Gisella Gruber-White: On today’s call we have Darlene Thompson, Gareth Shearman, Dave Kissoondoyal, Tijani Ben-Jemaa, Cintra Sooknanan, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Fouad Bajwa who’s shortly about to join, apologies; Cheryl Langdon-Orr. And from staff we have Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene and myself, Gisella Gruber-White.
I don’t believe I’ve left anyone off the call. If I have please just say your name now. And apologies from Charles Mok, Olivier Crépin-Leblond and Sergio Salinas Porto. Thanks, over to you, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. I’ve just got into my steam-driven computer to open up the links through from the Wiki page so we can look at the action items arising from our last meeting, which we are now finally getting to. And I note that unfortunately the diary entry for today’s call was not with links, so that needs to be looked at because those people who would be on limited bandwidths or just wanting to link straight from the diary would be as delayed as I am indeed.
Okay, looking at the action items from the Work Team C meeting on the 2nd of February we have the following, and some of these matters are on the agenda. So those that are on the agenda, for example the first one which is Dev to create process diagrams regarding the Recommendations passed 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, the “now and then” which we saw interchange on developing and some notes from Olivier were used to create the current diagrams from the agenda that has been issued, and we’ll be having a look at that as our next item.
So we’ll move on to that when we get to that point in the agenda. The next part on our action items was Seth to research and advise the Work Team whether there is an ongoing need for Recommendation 5.3.1. Is there?
Seth Greene: Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes? Hello?
Seth Greene: Hi, thanks. Yes, I actually wanted to get a bit of clarification on that – that was the point of the email that I sent. The question that I know Legal is going to ask is “What is it that makes Work Team C think that this task no longer needs to be done, the task of developing an annual support agreement?” I’m hoping that the Work Team can actually clarify that for me now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, well then can I suggest that we move that to a piece of any other business, and we get that on through the agenda and have a look at the next action item so we don’t spend too much time just on the review point? But we’ll deal with that in this call then.
Seth, while you’ve got the microphone, the next items I believe are all done, which is the determination of Recommendation 6 and then the Recommendation 5 and 6 next steps with the matched mapping to be on the agenda. That’s been done. Did you want to speak to any of those?
Seth Greene: No thank you, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. And so each of us, we all had an action item, which was to review the Work Team’s own contributions to the SWOT Analysis version 2 and the tasks listed in the simplified outline, and decide which SWOT points apply to which recommendation tasks and to have it matched with its mapping. It was suggested that this could be done (inaudible), and Olivier and Tijani had come to the meeting with ideas already formulated.
I know that Seth completed it but I didn’t know particular interactions from all of us on the mailing list; certainly I have neglected this task and I guess we will look at it at the stage of the agenda when we get to that.
The RALO SWOT analysis, which was an action item on Matthias; Matthias to remind RALO SWOT coordinators of their deadlines. We certainly saw interaction and various ticks on the RALO SWOT analysis and that is probably what caught most people’s interest, time and energy as opposed to the previous action item. And that I suppose is complete.
Is there any new business on the review of action items for Work Team C from the last meeting? In which case let’s move on to our next agenda item, which is over to Dev for 15 minutes this time. The item for discussion, Dev, which you’ll be leading is looking at the new process diagrams for Work Team C recommendations, and that is with reference to the “before” strategy in Budget version 1 and where we are now.
Go ahead Dev, and I assume there’ll be a link for us to follow the Google drawings as well. I will that believe be in the web links for today’s meeting, but if it’s not. Yes it is, in fact there’s two copies of the now version 1 and one of the four strategies in version 2. So if you can have a look at those links while Dev’s preparing. Over to you, Dev.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Thank you, Chair. What I basically did here was to incorporate Olivier’s suggested diagrams for describing the current processes within At-Large used to contribute to strategic planning before FY ’12. And that first item is the first drawing on the link labeled “before strategy and budget 1.” The attempt here is to draw a chart up of what exactly happened in ALAC and other At-Large, what was done for strategic planning before the FY ’12 new process.
So essentially at the beginning of the process ICANN releases the guidelines for the strategic plan, ALAC calls for the strategic input and then information and input is culled from all RALOs as well as from within ALAC itself; so input from the RALOs, ALAC, and ICANN staff. ALAC puts it all together, integrates that input and then submits it too the ICANN Board. And that was essentially the process.
Further down on that page, this is the flow chart of the process within At-Large used to contribute to financial planning before the FY ’12 process.
Gisella Gruber-White: Sorry to interrupt you, Dev, this is Gisella speaking. If the person who is moving around and moving papers around, if they could please go on mute because it’s creating quite a bit of interference on the line. Thank you.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, alright. Okay, so as I was just saying that the second flow chart further down the page talks of the current processes within ALAC and At-Large used to contribute to the financial planning before the 2012 financial planning process. So at the beginning ICANN calls for budget input. ALAC solicits all the RALOs for comment as to what they want to see in the budget. ALAC includes that input along with whatever ALAC decides to also include for the budget.
This is submitted to ICANN Finance, and then ICANN Finance decides if they grant or approve the budget. Whether it’s a yes or no, really there’s no clear follow-up or feedback given by the ICANN Finance as to why it’s approved or not other than a “Yes” or “No.” So that was how Olivier viewed it, and I guess we can now look at is this accurate? Is this an accurate depiction of what the processes were for strategic planning and financial planning before FY ’12?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let’s see if we have any input on that. Fouad’s going “Hmmm.” Okay, Fouad, why is the “Hmm” there?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Oh, Heidi has posted the chat. I’m going to view and then you can enlarge it that way.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, there’s view and there’s also select a little magnifying glass icon, but if you do that beware because every time you click it will drill down very quickly. You may end up with an extremely large view of it.
Oh, okay, Fouad’s retracting his “Hmm.” The view of Work Team C, do you all believe this is a reasonable and accurate description of how it was before FY ’12?
Nobody’s disagreeing, Dev, and I must say it fits with my recollection. Go ahead, Tijani, please. You’ll need to unmute.
Tijani Ben-Jemaa: Okay, thank you, Cheryl. Thank you, Dev, for this work. I think it is really representing what was going on, but I have one question. Why do you mention the ICANN staff input for the strategic planning and not for the budget and the finance and the financial planning?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Good. This is Dev. Thank you, Tijani, that’s a good question and it was going to be one of my questions I was going to raise. I was looking at Olivier’s notes for this and it doesn’t include the ICANN staff input on the financial planning. So I wasn’t too sure as to why he did that, and I do imagine that ICANN staff would also provide input into the financial process, but maybe it’s not… How should I put it? It’s not up to ICANN staff to suggest financial… Maybe it’s something that Heidi could explain, or could elaborate better on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, it would be good for Heidi to intervene, and I would suggest though it depends on whether you’re looking immediately before FY ’12; in other words, in the FY ‘10/’11 period or pre-‘10/’11. What you have here is more accurate in the last round, which of course Olivier was more directly involved with. It is absolutely inaccurate for rounds prior to that where ICANN sent to ICANN Finance. There was definitely a loop prior to that, and in the days of pre-Heidi I have no knowledge how it ever went to ICANN Finance.
In fact, the mechanism was far more a Policy Department budget decision than anything else. But Heidi, over to you. We may need in fact to have a pre-date (inaudible) here, so a date period that runs from say, 2007 through to the 2009 budget, the pathway we followed. And Heidi will be able to tell us that.
Heidi Ullrich: Thank you, Cheryl. I would need to look into how the system worked prior to when I came on board, but Dev, just for clarification before I continue with answering Tijani’s question, when you say “before fiscal year ‘12” you mean the work for example in this year? Or do you mean for the fiscal year ’12 budget? It is confusing.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It is before on this diagram. Let me be really clear. What Dev’s work is trying to do is show at the point of reporting we have a situation in FY ’12 which is vastly different to everything it has been before. We will recognize that and there’s a diagram that he’ll take us through there in a minute, and that really is almost a solution to many of the critiques that the review of the ALAC had without us having to make the changes – the changes were thrust upon it, which Seth is going to come back to, answering your question as well. This is a diagram to show how it was up until now.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay. So I think what I would add is on the second one, on the financial planning, even though it wasn’t much there was some staff input on the financial planning, particularly for basic services. So for example, in the past we would need to indicate the number of At-Large teleconferences that were expected in each year.
And for this next year, for fiscal year ’12 that has increased even more so to where we need to not only do such basic services as teleconferences but also requests for example, further interpretation, translation; even down to the number of pages we expect to have requested. So I think that there should be at least a smaller box if the smallness might indicate the level of input, that ICANN staff input did actually occur in the fiscal year planning prior to fiscal year ’12.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay.
Heidi Ullrich: I don’t know if that was clear.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: This is Dev. I think I understand that. I don’t think it needs to be a smaller box or anything, though.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay. Let me get Cheryl to be dialed back. Gisella, could you do that please?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Are there any other thoughts or questions from anyone? No? Okay, well if there is any…
Heidi Ullrich: And again I’m sorry, but we’re still hearing someone definitely moving around, which is causing some interference on the call.
Tijani Ben-Jemaa: Dev, until Cheryl will join us again, can you please continue?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Certainly, Tijani. I will do so. The next process diagram, which is linked in the Work Team C agenda is the “now” strategy, version 1. So if everybody will click onto that link, this is attempting to show what the current process is now for fiscal year 2012.
Heidi Ullrich: Dev, this is Heidi. Did you want to say “fiscal year ‘12” or “post-fiscal year ’12” strategy process or development process?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: That would probably be a better name for it, yes. I was trying to just keep it, because Olivier had called it the “now” strategy and put all his notes in that, I just named it that to be consistent. But yes, we should probably name it “the current processes used within At-Large to contribute to strategic planning as of FY ’12.”
Heidi Ullrich: Thank you.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Yeah, so that will be the name, and I’ll put that up for the version 2 of the document. So if you now look at the strategy, the draft ICANN strategy is posted, ALAC reviews and submits comments. Then there’s a confirmed ICANN strategy posted for public comment, and then ALAC calls for input from all the RALOs as well as discussions within ALAC itself; which ALAC then integrates the input, puts it together and sends its comments on the strategic plan to the ICANN Board.
If the Board asks for more information then ICANN will then go back and repeat the process. It will then possibly even ask for further opinions from all the RALOs again if there’s a need to add more details or maybe it needs (inaudible); or maybe it decides not to pursue that strategy that it has previously submitted. And then it’s submitted again to the Board. If the Board does not ask for any more information then the process ends.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks, Dev. And any comments on that before we move to the budget in FY ’12 on? I don’t hear anyone or see anyone waving their hand.
Heidi Ullrich: Sorry, Cheryl, I was just trying to unmute myself. Just one comment-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go for it, Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Just one comment. On the box that currently states “confirmed ICANN strategy,” I just suggested in the chat that it might state instead “Revised draft strategic plan posted for comment.”
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. It’s Dev, I agree with that. I can also make that modification for the second version of this.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay. And I’m still just looking at this, and right above that box it says “ALAC reviews and submits comments.” Below it says “ALAC calls for input into the strategic plan,” but it’s only at that point that it goes to the RALOs. And I’m just wondering why it wouldn’t go to the RALOs in that upper box above, when the strategic plan is posted for public comment.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Well, as I look back at what happened for this year’s strategic plan, I’m not sure whether there was an ALAC… I believe there was an ALAC call. I could be wrong, Heidi, but I do recall there was an ALAC call on the strategic plan and then there was a further presentation to the RALOs – LACRALO and EURALO, I don’t know about the other RALOs – sometime in November just before Cartagena; and then a further meeting in Cartagena and then it was submitted.
Heidi Ullrich: Cheryl, I’ll need Cheryl’s memory for this but I do recall that yes, there was a call with Akram and selected members of the ALAC. But I’m just wondering what group that was.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep, that is correct, Heidi. So yes, it went to the ALAC first and then out to the RALOs. So it did get a reasonable representation. Tijani has his hand up. Go ahead, Tijani.
Tijani Ben-Jemaa: Cheryl, you said what I wanted to say. So okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alright, okay. Back to you, Dev.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. Now we look at the third document. The third document refers to the “now” for financial planning that is currently used, that we will use for FY ’12. The link is again in the agenda page, which I’m now going to have to go back… And the link is “Now budget version 1.”
Okay, alright. So at the beginning of the process ICANN calls for input into the ICANN budget. The ALAC then calls for budget input from the RALOs, taking into account ICANN’s and ALAC’s strategic plan and asks all the RALOs. And the comments received from the RALOs and including the staff input as well as of course ALAC’s discussions within ALAC, ALAC will then integrate all of that input and submit to the ICANN Finance Department.
Now, ICANN Finance can either grant the funds, in which case – good. But if ICANN declines to grant funds the ICANN Finance will then submit the reasons for not granting the funds. Now based on that information received from ICANN Finance ALAC has to then decide “Well, do we then pursue this further?” If not then that’s that.
However, if it does then decide it wants to do it with consultation with the RALOs, then a repeat of the process occurs. There’s a further call from the RALOs to give input into the financial year and put it to the budget, and integrate the input submitted again to the ICANN Finance and so forth. If it does decide not to do it in conjunction with the RALOs, then the ALAC itself can take it upon itself to correct or edit or resubmit the budget statement. ALAC will then do the resubmit to ICANN Finance for approval.
And that’s essentially the summary of the financial process that’s happened for fiscal year ’12 and for the foreseeable beyond.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Dev. I see Cintra. Go ahead, Cintra.
Heidi Ullrich: Cheryl, I just had a quick comment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, Heidi. Do you want to come in before Cintra makes her intervention?
Heidi Ullrich: Oh no, no. Cintra, sorry. Go ahead, please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so I have Cintra then Heidi, then Tijani. Go ahead, Cintra. You might be muted; *7 to unmute.
Cintra Sooknanan: Hi, okay. The only thing I have a question about, with regard to the ALAC calls out for budget input, there’s a line that goes straight into ALAC input. Is it that ALAC has the authority to not seek input from the different RALOs and just go straight to integrating their input?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Would you like me to answer that, Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It is in fact up to the ALAC to invite RALO input. It’s not a requirement that we do so; it however is a comfortable expectation and a central mechanism for successful operation of a RALO. But technically we are looking at a budget that affects the ALAC; anything that goes to the RALOs is on a project-by-project or event-by-event basis.
So in fact, what ICANN does is look at budgetary support for its advisory committee – that is the At-Large Advisory Committee, the ALAC. It’s simply ALAC being inclusive as it should be that it goes out to the regions. Otherwise the regions, like any other constituency or entity that has an interest in ALAC would simply be putting in a funding a project application for a specific purpose.
Cintra Sooknanan: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So in other words, we don’t have to but we do and we should.
Cintra Sooknanan: Alright. The second question I have is that just looking at this and also going through the process, it felt a bit like each RALO was in a sense competing with each other for funds, which I don’t know. In a sense is that really the purpose of this process or is it that we should all align our proposals in the same stead for the next year and work together on building that? Or is that a decision that will be made at the ALAC level?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I believe in a prefect and harmonized world what you’re describing would be happening. I think it’s a matter of timing where each RALO needs to go and do its own business in a fairly short order of time, and then it gets integrated hopefully with the cross-input of the other regions.
One of the reasons that this Work Team has proposed to the ALAC and the ALAC has now integrated regional representation into its Budget and Finance Subcommittee is to ensure a closer interaction with the regions in the harmonization and prioritization of all regional input. Prior to this very new change of state, it was simply up to the ALAC Budget and Finance Subcommittee to make any ALAC-based prioritizations or preferences or blendings or harmonizations of the requests.
Cintra Sooknanan: Okay, thank you, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No problem. Heidi then Tijani.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, thank you, Cheryl. Yes, actually Tijani, Cheryl mentioned the last comment and it was one of the points I wanted to make. If you could somehow make reference to this new expanded ALAC Subcommittee on Finance and Budget that does include the regional liaisons I think that would be useful.
And the second one she sort of mentioned in her first answer to Cintra’s first question, that the RALOs offer specific activity requests for budget while the ICANN staff input is again working with the ALAC and the Executive Committee looking for basic service requests. So I wonder if it might be useful to specify that.
So basically again it would be the RALOs suggest specific activities, while ICANN staff working with the ALAC and the ExCom recommend or input the basic services. But that’s up for the group to decide.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think that’s a very good proposal, Heidi, and it certainly will give us a clearer and strengthened view of what is happening, remembering that this snapshot we’re creating for our report is also going to be archived and other people who are not as closely involved with the world of At-Large, the regions and ALAC may indeed look at it and use it as pieces of advice or information for them to gain better knowledge.
I think the more information we have on this the better. Tijani, go ahead.
Tijani Ben-Jemaa: Okay, thank you. If we look at those drawings, those two last drawings, we will notice that for the “now” budget and “now” strategy, the ICANN staff input is only here for the budget. So I think it was a missing point and I am sure that the ICANN staff input must be there for both the strategy planning and the financial planning.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Tijani. Back to you, Heidi – how much input are you and your staff having on the ALAC’s strategic planning input in the FY ’12?
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, actually not so much. We look to the ALAC and to the RALOs for input with that. And in fact even the calls, when we have the calls where the ICANN staff prepare the calls on the strategic plan, it actually goes through Akram’s assistant versus At-Large. So I don’t see that much input.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: From At-Large it’s minimally – there’s virtually just a little bit of admin facilitation with Gisella making sure we all get our Doodles and that we’ve actually responded to the other staff from Finance’s enquiries.
Heidi Ullrich: Yeah, exactly. It’s just a coordination effort, while again in contrast, the finance particularly going forward now is much more involved.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think, Tijani, you’ve raised a very important point and one that needs to be very clearly highlighted. Dev, we might be looking at some coloring on our boxes soon. This is because the lack of fiddling around by the directing and influence in the larger ICANN world from ICANN staff on things like strategic planning is very important.
We have a very good working relationship with staff that is not echoed throughout all of the component parts of ICANN, and it would be a very easy assumption for other parties in ICANN to look at our diagram without that being very clear; and feel that perhaps we are recalcitrant in our duties of input and we are allowing staff to basically run the show without the appropriate bottom-up input.
So I think what Tijani’s raised and what Heidi has clarified is fairly important to capture if we can, and I would have thought something, a little side piece of clarification text and if you’re inspired by some sort of color coding on how much input there is. Heidi mentioned a larger or a smaller (interference).
So what does everyone else think on this? Do you think it’s an important point to drill out? Okay. Well we’ve gone over our 30 minutes for this particular activity but it’s a fairly important one, and one that if we get right – and I believe we are getting it right – is going to set yet another benchmark and standard for how community interactions with the budget and strategic planning of ICANN is done.
And Dev, I think this is a hugely useful piece of diagram, and if you don’t mind continuing on and taking the input from today’s meeting, and bringing us out a version 2 we will interact on the mailing list with you far more effectively in between now and the next meeting.
Go ahead, Heidi. Just before we move to the next agenda item I will insert the answer to the discussion room’s specific questions before we move to item #4. Over to you, Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, thank you, Cheryl. Sorry, Dev, I keep coming back to some of these boxes here, and down below, towards “Final Stages” I’m wondering if we’re not missing a box; and that was where the requests actually go out for public comment and then it’s actually put into the final budget. So I think we’re missing-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah, you mean where it goes into the normal ICANN processing?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, because here it says “ICANN Finance grants funds? Yes.” That’s not really where it ends because they’re going to send out the request for public comment in the next few weeks, then it incorporates those comments; it puts out a draft budget in May and then the Board has to adopt it in June.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. So perhaps that could go out as a dotted line into just a reference to the standard ICANN provides (interference) rather than us trying to capture everything ICANN does that ICANN should know about on our own diagram. Dev, what’s your view on that?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: I think it’s a good idea to include it, actually, because potentially when it publishes the draft budget for public comment, anyone including the RALOs and At-Large can submit comments directly as part of the public record. So perhaps it needs to be captured.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry, I have beasts that are very noisy this time of day. I wouldn’t try and capture all of what the ICANN process is but just do a dotted line out to “and then it gets inserted into the normal ICANN process,” and then a textbox mention that says “Further opportunities for ALAC, RALOs and individuals as ALSs and individuals for public comment and input happens during the ICANN processes,” or something along those lines.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, so not in detail – just like one box or two boxes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely. We need to not overcrowd our very good diagram with what everyone involved in ICANN should actually know about. But we do need to allude to it; I think that is important. I notice Tijani agreeing to that. Does anyone disagree with that? Gareth agrees… Okay, I think that’s a done.
Look, this is very exciting. Seth, we’re going to insert your clarification question from the action item of 5.3.1 here. Do you think that from the discussion we’ve had on these diagrams, where the difference between how things were and why in the absence of an interactive and participatory mechanism used by ICANN for the development of budget – and also strategy that wasn’t specifically of budget – that the ALAC Review Team suggested some form of annual agreements be developed?
That was their best shot of how they thought the rank and file community could have some understanding of what resources, or more usually lack of resources, was going to be offered or more usually not offered to them in the past. Where the new model for not only budget but also for strategic planning has overtaken those events and I think the very showing of the “then versus now” flowcharts should be the answer to ICANN. If that doesn’t satisfy them give them my phone number.
Seth Greene: Thank you, Cheryl. Yes, I understand what to tell them.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Terrific. Is everyone else in agreement with that? I do feel like there’s a repository of knowledge here but I guess I’m the only continuous input from the very beginning of ALAC having any input at all in the wonderful world of budget and finance and now. So I’ll take off my Yoda hat shortly, I promise, but before I either stroke out or drop dead or get hit by a bus it’s probably a good idea to capture all these things, and I’m very glad to be passing it on to this Work Team and indeed the expanded Budget and Finance Committee of the At-Large Advisory Committee as well.
Okay. Moving on to item #4, determination of Work Team C’s next steps based on the review of subtasks under Recommendations 6 and 5 which was done last meeting. The homework, I’ve already admitted I haven’t done my homework on this or indeed on the SWOT analysis mapping, but let’s have a look at what is still outstanding on Recommendation 6. For this I would suggest we throw out some proposed comments. Seth, do you want to have a look at running us through that?
Seth Greene: I’m sorry, Cheryl, could you repeat that please? There is a lot of noise.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure. The next item is that we should look at reviewing our subtasks under Recommendation 6, having dealt with Recommendation 5 at the last meeting on the 2nd of February.
Seth Greene: Yes, certainly Cheryl. The overall recommendation as everyone knows is that accurate cost models should be developed for At-Large. Can everyone hear me?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, go ahead.
Seth Greene: Okay, thanks, for At-Large activities. I assume that when they said “At-Large” the recommendation is referring to every aspect of the At-Large structure, and there are only… I hope people can get up the simplified outline but there are only two subtasks for this. 6.1 is a review of the additional At-Large information that would be useful subsequent to improvements in financial reporting, and we can update it from what it says which is “Fiscal 2007, ’09, ’10 to the current round.”
And the second task, 6.2, which we’ve already dealt with as well is specifically regarding meeting accommodations: ensure that the At-Large representatives are given treatment equal to that of other funded communities. So those are the only two tasks under this recommendation. And I think, Cheryl, that’s the background.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks very much, Seth. Now I’m quite happy to work backwards on this and say that 6.2 has now been codified into the regenerated DNA of the way ICANN Constituency Travel Support and the ICANN budget and finance aspects of that has happened. I’m very pacified that we are now being treated in an equitable manner, but I am concerned how we remain vigilant on this.
Would the Work Team like to propose any form of follow-up action or requirement on this? Or do we rest on our laurels and hope that in the absence of change of staff and change of attitude in the Constituency Travel and the budget people, that we will be being treated in a fair and equitable manner when it comes to accommodation? Open for discussion. Go ahead, Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Just if anybody else has any comments, please, you’re ahead of me. But just in the absence of any other hands we will be having a review of the travel guidelines this spring and we will have Steve Antonoff speaking to the Executive Committee in San Francisco on those travel guidelines. And that might be one document that the ALAC wishes to put this issue in to actually put it into the guidelines to ensure that this continues.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: To have it codified into the travel guidelines would be a very good thing. At the moment we are, like the rest of the ICANN community, interacting with the development of any given year’s travel guidelines. So perhaps in our reporting for item 6.2 we should note that when the ALAC review happened there was probably even an absence of travel guidelines and certainly an absence of annually reviewed travel guidelines that involve community input, such as happens now and has been for a couple of years.
So it’s one of those “depending on how it falls this is how it usually is,” but to have the recommendations of the ALAC review codified into future travel guidelines would be a very good thing. And also, Heidi, I think it’s going to come back on to you and whoever holds your role in the future – not that we’re changing or anything but you know, things happen as we’ve seen with Matthias.
Someone might make you a better offer and we would be devastated if that happened, of course, but if by chance someone made you a better offer and stole you from us we want to make sure that whoever was taking your role as Director of At-Large was equally committed to ensuring that this happened. I mean I’d like to see a discussion with the Chair of the ALAC and yourself and David Olive perhaps at the end of this process to see what role the Director of At-Large, in other words the primary staff interface between ICANN and At-Large, has in the maintenance of these At-Large improvements that we’ve-
Heidi Ullrich: Yeah, I fully agree, Cheryl, even though I have absolutely no plans to leave. But yes, I mean absolutely – I’m all for ensuring that in the future these statements are somehow codified in the relevant documents. And we’ll get Cheryl back.
Seth, while we’re getting Cheryl back did you want to continue?
Seth Greene: Sure, Heidi, let me just get the simplified outline back up.
Heidi Ullrich: Unless anyone else has any comments on the issue of having a statement to the travel guidelines. Okay, I see no objections to that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hi, sorry about dropping out there, Heidi. Did you capture most of what I was chatting on about or not?
Heidi Ullrich: Yeah, I think we got everything.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh excellent.
Heidi Ullrich: So while you were gone I just asked if there were any objections to actually going ahead with that suggestion of adding that point into the travel guidelines for this next year – no objections and one green check from Tijani.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Very good. And I was asking as an additional point for the Work Team to consider but probably not just this work team – this is probably something that we need to take back to the ALAC – but I would see a role to be codified in the general KPIs, job description guidelines for the role you hold, Heidi, to have something so that the Director of At-Large is in terms of responsibilities making sure that whatever we do is maintained in the future or reviewed as required in between the normal review cycles of the ALAC.
I just don’t know how that is in your current job description. If it is let us know; if it’s not then we’ll need to make the magic happen in the future. Okay.
Heidi Ullrich: I can look into that, and that’s maybe a question we can also ask Steve in San Francisco.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, what Steve Antonoff would have to do with the performance indicators and job descriptions of someone on David Olive’s staff escapes me beyond his Human Resources role, but then you probably all know how I feel about the muddling up of roles in ICANN anyway. I would have thought it was a within-your-line-manager’s call, not some tangential individual. And yes, I know it’s on the public record and you probably heard the sneer in my tone.
Okay. 6.1, however, let’s have a look at that. So I think we’re through with what our AI’s are on 6.2. Looking at 6.1, opening this for conversation. I again think this is one of those issues where the improvements in not only financial reporting but the new cycle that we saw two years ago - last year and now modified to this year – have again as we suggested in our statement on our simplified guidelines shown that ICANN itself has moved into a mechanism which fits very nicely with improvements in financial interaction and reporting.
Is there anyone who feels we have an outstanding item or issue to do with 6.1? Darlene’s typing. She has a hard stop in three minutes which is something we’re all going to have to do, which is have a hard stop at the top of the hour.
So we’re happy that 6.1 is put to bed. Do we need to do anything for reporting? Seth, is there anything that you would like to see other than us making that generic statement that where ICANN is now is different from where it was, and our input is on an equitable basis; and we have good access to whatever questions including information that the Director of At-Large now has and is able to give us on the specific costs of what we do?
When we were reviewed we didn’t have the detail in the budget reporting. We had no idea how much translation is costing or what the shared costs were.
Seth Greene: No thank you, Cheryl. I think that does it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. That brings item #4 to an end. I’m going to suggest that we carry over the SWOT mapping analysis to the next meeting. It’s a substantive discussion but the discussion on the diagrams took I think a necessary but longer time on our agenda than was allocated. So I’m going to suppose that item #5 on today’s agenda goes to our next meeting and call for any other business.
Go ahead, Tijani.
Tijani Ben-Jemaa: Okay, thank you Cheryl. We in our action items, we had an action item about the agreement between ALAC and ICANN about the staff. It wasn’t necessary perhaps before because the relationship was very good and now things have improved, but now today we have a problem. We have Matthias leaving and we have Heidi delivering, so we will have a period almost with the new staff if you want, and we don’t know who indeed the new staff - We know already about the replacement of Matthias but we don’t know about the replacement of Heidi.
And in any case, nobody will replace Heidi. So perhaps we have to formalize it by an agreement, an initial agreement with ICANN or I don’t know. We have to do something because we’ll have a very difficult period without Heidi and Matthias together.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I hear what you’re saying, Tijani, but of course the attention of 5.3.1 was not to do with (inaudible) by staffing, which is an entirely different budget; it’s a macro budget, not an ALAC activities budget. The staffing and support budget has gradually grown since we were unallocated with staff and just under the purview of the precedent of policy when Denise was running ALAC as well as the whole department.
It’s grown to what it is now, and each of those growths has been shown in specific budget allocations in the staff and administrative support associated with the staff there. Heidi has her hand up and I’m sure she’d like to speak for herself here, but they’re things that in fact David Olive’s role is very much in charge of. And I believe that once things are set in the Policy Department, financial budget activities for any given year, then like any other effective business unit they (inaudible) runs the budget.
So if a bus falls over a cliff and the complete ALAC support staff go with it – probably with the Executive Committee because we tend to travel together – then we’re all just replaced. It shouldn’t make any difference on the budget. Heidi, how does that cover for you?
Heidi Ullrich: Yeah, thank you, Cheryl. I think that was a sound statement. Thank you. I just wanted to mention that starting already in this fiscal year there will be a replacement or a new person coming into the position of the At-Large Coordinator. And again, as you all know Matthias has been doing basically two positions since he’d come on a little over a year ago in his role as Manager of the Regions, both that role as well as the Coordinator.
So we have the job posting out for both the permanent Regional Manager as well as the permanent At-Large Coordinator. Again, in the interim Seth has stepped up. He will be covering ALAC and the ExCom as well as three of the RALOs, and Gisella will be covering two of the RALOs. So again, we’re working very hard to ensure that there is no interruption in the support we can offer you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And there’s no intentions of contraction of that support, and while we have had opportunity to complain about the staff that should have replaced Matthias when he moved to Heidi’s role and Heidi moved to Nick’s role, that was far too long coming. That isn’t being indicated as an issue now.
To be honest, if the Director of At-Large couldn’t manage to and make sure that we have continuity of support, administrative support here in her own, in this case, maternity leave, then that person shouldn’t have the job. She has the job, she’s good at it, and I think we just trust her to manage it well. Not that you won’t hear about it, Heidi.
Okay, I think we’ll wrap up our call and rest assured that we are in a good position now. Next call will be same time, same place on the 2nd of March, and we will start off with the very important SWOT analysis and mapping exercise, which thankfully will give us all lots of extra time to do our homework. Bye for now.
Heidi Ullrich: Bye-bye. Thanks, Cheryl. Thanks everyone.
Seth Greene: Thanks everyone.
[End of Transcript]
