Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay I have it just a little bit after the top of the hour and we know that Tijani has sent his apologies. Gisella can I get you to do a quick roll call and let us know if anyone else is apologizing, thank you.
Nathalie Peregrine: If you want Cheryl, I will do the roll call for you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Nathalie that will be great.
Nathalie Peregrine: Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, this is the At-Large Improvements Project Taskforce meeting on the 23 January 2012. On the call today we have Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro, Natalia Enciso, Beau Brendler, and Yrjo Lansipuro. Apologies from Tijani Ben Jemaa. From staff we have Seth Green, Gisella Gruber, Matt Ashtiani, Heidi Ulrich, Silvia Vivanco and myself Nathalie Peregrine.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, we don’t have massive turnout today.
Nathalie Peregrine: And we also have Yrjo Lansipuro who sends his apologies for the beginning of the call and he will try to join later. I would like to remind you all to please state your names before speaking for transcription purposes, thank you and over to you Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. Okay now I would love to give you the review of the summary minutes and the action items from our last sixth meeting held on the 16 January but those pages haven’t been populated. I wonder Matt if you or someone has at least the list of action items, which were not extensive but I think there might have been one or two. [Inaudible 00:01:54] those pages will get populated by actual data in the not too distant future I'm sure.
Matt Ashtiani: I'm actually working on that right now. I didn’t realize that it hadn’t been uploaded. So I'm going through a bunch of files as we speak.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay well rather than upload them, if you’ve got one of at least the action items open we can just go through them.
Matt Ashtiani: I am trying to find all the information now, sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It wasn’t a terribly extensive number of action items. We might just move on from there and leave that a little bit later in the call. We will just turn it on our heads. Let's then move on to our work for today. We have a dive in from the Section 4 where we ended up on our last call into Section 5. We’re planning on continuing on from the beginning of Section 5 which is looking at the strategic planning processes and the other work that Work Team C did on the At-Large Improvements Recommendations.
Just before we get to that if you're still looking for action items and things just let me know when you’ve got them ready for us to review Matt. But what I will do is I will ask Heidi if she is able to give us a little update on what's happened since our last call in terms of correspondence between herself and senior ICANN staff and some of our upcoming meeting planning for Costa Rica, over to you Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Thank you Cheryl. I was able to discuss the status report for the At-Large Improvements with Olaf who handles the staff support for the SIC and he was able to confirm that the status report would only need to be a very brief document, just three pages. In fact, it would also not need to include the research and liability implications for the action items for these recommendations. That would only need to be included in the final report, that will be delivered to the SIC in Prague.
Also Olaf has asked whether the ALAC would like to meet with the SIC during their half day taskforce workshop scheduled for Tuesday in Costa Rica, 1400 to 1800. That’s something that the taskforce would be able to discuss perhaps today. Then I will get back to Olaf about that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Terrific, thank you very much. The macro of that means that the meeting such as Costa Rica or really Olivier's agenda, but I guess the microcosm of the afternoon session which is our Taskforce, but it does really belong to our own agenda planning. So, I guess I'd be very keen to have one or two if not all the representatives if possibly join the call, a short session but I'd like to hear from [inaudible 05:26] or what's the point here if anyone would not like that to happen.
I think if we do meet with them it gives us the opportunity to ensure that they understand exactly what's going on and also with a little bit more information we can give them a helicopter view, but take their attention to some of the important points. And I would think some of the flowchart work, for example, would [inaudible 05:58] the Work Team C activities that we would be doing in today's call and next week or so.
They are exactly the sort of things that you put up on their overheads to view and do a quick talk would be real worth wild. I don't see anybody objecting to that, so Heidi can I ask what sort of duration we all are thinking about or might be able to be [inaudible 06:26].
Heidi Ullrich: He didn't specify, but I would guess, perhaps, 30 minutes or so.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, now in that 14:00 to 18:00 there will be a coffee break or perhaps we're [inaudible 06:47] that break an hour --
Heidi Ullrich: 15:30 to 16:00.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so it appears to me that having it either immediately before or immediately after that makes sense for natural proceedings. Olivier do you have any particular preference, where we should slide that one in? Olivier you may be muted.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl. I am, it just takes a little while to press the other button rather than the usual button that I press. Thank you Cheryl, it's Olivier here. No preference on my side. Just to say though, that I have discussed the idea of having a meeting with [inaudible 07:32]. And certainly the fact that this Working Group works specifically on the improvements is the reason why I thought it would be better that the Working Group meets with the SIC rather than the home of ALAC why it's not in session.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, fine.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: But no preference as to whether before or after or whatever and also I thought that having a meeting with the SIC plus the Working Group meeting separately would have probably been too much repeat for many of the members of the Working Group. So, kill two birds with one stone, have them together or have them at least attend part of the movements meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I couldn't agree with you more. Well, I think it might be too much for the members of the SIC more than it would be too much for the members of the Working Group.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: So I see Cheryl, so you were thinking that this should be on both the meeting with the ALAC and the meeting with the Working Group?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yes, of course.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I agree with you. I just think that it perhaps our membership is slightly more [inaudible 08:48] of the two parties, that's all. Okay, well it looks to me Heidi that if we want to just take our time my personal preference knowing the way these things run and how people days get compressed would be for us to start immediately after the needed afternoon coffee break. That allows people who are running late from earlier sessions to gather themselves and be in our room so we get a full half hour otherwise the other way the things that can happen with groups and drags.
Let's chalk up the 30 minutes immediately following the coffee break on the Tuesday for our meeting with the SIC and of course in keeping with all the meetings the At-Large community has with the ALAC at least when they're certainly running in a face-to-face format. But in any other format it will be open, so as many people and so the At-Large group to certainly come in.
Thank you then Heidi, I think you can get back to us and say yes [inaudible 10:09] and here's the time we'll like. I wonder if we might have found the action items. It's how many minutes to [inaudible 10:16] now?
Matt Ashtiani: I think I just found them. I don't think there were only two. I'll load them right now. The first one was, Heidi was to find the SIC schedule. The second one was, I'm suppose to setup a Wiki page for each recommendation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That one we all of course have a Wiki page for each recommendation.
Matt Ashtiani: Right, that was one thing that I pointed out but I think it was kind of up in the air because it was initially suggested, so we can right down the steps that we've been taking. But I think it was backtracked because we realized that this was already a page so we might want to keep it altogether.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep, but certainly I think it’s better off if we do keep that together. We might need to make sure that everything is getting accumulated back onto those pages, but that's sort of ongoing maintenance rather than an action item. Go ahead Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, thank you Cheryl. If I could just remind everyone that the purpose for the creation or the updating of those individual Wiki pages was that we will be rating for posting onto those pages the details of those certain recommendations as well as the action items that are relevant for each one. And we will be adding to those Wiki pages as an addendum to the status update so that the SIC will be able to look, if they wish, to see how each of those certain recommendations as well as action items, how the progress is coming along.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Heidi and I think only just the SIC of course but in the ongoing actual implementation would still be ongoing [inaudible 12:06] this is already completed or will be completed. It's going to have that firm record, that recommendation by recommendation. Excellent, if we have [inaudible 12:18] discussion I'd like to welcome [inaudible 12:21] has joined the call while we've been going on. Nathalie do you want to just add to the transcript records who is also joining?
Nathalie Peregrine: We have Beau Brendler just joined and Yrjo Lansipuro.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you and welcome gentlemen. All right, we're going to jump in now from Recommendation 5. You all have your own scroll control, but you'll find at the bottom of page five, on the document on your screen, we have Recommendation 5, the Work Team C proposal that we need to run through and to allocate the basis and discuss as required. Recommendation 5 is that the ALAC should develop procedures and operation planning processes, including performance criteria and cost information as part as ICANN planning process.
Delightfully this is one these that events have already taken. I've seen many situations when the ALAC Improvement Review was done it was very different strategic budget planning cycle being used by [inaudible 13:40] today. But we do have a number of subsets that we need to look at and the first one is to ratify the strategic planning process. Now where it says ratify here it really ought to indicate that the ALAC and At-Large should ratify, ALAC needs to be the ones that need to ratify the strategic planning process reflected in the flowchart which was produced by Work Team C. [inaudible 14:10] by Dev and Hong [inaudible 14:12] in the proposed At-Large team planning process which was an appendix to a number of our reports to [inaudible 14:20] talking about by which the ALAC could contribute to ICANN [inaudible 14:26].
We have Dev on the call, so I will ask for him to speak to this and answer any particular questions about where goes A versus B. I'll continue on with a verbal description for the record on what the flowchart depicts. It depicts a strategic planning process used by the ALAC and At-Large for planning and it was used in the FY 12 budget and [inaudible 14:58] for planning year. It was ratified by the ALAC not as Olivier and I discussed recently but by resolution, but by vote when the report using that process was voted on and then by the ALAC.
Therefore we can assume that the name language here is to which case is to as ratified by the ALAC for the FY 12 year. It would formerly replace the ALAC At-Large previous process depicted in another diagram. So, we're up to a situation where we've [inaudible 15:39] a looked at that, it's run, but it may indeed need some tweaking. It's not one therefore that we need to have that listed in status as it is in this report as much, but I would suggest complete it at least in its FY 12 form.
This Working Group now needs to decide exactly how we want to report on this. I'll open the floor for questions, but if it is possible, for I was asked, if the diagram could be uploaded. If you would be able to do that faster Dev will run for Matt. Matt has the ability to do the upload since Dev has it to hand we could promote him to host and he would be able to do that. I see Olivier and not only do I see you I'm actually going to hand over to a minute. I just need to step away from the computer for a moment, so if you can assist me by taking over the Chair while we begin the discussion on this matter. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Cheryl and it's Olivier here. I was just going to add one small thing to which you have already eloquently said about the current part here of the work which is that the operational planning and financial planning process is one which keeps on moving forward at ICANN. So, we really are dealing with moving goals here and in order for us to be able to follow and to continue our improvements project we really have to decide on a snapshot of where we want to reach within those goalposts because every year there are going to be some changes, some amendments made to the ICANN planning process.
And of course there are going to be amendments to be made on our side as well according to the changes that had taken place at ICANN, so we have to do a snapshot of this and perhaps in the way that's just a suggestion. The way that we were this to the SIC we have to effectively say there will be a measure of continuous improvement that will need to take place there in accordance with the continuous improvement that the ICANN overall planning process is, that's what I wanted to say and now I guess I opened the floor for comments or input on this.
Sala you're next and you might be next because we cannot hear you. Okay, so we can't hear Sala at the moment. I'm sure whether you wish to type in your question or is your mic off. I heard you earlier. Your mic is on. Are you calling by Adobe Connect? Adobe, well I'm not sure. It's not working. Do you wish to maybe to type your question or your suggestion and then we will discuss it and in the meantime while you're typing so as to not put too much pressure on you I'll open the floor for others to jump up and down and rush to the microphone?
Okay, so the floors open for the time being. Okay, so Sala says she agrees with the comment on the need to inform people that there is a continuous process. So in the meantime while Sala is writing, just a little bit of background, on the next few parts of the table did we are seeing there you might notice what's going through the boxes that there is a repeat of the different subheadings and their and that's because the first part deals specifically with the strategic planning process, the second par with the operational planning process. And these two are separate from each other or slightly separate from each other.
Further down of course there is the financial planning process as well, so the three are effectively dealing with very similar issues and have been treated by the working team similarly but they've basically been kept separated from each other. So one of the questions might be, that I might throw at the group here, is do you think that these three can now be brought back together and treated in one go effectively since the same people are dealing with the work, the Finance and Budget Subcommittee?
I think that they should be grouped together. Why they're not being grouped together? I don't know. They don't all jump up and once to queue up for the mic.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier, Cheryl here. I'm stepping back in, so if you don't mind I'll take the microphone.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Before I give it back to you Cheryl there is a comment which I need to read, the comment from Sala who unfortunately wasn't able to speak due to technical problems. So, she agrees on the comment on the need to inform people that it is a continuous process because if you see the Wiki recommendation five link it shows 2010 and we're now in 2012, so there will always be a need for constant reviews and improvements. And so there the comment ends and the floor will go back over to you Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much Olivier, but actually I was listening even though I stepped away from the computer and I'm absolutely supportive of the continuous improvement language that goes on and I'm thinking it's quite easy to just remind the SIC on our report, but also to exemplify in our meeting in Costa Rica by putting up the flowchart for this process, for both the operational and strategic planning and the financial process. And if we're taking in just a couple of minutes to just let them visually get that back into their minds to show how our proposal was and how we get well tested, you know a pilot, and our 2012 budget process and indeed has been again reused in the 2013 strategic planning and budget process that we are currently in.
The change their of course would be the alteration from the Budget and Finance Subcommittee of the ALAC, being only ALAC members to having the regional involvement and input into the standing committee so we can tie those two threads together as we meet with them in Costa Rica. Well, I think that's probably how we should pitch it and I would suggest that, in my view, to bring the financial planning back in with the strategic and operational planning in our reporting.
They were segregated in the [inaudible 24:15] rather more for emphasis management, but also because they tend to be far more segregated the way ICANN did it back then. But now a set of two cycles they are [inaudible 24:34] and interdependent cycles and I think it could be quite reasonable for us to blend them back in, in the report. Now as we catch the language of each of these line items. What we might do is make sure our writing of our report blends them back together unless anyone objects to that the way forward. I'm not seeing anyone jumping up and down or putting great big red X's up.
Excellent, that does have some ramification I were will on our flowchart and I'd like to ask Dev how would you like to approach the fact that we have two independent flowcharts because they were by necessity as suppose to seeing your way forward, seeing it as two separate threads? Do you want to just do a note, this page now it [inaudible 25:31] across to the beginning of the next one or do you want to do a couple of two cycle blows, just a macro view or how do you think we should prepare the visual to the SIC in Costa Rica? Over to you Dev.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Thanks. I was trying to understand you. What happened was that I was trying to figure out how to do that. In my mind the strategic planning process which is Figure C1 and the operational and financial planning process which is Figure C3. I'm not sure how you can [inaudible 26:11]. Well if you were to intertwine them as one process, perhaps I misunderstood the question, we your statement.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don't say much as one process, but how do we breach them and if we can breach them how do we breech them visually for something that we can throw up on the screen, the SIC.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, well perhaps you can just probably do the helicopter view and show the process from strategic planning and the operational and financial planning process on one diagram. And then from there the strategic planning process goes to Figure C1 and then the operational and financial planning process goes to figure C3. So it would just be three diagrams. Okay now that will [inaudible 27:09].
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think it's important if we say some sort of breaching there just because even the way ICANN puts them out to us there's sort of two timelines but they're actually two interacting cycles. I mean they show that we understand that. Yes, Olivier go ahead.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl, Olivier here. I think you pronounce the actual words timelines. They are connected time wise. I'm not sure that they are [inaudible 27:40]. There is a certain amount of [inaudible 27:45] then a matter of function, that's my view about it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, fine. It sounds like someone is almost in a train, but I suspect it’s just line quality on someone's line. If you can just mute your speakers or your phone line if you're not actually speaking that might help. Yes, thanks Olivier is suggestion that it was indeed train like, but thank you for the suggestion. Certainly mute them in the AC room that will help. We'll just go back to Dev then if I may and do you see looking C1 and it sort of has the same question as C3? Any need for any tweaking? Did we actually change in practice anything that are currently enshrined in those original diagrams having run up through two financial years ago?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Yeah, just looking at the diagrams for C1 and C3. I think we can just have a quick overview. The first line would be just showing the strategic planning process works then linking to the operational and financial planning and then we can modify it to the C1 to simply point to Figure C3. I could be wrong but I don't think there's any intermediate steps between Figure C1 is Figure C3.
As I said I'll do it sometime [inaudible 30:17], actually if you want to include what ICANN does, meaning ICANN then publishes the final strategic plan, the ICANN Board. And I'm paraphrasing so I'm probably missing some steps. And then the ICANN Board then votes to approve the strategic plan and then I can then publishes the jobs operational and the and the operation plan and budget to achieve the objective set off by the strategic plan plus an additional page there and then make sure there's linkage. So, that's my initial thoughts on it. That's it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I'm certainly comfortable with that. I see [inaudible 31:13] for comment from the [inaudible 31:15]. Is that the best way forward, visually presenting it? Does anybody object to this? Perhaps Dev if you don't mind could we have a little look at a mockup of that next week as our starting point. We can have that particular part of our report and presentation in Costa Rica, we're going to look and we will have that as an action item that allow us to review that in next week's call.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Hi, this is Dev. Certainly, I can try to do a mock up of that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Terrific, but we're [inaudible 32:02] to be [inaudible 32:05] quality I understand is big, a simple mock up would be fine.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, no problem.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. Okay so we're going to view language then in term of status and reporting which is the [inaudible 32:29] and the recommendation specifically from what should [inaudible 32:34] have been completed. There have been different [inaudible 32:38] during the FY 12 and we're now blending them back together on our report on which [inaudible 32:46] planning processes strategically and financially and then that would subject to continuous improvement as ICANN not only not alter and fine tune it basically.
ALAC will mirror that to ensure that its standard performances match up with that. Alright, so if we take the next line down which of course is as Olivier pointed out almost the same but not quite because it's particularly reserved to the financial planning process that's built with the strategic planning process. We have in fact discussed the [inaudible 33:28] and which one, is there anything more we need to talk about on this section do you think? Yes, Dev you'll be the best one to tell us.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: This is Dev. I don't think so. I think for this year, for this operation on financial planning I think we are following the process. The Finance and Budget Subcommittee has followed the [inaudible 34:07], so I don't think there's any need to say anything more unless you think there needs to improvements made to it obviously.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I certainly don't, but I'm only one voice. Thank you Olivier, go ahead.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thanks very much Cheryl, it's Olivier for the transcript. There will be some measure of improvement as far as timing is concerned because we have regularly found to be trying to plate catching up with things all the time and so the plan is to speak to finance and discuss with them a better timing for us to be able to go through with the process in a less stressful way them the current way. So that's an improvement this coming up, but I don't think that it will change the process in any way. It will just give us more time but we have to produce something, we as in the ALAC and the RALOs and all of At-Large. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Olivier and perhaps what we need to do is make sure that we give that as an example of an immediate continuous improvement, that interchange between Chair of ALAC and the senior At-Large staff with the finance and budget operational staff within ICANN to make matters better and more manageable to each community. So, we might actually pitch that verbally in the room.
Can I suggest to then that what we do is relegate reference to C2 and C4 which is the way it was, simply to a single, "Oh by the way here historically is how it was and this is what we've now done. We've tested this end and this is what we're doing," just to a simple appendix or do you just want it referenced and almost referenced out, so it would just be a footnote. Do you want it appended now or just footnoted? That would C2 and C4. Any thoughts on that?
Have you have any thoughts on that which is kind of sad. I'm pretty sure you were on the call earlier, yes you are, you're in the room. You're just not up there as a host. How do you feel about it? You've had this baby from conception to kindergarten now, would you suggest we appendix or footnote it? Olivier is voting for appendix by the way. I'm not hearing from Seth, so you know you're having trouble coming off on mute.
Okay, so he can't seem to speak. Remind me to check our connectivity issues perhaps. Nathalie, I'm not sure what’s going on? Well, now this is an update report. Sala is saying can we have both because it’s a former report. This is an increment update, so I think what we might do is footnote it for our pitch in presentation mode, but we will have an appendix to the [inaudible 38:01] report.
Olivier I'm having some challenges in my life today, would you be so kind as to take over again as I again sit away and ask you which of course just to probably do the review and amend the planning, just the third wave in and it will get out on the other two and then move into a product of your own enormous efforts in merging three [inaudible 38:38] and that [inaudible 38:40] for analysis. And I do apologize.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Cheryl. It's Olivier here for the transcript. I was just going to add one more thing in regards to either appending or having the report footnoted. I think that some members of the SIC might have not seen the full previous reports, so it's always good to remind them. Beyond that I think that the next report after that we will be able to [inaudible 39:21]. Okay, so let's move on then.
I guess you probably are all going through the different charts which are in the report, the fantastic work that Dev had done. Cheryl said we have to move on while she's away and so we've done C3 flowchart. So we've done operational and financial planning processes, review and amend the ALAC strategic planning process yearly in line with annual amendments to ICANN strategic [inaudible 40:07].
Now that's marked in progress and it looks as though this might be a recurring thing. So that is what I think I meant earlier and my voice is going in and out and I'm speaking as loud as I can, but I'm using the Adobe Connect to speak. So I'm not sure, we'll see. Hopefully this will work. So, review and amend the ALAC strategic planning process yearly in line with annual amendments to ICANNs overall strategic planning process is effectively something which we can really mark is being done since I think that this is what's happening at the moment.
Just to basically advise the SIC that the review of the planning process will not wait for the next At-Large review and At-Large improvements. It will be something that will follow the planning processes that ICANN is undergoing. Does anybody have anything to say about this specifically what should we move on to the next box?
Okay so I don't see anyone putting their hands up, so then we can move to the next box and that's the, "Conduct periodics and what strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats" and that was at the At-Large strategic planning process in conjunction with the RALOs as the Work Team C did and compare the results of these analysis to identify areas that have improved or deteriorated. Now the Work Team C has conducted a first SWOT and has brought in the help of all of the RALOs and in fact that was a very successful exercise.
That is now on the Wiki stored somewhere, hopefully easily reachable. And so the recommendation here is to update this SWOT on a yearly basis perhaps or a twice yearly basis? The timeline isn't really mentioned there, but it looks as though it is something that will really help in identifying skill shortages, lack of skill transfer, lack of inclusion metrics, lack of funding, these things.
There are a number weaknesses which we are already working on now and so as time goes on and as we evolves there might be new weaknesses that will come up and there might be new strengths that we can build on. Any comments on this specifically please, the floor is open? Okay, Dev.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: This is Dev here. I guess that the question is what the whole periodic should be doing. I'm thinking one every two years because I don't think yearly it's going to be that significant partial bit of changes in the SWOT and if anything presumably what we do in-between those that we see time to do these SWOT anilities. Well, hopefully the weaknesses will be less so and that we have more strength. So, I'm thinking that it's in progress and that we should have it like [inaudible 44:02]
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Dev, are you still here?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: I’m still here. I don't think that was me, so are you all hearing me?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: There was an extraordinary explosion noise there, so we didn't hear the end of your sentence.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Sorry Olivier, I will just repeat it. I just said that we should probably just do the [inaudible 44:35] analysis every two years.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, I think I might have not explained myself too well. I think the question would it be a full SWOT analysis or could the current SWOT just be updated and take out anything that isn't apparent anymore an add anything that needs to be added to it?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Actually probably the latter, probably just update the SWOT analysis because I don't think something significant would really change to be quite honest. So, perhaps just updating the SWOT table would suffice.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: But, the recommendation itself here says conduct periodic SWOTs and compare the results of these analysis to identify areas that have improved or deteriorated. So, there's two ways to look at it, either conducting a new SWOT and comparing it or looking at the SWOT and finding what needs to be changed, what has improved and what has deteriorated. What has changed I guess. I see Sala on the chat is saying continuous update and she thinks it should be yearly. Sala, can you speak?
You're still muted. If you're on the Adobe Connect I don't think it's possible for you to be unmuted. It's up to you to mute or unmute yourself. Okay, I'll take Yrjo while we try and see what we can do with your sound. Yrjo please? And Yrjo has actually put his hand down. Is it me that's actually been cut out because I can't hear anybody now?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: No, this is Dev Olivier. I'm hearing you so.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: You're hearing me, okay. I'm just thinking this is rather a big concern here. Every name I've called tends to put their hand down and then disappear. Yrjo did you wish to say something? Yes, Yrjo go ahead.
Yrjo Lansipuro: Rather than starting from scratch every two years or every year. Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Yrjo, in fact I'm afraid I only heard the end of your sentence and it was rather then starting from scratch every two years. So, I gather the start of the sentence was let's do it as an amendment rather than starting from scratch. Is that correct? Okay, yes I see an agreement from you.
Yrjo Lansipuro: Yeah.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you. I think Sala is typing her comments. Dev will you also say amendments rather than starting from scratch?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: This is Dev. I'll say amendments rather than from scratch. Yeah, I'll say amendments.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Let me then turn to Seth and ask him how this would work because of course it's an amendment of something that's on the table, so would it just be a different way of writing it?
Seth Greene: Hello, can you hear me Olivier?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I can indeed, yes.
Seth Greene: Hi, great. Yes, that's what I would think. I would think that we could write it up without much problem.
Heidi Ullrich: Olivier this is Heidi?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yes, Heidi please.
Heidi Ullrich: Sorry I didn't put my hand up, but just to be really quick I think that is correct. Olaf Nordling has indicated that four action items that are of a continuous nature that we would just need to note that. And in way the SIC just would like to see that there is an agreed upon process for the continuous action and then they'll be happy with that.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. So, I think we can note it this way and affectively say this is a continuous action with amendments to the SWOT analysis on a yearly basis. Will they need a process that takes into account dates and the times that we have to this? Dev says yes, but the question was more to Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Actually, I'm writing it as we speak, so yes I think that's a good idea as well.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, fantastic. Thank you. I think that's one as well. I see here no one else adding to the debate, so I think that's what we will do then. So, this will be marked as continuous item and the details of the process will need to be noted as to show to the SIC yes. Rather than everyone typing can you perhaps say it on the call otherwise I'll just be having to read out loud.
Heidi, show the details of the process and [inaudible 50:58]. Seth, are you comfortable with that? Seth [inaudible 51:03]. We can put all an any ongoing AIs together in a section or appendix as well. I'm not going to do Cheryl and in fact I see she's back on the computer so perhaps I'll pass the floor back to her.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much Olivier. Sorry, I was having a lot of fun with you acting as more then traffic warden. Someone seems to have their room microphone open and also their speaker on. Could you just turn the speaker off if you're on the phone? It will be someone who is on the phone breach and not using their computer because you'll have an Adigo connection, but they got the speaker in the Adobe Connect room open as well.
So, we were hearing Olivier in stereo there for a little while. Okay terrific, now as we quite rapidly kind of encourage everyone to mute their microphones in the AC room as well and just unmute when you wish to speak or more as the point when you're asked to speak or they can jump in being a democracy and all. Now I thought I saw Beau's name come up as I returned to my computer. That might have been him rejoining the room or he might have been wishing to speak.
Which was that Beau? Did you raise a point or is that just you reentering the room? Typing, that was him reentering. Okay, let's move on then. Actually before we do move on Olivier I believe you started getting into the SWOT work, did you not? And there was talk of the frequency of the review of these and the agreement of compare and contrast versus update.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I just thought I heard you talking about things that might be well linked to a portal page. We have a web portal page. Would that be the best way of keeping all the threads of improvements and change and instances of moving weaknesses to strengths? Should we have this as a portal page or how do you see this happening from a Wiki end archive perspective?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl. Actually we did not touch on the process of whether there was going to be a portal page or something to keep it updated and to access it easily. The SWOTs currently are on the Wiki, a cleaned up version of them there as well. And perhaps it would be important to make a copy of them in, as you mentioned, a portal page of some sort. What was discussed though quite vigorously by so many people, both on the keyboard and on the call, was that a yearly complete SWOT to start from scratch was too much to do.
A bi-yearly might be something to do, but suddenly there was support for yearly update and of course an update would mean that you would need to have this in an accessible location in order for it to be read and updated. The question was whether this needed to be put in the ALAC DNA with regards to the timing, when did this need to take place?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I thought I heard bi-annually as a favor. Okay, I just noticed that Nathalie is talking to the chat room, she cannot understand and the audio is not good. There is four minutes left and she's leaving. Okay, I'm reading the transcript. Nathalie could you contact Natalia and just see if sometimes between now and next week what the issues and how we like to have fix on some of the audio? I don't know whether she has tried to come in by the AC room or by an ordinary phone breach.
If I can ask you Nathalie to take a page with you for Natalia and see if we can get better audio [inaudible 56:08]. There's a comment. [inaudible 56:15] to act on it, the current [inaudible 56:20] how that could be addressed and in the case he loses his connection which he does need to be doing repeatedly if he'd like to comment on the next item which is the mission statement. He made a comment there is, I think that the facilitate is weak and it should be represent.
Now we'll note that as we lead into that now Beau, but perhaps we can try to answer the questions as to having done the thought what then happens and that's of course one I'm delighted to come back to Olivier because he's rolling with Team C, that's because of the fact that he carries the chair of the ALAC now. Are we going to articulate the and then what happens?
Are we enshrining it in compulsory law that these changes must be made? I think not being a volunteer organization. Good question. We should address it perhaps in our report. What do you want to do?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl, it's Olivier here. I'm not quite sure I understand your question specifically. You're dealing with the At-Large's vision and mission, so really this is a position statement of some sort I guess. I'm not quite sure what you mean by enforcing it?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because it wasn't my question, it was Beau's. Beau are you able to do audio or you loss the connection again?
Beau Brendler: No, I'm on the phone.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Great. Okay, interact with Olivier. Thank you.
Beau Brendler: You can hear me okay?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.
Beau Brendler: Yeah, I didn't necessarily mean enforce. I just sort of wondered what the output of the [inaudible 58:12] and who was suppose to get the SWOT and what is the mechanism for it actually being acted on because there's something that I think Dev wrote on the current one that has some negatives in it. So, I mean, who addresses that, how is that addressed?
Is it just for us internally to take note of or, you know, does this in the office go to some sort of oversight group that says, "Okay, we see you have lack of mechanism, you have lack of skill transfer, you have lack of inclusion metrics, and lack of funding?" I just lost my Adobe Connect connection again, so?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, we got you on the phone.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Beau. Sorry, I was confused. I hadn't seen the chat, for some reason there is a delay in that and it just appeared as you were speaking. That's an interesting thought. The SWOT itself is something purely for ourselves, for the ALAC to be able to find out where we are at today. Whether we're doing well, well we're not doing well, what we can improve, and where we're absolutely failing.
And if there is somewhere we're absolutely failing the work in fixing it in 99% of the cases is actually going to come down to our own self. So, really this is a little bit like a dashboard to kind of show where we're actually performing our duty, and whether we're actually serving the internet user well out there, and whether we're functioning well, and I guess where we're not find out ways perhaps by launching Working groups, Taskforces, whatever you call it, to remedy the problem that we've identified on the SWOT so that next year that problem will be removed I guess from the SWOT.
That's the way that I see the SWOT as going and I think that Work Team C when they worked on it thought that was really the fastest way to find out what improvements we really needed to do in addition to the At-Large improvements and overall projects, but also the notion of continuous self improvement that we strive for. Does this answer your question Beau?
Beau Brendler: Thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Great, it is just past the top of the hour and I have two people that we'll be speaking to which we will now close off and just before I do go to the next two people in the queue we'll also be closing off the meeting after these speakers because I don't want to extend past the hour more then I possibly have to. Which means we will be wrapping up unless they turnover this discussion that we've already, but I doubt that they will.
At this line item we will be starting next week’s meeting with the articulate ALAC and At-Large's vision and mission. We will note Beau's intention to have a discussion started on the difference in the use of the word facilitate and his preference to have it replaced by represent. So, we'll put a marker in the ground there. And I see Yrjo you dropped your hand or did someone put your hand away because you were next in queue?
Yrjo Lansipuro: Well, I mean, my comments are about this vision and mission, but since we are going to disgust that next time I just yield.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you. I'm seeing to stop close to the top of the hour as possible. [Inaudible 01:02:19] go ahead please.
Unknown: Well just very briefly, it says articulate ALAC and At-Large's vision and mission. We have here a suggestion from Work Team C for the mission, but should there also be a sort of vision statement which is slightly different I think. The other thing I wanted to say is that whatever we say about the mission we should put that in line with whatever changes we did in the bylaws by Work Team A. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed and that's where we'll begin next week. Sala?
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro: Thank you Cheryl. Sala for the record. In relation to this discussion on the SWOTs, first of all thank you for the excellent job done by the team. Just one comment that I'd like to mention, if it was possible to put it up on the Wiki and when it may be reviewed within one year or two years and just does everyone eventually get to decide where we have consensus and that sort of thing? I think it's critical though not to restrict ourselves, not to be confined strictly to either two years.
You know the people up on the Wiki and there's a lot of feedback in certain aspects. I know you [inaudible 01:04:13] the SWOT analysis that demands [inaudible 01:04:18] a review and we I see read it, I mean the one line instead of the two. Now, we shouldn't be held fast to the two and that sort of thing and putting it on the Wiki also it's open to SWOTs to consume evaluation by ALAC and by one, therefore a consistent progressive evaluation and that sort of thing.
Also understand that there's a lot of [inaudible 01:04:54], but if you do it small bites it won't be a lot of work at the end of the period, whichever period you choose. And there ends my comment, thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Sala. What I might take from that is that you didn't want us too locked in onto annual by, annual law otherwise it would [inaudible 01:0518] ongoing and continuous improvement. Perhaps what we could do in our leadership planning team meeting in preparation for next week’s call to see if we can come up with some draft language which would incorporate the intention for continuous improvement and consensus input being taken into account, but also recognize that there needs to be a plan periodicity to at least in the short term probably in a bi-annual and then subject to review [inaudible 01:06:04] so that it gets onto the ALAC agenda at it's place in time so that it focuses everybody on to those Wiki pages.
Because of the plethora of Wiki pages it [inaudible 01:06:17] become quite a challenge sometimes to do that I would think. Okay, with that I'm bringing this call to an end. I'd like to thank each and every one of you for your contribution. I'd like to [inaudible 01:06:28] that a little action item that I'm sure you'll be able to that, remember that was 3:30 [inaudible 01:06:34], thank you for next week.
And we'll have some draft language to look at as we launch into just a review of what we've done this week and we will start with the mission and vision statement from next week's call. Goodbye for now.
