Transcription 13 May 2008

ALAC Meeting
(Held May 13, 2008)

Legend
Name: First name of member of group
Name?: If we think we might know who's speaking but aren't 100% sure.
Male: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a male.
Female: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a female.
Name: 52 - 0.31.06 We will identify a foreign language in square brackets with a time code for the beginning and end, so that you can quickly identify those passages. At the top of the transcript, we will advise you of the name(s) of the foreign languages you'll need to search for. For example, some transcripts may contain German, so you'll have to search for "German[ instead of |French" to find all the passages. The speaker identification is the same convention as all the others. i.e. If we know the speaker's name we'll include it, otherwise we'll put a question mark after it, or if we can't even guess, then Male, Female or SP.O Operator.
[XX joined If the phone system has announced that a particular person has just joined the group it will be shown in square brackets at the left margin.
Translator. If translator actually translates French or German for a participant we will note it as "Translator". It will normally be evident from the dialogue who the translator is translating for. If not, we will include a note in square brackets with respect to who they are translating for.
cuts out: Audio cuts out for less than 2 seconds. We may have missed something. We do not put this if it's just natural silence where no-one is speaking. We only put this if we can hear that there was briefly a technical problem with the phone line and/or the recording which resulted in temporary loss of sound.
cuts out 2 secs When the audio cuts out for 2 seconds or more we'll show approximately how many seconds were missed. We will most likely have missed something if it cuts out for this long.
-ation If we believe that all we missed was the beginning of a word because the audio cuts out, we will just put the end of the word that we can hear. If we are very sure from context what the whole word is, we'll just put the whole word, to make it easier for the reader. However, if the word could be a variety of different things, then we will show only the part of the word we could hear or thought we heard.
very faint - barely audible We will put this at the beginning of paragraphs where we are having a very difficult time hearing.

********************************************************************************************************

Attendance:
Adigo Operator, French Interpreter, Spanish Interpreter
ICANN Staff Nick Ashton-Hart
Asia-Pacific Cheryl Langston-Orr
Izumi Aizu
Hong Xue
Europe Sebastian Bachollet
Pablo ???
Annette Muehlberg
Africa Fatimata Seye Sylla
North America Beau Brendler
Alan Greenberg
Wendy Seltzer
Robert Guerra
Latin America Vanda Scartezini

Apologies:
Hawa Diakite, Jacqueline Morris, Carlos Aquirre
********************************************************************************************************
20 sec. pause
Adigo Operator: Adigo operator.
Adigo interpreter joined
French Interpreter: Adigo interpreter, French.
Adigo interpreter French joined
inaudible conversation between French interpreter and client
Spanish Interpreter: Adigo Spanish interpreter on the English call. 07
Adigo Spanish interpreter joined
Male: I’m logged into Skype. They’ve already attached... I mean, contacted me on the phone. Armando, you have English on this headset, Spanish on this. You don’t have the dual headset today, but I will have it for you next time. So you’ll just have to use one hand at a time, or something like that. Do you typically use the mute button, too?
Spanish Interpreter: 50
Male: It’s over here. Are you always muted on the English? All righty. It’s muted right now. Inaudible
Spanish Interpreter: Okay.
Male: And whatever you do, don’t hang up. Thank you very much.
inaudible conversation in background
English Operator: Good morning, this is Tanya, the English operator.
French Interpreter: Good morning, Tanya. This is the French interpreter.
English Operator: Good morning.
Female: I heard the French interpreter. She said good morning.
Male: Hello, hello can you hear me?
Female: No, I don’t hear him.
English Operator: Armando? Hello, Armando? Armando? Good morning, Armando.
Spanish Interpreter: Yeah, good morning.
English Operator: There we go. Okay, I hear.
Spanish Interpreter: Now I can hear you.
Vanda: Vanda Scartezini. 25
Vanda joined
Vanda: Hello? 15
English Operator: Hi Vanda, this is Tanya, the operator. Vanda?
Vanda: Yes?
English Operator: Hi, good morning. This is Tanya the operator.
Vanda: Okay.
English Operator: We’re dialling everyone in now.
Vanda: Okay, thank you.
English Operator: Okay.
Vanda: Who is there? 47
English Operator: Yeah, we’re still trying to get people in, Vanda.
Vanda: Not yet?
English Operator: No. Mohammed’s line keeps ringing no answer. Annette’s line keeps ringing busy, so. We have... I think Fatima is on the... Fatimata is on the French channel, so I’m still trying to reach... and it looks like they haven’t signed in yet.
Vanda: Okay.
English Operator: Okay, hon.
Vanda: Okay, bye bye.
English Operator: Okay, Vanda. We’re getting another number for Annette. If you want us to give you a call back a little closer to the time, we can do that, if you don’t want to hold on.
Vanda: I’m at the 50 phone, so I can wait.
English Operator: Okay. Okay.
Pablo: 02
English Operator: Okay, Vanda, that’s Pablo that just signed in on the line.
Pablo: Hello?
English Operator: Pablo?
Pablo: Yes?
English Operator: Hi, this is the operator. Vanda is also on the line.
Vanda: Yes, okay. Pablo? Pablo, Spanish
Pablo: 27
Vanda: 01
Pablo: 25 – 00.36.30
Vanda: 33
Pablo: 00
Cheryl: Cheryl. 09
Cheryl Langdon-Orr joined
Cheryl: Hi there, Cheryl here.
Vanda: Hello.
Cheryl: Hi there, Cheryl here. How are you?
Vanda: Hi. I’m waiting for more than 30 minutes. I don’t know what happened with the others. The operator is trying to call everybody since, you know, 15 to 10:00, and it’s still now, we have only three persons.
Cheryl: Okay, Vanda, I can tell you what happened. The call time on the Wiki says 13:30, not 13:00 UTC.
Vanda: Oh.
Cheryl: According to our Wiki, which is where my diary comes from, we are about to start in...
English Operator: Seven minutes. This is Tanya.
Cheryl: ...eight minutes. Hi Tanya.
English Operator: Hi Cheryl. Yeah, looks like we got a little dial happy.
Cheryl: A little hitch. Oh dear. Not good, okay. All right, so, we’ve got Vanda.
Vanda: Yeah.
English Operator: Pablo’s on the line as well.
Cheryl: Who is?
English Operator: Pablo.
Cheryl: Pablo?
Vanda: Yes, Pablo was trying to reach Nick, to try to understand what’s going on. Probably he is on another phone.
Cheryl: But who is Pablo?
Vanda: Pablo is the liaison with ICANN from South America.
Cheryl: Ah, okay. So he doesn’t help us become a quorum.
Vanda: No, no, he is just a participant.
Cheryl: That’s all right. I’ve spoken to Nick already this evening for... well, my this evening, for a couple of hours, so I know he also was assuming that what the Wiki said is what we were expecting.
Vanda: Okay, well, I am doing another thing.
Cheryl: Oh dear. Who else have we got, then?
English Operator: That’s it. I’m still trying to reach Mohammed. I have been unable to reach Mohammed. And someone looks like they’re trying to call in now. Hold on.
Cheryl: Thank you, Tanya.
Pablo: 56
Vanda: Hi. 14
Robert: Robert 24
Robert joined
Vanda: Cheryl, and I believe, Nick, and Sebastian, a lot of them are still 15
Pablo: I see, I see. Perfect. Thank you. Goodbye.
English Operator: Cheryl, someone else has signed on.
Nick: Nick.
Nick Ashton-Hart joined
English Operator: I couldn’t hear the name though.
Nick: It’s me. C’est moi.
Cheryl: Hello, Nick.
Vanda: Nick, how are you?
Nick: Hello, wonderful people.
English Operator: Hi Nick, it’s Tanya.
Annette: Hello to everyone. Annette here.
Nick: I can officially... I survived two weeks in 34
Cheryl: Hello, Annette.
English Operator: I’m sorry, you officially survived two weeks where?
Nick: In Marina del Ray. laughter
English Operator: Wasn’t it lovely?
Nick: Well, it was sorry coming in... we’re sorry we didn’t see you, Tanya, and especially sorry for the reason why. How horrible.
English Operator: I know. Thank you, thank you.
Nick: But, yeah, it’s very hard to get any work done when you’re meeting with people continuously.
English Operator: Yeah, now that’s true.
Nick: But we had a jolly time in the office, and...
Alan: Alan Greenberg.
Alan Greenberg joined
Nick: ...and I can tell you that Adigo has wonderful donuts.
English Operator: Wonderful donuts?
Nick: Wonderful donuts and big muffins.
Alan: I think it would be unreasonable... quite reasonable for you to share those, then.
Nick: Since... I’m sure the Adigo people are listening and can accept requests for transmission of donuts.
English Operator: We’ll beam them to everyone. laughter Nick, I don’t know if John told you. I’m... Mohammed’s line is ringing. We’re not having a pick up at his line. So I’m not sure if he’s on Skype or not.
Cheryl: I can’t see him on Skype, and I can’t see Hawa on Skype.
English Operator: Okay. Well, we know Hawa won’t be attending.
Cheryl: I know Annette is here, but she’s not on Skype.
Annette: That’s true.
Nick: Well, we added you to the chat, just in case you logged in, Annette.
Sebastian: Sebastian.
Annette: Yeah, sure. I’m working on it.
Sebastian Bachollet joined
Cheryl: Okay, it looks like Wendy’s about to join.
Alan: Does someone have to add me to the chat, too? Or can I do this myself?
Nick: I will add you, but I think that’s 56
Annette: May I invite myself?
Nick: I added you, Annette.
Annette: Oh, yes. That was just a joke.
Nick: I got Alan. Who else is logged on, now?
Alan: How do I actually use it when I’m added? Ah, something just... no, that’s Adigo on...
Nick: It should say ALAC meeting for may at the top 26
Wendy Seltzer joined
Nick: Who just joined? That’s interesting.
English Operator: Whoever did brought in static.
Wendy: Sorry, it’s Wendy. Full of static as always.
Nick: Can you try it once more, Wendy, perhaps?
Wendy: No, I’ll mute, though.
Alan: Now, Nick, where am I supposed to see this?
Nick: A Skype window should pop up, and sometimes there’s a slight delay, but...
Alan: No, it did this the last time, too. It opens, but it opens closed... you know, minimized.
Nick: Ah. Secret Skype.
Alan: Yeah, well.
Cheryl: Okay, Izumi has just pinged.
Vanda: Five minutes.
Cheryl: He’ll be in in a minute. Have we got Sebastian in yet?
Sebastian: Yes, I am in.
Cheryl: Ah, thank you. As soon as Izumi joins, I think we then have a quorum. At the moment of ALAC members, I have myself, Vanda, Annette, Fatimata on the French channel, Alan, Robert and Sebastian. Is there anyone else who needs to identify themselves as ALAC members? I also have Wendy, I have Pablo, that’s it at the moment.
Alan: The minutes for the meeting says there’s also a Spanish channel. Is that correct?
Nick: There is.
English Operator: There is.
Nick: They have separate IDs now, too, so you can directly dial them.
Alan: I hadn’t realized we were doing Spanish, that’s all.
Nick: Yeah, unfortunately though, Carlos and they are not around.
Beau: Beau Brendler.
Beau Brendler joined
Alan: Who was that?
Nick: Beau, huh.
Beau: Hello.
Nick: Hey Beau, do you have a Skype address?
Beau: No, you know, I don’t have Skype. I’ve been contemplating getting it. I guess I should.
Nick: It’s free.
Beau: Yeah, well the gear’s not free, right? But that’s not a big deal.
Nick: Well, I mean, you can use it without. You can just use your laptop speakers, but it’s a little funny sometimes.
Beau: Yeah, I will... My wife and I have been talking a lot about it, so I will get it together.
Cheryl: Welcome, Beau. That will be good, because we do run that as a chat during the call. It allows us... for people who want to say, “I wish to speak on something,” it also allows us to raise questions, and particularly when we’re running on other languages, if somebody is able to put a synopsis or a simple language version of what the discussion topic is at any time, it does help the interpreters as well.
Beau: Okay, I will look into getting it this week.
Alan: Cheryl, that’s very impressive. You can type “hi” without a pause in your talk.
Nick: True multitasking.
Cheryl: Alan, it’s the advantage of having two x chromosomes, as opposed to an x and a broken one.
Alan: Given the exchange we had last night and this morning, I’d be careful what you’re saying.
Cheryl: Now, Alan, I’m relying on you to make sure that what I say is actually what I mean, seeing clearly that I was incapable of doing that a few hours ago.
Alan: Just for everyone else’s amusement, Cheryl and I traded a few notes, and she apologized for a typo, and in that apology, had a typo.
Cheryl: Which, might I share with you, was highly inflammatory and could have been taken as quite an insult. So...
Alan: Well, the whole stream started with me being ignored as the liaison on the committee. And then got worse.
Cheryl: It just degenerated from there. Oh dear, okay. Well, we are... we do have a quorum. And I do thank everybody for being prompt, and particularly those of you who were on a call perhaps a little longer than you’d planned. We did have Tanya and the people from Adigo dialling you out a little early. The call was listed to start at 13:30 UTC, though some of you have been on for extended periods of time. I trust that being able to start within five minutes of the advertised time is a benefit that we will all appreciate, and perhaps if we can try and get people in in the 10 to 15 minutes before the advertised time, that would be great.
I have now a wish to call to apologies. We’ve had some go through to the e-mail listing. I’ve noted Carlos 45 Who else do we have as an apology?
Nick: We’ve... what is it? Hawa.
Cheryl: Oh, Hawa is an apology? Okay.
Nick: 55 Jacqueline is an apology.
Cheryl: Yes. Yes, I should have remembered Jacqueline, yes. Anyone else?
Nick: I think that’s everyone.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: Though Hong may... is somebody dialling out for Hong. I think she might have been. Oh dear.
Cheryl: Is Hong listed for the dial-out?
Nick: She should be. She requested one.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, we need to move on to the agenda now. And we have the first standing agenda item, which is the adoption of the agenda. I’d like to note that we actually have a very full agenda tonight, and we also have a meeting starting immediately after this meeting is scheduled to finish, so we will not be able to extend, unless everybody who wishes to either stay and join us for the summit planning committee meeting, or the summit planning committee people don’t come in until five or ten minutes later, after the time. So we need to keep to time fairly promptly this evening.
So we’ve done calls for apologies, and I’d now like to ask for any comments before we have the adoption of the minutes of the last meeting. Has everyone had the opportunity to look at the minutes of the last meeting? I guess that the silence probably means that you’re not going to confess to the fact that you haven’t read it, or that you’re all absolutely happy that you have, and that everything is a true and accurate record. I will note that Robert has, on Skype, seconded the minutes. That’s all very nice, Robert, but somebody who was actually on the meeting on the 8th has to propose it first. So can I have somebody move that the minutes are a true and accurate record, and then we can accept Robert’s seconding of it. Thank you, Sebastian. If there is no further discussion, and nobody is saying that they disagree, I would suggest that we now accept those minutes, and move on to item four, which is the...
Alan: With the note that I abstain.
Cheryl: You’re abstaining? Certainly.
Alan: I wasn’t at the meeting.
Cheryl: Okay, yep. Not a problem. I’ll make sure that’s noted. If we move to the action items of the 8th of April...
Matthias: Matthias.
Matthias joined
Cheryl: Welcome, Matthias.
Matthias: Hello.
Vanda: Hi Matthias.
Cheryl: We’re just up to action items of the 8th of April. coughs Pardon me. And...
Sebastian: Sorry, Cheryl, maybe... it’s Sebastian. Just to... besides the apologize, I don’t know if we officially said within the ALAC meeting that Veronica decided not to be any more a member of the ALAC committee, and that’s something that we have to take into account, too.
Cheryl: Okay, would you like to bring that up under Any Other Business later?
Sebastian: Yes, madam. No problem.
Cheryl: No, I think it’s a very important point, and certainly something that the EURALO people will need to deal with, as well.
Male: So...
Cheryl: Go ahead. Who was that? No? Okay. Going quickly through the action items for the 8th of April, the first item, Wendy, actually it says two items, Wendy, refer to you, and I know your time is short with us this evening. So we will deal with these. The Board liaison will ask the Board for a timeline for new gTLDs, and the Board liaison will ask the Board to make a decision on the 35 meeting, with the trademark rights produced at the top level of domain name systems. Now we are aware that you didn’t make the last call, and we have noted your posting to the list of your report. Would you care to speak to either of those matters?
Wendy: Yes, the Board has not given a timeline for new gTLDs. They have... are engaged in various implementations, considerations and consultations with the GNSO council and the staff, and they are still all very much up in the air as to when, and if, new gTLDs will in fact be introduced. So there’s no further concrete information on that point. But following the Board’s interaction with the GNSO is the best indication of what’s happening there. You can see the new...
Izumi: Izumi Aizu.
Izumi joined
Wendy: ...implementation guidelines are being described more fully...
Heinrich: Heinrich.
Wendy: ...but there’s still some ways to go there.
Heinrich joined
The Board did not make a decision on whether trademark rights exist at the top level of the DNS. I raised that concern and question, as well as some earlier legal counsel advice, rejecting others’ contentions that trademark rights should be recognized at the top level of the DNS. And the Board did not make any decision, although it’s indicated that its legal position naturally changes over time, as opposed to the circumstances of the 26 But the situation overall, I still think that there are persuasive reasons against recognizing trademark rights in the top level. The Board... the inclination seems to be to leave lots of the contentious issues for “Independent Dispute Resolution Processes.” The Board won’t be making these decisions, nor will ICANN staff or management, but various classes of issues, including the general issue of inaudible – static will be left to... will be shunted to an Independent Dispute Resolution Body, and presented there.
Vanda?: I can’t hear you, sorry.
Wendy: Sorry. The various conflict issue, the four that are currently being discussed most heavily, the intent is that...
Male: Hong Xue, dialled in.
Hong Xue joined
Wendy: ...they will be decided not by ICANN staff or Board, but by challenges before Independent Dispute Resolution providers, who are trying to be lined up now. And that applicants, in their applications, agree to be bound by those independent dispute resolution processes, and then go through that. Of course, there is always the opportunity for independent challenges, even after that. And...
[07 left]
Wendy: ...but that is the current state of affairs.
Cheryl: Okay, so we’re holding our breaths, but probably not too certain on when we’ll have to exhale on those matters, but there is some, perhaps not perfect, but discussion at least on the IP issues. Do you feel that we need to do anything on either of these matters, Wendy?
Wendy: I think it’s always useful to give input, so if we think that something is going too slowly, it would be helpful for ALAC to be among those saying that. If we feel that certain issues that are being designated as appropriate issues for contention aren’t, we should say that. So I’ve raised on the ALAC list suggestions that the morality and public order criteria, or the very open description of rights of others, leaves lots of rooms for strike suits and gaming of the system, and that I personally would like to see narrowed. And if others in ALAC agree, that would be useful for comment. And if others think that there are points of challenge missing from the discussion, I think it would be useful to get those in.
The further it goes down the path of implementation, the harder it is going to be to bring up new issues, or even to continue raising old issues.
Cheryl: The new gTLD working group has 15 on that. The issues you’ve raised on the public at-large group...
Annette?: Who is speaking? I can’t hear anything.
Hong: Me too. It is very noisy, and I don’t know what’s wrong with the line.
Cheryl: Hong, welcome. It’s Wendy’s line, is giving a lot of interference. When she’s muted you won’t have any problems.
Hong: But still, could you speak up?
Cheryl: Could I speak up?
Hong: Yes.
Cheryl: Well, do you have a volume on your phone at the receiving end, because I’m actually speaking quite loud. Can anyone else not hear me.
Hong: It’s better now, thanks.
Cheryl: Well, I haven’t changed my volume one iota. What I was asking is with the new gTLD working group, have they picked up, or are they intending to pick up, and pursue those matters that Wendy raised? I’m not necessarily asking for a reply. I’m just flagging that discourse and discussion in the at-large public list needs to be picked up by the working groups when it is relevant to their reason for being.
There was a question from Robert. Wendy is asking for a specific definition of what that question is. Robert, would you care to clarify.
Robert: Yeah, um... Wendy kind of answered the question, because I made the comment while she was speaking. I too would see it problematic that ICANN try to define and try to get into issues of defining or blocking domain names that are related to morality and public order. You know, it may not be that much of an issue in some developed countries, but in developing countries, and particularly the Middle East, where we have a fall meeting, censorship around morality and public order is quite common. And so I see it that ICANN should be very careful not to get into that state, as I don’t see it as being the appropriate venue. And I will be supportive of Wendy’s efforts to make sure that ICANN steers clear of that.
Cheryl: Okay, thank you for that. Wendy’s responded on the chat channel, does that...
Wendy: But so, if Robert’s viewpoint is shared by a significant portion of ALAC, it would be useful to get that into the discussion,
Cheryl: Well, that’s something that the RALOs will have to come back to us on, because I can assure you, you won’t get a uniform view, even within AP-RALO. And I doubt that you’ll get a uniform view between RALOs. I think that the matters of what the definition of morality or public order is quite complex when you start to look across... not only across the regions, but in the case of my own region, and I’m sure Izumi will agree with me, within our region there is enormous variety indeed. What we could do, I think, is ensure that the matter of ICANN not being involved in content, regardless of what the local definition of suitable or otherwise is, we want the other to work at a higher level to get the proper outcome.
So I think that’s one that we need to ask each of the RALO representatives on the ALAC to take back to their monthly meetings and give prompt feedback, both to the ALAC and to the new gTLD working group. While they’re doing that, I would like them to perhaps look at the discussions and record from the one-day GNSO meeting that was held last month, devoted to the matter of new gTLDs. I spent a reasonable amount of time on that teleconference. I think it was actually an eleven-hour straight teleconference. But there were quite a few interesting points of discussion, as staff went through, with the GNSO people attending, some of the subtleties and nuances. I did make extensive notes, which I’m happy to tidy up and turn into some semblance of English, and share with you all. But there were a number of times there when the Internet-using public and local views, in other words, what people in the area of the market a new gTLD was pitching itself at, thought of things, was becoming quite important. So we really do need to engage our ALSs, and our RALOs, and the at-large in general, in this process early, so they are well prepared to be involved later.
As Wendy has just said, I’ll repeat it here, “There are lots of places where the public is invoked but not actually heard from. That’s exactly what we’ll need to try and redress.” I couldn’t agree with you more.
If there are no other matters on this discussion, remembering that new gTLDs appear later in our discussions, I‘d like to move on to the third point in the action items, and that’s actually the third and fourth points. And that’s to do with the IDN and ccTLD’s fast-track. RALO leaders were encouraged last month to get discussions going on fast-track implementation. I’ve only noticed deafening silence on this matter, but I’d like Hong to make some very short comments, and suggest that we will also revisit this very specifically when we look at the topic of better engagement of RALOs later in the meeting. Hong, do you care to say anything?
Hong: Cheryl, of course. In April, IDN working group had two conference calls, and in May, we had one. So totally in three conference calls, a couple of issues have been talked about. So there are two most contentious issues. One is on the language committee, which now is being called a group for linguistic experts. It is going to evaluate two issues. One is whether the advocation on one IDN stream is official language, is official script, from one ccTLD territory. Another is to verify whether that string is meaningful. It sounds like these ideas are feasible, are viable, but the problem is that the reality will be much more complicated than that. Say if the language committee believes that the string is an official string. It is an official string, and it is meaningful. But there’s still a big problem, a political problem, that cannot be handled within the language community, and handled by the linguistic experts. That is, it is the country name. It is the country name that is 25 by one territory and disputed by another territory. Then we have to think about the GAC principles. Another ccTLD’s issue is within sovereignty of ccTLD territory, or could be interfered by other territories.
Another most contentious issue is objection procedure, actually very connected to the one I just talked about. That is, if one application for one ccTLD IDN string to ICANN Board...
Female: I’m sorry. Who is speaking, at this moment?
Cheryl: Hong.
Hong: Hong is speaking. I’m talking about IDN – an update. Objection - it is by no means an objection within the IDN ccTLD territory. In the territory there should be consensus – that is a prerequisite. The problem is that once one territory has reached a consensus, and filed an application to the Board, whether the...
Nick: Hong.
Hong: ...stakeholders from other territories, from another ccTLD territory, say Kosovo filed an application and a Serb can file opposition to the Board, either from the Serb government, from a Serb business, or the Serb user community.
Nick: Hong.
Hong: A very interesting scenario.
Nick: Hong.
Hong: Do you have a question?
Nick: Can you just slow down a little, because the interpreters are having to interpret sort of heavy technical matters.
Cheryl: The French channel and the Spanish channel are having trouble keeping up with you.
Hong: Oh sure, sure, sure. Sure, of course. The problem is that I can hardly hear you. The line is still very noisy. But fortunately, I’m almost finished. These are two issues that are being talked through in all three teleconferences. I’ve raised a couple of issues in the calls. Well, one issue I’ve raised, on behalf of the interests of the user community, is that if there is going to be an objection procedure, not only the government, 53 the sovereign government, but also the user community, say 1000 Iran Internet users, should also be able to file the applications, should file the objections, sorry.
Another issue is that I really worry that the procedure has become very complicated, especially this newly added objection procedure. And I am concerned that the implementation will be further delayed because of an increasingly complicated procedure. That’s it. Back to you, Cheryl.
Cheryl: Thank you, Hong. I believe you are not alone in your concerns about the procedure for fast-track IDNs in ccTLDs becoming too complicated. And we do, I think, have an important role as ALAC and at-large, to play here. And that is to get a clear concept from the various reasons, and particularly the ALSs within each region, regarding what they feel about the important questions of a language expert committee and an objection procedure. We have a very powerful and necessarily important player in this from the GAC. But of course, GAC in itself’s view is not a consensus view, other than the high level matters of sovereignty. The variation, for example, in the Arab community, who have already spent several years in joint work, coming up with very much the principles that the proposed language experts group would be doing. They quite rightly ask why would a new group have any power to overturn what they as a regional community have already agreed on.
So we need to hear very clearly from the ALSs and the RALOs so that we, Hong and I, can feed properly into this process.
Hong: Cheryl, as we talked in last conference call, last month’s conference call, I have already set up the Wiki page for the regional participation on the IDN section, and ALAC Wiki, but I haven’t seen any comments from anybody.
Cheryl: Exactly.
Hong: So if our members could do some outreach in their regions, it would be very helpful to get our voices heard.
Cheryl: Okay.
Wendy: Sorry, I’m going to have to drop off, but I was sharing your concern that we don’t tend to hear from our users enough, and it seems for an appropriate not for me to apologize for having to leave the call. See you on Skype and on list.
Cheryl: Thank you Wendy, and we’ll ping you on the details with the 35
Wendy Seltzer left
Cheryl: Hong, I would go further than saying it would be helpful. I would be suggesting to every one of the NA, AP, EU, and AF-RALO representatives here tonight that it is their job description to go back to their next monthly RALO meeting, and make this a priority matter. In fact, I’d like to see them doing it online, and getting results at their next monthly meeting.
Hong: That would be great.
Cheryl: It certainly would be. Okay. If we can just very quickly now...
Annette: Excuse me, may I have... Annette here.
Cheryl: Yes, Annette.
Annette: Short... I just want to go back to Hong. Hong, it would be very helpful, you know, if you address this directly to the RALOs, and explain it a little bit.
Cheryl: There is a wealth of information in the IDN working group Wiki...
Annette: I know. I know. But it is too much information. It is very hard to discuss it this way, by linking to Wikis and saying, “Oh, here, there is something important there.” But...
French Interpreter: Who is speaking at this time?
Annette: Annette.
Hong: Annette, I’m sure I agree. The IDN Wiki has become very informative indeed, and it would be difficult for the first-time visitors. But we are now talking about one issue, that is the fast track at ccNSO. And it is now on the front page, item one, on the top. But I fully see your point, Annette. You want to design a template for this outreach document, in plain language, for ordinary users.
Annette: Exactly.
Hong: I guess it’s very useful. It could be used on IDN as well.
Annette: Exactly.
Hong: I really want to work with you on this 01.
Annette: This is my point.
Cheryl: This might be an ideal time just to make a mental note in our meeting, here, that we need to come back to this in more detail, under the topic, “Discussion for better engagement of the community,” particularly the ALSs and the RALOs. And ensure that we use this as an example, perhaps, as we’re discussing the type of template information that Evan has prepared from the summit perspective, and has put up a template document which apparently deals with domain tasting, but could just as easily deal, in terms of the template, for any topic, including IDNs. So if we can come back to that later in the meeting, that would be very, very good.
Alan is quite reasonably raising a point of order with me, which is that a review of action items should review action items, not a review of substance. 08 get to the actual agenda items? Thank you for that Alan, and I was just going to say that the majority of the action items are matters for staff to deal with. Is there anything that staff hasn’t or wishes to tell us about a difficulty or a direction? And then a list of action items before we move on to the actual agenda.
Nick: Sorry, just unmuting. I don’t see anything that is particularly relevant. We have not yet set up a teleconference to discuss the new at-large website. We are still drafting the proposals for how the new site would look, and it seemed sensible to have that done before going on to the next step. That said, there are a sort of continuous stream of slight updates and improvements being made to that site, that don’t affect the navigability. You’ll see now that you can see the latest announcements posted to ICANN dot org will appear now on the right-hand side of the main page, which was newly enabled.
Other than that, I can’t think of anything in particular... the rest of these are administrative matters related to agendas, so...
Cheryl: Yup. Okay, that’s great.
Nick: I would say... I should say one thing, though, in relation to teleconferences and their staffing, is that we had a very productive meeting with our teleconference vendor, the outcome of which is that it will be possible, and is possible now, to IM them on Skype, and in fact, they are included on the Skype chat. So if, at any point, you become disconnected, you can simply ask them to redial you in Skype. And, secondarily, you can dial directly into the Spanish and French channels now on any teleconference which has those languages. You don’t have to wait for a dial-out if a toll-free number exists for you.
Hong: Cheryl, may I have a request to Nick?
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Hong: On these calls. Yes, it’s a logistic issue. Nick, I’ve sent... 55
French Interpreter: Does it depend on the country?
Cheryl: Sorry, who was that?
French Interpreter: The dial out, that does depend on the country.
Nick: Yes. overtalking
Hong: Oh, that is, there is a toll-free number for China, but China has two telecom providers. That number is only for the southern part of China. It is not working in the North part of China. If it is possible to add another toll-free number for the ccNSO conference, to have two numbers, for the two operators.
Nick: Yes, we brought that up, we did bring that up when we talked to them. And they are in the process of adding... either adding a new number, or enabling toll-free access to the existing number in the North, and it is simply a matter of waiting, basically.
Hong: Oh, thanks.
Cheryl: That is good news indeed. I’m sure Hong is smiling.
French Interpreter: Is there anything for Africa? Fatimata is asking.
Nick: There are requests in for toll-free numbers for several African countries, but it is not possible to get a free phone number in all countries. And there are often very long waiting lists, we are informed. But they are working on it.
Cheryl: Okay. Thank you for that...
French Interpreter: Very well.
Cheryl: Thank you. The liaison reports is the next item. All of those have either been posted to the list, and have a link from this page, or are about to be posted from the list and will have a link from this page. Can I suggest that it is up to the liaisons themselves to be doing that? I went through and listed an incomplete list. I do apologize Alan, I didn’t put him on. The GNSO had not been listed.
Alan: The GNSO is not one of the more important groups, anyway.
Cheryl: Now don’t start, come on. We did this today already. No, it is extraordinarily important. It was me that wasn’t functioning well. But I would like to see if we can get the staff just to note the standard pro-forma needs to ensure that there is a space for each liaison to put up the link. Not everybody’s Wiki skills are as good as they need to be, and perhaps now you’ve had a few moments to recover from Marina del Rey, you might be able to quietly kick them in the shins prior to the meeting, and suggest that people do in fact post them in a timely manner.
That leads us now to the important matter of issues to be raised at the ICANN Board meeting. But that also comes into item 4, listed below, on the items for discussion. Would you like to move item 7 of standing agenda items to after our other discussions? Yes or no? We deal with matters to be raised at the Board meeting now, or after we’ve had the other items discussed.
Beau?: After.
Cheryl: After? Fine, works for me. Nick, thank you very much for reminding me that I had... now this is a Freudian slip. Alan, I am being Freudian now. I probably didn’t want to say, “ALS applications,” particularly in the light of our very next agenda item, which is trying to use plain and simple language when we’re trying to vote on these things.
But we should have a brief moment to look at the current status of ALS applications. Those of you who have your Google docs will note a few changes, I assume. But Nick, is there any update you’d like to give us? Briefly.
Nick: Yes, firstly, of the 11 applications here, 3 of them are suspended, two at the request of the applicant, and one... Well, one at the request of the applicant, one due to having an incomplete application, that one is quite old, and the third, where we are waiting for information to complete the due diligence process. Four have been voted on very recently, and we have three others. One which is done with the due diligence, and we are waiting for regional advice. Another which is in Africa, which is in the same position. And one which came in quite recently. We are investigating whether or not the Arab regional ISPs and DSPs association is actually end-user related, or if they have mistakenly applied to the wrong community for membership. So we will obviously let you know what we find out from them.
On the four applications which have recently been voted on, and I won’t get into the manner of wording, because I know you’re going to discuss that next, we have received nine votes so far. There are a couple of people on the conference call who have not voted. It would not be impossible for us to record a paper vote, as they are called, in the system for you, if you wish to vote. One application is set to be rejected, because the regional advice for France at-large was to reject the application. And the applicant there has said that he will appeal to the ombudsman, who I do not believe will find fault with the community, or the staff, to be honest.
Cheryl: And Cheryl has been in quite regular contact in the last month with the ombudsman. Frank is waiting for this complaint, and staff is also...
French Interpreter: Who’s speaking? I’m sorry, who’s speaking at this moment.
Nick: Cheryl.
Cheryl: Cheryl.
French Interpreter: Thank you so much.
Nick: So, um, yes, if anyone wishes to record a vote by voice which we can then input, that would be helpful. Otherwise we do have a quorate result.
Cheryl: Can I maybe move that...
Sebastian: Can I...
Cheryl: ...is there anybody here who has not voted, who wishes to have their vote recorded either by voice or on the Skype chat now, to add to the nine of us who’ve voted on this matter so far?
Alan: Can Nick identify who hasn’t voted? It’s a public list, from our perspective.
Nick: Yes, right now I show, of those on the call in particular, Robert and Beau have not voted. Hawa has not voted. Nguyen Thu Hue has not voted.
Cheryl: Thu Hue hasn’t done a 37.
Nick: And Veronica hasn’t voted, even though Veronica remains a member of the ALAC until an election is held to fill that vacancy.
Beau: I don’t mind doing it.
Alan: When she resigned, she resigned. I don’t think we can say she’s a member.
Nick: It’s... I’m just going by the rules of procedure, which state that you’re a member until you’re gone.
Cheryl: So we can’t expect her vote, and her...
Nick: No one can force her to vote, of course, but...
Cheryl: Nor should she. I don’t think she should. If she’s resigned, she’s resigned.
Alan: I agree.
Annette: Right.
Alan: Are Robert and Beau still on the call?
Beau: Yeah, yeah, this is Beau.
Robert: I am.
Beau: I’m happy to do a voice vote. I mean, I voted in the first election that didn’t fly. I didn’t vote in the second. laughter
French Interpreter: I’m sorry, who’s speaking at this time?
Beau: This is Beau Brendler. Yeah, I’m happy to do a voice vote now. I voted in the first election that didn’t work, but apparently I missed the second one. So I hereby vote to follow all the regional advice.
Nick: So noted.
Cheryl: Robert?
Robert: I agree with Beau. I so vote as well.
Sebastian: It’s Sebastian. May I say a few words here? I will not participate to the vote, not because I have no position on that, but because I think it’s a little bit tricky for me to say something. The leader of this so-called organization is a member of ISOC-France. He is living just 300 metres from my home, and I have some exchange with him. And my feeling is that I don’t read all my e-mails and I missed some, so that’s maybe why I didn’t take care of that. But I think as soon as possible it can go to the ombudsman, it will be better. And even I think that if ALAC sends it to the ombudsman, it will be a good step ahead, and not waiting for any more months.
Annette: Exactly.
Sebastian: From the guy from at-large. And I have to be careful, because we are all registered here. But just be aware that we will need to handle the situation and those types of exchanges during the Paris meeting, and I just want to apologize for that.
Cheryl: 19
Nick: Sebastian, may I ask a question, though. Would you... assuming that you would either like to not vote or abstain on the France at-large application, do you wish to record a vote for the other three applicants?
Sebastian: I will do it immediately. I am sorry, but there are thousands of mails too late for me, but... These three other organizations, the original advice was yes, I guess.
Nick: Yes, that’s true.
Sebastian: Then I say yes for the... I follow the original advice each time, please.
Nick: Except for... do you want to abstain on France at-large, or simply not vote?
Sebastian: No, I will not participate to the vote. I will not abstain either. But yes on that please.
French Interpreter: I’m sorry, who is speaking at this time?
Male: Sebastian.
Sebastian: It was Sebastian.
Cheryl: Obviously, the need for us to... and it is Cheryl who is speaking at this time, because our dulcet tones are not being recognized, needs to be brought in now that we’re using the interpreter channels. So we will do our best, but it does seriously interrupt our flow of discussion.
Alan: Is the interpreter on Skype?
Nick: The interpreter is not on at present. They are working on that.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: So Sebastian, thank you, thank you for that, and I can only offer our empathy on the situation that will undoubtedly happen in the Paris meeting. It is unfortunate indeed that we will have ruffled feathers, but so be it. I don’t believe that we need to send anything to the ombudsman, because we aren’t complaining about anything. If the applicant wishes to complain, the natural course for them is to the ombudsman, and the ombudsman has indeed been briefed.
Nick: One thing I would add here is, I would say that your interpretation, Cheryl, is correct, that you cannot complain about yourself. But if you wish, ALAC may ask the ombudsman to use his good offices to review the situation, which might make the applicant feel better, and allow him a venue to make his views known.
Cheryl: Well, let’s see whether the applicant, in the response to our results of the vote, wishes to take it any further. My guess is yes.
Sebastian: It’s just... I would like to support what Nick just said. I think it will be less heavy and less painful if we say that we take the opportunity to ask the ombudsman... as Nick said, I will not repeat. It’s, from my point of view, it will be easier and better, and not to wait until the applicant says something. We will decrease the...
Vanda: The noise.
Sebastian: The noise and the 44 in this situation. It’s my feeling, sorry.
Vanda: I agree with you.
Cheryl: 47, and I’m more than happy to do that. I’m sure the noise will happen anyway. And the Ombudsman will then stop asking me, “When is something going to happen?” He seems to be quite keen. So I will let Frank know that we will be formally asking him to review the process in this matter, and I will ask staff to let the applicant know, along with the results of the vote, that we have indeed formally requested the ombudsman to look at this project.
Alan: Cheryl, it’s Alan. May I suggest instead of saying we will formally ask him, ask the ombudsman, is there some practical way that we can bring this to his attention formally, with the right word, review, or something else. Let him indicate the proper way of getting it on his table.
Cheryl: Well, okay, in fact it’s already on his table. I’ve got a case number.
Alan: Well, okay. Okay then, I withdraw.
Hong: No, this is nice. This is wonderful.
Nick: I will have a chat with him, if that’s useful.
Cheryl: Yes. Let’s make sure that the wording... the nomenclature is correct. And Nick, if you let him know he can use my allocated case number, that’s fine.
Okay, moving now then to items for discussion at this meeting, and a perfect segue from the item we’ve just completed, and that is plain, simple language use, and the clarification of requirements for ALS application votes. I don’t think we should spend too much time now describing our mutual horror of what happened in this last vote, and the inability of otherwise intelligent people to vote and get the results they intended in the system. What we need to do is find a mechanism that does not allow this awful situation to occur again. I have Alan wishing to speak. Annette, I note you are about to leave us in five minutes. Did you wish to speak on this matter as well?
Annette: No.
Cheryl: Okay. Alan, the floor is yours.
Alan: Okay, first of all, I’d really like to have posted on our Wiki or our website or somewhere, the current policies. Whatever was reviewed... was approved in San Juan, it would be nice to know exactly what that was, and it would make these kinds of decisions and discussions a lot easier. Second, as far as I can tell, based on what is posted, which is a summary of that, I believe, aimed at the applicant, it said that we shouldn’t have even had most of these votes... we shouldn’t even have had a vote unless someone explicitly said we need it.
So I’d like to defer this discussion, other than to say we want something that’s understandable, to a time when we can actually discuss it based on what our current rules are and what we want to change them to.
Cheryl: Are you suggesting...
Alan: I’m expressing a significant amount of frustration on not finding current copies, not draft copies, not old copies, of the actual rules that we’re running under.
Cheryl: Understood. But are you suggesting we move this to our face-to-face meeting?
Alan: No, I’m suggesting that we... someone set a pointer to it, and then someone, within a very short time, propose new wording. I just find it hard to have discussions when I don’t have in front of me what it is we’re talking about.
Cheryl: Okay. Well...
Alan: I’m happy to have a vote saying we want clearer language next time we have an ALS vote.
Cheryl: I’m glad to hear that. Anybody else wish to speak on this matter?
The requirement under the mechanism that was agreed upon in San Juan does indeed, as Alan pointed out, indicate that a vote is not mandatory, it’s discretionary. But at the San Juan meeting, we agreed, certainly while the RALOs were getting used to the new system, while the whole concept of what was even required of them in terms of their due diligence, what was meaningful and what was not, would be that we would still have our vote, as a matter or normal course, until a point in time when we simply would let it run, and only vote when something extraordinary needed to be done. So I think we need to perhaps revisit that on either this call or in discretionary on the list. My personal view is that at this stage, we should still be voting.
Secondly... I’ll let you have a go in a minute, Nick...
Alan: And me too.
Cheryl: It is very clear that if we vote, we are voting to either accept, to reject, or to abstain from agreement with the regional advice. And that’s where the plain, simple language needs to be sorted out properly.
Yes, Nick, go ahead.
Nick: I just wished to note that Cheryl did... because she was aware that the France at-large application was... the regional advice to that application was in the negative, she asked that a vote be arranged, and that’s why it was set up. Aside from the other statement which Cheryl just made.
Alan: I put my... It’s Alan. I’ve put my stake in the ground many times. I think we should be actively voting on virtually everything. I really object to this principle that we seem to have adopted that silence equals agreement. It puts us in a very embarrassing and awkward position in relation to a lot of things. So I’m not advocating no votes. I’m just saying, let’s try to make things as simple as we can, and let’s make sure that next time we have an ALS vote, that it be understandable, and I would propose that someone put some draft wording on the table very quickly, but I would also like to see exactly what the policy is we approved in San Juan.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, I think we can have that done online, that that can be an action item on staff. We need to redistribute to the list the final documents of the process mechanisms for ALS applications, and we need to clarify that when we vote we are voting for, or against, or abstaining from voting on the regional advice.
Annette: I’m off.
Cheryl: What that regional advice 23 to be listed, but we could look at that wording and...
Alan: I disagree, actually.
Cheryl: Well head on mate.
Alan: I disagree because, in the case where there is no regional advice, then we will have to vote on accepting or rejecting the application.
Annette Muehlberg left
I believe we should always vote on accepting or rejecting the application with a clear statement in block letters ahead, what the regional advice is. Then the question is always the same regardless of whether there is regional advice or not.
Cheryl: Alan, what you’re asking then is to go back and revisit the processes.
Alan: If necessary, yes. I think that’s the only way we end up with a consistent question.
Cheryl: Well, perhaps we need to start firstly by looking at what the final processes are in the final draft form, and we can have that put out to the list, along with some proposed simple language, words that will be absolutely the same for every vote.
Robert?: I support that.
Cheryl: And then take it off line for the discussion. Does anybody else wish to make any comments or put their point of view at this point.
Beau: This is Beau. I just want to agree with Alan.
French Interpreter: I’d like to say something.
Cheryl: Go ahead.
French Interpreter (for Fatimata): And this is Fatimata.
Cheryl: Yes, Fatimata, go ahead.
French Interpreter (for Fatimata): If we don’t keep in mind the opinion of the Regional Office...
Cheryl: Yes, I understand...
French Interpreter: Je comprends...
Cheryl: ...that that was very much the reason that in San Juan we decided that we would be voting on the regional advice, not voting on the application for or against, because it was the regional advice that was pivotal in putting the responsibility at the local level. And in fact some of the processes, where there is regional discretion required, means that there can’t be a situation where the regional advice doesn’t happen. But if that’s something that Beau and Alan have issues with, we need to discuss it further. I’m just not sure that we have time to discuss it tonight.
Alan: Then let’s actually do something on our mailing list.
Cheryl: 58 suggested for the action item, that the current policy procedures are posted, and the draft wording goes with it. Beau, did you wish to...
Beau: I’m more than happy to resolve it on the mailing list. That’s fine with me. No problem.
Cheryl: But it is... it was an extensively discussed document developed, and it was very strong views on why regional advice should be being sought, and in fact why it was essential. And that it wasn’t really the role of us at arms’ length to try and make those assumptions on the merits, that the local information was essential.
Alan: I don’t think we’re changing that at all. We’re changing... we’re just suggesting that the question be phrased in a different way, not that we’re recommending that there not be regional advice, or that it not be followed in most cases.
Beau: Yeah, I mean... the point is, if I’m having trouble voting, and I’ve just gone through a vote and I can’t figure out what I’ve done, then God help the people who are voting in different languages. So I think the system needs to be changed.
Alan: Yeah. There may have been extensive advice, and unfortunately I think I had to leave... or discussion, but it seems to have been wrong. I don’t know whether I participated in that discussion or not, at this point.
Cheryl: I think we’ll need to discuss that at length, because what we need is clear understanding and simple language in the voting.
Nick: I can say that I remember when this particular area of the new procedure was discussed, it was in San Juan but it was late in the Friday morning meeting that went until after lunchtime, and this part was actually discussed very late in that meeting, which had already run over by a couple of hours...
Cheryl: That’s correct.
Nick: ...after a very long meeting on the same subject the previous day, so that’s why it may not seem as logical now as it did at that time. As I recall, there were a lot of people wishing to leave and eat at the time.
Cheryl: If it’s broken, it needs fixing. We need to discuss it, but we need to discuss it online.
The next item for decision-making tonight... We have now not made a decision other than the decision to make a decision at another point in time for item one, is item two, the matter of ratification or otherwise of... and the status of ALAC statements lodged since the last meeting. Now I would suggest that there will be a placeholder for this type of discussion at most meetings, because at most meetings, we should have put some form of statement or substantial work into some form of statement inter-sessionally.
But specifically, the statements from the ALAC that have gone in since the last meeting, as a result of working group activities and the processes of having the at-large and list comments, and Wiki comments, integrated into them, where possible and practical, include the comments on the operational budget and planning, the travel policy, and the statement on the new GNSO reform. We need to apparently go through some formal process of deciding what is an ALAC statement, and I’d like to give, say... shall we leave five or so minutes for anyone to raise any points they wish to on this matter, with specific reference to those statements that have been lodged since our last meeting.
You can use the Skype chat if you want to...
Alan: I’m sorry, I... that sentence was worded too confusingly for me, at this point. Are you saying we’ll have minutes to discuss those particular issues, but we’re going to discuss the general process now? I think that’s what you said.
Cheryl: Well, the ALAC statements have gone in. There are three ALAC statements that have been lodged. There is question in some of the RALO activity as to whether or not... whether they are valid ALAC statements. I am not going to weigh in with my view to begin with. I’d like to spend five minutes hearing the views on the validity or the ratification, or perhaps we need to roll back even further and define what is an ALAC statement, and what RALOs and ILSs have the opportunity to do. And I’d like to open the floor for around five minutes at least, to have that discussion.
And yes, Nick, a flow chart on how things were created would be not only useful, it would be a basic template because how they were created is how we’re supposed to create them. Who else that was on Skype, in case anybody wanted to know where I responded to Nick from, he just suggested, “Would it be useful to provide a flowchart-based view of how the three statements created, various levels of comments taken, and the like?” My response is yes, but I’d like to hear from the rest of the community.
Alan: Well, I’ve already spoken, but I’ll speak again when my name comes up on the list, if there’s no one else.
Cheryl: All right, I have Alan listed. Is anyone else wishing to be listed? Beau, Robert? It’s your RALO that is the only RALO that is causing any concern over the validity or otherwise of these ALAC statements. I would like to hear from each of you.
Beau: Okay, you can put me on the list. This is Beau.
Cheryl: Thank you, Beau. Robert?
Robert: Sure, I’ll speak next, after Beau.
Cheryl: Thank you. Do you want to go in that order then, Alan, Beau and Robert? Or do you want to go Beau, Robert and Alan? In other words, Alan, do you want the 46
Alan: Let them speak first.
Cheryl: Thank you. Go ahead, Beau.
Beau: I just think there is some concern in the North American RALO about the substance of ALAC statements, in the sense that, historically, for a few of them, it seems to wind up that only a couple of people really substantively weigh in. I think that was the major concern brought by... In other words, some of the statements that have been made on the behalf of ALAC, I think it has appeared from the outside as if only one or two people from the ALAC are really participating in and/or working on the statement. Would you say that’s a fair assessment, Robert?
Robert: You know, I wouldn’t put a number, but I would just say that it’s a statement that comes from a small subset of the people involved. I mean, you know, I’ll comment more, I think, but the issue is that they may not feel as it represents as many people, that it comes from a small group. And this brings up a couple of other issues that I’ll... But I’ll agree with your comments, Beau.
Beau: And, I mean, just in reflecting on gTLDs, for instance... I mean, if you kind of go back and look at what was said on gTLDs, I think basically the way that came together is, a couple... you know, maybe four or five or so people in the ALAC said something about them, and then either John or Alan, you know, or Danny, kind of cobbled together what was said to be an ALAC statement, somewhat at the last minute, but there were a lot of people who just didn’t seem to have an opinion of... who hadn’t really... It didn’t feel like a joint statement, I think, to some people, because not everybody had an opinion. And I think maybe it might be good if we had more of a consensus process in the sense that, if we’re going to make a statement on something, then we should... not every ALAC member is going to have an opinion on it, but maybe it should be sort of done like a roll call. You know, like if you don’t have an opinion, then you say, “No opinion,” and then the document or the statement feels like something more of a consensus.
This really... I’m talking in generalities, but I think the big issue came up most recently with kind of that whole battle over the... it’s probably better not to go into it here, but that’s sort of my general statement.
Cheryl: I’m not sure where else we can go into it, if it’s not here.
Beau: Well, I don’t know what it is you want to... 19
Alan: I plan to go into it, so you might as well start.
Beau: Well, I think just it was a concern about... there was a draft statement that was put together, and in the NARALO’s view, it was put together without the opportunity for the NARALO to comment on it. And I think there was disagreement as to what exactly it would up saying.
Alan: For the record, that was an accurate evaluation on their part.
Beau: The record, it was an inaccurate evaluation.
Alan: No, it was an accurate...
Beau: Alan, take it away, go ahead.
Alan: Okay, you said that the NARALO felt that the statement was put out as a draft statement before they had a chance to comment on it and input into the process.
Beau: And that the deadline... the deadline, as they subsequently came to realize, it was incredibly short. Like...
Alan: That’s right, and I can’t argue with that. I was on the committee that was drafting it, although I wasn’t part of the process that actually did the drafting. I was given a version to comment on. It was explicitly marked, “Confidential – do not redistribute to anyone.” And I honoured that, and the next thing I heard officially was that it was being distributed on a wider scale, saying, “Here’s the draft ALAC statement,” With the incredibly short timeline. And so I think that was an accurate assessment.
I think our challenge is, we’re always going to have people who don’t have comments and don’t have input, and then may not agree with the final result. That’s tough. But I think we need a process by which the RALOs and the ALSs should the RALOs choose to push it down, are told that this is in the works, are asked for comments, and if there’s some draft or some notes that they can comment on at that point, it would be advantageous. It’s better to give them something to critique as opposed to a completely blank slate. There has to be enough time for them to do it, but they have to be nimble and do it quickly. And then I think if something is called an ALAC statement, it has to be voted on by the ALAC. There should be an opportunity for someone who disagrees with it not just to vote no, but to comment on why they voted no, so that if there’s not agreement, and there’s going to be plenty of things where there is not agreement on the ALAC, that whoever we’re making the statement to has the benefit of understanding the range of views.
But I think we have to come down to doing our jobs, and what we’re paid for... if you excuse the expression. And if we’re going to make a statement, then we have to actually, formally take that decision. I don’t see any other way that we can be viewed as representing our group, unless we take actions in those kinds of cases. And whether we have to have more conference calls, or make sure people respond electronically, which we don’t seem to be that good at doing, I don’t know.
Beau: I guess, if you don’t mind me interjecting, Alan...
Alan: No, I think I’ve said what I meant.
Beau: This is Beau again. I guess the other issue that would concern me also, which is kind of a critique of the NARALO in a sense, but I don’t think any of us would have known about this had not a particular member of the NARALO who’s very, very active and very, very knowledgeable kind of figured it out somehow, and basically started badgering me and probably others to say something about it. It just sort of seemed that this particular one got by a lot of us.
Alan: Yeah, but Beau, that pushed it up a day or so. That didn’t really change the overall order of things.
Beau: Oh, okay.
Alan: I mean, I...
Cheryl: Can I just point out that you’re actually talking about two things? You’re talking about ALAC statements, and you’re talking about a Joint Constituency Statement.
Alan: Indeed, and...
Cheryl: Can we please try and make sure that we come up with mechanisms that meet the needs of both. Robert, you’re reminding me that you’re in the queue.
Robert: I am, I’m just waiting for my colleagues to finish to just share some comments.
Alan: I’m sorry. I thought you had spoken and it was passed to me. My apologies.
Robert: No, I had agreed with Beau, and I’d allowed him to continue.
Alan: Okay, go for it.
Robert: Beau, are you done?
Beau: Oh, yeah, I’m done. Go ahead.
Robert: Okay. Um... just a couple of things. I mean, I think I have kind of two large comments. I think on the larger issue of statements, I think we have to be careful in that we might be adding undue process and get bogged down in terms of how we want to construe that. So I would want to make sure that anything we define is lightweight, and doesn’t get us stuck in procedures so we can’t actually say anything at all. So that’s number one.
Number two, we have to also recognize that we are representing diversity, and it might be good to include in our statement saying that we have diverse views on something, and so if one region or another has a different opinion, I think the constituency is focussed on the ability to engage users. And so we should say, well, either we could say that all the users, we can define regions of the RALOs that we’ve spoken with, and we can say, “Yes, there is consensus.” Or we can say there are a variety of different views, and bring those forward. Because I think that’s the primary purpose that we should try to do, and, you know, do that. So I think diversity is important in our statements, and all too often sometimes we don’t include that. And I think that that’s something that we could do going forward.
I think... you know, I too was badgered, and I was actually travelling at the time, and the person in question called me a couple of times. So I think we do need to have some sort of processes that, if stuff comes out and is confidential but people do get it anyway, and we need to put that in, I mean, we should see it as someone wanted engagement, which is good. And so I think we’re not nimble enough.
And so, in summary, what do I suggest here? I suggest that, if we don’t... as I mentioned in the chat, if we don’t have a defined process, technically we should have one. So I would hope that that gets drafted somehow. That we should make sure that diversity of views and maybe minority opinions, sometimes, under RALOs, may need to come out, and they should. And at the same time, we should have not only a process where everyone can vote, but we might want to delegate certain issues that we see are being tracked, and that require very quick opinions, and maybe have a smaller set of people that can go through a quicker process. You know, it’s great that NARALO is very much active and engaged, and I just wish that other regions were so engaged as well. And so, you know, that’s maybe a positive thing, it may generate some issues, and, you know, if the organization scales up, we’re going to have more 52. So we should, you know, worry about that as well. So, with that, I’m done with my comments.
Beau: And I actually have to jump off. Sorry everybody. It’s Beau. Bye bye.
Cheryl: Okay.
Alan: Can I have a brief follow-on?
Cheryl: Please do.
Beau Brendler left
Alan: Okay, in general, I agree with what Robert said. We need a process. It needs to be nimble, we can’t get bogged down. But, on the other hand, we can’t ignore the fact that the 15 members of this committee have been put there to take action, and we have to occasionally do that.
Cheryl: 32
Alan: And... sorry, I didn’t...
Cheryl: That was me saying yes.
Alan: Oh, okay, sorry. All I heard was a sound in the background. And we need, you know, whether it’s a joint statement or a simple statement of the ALAC, we need the ability to register diversity. I mean, in the case of the statement, I don’t like some of the things in the joint statement, other things I can live with. One part I absolutely object to very strenuously, and that is the recommendation that NOMCOM members of the GNSO not have a vote. And I can elaborate on that as to why I believe that, but that’s something I refuse to have my name... you know, if I had a choice, refuse to have my name associated with. And I believe that it was based on particular issues within the GNSO that we don’t need to go into here.
Cheryl: And you do know that, and I’d like this call to record, that those points of view specifically that you raised then, Alan, were put to the rest of the constituencies working on the joint 39
Alan: I....
Cheryl: And ALAC is going to have a major problem with this, and you’re not going to get on-going agreement with it.
Alan: I understand. I’m not saying you didn’t pass that on. My position is, by the time it reaches its final end-point, which is the Board or whoever it was addressed to, that diversity should have been... you know, I want that diversity recorded.
Cheryl: And that is, of course, what our associated... that is why our statement that was actually ready, or should have been ready, and could have been launched 25 days earlier than the joint statement between the constituencies went in, was held over to allow for that diversity of view. And the responses to the joint statement to be incorporated.
Alan: Okay, I was... Sorry. I wasn’t talking so much about that statement, as an example of the kinds of things our process must allow. But the bottom line in my mind is, things like this that come out as an ALAC statement have to go the ALAC, and we have to be nimble enough to approve them, or reject them, or comment on them and have diverse opinions on an on-going basis. Otherwise I don’t believe we have the credibility that we’re going to need in this organization.
Cheryl: All right. Which brings us to the point of looking at what constitutes a working group. What constitutes appropriate input from a region into working groups? And, indeed, when you look at the line-up that was involved in putting together the statements that have been lodged in this prior month, we’ve actually had more than 50 percent of the ALAC involved in the development of each of them.
But we also need to make very clear in future planning that if a region does not see a NOMCOM as appointee, as a valid representative of their RALO and regional views, that needs to be accounted for. In Asia Pacific RALO, we show no difference between our NOMCOM appointees and our elected appointees. I won’t speak for other RALOs, but it seems that we have a divergence of opinion. And whilst we can assume if APRALO puts forward a nominee onto a working group, they are speaking on behalf of the region, whether they are an appointee by election, an appointee by an act of God, or an appointee by a NOMCOM, that they are reflecting the regional views into that process. That is not the case across all of the RALOs, as we have now painfully learned, and it may be that we need to mandate that we have nominees clearly designated as RALO representatives on working groups, and that we ensure that there is a space for NOMCOM.
Alan: I object strenuously, and I’m insulted by that. laughs
Cheryl: I wasn’t suggesting...
Alan: No, no.
Cheryl: ...that it is my personal belief. It is what I have seen.
Alan: And most of the members of this committee have not seen the dialogues that have gone on NARALO.
Cheryl: And I would very much like you to have the chance to explain why... and Robert might come in onto this, why we are having a very detailed discussion when one out of five regions has raised issues, not so much on substance, but on process. And that process is specifically whether or not their region was actually represented in the process taken by the working groups.
Alan: Is the floor mine? I’m not sure who you’re waiting for.
Cheryl: Well, I was hoping you’d take it, because 15 because I’m of the belief that we have by-laws that make it very clear – 15 people, 3 per region, and we don’t discriminate, and that’s how I’m happy to operate.
Alan: Okay, the comments that were made on the NARALO list... and I’m not quoting verbatim, I don’t have them in front of me, but I believe this is the gist. Is that I was involved in the creation of that document. Because I am a NOMCOM appointee, I am not obliged to represent the RALO, and therefore I decided on my own that I would ignore them, not tell them anything, and simply make comments on my own volition.
I don’t know how people have decided they can read my mind, but that is not what happened. I believe that was a rather objectionable thing to say. In this particular case, the only version of the document I saw ahead of time was one that was marked Confidential, and I honoured it. I sent out a note last night, which unfortunately the list has held up – I sent out another version this morning, which everyone, I hope, has gotten.
Now my position is, in the case of North American RALO, if Beau or Robert are on some group that I am working on, I am assuming that they are representing the RALO. If they’re not, then I take it upon myself to do that, and I will advise the RALO as to what’s going on, if that’s relevant in this particular issue, and will pass back substantive comments from the RALO.
I can’t imagine any other NOMCOM appointee member of ALAC would do differently, but I can’t speak for them. So I think this issue of, in my case, I’m a NOMCOM appointee and therefore I don’t give a damn about the RALO, I act on my own is specious, I don’t think it’s based on any fact, and I find it objectionable. Done.
Cheryl: And I would like to call at this meeting to make it very clear for the record that the ALAC is made up of 15 people, 3 per region, and the equity balance in regions, whilst it in no way represents population and diversity, or even number of ALSs, is 1 NOMCOM appointee per region, and two RALO appointees per region. Once you become ALAC, you are, by the by-laws, treated equitably in ALAC activities. If RALOs have a problem with that, then I would encourage the RALO appointees on the ALAC to ensure that input from regions comes from where it is meant to, which is RALO input, and ALS input into policy development processes, during public comment periods, where the diversity, and, more to the point, the specific needs of their regions can be best brought forward.
That input will also need to come in to the larger, global, consensus view, which it is the ALAC task to build. And I would like to think that in the two minutes we have before another meeting has to start, some of the other members at this meeting would like to make some comments. I personally, Alan, feel nothing but heartfelt sorrow for the anxiety, stress, and insult you, as a most hard-working and I believe very, very fine, representative of your region, have been put through.
But I’d like to call to anyone else to make any comments at this time, and I’d be more than happy to hear from Robert as well.
Robert: Yeah, um...
Sebastian: I would like to support your comment, Cheryl. I think it’s very important that you say that the ALAC, it’s 15 people. And we don’t have to care where we come from, and which are the colour of our skin and where we are living. We are a team, and the team came, from the by-laws, from two different ways of nomination, election, whatever. But, at the end of the day, we need to be the 15... as 15 people, all together. Thank you.
Cheryl: Robert, you wished to say something? Go ahead.
Robert: Yeah. I mean, though I agree with your overall sentiment, I think just saying, “We’re just 15, and that’s it,” I think is too simplistic an action to take. So I think what I would say is that if this raises anything, is that there’s misunderstanding, and that that needs to... you know, in any either introduction of people to the group, in any orientation material, that needs to be made clear. So let’s not just make a statement, but let’s recognize that some people may think that’s the case, and try to address it.
Darlene joined
Cheryl: Welcome, Darlene, we’re just making every attempt to wrap up the ALAC meeting, the monthly ALAC meeting. I’m... I’ve just typed that we have our summit people dialling in now. I trust that you won’t mind listening to us prattle on in the final moments of getting... gee, almost half-way through an agenda, ladies and gentlemen.
We have a number of matters that we have now not got to, but it was important for us to cover, and I don’t think we’ve completed... Vanda has just suggested that she believes that this issue is clear enough. It might be clear enough, Vanda, I think, to the ALAC, that the ALAC is five regions, three people from each region, two from the RALOs and one NOMCOM. But it is painfully clear to me that it is not well understood or, more to the point, if it is understood, that some of the RALOs have not managed to ensure that their elected representatives are on all the working groups that they need them to be on, for them to have their voice specifically put in.
So it is one of those matters that we will have to take on and discuss further. I would suggest that it is essential that we do actually get statements out. If that requires written, delegated authority to working groups, I will be more than happy to go down that path.
Gareth Sherman joined
And while we’re also more than happy to have a vote taken.
I’m going to ask if staff will put up a set of alternate times for us to reconvene this meeting. It is now time for us to call a halt to the ALAC meeting of the 13th of May. Note that we have managed to get to point three on items for decision at this meeting, and have the rest of the agenda dealt with either online or in a reconvened meeting, to be decided both in the internal list and probably on 21. And I would also suggest that any reconvened meeting should be on or about the next 5 to 7 days, because we do need to particularly pay attention to our planning for Paris, our one day workshop, and at least one thing we will have is better summit reporting. Because we are about to start our reporting... sorry, our meeting for the summit. Those of you in this call who stay on the summit call, you might all want to get up, stretch your legs, and take a few deep breaths. And the rest of you, thank you for joining us. And while we do... sorry, Wendy’s typing. “I suggest we do agendas by e-mail, and resolve the items that way too.” That might be fine for people who are literate and comfortable typing in English, but there is a very good reason for us to have teleconferences and face-to-face meetings, and I’m certainly not going to support not working inter-sessionally, but I will also suggest that we have to work in teleconference, and we have to hear and debate face-to-face matters as well. Skype however is a good thing, and I’d encourage us to perhaps use better inter-sessional chat reporting and questions as well.
Thank you all from the ALAC meeting, and welcome to those of you to the summit. If those on the ALAC wish to hang up now, we’ll hear all your goodbyes.
58 left
Nick: Can we... can I ask everyone to actually hang up and dial back in, because otherwise we won’t be able to split the recording properly.
Cheryl: Okay. We’ll now have to dial back in.
Male: Bye bye.
Alan Greenberg left
Darlene left
Gareth Sherman left
Cheryl Langdon-Orr left
Izumi Aizu left
Nick Ashton-Hart left
Adigo Operator left
Sebastian Bachollet left
Darlene joined
Nick Ashton-Hart joined
Cheryl Langdon-Orr joined
Nick: Hello everyone.
Darlene: Hello.
Nick: It’s been so long.
Cheryl: I must say I’ve missed you all.
Vanda Scartezini joined
[ inaudible left]
Hong Xue left
Darlene left
Darlene: I didn’t.
Adigo Spanish Interpreter on the English call left
Cheryl left
Adigo Interpreter French left
Nick left
end of audio