Wolf Ludwig: Let's see, we have Yuliya Morenets, Wolf Ludwig, Adela Danciu, Siranush Vardanyan, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Christopher Wilkinson, Yrjo Lansipuro, Rudi Vansnick, Sandra Hoferichter, Sebastien Bachollet, Lutz Donnerhacke.
Yuliya Morenets: Yuliya is also here, good evening.
Wolf Ludwig: Who?
Yuliya Morenets: Yuliya is also here, can you hear me?
Wolf Ludwig: Yuliya, welcome Julia. Great yes. I have just seen you connected to the Adobe Connect.
Yuliya Morenets: Yes.
Wolf Ludwig: And we have apology from Bill Drake and Annetta Muehlberg. Okay and I think Gisella or Silvia will note the attending people and apologies for the first agenda item, standing issues roll call and apologies. Let me suggest to start with the monthly call 21 February 2012 and the second point is review of action items. As far as I can see we only have two action items, update on Academy will be included in the February EURALO meeting and we will come to this agenda item later during this call. And we will discuss the general [inaudible 00:02:04] in [inaudible 00:02:07].
Are there any further questions regarding Item 2, review of action items from our last call? I see no hands raised, therefore let me continue with - one person would like to [inaudible 00:02:42] hand raised. Let me start with our agenda Item 3, briefing on current ALAC consultations and initiatives. As we have the pleasure to have Olivier on the call, I would like to give the floor to Olivier to give us a summary of the current consultations and affairs at ALAC. Olivier you have the floor.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Wolf and I am trying to find my page. Okay we've had several statements which have been filed recently and which are either being drafted also and the voting taking place. Just among the recent ones we've had, we had the At-Large Internationalized Domain Name Variant Issues Draft Integrated Issues Report. And a statement was drafted and it was adopted. There was also a preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments. And a committee known as the RAA [inaudible 00:04:19] technical things taking place in the GNSO. That was one was adopted as well.
And more recently there was an At-Large Initial Report - well it's not an At-Large Initial Report. It is the Initial Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLD and we had a statement that was drafted for this and the vote is about to start, if it has not - I think it might have already started on this. Recent ones, there was a discussion on whether to file a statement for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Policy Development Process. Now this is a recommendation, just a specific point of recommendation that has already been worked on for a long time. It's a provision to lock and unlock domain names.
The proposals that were made by the GNSO Policy Development Process and by the team working on this did not require - well we pretty much agreed with what was said. It didn’t actually contravene anything that the ALAC has said in the past. So the decision was made not to draft a statement. At the moment the Fiscal Year ’13 framework, Tijani Ben Jemaa was very kind to put together a ALAC statement on this with our comments. I urge everyone to have a look at it. It's not very long, it's pretty fast to read through but it has several important points, the closing date is the 23 February 2012 which is only two days away from now.
And although the Finance and Budget Subcommittee has worked on this and has already looked at it, other people have not, so you're very welcome to put your comments on this as soon as possible. There is a long-term comment period that was open and that was the WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report on - okay and that wasn’t me. I understand that anything to do with WHOIS Policy is very painful. You still have until the 18th of March to comment but I would urge everyone to have a look at what's already on there.
It's quite important because it all deals with having the right amount if privacy on one side but at the same time the right amount of legitimacy to be able to identify who you work with and whose website you're surfing on. And then finally the further bylaw changes following adoption of revised GNSO Policy Development Process, that’s a very internal GNSO Policy Development work and there is very little for us to comment on. We decided that no statement would be drafted on this.
Now I understand there might be a couple more that might have come up but I don’t have the page for this. I can see here just on our agenda it's stating about the WHOIS policy I've already spoken about. I think that's all for the time being. Heidi or Matt perhaps you might be aware there might be something else that I haven’t mentioned yet?
Wolf Ludwig: Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: No I defer to Matt.
Matt Ashtiani: No I was going to say, no Olivier I think you covered everything.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: There are a few that have just appeared recently. There is one which is a draft roadmap to implement Fact 51, something which I haven’t even looked at being it was actually released today. We will have to look at this. Fact 051 is probably something from the SAC which is the Security Advisory Committee.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, Olivier that announcement will be going to the ALAC and all of the RALO list later today.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay perfect, excellent and then the IDN Variance Issues Project, Proposed Project Plan for Next Steps, I gather the Variance Issues Projects of which some of our members have taken part in, deals with the internationalized domain name variance, it's a long project and I gather this is probably their plan about what they wish to do next. I'm not quite sure that we are particularly knowledgeable in knowing what to do next. They must have spent a fair amount of time on that so I'm not sure if we need to comment on it.
And then finally there is also Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Recommendation 8, whereas before we were looking at Recommendation 9 I think, probably likely that we will not be filing a statement on this either. I'm just saying probably because I [inaudible 00:09:57] to our ExCom and also to our GNSO liaison Alan Greenberg to deal with the [inaudible 00:10:01] writing about. And finally I see here with the end point being the 30 March, the Interim Report on Support Significantly Interested Parties for ccTLD Delegation or Redelegation requests.
That’s a ccTLD matter which I'll be asking ccTLD liaison Cheryl Langdon-Orr to be able to tell us about, that’s all thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks a lot Olivier for these elaborations on our agenda Item 3. I see Christopher has his hand raised and he may probably have other questions. Christopher you have the floor.
Christopher Wilkinson: Thank you. I hope you all hear me and I apologize if I misunderstood Olivier’s briefings because the sound quality is not too good. But I just wanted to put on record the continuing concerns about some arbitrary decisions that seem to have been made by the final [inaudible 00:11:21] dealing with the risks of confusion on the [inaudible 00:11:28] IDN [inaudible 00:11:28].
There seems to be and two examples but I won't bore you with the details - but there seems to be a lack of linguistic and political knowledge in the groups which are advising ICANN as to whether or not [inaudible 00:11:51] in IDN are confusing or not. It needs to be watched, that’s all, thank you Wolf.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks Christopher, Olivier you have the floor.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Wolf. This is actually a concern which has been one of people not only in Europe but also in other locations. And I've seen much discussion taking place on the governance lists outside of ICANN. I brought the matter to the Chairman last time I met up with him in London, and I think one of the problems is the lack of being able to appeal in easy and straightforward way. The second problem is that in Europe many of the non-Latin character sets are based on the Latin character sets somehow so they have some common letters, and therefore there is some potential for confusion.
While at the same time you could also say there is confusion between LT and IT, if you look at uppercase and lowercase letters. The concern that I brought forth to the Chairman of the Board was the fact that there appeared to be some kind of black box in which people were replying to and were receiving replies which were sometimes rather offending I guess for some countries especially if the two letter code is a matter of national pride. And there perhaps there would be worth to be a little more careful and having a little more tact with such applications.
Thus being able to engage in a dialog rather than a straightforward rejection as I understand has happened in the past. The reply that I've had was that the people who are on the panel are kept secret so as not to be the subject of any external pressure to say yes or no. with that said the process by which the calculations are made to find if something is confusing or not is something that is somehow misunderstood and well perhaps unknown. So he did say he was going to follow-up and find out if there could be any improvements made to this process. Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Thank you Olivier. May I ask Christopher, was your question answered by this?
Christopher Wilkinson: Very short because this is something which can really be negotiated only with a pencil and paper in front of you. But there is a problem with Beta, Gamma and Cyrillic and Epsilon, Upsilon in Greek. And I think there needs to be more transparency, there needs to be a way of reaching these groups which does not interfere with their desire to protect themselves from random lobbying. A topical footnote Olivier [inaudible 00:15:58] that predicts the Latin alphabet, not the other way around. Enough said, Wolf thank you, I made my point.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thank you. I see Olivier's entire approval indicated on the Adobe Connect. And I guess this question or detail is more or less accomplished today as far as it can be accomplished for today. Are there any further questions regarding this agenda item? Any questions or comments? I see no hand raised so let me suggest to continue with our next agenda items on the list, what is Item 4, ALS Applications Update.
As you can see we have two subpoints mentioned here, let me start with a clarification first, under 4B it's mentioned the application from the Committee Austria and waiting regional advice from EURALO. Let me ask you back to At-Large steps what kind of advise is awaited because as far as I understood the due diligence procedure is still going on and I posted a first regional advice already two or three weeks ago that we are fully in favor of this applicant.
And normally we do the procedure of the regional advice after the due diligence is done, asking our members if there are any comments or questions or whether there is a general approval. And normally we say if there are no objections raised within 10 days, then the application is approved by the region. Is there anything due from our side Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: Thank you Wolf. I'm actually looking on the euro discussion list and I don’t see any email stating that. Matt as you handle the ALS applications do you have any updates on that?
Wolf Ludwig: I sent an email from my side immediately one week after our last call because the application was submitted in [inaudible 00:19:11] to my memory. And there was a week later a comment from my side by saying we know the applicant, [inaudible 00:19:28] from Austria. The application was forwarded by Manuel Snyder from the committee Switzerland. And we are favorable and we would like to suggest to continue with the regular due diligence procedure and then once the due diligence is done by staff we will post it on the list to ask our members.
Heidi Ullrich: Matt are you on the call, if you can provide an update please.
Wolf Ludwig: He is on the Adobe Connect as far as I can see. Perhaps he is muted.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay we will look into that Wolf and see -
Wolf Ludwig: Okay don’t let us waste time now, we can clarify this later on. If there is anything needed from our side, we can do this bilaterally and I see no problem regarding this point. I just see a question on the Adobe Connect from Rudi who is part of the due diligence team. To my memory it's as Heidi said already, it's Matt who is in charge of conducting this procedure.
Heidi Ullrich: No, sorry Wolf. Matt handles the process. The people from staff who handle the due diligence, who actually carry it out are the regional liaisons from that particular region. For Europe right now it is Vinny who handles this. And as soon as the new person, new regional liaison for Europe is brought on, that person will handle the EURALO due diligence.
Wolf Ludwig: Is this person known already?
Heidi Ullrich: No, not that I'm aware of.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay so we have to wait for this point from our side. If no question or further comment except our approval regarding this applicant, the next point is the application, the second application we received at the At-Large level, from Armenia. As you all know Siranush is since years already an active part of our EURALO community, regularly participating at our calls. And we had some more formal contact over the last time already and recently we received - At-Large received two applications, one from the ISOC Armenia Chapter before and the most recent one from [inaudible 00:23:09] applying from the Armenian Education Center.
And due to a conversation or email exchange I had with Oksana recently, Navine was clearly on behalf of the Armenian Media Education Center, applying for becoming an ALS but with a clear preference of joining EURALO. Most of you may remember the discussion we repeatedly had during monthly calls or during Secretariat meetings at ICANN meetings, et cetera. There is a given ICANN regional geographic model, dividing the world according to certain criteria and standards.
And according to the ICANN regional or geographic model, Armenia for the time being is still considered a part of the Asia-Pacific region. And as I can remember during the consultation procedure we repeatedly discussed the consistencies and inconsistencies of the current model and said there may be certain exceptions like in the particular case of Armenia.
This ICANN model does not necessarily correspond with the self considerations and self declarations of members from Armenia. And therefore maybe you remember there was one discussion when we said well in such exceptional cases, we, from the EURALO point of view and this was forwarded to ALAC. And ALAC put this recommendation from our side and from other RALOs side up by saying it could be recommendable in certain exceptional cases, that an applicant may express a preference or make a choice to what regions they may belong.
In the given case it was the latest applicant saying “We do not want to follow the norm. We express our wish, then we apply becoming part of the European region.” I think Oksana perhaps can us some more advice on this because she was the one who had direct contact with the applicant. Oksana you want to add something on this introduction?
Oksana Prykhodko: Thank you very much Wolf. I fully support your proposition to my [inaudible 00:27:05] participated very actively in [inaudible 00:27:13] and I know that [inaudible 00:27:16] for the future EuroDIG. [Inaudible 00:27:21] with the European Union [inaudible 00:27:25] platform [inaudible 00:27:30] all the European platform, so it's absolutely logical and [inaudible 00:27:42] to [inaudible 00:27:44] Armenia [inaudible 00:27:46]. [Inaudible 00:27:54] our advice is to change geographical regions, thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes, thank you very much Oksana. Well I think in the given case it's clear, in the previous case regarding the first applicant from Armenia, it's a case of ISOC Chapter Armenia there was no clear preference raised to my knowledge. Therefore it was communicated to them in case they will be certified they will automatically become part of APRALO. But in the case of the latest applicant I know Navine now also besides Oksana for quite a long time.
And Navine she is actively participating in Council of Europe consultations, conferences, et cetera. She is working with you and she has close contact with the Commission. She is part of EuroDIG, et cetera. This means in the given case it's a clear proof that she has close relations and affiliations in the past with the European region. She has almost no contact with any other groups in the Asia-Pacific regions. And therefore this is a model case in my eyes but needs to be further discussed.
I consequently revert to the existing rules and I clearly said well I don’t see any possibility immediately to change the rules by ourselves. The only thing what I can suggest before I give the floor to Olivier is I would like to add this point on the agenda on the upcoming Secretariat meeting in Costa Rica to discuss this on the EURALO Secretariat level, that there may be some exceptional cases like -
Siranush Vardanyan: Wolf can I say something?
Wolf Ludwig: Just let me finish my sentence Siranush and then after Olivier you have the floor. There may be exceptional cases like this not only in our region and maybe in other regions as well and we should try to figure out a way to appropriately deal with exceptions. Not making it as a rule but clearly saying that these exceptional cases may come up in further circumstances or application as well. And I think we should try to find a modus Vivendi on the inter-RALO level in Costa Rica and we need to discuss this with our colleagues from APRALO first.
And if there is no objection from the other side, I think we should apply via At-Large et cetera to make these exceptions possible. This is my suggestion for the next procedure. And now I give the floor to Olivier and then to Siranush. Olivier you have the floor.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Wolf, actually I defer to Siranush first and then I will respond.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay then Siranush you have the floor first, please go ahead.
Siranush Vardanyan: Yes, thank you. My concern related to the first ISOC Armenia, there was no clear preference given because they asked me where they should apply and I said that Armenia is within APRALO. They just sent wherever it is needed right now to be sent. I mean the application of course. But ISOC Armenia also has good ties with European community, so my suggestion is if you are considering the second applicant within EURALO then probably it would be appropriate if two ALSs were - two applicants will be considered within one RALO, not one in EURALO and then another one in APRALO. We can discuss this in Costa Rica as ISOC Armenia Chapter member will also be present in Costa Rica. Maybe we can discuss it in detail there, thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks a lot for this comment Siranush. And now Olivier has the floor.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Wolf. I totally understand the problem we are faced with here. It's something which we have spoken about before the applications even came in. It’s something which we have spoken about when At-Large discussed the statement which the ALAC made with regards to the Geographic Regions Working Group's work. Now I understand there will be a follow-up to the Geographic Regions Working Group work, obviously that report has been sent to the Board.
I have not got any final details as to whether the Board will implement any of the recommendations which were made by the Working Group or any of the recommendations which we have made in our statements. And the recommendations in our statement included the fact that for specific special cases in countries that were in areas that were effectively at the borderline between one region and another, the country would be able to make the choice as to which region it wanted to join.
But as you very rightly said Wolf, at the moment Armenia is in the region that is APRALO region, that was derived from a paper that was done by the United Nations Lists of Countries and Territories and that is at the moment, what we have to follow. And I see nothing in the rules of procedures that allows us to be able to redefine or to move an application from one region to another. Now that said, I don’t think it's the end of the world for those applicants that are in this specific region.
Certainly the two organizations from Armenia that are joining APRALO, they're able to bring their inputs both to EURALO and APRALO; I don’t think there is anything that stops them from brining their input via one channel or the other channel. The only time when there is something significant is when there is an actual vote in which case they would vote via APRALO and the votes would be in the EURALO state.
I understand your concern. But until we have the feedback from the Board and from the - well acting on what was written in the Geographic Regions Working Group Report, I do not see an answer. And certainly I think we might be faced with a problem if we wish to establish sort of looser rules as to which RALO an entity could join. And possibly the thing is perhaps in our region this is a mutually convenient thing but there might be other locations in the world where some entities might wish to join one region over another.
And if we allow an exception between Europe and Asia-Pacific, which admittedly would be a very happy exception, we might open a Pandora's Box with regards to other regions which might not be as easy to solve and resolve as what we have here between the Asia-Pacific. I hope I have made myself understood quite clearly. Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks a lot Olivier for your comments. Before I give the floor to Yrjo let me just add one more comment. As far as I followed these applications from the Armenian organizations there was no clear indication made at the beginning from the ISOC Armenian Chapter. And therefore for me there was no need to bring this on the table. The message that I understood from the second applicant was kind of conditional by saying well we only applied to become an At-Large structure in case we can be part of EURALO.
This means there was a clear statement involved that there is no interest becoming a part of APRALO for different reasons, this is something to be further discussed I agree. But it was clearly said. And this was the reason why I felt this is an issue when it's clearly stated like this to be brought into our monthly call and to be closely followed up after that. I am sure we cannot resolve this question tonight. We can only think and discuss what ways and procedure we can follow up and clarify this point. But I think we have to take this reservation from the applicant serious and we have to discuss this further one. Yrjo you raised your hand and you have the floor.
Yrjo Lansipuro: Yes, thank you Wolf. I think that now the most important and urgent thing is to try to find out what is the status of this report from the geographic regions Working Group and of course perhaps using this case, we could actually try to speed up the procedure. Because clearly these kind of cases are there and it's - I agree with Olivier that they cannot be solved one by one. We have to wait for this ruling that I hope changes this present, rather stupid, division of the world into zones that actually don’t work for United Nations, purposes. Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thank you Yrjo for your last comment. I think so far this was always discussed in a more or less general way. That there may be one day blah, blah, blah applicants asking and there was never so far, to knowledge a concrete case. And now this latest applicant is a precise case where we have to take the condition serious and we have to find out what the actual statement of the whole procedure in general.
And we discussed at an earlier stage that of course in case such a situation is coming up, one of the first initiatives would be to[inaudible 00:41:37] from the respective [inaudible 00:41:41] what is APRALO and I think we should use the opportunity in Costa Rica to sit together with our APRALO colleagues and to bring up this point and to simply ask what is their point of view and any way out cannot be found in a unilateral way, this can only be done in a coordinated way. And I think this approval of the EURALO concerned. I see Oksana’s hand raised. Please Oksana you have the floor.
Oksana Prykhodko: Thank you very much Wolf I would only to concern that [inaudible 00:42:30] strong desire to be in EURALO during our yesterday conversation, thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks Oksana. I said before we cannot solve this problem tonight. We can only decide what are the next steps and the next steps have been proposed already. If there are no further questions regarding our agenda Item 4, on the current ALS applications I would like to continue with our agenda, going to the next Item 5, what is briefing on the ICANN Academy Working Group process. And for this I give the floor to Sandra who is the Chair of the respective Working Group, Sandra you have the floor.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you Wolf. I'm looking at the time; I want to be very brief. The curriculum which was proposed through the Working Group was revised now by the Program Committee. It will be sent out during the next day, I think tomorrow or even tonight. And we will then also send out a letter to the ICANN Community inviting them to join us during the public participation committee which is to my knowledge on Thursday during the ICANN meeting. and I invite and I hope that everybody is joining this call who will be in Costa Rica will be at this public participation committee to support the idea of an ICANN Academy.
And the latest, I have the response to an email from ICANN staff because they asked me which day would be more suitable for a webinar to be [inaudible 00:44:41] the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica. I think if it's still manageable we will still have the webinar in the second half of the next week. So a lot of action items to be resolved in the next few days. And they will be resolved and I hope for everybody's participation and support in formal discussions during the Costa Rica meeting because this is then the next important hurdle to take to get the entire community behind this proposal. Any questions please?
Wolf Ludwig: Thanks Sandra. Are there any questions regarding this? I see Olivier's hand raised and Christopher's as well. Olivier you have the floor first.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Wolf. I just wanted to commend Sandra on the great work that she and her Working Group have done in putting this ICANN Academy to the other. I see in the Working Group lists and the discussions and the curriculum being built and so on. And it really is a fantastic example of how At-Large is able to work together to produce something which is I think and I hope is really going to revolutionize ICANN and make it better in the future, thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks a lot Olivier, Christopher you have the floor.
Christopher Wilkinson: Thank you Sandra. Very interested, I echo Olivier’s comments. My question is about the budget, how much do we expect ICANN to subscribe to this project and will it be fully funded by ICANN? Or will be funded also by [inaudible 00:46:47] participants or depending on sponsorship?
Wolf Ludwig: Sandra these are clear questions.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you for the questions Christopher. First of all, it is not planned and I don’t think it ever will be any participation fee. ICANN will fully sponsor the participants because these are the future ICANN leaders. The second part was how the budget is, actually there are two proposals. One proposal which is the very first one also published at a website made in August last year and was about $90,000. They said it was impossible for [inaudible 00:47:44] have to shrink it.
But we shrank it to way to show options, we showed options for a pilot in Toronto indicating that some work can be done a voluntary basis for a pilot and some duties we can ask for staff support. So we shrank the budget to I think about half of ht overall. I think we are now at $50,000 or $60,000. At the end to be on the safe side and to be clear and if you calculate all of the voluntary work and all the work which must be done with staff and staff support is urgently needed, the first estimation was not that wrong.
We should be aware that we are talking of a pilot project. If we want to continue with this project and if you want to improve this project even, we have to consider other categories other than the one for the pilot. Another thing which might be important for the At-Large community is that the ICANN Academy budget is besides the At-Large budget, beside ALAC budget. It is a request to finance the Academy from another basket of as an overall ICANN project, thank you.
Christopher Wilkinson Correct, okay thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thanks a lot Sandra for these further explanations. I see in the Adobe Connect the respective links have been posted by Heidi already. Any further details you can find on the respective pages. If there are no urgent questions regarding this agenda item, I would like to go to Item 6, Summary from the EuroDIG program meetings in Stockholm and Geneva. I give the floor to Sandra again.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you Wolf. I was going to interrupt you to give you some time for your cough. The EuroDIG meeting went very well in Geneva. We had around 30 participants in the room. And it was a very active and lively discussion based on two documents published on the website already and another document which was presented to the community in Geneva. We explained the procedure that we are coming from a perspective of categorizing the proposals. We had 70 proposals so far so we categorized them in the first step.
But now we have the great challenge to draft a program out of these 71 proposals and we are going to offer new forms of session of interaction, which are not only sessions, plenaries and workshops, which are also we call them spaces and fleshes where you can raise and issue or you where you can touch an issue with a broader participation in 30 to 60 minutes. And I invite everyone on this call to participate and to comment process which will be started I hope later during this week. It depends on when the next document will be submitted by the organizing team.
The organizing team has demanded now to draft the program based on the discussion tracks we proposed in Geneva. But this will be all published on the website I think later this week. What will be published tomorrow is the short summary of the Geneva meeting and whoever had some problems to understand what I was just trying to say, is invited to read this protocol. Thank you.
Wolf Ludwig: Right or to get in touch with Sandra or myself by [inaudible 00:53:07] and we can ask you whatever questions you have after this call and in between. Thanks a lot Sandra for this explanation. The next is Item 7, short summary from [inaudible 00:53:26] internet 7 February [inaudible 00:53:28] Germany and the last EuroDIG meeting happened in [inaudible 00:53:39] open consultations in Geneva last week, Sandra again, three minutes.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you Wolf. I just posted the event page from the [inaudible 00:53:52] internet forum [inaudible 00:53:57] also this for the purely German event, it might be worth to look at it because the [inaudible 00:54:06] we worked with pupils are the age of 10 to 21 asking them to produce a very short film either with their mobile or with a proper camera or whatever. The topic of the short clip about a safer internet and some quite good films came out of this competition.
It's difficult for to explain this in English because I'm used to explaining this in German only. And we had around 50 movies which we could collect on [inaudible 00:54:58]. We had also this competition running in [inaudible 00:55:05] and participation in [inaudible 00:55:05] is a little bit difficult and we hope to improve this in the next year. This is the third year we are running this [inaudible 00:55:15] internet forum which is somehow - well the example is the global internet forum which means we are a discussion platform for all the area here in the eastern part of Germany called Middle Deutschland.
We working in close cooperation with media commissions from [inaudible 00:55:42] and [inaudible 00:55:44] which gives us a greater visibility in Germany where it might would have as an association only. If you have any question I will be happy to answer.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay thank you. I see no hands raised so far. And Sandra posted the link to the respective page of the Middle Deutschland Internet forum. And [inaudible 00:56:19] just one more sentence besides the day event it's a collage [inaudible 00:56:30] there was a panel discussion in the evening moderated by [inaudible 00:56:35] and somebody else and I was including my participation and it was about risk and dangers and possibilities of the internet.
And to my memory it was quite a constructive discussion and it was a model case of an event that could be taken up by other initiatives and to be continued. If there are no immediate questions regarding this agenda item, I would like to continue with Item 8, planning for ICANN 43 meeting in Costa Rica. as you can see from the call agenda, staff posted a link on the At-Large San José meeting page. This is for the details and the main ICANN meetings schedule.
Are there any questions or comments regarding the planning of the upcoming ICANN meeting in Costa Rica? Otherwise I would like to shorten the agenda due to a time constraint. Who was this in the back? I see no hands raised. And I see a question from Sandra in the Adobe Connect, are the hotels confirmed so far? I think this is a question going to staff?
Heidi Ullrich: Again, no real confirmation but I'm pretty sure that the At-Large representatives will be staying at the venue hotel.
Wolf Ludwig: Okay I think is an issue we can sort out afterwards because there are still about two weeks until the meeting starts. I'm confident we will get the respective information in time. If there are no questions regarding agenda Item 8, Planning for the Costa Rica meeting, you will get a summary and an update at our next monthly call in March, everything, happened during the autumn meeting. We still have Item 9, EURALO planning 2012 continued discussions on our agenda and the first point is the next EURALO general assembly.
It is supposed to happen in June in Stockholm in line with the next EuroDIG 2012. I can only say this is already registered as one of three side events of the next EuroDIG. So the registration is done and further details need to be followed up. The next is European Summer School on Internet Governance in [inaudible 01:00:28], end of August in Onslow, etc. All these points I think we still have enough time to slowly prepare and discuss them in detail. There is no need to do this tonight due to the time limits.
If there are no questions or suggestions regarding this agenda Item 9? Let me suggest to come to our last point, AOB, information from your side? I see some comments from Rudi. It's says nothing immediate or urgent coming up regarding the last agenda item otherwise we still have the possibility to post what's other interesting information on our EURALO list. Let me thank all of you for your active participation in this monthly call.
Thanks for your contributions and I'm looking forward to meet some of you soon in Costa Rica at the ICANN meeting or to see you at our next monthly call in March, that will be announced in time. Thanks a lot to everybody, participants and staff and I wish everyone a good night, bye.
[End of Transcript]
