Participants: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO), Alan Greenberg (AG) , Sébastien Bachollet (SB), Carlton Samuels (CS)
Apologies: Dave Kissoondoyal (DK), Vanda Scartezini (VS)
Guests: Kevin Wilson (KW)
Staff: Heidi Ullrich (HU), Seth Greene (SG)
CLO: Any other business?
AG: E-mail from Eric B.W. re contributions to At-Large, under Other Business later.
SB: Would like to cover message to Tijani.
CLO Re the terrorism issue, there is a misleading sentence, so would like it to be fixed.
CLO: The next MAPO meeting is on the 9th of August.
NomCom Appointment Issue:
SB: Have received answer from Legal re when we can organize an appt.
AG: No way of interpreting bylaw differently than the Legal dept.’s interpretation. Reason is because NomCom is selecting ALAC members. While one is a member, he/she cannot be a candidate for selection.
JAS Charter:
AG: In discussion, said the 5th item was not going to be forgotten whether in charter or not. I recall that decision was to let it rest, then, and not go back and change charter.
CLO: I thougt they were going to add it in.
Logo on Binary Egypt site:
HU: Legal said to send cordial letter asking Binary Egypt to remove logo.
Alan’s Cover note on ALAC statement on WG
CLO: Had error not been caught by Alan, it would have given wrong message.
Single-purpose call on LACRALO GA:
CLO: Now combined: First Kevin, Steve, then GAs. And Matt will develop draft budgets for that call for NARALO and APRALO.
Policy Development:
Initial Report on Proposals for Improvements to the RAA (closed 30 July 2010)
CLO: Did proper ALAC-announce announcement go out so Community knew about it?
HU: Yes, went to ALAC-announce on 29th.
CLO: This is short time. But now proposing we put it to a vote.
AG: I submitted personal comment to RAA, which will be included (after comment period closed).
Draft Applicant Guidebook v4 and Explanatory Memorandum (Closed 21 July 2010):
CLO: How should ExCom deal with this? What announcement went out and to whom about draft statement on DAG 4.
HU: Announcement was sent on 30 July.
CLO: Need to get it out to an Announce and need it as a Working List. Need to bring in editorial comments over next few days.
AG: Must get it to Board by retreat. So we have a few weeks, including final drafting.
CLO: So let’s get it out to ALAC. This is going to be a formal piece of advice to Board.
AG: Short and to point, or else it won’t get read.
Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries (ends 12 August 10):
AG: We are divided on mechanism, but whichever way chosen, must ensure survival of cultural ITDs, etc.
CS: I agree.
CLO: Using Sebastien, Alan, and Carlton’s words that they put into today’s call, plus words from call itself, we as ExCom probably should draft statement. We just have to make sure we are not particularly biased, given split on mechanisms.
AG: I’ll volunteer to do first draft, then group can decide how much it needs to be redone, how biased it is, etc.
Interim Paper on Policy Aspects Regarding Introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs (ends 9 September 10)
CS: We’d be remiss as the ALAC to not put in a comment.
CLO: The ExCom will take the advice of the IDN Liaison.
Review Team Applications
CLO: We are three for three.
AG: We decided to use our standard method of ExCom + five others. Up to RALOs whether they select their Chairs or someone else. Should send message to ALAC-Working list to ask if they approve these three names. And if RALOs want to disseminate message further, they can.
Announcement for regional members on Improvements work teams
SB: I think it best if both ALAC and ALAC ExCom members can join these work teams, rather than just limiting it to ExCom members.
CLO and AG: Agree
AG: If it ends up defaulting to only ExCom members, then fine. But I’d rather open the possibility of having both ALAC and ExCom members on these teams.
Travel issue:
KW joined the call.
AG: Summary of issue: I read p. 61 as either ICANN funding GAs, or it’s a rather duplicitous statement. Kevin however gave me a third interpretation. That is that David Olive’s Policy organization support these GAs in various ways (via Staff), but not including lodging of Community volunteers.
KW: Support is defined in three ways:
- Policy dept. (Staff), Secretariat, etc.
- ICANN’s Meeting budget (conference rooms, interpretation, etc.)
- Community travel budget (should follow Travel Guidelines). Kevin believes this does not provide for support of GAs, unless traded off for general/other support.
CLO: Community rejected the possibility of tradeoff of travel for regional leaders for GAs.
AG: Even if it were accepted, it would not provide enough funding for GAs.
CS: Our entire Community has read this passage in the way we, the ExCom, is reading it.
KW: The Travel Guidelines are pretty clear on this.
CLO: Yes, regarding ICANN meetings, not GAs. But now we know how you, Kevin, meant us to read this passage re its intent. Our question now, then, is how do we proceed?
KW: Your reading would have been a major shift for the Board to approve. This would have been a major message point, and it wasn’t really presented that way.
HU: With $100,000 as rough ball park, we could manage.
AG: We’re looking at 35 or so extra travelers, which we envisioned.
CLO: Important that we shared this amount. I’m happy that there’s a third option/interpretation, rather than just the duplicitous one. The requests are just going to keep on coming on this, and ALAC will have to just keep on bringing it forward. It fits with the AoC, etc. A GA is part of the toolkit that ICANN should be looking at.
KW: I don’t think anyone is questioning the usefulness of GAs or other suggestions. Question is which proposals are more critical than others, regarding funding.
CLO: We also clearly see GAs as part of our implementation of the At-Large Improvements.
AG: If we don’t start planning a GA for Cartegna soon, it won’t happen.
HU: The components of how this gets carved up are travel, per diem, and hotel.
KW: The Board passed budget in Brussels, but with further discussions that would adjust budget. We’ve focused on concern with constituency support. We will have a conf. call later this month about this to which all the SO, AC leaders will be invited to clarify all this. It will cover unclear passages (perhaps including p. 61), proposed adjustments to budget, and means of getting earlier input on FY12 budget from Community leaders.
AG: Many groups do not use their whole allocation. This may give you some flexibility in adjusting numbers, in a particular year. Previously, unused funds were always lost.
KW: Yes, we’re more frequently getting multi-year requests. If you had a shorter GA in association with some other ICANN meeting, it might be more doable.
CLO: This has always been our intent in part.
AG: If you, Kevin, say there is money for two days and not five days, that might force the issue.
CS: The LACRALO people are loaded to bear.
KS: I responded to the Doodle, so will be available for the next call on this topic. Heidi has told us that three GA budgets will be in in time for that call. Remember, with the exception of Europe, there are two opportunities for GAs. Cartegna is the first. Of course, there are future budgets.
Other Topics:
CLO: There will be a few items we don’t get to in this meeting, so please watch the chat space for these topics.
The meeting at this point went in camera.
