Participants: CLO, Dave Kissoondoyal, Carlton Samuels, Alan Greenberg, Vanda Scartezini
Staff: H. Ullrich, S. Greene,
1. Revised At-Large Improvements Project Plan
a. Comments from the Chair of the SIC and Marco Lorenzoni
Cheryl announced that one of the key points of today's meeting is that given her activities with the ATRT in Brussels, the vice-chairs will be serving important moderator positions. It is important that all members of the ExCom are up to speed on all issues to be discussed in Brussels.
Alan also noted that he will be away much of Sunday, so others may need to serve as moderators.
Seth Greene pointed out that this version of the At-Large Improvement Plan is highly revised after getting comments from Ray, Marco and some input from David. The basis for the new version is the comments (framework) suggested by Ray. He seemed convinced that staff had not coordinated with ALAC. Ray's comments were focused on several areas of the plan: Board Guidance, Budgetary Implications, Liability, Bylaw changes (we have legal sign off). Ray requested that the ExCom review potential costs on today's meeting.
Alan asked to what extent is the $50,000 out-of-pocket?
(Note: Heidi was informed by David Olive that the issue of coordination was not a key concern of Ray's.)
Agreed.
Alan Recalled that some bylaw changes will need to be done in order.
Seth made note of the fact that General Counsel's job is to weigh in on Bylaw change - accountability mechanisms of ICANN. However, accountability is mentioned in another document.
Carlton asked whether the present text is listed in the document.
Seth pointed out that this is the current text. As they are not yet definitive.
Heidi was told by Samantha Eisner (ICANN's Legal staff) that the WG could add a column in the bylaw table - and say proposed text TBD.
Agreed
Alan suggested a change in text: ICANN legal is drafting the bylaw changes in consultation with ALAC and At-Large staff.
Agreed
Seth called attention to the appendices that begin on page 6. They reflect Marco's comments. He thought that the interdepencies should be noted.
Appendix 1: discuss how we will be reporting on our comments. Regional diversity. For ex. Rec 1 - list tasks, target completion date, potential costs and then in narrative: work team assigned, dependency and overall target completion date.
Appendix 2: Milestones completed. Derived from status discussed in Nairobi.
Appendix 3: Rec 2 - stand-alone comment.
Appendix 4: AoC and Strategic Plan 2010-2013 interdepencies
Alan pointed out that the Bylaw changes are only 25% complete. But once they are drafted, they should be implemented quickly.
Seth asked whether the WG should change their approach as Legal is still working on bylaw changes.
Alan stated that it is not moot when we call things in official documents. Gave example of another WG.
Cheryl stated that If the ExCom agrees, we could write a brief doc that the ExCom and Vanda with Seth and Heidi have reviewed all details of this document and that we support this document. That we make a formal request to the SIC that they approve this document and send it to the Board (once final tweaking is done).
Agreed.
Cheryl requested that Seth consult with IT regarding how to select cells from the Excel screen (excel functions).
Cheryl would like the pre-amble to be put in above the introduction - between the Executive Summary and the Introduction.
Then - come out to the ExCom list - it is fine to go public. We can then do a sign off. Once the sign-off occurs, then to ALAC-Announce.
Sebastien pointed out that the error in 13 was in chat and to also ensure that the At-Large logo is in better shape in the final document.
Cheryl noted that she is fairly happy with the document.
Review of cost indicators:
Rec 1:
Task 1.1 - time of ICANN legal staff
Task 1.2
Sebastien would like to confirm that costs (internal/external) of $50,000 - for ex. are legal costs to be charged to this budget?
Carlton asked would it be useful to point out how much time ALAC members spend on the implementation?
Cheryl noted that it would be useful, but does not believe that the Board/SIC care very much about this.
Alan suggested placing a notation in square brackets if costs are not to come out of the $50,000.
Cheryl noted that it might be worthwhile to look at this document from a finance department point of view. A column for costs to ICANN and one specifically for ICANN legal and their role.
Alan suggested that we put in expected costs for what we want to spend.
Sebastien requested that specifics not be placed on ICANN staff but to use the term generic ICANN staff instead.
Agreed.
Alan requested that the Workteam include ALAC. Eventually, the bylaw changes will need to be adopted by the ALAC.
Rec. 2
Alan asked what are the costs associated with BCEC?
Cheryl stressed that it should be included and based on discussions with General counsel - Due Diligence will be borne by Legal.
Seth has agreed to add a note to Appendix 2 - special note on Rec 2.
Cheryl suggested adding in the note as a sub-section = place asterisk in rec 2 table.
Rec 3
Cheryl pointed out that the whole concept of outreach/in reach is part of it. They are co-requisites at the very least and should be noted early on in the paper.
Seth noted that is consistent with narrow definitions. Definition - least that needs to be done to say progress is being made.
Rec. 4
Cheryl brought attention to the costs associated with REC. 4 and noted that this is where the budget is focused. She also pointed out that portion of the budget should only cover the cost of the initial development of the documents, not the follow-up. Those costs should be directed to the Public Participation Committee. Cheryl, Heidi and Carlton agreed that the costs of podcasts, radios and on-line videos should also be included in the AI budget.
Sebastien pointed out that this part of the document should have two columns as discussed earlier in the call.
Alan agreed that there are some start up costs in the production of documents, but the steady state then should be broader ICANN costs
Rec 5:
Cheryl does not anticipate any outside expenses other than our normal teleconferences.
Sebastien questioned whether the cost if surveys will be charged the AI budget.
Rec. 6 Accurate Cost Models
Heidi and Seth are following up on ICANN's obligation.
Alan stated that we are not asking for additional budget, we are asking for equal treatment.
Cheryl noted that it is not to do with cost, but equity. It is highly inappropriate for culturally diverse community to be treated differently than other members of ICANN's stakeholders. How do we state this in this text?
Alan stated we need to put 'none' in where there are 'none'. 6.2 is one task where this is clear. Place $0 in cost column.
Rec 7:
Sebastien would like staff to inquire about the purchase of certain software (i.e open-source) I would like to use open-source. And requests that staff add "short-term technology rentals" to the list.
Cheryl pointed out that accurate cost models need to be assessed first.
Sebastien suggested adding a: New trial of new technologies for use by ALS/RALOs. It is to say yes, in the end costs to IT, but this is to test new technologies.
Carlton: "Evaluation and trial of technologies for use by ALSes/RALOs..."
Sebastien: New trial
7.5 - add "None or NA"
Rec. 8
Possible Additional costs for language services should be taken out of the column and placed in narrative for this Recommendation.
Sebastien to put in testing of translation technologies.
Rec. 9
Language service costs to be placed in narrative - not in column as this is a public participation matter. Under Work Team - we could mention that there is an inter-relationship with the PPC.
Rec. 10
IGF travel?
Cheryl noted that we have an on-going review for participation and outreach so we have 10.1 and 10.2 . Other At-Large activities for a healthy Internet eco-system.
Alan also noted that an allocation for trial outreach activities would be useful which could be out into the existing 10.1.
Seth noted a change in term to "Trial Representation Activities" which Alan agreed to.
Rec 11
No At-Large costs.
Cheryl noted that the ALAC is building closer relations with the NCSG ...
Rec. 12:
No costs for At-Large.
Rec. 13
No costs for At-Large.
Cheryl has asked the group to wait for the revised version before discussing any further and requested that a placeholder be put on this section.
Seth will try to get revised version out tomorrow and ask ExCom to provide comments by Friday. 4 June.
Sebastien noted that the extra costs for travel somewhere in the plan would be used to represent / fulfill some of the tasks.
Alan supports this idea. For ex. if we decided that we decide that we need an extra day for ALAC Improvements....that kind of expense is reasonable....
Dave suggests allocating some costs for AL staff.
AOB:
Alan stated that in regards to: VI (Vertical Integration) - I strongly oppose what Carlton and Siva put on the VI list. However will be commenting privately. Should be more clear on when something is a personal opinion or speaking on behalf of At-Large.
Chery stated that the remaining agenda issues will be moved to the next call, scheduled for Friday, 04 June 20:00 UTC.
Meeting Adjourned.
