Wolf Ludwig: In order to not lose too much of our call time I would prefer to start now. Just let me recall again who are the participants of today’s call. I have noted Oclana, I have noted Sandra, I have Uri, I have Manuel, I have Olivier and I have myself and Matthias for the staff. Is there anybody on the call I haven’t mentioned so far?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes you have Sebastian if you want to have me.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes, of course, welcome Sebastian.
Heidi Ulrich: Heidi.
Wolf Ludwig: And Heidi joined.
Heidi Ulrich: Hi everyone.
Wolf Ludwig: Welcome Heidi.
Heidi Ulrich: Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Anybody else? If not just let me start our today's first call of the year with all my best wishes for the New Year, et cetera, with lots of health and whatever to all of you. And I hope that ongoing year 2011 will be somehow as productive as last year was. And in my considerations year 2010 was again, a step forward in the development of EURALO. We are still far away from reaching our goals but we are progressing. Has anybody of you heard about any apologizes? Because I haven’t received any of the messages or indications of apologizes until now.
Matthias Langenegger: Wolf this is Matthias. I've just seen a message from Rudi saying that he may be a couple of minutes late.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay. This is sounds fine. And here I get a message from Heidi [inaudible00:02:40]. Can you try a dial out Matthias on this number? [Number omitted].
Matthias Langenegger: Okay, thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Just telling her that there will be a dial out to her.
Christopher Wilkinson: Good evening.
Wolf Ludwig: Good evening, this is who?
Christopher Wilkinson: Christopher.
Wolf Ludwig: Oh, welcome Christopher.
Christopher Wilkinson: I printed out the agenda but I don’t see where it's gone. But anyway I remember your agenda so don’t worry about that.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay can we start with a review of the summary minutes from the last meeting now? Are there any comments, remarks to the minutes of the last meeting? If this is not the case I will continue with the action items.
Annetta Muehlberg: Hello this is Annetta, can you hear me?
Wolf Ludwig: Yes now we can hear you. Welcome on the call Annetta.
Annetta Muehlberg: Hi everybody.
Wolf Ludwig: I guess the dial out to you worked.
Annetta Muehlberg: Yes, thank you very much.
Wolf Ludwig: And we have started today's program agenda already and we are now on this action item from the last call. and as far as I can see it staff has sent the links to the proposed bylaw modification and comments and share EURALO lists and ask EURALO members to read the documents prior to the call and [inaudible00:05:42] on the currently proposed changes. Thanks Matthias this was perfectly done last week already.
And I've seen there have been some comments to the proposals already by - I have seen a comment form Rudi. I have seen two comments from Christopher, from one of our German ALSs. But we will come to this agenda item later. Are there any questions, any comments? If this is not the case then I would like to continue with open public consultations. As you may have seen there was an interim report on geographic regions by the review working group and we are asked for comments or input from EURALO. Let me suggest that we postpone this item at the end of today's agenda because it has an old point.
And let me continue with the recently submitted ALAC statements. There was one on the draft of the 2011-2014 strategic plan. We had a consultation on that on the EURALO list along with some feedback received and forwarded to ALAC and as far as I could see some of our remarks were considered in the final ALAC draft.
And there was a second draft final report on policy aspects regarding introduction on single character IDNTLDs and I would like Olivier to say something on the last two points.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I'm sorry about that I completely missed what you just said now.
Wolf Ludwig: I was just asking are you - whether you can give us a brief summary on the recently submitted ALAC statements regarding the strategic plan and the final draft, final report on the policy aspects regarding introduction of single character IDNTLDs.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay excellent. Right thanks Wolf. We will start with the single character IDNTLDs. This is a paper that was or a statement that was originally written by James Singh that was brought up to date by Edmond Chung because the CJK region, i.e. Chinese, Japanese, Korean scripts region is highly affected by this because in those languages you manage to have some words, complete words written with one single character.
That was a past and the statement was made in good time. With regards to the draft strategic plan comments, the timetable this year was changed as you might know. We spoke to Kurt Priss at EURALO some time was it in November? Wolf was it in November that we had Kurt Priss on the line?
Wolf Ludwig: Yes it was in - yes I think it was in November. It was before the ICANN meeting in Cartagena.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes Wolf, it was November 16.
Wolf Ludwig: Right.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: November 16th yes.
Wolf Ludwig: Thanks a lot for the confirmation Heidi.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: And in fact if anyone wants to see what was presented at the time, there is also a Confluence page which points to the presentation which was given to us at the time explaining to us how the process was changing. A new draft strategic plan was published on the 27th of November and I m doing this from memory but I think it's the correct date. And of course we then had the Cartagena meeting taking place right after that where we all met with [inaudible00:10:51] and his team.
And then we were given an amount of time until early January to make our comments. And unfortunately it's the time when most people are away on holiday. So one of the comments we have submitted specifically and it was submitted from the EURALO region was the fact that most people are on holiday around those times and so we definitely have to think or ICANN has to think carefully about when the comments period needs to take place.
That said, this year of course we were unprepared because everything took place at the last minute and because the strategic plan was released at a time when we were not expecting it. The reason for the comments to come in earlier or the deadline for comments to take place earlier is because ICANN wishes to involve us, involve At-Large, involve the RALOs, involve the regions at an earlier stage in the process than in previous years.
This is a good thing but it also means that we will have to readjust our own timetables so as for us to start our work in the regions at an earlier time than late November, early December. And hopefully we can start that I would imagine maybe early November or maybe even late October. That’s some which we will have to work out at the time.
Anyway a statement was made and I think it's somehow that At-Large, well ALAC managed to work well so as to have all of the regional input included in that statement. And so we hope that we will get a positive answer on many of the points that we have made in the statement. We have asked for some feedback from the Board on the statements. So hopefully in time we will get that feedback, thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks a lot for your elaborations Olivier. Are there any questions regarding the two points? I hear no questions therefore I guess that you are explications were sufficient and most of you, I think, got a copy of the final report which was sent out I think 10 days or a forte night ago. And my personal comment, my personal opinion, I think the ALAC statement on the strategic plan is quite a good one.
Let me continue with our next and one of the main agenda items of today's call, it's Point 4, discussion on possible bylaw modifications. As you know, this is long story already. We started with this discussion months ago. It was a main part of our last general assembly in September in [Williams] where we found some principle agreement on the necessity to modify our bylaws in some parts.
One of the essential parts was to include individual members into EURALO and there were two scenarios, two options worked out of the [Williams] meeting and you can see the link on the EURALO workspace explaining the options to include individual members in EURALO structure. There is an Option A formally created a new membership category for unaffiliated members. And there is a second Option B creates a new ALS within the current structure that serves as a home for unaffiliated members.
And as I could see prior to the call there were comments left before already by Olivier who expressed his preference for Option B. A second one was expressed by Sebastian also favoring Option B. And the third one was my comment supporting the present comments on Option B.
And there over the last days to more comments submitted by Christopher and one more by Kristof. And I think there is - huh? I think there is a strong majority so far to go ahead with Option B. Are there any more comments regarding this point on the suggestions to include individual members? I hear Annetta.
Annetta Muehlberg: Yes I just tried to post it. To me it's rather awkward to have an ALS where it's members only have one thing in common that they are individual members of EURALO. So I understand that it's a little bit harder to handle or it is easier to handle to just have an extra ALS. I understand this but I think that the NARALO structure is very well that they put a lot of thought into it. And it makes sense to me. So this is why I rather think A is better but I would like to hear your arguments.
Wolf Ludwig: Are there anymore questions or comments? Otherwise I will directly respond to Annetta’s question.
Christopher Wilkinson: Well this is Christopher and I have always had very similar concerns and reservations but on this occasion I don’t see a better alternative. Because we are not strong enough to in effect, refuse people’s interest and eventual membership in some form or another just because they don’t have a home RALO. It's not idea but on this occasion I join the majority. But I understand your reservations but I don’t see a better alternative at this stage.
Uri: I think I agree with Christopher. It's not ideal but it's probably the easiest alternative at this stage.
Annetta Muehlberg: Yeah easier but doesn’t the NARALO work? I didn’t hear that they had any problems.
Wolf Ludwig: Well one of the main reasons for what I understood why quite a majority of us is preferring Option B is for reasons of practicality. And as it has passed already in real news the impact of Option A would be a subsequent modification of the memorandum of understanding between ICANN and EURALO. And as we discussed in [Williams] already, to my memory Option A would be a kind of a more wishful ideal option but would incline a lot of additional extra work not only at submission to the general assembly and some [inaudible00:19:53] of two set majority vote.
At the same moment we need to start the modification process of our MOO and there is quite a lot of work involved with what needs to be done in that case. And Option B is a more pragmatic approach but it's not an ideal solution for the moment but it could be an essential step forward already and it would be much more practical for us. And also it wouldn’t have all the workload involved what I mentioned before. So for a rather pragmatic reasons what I heard from most of you so far, the preference for the moment is on Option B.
Matthias Langenegger: And Wolf I would like to inform you that Sandra and Olivier have raised their hand in the chat room.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay so it's Sandra first and Olivier after that.
Sandra Hoferichter: Hello can you hear me?
Wolf Ludwig: Yes, please.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay actually I was more or less agreeing to what Annetta said because I think we just recognized the diversity of Europe while this is happening in the time zones. And I think it's rather complicated to put all the unaffiliated members, the individual members in one ALS. It might be practical for EURALO of ALAC. But I don’t think it's very practical for the members itself to organize themselves and to agree on one point and all the problems which are going behind this, that’s just want I want to say.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks Sandra, Olivier?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Wolf. Actually I [conduce] Sandra’s comment just now. If you look in the Option A, the fact that the unaffiliated individuals remain unaffiliated individuals still means that they have to select a representative for themselves. It says in there “Unaffiliated individuals will be responsible for selecting their representative to the GA. They will adopt a verifiable process to ensure that votes cast by the elected representative reflects the view held among their membership.” So it is pretty much the same sort of arrangement in fact, as having an ALS. Only that the ALS system makes sure that there are actually rules and boundaries and set rules as to how this process works.
If you don’t have rules on how this process works I think the unaffiliated individuals would be even less likely to be able to coordinate their activities and select their representatives to the GA. My other concern in regards to Option A is that there - it opens the door to I'm not saying the competition but to this question as to why would an individual join an ALS to become involved in At-Large when they could actually just stay as an unaffiliated individual that might have more chance to be heard if they have a loud enough voice by being an unaffiliated individual.
One has to notice in there that unaffiliated individual should not be a member of any ALS as one of the conditions that’s in there in the Option A. And so I'm a bit concerned about this condition of saying well if you're becoming an unaffiliated member then you need to not be a member of a certified ALS. What happens when you then become a member of a certified ALS?
These are just questions I think I'm not too happy about and this is one of the reasons why I thought Option B was a safer option. Not only for EURALO but also for the individuals concerned and also the fact that if new ALSs being created it can receive the help and the input from EURALO as to how it should be run. It can be effectively accompanied by EURALO in order to be able to sort its structure. Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Thank you Olivier I just want to comment that I share most of your concerns. And another consideration on my side is that Option A demands a much stronger auto organization from unaffiliated members to organize themselves and I'm not sure at the moment whether we are not demanding too much at the very beginning from unaffiliated members to organize themselves and to comply with the bylaws and the existing rules of EURALO.
Therefore I think the entrance barrier of Option A is much higher than the entrance barrier of Option B. and this is also a reason or consideration of practicability and therefore I'm still favoring Option B being the better solution for the time being. Not the ideal one but the more practical one. Any further comments? Yes?
Matthias Langenegger: Annetta and Sandra have their hands up.
Wolf Ludwig: Annetta and then Sandra again.
Annetta Muehlberg: I just wrote it down. In respect to your argument Wolf in regard to the MOU I don’t think that this should be any problem because when we founded the EURALO we already had different proposals and it was just clear that we have to make up our mind what exactly we would like to have. So there should be just an additional rule for individual members. So I don’t not think that this is a big deal.
And the other thing is I would be curious to hear if there are any new aspects? Last year we invited Evan to present his experience with the rule of NARALO and he said as far as I understood, please correct me if I'm wrong, but he said that it's fine, right? So I just don’t - if you all think it's better to have B I just want to be sure that we are not discussing problems which are not really existing.
Wolf Ludwig: Well that is actually a good point, yes thanks. Perhaps Heidi or Matthias can help us with some additional information regarding Annetta’s question?
Matthias Langenegger: Wolf hi, yes the difference between NARALO and EURALO is that when NARALO drafted its initial MOU it already included the provisions to have individual members. As you might remember all the MOUs had to be adopted by the Board and there was a public consultation on all the MOUs. And because it's been already implemented in the original version of the MOU, they didn’t have to do it.
However, with the changing in the EURALO MOU it would have to go through the public consultation process again. So that might take some more time because then you'd have to publish it, there would have to a be an open consultation and finally the Board would have to pass it.
Annetta Muehlberg: But I mean I'm surprised but even if that’s the case it would be - what should be the problem when NARALO has that rule so why should this happen?
Wolf Ludwig: Well it's -
Annetta Muehlberg: I mean it just doesn’t sound like a big thing.
Wolf Ludwig: Well it would probably pass. I think that’s not the main fear but it would need much more time because it has to go through a process and this has to be accompanied or done by the staff and the RALO leadership and the whole thing becomes much more complicated then if we would just do it with Option B. But it's actually giving the same rights to unaffiliated members.
Uri: Uri coming in.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes please Uri?
Uri: I mean I would say I'm actually more frustrated by the argument just presented by Olivier. That is to say that even Option A would mean that the unaffiliated individuals they actually would be a sort quasi ALS in the sense that they need to elect their representative. And that means a lot of stuff that we already have in an ALS sort of template in a way. So the unaffiliated individuals would need to somehow start inventing the wheel from the scratch. Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Thanks Uri. And before I give the floor to Sandra there is one argument, one more aspect which was mentioned by Olivier before and it's on the level of incentives. That our main approach should be to have participation via existing ALSs or to find new ALSs because ALSs will always be the main basis of EURALO. And I remember at one point regarding an unaffiliated member who expressed interest in EURALO, it was Afri and with Afri I discussed it several times.
And finally Afri decided another way, she became a member of Isaac Kinland. And this is also - and as should also be understood as a valuable way to participate in our community either by existing RALOs or if you don’t have any affility to an existing one you have a second option by Option B. And this is offering a balance and a fair chance, I think, to everybody. That’s my personal point of view, Sandra?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes thank you Wolf. Actually I just forgot to clear my screen but just like to make a last comment from my side. I can follow the arguments for Option A just mentioned right now. If you move to Option B or if the majority is for Option B maybe we should very carefully think about how to show the diversity of those members. Maybe make some rules within EURALO especially for this pool of unaffiliated members. But I think it should be done in the next part of what could be done if you move to Option B which I think the majority would prefer.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay you are arguing in a majority would adopt Option B then the outlines for Option B would need some more improvements but would also be then if we prefer Option B then we should rediscuss it and think about how we could make it better to be presented before the next general assembly in Belgrade. This would mean by the end of April. But we would still have some time to work on Option B to make it better than it is outlined at the moment.
Sandra Hoferichter: It's end of May Wolf, it's not end of April.
Wolf Ludwig: Yeah but we have to submit the proposal - I know that -
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, okay.
Wolf Ludwig: The end of May but we have to invite for the general assembly four weeks before and if you would like to have bylaw modifications then they should be submitted as soon as possible so that members can make their opinion on it - make up their opinion on it.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yep okay.
Annetta Muehlberg: Would we also - could we also add something like review in two years, something like that?
Wolf Ludwig: This is actually a good idea. My thought on this knowing that B is not an ideal - it wouldn’t necessarily be an ideal solution that we make Option B as a starting point with this inbuilt option for review of two up to three years and to say after two to three years we have to see that it was practical, whether it fits to the aspirations that we had in line with it, et cetera. Or if it needs improvement.
Annetta Muehlberg: Sounds good to me.
Wolf Ludwig: If you find the majority on such a procedure as we know. I think there is a majority of participants on the call prefer Option B and Sandra says okay if we decide on Option B then we have to work on some more improvements and we have to include considerations or points like having a review after two to three years.
Matthias Langenegger: Wolf I see Olivier’s hand raised.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes, please Olivier?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you both. I just wanted to add my support to Sandra’s idea and I think that the - well ultimately it would be EURALO’s job to write the bylaws of that ALS. And so I would hope that we would get all of EURALO’s input into writing this ALS and I definitely support the idea of having even built into the bylaws that this ALS has to go through a review process every two years or at least two years after having been created, at least once and then left to the ALS itself whether they want to continue having a review every two years. That is definitely something that would be very good, thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thank you very much Olivier. If there are not additional comments at the moment let me summarize. I hear kind of an agreement on the preference of Option B and to concentrate our next efforts on improvement of the existing outline and to make presentable handout for the general assembly. Could this be the conclusion of the discussion so far?
If I hear no objection then I take this as an agreement, as decision of today’s call for the minutes. And seeing some time I think we have to continue with the next point of agenda Item 4, review suggested modifications and it would be some modification on term limits of Board members and officers. What we also discussed in [Williams] and this is quite urgent as you all know because we will have - we need to have elections on the EURALO officers in Belgrade at the end of May.
Does anybody have a look on this one? I still have a personal remark. As I told to Olivier and others before, I will restrict my attention on moderation role. As I will be personally concerned by bylaw modification like this I will not read any other personal opinion on this except the one I expressed so far under the comments. And I would like to hear your ideas on this. Has everybody seen the suggested options to change EURALO term limit. There is one Option A, no term limits at all.
Annetta Muehlberg: This is only Board, right? We are not talking about ALAC, only Board right?
Wolf Ludwig: Yes this is only Board and Board officers. Board officers would be Chair and Secretariat.
Matthias Langenegger: Wolf I see Sebastian has raised his hand.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes Sebastian?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes, thank you. I don’t know if I am allowed to speak on that as you will not speak yourself. I think we have two points here. the first one is that we need more people involved but in the same time we have so much EURALO people involved in different places in the At-Large organization that sometimes it's hard to find other new member because we have currently one in the Noncom, three on the ALAC, one with the Board of ICANN and I think I can reach some others.
And we have this problem of number of seats already occupied by EURALO. At the same time I think we need some continuity and it could be interesting to have new people. But in fact we will have new people because even if at the end of the day we take this decision who will stay for set mandate is our Chair. And I think it's a very good then. Are we doing that just for Wolf? I don’t think so. I think we need to do that for all the Board members, the general and for the officer.
And the [inaudible00:42:48] will have the office for three terms, that means for Wolf a third term as a Chair. It's a good solution for now. And I think not because it is on the bylaws that we need to always have the same officer for three terms. But it will allow us to make that decision. And I will once again call this solution to have [inaudible00:43:23] for both officer and that will leave open for the Board members, thank you very much.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks Sebastian. Are there any other comments?
Annetta Muehlberg: I understand what Sebastian is saying. I agree. It's a difficult thing.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Olivier here.
Wolf Ludwig: Olivier please.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Wolf. I wonder what the other RALOs have? Do the other RALOs have term limits?
Wolf Ludwig: That’s a good question. Matthias or Heidi can you answer Olivier’s question?
Matthias Langenegger: Yes Wolf, they are discussing term limits in LACRALO. They don’t currently have one for the Secretariat and the Chair. They don’t have term limits in the North American region. They don’t have term limits in APRALO. They do have term limits in AFRALO for the Chair positions, but for the Chair I don’t believe, but I'm not quite sure.
Wolf Ludwig: So that means we wouldn’t do anything let's say exceptional if we would come up with this no term limit in our bylaws. It would be more or less in line with regulations of other RALOs.
Sebastian Bachollet: And if we add the question of the fact that we, as EURALO, we have not aligned mandates of [inaudible00:45:13] from the EURALO Board and for ALAC. We have a bigger problem because if you see the situation in NARALO they will not change but they changed the seat of the Chair and one ALAC seat. And it does allow people to stay. Then is it something so much different to have the Chair or Secretariat for said mandate? I prefer to have this open also as solution, thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Thank you Sebastian. I think we are more or less all aware that this is not a desirable solution if you have - if it would have capacities to easily fill leadership functions at EURALO if we would have more people on the list as they actually could use. This would be the most desirable situation I can imagine. But as a matter of fact, EURALO is still in a kind of a start up period and we still need some more consolidation.
And one day I hope that we will have faced conditions where we don’t have to discuss about term limits, that we simply have more interests and more capable people to do the necessary than we need. But I think there is a kind of majority or agreement from your side that we should submit those options to change EURALO term limits to the general assembly in Belgrade? Is this right? I hear - are there any objections? Then I consider this as a mandate to prepare this as another important point for bylaw modifications for the next general assembly, end of May.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Wolf if I could just come in please?
Wolf Ludwig: Pardon?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Could I comment please?
Wolf Ludwig: Yes please, please Olivier.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Wolf. I totally support that we would discuss this in Belgrade. One of the things of course is you're entirely right. EURALO is still in a startup mode somehow although we still have some ALSs. This whole thing of having term limits is great when you have plenty of people wishing to take the positions. But it puts a great pressure when there are not many people willing to take the positions.
And perhaps it's our own failure of making those posts [inaudible00:48:26] attractive. That said of course having to spend so much time on the phone and work for three effectively requires some special individual who likes doing this sort of thing. I don’t know. I'm sure in the future there might be more people involved and I hope that there will be. What I was going to suggest and maybe this is something which we will be able to suggest if the discussion goes ahead in Belgrade.
Is that temporarily the term limits get suspended and that they will revert back in the future setting a date two, three, four years or five years in the future so as to give a little bit more space until then. this is a mix between the two because then it wouldn’t need an actual vote again to revert back to having term limits because one of the concerns I always have about not having term limits is that you end up with people who will just clamp onto the seat.
Or you might end up with people who clamp onto their seats, don’t want to leave and are preventing others from taking part, thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks a lot Olivier. I think this is a very good and a very important point to be considered for the final modification.
Annetta Muehlberg: Just a question of understanding, so this would be a proposal we make for the general assembly?
Wolf Ludwig: Right it would be -
Annetta Muehlberg: So -
Wolf Ludwig: It would be a temporary solution but wouldn’t go for eternity it would just reflect the operational models of EURALO for the moment. And if EURALO is getting stronger one day we would switch back the existing solution that in general there should be a kind of term limit.
Annetta Muehlberg: But isn’t it the case that there is a need that we have to make a decision for certain persons right now? Or is it - this can last until May?
Wolf Ludwig: Well we have to be prepared for some real action in Belgrade at the end of May. And we have to come up with a workable solution with precisely I have suggested and there is a given circumstances I couldn’t be suggested for continuation. If a consideration of interim solution to have no term limits for the time being then I could be suggested for that term.
Annetta Muehlberg: I understand. Yeah Olivier, it sounds great.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yes, sure, sure.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay so if I hear no objection, I take this as a decision of today's call also for the minutes that we will suggest this kind of a interim solution to the general assembly regarding the term limits. I just hear the clock in my back we are over time for today's call. Do we have another 10 or 15 minutes from all of you to go ahead with agenda Items 5, 6 and 7? I will try to be as precise as possible. I hear no objection. As we said in [inaudible00:52:58] already, there are some more parts in our bylaws who are not considered as being very useful.
Our bylaws are extremely long, they are extremely detailed, there are provisions in the bylaws who doesn’t fit to our actual practice over the last years. And therefore that was the suggestion to have an all over revision of our bylaws. This was also suggested by Sebastian, our comments were presented already by Sebastian. But my point is we are not so much in a hurry for other bylaw modifications. The most important ones we discussed today, the third one is to modify our bylaws to align them with ALAC representative elections.
And there is a suggestion on the table regarding this lineup, bylaw changes to align the elections of the EURALO Board with ALAC representatives. Are there any comments to this one? I think it was Annetta who suggested months ago already this one. Annetta you would like to say something on that?
Annetta Muehlberg: No it's perfect. I mean it's just written there and that’s the way I think it would make sense.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay. Are there any other comments to bring this in line with -
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Wolf?
Wolf Ludwig: Yes Olivier?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yes since you can't see the Adobe screen I totally agree with it. I think it's an excellent suggestion, thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay so I take this as a mandate that we will submit this one of the next general assembly as well. That will mean we will have three main points of priority for bylaw modifications in Belgrade. These are the three points and we still have to consider modifying the rest of the bylaws. This is desirable but it is not very urgent at the moment let me say.
Sebastian Bachollet: I have just one point it's that I can support what you say but when you look now the Secretariat is [inaudible00:56:03] it's in the [inaudible00:56:06] it was an outside Secretariat to be paid Secretariat. It's not the one we are then. And that’s when they could give us some conflict and difficulties. And I agree with you that it's not our [inaudible00:56:23] because really with that we have to decide that we will fix that within one year or something like that.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay I take this as a motion that we have to continue with our bylaw revisions and we have to fix a kind of a timeframe that we do the rest of the modifications within one year. This would mean up to the subsequent general assembly after Belgrade. Would this be the way you are suggesting Sebastian?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes I agree completely.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay.
Annetta Muehlberg: I would like just a question, so the only thing open is the general revision of the text of the bylaws where there is a proposal by Sebastian, right?
Wolf Ludwig: Yes.
Annetta Muehlberg: That’s what you have been talking about?
Wolf Ludwig: Yes and if somebody else will suggest, okay I don’t see the reasonability of another point, what was not mentioned by Sebastian. But I think as far as I remember Sebastian listed all the points but they're quite obvious to me as well.
Annetta Muehlberg: Okay so we discussed this later. I just make sure that we do not get stuck in all this discussion of bylaw revision stuff. I think that we've done the important part right now. And Sebastian I would like to know, do you think the comments you made are really, really important? Or is it just a sort of nice add on or little change or something? Because I think when you have bylaws it's really difficult to go more into details and I do not think that there are that grave changes right now. Did I understand that right?
Sebastian Bachollet: Thank you for the question. And I think we can live with but are so difficult trouble that if we talk about Secretariat and in the bylaw it's -
Annetta Muehlberg: Different.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes.
Sebastian Bachollet: And the second one that we are supposed to elect at least one Chairperson and a Treasurer and we never do that. we elect a Chair, Vice-Chair, a Co-Chair, a Secretariat -
Wolf Ludwig: Yes.
Annetta Muehlberg: But this is - but to change this it's difficult because you could put it the other way around. We could not live up to our bylaws yet and we are still struggling for it. So instead of changing the bylaws we could rather see if there are possibilities which we actually meant to do.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes but remember we were thinking when we signed this MOU that we could - we will need to earn the money, we've never earned the money and I don’t think we will in the near future. It's ICANN money and then we don’t need a Treasurer, we need a real Vice-Chair and Secretariat. And then it's just a question of changing those words. It takes not so long and to align with our way of doing things more than anything else.
Annetta Muehlberg: Well I'm just afraid of another timeline because a year passes by fast and we’d rather want to work on content and not much on -
Sebastian Bachollet: I agree it's why I wanted to have all that gone once.
Wolf Ludwig: It would be wishful to do it all in once but it's rather comprehensive. And I think it looks - it's a second surgery got on it and we really should do some more modifications there - our bylaw provisions do not fit the actual or the practical working orders of EURALO. I think it's an unnecessary thing to do. But as I said before we are not in a hurry. Perhaps it would be a good solution to have a task force or a small group working on this and coming up with concrete suggestions. That’s to say, suggestions made already by Sebastian or if we have some more suggestions, et cetera, this would be another way to do it. But I think it's good to have a first look on that. But due to the time constraints we cannot continue with this today.
The next agenda item I would like to consider is Point 5, EURALO input to Work Team C, SWOT analysis. As you all know as a consequence of the ALAC review there were several work teams created where members of us are part of. Sandra and I and Sebastian we are members of Work Team B and Work Team C is another one and there was a SWOT analysis. And I think it's Olivier who is part of Work Team C and who will give us a short summary of that.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Wolf and I'm going to try to do this as quickly as possible so as for everyone to be able to leave soon. We've basically in Work Team C have had to work on Recommendation 5 and Recommendation 6 of the Final Report on the At-Large Review which was published quite a while ago already. And we are now reaching the point when we have to implement those recommendations.
Recommendation 5 speaks about the ALAC need to develop strategic and operational plans as part of ICANN’s planning process. And Recommendation 6 deals specifically with the At-Large developing accurate cost models. In order to develop some solutions for Recommendation 5 specifically, the working group has decided to develop some SWOT models, SWOT analysis which means Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Now ICANN has presented in Cartagena a new way of running the strategic development process and as I've mentioned earlier in fact in this call, and so we've actually had to look at making new proposals for the strategic planning, for operational planning and for the budgetary planning.
And one of the things therefore is to run this strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis on each one of those types of planning. We've done that and we've built a - and when I say we I say the Work Team C has done that and has developed the three SWOTs which are actually displayed on the EURALO Wiki. What we now need is to have the input from the regions. And so there is a EURALO page that is there. We need the input from EURALO, what it all means to you in the region.
What are our strengths with regards to strategic planning? What are our weaknesses? What are our opportunities? What are our threats? And so for operational planning and for budgetary planning. And I would like to stress that these are specifically for strategic planning, operational planning and budgetary planning. You will find that some of them are already quite full and what I would hope is that we get more to put in there by the next EURALO meeting which will take place in a month.
So we have a month to work on this. I would also hope that we can get someone at EURALO to be in charge of assisting anyone who has a problem being able to edit the Wiki page directly. There are sometimes problems for people who don’t have a log in or who don’t have the right permissions to edit the page.
Ideally all the ALSs should be able to write their contributions directly in there but if they don’t I'd like to have one person to volunteer to be able to collect these and write those contributions inside the right boxes, thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks a lot Olivier. I think you have seen what was explained by Olivier so far and at the end of the document there is [inaudible01:06:29] is a consultation procedure which is going on until the 18th of February and I wouldn’t like to go into a discussion at this point now. I would like to ask you to have a look on that and if you have comments or whatever you add them into the workspace or you send them to me and we will reconsider this point at our next monthly call in February. Can I ask Matthias to keep this in mind that we have to discuss again and come to an agreement on 6.5 of today’s call in our next call?
Matthias Langenegger: Yep.
Wolf Ludwig: Point 6 on today’s agenda is EURALO position on geographic region interim report. There was a working group at ICANN who was discussing over a longer period of time the rationale of ICANN’s regional model. And they came up with an interim report which was presented at the Cartagena meeting. I took part in this presentation and I think it was very interesting discussions there.
And seen from a European point of view there are many aspects where the existing regional model doesn’t make a lot of sense to us. We had some cases where there were ALS applications from - well let's say what we may consider Eastern Europe but what is actually part of the Asia Pacific region ICANN. Countries like [inaudible01:08:46]. We had another case earlier before where people from Armenia expressed interest to become a member at EURALO and where we had to say sorry it's nice that you are interested in EURALO but from a formalistic point of view in case of you would be part of the Asia Pacific region.
There are a lot of such curious points in the discussion and I don’t want to go into any details. If we want to formulate EURALO input we have to do this until the end of month. Therefore let me suggest that we create a task force with having a look on it and who is preparing a kind of preliminary input from our side. Is there anybody interested in assisting to formulate something?
Uri: Well Wolf I might be.
Wolf Ludwig: Uri?
Uri: Yes.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes I was thinking thanks a lot for your suggestion, I was already thinking about you. And I would like to suggest that we do this separately. So we will exchange mail after this call and we can exchange some opinions on that. And we can start some drafting.
Uri: Okay.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Wolf may I suggest something as well?
Wolf Ludwig: Yes please.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you both. May I suggest that we put a call out on the EURALO discuss list so as to try and get more people in this than just the people who are currently on the call at the moment. We might have some people who feels quite spunky about this in RALOs that are effected directly by this. So let's -
Wolf Ludwig: That’s a very good idea.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Sorry not RALOs, any ALSs that are directly affected.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay it's a great idea. I would like to support Olivier. So may I ask that we organize a call for that if there are some more people interested in participating in this type of task force and to exchange ideas before we start a drafting? Okay thanks a lot so we will come back Matthias to you for this post call call on EURALO position on geographic regions.
Matthias Langenegger: Okay.
Wolf Ludwig: The last point I would like to deal with today, is Point 7 Update on Outreach Recommendations from At-Large Improvements Working Team B Liaison. As I mentioned before it's Sebastian, it's Sandra and it's me who are part of Work Team B. And I had date confusion at the last Work Team B call last week; I think it was last Wednesday. And I had to apologize for that and I would like to suggest that we pick up this point again at our next call in February. Are there any time limits Matthias inclined with that?
Matthias Langenegger: I'm sorry Wolf I missed your question.
Wolf Ludwig: Regarding the deadlines for Work Team B, and can we discuss this at our next call in February?
Matthias Langenegger: Oh of course yes I think that will work.
Sebastian Bachollet: I need to tell you that I am not really supposed to participate in those types of working groups anymore. And I was not able to be at the last one but I don’t think it's - it's not I don’t think - I am supposed not to be participating to something that maybe one day the Board will have act on. Then I would like to suggest marginally that we need some more EURALO people involved in those four working groups because it's an important part of the work of the At-Large for the future. And I really think that if we can find new people - it's a way also to find new people for future Board members of EURALO too.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks a lot Sebastian for his remark. I think it's a good idea to have a look at whether we can find some more people interested to join for example, Work Team B. There was a good suggestion made from the EURALO side in the Work Team B regarding empowerment and capacity building programs. And I will send around my list of EURALO list an announcement for the next capacity building programs from the [inaudible01:15:00] foundation.
But if something very specific what was suggested from our side in Work Team B so far. Are there any more questions on this point? Otherwise we will reconsider this one at our next call in February. Is there anybody from our representatives who want to say something or reason on upcoming activities of ALAC and EURALO members?
Uri: Wolf this is Uri.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes.
Uri: Just if can use a minute for the Work Team A since B and C have been mentioned. Work Team A, I'm the Co-Chair of that with Evan Leibovitch and I just want to report briefly that we are advancing quite well. That is to say our task is to work into the bylaws, into the ICANN bylaws the key points of the final report that is to say providing, enlarging in a way ALAC’s and At-Large’s brief so that it was advising on policy providing input into operations.
It’s part of accountability mechanism and it's part of a role in ICANN’s outreach. And I'm glad to report that our last telephone conference we got into an agreement, consensus with the ICANN legal department and our Work Team on how to formulate the first paragraph of that part of bylaws that deals with ALAC and At-Large.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks a lot Uri I think this is going in the direction of improving public and At-Large participation at ICANN as far as I understood this discussion so far. And the suggestions you are working on I consider them as very promising. Thanks a lot Uri. Are there any other remarks, comments?
Matthias Langenegger: Wolf I see Olivier has raised his hand.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes Olivier please go ahead.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Wolf, just to mention on the question of what's going on in At-Large, ALAC and the ALAC Excom, the ALAC is meeting next week for the first time online and so I think you will expect the ALAC monthly call is on the 25th of January. We haven’t had a chance yet to have a monthly call. So expect some movement to start going. There are a couple of large issues that are coming ahead; one is of course the meeting that will take place between the Board and the GAC soon.
And a couple of other issues leading up to the next meeting in San Francisco. So I hope that we will have all of the ALAC members there because there certainly a number of task forces and working groups that needs to be set up. And there will be a lot of input required from the regions as well. So really we need to get our - start drumming and get people involved into this. the other thing I wanted to say was although there might have not been that much discussion going on on the At-Large list, there is a lot going on behind the scenes with the Executive Committee at the moment trying to liaise with the GNSO on a number of sticky issues which have been described on the ALAC list.
One for example being to do with a joint applicant support working group that is still going on and a couple of others with regards to and I am trying to find my schedule. There are a couple of more things, yeah the PDNR, Post Expiry Domain Name Resolution. Many of these working groups are still going on from prior to Cartagena so I would also hope that At-Large - well EURALO members would be interested in joining some of those calls in order to take part. We need more people from At-Large in that. That’s all thank you very much.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks a lot for this additional information Olivier. So please keep it in mind that next week there will be an ALAC call and I will try to make it if I have no other time conflict I will be part of the call.
Heidi Ulrich: Wolf this is Heidi could I just add one more thing?
Wolf Ludwig: Yes please go ahead Heidi.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes just another relatively urgent issue and important issue that the RALOs and the ALAC will be discussing this and next week are the contributions to the Fiscal Year ’12 Budget. And there will be an announcement sent out today with a workspace will all of the relevant information relevant to that process including the templates that need to be filled out and completed by next week. So I just wanted to bring everyone’s attention to that.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thank you very much Heidi. And I think we have to come back to this after the call and via the list.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes you'll be seeing a lot on the various lists starting tomorrow onward for the next week.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks, okay we will try our best to deal with this Heidi.
Heidi Ulrich: Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: If there is no further information I would like to close up today's call. We are over time now by exactly 30 minutes but I think it was worth to take the time and do it. And I thank all of you for your contributions and for your inputs. Thanks a lot and we will stay in contact via the list and we will do what we decided to do over the next days. Thanks a lot and I wish everybody of you an excellent evening.
-End of Recorded Material-
