we need to add on especially to the (unintelligible) until the very end. I think my idea of having this meeting at this early stage is actually to find out how we structure our work. I see Bart raising his hand, Bart.

 

Bart Boswinkel: Yes my understanding but I could be very wrong, say that was RFP6. And so if you look at the note update on outreach that’s one but (sector) of RFP5, the RFP6 is around the process how the say this group reads its decisions.

 

And so I would think that it would include outreach efforts at that time if you go back to the interim proposal that’s the final section of it.

 

Lise Fuhr: So what you are saying Bart is that this outreach tracking should be an RFP6 is that what...

 

Bart Boswinkel: Yes.

 

Lise Fuhr: ...I don’t have any problem with that because we have a lot of other things to cover, yes.

 

Bart Boswinkel: Yes and I think say to make your life easy say it is the communities and I think as but now I’m talking to you as a co-chair of the whole CWG. If you can purge all the groups who participate to send their updates to (Grace) or to staff in general and share it with the broader list, then we can keep track of what’s going on because what you see right now is a lot of say what we just included are very high level initiatives.

 

But there are some more refined ones as well say for example, say the seminar on next Tuesday, but you see yes I can only speak on behalf of what I see in the CDC community. (Unintelligible) has done some outreach efforts, which I’ve documented in other groups as well.

 

And if each of these participating groups could or chartering organizations could provide that documentation then it’s more something to keep for the record and then you can really focus on RFP5.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes I don’t have any problem with that. Avri or Cheryl what do you think do you have any comments to Bart’s suggestion?

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Cheryl here, I didn’t have any problem with it but I think we need to perhaps have a repository where people can do regular updates as well because it’s - yes there are so many moving parts with these multiple streams in the workgroups, across community workgroups themselves.

 

But also within the communities a number of the communities are doing a lot of outreach. And certainly some of the regions within the large community are reporting into the ALAC either at a regional level or to the ALAC itself on what they’re doing in terms of outreach.

 

But that isn’t being captured by i.e. an occasional call placed in something to staff. I think it needs to be something that they could update themselves when they’re doing it.

 

Bart Boswinkel: Yes absolutely.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You know, you know.

 

Bart Boswinkel: No, no Cheryl no it’s more that was if that’s the easiest way for people in one way or the other say what we - maybe that’s an idea. I don’t know if it’s workable that we create a special e-page for RFP6 so people can update either through staff or directly but at least create that repository.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes and have it ongoing yes.

 

Bart Boswinkel: Yes, yes.

 

Lise Fuhr: I think (Grace) raised her hand I might - (Grace).

 

(Grace): Yes so I was just going to echo a little bit what Bart was saying, I mean in the Wiki we can create, you know, a separate page for each community or a separate page for each group or something like that.

 

And then have, you know, you guys can update it on your own. I mean the only reason I’ve been updating this one Wiki page with all the outreach and tracking is because it seems easier for people to just send me an email and for me to post it in the Wiki.

 

But we can easily switch that around, you know, there’s no problem there in terms of having community update on their own.

 

Lise Fuhr: Okay but if this is an issue of RFP6 I would like to end this item now then and we should conclude that we should have a repository or another function to make it easier to submit how you’ve done outreach.

 

So I really think we should move on then and then I see that Avri has a question about what RFP5 is and actually I’ve copied the requirements in item 3, the structure of RFP5.

And that is that we have to describe if the proposal meets A, B, C, D and E and that’s important in enhanced the multi-stakeholder model and maintain the security stability and (unintelligible) of the Internet (DNS).

 

The needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the (INF) functions, maintain the openness of the Internet and the proposal of not replacing NTIA role of the government (let) or inter-government organization solution.

 

So and I see (Bernie) you tried to say that this should explain how your community’s proposal meet these requirements. And do - Avri do you have any further questions or is it clear to you what RFP5 is about? I see Avri is typing.

 

Man: Pardon me Lise Fuhr I sort of missed that.

 

Lise Fuhr: Well Avri typed that she is all right now, she got confused by another activity, by all the other activities. Okay, but Avri does this mean that you want to be a part of RFP6 or you still want to be a part of RFP5 because what I really urge is that we get some more members for this group because we’re not that many members and as we see we’re only three at the moment.

 

Avri Doria: Hi this is Avri speaking. I have no idea I’m on this call now so I might as well be part of it unless I have to sign up to be on this call.

 

Lise Fuhr: Well that’s a very pragmatic way so I’m fine.

 

Avri Doria: That (unintelligible) a lot of people and I could say, they’ve got enough people I don’t need to do this.

 

Lise Fuhr: No, this is one of the groups that...

 

Avri Doria: Why not.

 

Lise Fuhr: ...okay thank you Avri. I would also like and I didn’t because we actually started head on, on the outreach tracking but I would really like to have us to choose a coordinator and Cheryl you said you would do it if no one else would do it.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I didn’t realize it was going to be such a short list.

 

Lise Fuhr: No, I know, I know and I’m sorry I’m not trying to trick you into anything I don’t know if Avri are you up for being a coordinator or do you want to give that to Cheryl? Hello.

 

Avri Doria: Yes more than happy, give me a second on mute sorry. More than happy for Cheryl to do it.

 

Lise Fuhr: You’re more than happy for Cheryl to do it.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Avri that doesn’t mean we’re not going to whittle this thing very closely to get (results).

 

(Seun): Excuse me yes I want to be sure is this the RFP5 or RFP6?

 

Lise Fuhr: This is the RFP5, who is this speaking?

 

(Seun): This is (Seun).

 

Lise Fuhr: Hi (Seun) welcome. Do you want to be on the RFP5 or?

(Seun): I just want to see I don’t - I might chair another one it’s (unintelligible) the call right now.

 

Lise Fuhr: I can’t hear you (Seun).

 

(Grace): (Seun) this is (Grace) could you speak a little bit louder because we can’t hear you very well?

 

(Seun): Yes (Grace) can you confirm for me that’s RFP5 or RFP right?

 

Lise Fuhr: You are on RFP5.

 

(Seun): Okay, all right that’s fine and this is the RFP5 call.

 

(Grace): This is the call for RFP5 but I don’t know if you’ve actually officially signed up for the call. I mean I just I circulated the note to the entire CWG so anyone could join if they were interested.

 

Just like Lise Fuhr was saying earlier they’re looking for more interest in the group and more members, so if you’re interested please stay on.

 

(Seun): Okay, all right thank you I think I’ll just stay and I’ll listen on then, you tell me...

 

(Grace): Do you want to join the Adobe room?

 

(Seun): ...no, no, no actually I’m outside right now I’m not (unintelligible).

 

Lise Fuhr: Okay, okay.

 

(Grace): Okay thank you.

 

Lise Fuhr: So I see Bart raised his hand in the - Bart.

 

Bart Boswinkel: Yes, yes to avoid confusion I think say because this is a bit about say the outreach and I think in previous emails to the list this got mixed up as well that either early next week we send out an email saying what we’re going to do with regard to the outreach efforts and make very clear how that’s going to be handled.

 

And secondly maybe it’s a good thing now where there is clarity around RFP5 to send out an additional call for volunteers.

 

Lise Fuhr: For RFP5?

 

Bart Boswinkel: Yes RFP5 as its defined in the notes.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes but well we have Cheryl volunteering or if that’s in the - almost volunteering to be a coordinator and...

 

Bart Boswinkel: Or Cheryl could send out the note.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think what Bart is saying is the more general membership.

 

Bart Boswinkel: Yes.

 

Lise Fuhr: More general would be nice but and I can send out a note calling for it but I don’t know if you want to do it Cheryl.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Between now and Wednesday I’d rather not but.

Lise Fuhr: I will send out a note.

 

Bart Boswinkel: Yes we can wait until Monday morning or something Lise Fuhr or you can do it today but at least we record what’s going on with outreach and maybe that’s your role as co-chair saying okay, outreach is RFP6, this is how we’re going to handle it, how you can submit it in the Wiki page.

 

And then send out a call, clarify what RFP5 is and then send out a call for additional volunteers and also record that Cheryl is coordinator for that group.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes, I will send out actually two notes then. A note about RFP...

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Lise Fuhr: ...and one about RFP5.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Cheryl again, Lise Fuhr I think what Avri has pointed out in the chat is very important too. The fact that we talked about outreach et cetera under the (unintelligible) RFP5 in the call earlier this week. The clarity note from you is going to be really important.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes, a clarity note about RFP6 or 5 is doing, yes is going to be very important. But I still hear that I should send out two notes. One about continuing to give information about outreach and I don’t know if we should do that next week regarding that the staff might create an easier way to submit it.

 

And then I’ll send a clarity note out about RFP5 scope and that we would like to have more participants. Does that sound right?

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, I’m not sure it needs to be two notes but...

Lise Fuhr: Okay, okay no that was more - I was thinking two notes in order to encourage people to send in...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...well do you think more emails are going to get read and understood better than less?

 

Bart Boswinkel: Lise Fuhr, Lise Fuhr, Lise Fuhr may I suggest you send out one note explaining RFP6, which includes outreach and how to handle it. How say we discussed it and the scope of RFP5.

 

So every - that’s very clear so everybody sees it say in one note and then asking in that note or in that clarity email at the same time for additional volunteers and that Cheryl is the coordinator of this one, so it could be one.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excuse me, this is Cheryl.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes Cheryl.

 

(Seun): So I’m hearing the mention of RFP6 being outreach. The (unintelligible) that’s not outreach and what is then the role of the RFP5 now?

 

I was thinking RFP5 was outreach before (unintelligible) I just want to clarify what is good for each RFP piece that will know what you are doing. Actually (unintelligible) or RFP5 for - from the (unintelligible) right, I don’t know.

 

I don’t know whether she is on the line right now but if there is (unintelligible) for more than (unintelligible).

 

Lise Fuhr: (Seun) I don’t know if I understood you correctly but the outreach is ongoing and we hope that everyone is doing outreach until the very end. So this tracking will be an ongoing project or theme and that will be the last to finish regarding the report actually or the proposal.

 

And this RFP5 is we’re going to describe if the - how the proposal will meet the five requirements set by the NTIA of the American Government.

 

(Seun): Yes, yes but that’s why I was actually checking how (unintelligible) to describe how the proposal meets the (unintelligible) if we didn’t actually check (unintelligible) be able to inform the content that we put in the RFP5 as the reference to the ICG (posters).

 

So I’m thinking are we actually tracking those, my understanding RFP5 we’re going to track the activities from other communities (unintelligible) communities from other communities. So (unintelligible).

 

Lise Fuhr: I’m not sure I actually understand your question (Seun) because it’s very difficult to hear you but RFP5 is only about the proposal and RFP6 is more about how the procedure was during the proposal.

 

Did we involve the whole community and did the proposal - was it done transparently, sent out to every community and did we try and reach communities outside of ICANN because and...

 

(Seun): Yes well and it seems like RFP5 we actually note have done a good job with that with the content of RFP6 to - it looks like they (unintelligible) between the two RFP’s.

 

(Unintelligible) are we (unintelligible) RFP6 to actually produce that content as soon as possible and that’s really to inform the content that we produced in that RFP5.

 

Lise Fuhr: So you’re asking if we can do this before RPF3 and 4 have completed their work is that what you’re...

 

(Seun): Yes.

 

Lise Fuhr: ...because this is a - this is not a - the scope of this group is not to actually have the work done before this work is finished. But I would really like to have a structure and to begin thinking of how do we think the - at the moment there is one proposal and there is another proposal that’s very open and about having the INF function internally within ICANN.

 

And I think we could try and look at some of these requirements to check if those two proposals how do they meet the requirements. But do you think it’s too early or what is your concern?

 

(Seun): (Unintelligible) what I’m saying is that the RFP5 is giving a response to the (ICG) or the section of the (ICG) question and that is (unintelligible) how do we propose (unintelligible) community responses and committee concerns of (unintelligible).

 

So what I’m saying is that right now from the understanding we’re saying RFP6 is going to actually track those (unintelligible) track those community engagements.

 

What I’m saying is if you don’t have the information from RFP6 how do we form - how do we adequately capture the community engagement for RFP5? And again if we don’t have a lot of - enough content from RFP6, which indirectly is also dependent on the output of RFP3 and RFP4, I believe that’s enough.

 

Lise Fuhr: But (Seun) I think this RFP6 is another thing and this RFP5 is not dependent on RFP6. So I would really like that we would try and have a look at the structure and I know that we have Cheryl as the coordinator.

 

And I don’t know if you want to do the rest of the meeting Cheryl or you want me to chair this meeting and...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Happy for you to continue Lise Fuhr, I recognize Avri has had her hand up for some time so we probably need to move to...

 

Lise Fuhr: ...sorry I lost track of that. Thank you for...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...that’s okay but (Seun) if I may. I think part of the disadvantage you’re having in this call is there is some confusion because of the call to communities to provide outreach material and engagement updates under the (unintelligible) of RFP5 but that is now being sorted to ensure we know it belongs in 6.

 

And that because you’re not in the Adobe connect room you’re probably not seeing the particular structure that Lise Fuhr has put out as part of our agenda and once we move to that I think a lot of your questions may become clear, okay back to you.

 

(Seun): Okay thank you, thank you that’s fine.

 

Lise Fuhr: Thank you Cheryl, Avri you were having your hand up.

Avri Doria: Yes, yes I was just working on the mute button it doesn’t always transition on the first (unintelligible). I truly apologize for going back to the clarity letters again but I’m not even more convinced than I was when I put up my hand but it should be two letters or clarity notes, sorry not letters but two clarity notes to the full list.

 

One of them perhaps just copying the previous RFP five notice saying hey we need more bodies, you know, look at this do this and then one on RFP six.

 

Conjoining them in a note seems to conjoin them in people’s minds. And so I just wanted to I know go against the stream that we had worked ourselves to one note. I believe one note we will continue to be confused. We like that.

 

The other thing I want to say is I very much agree that of course everything in this work item is about the other work items.

 

And there’s a certain amount of finality that one has to say in those other work items before one can actually say yes.

 

Because of what we said in RFP three we have met conditions two, three and six or a table or whatever we have.

 

But we can certainly - and I think that’s what you are saying Lise Fuhr so I wanted to and with, you know, sort of putting us back on that track is we can certainly build that outline. We could start filling it in with pointers and references to where that is being satisfied.

 

One of the things we may find is that oops we have a gap. Have we answered this issue? And it may not immediately be apparent that we’ve got it covered in RFPX.

 

So it definitely seems like, you know, a good activity to get started with. And I really do like how we deferred - I deferred to Cheryl being chair. Cheryl deferred to you to continue, you know, chairing this meeting.

 

I think it’s very nice, you know, deferral too. And in a sense that’s the motto of this group. All the other work items are deferred to some other RFP. Thank you.

 

Lise Fuhr: God I love you Avri.

 

So that was a nice note. Okay good. Let’s move on to the structure because I’ve just listed and copied actually the five requirements.

 

And it makes more sense to do it this way but I don’t know if anyone else has another proposal on how to structure our work. Shouldn’t we just stick to having it done very loyal to how it was asked or do we want to structure it differently?

 

What I’m thinking of is it do we want to have start with its E instead of A or do we want to have everything done differently or how - because in my opinion this is the easy way and I - I’m not very imaginative.

 

So for me this is fine but if they group wants it differently I’m happy to discuss. Avri?

 

Avri Doria: Hi, apologies for raising my hand twice in a row. I think when answering questions it’s really best to follow the format of the questions so that the questioner can see that you’ve directed and they don’t have to work hard.

 

So I think in this case taking a very (direct) approach and then perhaps adding some tables, some figures and what have you for alternative ways of looking at the picture.

 

So if it’s answered in the questions verbally but there can also be a table that does all the matching and gives the URL references to other documents.

 

Because I can see this - because this is definitely a outcome document or part of the outcome document or may even be the (fresh apo) of an outcome document depending on how it all gets formed because we’re saying okay here NTIA here’s our answer.

 

And so I have in some sense so those are even questions that we need to answer. Is this just (fresh apo) to our collected work that answers the questions quickly, briefly crisply that says we did this by doing ABCD, we did that by doing EF and G, et cetera. And that is all detailed in gory detail in the reports that follow.

 

And, you know, so but I think at some point very early in a presentation we have to say we answered the questions thusly. Thanks.

 

Lise Fuhr: Thank you Avri. And I actually see Cheryl is agreeing so let’s have this as our working structure. Okay...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I ask a further question? Cheryl...

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...for the record?

 

Lise Fuhr: Of course.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Who is our target audience for this?

 

Lise Fuhr: To the RS to...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: For Section 5 who is the target audience?

 

Lise Fuhr: Well...

 

Man: ICG.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Kind of writing it like the NGIA are going to read it.

 

Man: In principle it’s the ICG CIO.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s as I understood it yes. And I actually haven’t asked these questions.

 

Man: Yes, yes.

 

Lise Fuhr: So in my opinion I think you have two - you’ll have the ICG but you’ll also have the chartering organizations because they want to know how you think we met those requirements.

 

And in order to actually accept any proposal I would as a chartering organization make sure that I met those.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I just think it’s important that we keep in mind from the get-go as we’re drafting these up who our target audience is. And primarily ICG and charting organizations is a good answer. But we’re kind of talking about it just then like we were writing it for the NDIO to read.

 

Lise Fuhr: No but I agree with (Bart) in that way that the ICG needs to be the one that ensures that it meets the requirements in the end because they have to collect those three proposals...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: None of our material will get past them.

 

Lise Fuhr: No.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right? They are the macro filter.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So yes before we start writing this part of the document to meet NTIA’s reading requirements we need to remember who we’re actually writing the whole document for little on this chapter.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes. Okay good point Cheryl. And in doing this I don’t know if you - the process if you want to start thinking of if we should divide it between us or is someone being the lead if you want to be in the lead of writing the question Cheryl or you want to do that thinking or discussion on another meeting because we have those...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think we probably need a fewer than blood to join us before we...

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...decide whether they’re relegated to minor editorial tasks such as drafting.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let’s - I’m a great fan of at least setting things up for open and inclusive and indeed transparent contribution.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The facts of course are that usually one or two people do the work but I think it’s important that it’s set up so it can be open and transparent and...

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...collaborative but it will of course come down to just a couple of us. We all know that in reality.

 

Lise Fuhr: Perfect.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.

 

Lise Fuhr: It’s just I want to set expectations on how much we think we should complete today so that’s fine.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can we ask then as an action item if I may Lise Fuhr it to get staff to set us up a collaborative workplace using whatever tool they have discovered is useful?

 

I don’t care whether it’s a Google talk or a wiki or all the above. But whatever tool they’ve found in the other RFPs has been the most productive and useful.

 

It might be tools plural. I would suggest having it - everything at least archived in a wiki space is a wise thing anyway. But so we can get our skeleton put together at least.

 

Lise Fuhr: Good idea, yes? Anything else on Item 3?

 

Man: Lise Fuhr (Grace) has her hand up.

 

Lise Fuhr: Sorry. I’m (unintelligible) off the hand, sorry. (Grace) go ahead.

 

(Grace): No it’s okay. I just I just put it up. Hi. This is (Grace) for the record. I’m happy to set up a workspace. I think a Google doc might be better just to track at this point to be able to let multiple people at it at the same time.

 

The wiki is good but it requires one person editing and then the other, you know, one person at a time sort of thing.

 

But the other question I have for you Cheryl is would you would you like that to be set up as one document or would you like, you know, one document with sections or would you like multiple documents?

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m very keen on one document with segments.

 

(Grace): Okay all right. Let’s do that. Okay great. Thank you.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And we need to recognize because I have to put my Asia-Pacific hat on that whilst it may not be an issue for the population we have from Asia-Pacific contributing to the RFP 5 group hypothetically that Google Docs cannot be accessed by a large of their region.

 

It’s not necessarily a barrier to entry but it needs to be recognized that it can be.

 

Lise Fuhr: You have to explain that to me Cheryl. They cannot be...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well Central Asia can’t access it. China can’t access it.

 

Lise Fuhr: Oh.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well Western Asia can’t access...

 

Lise Fuhr: Okay.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...it.

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I can just suggest you that it’s road about 1/3 of Asia-Pacific can’t...

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes, no it is.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...Google Docs.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So whilst...

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...it’s a hypothetical issue, it’s a hypothetical issue that we need to recognize. We’ve recognized it. Let’s just move on.

 

But, you know, it would be remiss of me to not constantly remind the US and Eurocentric amongst us that not everyone operates out of Google.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes. Okay. But there is no other tools we can use where the others can...

 

(Grace): Oh this is (Grace). We could use a wiki. There’s concern with a wiki that everyone needs to have a user account to be on the wiki which that’s not hard to do. It’ll just take some set up.

 

And then the other concern is that it doesn’t allow for collaboration at the same time so only one person can edit the document at the same time.

 

Lise Fuhr: Actually (Grace) could you check that last statement?

 

(Grace): Okay.

 

Lise Fuhr: Thank you. Because I think if we could get any criticism by this it might be better to use the (note) as handy tool as the Google in order to have everyone to be able to assess it.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Must if I may Lise Fuhr, Cheryl for the record...

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes?

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...my fall back in these things more recently in at least the large community work is if we are using Google Docs, and I happen to be a Google fan so it’s not a problem for me...

 

Lise Fuhr: No.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...is to replicate onto wiki.

 

Lise Fuhr: Oh, okay.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So you’ve got a built-in braces approach and that’s fine. And of course it may mean if - and it might not be a login issue. It may be a choice issue.

 

Some people often prefer to put things in comments but that then requires someone to actually insert it into the document part of the page.

 

But there is a bunch of ways that we can skin this cat. Let’s not get too wrapped up on it now. Let’s work with...

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: - get (Grace) to double check the only one can edit concept and just going under Google Docs and replicating in wiki.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes. That sounds like a good idea. But anyway I will leave it to you and (Grace) Cheryl to decide on the final solution because I think...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure.

 

Lise Fuhr: You seem to be very observant of every trouble on each model so...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay grace can I suggest you contact the Technology Task Force to make the - assist you in the assessment of that question?

 

Lise Fuhr: (Grace) you’re having your hand up. Is that...

 

(Grace): Oh sorry, yes I meant to lower the hand. Yes I can contact - I was going to contact IT - you mean the Technology Task Force is a community group?

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. They are the geeky buffins who spend almost their time testing this stuff.

 

(Grace): Okay I will look into that. Thanks Cheryl.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes it’s just, you know, they’ll respond in a tested user base were rather than a hypothetical who’s read it in the paperwork base.

 

(Grace): Okay.

 

Lise Fuhr: We have 13 minutes left. And I don’t know any anything more on Item 3? No?

 

Let’s move onto Item 4. And that is we - I actually copy paste it from what has been asked for RFP 5. And that is that we should be aware that a lot of our issues should be covered by RFP 3 and 4.

 

So this is only to highlight that we’re interdependent of three and four of course. And we should - I don’t know how we ensure that they take into account some of this. But if since I heard Avri you’re in RFP 3 or 4 too so you could maybe ensure the linkage between those groups and our group?

 

I see Cheryl is writing. Cheryl or you don’t want to put it in audio?

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No I can. I was just...

 

Lise Fuhr: Oh yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...being supportive of Avri as a liaison between RFP 3 and 4.

 

Lise Fuhr: Sorry it’s just when we’re only three it’s not...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh I know but...

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes, okay.

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, right.

 

Lise Fuhr: You are an easy bunch aye? Okay so I think that that’s settled. And then we have five. Any other business?

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I guess we have to ask under any other business for -- Cheryl for the record here Lise Fuhr -- about frequencies of our future meeting plans...

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...what’s the aim here because we do have a timeline which we’ve all agreed to?

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And pointing out the daytime Friday is well into my early AM Saturday morning and even I can get possessive about having at least my effective weekend off.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes, yes. But we - let’s try and find a timing and day that suits...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Frequency first.

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Lise Fuhr: ...the three of us since we’re the here now.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes sure.

 

Lise Fuhr: So what do you prefer?

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Frequency a lot yes...

 

Lise Fuhr: I think...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...a lot is still hurry up and wait. A lot can be done on the Google Docs and on the...

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...wiki. How frequent do you want us to have this face sorry, the teleconference touch point?

 

Lise Fuhr: But I actually prefer to have one next week and then...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure.

 

Lise Fuhr: ...we might have on just before the New Year.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure. Well we have the dreaded seasonal break so we do need to be aware of that. So I mean, we can establish it weekly. I just wanted to establish it now.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes, I think weekly is best in order to ensure that we have...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.

 

Lise Fuhr: ...progress.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let’s agree on weekly and do it after a day.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes. So you’re - how much are you ahead of UTC?

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m plus 11.

 

Lise Fuhr: Plus 11, wow. And Avri is minus six is that?

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes we’re pretty much spread. And now don’t get me wrong, I have no problem being on a teleconference at US time of day. It’s just by the time I’ve done six out of seven days of them I would like at least one of my weekend nights my fill.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes, of course.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So if we did it a day earlier as opposed to any different time that’s fine.

 

Lise Fuhr: A day earlier would be fine with me. I have no trouble and...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well maybe we should leave it to (Grace) to have a look at the calendar.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because I do know there’s a lot of moving parts. And if we did it for example a day earlier this week it would have clashed with our ordinary stewardship meeting.

 

So she needs to make sure it doesn’t clash with the other RFPs...

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...as well as the main meetings.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Man: Lise Fuhr?

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Man: Avri has her hand up.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes, sorry Avri?

 

Avri Doria: Well I was just going to put it down. But what I was going to say yes, I’m fine with these for me are early morning hours even down to five.

 

Although if we get a California person when we push them to three so I’m fine with the early.

 

The middle of the day which starts around 8:00 or 9:00 is getting really crowded with meetings. SO yes I think find an empty spot. I don’t know if the hour after the CWG meeting is open but that would be way - that would be the wrong time no because that would be too many hours in the minus 11 zone.

 

So yes, I think that where you got to when I was going to put down my hand is (Grace) help would be the right answer.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Avri might I just say immediately after a meeting that I’m already at, you know, hell, I’m awake and going to be for the next few hours anyway. So that’s not as much of a problem for the minus 11s if you’re already at the proceeding meeting. You know what I mean? So...

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes, let’s see what (Grace) can come up with.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I would find us a weekly spot.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

(Grace): I will find you a weekly slot. And I will try if I can to not have it overlap too much to a full CWG meeting because I know there’s a lot of burden on (leads) for that. And then also with our operator systems it might be a little bit difficult.

 

But I will try to find something and we might end up with an adjacent slot.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure. I had noted in a number of the multi-regional meetings that ILAC has seen running recently they’ve had reasonable success in the between 1900 and 2100 start time UTC in the 1800s to 2200 slots.

 

A lot of those are already booked up by long going GNSO Working Group calls because they’re good times a day for the Americas.

 

But you may be able to slide something in one of those as well. So just have a look at the calendars.

 

Lise Fuhr: I’m fine with that. I only have a - well during the holiday season 22nd to the 24th inclusive it’s different but apart from that...

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just that (Grace) will avoid the dates that the ICANN office is actually closed.

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes. Well we’ll see.

 

(Grace): I think we’ll be working through sort of holidays but...

 

Lise Fuhr: Yes.

 

(Grace): ...yes, I will find times and send you some suggestions.

 

Lise Fuhr: Terrific. Okay. Well if there isn’t any more, any other business we have five minutes left. Is there any more or is this the final?

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (Unintelligible) that?

 

Lise Fuhr: Okay, well thank you for attending all of you.

 

Man: All right, thank you. Bye-bye.

 

Lise Fuhr: And have a nice day, evening morning whenever you are, night somewhere.

 

Avri Doria: Weekend.

 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, weekend...

 

Lise Fuhr: Bye-bye.

 

Man: Bye-bye.

 

Woman: Bye.

 

Woman: (Unintelligible) bye.

 

 

END